1: Subsidies going Directly to Pharmers.

This section looks at the subsidies which go directly to pharmers i.e. subsidies for pharming products, subsidies to help pharmers boost production, subsidies for slaughtering/disposing of diseased products, subsidies to persuade pharmers to do nothing, subsidies compelling pharmers to do nothing, etc, etc.

1.1: Subsidies for Pharming Products.

Brazil.

“Some (landowners) have benefited enormously from (agricultural) subsidies: 469 farms in the Amazon, for example, cost the country an astonishing $4.8 billion while producing next to nothing.”[40]

Brutland.

Meat Subsidies to Tory Welfare Benefit Scroungers.

In 1994, “In britain, according to the ministry of agriculture, the subsidies for beef, Sheep, Pig and milk products in 1994 totalled £1.2 billion. In europe as a whole, they were more than £100 billion .. .”[41] In 1996 it was stated, “Some 41%, or £521 million out of £1.2 billion in 1993/4, of the income of sheep farmers in Britain comes from .. taxation.”[42] In 1997, “Last year, brutland spent £3 billion subsidizing intensive farming and the same amount clearing up after bse and agricultural pollution.”[43] In 1999 .. “EU subsidies (to brutland) which currently amount to £3 billion a year, including anti-BSE measures.”[44] Other commentators believe that .. “£10 billion a year in agricultural subsidies and price support.”[45] In 2000, it was estimated that .. “the support of British and EU taxpayers for national agriculture to nearly £6bn a year.[46]

Meat Subsidies to Extremely Wealthy, Tory, Welfare Benefit Scroungers.

“Four of brutland’s wealthiest landowners pocketed more than £1 million each in euro subsidies last year, it was revealed yesterday. Another 16 fat cat pharmers each got more than £500,000 under the common agricultural policy, the government said.”[47]; “This annual handout (the Integrated Administration and Control System) amounting to £1.5 billion a year, was introduced in 1992. In Britain .. 80% of the money annually went to 20% of the largest landowners. Last year there were at least 11 IACS millionaires and an estimated 50,000 farmers received IACS payments over £50,000.”[48]

Subsidies to Brutish Sheep Pharmers.

“Some 41%, or £521 million out of £1.2 billion in 1993/4, of the income of Sheep farmers in brutland comes from .. taxation.”[49]

The Average Subsidies being given to Brutish Pharmers.

“According to the think tank paper on ‘Reducing Agricultural Subsidies’, produced by a group of experts in the cabinet office, the british taxpayer is subsidizing british farmers to the tune of £20,000 every year.”[50]

The Cost per Household of the Subsidies given to Tory Welfare Benefit Scroungers.

“In 1980 the institute for fiscal studies calculated that u.k. consumers were paying £2.8 billion more for their food as a result of restriction and quotas placed on foreign imports ...”[51] In 1998 it was stated, “In the british countryside 1% of the population owns 50% of the land. Last year 84% of the £3.4 billion earned by pharmers was in the form of subsidies. Every british family subsidies agriculture by £4 a week and if we stopped doing so our supermarket bills would plummet along with our taxes.”[52]

European Community.

In 1994, the subsidies for beef, Sheep, Pig and milk products totalled, “In europe as a whole, they were more than £100 billion .. .”[53]

Latin America.

Sometimes it seems that the public’s grunting disinterest in subsidies to livestock pharmers is used by the landowning pharming elite simply to hand out huge sums of public money to their friends, "The sweeping advance of ranching into forests in Latin America cannot be explained by the profitability of beef production. Real estate speculation is the overriding motive."[54]

Mexico.

“Subsidies for large-scale Cattle ranching caused deforestation and soil erosion, which have taken their toll on the mexican environment.”[55]

OECD.

“The largest subsidy is agricultural support in OECD countries. About US$335 000 million is spent annually on subsidizing farm production and farm incomes, a sum which is equivalent to about US$380 per capita or $16,000 per full-time farmer. Most of this support is linked to production or to supporting prices. By raising prices received by farmers, these subsidies encourage the use of inputs and the over-intensive use of land. This kind of support is both costly and ineffective since only 20 per cent of it ends up as additional farm income, and three-quarters of that goes to the larger and richer farmers. The remaining 80 per cent leaks away, primarily to intermediate industries (OECD 1995).”[56]; “According to the OECD, government programs in its member states provided subsidies to animal farmers and feed growers worth $120 billion in 1990 up from $110billion in 1989."[57]

United States of America.

How’s this for the land of free trade? It’s as perfect a measure of the ideological delusions under which american public conducts political debates, “Congress, which annually awards to farmers up to $25 billion in price supports ...”[58]; “Under the (wto) trade rules, for example, the Philippines is importing American corn that is far cheaper than its local equivalent. As a result, says Oxfam, half a million poor Filipino farmers risk losing their livelihoods. And, it adds, the subsidy to each American farmer, at $29,000 a year, is 100 times higher than the Filipino growers' entire average income. Aren't such subsidies an impediment to free trade? The WTO seems to have a selective view. While Third World countries are forbidden to subsidise their crops, Western nations quintupled their agricultural subsidies from $47 billion to $247 billion in the first four years of the WTOs existence.”[59]

United States of America and Europe.

"Both 'farm superpowers' typically spend more than $20bn per annum on agricultural subsidies."[60]

1.2: Subsidies to Help Pharmers Boost Production.

Pharmers are given a wide range of subsidies to boost livestock production.

1.2.1: Products Receiving Subsidies.

Milk.

Consumers pay.. “2.5 pence over and above the market price every time they buy a pint of milk.”[61]

1.2.2: Types of Subsidy.

General.

Colin pickthall mp talks about .. “headage payments, premiums, arable payments, set-aside, organic grants, countryside stewardship grants, red diesel allowance.”[62] In the oecd, "Meat, dairy and feed producers benefit from a variety of measures such as guaranteed minimum prices, government storage of surpluses, feed subsidies, import levies and product insurance."[63]

Headage Payments.

“Leaders of the industry which provides about 385,000 tonnes of sheep meat to consumers and receives £300m each year in so-called headage payments on sheep through the common agricultural policy ...”[64]

Headage Reduction Payments.

.. “there will be £60m early next year for hill farmers, with some of this cash tied to cuts in flocks and herds.”[65]

Export Subsidies.

Pharmers are given subsidies to help them export their disease-ridden muck, “Reducing export subsidies would save taxpayers huge amounts of money and radically reduce energy demand from the farms. Farmers would be induced to return to more ecologically acceptable methods of farming and to produce perhaps 50% less beef in europe.”[66]

In brutland during the autumn 1999, brutish pharmers nearly provoked an informal trade war with france over the french ban on the export of bse-contaminated bseef. This sounds fair enough until it’s realized that the export of meat products wouldn’t be possible without state subsidies, “Mr richardson, a committee member of the British Beef Exporters Group said, “Beef exporting is not viable without a subsidy.” He said the cost of producing beef in Europe is far above the world price.”[67] If it wasn’t for subsidies there wouldn’t be any bseef exports  .. at all.[68] In other words, the country’s pharmers were trying to provoke a trade war with another country which would have put millions of people out of work, just in order to enable pharmers to export a product which was unexportable without subsidizes from the people who had been put out of work!

Export Guarantees.

Guaranteed Minimum Prices.

Pharmers don’t have to compete in a free and open world market. They are given minimum prices for their mucky, shit covered, products.

Feed subsidies.

Product Insurance.

Land Clearance.

Pesticide Usage.

Currency Depreciation.

On march 31st 2000 the brutish government announced, “A further £66m will compensate dairy, beef and sheep farmers for losses caused by the exchange rate. ..”[69] On november 4th 2000 further subsidies were provided, “Farmers have won an extra £34.5 million in aid from the Government to compensate them for a slump in prices and a drop in the value of their European Union subsidies through the weakness of the euro.”[70]

Pharmers reject Area Subsidies because they’re not Lavish Enough.

“The switch from paying sheep farmers on a headage to an area basis made environmental and economic sense, as it would have reduced sheep numbers on the hills and produced fewer, higher quality - and therefore higher value - lambs. With sheep prices at an all-time low and over-grazing continuing to blight the uplands, both hill farmers and the environment will lose out as a result of Maff's decision to keep payments closely linked to sheep numbers. An opportunity has therefore been wasted to move towards a more environmentally sustainable and economically viable agriculture in a struggling sector.”[71]

1.2.3: Value of Pharming Subsidies per Taxpayer per Country.

Brutland.

“In Britain, the taxpayer forks out at least £350 per year in agricultural subsidies, and stumps up a further £200 in increased food prices (plus environmental costs, such as pollution of water supplies through pesticide and fertiliser wash-off, and degraded landscapes).”[72]

1.3: Compensation to Pharmers for Producing and Spreading Diseased Animals.

Pharmers receive huge compensation payments if they are forced to slaughter slave Animals caught in an epidemic.

Salmonella in Chickens.

In the late 1980s, edwina currie heroically called attention to the salmonella in eggs scandal. The brutish government then handed out vast sums of money to pharmers to slaughter salmonella infected Chickens and replace them with Chickens which had not yet acquired the disease, “Hundreds of vets were dispatched into the countryside to take samples and conduct tests. Entire flocks (of chickens) found to be heavily contaminated were slaughtered in their hundreds, and millions of pounds were paid out in compensation to the producers.”[73] Margaret thatcher promptly sacked edwina curry just as tony blair sacked jack cunningham when he started taking serious action against the spread of bse in Cattle.

Bse: Compensation to Brutish Pharmers for producing Bse Contaminated Products.

During the bse crisis, brutish pharmers received compensation for the slaughter of bse-infected Animals. There is no other industry which is compensated for producing disease ridden goods. Amazingly, pharmers are compensated for producing diseased products when they are incompetent, criminally negligent, or even criminally culpable. Never in the history of brutish pharming has a government given so much money to help so many criminals spread a lethal disease, “Jobs were saved because the government pumped £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money into subsidies and compensation for farmers, abattoirs and renderers. Once government subsidies and the growth in other u.k. meat sales were taken into account, the farming industry actually saw a rise in revenue in 1996 compared to the previous year.”[74] Andrew Pudephatt estimates, “Bans on brutish beef have cost us more than £500 million in exports and an estimated 6,000 jobs.”[75] Is it not amazing that pharmers received a bigger income when they were suffering from a disease outbreak than when they were working normally? The bse epidemic taught pharmers that they are able to earn more money through producing diseases than they are through producing pharming products.

Some commentators believe that one of the main reasons the tory government lost the 1997 general election was because in 1992 it increased income tax. They also believe that if the tories had managed to reverse this tax increase before the election they might have won back many of their disenchanted voters and returned to government. In the run up to the 1997 election, the tory government had a choice: it could either reduce income tax by 2p and increase its chances of winning the election or it could compensate pharmers to an equivalent amount for producing bse-infected Cattle (.. “the bse subsidy, so far running at £3.3 billion, the equivalent of 2p on income tax.”[76]) and decrease its chances of winning the election. Not surprisingly, the pharmer dominated tory government chose to fund its chums in the pharming industry rather than boost its prospects of winning the election  If the bse & bse-cjd crises hadn’t occurred the government would have had a considerable sum of money for tax cuts before the election. The tories were brought down primarily because of the bse-cjd crisis.

Whilst bse-cjd victims are treated shabbily by the national health service, the maffia gave one pharmer £50,000 in compensation for the slaughter of an Animal which was suspected of having bse. The pharmer was offered a test to show whether the Animal had the disease but he preferred to take the money .. “some farmers have been paid as much as £50,000 for pedigree animals that have had to be slaughtered  as precautionary measures.”[77] In other words, the maffia paid out £50,000 to a pharmer because of their suspicion the Animal might have a disease but, rather than forcing the pharmer to take a test to determine whether it was ill or not, it decided to just hand over money if the pharmer wanted it! There is no other government department which would fork out £50,000 in compensation because they couldn’t be bothered to test whether there was a legitimate case for such a payment.

Scrapie.

Although scrapie has been prevalent amongst brutish flocks for a couple of centuries, it was only in the late 1990s that the labour government decided to heap yet more compensation on pharmers for the slaughter of scrapie infected Sheep, “Farmers in Britain whose sheep and goats develop scrapie will in future be compensated for the value of their animals. Infected animals will be destroyed. Although farmers have been legally obliged to report cases of scrapie since 1993, the lack of any compensation may have led to widespread underreporting. There are also fears that some sheep showing symptoms of scrapie may, in fact, be infected with the agent that causes bse.”[78]

Foot and Mouth

Compensation offered within Days of the Foot and Mouth Outbreak.

Despite pharmers’ mass criminality which triggered off the foot and mouth epidemic, the government wasn’t slow to come forward with compensation for spreading the disease. Only a few days after the start of the outbreak and mcblair was offering them a couple of hundred million quid, “A £200 million rescue package for pharmers hit by the foot and mouth crisis was announced last night after crisis talks at no.10. But farming leaders fear that up to 100,000 cattle, pigs and sheep face slaughter and they want compensation for more than £1 billion in potential export losses. Mr blair said, The funeral pyres of farm animals are the worst nightmare for the livestock pharmers.”[79] A mere week into the epidemic and the sunday times editorial stated, “The compensation bill for animals killed on the government's orders this time will easily top £1 billion if the epidemic is not quickly controlled.”[80] A few weeks later it was stated, “Economist paul crawford from the centre for economic and business research said, the government is likely to .. spend at least £150 million on compensation.”[81] What this compensation was for was not mentioned - which is exactly the point. It never really matters what the compensation to pharmers is for - only that it is paid. On april 10th 2001, six weeks into the foot and mouth disease, a government spokesperson stated, “In a statement to mps, he said the epidemic had so far cost more than half a billion pounds in aid to stricken farmers.”[82]

Bobby Waugh.

The pharmer believed to be responsible for starting the foot and mouth epidemic was duly given his compensation after his slave Animals were executed, “Look at bobby waugh, the northumbrian farmer on whose premises the foot and mouth crisis started. He had been questioned about conditions there before the outbreak, and he is now being questioned by trading standards officers over the state of his pigswill, yet he has just been given £50,000 from the taxpayer to rebuild his business.”[83]

Willie Cleave.

The pharmer believed to be responsible for accidentally spreading the disease across many parts of the country received nearly one and a half million quid for his slave Animals, “Anger erupted yesterday over a £1.3million payout to the sheep dealer blamed for spreading foot and mouth across britain. Willie cleave claimed he may still be out of pocket after the compensation for his slaughtered 950 Cattle and 2,700 sheep at highampton, north devon. But one fellow devon farmer in holsworthy, who has so far escaped the disease, said, “People are cheesed off with willie cleave. They are refusing to look people like him in the eye. There is a lot of resentment.””[84]

37 Compensation Millionaires.

“At least 37 farmers have been made compensation "millionaires" after their livestock were slaughtered in the foot and mouth cull. They have all received cheques for more than £1m ..”[85]; “The identities of most of the 37 compensation millionaires is uncertain, although almost all are likely to be specialist breeders of pedigree cattle, some of whose animals could have been worth up to £45,000 each.”[86]

Jim Goldie - £4.2 Million in Compensation.

“Jim Goldie opened the envelope and out fluttered the kind of cheque that most businessmen can only dream of a seven-figure sum, said by official sources to be £4.2m.”[87]; “Whitehall and industry sources say the recipient of the largest payment, for £4.2m, was Jim Goldie, whose 741 Charollais and Limousin cattle, plus 531 Texel sheep, were slaughtered in March after disease broke out on his two farms. Goldie admits to having received compensation, but denied that £4.2m was the correct figure. He refused to confirm the actual amount, saying it was his personal business.”[88]

Hundreds more Compensation Millionaires in the Pipeline.

“Critics say that what such figures really show is how over-dependent farming has become on public subsidy. One other farmer has received more than £2m compensation, and there are hundreds more with livestock worth more than £1m. Few farmers have insurance against the risk of disease. By contrast, almost every other type of business in Britain has to buy its own insurance and include the cost among its overheads.”[89]

Compensation Millionaire Celebrates with Drinks all Round.

“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.”[90]

1.4: Compensation to Pharmers for the damage they inflict on Themselves - Floods.

Pharmers are a major cause of floods in brutland - the same is true of pharmers in many other countries. Sometimes the floods are so bad that they even affect pharmers’ land - despite the government giving pharmers hundreds of millions of pounds for the installation of drainage systems. No worry. The government will compensate pharmers for any damage that pharmers’ might suffer. However, what it won’t do is compensate non-pharmers whose property has been damaged by pharmer-induced floods. The pharmer-politicians in parliament believe that only pharmers should get compensation for flood damage not pharmers’ victims, “Farmers who have lost vast areas of winter-sown crops in the floods will be able to claim EU aid worth £87 an acre under measures approved by the Government yesterday. Crop losses are estimated to run into hundreds of millions of pounds. Ministers agreed to allow farmers, subject to permission from Brussels, to set aside land where cereal seeds for next year's harvest have been washed away or where the land is so waterlogged that surviving seed is unlikely to germinate. The move came as farmers' leaders prepared a "dossier of chaos" for Nick Brown, Minister of Agriculture, showing the extent of the damage. Elliot Morley, junior agriculture minister responsible for the countryside and flood defences, announced that, as an exceptional measure, the Government would allow 100 per cent of the area to be claimed for to be regarded as set-aside land. Farmers will have to sow grass, wild flowers or other plants which provide "green cover" on the land but which cannot not be harvested as a food crop.”[91] Roughly 11,500 homes were inundated by pharmers’ manure during the autumn 2000 floods in brutland. It’s amazing that none of the people affected tried to sue the pharmers, or the government, for the damage they suffered. But then they know they aren’t going to get anywhere because both parliament and the judiciary is full of shitty pharmers.

1.5: Compensation if the Sun Shines and the Rain Falls at a Time Inconvenient to Pharmers.

Pharmers also receive compensation if their crops are damaged by too much sunshine or too much rain. Pharmers are the only group in the over-industrialized world who receive subsidies for climatic extremes for which, of course, they are increasingly responsible, “Lack of rain and scorching sun caused the 1988 drought in the southern states of the u.s., the result of which cost the federal government over $3billion in direct relief payments to farmers.”[92] Pharmers get compensation if the climate messes up their livelihood but the Earth doesn’t get any compensation for being ransacked by these thugs.

1.6: Compensation for Pharmers to Voluntarily do Nothing.

Pharmers get rich, do Nothing, Set-Aside, Compensation.

Perhaps even more amazing than the subsidies given to pharmers for producing diseased meat and dairy products and the compensation for spreading epidemics, is the compensation given to pharmers to persuade them to do nothing. In the european community, pharmers are producing so much food that european governments, including the brutish government, compensates pharmers for not producing more food and adding to the surpluses. Rather than allowing a contraction of the industry, european governments prefer to subsidize an ailing industry, “An english arable farmer was paid £1.25 million of taxpayers’ money not to produce crops in last year’s harvest. In total farmers were paid £840 million in state aid for doing nothing.”[93] Pharmers are given subsidies to sit on their arses doing nothing. Not even the unemployed are paid to do nothing - they’re expected to look for work.

Countries Promoting such Schemes.

European Community.

.. “the European Union’s current strategy is to take land out of production and move from a system of price support to one based on income support via area payments to one based on income support via area payments for land in production. To qualify for such payments farmers must set aside 15% of their eligible land area. For the UK some 650,000 ha has now been entered into the various set aside schemes. For the whole of Europe the figure is in excess of 4 million ha.”[94]

1.7: Subsidies for Pharmers to do Nothing Compulsorily - Consequential Compensation.

During the foot and mouth epidemic there were many pharmers who weren’t affected by the foot and mouth epidemic but who couldn’t move their Animals because of the government’s restrictions on the movement of slave Animals. So the national pharmers union demanded what they called ‘consequential compensation’. Initially the government refused to make such compensation. It pointed out that if it had to compensate everyone affected by the movement restrictions it would end up paying out vast sums of money to haulage firms, abattoirs, supermarkets, the tourist industry, etc. However, the pharmer loving government was not going to lose this opportunity to provide their pharmer chums with more compensation. It had an Animal welfare fund which it hinted could be used, not for Animal welfare, but to provide such pharmers with compensation, “Nick brown last night announced a two-month £150 million compensation scheme for farmers whose animals are suffering as a result of the foot and mouth crisis. Around 500,000 uninfected animals are stranded in infected areas due to restrictions on movement. But many are now suffering because of the restrictions. Some lambing ewes cannot be moved to sheds and their young are dying in the fields. Mr Brown said a fixed rate of “generous tariffs” would compensate if it was kinder for the Animals to be put down. They would not go for meat. Mr brown said, “This new scheme should be a last resort or where welfare movement licenses are not available.””[95]

Pharmers are past masters at inventing excuses for subsidies, compensation, tax concessions, write-offs, etc. It wasn’t enough to demand compensation just for pharmers who lost Animals because of the foot and mouth disease - even though it was pharmers who spread the epidemic around the country as a result of their criminal activities. Pharmers insisted the disease could be eradicated only by preventing the movement of slave Animals, rather than a policy of mass vaccination. As soon as the government accepted the policy, pharmers demanded compensation for the pharmers forced to abide by this policy! In other words, they demanded that the government implement a policy for combating an epidemic which was not merely more expensive, and more barbaric, than the alternative option, but then demanded compensation for the consequences of this policy.[96] Once again, one subsidy for pharmers quickly begets further subsidies. But, it has to be suggested, what a delightful phrase ‘consequential compensation’ is. There are probably many livestock taxpayers who would willing pay £30 a week extra to the pharming industry just so they can sit in the pub waxing about ‘consequential compensation’.

1.8: Welfare Compensation Payments for Pharmers to not Damage Ecological Habitats.

In the long distant past, brutish pharmers were subsidized to produce products. After the second world war, they were subsidized to produce more products and destroy substantial parts of the Earth’s life support system. They burnt down Forests, drained Swamps and Marshland, and cut down Hedges, "Because many (state) subsidies (to farmers) are tied to production or paid by head of livestock, the incentive to produce regardless of the cost to the environment is institutionalized."[97] However, since 1981, pharmers have received substantial compensation for not devastating parts of their property. The 1981 Wildlife and countryside act entitles pharmers to compensation for not developing an ecological habitat - most of which could not be pharmed profitably without substantial subsidies.

One of the reasons brutish pharmers can get away with ruining natural habitats on their land is because they are not subject to planning regulations. If they were then governments would not need to hand out huge quantities of money to stop them causing so much damage, “Lord kimball, president of the british field sports society, recently asked for millions of pounds in compensation not to develop protected peatlands on his flow country estate in scotland. Also supporting the march was leading advocate of Fox hunting, viscount cranborne, who recently sought to plant conifers on an ancient woodland site in his dorset estate. He accepted a reputed £400,000 from the government not to.”[98]

There are those who seek to defend pharmers’ lavish subsidies by insisting that what pharmers get for not cutting down Hedges is compensation for lost income. There is an element of truth in this. However, the reality of the situation is that they are compensated not for losing money they might have earnt but for losing a subsidy which pharmers in parliament have wangled for them to enable them to export a product which would otherwise be too expensive to export. So when people try to defend pharmers by talking about compensation for lost income they should be reminded that this income is more correctly described as compensation for lost subsidies.

1.9: Direct Subsidies for Pharmers to become Countryside Custodians i.e. not to produce as much Diseased Rubbish.

Pharmers have proved to be such a disaster at providing healthy food that efforts are reluctantly being made to coax these welfare benefit scroungers away from the business. They are no longer being subsidized as pharmers to put aside a part of their land and do nothing or to protect a valuable site of ecological value, but to do something else with their land e.g. countryside custodians - anything besides pharming. Almost invariably the alternative business activity they pursue entails cementing over the land they had been given vast subsidies to protect as a valuable ecological habitat.

1.9.1: Set-Aside Top-up Subsidies.

After the introduction of set aside subsidies pharmers soon realized its limitations - the compensation for doing nothing was grossly inadequate. So, a new scheme had to be thought up to increase the compensation, “Increasingly, government schemes are providing financial compensation to landowners in return for allowing public access. One of these was the set-aside top-up scheme, under which farmers in the east of england who agreed to allow people on to land for which the farmers were already getting set-aside payments could receive an extra payment.”[99]

1.9.2: Subsidies for Pharmers to Pretend their Pastureland is a National Park.

In brutland, most national parks are merely collections of pastureland. It is one of the few country’s around the world which provides pharmers with special subsidies to pretend their pastureland has an ecological value and that by grazing Animals on this pastureland they are protecting, and even improving, the area’s Biodiversity. Unfortunately, these areas are green deserts which have virtually no ecological vale whatsoever. They have virtually no plurality of Flora and are virtually bereft of Wildlife because pharmers have slaughtered all Wild Animals suspected of posing a threat to their slave Animals.

1.9.3: Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme and the Non-rotational set-aside Scheme.

The bse epidemic reduced sales of red meat. Brutish governments were then forced to start looking for alternative ways of keeping pharmers in a state of subsidized luxury, “And more recently, the agri-environment package of the 1992 cap reform has led to financial rewards for allowing access to land on which owners are already being paid under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme (esa) and under non-rotational set-aside (nrsa). Farmers now get £274 per mile per year for allowing people to walk on access strips ten metres wide on fields in esas, and £145 under nrsa.”[100]; “Farmers are to receive government help for looking after the countryside under plans for the latest environmentally sensitive area. Cash handouts are to be paid for the preservation of water meadows with their rare plants and birdlife. The new area, the fourth of its kind, covers the river thames north of oxford and the valleys along its tributaries - the cherwell, windrush, evenlode, ray and glyme. The scheme has been welcomed by local national farmers’ union official nick read. He said, “We are pleased about the annual payments to farmers and landowners .. Farmers can collect “prescription” payments through the agricultural and advisory development council.”[101]

1.9.4: Subsidies for Green Pharmers to Produce ‘Green’ Energy.

Around the world governments are increasingly forking out grants for pharmers to produce what they call, without the slightest shred of evidence, ‘green energy’. The reason that governments do not provide any evidence for the greenness of this energy is not simply that there is no such evidence but because green energy is just an excuse for handing over more money to maintain the upkeep of their own, and their chums’, pharms.

1.9.4.1: Biomass.

The Forestry commission receives government grants which they can now funnel to pharmers to produce green energy, “The energy ratio (i.e. available energy output in the crop divided by the energy input requirement for growing, harvesting and transport) has been put at between 10 and 100 (for short rotation coppice), much higher than for the liquid biofuels like rme/diesel. The overall process involves several stages - growing over 2-3 years, cutting and converting to wood chip, storage and drying, transport to a power plant for combustion. A 10mwe unit run continuously at 80% efficiency would require around 60 tonnes of wood chip per day i.e.3x20 tonne lorry loads per day. Currently, no ‘change of use application’ need be sought for switching set aside or arable land to coppicing. The national farmers union is strongly in favour of coppicing - sensing a new opportunity for its members. The bottom line could be that short rotation crops for energy is just too land intensive: the average power output works out at around 3 mw(e)h/yr/hectare, about 40 times more per kwh than a windfarm. Although farm land is relatively cheap, and not the main cost factor, this may be one part of the reason why the economics of src still look a little problematic. (As regards the arbre scheme at eggborough). So far only one farmer has signed up to supply chips - from just 12ha, whereas the plant will need 5000 aces of coppice to run. But the forestry commission has now announced it will put in £1 million every year for three years from 1998 till 2001 .. in other words the extra money is simply and solely to save the arbre project.”[102]

1.9.4.2: Wind Power? That’ll do nicely says the Conventional Pharmer.

One commentator has already started to highlight the subsidy con job behind wind energy .. “between 1993-1997, most of the increase in wind power came from individuals (local pharmers) not community owned schemes. Farmers took advantage of “generous capital tax allowances”. This seems reminiscent of the california ‘wind rush’ in the 1980s when there were tax breaks for wind, used by many rich professionals as a tax dodge. All it means is that the taxpayer is heavily subsidizing affluent people to install uneconomic (and often faulty) wind projects.”[103]

The green party, like the other conventional parties, is dominated by pharmers. The emissions-only, blame the fossil fuel industry for global burning, greens insist that the urban consumer would be willing to pay a premium for using green energy but all they are doing, like the conventional political parties before them, is providing even more subsidizies for wealthy farmers. Urban people have been subsidizing farmers to produce disease ridden food for generations and, in the future, greens want urban people to subsidize farmers for producing so-called green energy. Greens call this energy green not merely because they take into account only half of the Earth’s Carbon spiral when estimating its impact on global burning, but because they like to show they can dupe the livestock electorate as much as conventional pharming parties when it comes to handing over vast sums of money to their chums in the pharming industry. A premium for green energy - what a green con.

After the pharmer inspired fuel tax rebellion in september 2000, the thought that, in the future, these people might be responsible for producing the country’s energy supply is frightening. It might be suspected that greens are being a bit politically naive about giving pharmers responsibility for providing the country with new energy. But many greens, especially those driving cars, supported the pharmers’ protests and they can’t wait to give pharmers control over the country’s energy supply. In september 2000 pharmers blockaded oil refineries and nearly brought the country’s economy to its knees because they weren’t getting enough subsidies so just imagine the subsidies they could get if they a monopoly over green energy.

1.9.5: The Pharm Woodland Premium Scheme.

“The Government continues to support the planting of new woodland. For example, the farm woodland premium scheme encourages the planting of woodlands on land currently in productive agriculture.”[104]

1.9.6: Countryside Stewardship Scheme.

“A package of new spending measures on the countryside, announced by nick brown in december, have been welcomed by english nature as “the most important decision on the countryside for 20 years and the biggest cash injection into saving our wildlife ever.” The cash boost is achieved by shifting subsidies away from agricultural production and putting them into environmental schemes. Over seven years there will be £580million for the countryside stewardship scheme to protect wildlife and landscapes; £139 million for payments to convert to organic farming; £125 million for new farm woodlands and energy crops; and £220 million for rural businesses, training and marketing of countryside products.”[105]

1.10: Pay-offs to Pharmers to abandon Pharming altogether - i.e. to stop producing any more Diseased Rubbish.

The previous category of pharmers’ subsidies was compensation for pharmers finding alternative uses for parts of their land. However, the government is increasingly realizing that the best course of action is to provide some pharmers with a juicy pay-off to get them to abandon pharming altogether, “The sums include £26m this year, with more later, to restructure the pig industry, with volunteers being encouraged to give up pig farming and use grants to demolish buildings or turn them to other uses.”[106]

1.11: The Lottery Bonanza at Retirement.

After a lifetime of luxuriating in welfare benefits, some pharmers find a lottery sized pay-off at the end of their subsidized pharming rainbow i.e. selling off their cheap agricultural land for de-velopment. In brutland the land is not a free market product. It is designated into three categories - for housing, industry, and agriculture. The first two are subject to the laws of the free market, so the price of this land is high. The third is not subject to the laws of the free market so its price is far lower. If pharmers buy agricultural land, usually for next to nothing, and are eventually able to get their land redesignated as land for industrial/housing development they can make millions. If permission is given to redesignate cheap agricultural land, its value increases dramatically. This is yet another anti-market privilege enjoyed solely by pharmers and the rest of the land-owning elite.

1.12: Ad Hoc Subsidies.

The final sort of direct subsidy is called here ad hoc, or discretionary, payments. Pharmers can go along to the maffia and explain their financial predicament in the hope they will be given a subsidy to help them through the problem. Thus for example when a little girl was murdered and police had to search for her body, they ended up trampling the crops of a local pharmer. The pharmer wanted compensation for the damage done to his crops, “A millionaire farmer who claims his crops were damaged in the hunt for sarah payne has stunned police by seeking £10,000 compensation. Officers and Sarah’s family were outraged at paul langmead’s “appalling insensitivity”.[107]

Mink pharmers are also seeking compensation for the closure of their pharms, “A mink farmer is demanding more than £5 million in compensation over government plans to outlaw the fur trade. Michael cobbledick plans to fight the move .. He runs the biggest mink operation in britain and says the £1.9 million allocated for compensation by the ministry of agriculture will not cover one of the country’s 13 mink farmers let alone all of them.”[108]

1.13: The Government’s Superficial Summary of Subsidies.

The performance and innovation unit has produced a ‘Who spends what in the country?’

Government programme for rural areas in England, pounds millions, 1999-2000

Ministry of Agriculture (MAFF)----£3,135,000,000.

National Lottery------- £208,000,000.

European Union money for rural development- £63,000,000.

Rural transport fund------ £52,000,000.

Single regeneration budget----- £50,000,000.

National Parks------- £49,000,000.

English nature-------- £45,000,000.

Countryside agency------- £43,000,000.

Regional development agencies---- £43,000,000.

Regional selective assistance (money for business) £30,000,000.

Housing Corporation (low income housing) £17,000,000.”[109]