Today’s news that British poultry producers are facing ever increasing premiums on the price of South American grown GM-free soya feed �“ due to the disturbing fact that overseas soya producers are increasingly switching to gm-soya - prompts us to reprint a story that Land & People posted two years ago this very month.

We reported then:

According to a report in the New York Times, an unapproved variety of genetically engineered grass has been discovered growing in the wild in what scientists say could be the first instance in the United States in which a biotechnology plant has established itself outside a farm or GM test zone.

Mother Nature has a habit of striking back!

A worrying tale by anyone’s standards! However, as more and more acreage in South America is turned over to the production of GM-soya for its oil (the vegetable residue being processed into chicken feed), we are left wondering just how do producers ensure that their GM-free crops remain free of GM contamination?

In this little article from Yorkshire we see a Tory MP complaining, rightly, about the EU intention to force all UK drivers to switch on their light’s during day-time!

The MP bemoans the fact that even though the government agrees with him, it is powerless to oppose the will of the EU directive!  A pity therefore that he belongs to a Party that refuses to consider, ever, leaving the EU!

Even so we are obliged to Greg Knight MP for explaining so succinctly just how redundant he and his 645 fellow MP’s really are!

‘We don’t need to see the lights’

Published Date: 07 August 2008
By Staff Copy

LEGISLATION that will force all drivers to switch their lights on during daylight hours has been attacked by MP Greg Knight. The local representative is furious that the European Union will issue a directive stating that all vehicles built from 2011 must have the daylight lamps fitted as standard. He fears that the move will increase fuel consumption and emissions by ab out five per cent. Mr Knight, who is chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicle Group, said: “In an age when we are all being told we must reduce our emissions this move, which increases them, just does not make sense. “There is no UK benefit and the whole episode is a sorry state of affairs. “The British government actually agrees with me and has opposed these proposals but such is the extent of the power we have now ceded to the EU, that our own government is powerless to stop these misguided moves. “It may be that daytime running lights are a sensible idea for a Scandinavian winter but we do not need them here in the UK and they will increase fuel consumption across every European country, for every new car, in every season. “This one size must fit all European attitude to law-making is pathetic and quite unnecessary. “Why should motorists in the UK, France and Spain have to use lights �“ even during the summer?” The MP has, however, welcomed ‘a partial victory’ for campaigners against the measure, meaning that existing cars will have to use their headlights all day.

It never ceases to amaze us at Land & People why people vote for the Green Party. The only rational reason we can come up with is that they have no idea of what that outfit actually stands for beyond “they’re for the environment”! In other words, a great many amongst those inclined to vote for them, have no inkling as to their political philosophy, but view them as a useful receptacle for the registering of a protest vote.

The Green Party is, of course, the “environmentalist” party that apparently fails to see any connection between immigration and population growth �“ whilst being happy to concede that overpopulation is the greatest threat to our environment.

In addition, whereas the Green Party claims to believe in animal welfare �“ it has no policy on (or recognition of?) the abomination of ritual slaughter �“ the most prolific form of animal abuse practised in Britain today!

The explanation for these “ambiguities” is simple. The Green Party, like every other leftwing group, is working for a multicultural Britain and consequently favours fewer restrictions on immigration. It is because of its addiction to multiculturalism that it is forced to adopt irrational “flat earth-like” stances �“ stances that give rise to irreconcilable positions - such as immigration and overpopulation not being linked and ritual slaughter not constituting animal abuse! No wonder then that it is increasingly known as the “Melon Party” �“ being green on the outside �“ but red throughout!

The Melon Party’s official line on immigration - the phenomena which is exacerbating the overpopulation problem which, in tun, is increasingly wrecking our environment - is: “The Green Party works for a significant reduction in immigration control and the protection of the rights of migrant workers regardless of their ‘economic value’.”

As an aside, we wonder how many of the 1,300 people who voted Green during the recent Henley by-election would have done so had they previous knowledge of the following from the Green Party’s website here .

For those not in the know, LGBT stands for: Lesbian, Gay, By-sexual & Transgender.

We quote:

Greens launch Downing Street petition calling for instruction, training and guidance for all asylum staff

1. Compulsory training for all asylum staff on sexual-orientation and trans-awareness.
2. Explicit instructions to all immigration and asylum staff, and asylum judges, that homophobic and transphobic persecution are legitimate grounds for granting asylum.
3. Clearer and up-to-date guidance from the Home Office for asylum judges to reflect the accurate scale of LGBT persecution throughout the world using expert information from NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
4. Legal-aid funding for asylum claims needs to be substantially increased.
Unquote:

Land & People ask: How can the promotion of either asylum or immigration possibly be in the best interests of the environment?

Back in the late 1970’s the large blue butterfly was pronounced extinct in Britain. However, following a reintroduction programme in the 1980’s, it has once again become established �“ if somewhat precariously so. The good news is that it is reported as having “bounced back” following last year’s bad weather to increase its numbers.

Last year the populations of the large blue butterfly fell alarmingly at Somerset Wildlife Trust’s Green Down nature reserve, near Somereton, as a result of a spring drought and poor weather during the flight period.

This year, however, more than 3,000 butterflies took flight in June at the site, which was recently selected as one of 20 “Butterfly Survival Zones” in a bid to save the country’s rarest species. According to the Somerset Wildlife Trust, the site is one of the best in Europe for the large blue since the species was reintroduced to the reserve in 1992.

The large blue butterfly is still considered to be globally threatened, as a result of loss and bad management of its habitat, and is one of a number of species prioritised for conservation action under Britain’s Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).

The large blue population at the Green Down reserve has been used as a donor site for further re-introductions in the area. Encouragingly the butterfly’s numbers have been boosted by a local farmer whom, we are informed, uses his Dorset horn sheep and ruby red Devon cattle to graze the site in a way which help the reserve’s wildlife.

Just another example of farmers and environmentalists working together for the preservation of our countryside and its habitats.

More on the sterling work being undertaken by the Somerset Wildlife Trust may be found here .

Ragwort Alert

Ragwort, is blooming at the moment, and as every horse owner and farmer knows, ragwort contains toxins which can have debilitating or fatal consequences if eaten by horses and other grazing animals.

Whilst Ragwort has its place in the countryside; it supports a wide variety of invertebrates and is a major nectar source for many insects, but it must be controlled, especially where there are horses and livestock. Therefore it is important that the dangers posed by Ragwort is circulated to reach the widest possible audience.

There is an especial, and growing, concern that some public bodies who own land, such as Local Authorities, are not taking the problem seriously and managing their land appropriately, but there really is no excuse for a Code of Practice on how to stop the spread of ragwort is available to all on DEFRA’s website.

The threat ragwort poses to animals cannot be underestimated and is something that all landowners, whether public or private, must take seriously.

If you see it growing anywhere near you, do contact the farmer or other land owner and report its presence.

Thank you!

Further information on this deadly weed may be obtained here

A farming supporter of Land & People recently described the difference between the Labour and Tory parties thus:

Labour is the crazed madman who runs at with a knife with the obvious intention of doing you harm. The Tory is the quietly spoken type who smiles to your face before plunging a dagger into you as soon as you turn your back!

The recent history of the farming industry would appear to bear that observation out. We’ll give you three examples to demonstrate the point.

Example One: When the debate over fox hunting raged and Labour was preparing its anti-hunting legislation, Tories the length of and breadth of Britain were telling the hunting fraternity how much they supported their cause. Yet despite Labour arguing for a ban on supposed animal welfare grounds the Tories refused to play the one card that would have seen Labour dropping their proposed anti-hunt legislation faster than the proverbial hot potato. That “card” was �“ ritual slaughter.

Ritual slaughter, is an imported and barbaric practice, which requires the slitting of the throat of live un-stunned animals �“ thereby consigning these unfortunate creatures to a prolonged and painful death through the slow haemorrhaging of blood. It is to the eternal shame of this country that literary millions of British animals suffer this horrific death annually for no other reason than to satisfy the theological requirements of imported religions �“ such as Islam. There can be not the slightest doubt that ritual slaughter, much of it by the halal method, is the single most prolific form of animal abuse practised in Britain today. And yet, whilst Labour argued for a ban on hunting on animal welfare grounds - quoting a figure of some five thousand foxes being destroyed each year �“ the two-faced treacherous Tories remained silent over the slow-death killing of up to five million cattle, sheep, lambs and chickens per annum!

So why didn’t the Tories play the ritual slaughter “card” to destroy Labour’s case for a ban on hunting?

The reason is quite simple. Not only would they have lost the financial support of a number of their key ethnic minority millionaire backers �“ but they would have also lost the support of hundreds of thousands of their ethnic minority voters in communities that adhere to ritual slaughter religions!

And, as is so often the case, the Tories made all the right noises for the benefit of the hunting lobby whilst avoiding, like the proverbial plague, the one issue that would have killed Labour’s anti-hunting proposals stone dead!

Example 2: When the dairy industry was in crisis due to the miserable price being paid by the creameries, dairies and supermarkets to dairy farmers for liquid milk at the farm gate - what were the Tories doing? Once again they were busy making the “right noises” - reassuring producers that they were “on their side” and doing “everything they could” to get a better deal for dairy farmers.

Considering the quantity of hot air expended by the Tories in pledging their support it is somewhat surprising that they failed to achieve anything of note for struggling producers. But, then again, perhaps it wasn’t so surprising - considering how much money the two-faced treacherous Tory Party was receiving from its commercial backers, particularly those having an interest in keeping the price of milk low!

Example 3: Then, of course, we have the ongoing issue of cheap foreign imports undermining the British producer �“ Eastern European milk and South American beef being just two products that spring singularly and powerfully to mind. Whilst the two-faced treacherous Tories continue to sweet talk producers on how they “sympathise with the plight of farmers” they continue to support both the EU legislation and unbridled free trade that is facilitating the importation of huge quantities of cheap Eastern European milk and sub-standard Brazilian beef into Britain, to undermine the very producers they claim to be supporting! Needless to say, cheap imported milk and beef being two products, amongst many, that whilst helping to eradicate the British producer, turns in handsome profits for the supermarkets so beloved of by the two-faced treacherous Tory Party!

Tories �“ running with the fox whilst hunting with the pack!

Over the next few months British Sugar will be processing virtually the entire British sugar beet crop to produce refined sugar for use in a multitude of industries ranging from confectionary to bio-ethanol. It is thought likely that this year British growers will produce in the region of 7.5 million tonnes of beet �“ mostly in the East Midlands and East Anglia �“ from which British Sugar will refine around 1 million tonnes of white sugar.

With substantially increased fuel and fertiliser costs, British producers were very unhappy with the £24/£25 per tonne price originally offered by British Sugar for their beet crop. After some persuading the National Farmers Union (NFU) recently met up with the company in an attempt to negotiate a better deal. Producers want around £30 per tonne, but despite the efforts of the NFU �“ efforts that have not impressed many producers from what we understand �“ the best they have been able to achieve is a revised offer that equates to around £26 per tonne. Now, whereas the big landowners and company owned combines can derive a useful profit based on this offer - due to being able to apply economies of scale - the smaller producer can’t.

By anyone’s standards £26 for a tonne of sugar beet can hardly be considered just reward. For the average beet producer it just about covers the cost of production with a little to spare �“ only the “big boys” on the large private and company estates have anything to celebrate. It is certainly not the sort of price on which the average producer will make his fortune, and brings into question the long-term viability of the sugar beet industry inasmuch as the “small man”, working the family-run farm, is concerned.

Yet, according to British Sugar’s own promotional blurb, last year they bought the entire British sugar beet crop for approximately £180 million �“ which suggests a price paid to producers of around £25 per tonne. That was, of course, before this year’s huge increases in both diesel and fertiliser costs.

Assuming producers are forced to accept the £26 per tonne currently on offer, then the cost to British Sugar of this year’s crop will be around £190 million. A lot of money �“ but perhaps not that much considering white sugar for October delivery is currently commanding a price of £398 per tonne! This would suggest that British Sugar’s £190 million outlay will realise some £398 million in terms of refined white sugar!

Under the circumstances, Land & People is left wondering what is preventing British Sugar from upping their offer from £26 per tonne for beet to at least £28 per tonne �“ if not the full £30 per tonne requested? Surely margins in the world of sugar refining can’t be that tight?

As matters stand both British Sugar and the NFU are leaving a taste in the mouths of producers �“ and it isn’t a sweet one! Additionally, the NFU is again seen as leaving itself open to the accusation that it is run by and for the “big man” �“ to the detriment of the many “little men” in the industry.

Land & People supports calls for a fair deal for our beet producers.

Yesterday, there was an article published in Business Weekly that gives the impression that the EU really cares about the environment, and about the owners of small businesses.

The reality is that the EU cares about neither!

The first point to note is that the £3m supposedly given from the EU is in fact our money - Britain being the 2nd largest contributor to the EU’s budget.

Secondly, the whole Global Warming story is already debunked, and revealed as nothing more than pseudo science, used to enable the ’state’ to exert ever more control over our daily lives.  In other words, there would be better uses for these funds.

Interestingly the ‘Business Weekly‘ article also reveals a high level of co-operation/interaction between the academic world and the unelected Regional Development Agency - the body that has risen Phoenix like from the ashes of the Regional Assembly - many academics having been seduced by financial enticements from the vast educational propaganda budget of the EU: And of course, the Regional Development Agencies only exist to further regionalise England ( split up into easily controlled (by Brussels) regions).

Do read the article below, but do so with the knowledge that you are reading propaganda!

Written by News Desk
Tuesday, 05 August 2008

The East of England’s ERDF concentrates on low-carbon investments. Small firms in the East of England are to benefit from £3 million of European funding to help them go ‘low carbon.’

The first two projects to receive support from the East of England’s £88 million European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) will help businesses cut their energy bills and CO2 emissions and match companies up with the right universities to develop low-carbon projects.

The region’s ERDF programme, which has a nationally unique focus on low-carbon economic growth, will also help to drive EU-wide energy reduction targets and the government’s recently published Renewable Energy Strategy.

£2.1 million is going to the Resource Efficiency East (REE) scheme, which will help small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) become both more resource efficient and at the same time more competitive. REE will help businesses to cut their energy bill and carbon emissions and other resources over the next three years giving firms a sharper competitiveness edge.

A further £628,000 will go towards setting up a project to improve the links between academic expertise and innovation in universities across the East of England and regional businesses looking to develop commercially important low carbon technologies and products.

The successful application for funding for the i-10 Low Carbon Transfer project was made by the University of Cambridge on behalf of a group of eleven East of England universities.

This project will include a brand new ‘taster scheme’ to encourage SMEs to engage with academic hubs in higher education institutions for ground-breaking work on low-carbon issues.

David Morrall, European Programmes Director at EEDA, which manages the region’s European Regional Development Fund, said: “The new £3 million of funding in the region, the first two grants made under the ERDF programme, will help small businesses go ‘low carbon’. The funding will take forward the plans in the government’s recent Renewable Energy Strategy.

“Both the REE and i-10 projects represent innovative ways of developing regional businesses through low-carbon initiatives. I look forward to seeing the fruits of these schemes and to EEDA supporting many similar projects across the region in the coming months.”

Source

Land & People reported only a few days ago how the banks were doing very nicely out of the succession of crises hitting British farming in recent years. We can now tell you just how nicely. According to recently disclosed Bank of England figures the current level of lending to agriculture is now at an all-time high of £10.6 BILLION and growing.

Even more alarming is the revelation that this figure has increased by almost one billion pounds in the last year alone!

To get some idea of what £10.6 billion worth of debt equates to we’ll refer to this year’s anticipated bumper wheat harvest. At the present time and subject to the weather, it is estimated that a record 16 million tonnes of wheat will be harvested by the end of the month. Now, although the price of top quality wheat is around £140 per tonne the poorer grain, to go as animal feed, will probably reduce the overall price per tonne to around £100. In other words Britain’s bumper wheat harvest is estimated to be worth around £1.6 billion.

Taking into account the cereal harvest and all other agricultural production this year, it is probable that this has a value of around £12 billion. In other words the current level of indebtedness of the industry to the banks approximately equates to the entire annual agricultural output of the industry! Put another way, the banks own the harvest �“ not just of wheat but of all other agricultural commodities!

But, in a very real sense, the problem is even worse - as this is interest bearing debt that is serviced by interest payments that probably exceeds half a billion pounds per annum!

Returning to the cereal producers for a moment; it is likely that many will make a tidy profit this year �“ as opposed to breaking even last year, and the year before that. They, of course, are the lucky ones �“ for they will have the luxury of being able to choose whether to reduce their bank borrowings, to invest in new plant or a little of both. Other farmers, particular livestock producers, won’t have that luxury �“ as the high price of feed combined with rocketing diesel and other costs means that most will make a loss. To some extent the same can be said of dairy farmers, where the profit made from increased milk prices has been eroded by higher operating costs.

The bottom line is clear, whilst the industry as a whole is “soldiering on” �“ some farmers better than others �“ it is doing so whilst servicing an extraordinary level of debt. This is manageable during times of bumper harvests �“ but what is going to happen when harvests are not so fruitful and when the Bank of England base-lending rate is ratcheted significantly upwards from the current 5%?

Land & People asks: How many well-run family farms could survive a substantial and prolonged base-lending rate increase in a poor agricultural year we wonder? Furthermore �“ should the economy continue to decline and the banks apply “the squeeze” with a vengeance �“ with this Labour regime come to the aid of the industry or support the banks? Silly question really �“ because on recent past experience we all know the answer to that one!

Some good news that shows that people power can win - but only if you stick together.  Our congratulations to  the villager’s of Hempnall, South Norfolk for their efforts to prevent the imposition of a pseudo green wind farm upon their community!

Campaigners against the proposed windfarm at Hempnall celebrate the planning decision at South Norfolk Council headquarters. Photo: Nick Butcher.

EMILY DENNIS
06 August 2008 08:28

Campaigners were jubilant last night after controversial plans to build a windfarm in the south Norfolk village of Hempnall were unanimously refused.

More than 100 local people packed into the chamber at South Norfolk Council’s headquarters in Long Stratton to listen to the debate over plans by renewable energy company Enertrag UK to build seven 125m high turbines on land at Bussey’s Loke.

The proposals had been recommended for refusal and were last night unanimously turned down by the council’s south-west area planning committee. Enertrag said that it would appeal the decision.

There has been widespread opposition to the plans and Michael Windridge, district councillor for Hempnall, who has been a leading campaign against the scheme, said: “I am absolutely delighted the planning committee took the importance of protecting south Norfolk’s landscape into account. It is our most priceless asset.

“Enertrag have completely failed to understand just how deeply attached local villagers are to their own countryside. We will fight this appeal with all our vigour.”

The scheme was recommended for refusal on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the character of the area and visual amenity, it would have an impact on listed buildings and Norwich International Airport, there would be insufficient visibility at the junction of the B1332/B1527 and because it is contrary to policies.

Objectors to the scheme included local protest group Showt (Stop Hempnall’s Onshore Wind Turbines).

Group spokesman Hilary Battye said: “Of course we are delighted the planning committee has voted against this proposal, recognising the unsuitability of the site because of unacceptable visual intrusion. The appropriate planning policies have been applied with rigour and therefore it is the right result.

“We are, however mindful of Enertrag’s right of appeal and certainly their normal behaviour to do so. We hope that they will give thought to the level of opposition to this proposal and the fact that this is not a suitable site, a view that we feel a planning inspector will share.”

The district council received objections from Hempnall, Saxlingham, Shotesham and Woodton parish councils and recommendations of refusal from Topcroft, Tasburgh and Morningthorpe parish councils.

Other objectors included South Norfolk MP Richard Bacon and county councillor Adrian Gunson.

The district council received more than 600 letters of objection and 62 letters in support of the scheme.

The East of England Development Agency (EEDA) wrote in support of the scheme which it said would make a contribution towards the region’s renewable energy targets.