Blood sucking ahdb

[Highland Mule]

Did the horti ballot paper have any request for info on the amount of levy paid? I have been assured that for the potato ballot the only data collected is the total number of votes cast and the split of votes for Yes/No, so I cannot see how that relates levy paid

Can you copy the exact words you asked and the exact response you got? I’m not convinced that what has been said accords with what you are now reporting.

 

[simon w]

I’ve been following this thread as some of you may be aware that combinable growers are discussing RT. I don’t know the rights and wrongs of of hort and pot growers but it is progress that you are getting a say. My biggest concern is one contributor (highland mule) has pick on people for their grammar. As one who has dyslexia and it takes me time to try and get things right I feel his criticism a form of bullying.

Thanks for your support Jackall

 

[Jackall]

thank you highland mule. If you read my post properly you will see I said people with no refererence to anybody apart from you. I followed tid ahdb thread because my area of farming is wanting a review Combinable crops. i feel some of your responses remind me of my teachers who didn’t understand dyslexia. i Doubt some one with your supperior understanding of the this. you may not Have said grammar but your posts 2089 and 2095 are not exactly great

 

[Hindsight]

I was not at the town hall meeting because I am not a potato grower and would not be allowed in

I am not a potato grower and I have attended two of the potato town halls live and watched a third on you tube. I am also not a vegetable grower or even a horticulture levy payer but I attended one of the Hortic Town Hall meetings. Anyone can join in as far as I can see.

 

[Highland Mule]

thank you highland mule. If you read my post properly you will see I said people with no refererence to anybody apart from you. I followed tid ahdb thread because my area of farming is wanting a review Combinable crops. i feel some of your responses remind me of my teachers who didn’t understand dyslexia. i Doubt some one with your supperior understanding of the this. you may not Have said grammar but your posts 2089 and 2095 are not exactly great

2095 was written in the heat of the moment, in response to an insult and followed the temperature of said insult. I wouldn’t have written that other than on that situation. 2089 was intended as a positive piece of advice, and I stand by it - if you need a precise answer to a specific question, you need to get the question correct - and the text of his question as Simon has cited on here isn’t.

 

[simon w]

There will be a unique number on it that allows correlation to your details, but only by the independent voting administrators - like there is on general election voting forms, except even more anonymous.

I

Can you copy the exact words you asked and the exact response you got? I’m not convinced that what has been said accords with what you are now reporting.
The email to UK Engage is on post no.2084 the exact words which you were so critical of,to remind you here it is again "I have received a ballot form for the ahdb potato sector and I am concerned about other data collected other than yes or no.Could you please confirm that the only data collected and past on to others is my answer to the ballot." An extract from their response reads "AHDB will be advised of the total number of votes cast and the split of votes for Yes/No. We do not declare how each business has voted." I hope this convinces you that what I am reporting are the facts and not misrepresented

 

[simon w]

2095 was written in the heat of the moment, in response to an insult and followed the temperature of said insult. I wouldn’t have written that other than on that situation. 2089 was intended as a positive piece of advice, and I stand by it - if you need a precise answer to a specific question, you need to get the question correct - and the text of his question as Simon has cited on here isn’t.

The email to UK Engage is on post no.2084 the exact words which you were so critical of,to remind you here it is again "I have received a ballot form for the ahdb potato sector and I am concerned about other data collected other than yes or no.Could you please confirm that the only data collected and past on to others is my answer to the ballot." An extract from their response reads "AHDB will be advised of the total number of votes cast and the split of votes for Yes/No. We do not declare how each business has voted." I hope this convinces you that what I am reporting are the facts and not misrepresented

 

[Jackall]

I do wonder highland mule that you would argue with yourelf if you sat in front of a mirror. I just hoped that you may realise that people on here ar not as eloquent as you and you should take that into account. I do not know you and I wish you well but please realise people are the same and don’t try using your superior English language skills to belittle them.

 

[Highland Mule]

The email to UK Engage is on post no.2084 the exact words which you were so critical of,to remind you here it is again "I have received a ballot form for the ahdb potato sector and I am concerned about other data collected other than yes or no.Could you please confirm that the only data collected and past on to others is my answer to the ballot." An extract from their response reads "AHDB will be advised of the total number of votes cast and the split of votes for Yes/No. We do not declare how each business has voted." I hope this convinces you that what I am reporting are the facts and not misrepresented

Simon, thanks for getting back to me. Do you understand what I wrote in post 2093 and repeated below?

"If AHDB had given UK Engage the list of members (which clearly they have done, else you wouldn't have a ballot paper), plus some idea of size for each member (which they might have done), then they can easily provide the same data analysis that happened for Horti, without declaring how each business voted."

Hopefully you also can see how this differs from what you claim in post 2115 (that the only data collected was the total number of votes and split of yes/no). Forgive me for being pedantic, but precision is important to make sure that your expectations are not unreasonable and you don't get any nasty shocks later, nor claim they lied to you. I'd go further and say that nothing in the quote above precludes them giving vote share by a range of metrics such as farm size, levy paid, etc.

I do wonder highland mule that you would argue with yourelf if you sat in front of a mirror. I just hoped that you may realise that people on here ar not as eloquent as you and you should take that into account. I do not know you and I wish you well but please realise people are the same and don’t try using your superior English language skills to belittle them.

I'm not trying to belittle anyone, just trying to use my experiences to manage others' expectations and avoid any potential for future disappointment. My work as a consulting engineer involves very precise and accurate language, to the level of a legal advisor so I am more aware than most the difference that subtle nuances and imprecise language can make.

 

[Goweresque]

You have expressed concern that they might publish a breakdown of votes by farm size, which they can easily do without declaring how each business voted.

The question more is - why should they even know how a business voted? Its hardly a secret ballot is it if the people who are potentially going to be voted out of a job know who voted for them and who didn't? This could lead to all manner of underhand retaliation after a vote - people who voted against the AHDB could be put on a black list, and prevented from getting the same assistance that people who voted for them get.

IMO the AHBD shouldn't know who voted for them any more than an MP should be told which constituents voted for them and which for their opponents.

 

[Highland Mule]

The question more is - why should they even know how a business voted? Its hardly a secret ballot is it if the people who are potentially going to be voted out of a job know who voted for them and who didn't? This could lead to all manner of underhand retaliation after a vote - people who voted against the AHDB could be put on a black list, and prevented from getting the same assistance that people who voted for them get.

IMO the AHBD shouldn't know who voted for them any more than an MP should be told which constituents voted for them and which for their opponents.

Different "they" @Goweresque - I'm referring to the independent polling company and you are referring to the AHDB, I think. I agree that AHDB shouldn't get to know how anyone votes, but I think it's reasonable for the Minister to have some better insight than just a raw yes/no result

 

[Hindsight]

The question more is - why should they even know how a business voted? Its hardly a secret ballot is it if the people who are potentially going to be voted out of a job know who voted for them and who didn't? This could lead to all manner of underhand retaliation after a vote - people who voted against the AHDB could be put on a black list, and prevented from getting the same assistance that people who voted for them get.

IMO the AHBD shouldn't know who voted for them any more than an MP should be told which constituents voted for them and which for their opponents.

But do we know the AHDB staff have had sight of the ballot papers returned. I understood it was the external contractor UK Engage. I cannot recall which post but did WR say AHDB had been opening the postal ballots? But how does he know?

 

[Goweresque]

Different "they" @Goweresque - I'm referring to the independent polling company and you are referring to the AHDB, I think. I agree that AHDB shouldn't get to know how anyone votes, but I think it's reasonable for the Minister to have some better insight than just a raw yes/no result

The thing is we don't know if the AHDB know who voted for what do we? Its obvious that 'someone' knows that, otherwise the statement that the majority against levy retention was reversed when calculated by area couldn't be made. The polling company must have the two bits of data necessary, the area farmed by each grower, and the polling slips with voter ID on, but why would they produce that stat? Particularly immediately after announcing the raw count result? Their job is to run the poll as set out by law, not provide analysis that supports the retention of the AHDB.

Which leaves the distinct possibility that the AHDB know who voted for whom, and it was they who rushed the area analysis out to bolster their position.

 

[Highland Mule]

The thing is we don't know if the AHDB know who voted for what do we? Its obvious that 'someone' knows that, otherwise the statement that the majority against levy retention was reversed when calculated by area couldn't be made. The polling company must have the two bits of data necessary, the area farmed by each grower, and the polling slips with voter ID on, but why would they produce that stat? Particularly immediately after announcing the raw count result? Their job is to run the poll as set out by law, not provide analysis that supports the retention of the AHDB.

Which leaves the distinct possibility that the AHDB know who voted for whom, and it was they who rushed the area analysis out to bolster their position.

It's possible, but I suspect not, and the response to Simon's question seems to back that up. My theory is that the polling company have the size data in advance, and a subject access request to that effect would be appropriate, if one were bothered about that*.

Remember it's not really a huge number of voters, and only one other parameter - it would take only a few seconds to do the analysis once the vote was in. Also worth pondering who reported the results (UK Engage) and who released press statements after (AHDB, NFU etc.). The result is not owned by AHDB, and we don't know if they or DEFRA or whoever asked for the additional analysis.

* Acually, thinking about things it would be interesting to know if the AHDB were legally allowed to share such data - presumably that would be something that the data protection act might have issues with, but I haven't looked at the rules around that for years.

 

[Goweresque]

It's possible, but I suspect not, and the response to Simon's question seems to back that up. My theory is that the polling company have the size data in advance, and a subject access request to that effect would be appropriate, if one were bothered about that.

Remember it's not really a huge number of voters, and only one other parameter - it would take only a few seconds to do the analysis once the vote was in. Also worth pondering who reported the results (UK Engage) and who released press statements after (AHDB, NFU etc.). The result is not owned by AHDB, and we don't know if they or DEFRA or whoever asked for the additional analysis.

I find it highly suspicious that the area analysis was made available at exactly the same time the result of the actual poll was announced. It suggests a degree of collusion behind the scenes between the AHDB and the polling company. Either at some point in the process the AHDB have discovered who voted for what and they did the analysis themselves and shoved it out with the result to back up their position, or they were made aware of the result in advance and as a result demanded the polling company calculate the result by area as well. There is nothing in the legislation that says the poll should be calculated by area so why would the polling company provide that data entirely without being prompted?

 

[Hindsight]

I find it highly suspicious that the area analysis was made available at exactly the same time the result of the actual poll was announced. It suggests a degree of collusion behind the scenes between the AHDB and the polling company. Either at some point in the process the AHDB have discovered who voted for what and they did the analysis themselves and shoved it out with the result to back up their position, or they were made aware of the result in advance and as a result demanded the polling company calculate the result by area as well. There is nothing in the legislation that says the poll should be calculated by area so why would the polling company provide that data entirely without being prompted?

Point of order. The secondary analysis is by amount of levy paid by a levy payer - not area the business may farm.

 

[Highland Mule]

I find it highly suspicious that the area analysis was made available at exactly the same time the result of the actual poll was announced. It suggests a degree of collusion behind the scenes between the AHDB and the polling company. Either at some point in the process the AHDB have discovered who voted for what and they did the analysis themselves and shoved it out with the result to back up their position, or they were made aware of the result in advance and as a result demanded the polling company calculate the result by area as well. There is nothing in the legislation that says the poll should be calculated by area so why would the polling company provide that data entirely without being prompted?

Didn't DEFRA ask for analysis by size of levy payer last time around (a few years ago)? I'd wonder if they just pre-empted things and asked for it the same again. If I was in DEFRA, I'd ask for that in advance, especially since they had got it before.

I'll write it again - the output wasn't from AHDB but from UK Engage.

 

[White rabbit]

But do we know the AHDB staff have had sight of the ballot papers returned. I understood it was the external contractor UK Engage. I cannot recall which post but did WR say AHDB had been opening the postal ballots? But how does he know?

Because the lady from Uk engage told a levy payer who has been challenging first the hdc and then the ahdb for the last 20 odd years .

 

[White rabbit]

I find it highly suspicious that the area analysis was made available at exactly the same time the result of the actual poll was announced. It suggests a degree of collusion behind the scenes between the AHDB and the polling company. Either at some point in the process the AHDB have discovered who voted for what and they did the analysis themselves and shoved it out with the result to back up their position, or they were made aware of the result in advance and as a result demanded the polling company calculate the result by area as well. There is nothing in the legislation that says the poll should be calculated by area so why would the polling company provide that data entirely without being prompted?

 

[Goweresque]

Point of order. The secondary analysis is by amount of levy paid by a levy payer - not area the business may farm.

My bad.

But the point remains the same - in order to do that analysis someone has to know how individual voters voted and marry that to levy amounts paid. The question how many people (and what organisations) know this information, and will it get to the AHDB either formally or on the sly somehow?