Badger cull in Wales

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by Eryri

A badger does not usually remain infected and can naturally fight of the infection.

You've made this claim before, and always failed to justify it. Care to do so now?

As far as I know badgers do not just 'get over' TB - if they did the argument for vaccination would be even stronger as the current 'infected' animal would just 'get over' TB while the rest of the population could be vaccinated, instead of waiting for infected badgers to die off.

Originally Posted by Eryri

However, fighting off the infection involves excreting the bacteria in urine and poo.

False. This is back to your old misconception that 'shedding' bacteria is something to do with the immune response. It is not - shedding is how the disease is passed on, nothing to do with fighting the disease off. Bacteria enveloped by the immune system will not be viable, even when excreted.

Originally Posted by Eryri

Once excreted, the bacteria can only survive if re-ingested into another badger (or a cow).

Well, the bacteria can survive many months in soil or manure before being ingested, but that remark is otherwise true sooner or later.

Originally Posted by Eryri

So temporarily reducing the density of the badger population via a cull - less opportunity for re-infection - and enforcing strict cattle movement controls, it is possible to eradicate the infection in both species. The argument is that you cannot do this by just culling badgers and you cannot do this by cattle movement control in an area of high badger density, alone. Both vectors have to be tackled simultaneously.

Again, culling badgers increases the level of TB in badger precisely by increasing the opportunity for each badger to get infected or to infect other animals (cattle or badgers.) So it's a rather one-sided approach to the disease - sooner or later you'll have to deal with the badger population with raised TB prevalence.

Vaccination, on the other hand, reduces TB in both cattle and badgers. And it is cheaper.

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

Gently followed, not chased. After all, they had police with them who had already shown themselves to be a bit over-eager to arrest anti-cull protesters, do you really think they would have sat by to watch a car chase?

I don't know. Ask Lady Diana.

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

They turn up en masse on my farm with balaclavas and police escorts, and you think they are the ones being intimidated? Most honest people take it for granted that you show your face when you turn up in someone else's home.

Let's be honest. You had stated you would publish their names and addresses. The only possible motive for this anonymity is so that such information would not come into the domain of more extreme 'animal rights' activists. You seek to do this. This intimidates the surveyors. As with any 'forced entry' the police attend to ensure the law is not broken. As it happens you refused to return an ID card, and was arrested. It was returned after you 'temporarily borrowed it', and was de-arrested.

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

Nor have I posted their faces anywhere - I just wanted to see that they matched the photo ID cards, and then to ask why one of them had not produced such ID.

No. I don't belive you. You were in no doubt that they were accredited contractors. You phoned the verification line, and both the department of Rural Affairs and the police corroberated that they were genuine. The only reason you wished to 'see their faces' was nothing to do with ID, but was as a method of, at best mishchief, or at worse, put them in danger.

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

Again, when and where has that happened? I could list the various atrocities committed by badger baiters, or the things pro-badger groups down here have suffered, but really, isn't it a bit childish to be trying to paint the other side with the worst outrages of unrelated extremists?

Haverfordwest, Narbeth and Carmarthen.

The 'ethos' that runs through the farming community is that if anyone is found to be digging setts, avoiding pre-movement testing, or treating livestock badly, it would not be tolerated. Whether it be the NFU/FUW, the markets, slaughterhouse, or even the Rural Affairs 'snitch line'. I'm not convinced that the same apparatus exists within the various 'animal rights' groupings.

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

Again, in what way was the open letter 'intimidatory'? You're just making wild accusations in the hope that if you fling enough mud, some of it will stick, aren't you?The vast majority of those signatures we already have are from PAC members or from other people who have been in contact with us to register opposition to the cull. The only door-to-door solicitation I know of was done by little old ladies, and even welsh little old ladies aren't that intimidating.

I son't think it's the fear of the old lady calling door to door. I think it's the fear of having fake blood poured on your landrover and being shouted at as 'murderers'. It's a list that will inevitably find it's way to these rather unsavory characters which hang onto to 'animal rights campaigns'.

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

Hang about, you are simultaneously claiming that the anti-cull lobby is tiny, allegedly just myself, Michael and the Brithdir Mawr "hippis", and also trying to claim that there is massive peer-pressure to be seen to be anti-cull.

Yes, the antii-cull lobby is a very small part of the community. You know very well that the majority of the community is very much supportive of the cull, but do not want to open old wounds relating to 'incomers', 'language' and 'squatters'. You are very aware that tensions have previously existed and the 'anti-cull' group are seeking to open these wounds best left to heel, in order to seek publicity.

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

Which is it? If 98% of landowners, as you claim, strongly support the cull, the peer pressure would be to not sign the open letter, which after all puts your name clearly on a list.

No. Most people have the same reaction as when a politician knocks on the door. Agree with them in the hope they'll go away. Not wanting to create a fuss or foster confrontation. The 'are you on the list' type of activity in a small community where everyone knows everyone else can be intimidatory. Like I have previously said, I wish you well in your campaign and although I don't agree with you, it's nice to hear about your lobby of the Senedd and leafleting in nearby towns. But the latest tactic in the campaign of singling out people by name and address a bit disturbing.

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

I was spitting fury, actually, especially after what they did to Dad. Since then, it is true, it has been obvious that WAG shot themselves very thoroughly with that ridiculous banana-republic tactic.

Calling Wales a 'banana-republic' is likely to alienate the community you have returned to.

I actually sympathise with your situation and understand you. We appear to share a similar and quite common situation. As I gather from your variance in accent when being interviewed by the BBC, and the fact that you don't get a doctorate in Crymych, like me I suspect you left the family farm, went to pursue a career elsewhere, return to find the family business not in the best of health, sell off your livestock to balance the books, and try to introduce new innovative ways of making a family living. I don't believe for one moment your dad is 'terrified' of the community police officers, but I do think his 'stress' over the events is because he loves you, wants the best for you, and will support you in all your endeavours. He is obviously concerned. I may be making assumptions here, but the situation is mirrored in many rural communities. I too have had a history of campaigning over issues such as being able to refer to local towns and villages by the proper Welsh name and have the community display that on road signs. My father (elderly and ill) at the time was very supportive, but he certainly found the police turning up on the doorstep rather shocking. Like any campaign, regardless of the issue, it's a decision that rests wholly with yourself. Police officers have no intention of 'intimidating' your dad. They are just doing their job according to the law. You can change those laws by political means and if you choose to break it or steer very close to the wind, then it's something you choose to do. Please don't blame those who do not agree with you over the cull issue, as they bear your dad no malice.

------------------

WABers should look forward to another episode in the Gavin v Eryri soap opera tomorrow.


Should WAB sell the rights to the BBC/S4C for a few episodes of the Archers/Pobol y Cwm ?

[GavinWheeler]

Originally Posted by Eryri

I don't know. Ask Lady Diana.

So, in other words, you have no evidence of a car chase, as opposed to contractors merely being followed in a peaceful and lawful manner, and made up that assertion?

Originally Posted by Eryri

Let's be honest. You had stated you would publish their names and addresses.

No I didn't. When and where do you claim I did this?

Originally Posted by Eryri

As it happens you refused to return an ID card, and was arrested. It was returned after you 'temporarily borrowed it', and was de-arrested.

No I was given the the ID cards in order to identify the contractors (again, I was given three IDs for four contractors) and was suddenly arrested for not wanting to allow them on my land (and returning the cards, which was a minor detail to all involved) without seeing their faces to match to the IDs. Nor was I "de-arrested" [sic] as soon as the cards were returned, but many hours later once the interviewing police officer rather bemusedly admitted that not only was I not guilty of anything, but that there was absolutely no evidence that would support any claim that a theft of any kind had taken place.

But thank you for again demonstrating that any abuse of police powers is OK by you if it is done in the name of a badger cull.

Originally Posted by Eryri

The only reason you wished to 'see their faces' was nothing to do with ID, but was as a method of, at best mishchief, or at worse, put them in danger.

Evidence for this? No, of course not - you are again slinging mud in the hope that some of it will stick. Wanting to see the faces of people coming onto your land, especially if they are only identified by a photo of their face, is perfectly normal and reasonable.

I, and most people on either side of the debate including Elin Jones, was revolted by these ridiculous tactics. You of course see any means of aiding killing badgers as justified.

Originally Posted by Eryri

Haverfordwest, Narbeth and

Evidence of these alleged attacks, and their link to PAC? Or you are just, again, slinging mud?

You have also skipped past justifying your claim that them turning up in force with balaclavas and threats of arrest, and me asking to see their face, counts as me intimidating them, or your claim that we were "systematically contacting B&Bs and hotels in the area in a 'we know where you are' exercise"

Yet more unsubstantiated slurs from Eryri? Gosh.

Originally Posted by Eryri

The 'ethos' that runs through the farming community is that if anyone is found to be digging setts, avoiding pre-movement testing, or treating livestock badly, it would not be tolerated. Whether it be the NFU/FUW, the markets, slaughterhouse, or even the Rural Affairs 'snitch line'. I'm not convinced that the same apparatus exists within the various 'animal rights' groupings.

Riiight - so is there past evidence of farmers shooting badgers, mistreating animals, or falsifying TB tests?

Conversely, is there any evidence of PAC doing so?

Of course conscientious farmers condemn such behavior, but to try to claim that 'animal rights groupings' are more prone to such behaviour is yet more blatant mud slinging, as are your attempts to link PAC (mainly farmers and middle-class landowners) with animal rights extremists.

Originally Posted by Eryri

I son't think it's the fear of the old lady calling door to door. I think it's the fear of having fake blood poured on your landrover and being shouted at as 'murderers'. It's a list that will inevitably find it's way to these rather unsavory characters which hang onto to 'animal rights campaigns'.

And do you have any evidence that these things have happened, would have happened, or that those signing the letter were afraid of it happening?

No, of course not. You just want to simultaneously claim that only a tiny minority object to the cull, and also claim that the extensive evidence of significant objectors to the cull are entirely due to peer pressure!

Originally Posted by Eryri

Yes, the antii-cull lobby is a very small part of the community. You know very well that the majority of the community is very much supportive of the cull, but do not want to open old wounds relating to 'incomers', 'language' and 'squatters'. You are very aware that tensions have previously existed and the 'anti-cull' group are seeking to open these wounds best left to heel, in order to seek publicity.

Actually, I know that the majority of the community are mainly concerned with other events, but are against the cull when asked.

After all, why are WAG (and you) so dead against a referendum or a decent consultation of locals?

The cull has opened a lot of wounds, but that is the fault of those pushing the cull. We have all seen here how quick you are to try to exploit any chink, e.g. sneering at 'hippis', vegetarians, english-speakers or property developers.

Originally Posted by Eryri

Calling Wales a 'banana-republic' is likely to alienate the community you have returned to.

Calling WAG's tactics 'banana republic tactics' will, based on extensive personal experience since the 18th May, get a lot of support down here.

Originally Posted by Eryri

I actually sympathise with your situation and understand you. We appear to share a similar and quite common situation. As I gather from your variance in accent when being interviewed by the BBC, and the fact that you don't get a doctorate in Crymych, like me I suspect you left the family farm, went to pursue a career elsewhere, return to find the family business not in the best of health, sell off your livestock to balance the books, and try to introduce new innovative ways of making a family living.

I don't think you understand me in the least - I find many of your rhetorical tactics abhorrent in the extreme.

Your assertions about my personal life and family business are certainly way off track. Given your fondness of snide remarks and sly insinuations I have no intention of sharing any more of my personal life with you than I have to.

I will only say that it is not for nothing that Pembrokeshire is called the little England Beyond Wales. My accent is nothing unusual around here, but you show again your ignorance of this area.

Originally Posted by Eryri

I don't believe for one moment your dad is 'terrified' of the community police officers, but I do think his 'stress' over the events is because he loves you, wants the best for you, and will support you in all your endeavours. He is obviously concerned. I may be making assumptions here, but the situation is mirrored in many rural communities.

You know perfectly well that you are making not just assumptions, but unsupported assertions. You certainly do not know my parents at all, and cannot possibly speak for my fathers feelings.

He most certainly was extremely stressed by being accosted by the WAG team - he has great difficulty both standing to look other people in the eye, and in remembering details such as what he should be asking WAG officials or (unfortunately) remembering my quick dial number to call me for help. Dr Glossop herself admitted that that should not have happened, especially after we had explicitly informed the TB Eradication Team of my father's health and asked them not to bother him, so you are somewhat alone in your approval of that action.

Originally Posted by Eryri

My father (elderly and ill) at the time was very supportive, but he certainly found the police turning up on the doorstep rather shocking.

Then you should be especially ashamed of trying to use my father as a way of taking cheap shots at me, such as "I do not think using babies or the elderly in a demo as a method of courting sympathy for YouTube videos, is good practice."

Nor does your assertion marry very well with your repeated insinuations that my father would not have been shaken by the police turning up when he was alone.

[stripee]

The TB Eradication Order has been quashed by the Court of Appeal in a judgement handed down today in London!

[Eryri]

Sadly, the three law lords in London have overruled the democratic wish of the people of Wales. An interesting quote, however....

Lord Justice Pill said the assembly government was wrong to make an order for the whole of Wales when it consulted on the basis of a Intensive Action Pilot Area (IAPA) which only supported a cull on evidence within the IAPA. He said if the order had been confined to the IAPA in north Pembrokeshire, he would have dismissed the appeal.

Badger cull halted after appeal

I cannot see how the IAPA could have been defined in statute prior to the sett surveys, as land included would have had to include segmented farms, for example either side of the river Teifi, and finding out the density of the badger population around the southern perimeter. The survey has now crystallised the IAPA, so a modification to the TB Eradication Order now appears appropriate.

This, of course, will need to be passed at the Senedd.

[Eryri]

Originally Posted by GavinWheeler

After all, why are WAG (and you) so dead against a referendum or a decent consultation of locals?

Quite the opposite. The whole of the Senedd, unanimously, have called for powers to hold such referendums but that power is held at Westminster. Two calls for referendums have previously been blocked by the Secretary of State, an appointee of the UK prime minister. I understand that Cheryl Gillan, the new Sec of State, has made arrangements for a referendum to be held next year, which would confer full legislative competence over Rural Affairs.

I'd love a referendum inside the IAPA on the cull issue. Unfortunately, only the Westminster parliament, currently, has the powers to call one. I suspect that if there was a 'Yes' decision, those opposed to the cull would launch a legal appeal process claiming the poll was not conducted legally, or try to use 'procedure' issues to quash the decision.