Welcome to the Second Edition of Special Publications no.34.

The mundi club’s discovery of the vast subsidies given to pharmers occurred concurrently with the realization that the primary cause of global burning was the global pharming industry rather than, as scientists, greens, and politicians, keep telling everyone, the fossil fuel industries. That these groups blame the fossil fuel industries should not be surprising considering that many are also landowning pharmers. Around the world, governments of all persuasions are routinely handing out vast subsidies to their biggest and most powerful industries in what is supposedly a global free market economy. Given that each country is run to a greater or lesser extent by the landowning pharming elite, it is not surprising that most subsidies are given to national pharming industries. This underwrites the fact that the pharming industry is the biggest contributor to the destabilization of the Earth’s climate.

Over the years, many mundi club publications have included small sections on the subsidies given to brutish pharmers so it was decided that rather than reprinting the same quotes and references in publication after publication, it would be better to produce a work devoted exclusively to this issue. This also has the benefit of raising the issue as a fundamental political question in its own right.

To be quite honest, the mundi club is not in the slightest bit bothered about the scale of the subsidies being given to the pharming industry. It’s just a variant on the boring ‘fat cats’ stories which erupt in the media every now and again. If all that was involved here was money then we wouldn’t have bothered producing this work. We make no apology for the fact that we are using this issue primarily as a weapon to attack pharmers for being the prime cause of global burning. It is proving extremely difficult convincing people that pharmers are primarily responsible for destabilizing the climate - for example, greens refuse to accept the evidence and ignore the issue. Since it has not been possible to persuade people about pharmers’ impact on the climate we have no other option but to attack them on subsidies in the hope this will draw people’s attention to the more fundamental issue.

Introduction: Time to Repeal the Global Corn Laws - Again!

The Global Context.

In a world increasingly dominated by the delusions of a free enterprise ideology, there has been a vast increase in state subsidies given to the world’s biggest industries. According to unep, “Subsidies are widespread and pervasive in virtually every country, developing and industrialized; world-wide, governments are estimated to spend more than US$700 000 million a year subsidizing environmentally-unsound practices in the use of water, agriculture, energy and road transport. Many of these subsidies are economically inefficient, trade-distorting, ecologically destructive and socially inequitable, sometimes all at the same time (de Moor and Calamai 1997).”[1] Norman myers argues, “Subsidies in the five sectors (agriculture, fossil fuels/ nuclear energy, road transportation, water, and fisheries) total around $1,900 billion per year ..[2] He condemns what he calls ‘perverse subsidies’ i.e. subsidies that damage the environment. which add up to, approximately, $1,450 billion a year.[3] “Perverse subsidies foster unsustainable development. The total of almost $1.5 trillion is two-and-a-half times greater than the Rio Earth Summit's budget for sustainable developments - a sum that governments dismissed as unthinkably huge. The total is also larger than all but the top five national economies, and larger than the top 12 corporations' annual sales put together. It is twice as much as global military spending per year. Were just half the world's perverse subsidies to be phased out, half the funds released would enable many governments to abolish their budget deficits, engage in a fundamental re-ordering of fiscal priorities and to safeguard their environments more than through any other single measure.”[4] Subsidies in oecd countries amount to $215-235 billion per annum.[5] In other words, governments around the world have to do virtually nothing to make substantial reductions into global burning - all they’ve got to do is stop writing cheques to the world’s biggest Earth rapists.

The damage inflicted on the Earth by ‘perverse subsidies’ is gigantic. Myers states, “Such subsidies worldwide now total $1.5 trillion per year, so they are highly distortive of our economies, while their capacity for environmental mayhem is spectacular.”[6]; “Subsidies for natural resources are widely used to stimulate economic development. All have the effect that the user pays less than the market price for commodities such as energy, land, water and wood. While some subsidies are useful for stimulating economic or social development, protecting dependent communities or reducing dependence on imported resources, they can also encourage uneconomic practices and lead to severe environmental degradation. Without subsidies for irrigated water, for example, farmers in the western United States would be less likely to grow rice and other water-intensive crops in arid regions. Without crop supports, farmers would be less likely to overuse fertilizers and pesticides, a major source of water pollution. Without road transport subsidies, traffic congestion, urban air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions could be significantly reduced worldwide. And without energy subsidies, energy prices would rise, encouraging the use of more efficient vehicles and industrial equipment, and reducing pollutant emissions. Some subsidies established long ago for sound economic or social reasons no longer serve their original purpose. Subsidies can take many forms and are often hidden so that even the beneficiaries may be unaware of the adverse environmental impacts they are having. Greenpeace recommends removing all remaining subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power.”

The Lavish Subsidies enjoyed by the Global, Landowning, Pharming Elite.

In every country around the world, by far the biggest recipients of state subsidies are the landowning pharming elites. Whilst the ruling elites denounce, in varyingly vituperative ways, the welfare benefits given to the poor, they are awarding themselves massive welfare benefits. In every country, the landowning pharming elite awards itself gargantuan state subsidies not so much for boosting agricultural production but to maintain landowners’ lavish lifestyles. Even in america, supposedly dominated by an all-pervasive, free enterprise, anti-government, ideology the landowning pharming elite awards itself state subsidies of such a huge magnitude they can be described only as gargantuan. American pharmers are the biggest welfare benefit spongers in the country - and probably the whole world. And yet they’re also the leading ideologists denouncing welfare benefits for the poor. The fact that the public, in most of the over-industrialized countries, are vehemently opposed to state subsidies and yet say absolutely nothing about the gargantuan subsidies being given to the landowning elite, is proof that pharmers have successfully turned oomans into livestock consumers.

In brutland, eric martlew, of the commons agriculture select committee, has stated, "There is no other industry that receives these kinds of subsidies."”[7] This is not accurate. Pharmers are given more subsidies than all other brutish industries put together. They have been receiving gargantuan-sized subsidies for so long they regard them as their inalienable right. Brutish pharmers expect compensation for whatever they do, or don’t do, or whenever anything goes wrong and, if they don’t get subsidies, they don’t care a toss who suffers or dies as a consequence. From 1987 onwards, when bse was first discovered, pharmers refused to take their public health duties seriously, and prevent bse-infected Animals from being put into the feed chain, until they were fully compensated for having to dispose of their Animals. There is no other sector of society which stops spreading a lethal disease around the country only when given compensation. If any other group in society threatened to spark off a deadly epidemic unless they were given large sums of money, they would be denounced in the media and imprisoned as blackmailers. From the summer of 1997 onwards, as the value of the pound began to rise, brutish livestock pharmers demanded compensation for the financial losses incurred for falls in their exports of rotting, disease ridden products - which, incidentally, could be exported only because of generous subsidies - a beautiful case in which one welfare benefit subsidy to pharmers invariably begets further pharming subsidies. There is no other industry in the country which even imagines it has a right to compensation for currency fluctuations. There is no other industry which believes it has the right to financial compensation whenever it loses money. The bureaucracy needed to assess, calculate, and pay out, the vast range of subsidies to brutish pharmers is substantial but the ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, (otherwise known as the maffia) is one government department which is immune from criticisms about the stifling effects of bloated bureaucracies.

Brutish Pharmers are treated as Members of the Royals’ Extended Family.

The scale of the subsidies given to the brutish pharming industry creates the impression that pharmers are being treated as members of the royal family. But, then again, this is exactly what many of them are since they belong to the country’s aristocracy, the royals’ extended family. The royals, of course, are one of the country’s biggest landowners - charles windsor has 140 pharms run by tenants.

Mcblair’s Subsidy Mania.

Throughout thatcher’s period as leader of the tory party/government she denounced the labour party as a ‘tax and spend’ party which couldn’t be trusted not to increase taxes. When tony mcblair took over as leader of the labour party he seemed to have taken these criticisms to heart and continually promised not to increase income tax. And yet, once in power, he seems to have undergone a remarkable personality shift. He has spent more and more money on pharmers and rural areas - whilst urban people have just been forced to stand on the pavement watching the lorry loads of subsidies departing for rural areas. It is as if old labour’s ‘spend, spend, spend’ attitude has suddenly reasserted itself but in a new guise - spending on subsidies for the rural landowning elite. After years of listening to him refusing to raise taxes and insisting that he would keep a firm grip on public expenditure it was something of a shock hearing him state that the government would provide pharmers with whatever resources they needed to overcome the foot and mouth disease, “Mr Blair's order appeared to contradict his promise to Cumbrian farmers in March that "whatever practical resources are needed" would be provided. He said: "We have to make sure nothing stands in the way of getting the job done".”[8]

The chief features of what could be called mcblairism are becoming more and more transparent - attacking friends and supporters who elected him into office whilst lavishly subsidizing his enemies such rural thugs who enjoy butchering Animals and acceding to the demands of multi-national corporations whilst dismissing popular demands such as a ban on Fox hunting.

The Nfu’s Subsidy Wheezes.

The latest subsidy wheeze thought up by the national pharmers’ union is consequential compensation i.e. a subsidy for pharmers prevented from moving their Animals for fear of spreading foot and mouth disease. In other words, pharmers are not merely receiving subsidies for a disease which they were responsible for spreading, they are demanding compensation for the consequences of a policy which they forced the government to adopt as the only means for combating the spread of the disease. In effect, pharmers want compensation if their Animals are infected by the disease and if their Animals aren’t infected by the disease. This is truly remarkable. There are no other groups in society who spread a major epidemic because of their criminal activities; demand compensation for the consequences of their criminal activities; and then insists on compensation for those unable to engage in those criminal activities.[9]

As far as pharmers are concerned, consequential compensation is a form of no-regrets policy. But then again, all pharmers’ policies are inspired by no-regrets - meaning they have no regrets about the disasters they are causing. For instance, the national pharmers union has never apologized to the victims of bse-cjd for the disaster that pharmers caused; it has never apologized for the floods which inundated 11,500 homes with shit-infested water; it has never apologized for the inconvenience their industry caused as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic when virtually half the country was shut down. Pharmers never apologize for anything because firstly, the junkers fear it might show weakness amongst their ranks to the people they are exploiting and, secondly, because they don’t care how many victims their industry generates as long as they are making profits whether these profits might come from selling diseased pharming products or subsidies for producing diseases.

Introduction to the second edition: The Great Foot and Mouth Scandal - 10,000 Great Train Robberies’ worth of Compensation being stolen by Pharmers.

The first edition of this work was finished on may 11th 2001 and yet now, in late august, it’s out of date! Remarkable. This antiquated state has been brought about by two factors.

The Flood of Subsidies in the run up to the General Election.

During the run up to the general election the labour government seemed to believe it might as well open up the country’s coffers and just pour out the money into pharmers’ pockets. There was a flood of new subsidies for pharmers and anyone connected to the pharming industry e.g. rural people. It was as if the only votes that mcblair was concerned about winning were those of rural people.

The Flare up of the Foot and Mouth Epidemic after the general election.

Prior to the general election on june 10th, mcblair brought in the army to quash the epidemic, “Tony blair’s gamble to delay the may election paid off last night as experts declared the worst of the foot and mouth plague was over.”[10] For weeks after the election, the media hardly mentioned the foot and mouth epidemic as if it really was fading into oblivion. A few isolated cases were reported but it increasingly began to look as if mcblair had succeeded in butchering the disease into oblivion. At the end of july, however, the disease suddenly flared up again and this sparked off a political outburst about the issues surrounding the epidemic.

The foot and mouth epidemic was started by a pharmer as a result of a feeding practice which should have been criminalized years ago - the use of slops. It was accidentally spread by pharmers engaged in mass criminality - defrauding welfare benefit payments from the european community. It persisted because more and more pharmers couldn’t resist the luxurious compensation available for diseased Animals. The disease had become almost entirely a scam by pharmers seeking welfare benefit subsidies.

Why should such a statement be regarded as scandalous? If the government offers far more subsidies to pharmers with the disease than to pharmers without the disease then how could it possibly be surprising that pharmers kept spreading the disease around the country?

The flare up of the epidemic led to panic in the labour government. It began to fear it was losing control of the epidemic again and that another vast bout of subsidies would be needed. For the first time it seriously began voicing concerns that the epidemic was surviving only because of pharmers’ fraud, “Careless farmers were blamed last night for spreading foot and mouth disease. Isolated outbreaks have been traced to people failing to disinfect clothes or vehicles. A downing street aide said there was evidence that some farmers were breaking the strict ban on moving animals. “There have been some prosecutions, that is a fact.””[11] It had made such allegations before but this had not led to any political changes. On this occasion, however, the government began waking up to the culprits spreading the disease. There were also upwellings of anger amongst labour backbenchers appalled that mcblair would lavish yet more subsidies on the landowning elite. Conversely, the national pharmers union were enraged by accusations that pharmers were responsible for spreading the disease whilst pharmers resented the fact that the public did not believe they deserve to be compensation millionaires for producing diseased products.

Army Blames Pharmers for Spreading the Disease.

The origins of this political flare up go back a couple of months to the army commander who carried out mcblair’s butchery to clear the way for a june general election. In a tv documentary shown on may 10th 2001, he publicly condemned pharmers for spreading the disease, “Brigadier Alex Birtwistle retired from the Army in April. The former Army officer who spearheaded the fight against foot-and-mouth in Cumbria has said farmers may be deliberately infecting cattle to get compensation. In a BBC documentary screened on Thursday, Brigadier Alex Birtwistle said there is anecdotal evidence of farmers breaking transit rules to deliberately infect their stock or to hide them from slaughter. The National Farmers' Union has dismissed the claim and says the brigadier's comments were made a month ago at a time of extreme pressure.”[12] Birtwistle was livid and saw no reason to curb his anger about pharmers’ fraud even though he was unwilling to reveal the evidence to back up his accusations, "We've worked hard, all of us, worked our butts off here for a month to try and stop this disease spreading and we find that people are moving sheep illegally. "And it's so bloody annoying. So bloody annoying. You know everyone's worked 20-hour days and it's devastated the whole area and people are still moving sheep without a licence. "I mean we've killed 400,000 sheep in the cull to try and stop the disease spreading and there are other buggers taking it outside the area."”[13]

The army’s participation in the mass butchery gave the brigadier and many others soldiers considerable expertise about the spread and containment of the disease and enabled them to peer into the murky world of pharmers’ welfare benefit fiddles. Nobody in the media would have dared to report such rumours or unsubstantiated accusations about pharmers if it hadn’t been for this highly respected army official who had no axe to grind against pharmers.

At the beginning of july, david king, the government’s chief scientist, backed up the brigadier’s statement, “Complacent farmers and rural tradesmen were blamed by the Government's chief scientist yesterday for prolonging the foot and mouth epidemic. Despite new test results showing that the disease is not endemic in the nation's sheep population, it is lingering longer than it should on some farms because some farmers are failing to maintain hygiene precautions, Prof David King said.”[14]

Stories about Diseased Animals for Sale.

At roughly the same time that birtwistle was publicly slagging off pharmers, a pharmer rang the maffia to inform them she had asked if she was interested in buying a diseased Sheep which could be used to infect her herd. The maffia, however, was not in the least bit interested in the story. It saw its role as protecting pharmers’ interests - even if this meant covering up their mass criminality, “Miss Preston, 41, told the officer that the man had a "neutral" accent and "sounded like a salesman". His "product" would have increased the value of Miss Preston's 45 sheep from as little as £450 to £4,050: farmers receive £90 compensation for each infected sheep, compared with only £10-£20 at slaughter for a healthy one. But, far from being tempted, she was "amazed and horrified" and told the mystery caller, in no uncertain terms, to go away. But what most surprised Miss Preston was that the call from the police came four weeks after the "salesman" had rung her. She had reported the incident to the rural affairs ministry at the time, but was told not to bother informing the police because there was "no evidence". "I was shocked and deflated by the ministry's attitude, because there had been rumours that this was happening," she told The Telegraph. "I thought it was a serious issue because so far we have not had foot and mouth around here."”[15]

David harrison, a reporter, suggested this was not an isolated case, “It will probably never be known if any farmers have deliberately infected their sheep. If they have, they are unlikely to admit it. What is known is that a number of farmers have received calls from people offering to infect their sheep for between £400 and £5,000. These calls have been made sporadically over several months, but again the Government did not act until last week. In June, The Telegraph learnt that two farmers in Kent had received similar calls. They were outraged by the offers, but refused to speak on the record or go to the police for fear of recriminations. One described the call: "The man at the end of the phone sounded businesslike and intelligent. He told me that he would deliver foot and mouth disease between midnight and 1am. "He did not get the chance to say how he would get the disease on to the farm because I called him low-life scum and told him to dig a pit and bury himself."”[16]

Government Once again Blames Pharmers for Spreading the Disease.

On july 27th the government began hinting that pharmers were responsible for spreading the epidemic. Four weeks or so after the event, margaret beckett and elliott morley resurrected the story about nuala preston being offered diseased Sheep to infect her flock, “Last week, however, as foot and mouth flared up again and farmers grew angry about leaked "lies" over the cost of the clean-up, the ministry suddenly became very interested in Miss Preston's "salesman". The story ran on the front page of a Sunday broadsheet newspaper sympathetic to New Labour, supported by quotes from ministers. By the following morning, Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), had ordered an "investigation" into claims that farmers were deliberately infecting animals to claim compensation far above their animals' market value. Elliott Morley, the junior rural affairs minister, raised the temperature by saying that his department had been inundated with such allegations. A senior ministry official added gravely: "We have a duty to investigate these allegations. There now seems to be a real suspicion that some farms have been deliberately infected." What began as a claim by one named farmer that she had been offered - and refused - money to infect her sheep had been turned into a clear suggestion that other farmers had been made similar offers - some of which had been taken up. The implicit message was clear: farmers were money-grabbing cheats. The anti-farmers headlines spread as fast as the virulent disease that has led to the slaughter of 3,648,200 animals. Yet, by last night, Mrs Beckett's "investigation" had produced precisely nothing. Nor had the police found anything. There is no evidence that a single farm has been deliberately infected. Ministry officials are now backing away from the furore they created, claiming that there was never a specific investigation, but that they would look into any individual incidents drawn to their attention.”[17] Of course, as far as pharmers were concerned these stories were just fabrications, “Farmers are convinced that Labour used the Nuala Preston story as a smear campaign to deflect attention from the foot and mouth resurgence and the Government's "lies" over the cost of the clean-up. Defra had earlier leaked a startling figure of more than £100,000 as the bill for cleaning and disinfecting each farm. It caused an outcry and damaging comparisons were made with European countries, where the cleaning was being done at a fraction of that cost. The clean-up was halted and opprobrium was heaped on "greedy" farmers. The farmers were furious and fought back, claiming that the cost per farm was nearer £25,000-£30,000. The leak was in danger of backfiring. The media's attention had to be drawn to something else.”[18]

Government Suspends the Clean Up Payments.

Towards the end of july, when the foot and mouth epidemic was threatening to spread across the breacon beacons, the government began to balk at the snowballing costs of the epidemic. Mcblair was shocked to learn that the average cost of cleaning up a pharm was £100,000 in comparison to the much smaller sums of money in scotland and on the continent. So, on july 23rd, “Tony Blair has secretly ordered a halt to the foot and mouth clean-up after being told that it is costing £2 million a day and that the final bill to the taxpayer could be £800 million.”[19] Pharmers, who have almost instant access to the media, weren’t slow to respond, “Farmers blamed the Government yesterday for the soaring cost of cleaning operations on farms hit by foot and mouth disease, now running at £2 million a day. Protesting at Tony Blair's decision to suspend new disinfection and clean-up work after learning that taxpayers faced a bill of more than £800 million, they accused the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of incompetence. The Prime Minister intervened after invoices began to flood in showing that the cost of cleaning and disinfecting farms in England and Wales was averaging £104,000. This compared with £30,000 in Scotland and about £10,000 on the Continent.”[20] The money for the clean up was exorbitant and accountability for the expenditures was almost non-existent, “A review by accountants and quantity surveyors has revealed irregularities in invoices from contractors, some of which are big construction companies. One paid employees half the hourly rate charged to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The same contractor tried to pass on a £300-a-day administration charge. Time sheets for one employee showed him working on five different sites on one day. Some contractors were unwilling to produce time sheets. Elliot Morley, the animal health minister, said the review would cut the cost of cleansing before re-stocking to £36,000 a farm on average. "Some existing cleansing and disinfecting contracts will be cancelled and others tightened. In some cases payments will be reclaimed." Mr Morley said farmers would get the first chance to tender for contracts to clean their farms. But some costs might be reclaimed from them where improvements to buildings went beyond those necessary to disinfect them.”[21]

Lord carter justified the government’s suspension of the cleansing payments, “Secondary cleaning, which takes place after all traces of a cull have been removed, lasts for months. Most work began last month and has so far cost £75 million. Lord Carter, Labour's chief whip in the Lords, emphasised that the Government was not legally obliged to pay the secondary costs. These could be borne by the farmer or the Government. He said that costs were "unacceptably high, adding: "The quality of invoicing is poor and variable. The review is intended to improve the basis for payment and put it on a proper footing." Primary cleansing would continue at Government expense, Lord Carter said.”[22]

Government complains about the Scale of Pharmers’ Compensation.

Larry whitty waded in with an attack on pharmers, “Either way, the day after Major's comments were published, the farming minister Lord Whitty emerged from his bunker to announce a fresh initiative that would not only address the specifics of the foot and mouth clear-up, but also the foundations of Britain's agriculture industry. Promising to bring a halt to the spiralling cost of clear-up operations, which had been estimated as £100,000 a farm, he went on to admit that the total cost to taxpayers of the disease would top £2 billion. "No other industry would receive that level of support where there was no direct threat to public health and where the problem had been compounded by existing trading practices," he said. "Never again can the taxpayer be obliged to pay costs which in other industries would be absorbed by the industry and its insurers." The government's patience for farmers had run dry. Farming would never be the same again.”[23]; “Speculation about the deliberate infection of livestock was fuelled last Friday in a series of non-attributable press briefings hosted jointly by Lord Whitty, the food and farming minister, and Mr Morley, who is in charge of the day-to-day battle against the epidemic.”[24]

Government Changing Compensation Criteria.

A few days later the government, still reeling from the prospect that the epidemic was still spreading, went even further and decided to reduce its compensation payments to pharmers for the slaughter of diseased Animals, “The Government yesterday scrapped its standardised compensation scheme for livestock culled in the foot and mouth epidemic, causing an outcry among farmers. This followed claims that farmers had abused a system designed to speed up eradication of the disease. The scheme has cost the taxpayer nearly £1 billion in four months, but new outbreaks of the disease are still occurring. Police and Government investigators are following up claims that some farmers are infecting their animals to take advantage of the "generous" payments. From now on, independent valuers will decide the worth of animals on each farm on an individual basis. Elliot Morley, the animal health minister, said: "The rates were set generously at a time when new cases were being reported at an average of 40 a day to encourage farmers to come forward and speed up the cull, which was vital to bear down on the disease." To avoid time-consuming wrangles over animal values, standard rates of £1,100 were set for a breeding cow, £90 for a ewe and £130 for a breeding sow. Farmers with more valuable pedigree animals could still opt for a specific valuation.”[25]; “Farmers have been able to choose whether to accept the standard rates, which varied from £32 to £150 for sheep, £18 to £520 for pigs and £500 to £1,100 for cattle, or ask for their animals to be separately assessed. The government, which has so far awarded farmers £936m in compensation, said only 10% had chosen the standard rates - but the National Farmers' Union put the proportion at 20%. But the government was concerned that the scheme encouraged valuers to set prices above the standard rates. The Animal Health Minister, Elliot Morley, said: "The rates were set generously at a time when new cases were being reported at an average of 40 a day to encourage farmers to come forward and speed up the cull which was vital to bear down on the disease."”[26] Not surprisingly, “Farmers have reacted angrily to the government's decision that standard rates of compensation for farms affected by foot-and-mouth disease are to be scrapped. From now on, an independent valuer will decide how much farmers get per animal culled based on market prices.”[27]

The Media Wades in.

Towards the end of july 2001 the media was full of stories about the gargantuan subsidies being given to the pharming industry. The mirror suddenly came out with a strong condemnation of what “some” pharmers were doing, “There is little doubt that some (farmers) have deliberately infected their sheep so they can claim compensation. A sheep is worth only a few pounds at market but many times more if it is slaughtered in the great cull. For a large flock, the difference could be hundreds of thousands of pounds. This is a criminal act, just as much as defrauding the taxman or fiddling welfare benefits.”[28] Brian reade, one of the few journalists in the country who has been outraged by the great train robbery of the foot and mouth compensation scam, was forced to ask, “Where is the national outrage over farmers spreading the disease by “lending sheep” to other farmers to fiddle their compensation claim? Why no questions in the house over army claims that farmers are infecting their flocks with the disease to gain an instant cheque from the taxpayer?”[29]

Morley being set up as the Next Cunningham.

The last time that pharmers and their allies in the media began orchestrating a campaign against a labour cabinet minister, they succeeded in getting rid of him. It seems the pharming community is beginning to treat elliott morely in the same way as jack cunningham, “Privately, some other senior farming officials finger Mr Morley as the chief "spinner" against farmers. A spokesman for Defra denied that the Government was involved in a propaganda war, but the skirmishing continued all last week as the foot and mouth crisis worsened.”[30] Pharmers do not want to hear government officials telling them their life of subsidized luxury is over, “Morley, the minister who is responsible for animal health, said the government would meet its obligations to farmers by paying compensation for the remainder of this outbreak - but emphasised that it would be "the last time" they could expect such payments. "I think there will have to be a major independent inquiry into foot and mouth. There may have to be more than one because there are so many facets to the industry. There must also be a major restructuring of the industry," he said.”[31]

Backbenchers Revolting over Cruise Liner Payments to Pharmers.

The political flare up of the foot and mouth epidemic may have been stoked by backbench labour mps incensed at the compensation going to pharmers whilst their urban constituents were getting nothing, “There are increasing signs of discontent among Labour backbenchers about the size of the payments and the government's handling of the dispute. Eric Martlew, of the Commons agriculture select committee, said: "The NFU seems to think the public purse is to be dipped into whenever it wants. There is no other industry that receives these kinds of subsidies."”[32]; “Among those voicing concern over the scale of compensation packages is Austin Mitchell MP, a member of the agriculture select committee. "There is serious concern about the scale of these costs and we shall be inquiring into this as soon as parliament reconvenes after the summer break," said Mitchell, when he was approached by The Sunday Times with evidence of the payments. His words were echoed by Eric Martlew, another member of the committee, who blamed the spread of the epidemic on the early refusal by the National Farmers' Union (NFU) to co-operate with a vaccination programme. "The NFU seems to think the public purse is to be dipped into whenever it wants. There is no other industry that receives these kinds of subsidies," he added.”[33]

Government Rowing Back in its War of Words with Pharmers

Pharmers have found over the last four years or so that if they say boo to mcblair he generally runs away and allows them to take whatever resources they want. The same also happened over the political flare up over foot and mouth. Having seemingly allowed government ministers to launch a wave of criticisms against pharmers he suddenly changed his mind and started offering them rewards and incentives.

Firstly, he resumes the clean up payments, “The cleansing before re-stocking had been stopped for two weeks by the Prime Minister after he was told those in England were costing £100,000 on average to disinfect against £30,000 in Scotland.”[34]

Secondly, mcblair sought to win praise from pharmers for allowing them to rob the treasury of billions of pounds, “The Government sought to defuse a row with farmers yesterday over the mounting cost of compensation for cattle slaughtered as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic. The Prime Minister's spokesman insisted that the Government was "doing right" by the farmers - although he pointed out that agriculture received more in subsidy than the whole of British industry. Downing Street denied that ministers had leaked details of at least 47 individual farmers who stood to receive compensation of more than £1 million each in an attempt to justify moves to require the industry to take out insurance against such epidemics in future. The disclosure of the compensation payments was made against a background of growing public and political concern over the cost to the taxpayer of dealing with the epidemic, although that figure has now been revised down from £2.2 billion to £1.6 billion.”[35]

Thirdly, mcblair announced that the subsidies for foot and mouth were insufficient so the government announced a new scheme to buying surplus Animals, slaughter them, and then keep the corpses in cold storage until they could be put on sale.

Finally, mcblair makes it known he’s not keen on the idea of pharmers taking out insurance against future diseases, “There is basically no need for farmers to take out insurance. This is because the government says that it is required, under the 1981 Animal Health Act, to compensate farmers for losing their animals as a result of disease control measures. In practice, this means that if the government orders animals to be destroyed, it must then compensate farmers for the cost of replacing them.”[36]

Mcblair Hires Haskins to do the Job that Cunningham was supposed to do before Mcblair stabbed him in the Back.

Mcblair has chosen another member of the house of lords, a pharmer, to sort out the pharming issue, “Meanwhile, the government's rural recovery co-ordinator Lord Haskins revealed he favoured vaccination in any future outbreak and suggested farmers like himself should receive less in subsidies.”[37] He’s already got larry whitty in the house of lords as the Food and Farming Minister.

Conclusions.

On monday 6th august, channel four news tried to work out who was behind the political flare up over the foot and mouth epidemic. Was mcblair doing a spin job on the pharmers? After all, the government might have felt a little vulnerable about so much money being given to pharmers and might have wanted to cover its back in case there was a public backlash. Is it possible that government ministers, rather than the prime minister, might have provoked the political outburst by leaking stories to the press? Could it have been labour backbenchers trying and prevent yet more subsidies being given to the pharming industry? Could it have been due to journalists themselves who, knowing what pharmers have been up to, had become exasperated by the vast subsidies pouring into pharmers’ pockets? Perhaps even they were beginning to balk at pharmers who went to their local pub and bought everyone a round of drinks with their compensation payments, “Like Thompson, most farmers receiving large compensation cheques have kept quiet about it. Most fear they will be at the least resented by neighbouring farmers or at the worst accused of dishonesty. Such reticence follows the publicity given to men like Willie Cleave who, according to local witnesses, walked into the George hotel near his base in Hatherleigh, Devon, and asked who would have a drink on the ministry - and ultimately the taxpayer. His compensation cheque for £1.3m was already banked.”[38] When channel four news asked ben gill who was behind the flare up he responded rather enigmatically, “All of the information is in the public domain but somebody has pulled it together to make a story out of it.” Now, just who would do such a cruel thing as this?

In april 2001, it was estimated the government had a surplus of nearly £36billion, “Chancellor gordon brown will have a record sum to spend on public services if labour regains power, it was revealed last night. Government figures showed the treasury cash surplus at £37 billion for the last financial year. The surplus, boosted by £23 billion from the sale of mobile phone licenses, compares to £8.6 billion for the previous year.”[39] A vast sum of money has been chucked away on pharmers to enable them to further wreck their own industry.

Structure of Work.

In brutland, the quantity of subsidies given to the landowning pharming elite is gargantuan. The range of subsidies is also vast. The complexity of each subsidy is labyrinthine. There is good reason to suspect this complexity is deliberate since the last thing that the herds of parliamentary pharmer-mps want, when they’re helping themselves to public money, is for the public to appreciate the vast quantities of money they are shovelling into their bank accounts. The categorization of pharmers’ subsidies outlined below has been developed to simplify the complex welfare benefit payments being given to pharmers. Hopefully this should make it clearer as to how much money the consumer livestock are forking out for these mass murdering, Earth wrecking, politically corrupt, scroungers.

The categories employed in this work start with the subsidies paid directly to pharmers; this is followed by an outline of subsidies to the pharming industry; the people/industries promoting the pharming industry; the matrix of industries supplying goods and services to the pharming industry who pass on subsidies they have been given to the pharming industry; and, finally, the indirect benefits which pharmers receive for merely living in rural areas.