UKC

.....they think of something new they can do to make you despise them that little bit more.


http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/mar/25/government-planning-to-...

I find this quite politically baffling, actually. Presumably battery farmers vote for them already, and I don't see this winning them many votes with anyone else. I suppose it will be payback for some donations I missed.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'm started to wonder if they're just playing a game now to see how much they can f*** up before they eventually get voted out of power. Even Tory councilors are seriously WTFing over the suggestion to force all schools to become academies, which has come completely out of the blue.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I guess the logic is that it will help farmers by allowing them to cut costs related to animal welfare, due to farmers being able to set out 'Realistic and sensible guide lines, workable for British farmers who are committed to animal welfare' or some waffly spin like that?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'l await more information, the only article I can find on this seems to be the OP / Grauniad one. That reads like typical Graun scaremongering.

In reply to Big Ger:


And what if the Murdoch rags keep shtum on this so as not to dilute their political message? Would you continue to deny available evidence on the grounds that it hasn't been fairly reported?

In reply to john arran:


They would, however the "rags" are not the sole source of information.


I'll happily evaluate any evidence that's put on this thread. Got any?

In reply to Big Ger:

You already have some in the OP. You seem to be choosing to ignore it due to prejudice and without offering any justification for doing so.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
What annoys me about stuff like this and the academy enforcement is where was the mention in the manifesto.

Or was it there and we just get spoon fed all the headline grabbing bits.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Perhaps the pressure is from the public, via the supermarkets, if people buy a whole chicken for £2-3 how did they think it lived?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

This along with the land registry being sold (again as it did'nt get through last time).

Cheers

Toby

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It seems to me that the regulations remain the same, all that is changing is the body that provides the guidance on the interpretation of the legislation.

As a livestock farmer I currently comply with legislation from the EU that is interpreted by our own government before being turned into guidance/codes of practice by FAWC and the independent assurance body that we voluntary belong to. I'm then inspected by APHA, the RPA, local trading standards the assurance body and potentially the RSPCA if a member of the public reported any concerns.

There is considerable room to save money by streamlining these processes. As long as the underlying legislation remains the only losers in this appear to be the magistrates which the article implies will have to think a bit more.

In reply to Big Ger:


Strange, seems a pretty balanced presentation of the facts with views of the government, the industry and opposition expressed. Did I make the mistake of reading beyond the title of the newspaper?

In reply to timjones:


Anyone else spot the problem here!

In reply to The New NickB:

You appear to have a low opinion of the intelligence of magistrates

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

>
For someone perfectly capable of forensically dismantling an argument when it suits him you are displaying a surprising gullibility on this story. Why should one take at face value a story in an explicitly anti-government publication written by a political journalist with, it would seem, no particular knowledge of agricultural issues which fails to explain any of the arguments behind the changes?

Tim Jones has probably shed more light on the subject than the article. What is the legislation? What is the code? How do they relate? How are they implemented? Is the system effective or rational now? If not, how should it be changed? etc etc

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Is your post about animal welfare or a rather lazy "Tory bashing" thread?
It does seem to me to be the latter, with you having no concern for the former, simply using the article as another " let's moan about the Tories thread". Why not start your threads like that rather than trying to camouflage them behind some Guardian article you probably have little indepth knowledge or interest in.

In reply to timjones:


I have a low opinion of their ability to understand sometimes complex interpretation of the law without specific guidance. A magistrate might be bright as a button, but have absolutely no knowledge of that area of the law. As I commented on another thread there are plenty of examples of magistrates wrongly interpreting the law.

In reply to The New NickB:


If they are that bad I would have real concerns about their ability to discern the difference between the legal requirements and the recommendations/guidance to keepers in the current code

In reply to timjones:

>There is considerable room to save money by streamlining these processes.

I'm sure there's considerable room to save money by 'streamlining' this process so that the industry produces its own guidelines.

If I were a battery chicken, however, I would prefer this to be done by an independent process such as the one that presently exists.

Saying that the overarching legislation remains in place is the most pathetic red herring, of course. As anyone knows, the significant part of this sort of statutory protection is the regulations, not the legislation.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

'Industry led guidance' sounds suspiciously like 'self regulation' and we know where that has led us in the past. When it all goes wrong we then here meaningless phrases like 'lessons have been learnt' and amazingly nobody takes responsibility.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'm struggling to find any suggestion that the regulations are going to be altered.

At present we have legislation, regulations AND a code of good practice. Maybe we need better draughted regulations if it's necessary to create an extra layer of bureaucracy and cost in order to interpret them?

In reply to Removed Userjess13:


There is surely a difference between regulation and guidance?

In reply to Big Ger:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/animal-welfare-guidance-to-be...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



If I were a battery chicken, however, I would put my faith in those who rear battery chickens for profit as having the best knowledge of my needs.
A happy chicken = a profitable chicken.

In reply to Moley:

Did that work out well for the beef industry?

In reply to Timmd:

That article appears to be entirely based on the Grauniad article and adds almost nothing.

In reply to elsewhere:


The beef industry may have been let down by regulation on occasion, but the regulations were draughted by government rather than the industry itself.

In reply to timjones:
So when goverment regulation was too lax the beef industry did not protect itself. That doesn't bode well for the profit margin as a driver to maintain quality in the poultry industry.

In reply to elsewhere:


Good logic.

In reply to elsewhere:

Maybe you should explain which issue you believe that the industry had the ability to protect itself from and how you think we should have done so?

In reply to timjones:
Moley suggested the profit motive will be protect the chickens in the poultry industry.
We know that did not work for the beef industry so I don't see why it should apply to poultry.

The beef industry could have rejected deregulation of cattle feed or avoided feeding cattle to cattle.

In reply to elsewhere:

Given that the experts apparently didn't recognise the risks involved in changing the rendering process could farmers really be expected to spot them?

The proposed changes relate to the welfare codes for the treatment of animals on farm which farmers tend to know a lot about. You're talking about the feed supply industry which is governed by a different set of regulations.

In reply to timjones:

I think farmers could reasonably have been expected to avoid turning herbivores into cannibals, yes.

In reply to Postmanpat:


UKC seldom fails to amuse! The Indie article explicitly attributes the Grauniad as its source, uses exactly the same quotes, notes that one of them was "told to the Guardian" and doesn't appear to have any comment, quote or information not in the Grauniad article.

And I get six dislikes! Nowt as queer as folks

In reply to MG:


And many farmers did conciously avoid it!

Sadly some didn't and did so perfectly safely for many years before apparently getting caught out by a change in the rendering process.

Government was aware of the practice and made no move to ban it. Therefore it seems a rather bizarre argument to use in support of the theory that government can do a better job of formulating guidance on animal welfare!

In reply to timjones:
Equally if you say farmers aren't expert on the totality of what they produce they might not be the best regulators when it comes to maintaining consumer confidence or representing the interests of consumers.

Keeping the chickens happy is nice but keeping the consumer happy keeps the industry alive.

In reply to Postmanpat:
But as I predicted earlier, if the other rags don't bother putting any effort in because the story is one they really would prefer not to be more widely known, how else are people supposed to arrive at a knowledgeable conclusion?

You can discredit particular newspapers as much as you want but unless you can find fault in the reporting itself then it just adds to the mystery of why such a story isn't being reported properly in other places too. Actually it isn't that much of a mystery but it is a good indicator of the current state of UK media.

edit: and I wasn't even one of the dislikers!

In reply to timjones:




Perhaps but equally not helping the case for self regulation.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Small government, whatever the cost.
jk

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Seems that the NFU usu gets what it wants- more examples here:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2016/mar/23/has-the-nf...
and Truss is the perfect puppet..

In reply to john arran:



But i wasnt discrediting any newspaper!
I was simply pointing out, as the Indie implicitly acknowledged, that the Indie article wasn't another "version"or "source".
The Grauniand obviously has an axe to grind as would the DT if it ran the story. Maybe the DT hasn't run the story because it has an axe to grind, or because it thinks there's no story , or because over Easter it cant get a decent version together.
None of that changes the fact that the Indie has simply and openly regurgitated the Grauniad story., which suggests to me that they cant get hold of anyone to add value to it do Tid's implication that it is an alternative source is wrong.

In reply to Postmanpat:


which to me suggests that the Guardian (look, it is possible to spell it correctly!) might actually have done a pretty good job in the first place of representing all sides, only to see the usual accusations of bias from the usual suspects intent on confirmation bias.

In reply to Postmanpat:

What is so strange, Nick, is that you seem to be treating the whole issue as a bit of a joke.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I've no idea why you think that. Why?

In reply to Postmanpat:



The Indy RIP, last day of its print edition...........

In reply to john arran:


But the post that got the dislikes was about the Indie!!!

The Grauniad article has quoted DEFRA but made no attempt to explain the government rationale behind whatever change is happening. There is an obvious implication in the story, that JCM has reacted to, that the government simply doesn't give a shit about animal welfare.
Maybe that is true but we should hear both sides of the story.

I don't doubt that the DT plays similar games, but it slightly depressing that otherwise very smart people suspend their critical faculties when reading a Grauniad story which confrims their preconceptions.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Guardian click bait. No where does it say conservatives want chickens to be treated more cruelly. They are making the industry pay for it's own policing.

In reply to john arran:


Can I ask you what you think is wrong with awaiting more detailed and collaborative information? Some not from a biased source?

In reply to The New NickB:

It did to me too, but with a bias towards "the sky is falling" type scaremongering.

It didn't seem to support the "payback for some donations" or give a reason to despise the Tories, that the OP wanted to portray.

That's why I'm awaiting more info.

In reply to Timmd:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/animal-welfare-guidance-to-be...

Plagiarism at its finest

In reply to Big Ger:


All sources may be perceived as having some bias. If you're waiting for a report that tells the news with the kind of bias you're looking for you may be waiting some time.

In reply to john arran:
I'm happy to wait, but a report which carries actual details of the plans would be welcome.

Then I'd know if I should despise the Tories more.

In reply to Big Ger:

Ok, you win again. Good night.

In reply to john arran:

It's not about "winning" mate, just about sharing opinions,

Sleep well sweet prince!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
If you are a chicken then you definitely should be worried about this. However, if you are a tax payer you should be really really worried because every change the f3ckw1t Tories make is accompanied by some form of expensive authoritarian disaster. They can't help themselves. Cost cutting measure or deregulation it may be called at the start but eventually a new department or a new contractor will emerge at ridiculous expense to tell people what to do.

In reply to Big Ger:



Yeah, whatever. Looks like you just won again. Well done.

In reply to MG:


FFS I know that the article wouldn't win any awards for clarity but the proposal doesn't relate to the regulations, it's about guidelines on the application of the regulations. If the regulations are well draughted there shouldn't be any room for widely differing interpretations.

In reply to elsewhere:

Who is proposing self regulation?

ISTM that the regulations will remain the same and they will still be enforced by the same bodies. The proposal is merely to pass the responsibility and therefore cost of maintaining the codes that provide guidance to farmers onto the industry.

I'd sooner see the costs remain with government. I'll be very surprised if we see any major changes if this goes ahead for the cattle and sheep codes. But that wouldn't make a good story to enrage these who crave reasons to "despise" the government!

In reply to john arran:
As someone normally in the 'gardien' camp. I should point out its 'speeling' was rather infamous, hence the 'Grauniad' moniker. Let's hope the Indy story recycling isn't a sign of things to come... sad to see one of the most reliable sources of UK news leave paper copy.

I'm not sure where I sit on the regulation argument... I think the real problem is the lack of control on importing cheap meat from where cruel rearing methods are used, distorting the market, rather than the control of british farmers. I buy british or try and eat in places using british meat (a 'local' product that costs more but can be trusted to meet regulation) and I acknowledge that in the end we would all be a lot better off in a world eating less meat.