Boarish behaviour from City figure

Boarish behaviour from City figure

business.timesonline.co.uk

Congratulations to Nigel Johnson-Hill, toast of the internet for a sarcastic letter he sent to David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, which is doing the rounds. A fellow farmer has received £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs. “I would now like to join the ‘not rearing pigs’ business,” he tells Miliband. “In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear?"

(visit the link for the full news article)

Unfortunately the article does not print the full letter but after a little search I found this, I do hope you enjoy it as much as I did;

Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR

16 July 2009

Dear Secretary of State,
My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs. I would now like to join the "not rearing pigs" business.

In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy.

I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?

As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven't reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this?

My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.

If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradeable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases?

Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don't rear?

I am also considering the "not milking cows" business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current DEFRA advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)?

In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.



business.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I found the letter excellent in its beautiful use of sarcasm.

I read or saw a documentary on the rich in Europe, that have vast estates, they are getting these same subsidies. Because the have these large tracks of land, that are fallow, they get subsidies also.

Paid not to produce, hell not to even farm something, that their land was never used for.

Idiocy.

S&F

[edit on 3/20/2010 by endisnighe]

Miliband will probably send this guy a cheque....thats the level of intelligence and comprehension this government have,IMO.

I have been "not rearing" pigs since I was born,35 years ago...I wonder if they back date...

You see I have always had a problem with the line that goes "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit". I thought it was a wonderful letter. I am shocked at the price of meat in this country and also wonder why we don't just farm more. Of course if we farmed more we would have to import less leading to a reduction in air miles reduced risk of foot and mouth (not to be mistaken with foot in mouth which affects politicians) and generally feed ourselves.

Back in the day I was told that britain nearly starved to death during the war so the EU was to ensure that Britian would have food in a agricultural crisis... ERm I think we are in one now!

This could actually be a huge boon to the English economy! This could mean huge growth in the non-pig farming business, seeing as no land or resources is needed for this business venture. You could even run a non-pig farm in the middle of London if you wanted to. Wonder how the politicians are 'earning' the money needed to pay these non-pig farmers? But then again, guess that's not an important factor, is it?

reply to post by ukWolf


First... may I apologise for my thoughtcrime? When I saw your headline, I thought it was a misspelling of "boorish".

Secondly - what an absolutely superb letter! I'm very glad you found the full text. It's a masterpiece. S&F.

As usual, somebody's missed the point, though. As usual (sigh) it's an American.

You need to be a substantial landowner already to profit from this policy.

reply to post by rich23


Well,as a British citizen,I am basically one of the many who essentially part own any and all council land.The council holds all public land FOR us all in UK law.

It does not belong to them,but to us-they merely look after it for us.
Thus I do declare that I have not ever raised pigs on any of said public property.

Where is my money?

(I do hope it wasn't me you thought was an American.My picture can sometimes have that effect,sorry.)

It is but an expression of opinion,rather than a signal of my location.

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


No, it wasn't you.

But I came across a historical tidbit the other day you might like. It's interesting that getting rid of Charles I got rid of the last braking factor on the enclosure of common land?

Marxist historians have focussed on enclosure as a part of the class conflict that eventually eliminated the English peasantry and saw the emergence of the bourgoisie. From this viewpoint, the English Civil War provided the basis for a major acceleration of enclosures. The parliamentary leaders supported the rights of landlords vis-a-vis the King, whose Star Chamber court, abolished in 1641, had provided the primary legal brake on the enclosure process. By dealing an ultimately crippling blow to the monarchy (which, even after the Restoration, no longer posed a significant challenge to enclosures) the Civil War paved the way for the eventual rise to power in the 18th century of what has been called a "committee of Landlords",[11] a prelude to the UK's parliamentary system. The economics of enclosures also changed. Whereas earlier land had been enclosed in order to make it available for sheep farming, by 1650 the steep rise in wool prices had come to an end.[12] Thereafter, the focus shifted to implementation of new agricultural techniques, including fertilizer, new crops, and crop rotation, all of which greatly increased the profitability of large-scale farms.[13] The enclosure movement probably peaked from 1760 to 1832; by the latter date it had essentially completed the destruction of the medieval peasant community.[14]

Yes, I'm afraid it is Wikipedia.

Tell you what, I did the Tudors and Stuarts at school... and guess what? I never got taught about that...

[edit on 22-3-2010 by rich23]

reply to post by rich23


That is a very good post.
It does make you wonder when you look at the history.
And history forms the present it seems.