Lets see if any get asked ............ do not hold your breath !!
Q1 -"Guy Smith stated in the Farmer Weekly podcast: “Clearly that [Red Tractor Assurance] is over the top where routine co-mixing is happening.” “Co-mixing will always be a problem.” “I want to investigate the possibility of having a stripped out assurance standard”.
Commentary: How can Red Tractor investigate it or make any decisions on this when its isn’t mentioned in the consultation?
Question: Given these statements from Guy Smith on the Farmers Weekly podcast last week, will the current consultation be withdrawn, so farmers are allowed to consult on this new possibility?"
Q2 - Is it right that a scheme created by farmers and mostly paid for by farmers does not have a board structure that gives farmers the majority vote on how its run and who it employees ? Will Red Tractor change the current trade weighted board structure to better reflect who this scheme serves and is funded by ?
Q3 -Do you think that comments made by Andrew Blenkiron, AFS Vice chair, in the agriculture press recently calling farmers that question the direction of Red Tractor “Back stabbers” and “Naive” are appropriate or give farmers any confidence that the consultation will be taken seriously and that opinion not in line with his own are welcomed ? Will he be invited to resign his position as a consequence of these insulting comments ?
Thank-you, I look forward to the answers to the above as I’m sure do many thousands of other farmers
Q1 -"Guy Smith stated in the Farmer Weekly podcast: “Clearly that [Red Tractor Assurance] is over the top where routine co-mixing is happening.” “Co-mixing will always be a problem.” “I want to investigate the possibility of having a stripped out assurance standard”.
Commentary: How can Red Tractor investigate it or make any decisions on this when its isn’t mentioned in the consultation?
Question: Given these statements from Guy Smith on the Farmers Weekly podcast last week, will the current consultation be withdrawn, so farmers are allowed to consult on this new possibility?"
Q2 - Is it right that a scheme created by farmers and mostly paid for by farmers does not have a board structure that gives farmers the majority vote on how its run and who it employees ? Will Red Tractor change the current trade weighted board structure to better reflect who this scheme serves and is funded by ?
Q3 -Do you think that comments made by Andrew Blenkiron, AFS Vice chair, in the agriculture press recently calling farmers that question the direction of Red Tractor “Back stabbers” and “Naive” are appropriate or give farmers any confidence that the consultation will be taken seriously and that opinion not in line with his own are welcomed ? Will he be invited to resign his position as a consequence of these insulting comments ?
Thank-you, I look forward to the answers to the above as I’m sure do many thousands of other farmers
