wrsni

Thought it was pretty clear but......................! Are you in a union, some sort of organisation, whatever? Who do you pay to represent your interests?

Totally agree, but that is dictated by government policy, not farmers. Persuade the powers that be that you and enough of your fellow citizens care sufficiently about it to vote accordingly, and vast swathes of the UK countryside could have trees replacing sheep within a decade. So if it that doesn't happen, who's to blame, the farmer who is simply implementing policy, or the public who are generally too indifferent to really care?

Who do you pay to do it for you?

Put it a simpler way, which ones would you put ahead of it? And no, I'm not copping out, I just don't have until lunchtime to list all the reasons why it is plainly the most important. Although I'm slightly shocked that you even question it.

...........and quite right too. Time that people appreciated the important things in life that they take for granted. Mobile phones, Sky tv package, latest car, etc, etc, all window dressing. Food on the table, water from the tap, working sewers to keep the nasty stuff out of sight and mind, all shockingly undervalued.

Actually I think it's an excellent comparison. Subsidies in farming are not about putting money in peoples pockets "per se", they are about control and influence, and any "industry" expected to follow a certain path is subsidised. Government wants more green energy - subsidy! Government wants public transport kept affordable - subsidy! Government wants nationwide broadband - subsidy! Government wants people to stop driving stinky diesel cars - wait and see! ...................etc, etc, etc. Farming is utterly under the thumb of government control to a greater degree than ever. 2020 is already being talked about as the beginning of a new era in UK agriculture so instead of griping, make it an issue with your local elected representatives and have your say. Personally, I don't think that agriculture is in a good place. We are entering our third year of organic conversion at home and while it's probably not for everyone to go fully down this route, I really do believe that both consumers and farmers alike would be much happier with a much more extensive farming industry, never mind all the environmental benefits which would result.

Because it's obviously the most important, and by quite some margin!

This past winter has been the perfect illustration of that. One of the driest (in Northern Ireland anyhow) late autumn/early winters on record yet the slurry tankers were sitting parked up when they could have been spreading on dry ground with little rainfall. It started raining properly about two days before the end of the ban period and the next two or three weeks were easily the wettest it's been all winter, but because tanks were full there had to be spreading done and yes, there's bound to have been considerable run off. However this run off is directly attributable to the agricultural policies in place at this time. So if you want change there's no point gurning about the farmers, start lobbying your elected representatives regarding agricultural policy. We live in a democracy, that's how things get changed.

Not sure about the planning system over there but in Northern Ireland farm buildings are exempt from planning permission, but that exemption is within certain preset criteria. Therefore if you take the p1ss and it's brought to the attention of the planning department they are still fully entitled to investigate. Then if it turns out you've been trying to exploit a concession for non-farming use, not only will that particular work be sanctioned but you will have a "restricted development" clause put on the entire farm whereby you will have to apply via the usual planning process for anything at all which you wish to do on the farm in future. So there is concession, but not a free for all!

You might want to read up a bit on the ongoing Brazilian meat scandal.

Excellent post sir! To single out one thing, it is indeed hard to predict who will be farming the land in another 20yrs as there seems to be an increasing issue whereby many farms do not have a willing successor, but by contrast there are lots of young "would be" farmers who do not have sufficient land. There are exceptions as ever, but our present subsidy system seems to have created a generation of young "farmers" who are more interested in creating a continuous flow of "Grassmen" type videos for youtube than actually farming efficiently. My daughter does relief milking as a sideline to keep a few quid coming in while she's at university and it seems to be the same complaint from all the older farmers, no work in the young ones! I suppose she benefits as they all treat her very well and pay her well when they find out that she's both very reliable but more importantly, genuinely keen in getting to know the stock and do a decent job. But while it's to her benefit at present, it's also an indication that things are not right.

A mates son is a sheep farmer and very, very, ill on a vehicle. He's been through nearly all of them over the years and reckons the Terrano is the most robust of the lot. To put it in perspective he bought a new Hi-Lux about 4yrs ago and took a massive financial hit to be rid of it after a year as he couldn't be bothered with it and went back to using the old Terrano again, which he had kept as it was worth so little.

The confusion and "hush hush" attitude concerning the identity of the attacker is rather puzzling. I'd imagine the "conspiracy theorists" will be working flat out on this one already!

Maybe, maybe not. It's not the first time there has been an attack there. Airey Neave A great man murdered by cowards!

Blame Channel 4 news then, they broadcast it.

Given the information just now emerging on the attacker, I rest my case! Abu Izzadeen

What's the chances that when the attacker is named, he'll end up yet again being someone "known to the security services for having extremist views". Surely there needs to be a considerably more pro-active approach taken on the basis of intelligence gathered? Oh, and please don't be giving me the usual bleeding heart "human rights" guff. Time to prioritise the "human rights" of harmless, innocent people, i.e. the potential victims of these evil doers.

Just a pity he didn't say whether or not he actually knew first hand how Margaret Thatcher governed the country, and then he accuses others of ignorance! Anyhow, lets hope the present female PM takes appropriate action in light of the latest tragic terror attack. I believe there is a COBRA meeting taking place as we speak, surely it's time for more than hand wringing and hollow words!

With reference to Jeremy Clarkson, that's a bit like choosing the best sexually transmitted disease! War is war, if your son, daughter, father, mother, best mate, whoever was killed or maimed would you really care who they were fighting when it happened? What I will say regarding the Falklands is that there were many Protestant farmers living in border areas of Northern Ireland at that time who wished they'd have had even a fraction of the military effort of the Falklands put in to defending them!

Aye Mason was good, proper "Labour" man as well, although ironically would probably be considered a bit of a "right winger" nowadays! Just shows how little relevance the old political classifications have to the modern world, even if so many obviously have their heads too far up their own asses to realise it! But, can't agree about Thatcher. Yes, there was much to do, the grip of the unions was ridiculous, the waste of nationalised industries was spiralling out of control (I know because I served my time in one), and these two things were closely related, so a Tory government was definitely required. But someone with the character of Margaret Thatcher was NOT what was required to lead it! Mining industry, steel industry, they all needed modernising, but not wiped out! When there was opposition to the changes (as to be expected), Thatcher got her back up and all she'd then settle for was total victory, no matter what the cost to all involved. The country as a whole paid a huge price for her personal reputation, and obviously that reputation was more important to her than the well-being of the country who's best interests she had been charged to look after. Falklands was something different again. Britain had been holding the door open to them in the Falklands for ages, even under Carrington since 79, in short Britain wanted rid! Of-course Argentine bungled it as well by storming in with half their army, if they'd played their cards right they could probably have had the Falklands back long ago, whereas now it's unlikely to happen within any of our lifetimes at least. But in reality, the Falklands conflict and all that loss of life was no more necessary than Iraq or Afghanistan.

Surely you're referring to what he done for himself? But not the war bit obviously, oh no, make sure you get somebody else to do that bit for you. Actually, come to think of it, I suppose that was one respect where him and Thatcher actually were the same. Handling things badly but making sure that others pay for it with their lives. Great people!

Ah right, you're one of those.

Poles apart in how they done things, ..................but equally damaging and worthy of equal disdain.

Bull manure! Nothing to do with policy or ideology. Thatcher and Major weren't actually that far removed from each other on policy but he acted like a fairly reasonable human being whereas Thatcher was bordering on tyrannical. Everything she done, was done with maximum disruption and upset, she was so obsessed with playing up to her "iron lady" mantle that it frequently over-ruled her ability to negotiate or compromise with anyone about anything. And then when she was under pressure and had to concede, it was done sneakily and behind back so she wouldn't loose face. A terrible example of how to lead a country irrespective of any policies!

You didn't actually answer the question, are you going to?