Natural England knows best?

Ffermer Bach · Jun 2, 2021

teslacoils said:
It's bullying. Simple as that. Good on the op for sticking to their guns. I'd not have the ballbag to. But I'd put in £100 or so if it would help.

all these arms length government bodies are the same, Post Office is a good example, then they have the gall to say, if they give compensation to those who deserve it, they will be bankrupt! And yet those who were in charge when the policy was implemented have escaped censure!

ajcc · Jun 2, 2021

teslacoils said:
It's bullying. Simple as that. Good on the op for sticking to their guns. I'd not have the ballbag to. But I'd put in £100 or so if it would help.

Thank you but no thanks!!
It’s not about money or lack of it. It’s about important principles of honesty, openness and transparency all three are conspicuous by their absence.

Jackov Altraids · Jun 2, 2021

ajcc said:
Thank you but no thanks!!
It’s not about money or lack of it. It’s about important principles of honesty, openness and transparency all three are conspicuous by their absence.

Well I'd give you a knighthood if I could.
Although it would have to be after I give the highest possible posthumous recognition to
David Christopher Kelly.

David Kelly (weapons expert) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Muddyroads · Jun 2, 2021

ajcc said:
Thank you but no thanks!!
It’s not about money or lack of it. It’s about important principles of honesty, openness and transparency all three are conspicuous by their absence.

Stupid question time:
If you didn’t win the case, are you responsible for paying the bill?

ollie989898 · Jun 2, 2021

holwellcourtfarm said:
To be a success ELMS needs to have the flexibility to accommodate bespoke agreements for each farm. In my opinion NE are not fit to operate this but then neither are the RPA.

Both have clearly demonstrated a fundamentally regulatory mindset: "we have clear rules and you must comply". They have exhibited no understanding or empathy towards individuals, scant understanding of the structural diversity of British farming or its practical needs and zero sense of proportionality in enforcing rules. They are, sadly, both virtually bankrupt of farmer trust.

We need DEFRA to understand the scale of the problem and to start again from scratch to create a sense of partnership between us and them in delivering good ecologically sympathetic land management within a working farmed landscape.

I'm not going to hold my breath on that one....

The truth of it is that I suspect the bulk of the people who work for Defra, RPA and NE all basically detest farmers. I bet the chief exec of Defra is actually a metal detector, whilst the head of the RPA is a steadfast rambler.

teslacoils · Jun 2, 2021

ajcc said:
Thank you but no thanks!!
It’s not about money or lack of it. It’s about important principles of honesty, openness and transparency all three are conspicuous by their absence.

While I thought that would be the case, I couldn't be sure that other farming collective bodies would be helping you, and wasn't sure how else to be supportive.

Jam Tomorrow · Jun 2, 2021

ajcc said:
Far from over yet.....what would that have bought ? Ten additional nurses for a year?
Natural England knows best!View attachment 964962

My heart weeps for you . What a bunch of c u next tuesdays.

renewablejohn · Jun 2, 2021

ajcc said:
Thank you but no thanks!!
It’s not about money or lack of it. It’s about important principles of honesty, openness and transparency all three are conspicuous by their absence.

Please dont be so hasty. A fighting fund could be very helpful for all of the farming community a simple multiplier effect of legal insurance to every farmer to the tune of 5 million to take on these bullies would soon put an end to it with the only stipulation for membership being your farm holding number.

Banana Bar · Jun 2, 2021

teslacoils said:
It's bullying. Simple as that. Good on the op for sticking to their guns. I'd not have the ballbag to. But I'd put in £100 or so if it would help.

So would I

Ffermer Bach · Jun 3, 2021

renewablejohn said:
Please dont be so hasty. A fighting fund could be very helpful for all of the farming community a simple multiplier effect of legal insurance to every farmer to the tune of 5 million to take on these bullies would soon put an end to it with the only stipulation for membership being your farm holding number.

I was told that if you have £50 000 of legal aid insurance, that sounds a lot, but in reality, it means that once £25 000 has been spent the insurers look to settle (they feel that their costs have been £25 000, so if they lost, and were liable for costs, the other sides costs would be similar ~ so up to the £50 000). Not sure if this is right and I can't remember who told me this.

holwellcourtfarm · Jun 3, 2021

Ffermer Bach said:
I was told that if you have £50 000 of legal aid insurance, that sounds a lot, but in reality, it means that once £25 000 has been spent the insurers look to settle (they feel that their costs have been £25 000, so if they lost, and were liable for costs, the other sides costs would be similar ~ so up to the £50 000). Not sure if this is right and I can't remember who told me this.

These days legal cover under £100k is pointless. It's easy to spend that much with barristers at t £1500/ day.

Ffermer Bach · Jun 3, 2021

holwellcourtfarm said:
These days legal cover under £100k is pointless. It's easy to spend that much with barristers at t £1500/ day.

Silage contractor told me, he was being charged £1000 for the barrister to go by train from Bristol to Cardiff, he said he would drive and chauffer him himself if it could save the £1000, but the barrister wanted to go on the train, apparently so he could work on the train (and I am guessing charge for it too!).

renewablejohn · Jun 4, 2021

Ffermer Bach said:
I was told that if you have £50 000 of legal aid insurance, that sounds a lot, but in reality, it means that once £25 000 has been spent the insurers look to settle (they feel that their costs have been £25 000, so if they lost, and were liable for costs, the other sides costs would be similar ~ so up to the £50 000). Not sure if this is right and I can't remember who told me this.

Unfortunately this is true which is why I suggested the 5 million limit. A simple dispute will easily cost 25k just to get it to court and very few farmers would qualify for legal aid.

gone up the hill · Jun 21, 2021

renewablejohn said:
Unfortunately this is true which is why I suggested the 5 million limit. A simple dispute will easily cost 25k just to get it to court and very few farmers would qualify for legal aid.

On Devon live tonight:

He has been ordered to pay £24,000 in costs and a fine of £7,500 with 5 months imprisonment for default of payment for the latter it says on the news site!

Legal costs over 250k it says this has cost but does not say who has to pay these!

Highland Mule · Jun 21, 2021

Devon farmer fined for ploughing historical land

Andrew Cooper admitted defying a stop order issued by Natural England and has been fined.

www.bbc.co.uk

Bongodog · Jun 21, 2021

gone up the hill said:
On Devon live tonight:

He has been ordered to pay £24,000 in costs and a fine of £7,500 with 5 months imprisonment for default of payment for the latter it says on the news site!

Legal costs over 250k it says this has cost but does not say who has to pay these!

having read the article linked to another thread on here, it reads very differently to the last 14 pages here. I've been reading here about NE enforcing an environmental ag scheme after it had expired, yet the judge is on about an iron age settlement being ploughed.

Highland Mule · Jun 21, 2021

Bongodog said:
having read the article linked to another thread on here, it reads very differently to the last 14 pages here. I've been reading here about NE enforcing an environmental ag scheme after it had expired, yet the judge is on about an iron age settlement being ploughed.

Agreed, which makes the above quote all the more ironic:

ajcc said:
It’s about important principles of honesty, openness and transparency all three are conspicuous by their absence.

Goweresque · Jun 21, 2021

Bongodog said:
having read the article linked to another thread on here, it reads very differently to the last 14 pages here. I've been reading here about NE enforcing an environmental ag scheme after it had expired, yet the judge is on about an iron age settlement being ploughed.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. I have an ancient monument on the farm, but because it was ploughed during the war, and every year since, I am allowed to continue doing so. Back in the 90s my father signed up to a countryside stewardship scheme to grass it down for 10 years. But about a year into the scheme someone (possibly EH) decreed that in future any monuments that were benefiting from the grandfather cultivation rights would lose them if the land was not cultivated for (I think) 5 years. So had we done the 10 years of the CS scheme we'd never have been able to plough it up again. So we exited the scheme by paying back what we'd had (only a years payment) and ploughed it all back up and its been ploughed ever since.

Its entirely possible the case here is similar to that.

Jackov Altraids · Jun 21, 2021

I don't know any more than what I've read here but that looks like a stitch up to me.

First of all, it says it is 'thought' to have protected iron age remains. It was not designated as other local known sites were, so may not have had more iron age remains than any other field in the country. They must have felt this was less than credible to include that "The land was also said to have historical significance as a training area used by American troops before D-Day with old trenches also at risk of being lost."
ajcc always said that he could easily be found to be guilty of a 'stop notice' but had no way of challenging that the 'stop notice' was entirely invalid.

I think everyone should be extremely concerned at how NE, The National Trust and the judicial system has connived to persecute, prosecute and penalise a farmer for farming in the same manner as he had for 30 years.

Bongodog · Jun 21, 2021

Jackov Altraids said:
I don't know any more than what I've read here but that looks like a stitch up to me.

First of all, it says it is 'thought' to have protected iron age remains. It was not designated as other local known sites were, so may not have had more iron age remains than any other field in the country. They must have felt this was less than credible to include that "The land was also said to have historical significance as a training area used by American troops before D-Day with old trenches also at risk of being lost."
ajcc always said that he could easily be found to be guilty of a 'stop notice' but had no way of challenging that the 'stop notice' was entirely invalid.

I think everyone should be extremely concerned at how NE, The National Trust and the judicial system has connived to persecute, prosecute and penalise a farmer for farming in the same manner as he had for 30 years.

The way I read it, rather than stop ploughing whilst he challenged the stop notice, he chose to ignore it and carry on.
The court case is nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong to plough the land, its the fact that none of us can disregard properly served legal documents.
I now see why he was defending himself in court rather than using a qualified lawyer, any lawyer would have told him his case was hopeless and to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity.

Natural England knows best?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page