|
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:09:34 -0000, David P
wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:41:57 -0000, David P Any connection to the rhyme: Flee Fly Floe Flumb I smell the blood of a Danish man? vbg Self evidently now, you just made it:-) The direct template of this new expression would of course be King Lear, My mind was drifting to Hamlet Floe, how the muske-cod smells! |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
In article ,
says... On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:09:34 -0000, David P wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:41:57 -0000, David P Any connection to the rhyme: Flee Fly Floe Flumb I smell the blood of a Danish man? vbg Self evidently now, you just made it:-) The direct template of this new expression would of course be King Lear, My mind was drifting to Hamlet Floe, how the muske-cod smells! Indeed. One wonders if the smell was as strong in 1996 when UK had in 1996 a farm income peak, the highest in 20 years. The Times could see what would come after, so why couldn't the farmers. and you never did answer my direct questions did you? But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough to avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings. -- David Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies. FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more! |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Wednesday, in article
"David P" wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:41:57 -0000, David P wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:04:58 GMT, "Michelle Fulton" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . has introgressed English to become 'floe', meaning sea ice. I knew that! smacks self in head concepts, going with the floe means going with the ice. An English tongued person might yield to associations from floe to flee/fly/fled/flight, particularly when he is in a belligerent state of mind, but again, flee/fly is an altogether different concept than floe. Any connection to the rhyme: Flee Fly Floe Flumb I smell the blood of a Danish man? vbg Self evidently now, you just made it:-) The direct template of this new expression would of course be King Lear, My mind was drifting to Hamlet - it seemed somewhat more appropriate, unless you were to prefer I identify you as Claudius? g I am sure you also recognised my misquoting of the rhyme. Philologically, there are traces of Old Friesian in all this, with some masculine inflections mistakenly merged with the root form at some intermediate point, and then suffering a confusing agglutination of a conventional gender differentiation, which is disregarded in modern English where the ancient doubling of the masculine form is now taken as a gender-neutral default. -- David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger. "Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?" From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross. |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Xref: 127.0.0.1 uk.business.agricultu95728 sci.agricultu59624
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:14:20 -0000, David P wrote: Indeed. One wonders if the smell was as strong in 1996 when UK had in 1996 a farm income peak, the highest in 20 years. The Times could see what would come after, so why couldn't the farmers. and you never did answer my direct questions did you? But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough to avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings. You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind. |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Torsten Brinch wrote in message ... On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:14:20 -0000, David P wrote: Indeed. One wonders if the smell was as strong in 1996 when UK had in 1996 a farm income peak, the highest in 20 years. The Times could see what would come after, so why couldn't the farmers. and you never did answer my direct questions did you? But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough to avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings. You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind. looks like you are not going to get an answer -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:15:45 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote: In article , Torsten Brinch writes The McSharry reforms were in error AIU and quickly adjusted in subsequent years. Meaning no comment on McSharry in either way , may I ask which errors and adjustments you are referring to? How did I know I would regret saying this? Someone else may have proper details, I am merely reporting memories of agricultural magazine comment of some 7/8 years back. When you said error in relation to McSharry I got to thinking of the inability to negotiate any effective capping into the system when it was created. Without that, the reform turned rather predictably into an effective instrument to make big farmers outcompete the small farmers. There was an interview with McSharry, he explained it got that way, because the policy had to be acceptable to farmer's organisations, e.g. NFU, which are effectively run by big farmers. |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
In article , Jim Webster
writes But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough to avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings. You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind. looks like you are not going to get an answer The unspeakable in pursuit of the un-catchable? We have avoided the 'tis, 'tisn't stage of the discussion and there were a few moments of hope that our businesses could be re-structured without advisory cost:-) Anyway, you weren't holding him properly. regards -- Tim Lamb |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 07:38:58 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote: On Friday, in article "Torsten Brinch" wrote: On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:15:45 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote: In article , Torsten Brinch writes The McSharry reforms were in error AIU and quickly adjusted in subsequent years. Meaning no comment on McSharry in either way , may I ask which errors and adjustments you are referring to? How did I know I would regret saying this? Someone else may have proper details, I am merely reporting memories of agricultural magazine comment of some 7/8 years back. When you said error in relation to McSharry I got to thinking of the inability to negotiate any effective capping into the system when it was created. Without that, the reform turned rather predictably into an effective instrument to make big farmers outcompete the small farmers. There was an interview with McSharry, he explained it got that way, because the policy had to be acceptable to farmer's organisations, e.g. NFU, which are effectively run by big farmers. As a small farmer, and an NFU member, I find that horribly plausible. McSharry himself said in the broadcast, they always seemed to negotiate the reform with delegations of mediumlarge to large farmers. The thought of capping was unacceptable to them, it was held that capping would not be fair to the large farmers -- that is, it was held to be unfair if the man owning 10,000 hectares of land should not receive 100 times the income support as the man owning 100 times less land. It was said in the broadcast, that NFU gets half their income from small farmers, so NFU cannot stand up in public and say the policy is to support big farmers at the expense of small, that would mean losing half of the paying members. In public it would have to be held that the policy was there to support the traditional family farm. |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
Tim Lamb wrote in message ... In article , Jim Webster writes But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough to avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings. You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind. looks like you are not going to get an answer The unspeakable in pursuit of the un-catchable? We have avoided the 'tis, 'tisn't stage of the discussion and there were a few moments of hope that our businesses could be re-structured without advisory cost:-) Anyway, you weren't holding him properly. nah, he kilfiled me a long time ago I think -- Jim Webster "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind" 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami' regards -- Tim Lamb |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
In article , Torsten Brinch
writes When you said error in relation to McSharry I got to thinking of the inability to negotiate any effective capping into the system when it was created. Without that, the reform turned rather predictably into an effective instrument to make big farmers outcompete the small farmers. There was an interview with McSharry, he explained it got that way, because the policy had to be acceptable to farmer's organisations, e.g. NFU, which are effectively run by big farmers. I was thinking more of the level initially set for intervention, the sums available for export support etc. The money might have been better used if spread less thickly at the top but I guess the present arrangement can be defended as *fair*. I hear the Poles are unhappy about what has been offered by way of support payments. regards -- Tim Lamb |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
In article , Torsten Brinch
writes McSharry himself said in the broadcast, they always seemed to negotiate the reform with delegations of mediumlarge to large farmers. The thought of capping was unacceptable to them, it was held that capping would not be fair to the large farmers -- that is, it was held to be unfair if the man owning 10,000 hectares of land should not receive 100 times the income support as the man owning 100 times less land. It was said in the broadcast, that NFU gets half their income from small farmers, so NFU cannot stand up in public and say the policy is to support big farmers at the expense of small, that would mean losing half of the paying members. In public it would have to be held that the policy was there to support the traditional family farm. Not being a member, I could not possibly comment. The situation is not helped by the UK Govts. reluctance to claim the monetary compensation. regards -- Tim Lamb |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
In article ,
says... In article , Jim Webster writes But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough to avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings. You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind. looks like you are not going to get an answer The unspeakable in pursuit of the un-catchable? Ahem! We have avoided the 'tis, 'tisn't stage of the discussion and there were a few moments of hope that our businesses could be re-structured without advisory cost:-) Typical - always want summat for nowt. g -- David Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies. FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more! |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
In article ,
says... Torsten Brinch wrote in message ... On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:14:20 -0000, David P wrote: Indeed. One wonders if the smell was as strong in 1996 when UK had in 1996 a farm income peak, the highest in 20 years. The Times could see what would come after, so why couldn't the farmers. and you never did answer my direct questions did you? But let us not dance that dance again. My wits are not nimble enough to avoid treading on the toes of your meanderings. You shouldn't worry about that. Just speak your mind. looks like you are not going to get an answer No, I came to that conclusion a while back. Not that I was too surprised though. -- David Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies. FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more! |
UK farm profitability to jun 2002
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 20:20:15 +0000, Tim Lamb
wrote: In article , Torsten Brinch writes McSharry himself said in the broadcast, they always seemed to negotiate the reform with delegations of mediumlarge to large farmers. The thought of capping was unacceptable to them, it was held that capping would not be fair to the large farmers -- that is, it was held to be unfair if the man owning 10,000 hectares of land should not receive 100 times the income support as the man owning 100 times less land. It was said in the broadcast, that NFU gets half their income from small farmers, so NFU cannot stand up in public and say the policy is to support big farmers at the expense of small, that would mean losing half of the paying members. In public it would have to be held that the policy was there to support the traditional family farm. Not being a member, I could not possibly comment. ?? The situation is not helped by the UK Govts. reluctance to claim the monetary compensation. Which fraction of the subsidy gone missing on this account are we looking at? (I am questioning the significance of it, in the situation) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter