Big J on radio 4..

[ESS]

2 minutes ago, Big J said:

I have not said that for a moment. The field that we are working from (it's at the foot of the stand we are working in) belongs to a dairy farmer who never, ever seems to stop working. 

 

My issue is that some people abuse the system, and the system is indeed ripe for abuse as the benefits afforded to farms are unique and if you know the system, quite lucrative.

Some parts of it may be lucrative, however, milk quotas, sugar beet quotas, dictated crop rotation, produce prices dictated by supermarkets are not, but yet we still need them to grow/produce these things for us. 

If things were so lucrative why are so many dairy farms going bust, hill farmers sons having to get off the land , farms up for sale ?

There are other industries that have had substantial financial aid, did Nissan not get help? British steel, NCB, not to mention the banks.

[monkeybusiness]

There was a really lovely Valtra/roofmount/trailer setup at the APF that was 12 months old and had done no work (was essentially brand new). It was being sold by the dealer on behalf of the owner for many many pounds, and was undoubtedly worth its asking price. 

I can only assume it was bought with a grant and someone was cashing out (obviously this is pure conjecture!) as I can think of no other worldly reason for such a setup to be commissioned and not used/flogged so quickly. Nice little 20-30-40% profit for someone with the available funds and forethought...

[ESS]

2 minutes ago, Big J said:

Yes, but it only the farms that have a monopoly on rural planning, which was the original point I was making. Not saying that this is the fault of the farmers, but it is to the exclusion of the rest of us.

They still have to apply, I know people that have been knocked back.

If you owned a farm, bought withyour own sweat and graft, possibly over 2 or 3 generations, you had a herd of 300 cows and a need for a farmhouse for staff, or a family member to help run that herd, bearing in mind it was your own farm , why shouldn't you have the right to build a house on it ? That's what AOC was/is for. Tied housing attached to an agricultural holding, to supply labour for us to be able to eat. You can apply rural worker/forester / gamekeeper to that if you want, however , it is not them that are abusing something or exploiting it, its you that's trying to do that for what you would like in life.

As long as you have been in this industry I have been in it 35 years longer , also know a lot of contractors,..i ran almost 10 machines myself at one point, I managed ,and so do many others. I know contractors with machines that never see a yard from the day they are bought to the day they are part exchanged back to the dealer.

[monkeybusiness]

4 minutes ago, Big J said:

My understanding is that there is a minimum time period you have to keep the kit for before you sell it, or else you're obliged to pay the grant back. It was 6 years for the grants relating to the sawmilling in Scotland, but ESS said it's 4 years down here.

I understand that, but how is it ‘policed’? I doubt it is ever investigated in reality, these grants are dished out to meet targets, it is in nobody’s interest to start the massive paperwork exercise undoubtedly involved in clawing the money back.

The whole thing is bullshit - let market forces dictate prices and business can follow. 

[ESS]

10 minutes ago, monkeybusiness said:

There was a really lovely Valtra/roofmount/trailer setup at the APF that was 12 months old and had done no work (was essentially brand new). It was being sold by the dealer on behalf of the owner for many many pounds, and was undoubtedly worth its asking price. 

I can only assume it was bought with a grant and someone was cashing out (obviously this is pure conjecture!) as I can think of no other worldly reason for such a setup to be commissioned and not used/flogged so quickly. Nice little 20-30-40% profit for someone with the available funds and forethought...

Technically a proportion of the grant should be repaid, but just like most of the grants are regionalised and people abuse that by having the right postcode then working out of the area none of these things are policed after the initial inspection.

[ESS]

1 minute ago, monkeybusiness said:

I understand that, but how is it ‘policed’? I doubt it is ever investigated in reality, these grants are dished out to meet targets, it is in nobody’s interest to start the massive paperwork exercise undoubtedly involved in clawing the money back.

The whole thing is bullshit - let market forces dictate prices and business can follow. 

I agree it is bullshit, and is actually the worst thing that has ever happened to forest industry in my time in it.

[Ratman]

Being part of the EU and being dictated to by the EU fucked up british farming, which in turn brought round these subsidies/grants that some farmers now rely on so heavily. Which in turns brings rules/regs/conditions etc to qualify or be allowed/not allowed things. I blame the remainers...... or am i on the wrong thread here?! ?

[ESS]

5 minutes ago, Big J said:

I respect your experience in this industry, but I disagree with you about the extent to which rural planning exemptions should apply to rural workers. Presently, you have AOCs for people in farming and Section Q exemptions for very wealthy people to build luxury countryside pads. There is nothing else, and the narrowly restrictive planning policy denies the fact that there are many different ways to manage the countryside, and they are all important. 

Maybe, maybe not, but you are the one as a harvesting contractor should have the rules changed to suit your needs, yet other harvesting contractors can manage.

[ESS]

4 minutes ago, Ratman said:

Being part of the EU and being dictated to by the EU fucked up british farming, which in turn brought round these subsidies/grants that some farmers now rely on so heavily. Which in turns brings rules/regs/conditions etc to qualify or be allowed/not allowed things. I blame the remainers...... or am i on the wrong thread here?! ?

CAP was a good thing at the outset, but as I said in a previous post UK farmers became too good at what they were asked ton do, hence the goalpost moving.

[ESS]

2 minutes ago, Big J said:

They do. Just managing and being happy are two different things though. I would prefer the latter.

 

 

It doesn't have to be a case of just managing, I know contractors regularly working away from home, successful at what they and happy.