- Location
- People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Simple why no one says anything.
Greasy pole...
Red tractor stakeholder survey on governance
- Thread starter ajd132
- Start date
Greasy pole...
- Location
- Durham, UK
Shamefull. No morals. To afraid to stand up and be counted.
Public aren't our customers though unless you're direct selling ... which most of us don't.
That does leave us very vulnerable to buyers insisting and enforcing traceability etc. This is where a strong Union should moderate, not roll over
It's a total mess
Yep- that’s what I’m thinking. The big issue is that farmers are furious about the attempted introduction of the GFC (which would require farmers to produce assets then steal them from them). This first review (it turns out) does not consult farmers and is not directly concerned with GFC.
It’s a distraction- a sideshow, and after it reports there is every likelihood that the GFC will go ahead. A fait accompli.
The longer-term plan, for the second review chaired by NFU and AHDB: unlike many farmers they both seem to think that assurance is utterly vital so I can already predict that the outcome will be a slight tinkering with RT which will result in it being proclaimed utterly fit for the future
I think we’re being played for fools.
they are not that smart. ……… it’s just incompetence / personal career ambition that’s doing the damage
the brc / supermarkets are playing these fools like puppets - they are the smart cookies
- Location
- Lincolnshire.
“From what you are told”! Look at what people do rather than what they say. Batters is tied to this policy and is bound to defend it however she will be scapegoated for this collective mistake. The NFU have collectively accepted the idea of net zero. The policies that come from that fraudulent principle will make it literally illegal to trade unless your organisation is “net zero”. These policies will remain when the current NFU leadership have disappeared. This isn’t about climate change it is about control of markets and the perpetuation of fossil fuel use. Anyone who engages with this idea is acting against uk farming’s interests. It is proposed, under the idea of net zero, that imported fert should have a “carbon levy” applied whilst imported food will not. Yet farmers are flogging so called “carbon credits” and paying fraudsters to establish something called a “carbon baseline”. I couldn’t really make it up!
Scapegoated is the wrong word. A true leader representing the best interests of farmers wouldn’t stand for it.
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
Now, yes. My post was about when and why FA started.
The public was blaming UK ag for BSE, which they were led to believe could mean millions dieing of NvCJD.
We know now that it was all blown out of proportion by Prof Lacey, but the public were, understandably, in a panic and blaming us.
Assurance was brought in to do just that, assure. I have no doubt that it helped to do that, with little effort on our part, alongside a raft of safety measures from govt.
RT today has come from that simple start, because we have let it.
- Location
- Lincolnshire.
She will be scapegoated by the rest of the NFU. It’s a collective leadership.
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
I do (some), and I would still use EID if it wasn't compulsory, as a management aid.
That doesn't mean I agree that it should ever have been made compulsory, and there were vested interests clearly behind pushing that decision.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Quite right. I only sell feed grains for either home consumption or export. No buyer required RT until somebody sold them the idea that they needed it, which they didn’t. Then any producer who didn’t sign up to RT was “gaslighted” out of existence despite their produce being perfectly safe and legal.
I can only sell feed wheat to the feed mill if it has an RT sticker on the passport. I can’t buy compound feed from that same mill with an RT sticker on it as it’s mixed with non assured imported soya. Go figure.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
And if the NFU get their way I won’t be able to sell feed grains for home consumption or export unless I meet a load of “green” criteria, yet feed millers import soya from places where for all we know they’ve burnt down a rainforest to grow it, then they mix it with my feed wheat and sell it back to us a compound feed. That’s how it will work. One rule for imports and millers, a different rule for U.K. farmers.
- Location
- Herefordshire
I would imagine a lot of UK farmers are already Carbon net zero,it's just the way the calculations are done.All grassland farmers would be Carbon zero,imo,with all the grass sequestration of Carbon but this is not taken into account in many instances.
Nearly
Member
- Location
- North of York
She's not a free thinker. Must be very well paid.
- Location
- Northumberland
and as I`ve said on here before, - if you sell direct your customers don`t even know RT exists & are quite happy to pay premium prices.. In 18 years selling bottled milk (circa 1/2 m litres year ) we have not had 1 customer ask if we are FA /RT
Outside of the s/market / big processor cartel it`s irrelevant
he will say not so much these days becuse the quality isnt there , ,and of course his buisness will rely on the eid rag making recording far more efiecient .
but the point is really though that that could be volutary use of eid chip and not a legal requirement like on killing lambs where it doesnt serve much of a service to a ,lot of sellers just adds cost and more for the waste bin.
and most tags for sale atm are not fit for the purpose but the makers /sellers of them keep churnig them out and getting paid which includes a profit of course. illgotten gains.
that shows you what its for then, a tool to beat farmers with and a hindrance to market
tullah
Member
- Location
- Linconshire
Their "sound legal team" would have to be pretty clever to make this lot stand up in court.
I totaly agree with you for this reason:- The NFU stage one review of RT will be delivered to NFU Council on 22 January. This will be the old NFU Council as the next NFU Council & top table will be in the process of being 'elected', we do not know how many of the old guard will be standing again. At the Jan 22 meeting Rt governance review will be reported & 'voted on' which will clear the way for GFC to be introduced as planed by RT leaving the New NFU council members to clear up the mess when they come into office. I doubt if we will see any stage two review as the stage one review will not find any fault as CT have only enough time to produce a whitewash or in modern terms a greenwash. Time will tell on this. What BFU needs to do is to organise a yes or no vote on the future of RT & other farm assurance schemes, this will get us ahead & give BFU a strong voice in our industry. The NFU will never allow it's members any such vote!
Last edited:
gone up the hill
Member
- Location
- Devon
What a load of rubbish!
Are the council members really saying they are scared stiff of minette so let have have free rein to do what she wants??
If that really is the case they have no business being on the NFU council as their role is to keep the NFU top team in check and do what the grassroots members want them to do!
Also by not standing upto Minette it is nothing short of weakness by the council members!
Truth is they know Minette is standing down next month so are quite happy to see her take all the blame when in reality the NFU council are as much to blame as she is because whilst she may be the main driver of this RT stuff they are quite happy to stand aside and let her do what she wants so truth be known the NFU council members are telling members they are against GFC when in reality behind closed doors with Minette they are endorsing the GFC!
Needs to be complete reform at the NFU as its quite clear the current system of governance has serious failing's!
- Location
- Breckland
By nfu blaming rt and vice versa, a few consultations, surveys etc it probably provides a sufficient smokescreen to get it through.