You are spot on.Because RT see Governemnt and Defra as one of their “stakeholders” That means that they will help to facilitate their needs in the scheme. That is why they are becoming the Policeman for governemnt regulation. Conveniently for the Government a Policeman we pay for. At a meeting i attended that Mosley spoke at the reason for increased measures on fertiliser storage was included SPECIFICALLY at the request of the anti terrorist squad.
That clearly demonstrates that RT is the method to control us, has become a licence to farm and most conveniently is enforcement that we have to pick up the total cost for.
These proposals must be robustly rejected. Our representatives organisations will not back us as they are part of RT.
I sat in a Regional NFU Crops meeting where the feeling against these changes was VERY strong, it really concerns me that the response that the NFU make as a whole to this consultation will not truly reflect the views of those members. The RT representatives present alluded to the fact that they will take more note of the consultation submissions from representative bodies than from individuals. That means that a huge number of NFU members who have strong views on this will potentially be disaffected by the NFU response.
But it is worse than that.
For things to become legislation, they would be scrutinised, particularly by the House of Lords.
Most of the new proposals would be rejected on the grounds of no supporting facts or evidence of need or benefit and would be noted to be outside the remit of an 'assurance scheme'.
Red tractor already has a protection racket covering crops and dairy, with clear aims to do the same with all sectors. Their rules are effectively legislation with NO sense of reason or right of appeal. UK agriculture should really be very troubled by this