A new high in agricultural corruption has been achieved

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
My apologies if I haven't seen it for all it is. As I said, I'm no farmer.

It still seems to me that the only way forward for those that don't agree with it is to do something else. Small acorns and all that.....

You've already said that M&S and Sainsburys together with grain feed merchants don't buy in to it. There's a fair chunk of influence there. Can they not all work together with farmers who want a change? Get all the small, niche and premium quality food retailers on board too?


the way forward is happening already Pete - farmers are leaving in large numbers as information about how it all works and lack of anyuse is more readily available and can be seen for the corrupt self serving scam it all is

information is power and these days its far more available

their numbers are falling, a lot of whats left are people like you who are really just after a discount on their insurance ! or wannabes future officers who can smell the gravy
 

texelburger

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Herefordshire
their numbers are falling, a lot of whats left are people like you who are really just after a discount on their insurance ! or wannabes future officers who can smell the gravy
And their Corporate members who,years ago,the NFU would challenge on behalf of proper farmers for a better deal.I'm guessing this is who the NFU like to have on board due to its membership revenue. I suspect the NFU is changing as to who it represents and perhaps they should consider changing their name to better reflect their diverse membership.
 

Johnnyboxer

Member
Location
Yorkshire
credible opposition costs millions Pete and huge amounts of time, The NFU have £21 million if paid staff behind them ! and hundreds of millions in asserts, these things are not like parish councils they are BIG businesses (numbers do not include the mutual just the actual nfu )


- with such a monopoly in place its now almost impossible to oppose credibly - hence why no-one has

TFF provides a platform where individuals can at least try to hold to account and place their views directly in front if policy makers - its as good as we can hope for really
What happened to FFA?
 
the way forward is happening already Pete - farmers are leaving in large numbers as information about how it all works and lack of anyuse is more readily available and can be seen for the corrupt self serving scam it all is

information is power and these days its far more available

their numbers are falling, a lot of whats left are people like you who are really just after a discount on their insurance ! or wannabes future officers who can smell the gravy

I’m not using their insurance any more. Don’t get me started…….
 

Goweresque

Member
Location
North Wilts
It's also owned by the NFU

It isn't owned by the NFU, thats the trouble. If it was then NFU members could vote to make changes in it. RT is a a company limited by guarantee, and the NFU is one of the founder members. It doesn't own a % of the shares, there are none. Instead all the founder members have a right to vote in the directors who then control the day to day running of the company.


Quote:
A company limited by guarantee is much like an ordinary private company limited by shares. It is registered at Companies House, must register its accounts and an annual return each year, and has directors. A major difference is that it does not have a share capital or any shareholders, but members who control it. This is explained more fully below.

Members, not shareholders

In a company limited by guarantee, there are no shareholders, but the company must have one or more members. Subject to any special provisions in the company's articles, the members will be entitled to attend general meetings and vote, and in most companies that means they can appoint and remove the directors, and have ultimate control over the company. Many clubs operate on this basis. The members meet at the Annual General Meeting and elect a committee to manage the club on their behalf, and subject to the rules in the club's constitution. If the club is a company, the same rules will apply and will be set out in the company's articles. By and large, the company law provisions relating to general meetings, resolutions, etc. in ordinary share companies apply to companies limited by guarantee.

Just as in a company limited by shares there may be different classes of shares, it is possible to have different classes of members in a guarantee company. There may be non-voting members, for example, or members who have restricted rights in some other way. In a sports club, for example, there may be junior members (those under a certain age) who cannot vote, or social members, who pay a lower subscription but cannot use the sports facilities.


Thus the NFU has but one vote in many, including other farming unions and also (crucially) the bodies representing the food retailers and processors. It cannot make any changes to RT without the agreement of at least the majority of other members. The 6 founder guarantor members are the NFU, the Ulster Farmers Union, NFU Scotland, The British Retail Consortium, Dairy Uk and the AHDB (the Food and Drink Federation also get a 'watching' brief, whether they get a vote is not clear). Thus in theory organisations nominally run on behalf of farmers have a majority in nominating the board of directors. In practice as we see its a complete stitch up, mainly because the farming unions are not subject to any democratic control (lacking a OMOV principle) and the AHDB is a law unto itself, as its levies are set by law.

Thus its a classic case of the principal/agent problem - when those nominated to run things on behalf of members (or shareholders) run things for their own benefit rather than the people they are nominally working for. All the farming unions and the AHDB are supposed to be working for the individual farmers who pay membership fees and levies, but because there is little or no democratic control those at the top of the organisations can do their own thing for their own benefit with little regard for those they are nominally working for.
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
It isn't owned by the NFU, thats the trouble. If it was then NFU members could vote to make changes in it. RT is a a company limited by guarantee, and the NFU is one of the founder members. It doesn't own a % of the shares, there are none. Instead all the founder members have a right to vote in the directors who then control the day to day running of the company.


Quote:
A company limited by guarantee is much like an ordinary private company limited by shares. It is registered at Companies House, must register its accounts and an annual return each year, and has directors. A major difference is that it does not have a share capital or any shareholders, but members who control it. This is explained more fully below.

Members, not shareholders

In a company limited by guarantee, there are no shareholders, but the company must have one or more members. Subject to any special provisions in the company's articles, the members will be entitled to attend general meetings and vote, and in most companies that means they can appoint and remove the directors, and have ultimate control over the company. Many clubs operate on this basis. The members meet at the Annual General Meeting and elect a committee to manage the club on their behalf, and subject to the rules in the club's constitution. If the club is a company, the same rules will apply and will be set out in the company's articles. By and large, the company law provisions relating to general meetings, resolutions, etc. in ordinary share companies apply to companies limited by guarantee.

Just as in a company limited by shares there may be different classes of shares, it is possible to have different classes of members in a guarantee company. There may be non-voting members, for example, or members who have restricted rights in some other way. In a sports club, for example, there may be junior members (those under a certain age) who cannot vote, or social members, who pay a lower subscription but cannot use the sports facilities.


Thus the NFU has but one vote in many, including other farming unions and also (crucially) the bodies representing the food retailers and processors. It cannot make any changes to RT without the agreement of at least the majority of other members. The 6 founder guarantor members are the NFU, the Ulster Farmers Union, NFU Scotland, The British Retail Consortium, Dairy Uk and the AHDB (the Food and Drink Federation also get a 'watching' brief, whether they get a vote is not clear). Thus in theory organisations nominally run on behalf of farmers have a majority in nominating the board of directors. In practice as we see its a complete stitch up, mainly because the farming unions are not subject to any democratic control (lacking a OMOV principle) and the AHDB is a law unto itself, as its levies are set by law.

Thus its a classic case of the principal/agent problem - when those nominated to run things on behalf of members (or shareholders) run things for their own benefit rather than the people they are nominally working for. All the farming unions and the AHDB are supposed to be working for the individual farmers who pay membership fees and levies, but because there is little or no democratic control those at the top of the organisations can do their own thing for their own benefit with little regard for those they are nominally working for.


responsibility sits firmly with those founding guarantors


it’s rubbish they have no power - if AHDB or NFU promoted a mass withdrawal of membership or helped create an alternative they could kill Red Tractor tomorrow

so why don’t they ? …….. simply because they are all good mates watching each other’s backs and cresting a mutual need for each other is pretty much the truth here

The Martin Grantlty- Smith FOIR email proves this sadly
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
And their Corporate members who,years ago,the NFU would challenge on behalf of proper farmers for a better deal.I'm guessing this is who the NFU like to have on board due to its membership revenue. I suspect the NFU is changing as to who it represents and perhaps they should consider changing their name to better reflect their diverse membership.


the list of supermarket and processor sponsors at their recent conference was nothing short of disgusting


it’s been completely bought sadly
 

teslacoils

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lincolnshire
the list of supermarket and processor sponsors at their recent conference was nothing short of disgusting


it’s been completely bought sadly

Asda
Coop
Frontier
Lidl
M&S
Morrisons
Tesco
Waitrose
Yara

Ahdb
Red tractor
Rpa/defra
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 80 42.1%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 67 35.3%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.8%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,294
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top