shed hermit Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 found this on another site..... Rt Hon David Miliband MP Secretary of State. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR 26/10/09 Dear Secretary of State, My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs.. I would now like to join the "not rearing pigs" business. In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy. I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these? As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven't reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this? My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any. If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases? Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don't rear? I am also considering the "not milking cows" business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)? In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election. Yours faithfully, Gary Cobb E-farms R us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator drewpy Posted October 25, 2009 Moderator Share Posted October 25, 2009 Kin'ell doesn't suprise me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Airhead Posted October 25, 2009 Moderator Share Posted October 25, 2009 I'm not riding my bike much....who do I tell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackhat250 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Its the tip of the ice-berg Hermit mate", Search [ Scottish Office] >> same eqivilent in england???. Then go to Single Farm Payment; The list is there Every Farmer, each getting between £80K--£360k aYEAR for nowt Filling in a form The more acres u have [richest] The more u get, SO Mind and grass on that neighbour drawing benifits, Can"t have the peasants gettn a freebe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up.yours Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 i thought you had to be a d4rky to qualify for owt like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ttaskmaster Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 One-sided perspective, here. OK, so it's a payment for not rearing pigs. So what do they do instead? Think you'll find they get paid for ignoring whichever aspect of farming they specialise in and instead turn their hand to whatever aspect the Government insists on them doing. Probably done to eliminate competition between British products and cheaper imported stuff. I'll ask the Mrs - She works at the RPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 One-sided perspective, here. OK, so it's a payment for not rearing pigs. So what do they do instead? Think you'll find they get paid for ignoring whichever aspect of farming they specialise in and instead turn their hand to whatever aspect the Government insists on them doing. Probably done to eliminate competition between British products and cheaper imported stuff. I'll ask the Mrs - She works at the RPA. no they get paid or should get paid for following the new agricultural policy, i say should as the rpa your wife works for failed to pay out the payments,10 days ago there chief executive was sacked by margaret beckett. AT LEAST 100,000 farmers are facing financial hardship and mounting debt after chaos and bungling at the Rural Payments Agency, which has failed to issue £3 billion in farm payments to the rural economy. The situation is exacerbated by some banks refusing to extend overdrafts to farmers. A number are selling cattle to help their cash flow and taking part-time jobs. its no wonder that farmers are number one on the list of suicides in this country,having desimated the fishing industry the farmers appear to be next. Mark Addison, a senior official at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has been sent in to unravel the mess at the Reading-based agency, which was set up six years ago. He has been given five days to advise ministers on how best to sort out the chaos and to head off the farmers’ financial crisis. hope when they do sort it out they dont send there payments out by post. two of my uncles are farmers or to be correct one is as the other one went bankrupt as the bank wouldnt extend his overdraft dispite the fact the goverment sorted there financial mess out with our money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ttaskmaster Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 OK... With regard to the letter - This was a piss-take, written specifically to satirise one aspect of policy. Basically, farmers are paid on the basis of what land they own, NOT what they do with it (be it farm livestock, crops or whatever). The letter is not real. For the rest - Can't comment. Talk to the other half, although being a PA she won't be able (or possibly allowed) to make an official comment. Personally, I think it's just another mess caused by the current Government and the sooner we get to elect them out, the better. Don't ask me about hospitals and MRSA, either - Same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 OK... With regard to the letter - This was a piss-take, written specifically to satirise one aspect of policy. Basically, farmers are paid on the basis of what land they own, NOT what they do with it (be it farm livestock, crops or whatever). The letter is not real. For the rest - Can't comment. Talk to the other half, although being a PA she won't be able (or possibly allowed) to make an official comment. Personally, I think it's just another mess caused by the current Government and the sooner we get to elect them out, the better. Don't ask me about hospitals and MRSA, either - Same thing. yes the letter was a pisstake or parody but based on real facts, the sad thing is that somebody came up with this agricultural policy in the first place and now its not working and the rpa cant cope with the complicated paperwork involved in processing the farmers claims, someone has to take the blame and it cant be the goverment can it. its just a pity that the department that processed there expense claims sent them out as they wouldnt have to pay them back glad you did not mention the hospitals like you i would have ranted all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ttaskmaster Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 I suspect it is like the hospitals, in that some fuckwitt in charge and/or some consultant, who know nothing about how things really happen, came up with a completely unrelated gameplan and implemented it, only to find that the people running the departments would never be able to make it work. Something like, the problem is that the tyres have fallen off, so let's polish the headlight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Cynic Posted October 26, 2009 Moderator Share Posted October 26, 2009 Personally, I think it's just another mess caused by the current Government and the sooner we get to elect them out, the better. Don't ask me about hospitals and MRSA, either - Same thing. This is a subject that lights my fire as well so i'll do my best not to rant. Drawing the thread away for a second, in the woefully thought out question time fu up it was mentioned that as a party the BNP had 6 per cent of the vote at 1million people. I find that scary, 6% is one million, so the total vote was about 18 and blair got around 22% of that for a commanding victory. Thats around 3.5 million voters wanted the current shower of sh1t out of 60+ million population. I'm more worried that the only thing that will change at the next election is the colour of the party banner. Fcuk all else will change. And it will be the sheeps fault. Swallowing all the spin and mirrors. And anyhow blue will blame red for the first term at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 ah cynic the dreaded percentage issue i dont know about you but i take very little if any notice of percentages but more on results of the party in charge or in this goverments case lack of results. in the case of percentages and off topic one of my sons works for royal mail so in our house we get blurb of royal mail and the union. the union say that 76% of staff voted for the strike quite a big vote you think till you look further into it. as only 40% of royal mail staff bothered to vote, 76% of 40% of staff is not as high as it first seems, so perhaps people who cant be arsed to vote get what they deserve if you dont vote then you really cant complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Cynic Posted October 26, 2009 Moderator Share Posted October 26, 2009 ah cynic the dreaded percentage issue i dont know about you but i take very little if any notice of percentages but more on results of the party in charge or in this goverments case lack of results. in the case of percentages and off topic one of my sons works for royal mail so in our house we get blurb of royal mail and the union. the union say that 76% of staff voted for the strike quite a big vote you think till you look further into it. as only 40% of royal mail staff bothered to vote, 76% of 40% of staff is not as high as it first seems, so perhaps people who cant be arsed to vote get what they deserve if you dont vote then you really cant complain. I find the scary part that it was only said once, in a news report early on in the morning, i was listening to the radio for the entire day in the truck and the news report was edited to remove it. I know what you mean about the stats though. And your comment on the royal mail vote is what i'm saying about government. Numbers and info twisted so only the truly cynical, read realist can see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 I find the scary part that it was only said once, in a news report early on in the morning, i was listening to the radio for the entire day in the truck and the news report was edited to remove it. I know what you mean about the stats though. And your comment on the royal mail vote is what i'm saying about government. Numbers and info twisted so only the truly cynical, read realist can see it. very scary! the media impartial i dont think so it has got to the stage where you dont know what to believe. when i asked my son why he did not vote his replie was whats the point they will just do what they want most of the blokes i work with dont even open mail from the union or royal mail as they are both liers. after 12 years he is still on a 20hour contract, full time staff are a thing of the past ask your own postman how many hours a week he is contracted to do, how the hell can any man or woman live on a part time wage in this day and age the good thing is because of the strike and the backlog of mail there is loads of overtime to supplement there basic hours so for some postmen its a god send before crimbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ttaskmaster Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 very scary! the media impartial i dont think so it has got to the stage where you dont know what to believe. They keep us busy arguing about who got which version of the truth, while behind our backs they do what they want..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Cynic Posted October 26, 2009 Moderator Share Posted October 26, 2009 They keep us busy arguing about who got which version of the truth, while behind our backs they do what they want..... Do you not think that its the media that are actually in control. The government only react to what keeps them in office. Thereby acting on the media on air at the time. Therby controlled by the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ttaskmaster Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 But the media are also restricted on what they publicise. That much is evident. They also ommit whatever is boring, in order to sell papers/boots ratings etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gas up - Let's Go! Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Looks like someone is about to find out how rich or poor these guys really are.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8331759.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ttaskmaster Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Another 'foul-up' by a government agency, huh? Having worked in one myself, I'm surprised anything gets done. Like the NHS, there's so much red tape and continually revised regulations being forced upon out-of-date systems by ignorant management and consultants, who don't bother to understand what the job requires, that everything is a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gas up - Let's Go! Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Having worked in one myself, I do, well sort of - support one. There are very strict regulations on the overland transportation of resrticted data. If they lost one then the rules have been breached no question, and it's very serious for the person responsible - I wonder which low paid junior is going to get dealt with because of this ? If they get sacked then it will be a cover up, if they end up in court then it's probably thier fault - but we'll never get to here what happens in court as it's all covered under the OSA. I thought after the debarcle with HMRC that people would have stopped sending disks and tapes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts