"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

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

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.