Re: Farmers electrocute furbearers up the arse, from the inside out.

"swamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:30:27 +0100, "Derek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"swamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:34:04 +0100, "Derek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >"swamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:15:27 +0100, "Derek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >"swamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >> On 23 Sep 2003 20:27:00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (drdoody) wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Have you ever seen a mink? Could you pick one out of a lineup? Better
> >> >> >> >yet: Do you have any idea as to what a mink even is? Picture a ferret.
> >> >> >> >Now, give it crack.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I can attest to this. Ferrets can be difficult. Mink are completely,
> >> >> >> certifiably bonkers. Thought I was going to lose a thumb to one once.
> >> >> >> My friend saw another chase off a German Shepherd.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In any case, the surrounding land is already saturated w/ mink, so
> >> >> >> released mink will most likely die. I oppose mink farming, but also
> >> >> >> oppose the idiots who'd illegally "release" them.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Yep. Those farmers will do anything to get their hands
> >> >> >on compensation money. All they need do is release the
> >> >> >mink, smash a few locks on their cages, blame the ALF,
> >> >> >and then wait for the cheque to arrive through the post.
> >> >> >I wouldn't be surprised if MOST of them are released
> >> >> >in this way.
> >> >>
> >> >> Legally, we'd (yanks) dismiss your testimony as speculation.
> >> >
> >> >And likewise, I reject the initial subject line of this
> >> >post as speculation and conspiracy too, for if the
> >> >ALF did release those mink, then they would surely
> >> >fess up to it and claim a huge victory.
> >>
> >> According to my newsreader, *you* originated the subject line of this
> >> thread
> >
> >Then get it sorted out, because Jon brought the subject
> >here, complete with the initial subject line I was referring
> >to.
>
> Where's "here,"

a.a.e.v.

> and what difference does it make what you were
> referring to? I'm not a mind reader. *You* originated subject line of
> this thread.
>
No. You are incredibly stupid. Jon brought the
message here to a.a.e.v. on the 2003-09-27 07:31:57

> >> and whether or not some fundamentalist group admits
> >> responsibility, there's still little financial incentive for the
> >> farmer to release his own stock. Even if he's insured the underwriter
> >> will check. Insurance fraud lands you in jail this side of the pond.
> >> Doubt Finland's any different.
> >>
> >Farmers are renowned for diddling compensation
> >schemes, and they'll even infect their own cattle
> >with diseases to get their hand on such payments.
>
> So you're speculating...
>
No. I brought proof showing that they do, but as
is usual with liars such as yourself, you snipped
it away, so here it is again.

Farmers spread disease, says rural affairs MP
By Robert Uhlig, Farming Correspondent
(Filed: 26/04/2002)

FARMERS leaders were "shocked and concerned yesterday"
after the vice-chairman of the Commons environment, food
and rural affairs committee blamed farmers for causing and
deliberately spreading last year's foot and mouth outbreak.

David Drew, the chairman of the Labour Group of Rural MPs,
made the allegations in a letter to a leading landowner in his
constituency of Stroud, Glos.

The letter was condemned last night as "deeply offensive to all
farmers" and betraying "ignorance as well as prejudice" of rural
affairs among Labour MPs.

John Berkeley, a Deputy Lieutenant of Gloucestershire who
lives at Berkeley Castle, his ancestral home, said he had
written to Mr Drew to call for a public inquiry into the foot
and mouth crisis.

"I suffered severely, both emotionally and financially, when
11 of my tenants lost their herds to foot and mouth and I had
to close Berkeley Castle to tourists," he said. "But I was
shocked by the reply I received from David Drew. It was
brutal in tone and content."

In a letter written on April 12 from the House of Commons
and leaked to The Daily Telegraph, Mr Drew conceded that
there should have been a full inquiry. But he added that it
should "look at all the factors that caused foot and mouth
including poor husbandry, over-intensive methods and
deliberate spreading of the disease".

He wrote: "Government may not have got everything right,
but the industry has much to answer for. The problems of
farming are deep seated and some are self-inflicted. Foot
and mouth is just the latest problem that has been visited
upon an industry in desperate need of reform."

Mr Drew - who claims on his website that he "is well known
for his support of farming and farmers" - alleged at the end
of the letter that farmers made fraudulent use of EU
production and environmental payment schemes.

The MP said yesterday that he stood by every comment
made in his letter. "I do not think it is insensitive. The
outbreak took place on the scale that it did because of the
sheep subsidy and the way that farmers exploited it."

He also alleged that the spread of the disease was further
increased because "a small number of dealers held out in
getting their animals slaughtered quickly, quibbling over
payments and conditions". He said: "The nature of what
was going on among farmers helped spread the disease."

The National Farmers' Union said last night that it was
"very surprised and concerned" by Mr Drew's comments.
Richard Macdonald, the director general, said: "We will
be speaking to him as a matter of urgency, particularly as
he holds the position of vice-chair of the EFRA committee."

Peter Ainsworth, the Conservative shadow environment,
food and rural affairs secretary, said the letter was "deeply
offensive to all farmers. It is a letter that betrays ignorance
as well as prejudice.

"It lifts the lid on what many people have thought were
Labour's true feelings about farmers. That this letter comes
from someone with so much influence over rural policies is
particularly worrying."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/27/ncull27.xml

Farmers are crooks and will stop at nothing to get
their hands on compo.

> Even if farmers were "renowned" for fraud (they're not), and even if
> half of them destroyed product to collect insurance (they don't), you
> can't assume this mink farmer released his own stock. I'm sure there's
> a latin term for the logical fallacy you're committing, but I don't
> know it. Maybe you do...?
>
> [snip of irrelevant  _Telegraph_ article]
>
It was not irrelevant because it gives a good
example of what I was referring to: that farmers
are so willing to get their hands on compensation
money that they will even infect their own cattle.