Well if you thought it couldn’t get any worse it’s just about to, READ THIS

[Henarar]

View attachment 827991

should put that on FB

 

[Northeastfarmer]

should put that on FB

Should put it on the bbc news and let them post some real facts instead of bolloks

 

[Paddington]

View attachment 827991

Would make a good T shirt, real on front, fake on back.

 

[Brisel]

Haven't whined, have commented. Also, in a thread some time ago, we kicked the arse out of this one to the 'nth degree, however...

I think what has to be recognised from the start is that we're discussing peoples' livelihoods and, in some sad cases, their very lives - and, as we know, that isn't melodramatic hyperbole.

That written and the seriousness having been established, there has to be a realisation that we have to play hard and dirty where necessary and do anything legal to get what's best for the industry as a whole and ourselves as individuals. Much more pro-action, much more targeting of those who try to thwart the farming interest and, most importantly, an absolute focus on solidarity being the key to any success - and nothing being allowed to distract from set aims.*

For myself, I'd have the 'leadership' far more accountable and delegatory rather 'representative'; that way when there is a clear majority against or for something it would count. Social media makes this perfectly possible, but those at the top of the NFU are and will be dead against it because it means they can't 'lead' the way - which is another way of saying it would force them to go against the Establishment grain. (and that would mean no 'honours')

In re' PR, specifically, please name and point out the blazing successes of recent (any?) NFU campaigns., and we'll work from there. Again, social media is key here; it is huge, cheap and quick and the NFU don't use it properly.


*I have a huge number of negative points to my character, views and ways - I am married so I have been told and know this to be the case - but with regard to running a farming union in the interests of its members I'd have four superb pluses:

1) I am a republican, so I wouldn't accept or angle for any form of title or honour;

2) I will speak truth to power regardless of how unwanted it may be;

3) I am absolutely straight in business and a red line is the walk away point;

4) I am a democrat and think that votes have to be respected.

But I'd be crap because I'd get bored and would probably want to hit one of many assorted gits.

Are you on Twitter? Lots of Tweets by Minette Batters fighting the good fight against the tide of anti farming soundbites. Is fighting every single negative comment on social media a good use of resources? A reaction is what most trolls want. IMO they should certainly be monitoring the output of certain "opinion leaders" like Packham, Monbiot, BBC and the main newspapers. Campaigns? Febudairy, Cows On Tour, Farm24, backing Open Farm Sunday, to name a few even if they didn't pioneer some of them. I don't agree that playing dirty is a way to win. Sometimes you have to rise above the more crass postings.

Who would you back to play the game your way? Farmers For Action? Once again, you've yet to nominate an alternative instead of just criticising the NFU. Are you a member? If so, I'd recommend you look behind the scenes to see what they do in the corridors of power at Westminster where that doesn't get communicated to the membership every time. They are playing the game too. Abi Reader isn't far from you. Have a chat to her about that they are trying to achieve.

Apologies if I've missed some of your pearls of wisdom in other threads. I tend to dial out of those once the key points have been made & they degenerate into the usual entrenched positions by certain members.

 

[Danllan]

Are you on Twitter? Lots of Tweets by Minette Batters fighting the good fight against the tide of anti farming soundbites. Is fighting every single negative comment on social media a good use of resources? A reaction is what most trolls want. IMO they should certainly be monitoring the output of certain "opinion leaders" like Packham, Monbiot, BBC and the main newspapers. Campaigns? Febudairy, Cows On Tour, Farm24, backing Open Farm Sunday, to name a few even if they didn't pioneer some of them. I don't agree that playing dirty is a way to win. Sometimes you have to rise above the more crass postings.

Who would you back to play the game your way? Farmers For Action? Once again, you've yet to nominate an alternative instead of just criticising the NFU. Are you a member? If so, I'd recommend you look behind the scenes to see what they do in the corridors of power at Westminster where that doesn't get communicated to the membership every time. They are playing the game too. Abi Reader isn't far from you. Have a chat to her about that they are trying to achieve.

Apologies if I've missed some of your pearls of wisdom in other threads. I tend to dial out of those once the key points have been made & they degenerate into the usual entrenched positions by certain members.

Yes, am on Twitter and am aware of most, but not all, of what you mention. I have a fair idea what happens in Westminster - from a few friends there - and from the remarkable results we see following.

The pearls are worth seeking , and it is a pain to reiterate - I feel much the same about that as you do about degenerative threads. But... my general preference would be to have the NFU, yet with a near-total overhaul of senior staff and methods.

'Playing dirty' is not and shouldn't be a first option, but in the real world, sometimes, you'd be a bl**dy fool not do what needs to be done to reach a desired end. And, of course, there are grades of what might be termed 'dirty' e.g. doorstepping George Monbiot could be seen as totally unacceptable by some, but entirely reasonable by others; ditto dumping a large amount of 'unacceptably shaped' vegetables on Marsham Street.

Reactions may be what many trolls want, and I am not advocating a response to every idiot on the net. However, a sustained, accurate and well worded rebuttal of Messrs Packham, Monbiot etc. is a definite goer. But, and this is key, it has to destroy their arguments, not counter them. Deconstruct, examine and destroy. This can be done via social media, but it's hardly ideal.

Challenge them to a debate and take them to pieces. Their whole argument is based on ideals; put them under the spotlight, with nowhere to run, and hammer repeatedly on the key issues, food security, price, families being fed - they have no answer to these other than sentences containing 'should' and dictatorial control of individual choice. This has to be done with what snowflakes will call aggression, but is really determination; and it has to be done without any allowing of emotive digression. This is exactly what the anti-farming brigade don't want.

Good quality advocacy, with forensic destruction of 'arguments' happens daily in the Courts, some Counsel are superb at it, all have to be at the very least competent . Clearly the Bar has no monopoly on such abilities, , although it is equally plain that they will be more practised within it. Nonetheless, I simply don't believe that something the size of the NFU hasn't got at least one person capable of taking the likes of Monbiot and Packham to pieces.

I agree that both now and over the years, the NFU has 'tried' to achieve a huge amount.

 

[Farm buy]

Farmers genuinely need to stop producing food to feed the masses. I'm not saying stop altogether. If every farmer cut production by half or grew more for renewable energy. It wouldn't take long for questions to be asked by those in power what should they do about the looming food crisis.
Whilst there isn't a shortage of food there isn't a problem either.

I completely agree, but it extremely difficult to organise farmers to do something like that
.Food production is not something that can be turned on and off every week and until there is a small bit of hunger will the masses relaise that

 

[jendan]

Yes, am on Twitter and am aware of most, but not all, of what you mention. I have a fair idea what happens in Westminster - from a few friends there - and from the remarkable results we see following.

The pearls are worth seeking , and it is a pain to reiterate - I feel much the same about that as you do about degenerative threads. But... my general preference would be to have the NFU, yet with a near-total overhaul of senior staff and methods.

'Playing dirty' is not and shouldn't be a first option, but in the real world, sometimes, you'd be a bl**dy fool not do what needs to be done to reach a desired end. And, of course, there are grades of what might be termed 'dirty' e.g. doorstepping George Monbiot could be seen as totally unacceptable by some, but entirely reasonable by others; ditto dumping a large amount of 'unacceptably shaped' vegetables on Marsham Street.

Reactions may be what many trolls want, and I am not advocating a response to every idiot on the net. However, a sustained, accurate and well worded rebuttal of Messrs Packham, Monbiot etc. is a definite goer. But, and this is key, it has to destroy their arguments, not counter them. Deconstruct, examine and destroy. This can be done via social media, but it's hardly ideal.

Challenge them to a debate and take them to pieces. Their whole argument is based on ideals; put them under the spotlight, with nowhere to run, and hammer repeatedly on the key issues, food security, price, families being fed - they have no answer to these other than sentences containing 'should' and dictatorial control of individual choice. This has to be done with what snowflakes will call aggression, but is really determination; and it has to be done without any allowing of emotive digression. This is exactly what the anti-farming brigade don't want.

Good quality advocacy, with forensic destruction of 'arguments' happens daily in the Courts, some Counsel are superb at it, all have to be at the very least competent . Clearly the Bar has no monopoly on such abilities, , although it is equally plain that they will be more practised within it. Nonetheless, I simply don't believe that something the size of the NFU hasn't got at least one person capable of taking the likes of Monbiot and Packham to pieces.

I agree that both now and over the years, the NFU has 'tried' to achieve a huge amount.

Batters and Guy Smith etc, arent in court though,with maybe days or weeks to meticulously prepare their case.Often they will be thrust infront of a mic,or TV camera crew live on air,with just a few hours to prepare,and then have little control over what is edited out.They will just have a few seconds to think and respond clearly and effectively and be understood.

 

[Brisel]

Yes, am on Twitter and am aware of most, but not all, of what you mention. I have a fair idea what happens in Westminster - from a few friends there - and from the remarkable results we see following.

The pearls are worth seeking , and it is a pain to reiterate - I feel much the same about that as you do about degenerative threads. But... my general preference would be to have the NFU, yet with a near-total overhaul of senior staff and methods.

'Playing dirty' is not and shouldn't be a first option, but in the real world, sometimes, you'd be a bl**dy fool not do what needs to be done to reach a desired end. And, of course, there are grades of what might be termed 'dirty' e.g. doorstepping George Monbiot could be seen as totally unacceptable by some, but entirely reasonable by others; ditto dumping a large amount of 'unacceptably shaped' vegetables on Marsham Street.

Reactions may be what many trolls want, and I am not advocating a response to every idiot on the net. However, a sustained, accurate and well worded rebuttal of Messrs Packham, Monbiot etc. is a definite goer. But, and this is key, it has to destroy their arguments, not counter them. Deconstruct, examine and destroy. This can be done via social media, but it's hardly ideal.

Challenge them to a debate and take them to pieces. Their whole argument is based on ideals; put them under the spotlight, with nowhere to run, and hammer repeatedly on the key issues, food security, price, families being fed - they have no answer to these other than sentences containing 'should' and dictatorial control of individual choice. This has to be done with what snowflakes will call aggression, but is really determination; and it has to be done without any allowing of emotive digression. This is exactly what the anti-farming brigade don't want.

Good quality advocacy, with forensic destruction of 'arguments' happens daily in the Courts, some Counsel are superb at it, all have to be at the very least competent . Clearly the Bar has no monopoly on such abilities, , although it is equally plain that they will be more practised within it. Nonetheless, I simply don't believe that something the size of the NFU hasn't got at least one person capable of taking the likes of Monbiot and Packham to pieces.

I agree that both now and over the years, the NFU has 'tried' to achieve a huge amount.

Thank you - that's a reply worth reading.

Who do we have as a farming champion, quick witted enough to go head to head with the likes of George Monbiot on national TV? He savaged David Bellamy on Newsnight, not because he was wrong, but because he was smarter & knew how to destroy his opponent. The only person who got one over on Monbiot was Piers Morgan when he saw a chink in the armour over veganism when he saw him wearing leather. I won't post Bellamy's collapse but I did enjoy this. Apologies for the irritating commentary - I couldn't find the raw footage;

Luckily, Packham mostly hides behind his social media and interviews rather than debate which does give a little time to think of a suitable reply.

Do you believe we should be more proactive? The TFF banners on livestock, carbon etc are great but preaching in a church is always easy for harvesting "likes." The most effective place for this is on the other side where it will have to be defended with credibility and dignity. I'm not advocating taking on vegan forums - they will just be moderated in their favour. It's the silent majority of people who sit on the fence who we need to inform. Without taking out a lot of adverts in the press, I don't quite see how we do this. Any ideas?

 

[Danllan]

Batters and Guy Smith etc, arent in court though,with maybe days or weeks to meticulously prepare their case.Often they will be thrust infront of a mic,or TV camera crew live on air,with just a few hours to prepare,and then have little control over what is edited out.They will just have a few seconds to think and respond clearly and effectively and be understood.

A very fair point, I'll make two in reply. Firstly, at the criminal Bar at least, that one often receives and is otherwise obliged to take on cases at very short notice, sometimes it can be a matter of a few minutes. Secondly - and I and every other Barrister knows and has experienced this first hand, as well as every military commander in history - regardless of preparation, the planning only holds good until the first unexpected thing. This can be down to the responses of witnesses on the other side, but is more often down to the nature of opposing Counsel's questions.

It doesn't matter how clever one may be, or ow much homework one does, it is nigh on impossible to think of everything; and it is the ability for good extemporaneous thought that is vital in such circumstances. Add that to a single-minded determination to finish one point before moving on to the next, and you're on to a winner.

Thank you - that's a reply worth reading

Who do we have as a farming champion, quick witted enough to go head to head with the likes of George Monbiot on national TV? He savaged David Bellamy on Newsnight, not because he was wrong, but because he was smarter & knew how to destroy his opponent. The only person who got one over on Monbiot was Piers Morgan when he saw a chink in the armour over veganism when he saw him wearing leather. I won't post Bellamy's collapse but I did enjoy this. Apologies for the irritating commentary - I couldn't find the raw footage;

Luckily, Packham mostly hides behind his social media and interviews rather than debate which does give a little time to think of a suitable reply.

Do you believe we should be more proactive? The TFF banners on livestock, carbon etc are great but preaching in a church is always easy for harvesting "likes." The most effective place for this is on the other side where it will have to be defended with credibility and dignity. I'm not advocating taking on vegan forums - they will just be moderated in their favour. It's the silent majority of people who sit on the fence who we need to inform. Without taking out a lot of adverts in the press, I don't quite see how we do this. Any ideas?

Definitely so, pro-action puts the other side on the back foot, we need to get inside their OODA loop and stay there, setting the agenda. Mr Monbiot isn't thick, but he isn't as clever as he thinks he is, and he is an ideologue, with him it's always 'should', get him on the realities and he's stuffed.

Chris Packham, who I happen to rather like, has Asperger's and so for both moral and political reasons has to be handled more carefully. Also, he is far brighter than George Monbiot and he isn't an ideologue. Demonstrate to him that, on a utilitarian basis, a given farming practice is better for people and he won't like it but he'll accept it; prove to him that it will also benefit the environment / nature, and he'll support and advocate it.

Beyond what I have suggested above and for very apparent reasons, I'm reluctant to publicly discuss the finer and less-obvious points or strategy and tactics; pm me if you want to discuss those.

 

[nails]

I completely agree, but it extremely difficult to organise farmers to do something like that
.Food production is not something that can be turned on and off every week and until there is a small bit of hunger will the masses relaise that

With a chance of a No Deal Brexit looming , that would be the ideal time to make a lot of folk be grateful of home produced food.

 

[nails]

A very fair point, I'll make two in reply. Firstly, at the criminal Bar at least, that one often receives and is otherwise obliged to take on cases at very short notice, sometimes it can be a matter of a few minutes. Secondly - and I and every other Barrister knows and has experienced this first hand, as well as every military commander in history - regardless of preparation, the planning only holds good until the first unexpected thing. This can be down to the responses of witnesses on the other side, but is more often down to the nature of opposing Counsel's questions.

It doesn't matter how clever one may be, or ow much homework one does, it is nigh on impossible to think of everything; and it is the ability for good extemporaneous thought that is vital in such circumstances. Add that to a single-minded determination to finish one point before moving on to the next, and you're on to a winner.



Definitely so, pro-action puts the other side on the back foot, we need to get inside their OODA loop and stay there, setting the agenda. Mr Monbiot isn't thick, but he isn't as clever as he thinks he is, and he is an ideologue, with him it's always 'should', get him on the realities and he's stuffed.

Chris Packham, who I happen to rather like, has Asperger's and so for both moral and political reasons has to be handled more carefully. Also, he is far brighter than George Monbiot and he isn't an ideologue. Demonstrate to him that, on a utilitarian basis, a given farming practice is better for people and he won't like it but he'll accept it; prove to him that it will also benefit the environment / nature, and he'll support and advocate it.

Beyond what I have suggested above and for very apparent reasons, I'm reluctant to publicly discuss the finer and less-obvious points or strategy and tactics; pm me if you want to discuss those.

You are really up against it with people Montbiot as he has a regular slot on the Guardian and has many contacts to make sure his opinions are heard loudly.
I watched some of the BBC Breakfast prog and a lot of the time the reporter was asking questions , i got the impression that he was asking them to make for a fair argument but did not believe the answer and was following BBC agenda
What are the real facts about cattle causing high levels of co2 in this country and worldwide? I have read articles with highly differing views. What is the truth?

 

[kfpben]

You are really up against it with people Montbiot as he has a regular slot on the Guardian and has many contacts to make sure his opinions are heard loudly.
I watched some of the BBC Breakfast prog and a lot of the time the reporter was asking questions , i got the impression that he was asking them to make for a fair argument but did not believe the answer and was following BBC agenda
What are the real facts about cattle causing high levels of co2 in this country and worldwide? I have read articles with highly differing views. What is the truth?

I think a big part of the issue is that the science is very new, quite difficult to quantify and open to simplification from those who have an agenda against livestock for other reasons.

As such there is no real ‘truth’ as yet.

 

[milkloss]

Sometimes you can get yourself into a corner trying to answer questions. Point out that the question is irrelevant, inaccurate or plain moronic and then calmly give some information, doesn’t matter whether it’s relevant, that paints farming in a good light.

 

[Danllan]

You are really up against it with people Montbiot as he has a regular slot on the Guardian and has many contacts to make sure his opinions are heard loudly.
I watched some of the BBC Breakfast prog and a lot of the time the reporter was asking questions , i got the impression that he was asking them to make for a fair argument but did not believe the answer and was following BBC agenda
What are the real facts about cattle causing high levels of co2 in this country and worldwide? I have read articles with highly differing views. What is the truth?

There is no argument that global warming is happening and there can be little against the fact that, at the very least, there is an anthropogenic acceleratory factor. However, the UK is small fry in terms of the warming, not that we shouldn't reduce, reuse, recycle etc., and the things to hit them with are the realities of supply, price and choice as they will affect Joe Bloggs and his family.

The Guardian is irrelevant, the BBC fairly important; I am aware of prospective Court cases in the works regarding BBC impartiality, or a lack thereof, across a blanket of subjects. I have also heard that, if the current Gov't make it post Brexit and if it can gain a working majority, the BBC will be in for a bit of a grilling and, most probably, a subsequent 'generational' shake up. Too many 'ifs' there, but we can hope.

 

[Old Tip]

They'll mention slaughter of food animals, so worth emphasising regulations, and mentioning that activists' actions of disruption cause more stress and harm to food animals on their final journeys than passing through the abattoir.

We'll be rooting for you, @Frank-the-Wool

Also millions of insects are killed each year to grow their cereals and veg.

The report hi lighted the issues of monoculture agriculture and growing none native crops ie Avacados in Spain, Soya in Brazil, Palm Oil in Madagascar

 

[Farm buy]

With a chance of a No Deal Brexit looming , that would be the ideal time to make a lot of folk be grateful of home produced food.

It should not have to come to that .

 

[primmiemoo]

You are really up against it with people Montbiot as he has a regular slot on the Guardian and has many contacts to make sure his opinions are heard loudly.
I watched some of the BBC Breakfast prog and a lot of the time the reporter was asking questions , i got the impression that he was asking them to make for a fair argument but did not believe the answer and was following BBC agenda
What are the real facts about cattle causing high levels of co2 in this country and worldwide? I have read articles with highly differing views. What is the truth?

I watched a little of the BBC Breakfast programme today - somewhere between 7 & 8 am.

The host farmer (I missed his name, sorry) and @Guy Smith made clear, succinct points about carbon and livestock - thank yous to both

The BBC has a long way to go to redress the misinformation that it has spouted since it permitted internal parasitism from anti meat organisations, but it was interesting to hear the Breakfast Business presenter flag up and correct the Fake News the BBC had parroted recently about Stamp Duty.

I'd like them to do similar about every skewed report they've made about farming since 1st January, 2018.

 

[Castle Farm]

This about sums them up.

Log in to Facebook

Log in to Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[JP1]

 

[ollie989898]

One problem I can see if that Monbiot and the like do not have any shortage of access to or coverage from the media: their positions help sell a lot of newsprint and airtime. As such, everything Monbiot says or writes is published largely untouched. Whenever I see the alternative views being expressed, by the NFU or whoever, often they aren't given a level of coverage that would constitute what I would say was necessary to ensure impartially on the part of the media presenting it. With platforms like youtube you have none of those constraints: what you present is what you present.

Twitter is all well and good but it is highly focused and text/pictures are always going to be supplanted by video. The climate campaigners, animal rights and extreme vegan movements are all well past that- Twitter etc is just a platform for communicating to the converted in their eyes, the propaganda campaign is presented copiously, at a global level, on places like youtube.

Truth be told, the human attention span is a very valuable commodity and the more of it you can acquire the better your position will be.