Bluefish2009's Profile

6 Dec 2012

Quote by foxylady2209
I'd say - bring back a nice, inclusive Pagan Midwinter Festival. A bonfire in the grounds (if they have land), a feast, loads of singing and dancing and a Winter King and Winter Queen to celebrate the birth of the new year and the ending of the dark nights.
Forget all that namby pamby Christian guff. A solid and hearty earth-based celebration warms the blood far better.

You have sold it to me wink

View Post

6 Dec 2012

Quote by Stevie_and_Kitty
like cleaning my V8 4x4

Not another 4x4 driver. Clean it? I bet it never gets dirty. lol

haha...I live in Devon star...

PS I have 2, a 16 year old defender called Rosie and a military lightweight I am renovating called Benji :-) and yes they are like members of the family!
What a lovely picture of the A30 :lol: :lol: :lol:

View Post

6 Dec 2012

I will be perfectly honest with you here Ben, I am not truly for or against the Badger cull, I don't fall into either camp. What I can say is I do not have a major problem with the idea of a cull.
What I do have a problem with is the double standards of people like the RSPCA, and Brian May. Now, I understand you feel the deer cull and Badger cull are miles apart, I don't.
The RSPCA is a partner in the Deer Initiative, a body that supports and encourages deer management groups, which inevitably means healthy deer being shot to prevent over-population and preserving flora. So culling healthy animals is fine for conservation reasons, but culling animals to curb disease is not? RSPCA vice president Brian May is revealed as having allowed deer shooting on his Dorset estate
For me, both Cull's fall into the same camp.
I don't believe in animal rights, I believe in animal welfare. Saying ‘it is never right to kill an animal is an animal rights stance, not an animal welfare approach.I firmly believe, because of the world we now live in, have created, animal welfare means, management by our hands. Because this disease is an utterly miserable way to die, I feel any badger seen suffering with this should be shot, on animal welfare grounds.
Until a better method of control for TB is found, I feel we have to run with what we got. We keep hearing that a vaccine is just round the corner but I have heard that line most of my life. The fact is, vaccines do not work at all well with bTB. For little-understood reasons, any immunity a vaccination confers seems to be lost after a year or two in all animals; the amount of protection is also variable. Badgers seem particularly poor at resisting bTB infection, and vaccination never seems to confer immunity to the disease, but only reduces the amount of bacteria shed and the rapidity of death from the disease. Vaccinating badgers is unlikely to do much save annoy a lot of brocks and get a few well-meaning idiots bitten. :sad:
If you asked me to choose a method of control it would be fumigation with carbon monoxide, DEFRA research indicates that fumigation with carbon monoxide in sufficient concentrations is probably the easiest, cheapest and most humane method.
Thats my view point wink

View Post

5 Dec 2012

It could equally be a mistake to ignore it, with out further research, some thing I fully support for those suffering farmers

View Post

4 Dec 2012

Quote by Ben_Minx
The action by the RSPCA means only three things to me.
They believe deer culling is necessary and justified. They do not believe. the culling of badger is necessary or justified. They are therefore worth listening to as they are prepared to form an opinion based on the evidence available and put their money where their mouth is.
That said I have never been a fan of the RSPCA.

So is any one who is prepared to put the money where there mouth is worth listening to?
ot sure all the evedance agrees

Quote by Bluefish2009

?Year Significance
1920s The Government develops the tuberculin skin test to enable the routine testing of cattle for bTB.
1935 Pasteurisation of milk largely protects humans from bTB.
1935 - 1937 Ministry of Agriculture first introduced the Tuberculosis – Attested Herd Scheme.
1950s Compulsory TB testing introduced – which progressively reduced the number of reactors.
1960 All cattle in the UK tested at least once and all reactors removed.
1970s South West is identified as having a higher rate of incidence. TB first discovered in Badgers in 1971.
1973 Badgers Act first introduced to protect badgers against baiting.
1975 - 1981 Strategic culling using gassing started. Thornbury badger clearance trial eliminated TB in cattle herds for 10 years.
1980 - 1982 1980 Temporary halt to culling during Zuckerman Report No culling. 1981 Gassing stopped.
1982 -1986 Clean ring policy. 1986 Dunnet Report - clean ring policy stopped and replaced by partial trapping policy / interim strategy.
1987 Outbreaks begin a year on year rise which has continued until the present day.
1992 The Protection of Badgers Act introduced.
?1996 - 1997 Krebs Review – in 1997 culling suspended.
1998 Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) (a.k.a. Krebs Trial) started, run by ISG.
2001 Tuberculin testing suspended due to Foot & Mouth disease (FMD).
2003 ISG/Krebs – reactive component stopped.
?1996 - 1997 Krebs Review – in 1997 culling suspended.
1998 Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) (a.k.a. Krebs Trial) started, run by ISG.
2001 Tuberculin testing suspended due to Foot & Mouth disease (FMD).
2003 ISG/Krebs – reactive component stopped.

View Post

2 Dec 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
Very disingenuous that article Blue I think, the argument is not a valid one. The deer are presumably eaten as food once shot, the shooting is simply the slaughtering process used in this method of farming deer. May be a fun day out for the hunter in a way that is profitable for the farmer but that's an incidental bonus to the primary aim of food production, culling deer populations being necessary to maintain a healthy, sustainable herd while simultaneously putting food on the table. It's not the same. The badger cull is only indirectly linked with food production, and its value in protecting food production whether milk or beef is highly questionable. Would need to be much more certain of a positive effect before any cull could be justified, assuming there were no other measures available, which is also highly questionable. Anyways, the article is a transparent ad hominem attempting to smear Brian May personally, presumable because the CA's argument is so weak they have to resort to playground tactics and does not have popular support.

For the farmers effected, and there lively hoods, may not feel the link as indirect as you. We could equally say that culling the badger may sustain a healthy badger population. As brian May has declared war on the farmer, he must take what he gets back. What may seem play ground to you is a battle ground for those making a living. When May and the RSPCA act as they have been, they must expect retaliation.
This attitude was highlighted during the recent badger cull furore, which saw feelings run high. Gavin Grant, CEO of the RSPCA stated publicly that anyone involved in the cull would be “named and we will decide as citizens whether they will be shamed”. He knows such actions could lead to reprisals, possibly violent, for farmers and shooters, which is why he made such a provocative statement.
Threatening people’s personal security whilst they are carrying out a perfectly legal activity cannot be justified. This example shows, once again, that the RSPCA believes it is above the law when it comes to fighting for its agenda, even if this involves promoting violence and other illegal acts. There is an inconsistency at play: using the law to prosecute hunts, but reverting to mob rule when rulings go against their way of thinking. This should not be the way a Royal Society does business.
To add salt to the wounds, the RSPCA has threatened desperate farmers with removal of their “Freedom Food” label from any farm taking part in the cull. This is completely disingenuous. Surely they would advocate the culling of animals that were causing disease to any livestock? Indeed, the RSPCA is even part of the Deer Initiative, which tackles the issue of over population of deer through culling. How can the Society possibly justify the one but not the other?
Popular support, does not make some thing right or wrong.

View Post

2 Dec 2012

It came as some surprise last weekend to find that Queen musician Brian May had been leasing the stalking rights on his land. The news was broken by the Sunday Times, who found that he was receiving payments of £750 a year for the right to shoot deer on his Middlemarsh estate. Many other papers picked up on this story because of its significance since Dr May has become a figurehead of the animal rights movement.
This is more than just irony. Brian May is the self styled saviour of animals. Not a TV, radio or newspaper interview is complete without the obligatory comment from him "standing up" for the animals. He has vehemently opposed any form of culling, but was most vocal in the recent case of the proposed badger cull. The fact that a millionaire rock star raised his own dwindling profile at the expense of dairy farmers on the brink of collapse and bankruptcy is hard enough to accept. The fact that he did this having profited from a deer cull on his own land is indefensible.
Dr May stood shoulder to shoulder with the RSPCA and other animal rights groups to oppose the badger cull at all costs, including boycotting milk from already pressed farmers. As I reported last week, he also endorsed the policy that would make public the names of all those involved in culling, regardless of the consequences. In a cruel twist of poetic justice, May has been the one whose name was made public for allowing shooting to take place on his land.
Now the tables have been turned, Brain May appears to prefer secrecy about what happens on his own land. The word hypocrite hardly does justice to the level of duplicity displayed, but at least he must start to comprehend how the affected farmers feel.

View Post

25 Nov 2012

Quote by GnV
To me it seams totally pointless, no one to prosecute

Oh, but there may be Blue.
Not Sir Jimmy of course, but - and a big but - if the allegations hold true, those who were complicit and had a duty of care to safeguard the well being of vulnerable children and failed in that duty should be brought to book.
Yes indeed they should

View Post

25 Nov 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
Read that the RSPCA are pushing to get milk from Badger friendly farms clearly marked on the bottle, gives everyone a chance to throw their support either way.
That could put the Cat amongst the Pigeons.

always a good thing lets worry how friendly the farm is to badger as apposed to how well the cow is kept :doh:
Ah, come on Rob, it's not like the two are mutually exclusive, is it? The RSPCA already has its Freedom Foods scheme, presumably this would be an extension to that? Not beyond the wit of man to extend the remit of a scheme that looks at how well food is produced to also take into account any impact that production has on other native species in the farm's surroundings is it I wouldn't have thought? I like it, would probably support it. Where possible and finances allow I buy stuff produced to above minimum standards already, Freedom Food being one of them.
Lobbying our elected representatives for change and improvement is a right that is at the core of our democratic process. The Countryside Alliance participates in lobbying on your behalf on a number of issues - we ask you to get involved where you can too (see below story on the Law Commission). It seems, however, that taking this route does not apply if you are the RSPCA, which appears to feel it can bypass the lobbying process altogether.
This attitude was highlighted during the recent badger cull furore, which saw feelings run high. Gavin Grant, CEO of the RSPCA stated publicly that anyone involved in the cull would be “named and we will decide as citizens whether they will be shamed”. He knows such actions could lead to reprisals, possibly violent, for farmers and shooters, which is why he made such a provocative statement.
Threatening people’s personal security whilst they are carrying out a perfectly legal activity cannot be justified. This example shows, once again, that the RSPCA believes it is above the law when it comes to fighting for its agenda, even if this involves promoting violence and other illegal acts. There is an inconsistency at play: using the law to prosecute hunts, but reverting to mob rule when rulings go against their way of thinking. This should not be the way a Royal Society does business.
To add salt to the wounds, the RSPCA has threatened desperate farmers with removal of their “Freedom Food” label from any farm taking part in the cull. This is completely disingenuous. Surely they would advocate the culling of animals that were causing disease to any livestock? Indeed, the RSPCA is even part of the Deer Initiative, which tackles the issue of over population of deer through culling. How can the Society possibly justify the one but not the other?
The RSPCA has five key pledges. Pledge three states that “We pledge to increase the proportion of animals reared under higher welfare systems in the UK.” By opposing the cull, they break this pledge by actively preventing cattle from being protected from disease. Once again, the RSPCA has shown itself to be little more than an extremist animal rights organisation which is more concerned with promoting philosophies than protecting animals.

View Post

31 Oct 2012

Quote by Lilith
You will find, just like most indutrys, the consumer drives what the farmer does

That is an interesting point. I'm not sure I entirely agree. I will ponder that and come back with a proper reply later.
Ok... now for a more reasoned response!
I think it is difficult to know entirely where the drivers really come from within any industry. The obvious thought may be that the consumer drives what the supplier does, and that is certainly true to a certain extent (i.e. what is the point of producing something that nobody wants?) But, consumers are also subjected to a huge amount of marketing and other methods to make brands and products desirable. We are effectively told what we want. There is also a "group mentality" effect with a lot of consumer products/services - the more popular something becomes, the more people want it, and so on. So, I think there is a bit of a chicken and egg argument here: do producers make things because consumers want them, or do consumers want things because producers use clever marketing to make them want those things? There are certainly a lot of products out there that nobody really needs in any real sense of the word, and there are also a lot of products that nobody would have even thought to want until somebody made them.
In addition to the above thoughts, none of what I have said so far actually addresses methods of production. All of the above only really applies to the types of products and services that are available. I think it is far less easy to draw a connection between consumer demands and ethics in methods of production. Consumers usually weigh up a variety of factors when making a decision about what to buy (although, this is usually subconscious). But, they can only weigh up factors of which they are aware. It is therefore necessary for consumers to be aware of ethical issues in order to factor them into their decision-making process about what to purchase. Otherwise, purchasing decisions tend to boil down to quality and cost - i.e. looking for the lowest common denominator. Once unethical methods of production become publicised (or, alternatively, once long-standing methods of production become viewed as unethical based on the prevailing majority morality), the extent to which consumers will factor those concerns into decisions depends on a host of other factors: how bad are the methods perceived to be (blood diamonds being an extreme example)?; how difficult is it to source the product in a more ethical way?; how expensive is the ethical version of that product?, etc.
Apologies for the slight pun, given my comment above that drivers in industry is a bit of a "chicken and egg" situation... The best recent example I can think of is Jamie Oliver's expose of the chicken and egg farming industry and the resultant impact that his efforts have had on the increased use of free-range eggs in products. Even McDonalds use free-range eggs these days!! However, although the expose has had a big impact on egg production, it has not had the same sort of impact on chicken consumption. It is still very rare to find free-range chicken on the menu at restaurants. Why? Because the cost differential is significantly greater. There is also another message that I don't think has really hit home yes - the message to "eat less meat". That is more of an environmental issue than a question of ethics in farming, but, if there were less demand, it would be easier to farm in a less intensive manner.
Right - this is getting a bit long now, so I will stop there. innocent

If every body started to purchase organic product only, guess what every farmer would start producing

View Post

31 Oct 2012

?Year Significance
1920s The Government develops the tuberculin skin test to enable the routine testing of cattle for bTB.
1935 Pasteurisation of milk largely protects humans from bTB.
1935 - 1937 Ministry of Agriculture first introduced the Tuberculosis – Attested Herd Scheme.
1950s Compulsory TB testing introduced – which progressively reduced the number of reactors.
1960 All cattle in the UK tested at least once and all reactors removed.
1970s South West is identified as having a higher rate of incidence. TB first discovered in Badgers in 1971.
1973 Badgers Act first introduced to protect badgers against baiting.
1975 - 1981 Strategic culling using gassing started. Thornbury badger clearance trial eliminated TB in cattle herds for 10 years.
1980 - 1982 1980 Temporary halt to culling during Zuckerman Report No culling. 1981 Gassing stopped.
1982 -1986 Clean ring policy. 1986 Dunnet Report - clean ring policy stopped and replaced by partial trapping policy / interim strategy.
1987 Outbreaks begin a year on year rise which has continued until the present day.
1992 The Protection of Badgers Act introduced.
?1996 - 1997 Krebs Review – in 1997 culling suspended.
1998 Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) (a.k.a. Krebs Trial) started, run by ISG.
2001 Tuberculin testing suspended due to Foot & Mouth disease (FMD).
2003 ISG/Krebs – reactive component stopped.
?1996 - 1997 Krebs Review – in 1997 culling suspended.
1998 Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) (a.k.a. Krebs Trial) started, run by ISG.
2001 Tuberculin testing suspended due to Foot & Mouth disease (FMD).
2003 ISG/Krebs – reactive component stopped.

View Post

15 Oct 2012

Quote by Paddy
Lilith:
In this case, I am leaning towards the view that the decision to permit badger culling is the wrong decision. There appears to be very little evidence that it will have a significant impact on the spread of TB, and (being cynical) I wonder whether the policy has been introduced simply so that the Government doesn't have to do anything more expensive to try to stem the spread of the disease.
Or lay blame?
It's the Farmers that are at fault here, willing to spray crops with all kinds of shi*ote, chemicals etc.....
Those same Farmers willingly open their arms to " Grants from the EU" to surstain their existance at the expense of the natural food chain :twisted:

You will find, just like most indutrys, the consumer drives what the farmer does

View Post

12 Oct 2012

My grandfather, at the age of 21, served under the command of Admiral, John Jelicoe on his flagship, HMS Iron Duke, during the First World War. Taking part at the battle of Jutland.
I shall probably be commemorating the whole war

View Post

12 Oct 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob

be fine if were not held to ransom by unions, id like to see a lot of things nationalised

at the risk of sounding like a beardie old lefty (I shaved this morning wink

) - what's the problem with Unions?
If we going to be held to ransom anyway, is better held to ransom by a faceless corporate entity that only has private profit as its motive, or a by a bunch of ordinary working people who have the aim of improving the lot of ordinary working people?
Sadly union leaders and leaderships often end up resembling a corporate leadership team rather than the workers they are supposed to represent.
Read your Animal Farm biggrin

thanks foxy saved me writing "is there a difference then?"
:thumbup:

View Post

12 Oct 2012

As I said above, the deciding factor will almost always be cost, not necessarily what works best

View Post

11 Oct 2012

Quote by GnV
Vaccine V shooting,
Is a little to do with the praticalitys of the vaccine, but much more to do with cost
Further delays are simply postponing the problem, explains Jan Rowe, 67, Gill’s husband and the organiser of the cull.
‘We have been trying for 25 years to deal with this,’ he said. ‘The badger is an over-protected species — the protection was introduced because of badger baiting, not because they are endangered.’
Dismissing high-profile campaigners as ‘fools’, he insists that vaccines — currently being trialled to eradicate TB in badgers — won’t work because the animals need to be trapped and injected repeatedly over a five-year period, which would cost more than £7?million.
Shooting the creatures, however, will cost only £90,000.

But injecting the cows?
There are many problems with the vaccination of cattle. Vaccine will often give animals a small does of what ever you are vaccinating against. In the case of TB, some countrys then will not import vaccinated animals. Can the vaccine be a long term health problem for humans? Vaccination is not clear cut, or as straight forward as many would have us think.
Info on vaccination,

View Post

10 Oct 2012

Keep village schools open and children would not have to travel so far to school

View Post

10 Oct 2012

While doing some recent research on the American Western frontier during the 1800s, girls were getting married at 15, 16 and some times even 14, how things have changed in a relatively short time

View Post

10 Oct 2012

Quote by GnV
"Let him have it, Chris"
Need I say more?

:thumbup:
This just about sums up my thoughts also
A trully shamefull moment in british justice

View Post

10 Oct 2012

To me it seams totally pointless, no one to prosecute dunno

View Post

10 Oct 2012

Vaccine V shooting,
Is a little to do with the praticalitys of the vaccine, but much more to do with cost wink

Further delays are simply postponing the problem, explains Jan Rowe, 67, Gill’s husband and the organiser of the cull.
‘We have been trying for 25 years to deal with this,’ he said. ‘The badger is an over-protected species — the protection was introduced because of badger baiting, not because they are endangered.’
Dismissing high-profile campaigners as ‘fools’, he insists that vaccines — currently being trialled to eradicate TB in badgers — won’t work because the animals need to be trapped and injected repeatedly over a five-year period, which would cost more than £7?million.
Shooting the creatures, however, will cost only £90,000.

View Post

1 Sep 2012

I do love our Royal Family wink

View Post

1 Sep 2012

Any males out dogging in dorset tonight, pop by our profile and leave us a message

View Post

22 Jul 2012

Any thing doing this afternoon/tonight?

View Post

22 May 2012

Looking to here from new and old friends regarding dogging this summer. We are planning to prearrange some dogging meets this summer.
Message our in box please

View Post

17 May 2012

Quote by pebble
Hey! Continuing the "swinging definitions" series... can you give me your own personal understanding of this highly controversial word. Like some other well-known words and phrases, this seems to have positive and negative connotations depending on whose lips it is coming out of. My knee-jerk reaction is to see it as a term of abuse, but of course often on here it is a term of endearment, and sometimes an attribute to be praised, respected even.
So... what does slut mean, to you? Is it a good thing or a bad thing to be a slut? Do you identify as one?

This may help, one pictured below wink

View Post

16 May 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Oh for Gods sake :banghead::banghead::banghead:
We all know she's guilty we all know Darth Murdoch and Luke are guilty any reasonable rational person looking at the evidence thus far knows that they're all morally bankrupt,we all know that they'll get away with a slap on the wrist and a short period of closer scrutiny ... but we are a nation in thrall to wealth and the power it bestows and probably don't deserve any better

Like every one else in this country they are of coarse Innocent, until proven guilty. I would have thought you above all would not condone this kind of trial by media malarkey.

View Post

16 May 2012

Quote by Lost
Why do I find it so hard to post nowadays? I want to and I get halfway through a response and then sort of freeze and end up giving up. strange really as when I first started posting I felt really intimidated for some reason, dont really know why but I guess if you didn't quite get your posts right the forum could come across as a bear pit. Then, when I got my posting confidence up I multiple posted regularly every day. Now I just freeze. Frustrating.

Its just a case of writers block, more sexual activity is the cure :thumbup:

View Post

16 May 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
For different reasons. There may already be a law that the others have to abide by. That is why the law has exemptions either for people or situations.
However, in this situation it is black and white (or so it seems) as no-one has appealed the notice. Looks like those that complained was right in law. However, morally it could be debated........yet throw the intimidation of the other villagers into the equation and the village idyll goes straight out of the window. Two faced christian villagers IMO.
Dave_Notts

Not all villagers are Christians wink

:thumbup: Especially this lot, who bullied this couple into withdrawing their complaint
Dave_Notts
Do we know this as fact, or did they perhaps see the error of there ways?

View Post

14 May 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob
My dishwasher is over ten years old so presumably the risk is greater, think I will still wear a condom when filling it lol

are you saying after 10 years together you sill don't trust your dishwasher :eeek:
Some times I feel there is no loyalty

View Post

Forum