"paul" wrote in message
. ..

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"paul" wrote in message
. ..

[snip]

in general the traditional farmer is a polite and courteous farmer,

Nonsense. The farmer just over the road in front of me is a polite and
courteous rarmer, and the one behind me is a pig with no manners. Their
families have farmed here for centuries.

aren't farmers human beings, in that you can get differing attitudes.

That was the point I was trying to instil in you. Thanks for seeing it.

Franz

"paul" wrote in message
. ..

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"paul" wrote in message
. ..

[snip]

in general the traditional farmer is a polite and courteous farmer,

Nonsense. The farmer just over the road in front of me is a polite and
courteous rarmer, and the one behind me is a pig with no manners. Their
families have farmed here for centuries.

aren't farmers human beings, in that you can get differing attitudes.

That was the point I was trying to instil in you. Thanks for seeing it.

Franz

many of these so called tools and machinery were first developed by farmers
from eras gone, and the ideas expanded from farming machinery.
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...



I am getting fed up of the sniping in this ng suggesting that 'townies'
are a lower form of life than all you wonderful people who work in the
country.

You are not the only people in this world who work hard, you are not the
only ones for whom life is getting more difficult, and you are not the
only ones who are finding it difficult to be employed in the same
occupation as your father or grandfather or great grandfather.

And if it were not for 'townies' a great many of the tools, machinery,
and other things on which you depend would not be easily available to
you.
--
Kay Easton

I was hoping I'd have time to compose a pertinent reply to that post but
we're too busy - going off again tomorrow. I'll add my name to the bottom
of
Kay's post, she's omitted nothing and anything I posted would be
repetitive.

Mary

i was not reply directly to and i am sorry, it was aimed at the comment from
the 'Rural' bank manager comment.


"Jane Ransom" wrote in message
...
In article , paul
writes
farmer alsway look well off on paper with the bank manager because of the
colateral in the land, but if you were to take a look at what they have
in
their pockets then they barely have to pennies to rub together.
"Jane Ransom" wrote in message
...
In article , martin
writes

A bank manager of a rural bank, where I made the same comment said
"Don't you believe it"
Some are, but not all are having a bad time.

I live sandwiched between 3 farms.
I have noted the long hours the farmers work.
I have noted the lousy, and often dangerous, conditions they work in.
I have seen the care they take of their animals.
They deserve to have as good a time of it as anyone else and certainly,
in my opinion, a much better time than those blinking 'city' bods !!!

Please be careful with your attributions, Paul.
I was not the one saying that farmers were well off.
Perhaps if you hadn't top posted you would have realised you were
replying to the wrong person.

--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason,
put jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see deadspam.com

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:35:50 +0100, "paul"
wrote:



In article , martin
writes

A bank manager of a rural bank, where I made the same comment said
"Don't you believe it"
Some are, but not all are having a bad time.
i was not reply directly to and i am sorry, it was aimed at the comment from
the 'Rural' bank manager comment.

Perhaps it would help if you didn't top post?

If you put your comments immediately under the text you are replying
to, there is less scope for confusion.

I can justify and explain the bank manager's remark if you like.
--
Martin

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:35:50 +0100, "paul"
wrote:



In article , martin
writes

A bank manager of a rural bank, where I made the same comment said
"Don't you believe it"
Some are, but not all are having a bad time.
i was not reply directly to and i am sorry, it was aimed at the comment from
the 'Rural' bank manager comment.

Perhaps it would help if you didn't top post?

If you put your comments immediately under the text you are replying
to, there is less scope for confusion.

I can justify and explain the bank manager's remark if you like.
--
Martin

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:35:50 +0100, "paul"
wrote:



In article , martin
writes

A bank manager of a rural bank, where I made the same comment said
"Don't you believe it"
Some are, but not all are having a bad time.
i was not reply directly to and i am sorry, it was aimed at the comment
from
the 'Rural' bank manager comment.

Perhaps it would help if you didn't top post?

If you put your comments immediately under the text you are replying
to, there is less scope for confusion.

I can justify and explain the bank manager's remark if you like.
--
Martin

enlighten me

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:14:45 +0100, "paul"
wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:35:50 +0100, "paul"
wrote:



In article , martin
writes

A bank manager of a rural bank, where I made the same comment said
"Don't you believe it"
Some are, but not all are having a bad time.
i was not reply directly to and i am sorry, it was aimed at the comment
from
the 'Rural' bank manager comment.

Perhaps it would help if you didn't top post?

If you put your comments immediately under the text you are replying
to, there is less scope for confusion.

I can justify and explain the bank manager's remark if you like.

enlighten me

Many farmers received substantial compensation for foot and mouth and
for not farming livestock in future.
This explains the large number of shiny new tractors etc. and new 4x4
vehicles a year after NE Yorkshire farming was supposed to be
devastated by the results of F&M.

--
Martin

This one goes non and on! However, on a practical note, I happened
yesterday to eat oysters at a roadside place near here (Pont de Terenez,
leading to the Crozon peninsula) and noticed they had used cast iron
bollards to
line a 50 metre slip road down to the shore. Obviously, it was a question of
striking a nautical note, but I paused to examine one and was impressed.
They looked good (black), almost stylish, and stood about 18 inches
high, and would have seen off any tractor. I imagine they anchor well
(probably with bolts into concrete) since
they must withstand several tons of force.
All the best.
David
PS The farmers round here are modest chaps, and courteous in the
main, if rather dour. I suppose it comes from having small farms which they
work hard. But their yards are often
a disgrace, and their dogs and cockerels can be tiresome.


"Mich" wrote in message
...
OK. So I have read over this board that people find some of the actions of
their neighbours irritating , if not downright anger provoking.

After years of being a doormat. I too am fed up of irritating and selfish
neighbours too.
In fact I am so p***ed off I have decided , that if you cannot beat 'um ,
you should join 'um!

So what can I do to be the most irritating a** hole imaginable ( legal
suggestions only please).

I am serious here.

TIA

In article , paul
writes
many of these so called tools and machinery were first developed by farmers
from eras gone, and the ideas expanded from farming machinery.

Indeed so .. but that's not exactly relevant to the situation today, is
it?

btw, your top posting has really muddled both the sequence and the
attributions in this thread!

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
et...



I am getting fed up of the sniping in this ng suggesting that 'townies'
are a lower form of life than all you wonderful people who work in the
country.

You are not the only people in this world who work hard, you are not the
only ones for whom life is getting more difficult, and you are not the
only ones who are finding it difficult to be employed in the same
occupation as your father or grandfather or great grandfather.

And if it were not for 'townies' a great many of the tools, machinery,
and other things on which you depend would not be easily available to
you.
--
Kay Easton

I was hoping I'd have time to compose a pertinent reply to that post but
we're too busy - going off again tomorrow. I'll add my name to the bottom
of
Kay's post, she's omitted nothing and anything I posted would be
repetitive.

Mary





--
Kay Easton

Edward's earthworm page:
http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm

In article , martin
writes

Many farmers received substantial compensation for foot and mouth

Farmers did *not* receive 'compensation'.
They were paid the market price for the animals that were forcibly taken
from them and destroyed. They were unable, using this money, to restock
to the same levels when they were finally told they could buy more
stock.

and
for not farming livestock in future.
This explains the large number of shiny new tractors etc. and new 4x4
vehicles a year after NE Yorkshire farming was supposed to be
devastated by the results of F&M.

The farmers round here do not have any new vehicles at all. In fact they
are still struggling, working harder than ever for lower rewards.

If Margaret Thatcher killed our mining industry, then you can say Tony
Blair is well on the way to killing our farming industry. Farmers are
getting pig sick of all the inaccurate, adverse publicity that is being
flung their way. We live on an island: God help us if we ever have a
crisis which means we can't import food and we have no farmers left to
produce it.
--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason,
put jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see deadspam.com

"Jane Ransom" wrote in message
...
In article , martin
writes

Many farmers received substantial compensation for foot and mouth

Farmers did *not* receive 'compensation'.
They were paid the market price for the animals that were forcibly taken
from them and destroyed. They were unable, using this money, to restock
to the same levels when they were finally told they could buy more
stock.

and
for not farming livestock in future.
This explains the large number of shiny new tractors etc. and new 4x4
vehicles a year after NE Yorkshire farming was supposed to be
devastated by the results of F&M.

The farmers round here do not have any new vehicles at all. In fact they
are still struggling, working harder than ever for lower rewards.

If Margaret Thatcher killed our mining industry, then you can say Tony
Blair is well on the way to killing our farming industry. Farmers are
getting pig sick of all the inaccurate, adverse publicity that is being
flung their way. We live on an island: God help us if we ever have a
crisis which means we can't import food and we have no farmers left to
produce it.
--
Jane Ransom in Lancaster.
I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg
but if you need to email me for any other reason,
put jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see deadspam.com



very true and the market price that they we given was not very high, very
similar to you trading your car in as opossed to selling it privately you
always get more privately. many farmers went bankrupt due to the foot and
mouth, also several lost their lives because of it. yes the farmers got some
compensation but typical of the government, they only paid out the absolute
minimum, forcing farmers to sell up the only lively hood that they knew and
the home that they had been living in for generations.

the government has set guide lines by the european comunity to import a set
percentage of european stock i.e. milk, cheese, beef etc. so reucing what
our farmers can produce but europe will not take out products from us. there
is something really wrong here. we should only have to import enough to
supliment what we can produce her ourselves. and if that means greatly
reducing the import product then so be it and tough luck to the rest of the
european farmers who are laughing at us shipping us their products but
taking ours in return.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:29:26 +0100, Jane Ransom
wrote:

In article , martin
writes

Many farmers received substantial compensation for foot and mouth

Farmers did *not* receive 'compensation'.
They were paid the market price for the animals that were forcibly taken
from them and destroyed.

and how would you have stopped the outbreak?

Maybe I am wrong, but didn't UK farmers reject vaccination, the very
effective solution taken in the Netherlands and wasn't the main cause
an irresponsible farmer, poor controls in the markets and filthy
abattoirs that allowed infected stock to be moved all over UK?

What would they have restocked with after selling their existing
cattle at the market price? It's obvious that specialist breeding
places had a major problem.
Where did they get the cattle that were used to restock?

Isn't the problem that UK market prices are abysmal, because of the
monopoly positions of the main buyers - the supermarkets?

They were unable, using this money, to restock
to the same levels when they were finally told they could buy more
stock.

It was called compensation AFAIR.


and
for not farming livestock in future.
This explains the large number of shiny new tractors etc. and new 4x4
vehicles a year after NE Yorkshire farming was supposed to be
devastated by the results of F&M.

The farmers round here do not have any new vehicles at all. In fact they
are still struggling, working harder than ever for lower rewards.

There are plenty new vehicles and farm machines in NE Yorkshire, it's
seeing them that made me ask my bank manager how they could afford it.


If Margaret Thatcher killed our mining industry, then you can say Tony
Blair is well on the way to killing our farming industry. Farmers are
getting pig sick of all the inaccurate, adverse publicity that is being
flung their way.

Since the UK press is mainly right wing Murdoch owned and anti-EU. I
think you are blaming the wrong person. Any reference to EU activities
made by his newspapers are basically rubbish, unfortunately this
includes farming too.

I think the whole of Europe were ****ed off with farmers being paid
subsidies for over producing stuff that nobody wants. It's not that
long ago since farmers could and did pick up UKP500/acre for ploughing
up bits of moorland. It's also obvious that with a large number of new
countries joining the EU, most with rural economies, the money just
isn't there to carry on paying subsidies at the old levels. If it
wasn't for France and their very vociferous peasant farmers, I suspect
that farm subsidies would have disappeared in the seventies.

We live on an island: God help us if we ever have a
crisis which means we can't import food and we have no farmers left to
produce it.

You'll find that like in WWII output of the right stuff can quickly be
increased. Maybe the linseed and rape seed growers will no longer be
around.

I do know that small farms and marginally economic hill farming are
having a very hard time, I know of somebody whose only income is the
money he gets from an electricity board for the pylons they have
planted on his land. Somewhere between throwing EU money at farmers to
produce wine, beef, oil, orange and grain lakes and mountains and the
problems of small farmers there must be a reasonable solution. I have
never understood why dairy farming was so heavily subsidised and beef
wasn't or why the emphasis was on quantity and not quality.
--
Martin

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:29:26 +0100, Jane Ransom
wrote:

If Margaret Thatcher killed our mining industry, then you can say Tony
Blair is well on the way to killing our farming industry.
Short memory?
http://bse.airtime.co.uk/hist.htm

Surprise surprise BSE all took place during Conservative rule.
--
Martin

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:29:26 +0100, Jane Ransom
wrote:

If Margaret Thatcher killed our mining industry, then you can say Tony
Blair is well on the way to killing our farming industry.
See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1972204.stm

"Farmers ruined

Thousands of farmers lost their livelihoods, never to be able to face
the battle of re-stocking their fields and re-starting their jobs from
scratch.

That was why Waugh's trial was so significant.

The farming world believes the government made mistake after mistake
in its fight against the outbreak.

But foot-and-mouth revealed a picture of the animal industry across
the country that few had properly comprehended - like the huge volume
of animal traffic around the country to markets or half-way farms and
then processors, a fast-moving shuttle of sheep in particular that
whipped the virus nationwide.

Several different governmental and regional inquiries are now
investigating the sorry saga and trying to plot future strategies for
recovery and regeneration."

It seems that the UK cattle market system was to blame. The Dutch
system was similar.

I don't recall Tony Blair setting the UK system up.

As a result of the comparatively minor Dutch outbreak of F&M cattle
markets were closed never to reopen. Trading is done via internet
AFAIK.
--
Martin