Red Tractor - Mass Cancellation

[stroller]

Can we have a sticky for the fighting fund, might be more visible then?

 

[glasshouse]

I think we're still at the 'discussing possibilities, and strategy' at the moment, but slowly formulating some sort of a plan.

I don't suppose all that many people will, have yet, have read to the end of this thread.

As Clive says, if we can maybe get a quick hour of consultation with the right person, then we would have something more concrete to build upon.

Anyone got any contacts or recommendations? We need contract, discrimination, competition and anti-trust law expertise.

It wont happen quickly, all thr lawyers are flat out on brexit£££££££££!!!!!!

 

[Hfd Cattle]

I was away with family yesterday ...I don't have my phone or iPad with me on such occasions. I am with my family at the time and not concerned with looking at phone or iPad etc. Just suggesting there may be others like me that do the same . I find it so annoying when folks call by or pay a visit and they keep looking at their phone or texting .... I think you either want to be with us or you would rather keep in touch with others on your phone but please don't do both ! Likewise when I'm visiting outside of the business I too don't keep looking at my phone !
Just trying to explain a possible reason for lack of response.....not having a go !

I'm happy to get involved if anyone is needed to put a case forward i.e. Sit around a table or meet up with Legal eagle suchlike. I would imagine we will need a small team to move this forward eventually.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

It wont happen quickly, all thr lawyers are flat out on brexit£££££££££!!!!!!

Bloody good time to act, then?

 

[onthehoof]

It wont happen quickly, all thr lawyers are flat out on brexit£££££££££!!!!!!

I’m sure @Walterp might give some free advice

 

[Hesstondriver]

im in for £50 to get this rolling

 

[tullah]

This must be the best £50 I will have ever spent. In fact I don't mind losing it. Anything to try and rid us of this cr.p.

 

[Henarar]

I’m sure @Walterp might give some free advice

perhaps he and @Danllan could team up

 

[Danllan]

perhaps he and @Danllan could team up

Haven't followed this thread, about what?

 

[Henarar]

Haven't followed this thread, about what?

TBO I don't fully understand it myself
I think a gang of folk on here want to drag RT through every court in the land but someone will be along to put it better no doubt

 

[Stopyamoaning]

My family farm been members since it was brought in. I cancelled it in July as I sold all my cattle in June to go travelling to New Zealand. Am home now and restocking and was contemplating re-activating my membership (had several letters whilst away asking me to re-activate). My intial rant on here follows a conversation with a friend active in NFU who told me regardless of what the members want whole life assurance for animals will be brought in. I am not advocating doing away with the scheme but more a wake up and listen to your membership protest.

Open your eyes, and talk to the general public before you lose the battle, look around you might see the world changed, we now have investment in technology, I farm because it’s a business not just a birth right.

 

[FarmyStu]

TBO I don't fully understand it myself
I think a gang of folk on here want to drag RT through every court in the land but someone will be along to put it better no doubt

Not quite right. It's UFAS they're after. As far as I can tell if they win it will be a good outcome for RT, ironically enough.

 

[Grass And Grain]

Not quite right. It's UFAS they're after. As far as I can tell if they win it will be a good outcome for RT, ironically enough.

There's a lot to think about. Why do you think it would be good for RT Stu?

 

[Danllan]

TBO I don't fully understand it myself
I think a gang of folk on here want to drag RT through every court in the land but someone will be along to put it better no doubt

RT is voluntarily joined - in theory - so I can't see what anyone thinks they will achieve. UFAS... it's boll*cks, I agree, but I can't see any hope of legal action (on what basis?) succeeding against it as I understand it.

If we had a national organisation representing farmers' interests, it might start a campaign pointing out to the public that RT means nothing more than that the farmer is following the law - which he has to anyway - and is charging them slightly more for his produce for RT to exist...

 

[Raider112]

RT is voluntarily joined - in theory - so I can't see what anyone thinks they will achieve. UFAS... it's boll*cks, I agree, but I can't see any hope of legal action (on what basis?) succeeding against it as I understand it.

If we had a national organisation representing farmers' interests, it might start a campaign pointing out to the public that RT means nothing more than that the farmer is following the law - which he has to anyway - and is charging them slightly more for his produce for RT to exist...

Might be better to just read the last few pages, the issue is about different rules for imported produce which is then mixed with home produced grain. Or similar.

 

[Grass And Grain]

RT is voluntarily joined - in theory - so I can't see what anyone thinks they will achieve. UFAS... it's boll*cks, I agree, but I can't see any hope of legal action (on what basis?) succeeding against it as I understand it.

If we had a national organisation representing farmers' interests, it might start a campaign pointing out to the public that RT means nothing more than that the farmer is following the law - which he has to anyway - and is charging them slightly more for his produce for RT to exist...

It is the legality (or not) of the UFAS rules that I am questioning. All the mills who are UFAS accredited will purchase non-UK and Eire feedstuffs that have not passed an on-farm assurance audit. All UFAS accredited mills will only purchase UK and Eire feedstuffs that have passed an on-farm assurance audit.

So in my opinion, all these mills are involved in a trade scheme/organisation with a common set of trading terms, which apply dissimilar trading conditions to similar transactions, purely based on country of origin. If this is legal, then there is nothing that can be done other than to lobby the assurance schemes of our dissaproval.

I aim to find out if imposing these differing trading conditions is (or is not) legal.

There may be competition laws which are applicable, particularly where a group of companies with a large market share between them trade under the exact same terms of a trade body/scheme.

It might take a couple of weeks to determine all this.

If anyone has any good contacts of experts in competition law, anti-trust law or contract law, please let me know.

 

[Danllan]

It is the legality (or not) of the UFAS rules that I am questioning. All the mills who are UFAS accredited will purchase non-UK and Eire feedstuffs that have not passed an on-farm assurance audit. All UFAS accredited mills will only purchase UK and Eire feedstuffs that have passed an on-farm assurance audit...

Can you confirm that this paragraph is correct, particularly the underlined words.

And... that the feedstuffs will definitely be mixed?

 

[Grass And Grain]

Can you confirm that this paragraph is correct, particularly the underlined words.

And... that the feedstuffs will definitely be mixed?

As far as I understand it, the highlighted bits are correct. There are different standards for UK vs non-UK in their rules. This is the bit that I am trying to ascertain the legality of. It could be that this is perfectly legal.

The rules are that the mills in the UFAS scheme are able to trade non-assured materials if they keep them separate (from assured) and then sell them as straights. Materials from UK and Eire farms that go into blends/compounds needed to be farm assured.

Edit. So they can purchase non-assured from UK farms, but only assured if they are going to compound it.

Therefore, I think that any mill that is producing compounds will be applying dissimilar trading conditions to similar transactions depending on the country of origin of the materials.

 

[Grass And Grain]

In fact @Danllan were you sort of getting at the fact that these mills are at liberty to purchase some non-assured UK materials?

Presumably the vast majority is required to be farm assured for compounding, but you have highlighted a good point, worthy of some contemplation and certainly not to be disregarded. Hmmm.

 

[Danllan]

As far as I understand it, the highlighted bits are correct. There are different standards for UK vs non-UK in their rules. This is the bit that I am trying to ascertain the legality of. It could be that this is perfectly legal.

The rules are that the mills in the UFAS scheme are able to trade non-assured materials if they keep them separate (from assured) and then sell them as straights. Materials from UK and Eire farms that go into blends/compounds needed to be farm assured.

Edit. So they can purchase non-assured from UK farms, but only assured if they are going to compound it.

Therefore, I think that any mill that is producing compounds will be applying dissimilar trading conditions to similar transactions depending on the country of origin of the materials.

It's not my field, but I think it extremely unlikely that this breaks any law. Check to see if there are specific dispensations / derogations away from what you suspect 'should' be the case. If there are not any, it is most probable that they weren't necessary since there was no divergence from the norm..