Good points, plus where were the farmers during the social upheavals and all
other associated problems during the 1970's/80/90's - admittedly some were
very good at supplying stuff during the coal disputes, but these were a
minority.
Also why were none of the casualities of this time period compensated at the
same level of the farmers?
Finally as someone who has worked with farmers and in abattoirs I found the
attitude to the animals under their care worrying. The abottoir experience
turned me to being vegetarian.
Rob
> ----------
> From: Hillary Shaw[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To: Hillary Shaw
> Sent: 28 February 2001 08:32
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Why compensate farmers?
>
> Imagine you ran a dodgy bus company. You offer very cheap fares
> and frequent services, because all your buses have dodgy tyres, no
> insurance, inexperienced drivers etc etc. You use cheap fuel, so
> that your buses keep breaking down. After a while your safety
> record is so bad that despite your cheap fares no-one will use you.
> In fact several people have died in accidents due to the state of
> your buses, reckless driving by your drivers, and their novel,
> experimental, anti-highway code driving. In fact you are broke, and
> have a fleet of useless broken down buses. What you are now
> entitled to is compensation from the Ministry of Transport. No?
> Well since farmers began feeding bits of dead animals to
> herbivores (sheep and cows), keeping animals inside cramped
> crowded buildiongs, not what they were designed for, stuffing them
> full of antibiotics and athoer artificial chemicals, ditto the (GM)
> crops - all in the name of cheap, plentiful food (the Western World
> has an obesity problem, not a lot of this surplus gets to the
> starving South, but thats bot the farmers concern) we have had one
> farming crisis after another. And a few fatalities (CJD). Some of the
> crisis is external, the high £, price lowering by the supermarkets,
> etc, but a lot is due to farming methods. Sp why compensdation. It
> surely can't be because the farmers are the "guardians of the
> conutryside" as, prarie-factory farming in Lincolnshire aside, much
> farmland is in a very artificial state. "Disease free" farms restrict
> access by ramblers, in case some evil walker brings in some
> bacterium which the poor delicate chemical-stressed flock can't
> cope with. Farmers go bust and the countryside returns to a state
> of wilderness? Loss of rural employment? Farms have already shed
> many jobs, many villages are inhabited largely by wealthy
> commuters, and I guess a return to a bit of natural wildlife wouldn't
> go amiss in the very artificial state the rural parts of much of Britain
> is in.
> Hillary Shaw, P/G Geography, University of Leeds
>
|