| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
anton wrote:
"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message ... The message from "anton" contains these words: [...] Here is what Defra says, spelled out for you from the source I quoted above. *" Q3. Under the amended legislation, ****will*** householders who keep pets or other animals (which would *access composted material spread on their land) be allowed to use composted kitchen waste on their *gardens? *Yes, subject to certain conditions (see below) and providing it is composted from the kitchen waste *of the household. [my emphasis added above] You missed the future tense in the 'will'. I suggest that you re-read it taking careful note of how they use the future tense to tell us about what the legislation *will* be in future. You're lost in the past, it was clearly dated 2001. Don't be daft Janet- "Page published 24 April 2003; Page last modified 14 July, 2004 " Of course it's possible that defra are sufficiently clownish to refer to 2001 as being in the future on a page dated 2004. However, during a similar discussion I read the actual legislation (2001) and that indeed made it illegal to compost and spread on land /anything/ that had been in a kitchen, without any derogation for individual households. [...] Be that as it may, you yourself quoted the passage which stated quite clearly that domestic household material was to be exempt. I don't mind you disliking the EU, but it's a bit much when you try to mess about with our minds like this. Though pro-EU, I could probably make a much better case against it myself without actual misrepresentation: you could find some better ammo. Mike. |
|
"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message ... The message from "anton" contains these words: Use of compost from "mixed" waste Where catering or household waste contains meat or other products derived from animals then, although it may be composted, it may not, currently, be used on land. The Animal By- Products Order prohibits the use of this mixed compost on land where animals (including wild birds) may have access. However, this position, is set to change. The draft EU Regulation on Animal By -Products will allow the use of properly composted mixed waste on all land except pastural land. We expect this Regulation to come into force in the Spring of 2002." The above quote is not from the url you quote, and I suspect that you've missed a trick. Yes, sorry, I'd wandered onto another page dated June 2001 :~} Please give the source of your quote. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/...opics/compost/ Right. So rewind to your original url and you'll find that the composting and spreading on land of stuff that's been in a kitchen (even a domestic kitchen, not a commercial one) has been illegal, because of potential contamination with animal products, since 2001. The amendments which may change this are in the future as is implicit in your original url dated 2004. We are governed by liars that have turned the civil service, who were formerly merely incompetent, into propagandists for their masters. Accordingly, any government offering has to read very closely, and the bits that possibly fooled you a * the references to 'amended' legislation, without clarity as to whether this was the original (2001) amendment or the amended amended legislation (2006?); *the reference to green waste which suggests broccoli stalks etc to you and me but actually excludes these if they have been in a kitchen; and *'properly composted' which may suggest one thing to you but actually requires a lot of automated control systems, temperature sensors, and record keeping. happy activation-free (cos it's an animal product)composting -- Anton |
|
"jane" wrote in message ... On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:24:13 GMT, Janet Baraclough wrote: ~The message ~from (jane) contains these words: ~ ~ ~ Perhaps we should start a new thread on better hot home composting ~ techniques! I'm all ears... (though please can the chaps note that for ~ us ladies, providing recycled beer activation doesn't happen when up ~ the allotments!) ~ ~ Speak for yourself!When I had an allotment, there were no loos on the ~site, and I was usually up there for half a day with accompanying ~infants. Older people would spend the entire day there. ~Occasionally they disappeared discreetly into their rickety hut....or ~behind their compost heap/rhubarb patch. ~ :-) Trouble is we've a *very* open site like an amphitheatre so can be overlooked by a bus route and main road to housing estate. I did put a bucket in the shed at one point but it now gets used for escorting bindweed off the premises and rarely for the original intention! Invest in a second bucket? I have been tempted to put a bolt on the shed door - inside! I would have thought that that would be a prime requirement.. Franz |
anton wrote:
"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message ... The message from "anton" contains these words: Use of compost from "mixed" waste Where catering or household waste contains meat or other products derived from animals then, although it may be composted, it may not, currently, be used on land. The Animal By- Products Order prohibits the use of this mixed compost on land where animals (including wild birds) may have access. However, this position, is set to change. The draft EU Regulation on Animal By -Products will allow the use of properly composted mixed waste on all land except pastural land. We expect this Regulation to come into force in the Spring of 2002." The above quote is not from the url you quote, and I suspect that you've missed a trick. Yes, sorry, I'd wandered onto another page dated June 2001 :~} Please give the source of your quote. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/...opics/compost/ Right. So rewind to your original url and you'll find that the composting and spreading on land of stuff that's been in a kitchen (even a domestic kitchen, not a commercial one) has been illegal, because of potential contamination with animal products, since 2001. The amendments which may change this are in the future as is implicit in your original url dated 2004. We are governed by liars that have turned the civil service, who were formerly merely incompetent, into propagandists for their masters. Accordingly, any government offering has to read very closely, and the bits that possibly fooled you a * the references to 'amended' legislation, without clarity as to whether this was the original (2001) amendment or the amended amended legislation (2006?); *the reference to green waste which suggests broccoli stalks etc to you and me but actually excludes these if they have been in a kitchen; and *'properly composted' which may suggest one thing to you but actually requires a lot of automated control systems, temperature sensors, and record keeping. happy activation-free (cos it's an animal product)composting Anton, you're just panicking. Time to grow up. They found a fault in the original legislation, and they're repairing it. You're the man I'd go to first for advice about fruit trees; but when it comes to textual analysis, well, if you don't mind, I'll do it myself. Mike. |
In article ,
Mike Lyle wrote: Anton, you're just panicking. Time to grow up. They found a fault in the original legislation, and they're repairing it. You're the man I'd go to first for advice about fruit trees; but when it comes to textual analysis, well, if you don't mind, I'll do it myself. However, I am afraid that I must support him about the Civil Service as an organisation. While there are still some honest and responsible people in it, I am not sure that there are any in the levels where the policy is made. There used to be, and there was a time where many of them were extremely competent, too, but that was in the days when there was a Scientific Civil Service. In this case, I don't think that the intent ever was to produce legislation to ensure safe composting, so much as to adhere to EU attempts to do that while minimising the amount of effect the new legislation would have. They got that wrong, which is why it needs amending to reduce the political impact. I wish that I were wrong. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article , Mike Lyle wrote: Anton, you're just panicking. Time to grow up. They found a fault in the original legislation, and they're repairing it. You're the man I'd go to first for advice about fruit trees; but when it comes to textual analysis, well, if you don't mind, I'll do it myself. However, I am afraid that I must support him about the Civil Service as an organisation. While there are still some honest and responsible people in it, I am not sure that there are any in the levels where the policy is made. There used to be, and there was a time where many of them were extremely competent, too, but that was in the days when there was a Scientific Civil Service. In this case, I don't think that the intent ever was to produce legislation to ensure safe composting, so much as to adhere to EU attempts to do that while minimising the amount of effect the new legislation would have. They got that wrong, which is why it needs amending to reduce the political impact. I wish that I were wrong. Aye to all that. But they _did_ amend it: can't say fairer than that. Mike. |
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Lyle wrote: [can't see Mike's post, so replying through yours, Nick] Anton, you're just panicking. ?? No panic here. I'll continue with my illegal composting methods. Time to grow up. Too late for that. I'm just setting the record straight on what the dopey legislation is, as a large number of people find it hard to believe. They found a fault in the original legislation, and they're repairing it. If that were the full statement of the facts, then I would have no problem. However, yours is not an accurate short description of what they have done. A better summary is: They found a fault in the original legislation, propagandised and bullshitted to try to conceal this, and they have still not repaired it. You're the man I'd go to first for advice about fruit trees; thank you, but I'm only an enthusiastic amateur. Brogdale and the RHS have some real fruit experts. but when it comes to textual analysis, well, if you don't mind, I'll do it myself. Well textually analyse away, old sport, and if you can come up with a statement of mine that doesn't match the facts then say so and be prepared to defend your assertion. However, I am afraid that I must support him about the Civil Service as an organisation. While there are still some honest and responsible people in it, I am not sure that there are any in the levels where the policy is made. There used to be, and there was a time where many of them were extremely competent, too, but that was in the days when there was a Scientific Civil Service. Partial correction accepted, Nick. There are clearly some civil servants left who are competent, and some who are not politicised, and I shouldn't have implied that they are all the same. In this case, I don't think that the intent ever was to produce legislation to ensure safe composting, so much as to adhere to EU attempts to do that while minimising the amount of effect the new legislation would have. They got that wrong, which is why it needs amending to reduce the political impact. I wish that I were wrong. I personally think that legislation has no place in domestic composting. The place of government is to /encourage/ suitable composting methods & choice of materials. Commercial composting/ waste management is a different story, in that legislation is appropriate- but even this is producing a number of farcical overspends as councils attempt to comply with half-thought-out directives -- Anton |
In article , Franz Heymann
writes I find it hard to imagine anybody putting any unused tea-bags on the compost heap, except as a result of an occasional mistake. {:-)) I put three boxes of a disgusting line in green tea once. Went back to my decaffeinated earl grey and my normal green leaf tea. Only place to put the bags was on the compost, non one could be persuaded to try the green tea! janet -- Janet Tweedy Dalmatian Telegraph http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk |
anton wrote:
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Lyle wrote: [can't see Mike's post, so replying through yours, Nick] Anton, you're just panicking. ?? No panic here. I'll continue with my illegal composting methods. But we've seen that they _aren't_ illegal. Unless you mean you're not using only domestic waste. Time to grow up. Too late for that. Well, come to that, me too! I'm just setting the record straight on what the dopey legislation is, as a large number of people find it hard to believe. They found a fault in the original legislation, and they're repairing it. If that were the full statement of the facts, then I would have no problem. However, yours is not an accurate short description of what they have done. A better summary is: They found a fault in the original legislation, propagandised and bullshitted to try to conceal this, and they have still not repaired it. I just don't get the last bit: the paragraph you quoted (and one of us seems to have snipped) quite clearly says it's OK on the domestic scale. You're the man I'd go to first for advice about fruit trees; thank you, but I'm only an enthusiastic amateur. Brogdale and the RHS have some real fruit experts. but when it comes to textual analysis, well, if you don't mind, I'll do it myself. Well textually analyse away, old sport, and if you can come up with a statement of mine that doesn't match the facts then say so and be prepared to defend your assertion. I think I did: see above. [...] In this case, I don't think that the intent ever was to produce legislation to ensure safe composting, so much as to adhere to EU attempts to do that while minimising the amount of effect the new legislation would have. They got that wrong, which is why it needs amending to reduce the political impact. I wish that I were wrong. Six and two threes here. The same could be presented in a favourable light: they might say "In complying fully with the EU rules, we want to minimise the inconvenience to business and the public. We find that, as often with new legislation, something important got left out, and we're trying to make the regulations more practical. This is very difficult." I personally think that legislation has no place in domestic composting. The place of government is to /encourage/ suitable composting methods & choice of materials. Nobody in his right mind could disagree. Commercial composting/ waste management is a different story, in that legislation is appropriate- but even this is producing a number of farcical overspends as councils attempt to comply with half-thought-out directives I've already said there's a bass-ackwards approach to animal health implicit in the whole thing: but it doesn't seem to be the civil servants who are to blame for that. Mike. |
|
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:53:19 +0000, Janet Tweedy wrote: In article , writes The next post should be a quote from the Daily Telegraph about the German woman refused unemployment benefits because she refused to become a prostitute when offered a job. I think the saddest thing is not that it's true or untrue but that many of us BELIEVE it to be a feasible scenario! http://tinyurl.com/63yet 'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits' By Clare Chapman (Filed: 30/01/2005) A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year. [...] Gosh! I find the legal problem intriguing; and I confess that it had never occurred to me as a consequence of legalising the game. This is now way OT, of course; but I wonder how they'll get around it? Introducing a general conscience clause would be fraught with difficulties: it's one thing to allow conscientious objectors to refuse to be forced into the army, or to allow an unemployed rabbi to turn down the post of Lutheran Pastor; but what about refusing to work in a casino because you think it's immoral, or at a meat counter because you're a vegan? Hmm... Mike. |
"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message ... In article , writes The next post should be a quote from the Daily Telegraph about the German woman refused unemployment benefits because she refused to become a prostitute when offered a job. I think the saddest thing is not that it's true or untrue but that many of us BELIEVE it to be a feasible scenario! Janet Seems to be true. This article was in the Telegraph......... http://tinyurl.com/5vmsv Jenny |
wrote "JennyC" wrote: "Janet Tweedy" wrote writes The next post should be a quote from the Daily Telegraph about the German woman refused unemployment benefits because she refused to become a prostitute when offered a job. I think the saddest thing is not that it's true or untrue but that many of us BELIEVE it to be a feasible scenario! Janet Seems to be true. This article was in the Telegraph......... http://tinyurl.com/5vmsv It's true there was an article in the DT. Whether the article is true is another matter. Martin Well they wanted unemployed people here in Holland to become Bonsai trainers.......It was the job most suited to the unskilled according to the government of the day ! Jenny |
|
In message , jane
writes I felt sorry for the newbie family who'd put up a recycled shed, and put a tiny little stained glass window in. We'd all been saying how lovely it was. Not any more :-( jane Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still exist but you have ceased to live. Mark Twain Having read your first, it's hard to live by your second ... -- Klara, Gatwick basin |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:26 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter