Addenda.

1: A List of Some of the Labour Government’s Vast Welfare Benefit Payments to Pharmers.

By far and away the biggest shock of the labour government’s first term in office was that it handed over such vast subsidies to the landowning pharming elite and rural areas. Mcblair didn’t just do a u-turn over pharming subsidies, he completely and utterly capitulated to the landowning elite. This must also have been a shock for many of the urbanites who voted for the labour party in the 1997 general election. Perhaps this explains why it suffered such a massive drop in its popularity in urban areas in the 2001 general election.

6.12.97 - £1.4billion.

Mcblair stated, “The taxpayer will pay £1.4 billion this year in support of the brutish beef industry.”[1] And it wasn’t enough was it? Not by a long way!! At this time who could possibly have imagined the vast scale of the subsidies which the mcblair government would soon start handing over to the rural elite.

December 1997 - £85million.

“In December 1997 the government announced "one-off" compensation of £85m for beef farmers.”[2]

27.1.98.

“A £2 million campaign aimed at encouraging beefeaters to buy british was launched yesterday. Organized by the meat and livestock commission the goal is to convert people to british beef and put pressure on importers to shop at home.”[3]

18.3.98 - £50 million.

“The biggest single boost for public transport was for rural areas where existing grants of around £1 million were increased to £50 million.[4]

11.11.98 - £150 million+£120 million - running costs £2.3 billion a year.

“The government yesterday threw hard hit farmers a £120 million lifeline but warned their future could be secured only by a shake-up in european agriculture. Mr Brown accepted farmers had suffered from a marked deterioration in business as well as poor weather that had delayed the sale of their animals to an already over-crowded market. The package comes on top of other aid, worth £150 million, provided in recent months. Farmers get about £2.3 billion a year through e.u. common agriculture policy arrangements. Help with anti-bse measures accounted for another £1.3 billion help over the last two years. (Tim yeo pointed out that this was the) “second farm rescue package in a year” .. The council for the protection of rural england said farmers needed to be supported as “stewards of the countryside”.”[5]; “The Government responded to the worst farming crisis since the 1930s with rescue packages of £85 million and £120 million in the last year, but says long-term reform is inevitable.”[6]

December 1998 - £50million.

“It was followed by £50m nearly a year later (in december 1998) to those hit by the general farming crisis, mainly sheep and beef farmers.”[7]

21.9.99 - £150 million.

“A £150 million aid package to bail out farmers hit by the mad cow beef crisis was unveiled by the government yesterday. A £7 per head “passport” plan for exported cattle is to be waived for two years to boost overseas sales. It follows a delay in lifting the T-bone steak ban.”[8]

2.12.99

The labour government is going all out to flog bse-infected beef around the world. Mcblair announces that a series of sales teams, centred on 'ambassadors' in each of the countries that accepts uk beef, will try to boost sales of bse-infected bseef. Joyce quin leads one of these sales teams. Mcblair also confirms that the £7 million planned charges for the Meat Hygiene Service would not be imposed. [9]

January/February 2000 - £1.064 billion.

“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.”[10]

30.1.2000 - £170m and £40m.

After pharmers’ protests about falling incomes, “Farmers have been pressing for a new £577m package to compensate for the rise in the pound and the continued loss of beef markets in Europe because of the BSE crisis. The NFU has suggested compensation worth £362m lay unclaimed from a total of £450m available under EU rules. Ministers will defend their rural record by pointing out that the Government has put £170m into improving rural transport and £40m into the School Support Fund which helps rural schools.”[11]

2.2.2000 - £3.5billion plus £800m.

“Detailing £3.5b government and e.u. annual support for pharmers plus aid packages worth nearly £800m mr. blair did not rule out further cash support.”[12]

31.3.2000 - £635million: Total Running Support £6billion.

The labour government announces that rich pharmers in the commons have pilfered yet more public money out of government coffers for the rich, land-owning pharming elite, “The latest package is the third big one in two years and takes additional aid, including deferred extra charges, under Labour to £635m. It helps to take the support of British and EU taxpayers for national agriculture to nearly £6bn a year.[13]

31.3.2000 - £26m+£66m+£60m= £200million.

“The help, targeted mostly at livestock farmers .. 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. A further £66m will compensate dairy, beef and sheep farmers for losses caused by the exchange rate, and there will be £60m early next year for hill farmers, with some of this cash tied to cuts in flocks and herds. ..”[14]; “Tony blair threw a £200 million lifeline (phew, is that all?) last night to britain’s farmers. Farm leaders claim income has slumped by £4 billion because sales have been hit by the high pound and the bse crisis. The pm, who recently met angry farmers (what’s new?) in the southwest, said, “This will answer some of their most urgent concerns.” (until next week when the nfu will be lobbying for the next tranche of subsidies). National farmers union boss ken gill said, “We can now build a long term sustainable strategy.” (What he actually means is a sustainable campaign for milking more subsidies from a government which has caved in to rural terrorists).”[15]

4.11.2000 - £34.5million.

The government has decided to subsidize pharmers for the fall in the value of their previous subsidies as a result of currency depreciation, “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.”[16]

6.11.2000 - £51million.

“Mr Prescott .. announced on Saturday that the government would be making available an extra £51m for flood defences.”[17]

8.11.2000 - Hundreds of millions of pounds.

“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.”[18] Is it not remarkable what pharmers can claim subsidies for? They were the major contributors to the autumn 2000 floods but, pretending they are innocent of all blame for the floods, claim they deserve compensation for the damage they have had to endure.

Labour mulls over the idea of giving Rural Areas Political Independence from Westminster - except insofaras Expropriating Resources from Urban People is Concerned - £170million.

“Labour is keen to prove it loves the countryside. One of its options is to create a super-department of rural affairs. Dora is doing the rounds in Whitehall again. She is the would-be department of rural affairs - a heavy-hitter in the machine, a super-ministry combining economic, agricultural, social and environmental agendas. Dora would be living proof that Labour is succeeding in `joining up' government - Mo Mowlam, chair of the cabinet committee for harmonising rural policy, is favourite to head it. Whitehall heard the alarm bells ringing late over what happens to rural post offices when pensions and benefits get paid direct into bank accounts from 2003. Labour's rural recipe depends on more tourism, the internet and other new technologies, but that plan depends on bullying communication companies into spending some of their profits on uneconomic social ends. An arm's-length countryside agency was created last year with the very purpose of integrating approaches. But its focus has shifted. It has moved away from trying to save village services - many schools, shops, pubs and banks have already disappeared - to saving market towns and making them hubs of prosperity that reinvigorate surrounding areas. A less radical solution has been encouraged by the Country Landowners' Association. This is a department of the countryside and agriculture, daughter of Dora. It would lighten the load of the huge department of environment, transport and the regions. John Prescott will not be keen to lose control. Yet the government is so sensitive to charges of lack of interest in the countryside that Prescott will rattle off achievements as if the countryside were a lucky recipient - £170m extra for buses and other rural transport, safeguards for village shops through rate relief, a reversal of the policy of closing small schools, NHS Direct saving people from visits to the doctor, improved access for walkers. But no one, even the treasury, has much idea how much is spent in rural areas in total. Civil servants are trying to make the calculations and there is the possibility of a dedicated rural budget under `a lead ministry'. `Rural proofing' will be introduced, a way of evaluating all policies for their impact on rural areas.”[19]

29.11.2000: Tractor Loads of Subsidies for rural Middle Class Spongers - £1billion.

The labour government’s november 2000 budget promised such a long list of new resources for rural areas that the following quote from charles clover of the telegraph has had to be provided in full. Readers from an urban background should look away now. The following will mortify anyone living in urban areas .. “under a £1 billion package of measures in the Rural White Paper ..

More village shops, pubs and garages will be offered a mandatory 50 per cent reduction in rates - provided they offer a "community benefit" - subject to a public consultation.

There is £15 million of new money for a Community Service Fund to support local enterprise and help local groups re-establish lost services.

A Rural Service Standard is to be established, setting minimum rates of provision for health, childcare, post offices, transport and response times for the emergency services. There will be an annual independent audit of whether this standard is met.

There will be a renewed presumption against the closure of rural schools;

local authorities must provide free transport if they consider it necessary;

rural schools must be connected to the internet by 2002.

VAT on repairs and maintenance for listed churches is to be cut ..

Rural post offices will be encouraged to provide banking, internet access, pensions, benefits, prescriptions, health and other services with the aid of £270 million in grants.

GP services are to be improved by the provision of £100 million for "mobile units" - vans - or new primary health care centres in 100 rural communities.

Rural police forces have been given an extra £45 million over the next two years.

Some 3,000 affordable homes are to be built in villages and a total of 9,000 new affordable homes a year provided as a result of a doubling of funding to the Housing Corporation by 2003-4.

There is a new commitment to increase by a third the number of rural households with a regular bus service within 10 minutes walk by 2010.

A £15 million transport fund is to be established which will pay up to £10,000 each to parish councils who want to set up their own small-scale transport schemes such as car-clubs, bus and taxi services.

As announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement, the fuel duty rebate for buses will be extended to village-run minibuses. This could be worth up to £3,000 a year.

.. and investing £1 billion over 10 years, more controversially, in rural bypasses.

There will be a consultation paper on a proposal to give rate relief for farm diversifications.

Small abattoirs are to be helped by additional funding and "regulating only when it is necessary".

Farm payments under the CAP will not attract environmental conditions, such as cutting hedges outside the bird breeding season, as originally canvassed.

Market towns are to be given £37 million for regeneration over the next three years. This will go on building better transport links, restoring high streets, and providing better amenities.

"Quality" councils will be able to apply for Government money for the first time - such as the £10,000 grant for village transport.

There will be £7 million available for helping parish councils to meet the new quality standard ..”[20]

17.12.2000 - Rural Independence on Urban Subsidies.

“Mr Prescott announced the appointment of a new countryside supremo. Ewen Cameron, chairman of the Countryside Agency, (another quango to enable pharmer mps to give themselves public money without making it appear as if they had stolen the money) has also been appointed as Rural Advocate to argue the case for the countryside. The White Paper lists the 21 basic services - shops, health and education - needed to sustain village life. There will be an annual, independent audit to check whether public services are delivering promised improvements.”[21]; “The Countryside Agency is to produce an annual report on how major policies have been "rural proofed" for their impact and Ewen Cameron, the Agency's chairman, will sit on a Cabinet committee for rural areas.”[22]

27.1.2001 - £11.6million.

“Flood defences will get an extra £11.6 million following the autumn deluge, it was revealed yesterday. Countryside minister elliot morley announced the cash injection when he visited one of the worst hit areas, selby in east yorkshire.”[23]

14.2.2001 - £30 million

“The government yesterday pledged £30 million to help extend broadband coverage in rural areas.”[24]

28.2.2001 - £200 million

“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.”[25]

4.3.2001 - £1billion.

“The compensation bill for animals killed on the government's orders this time will easily top £1 billion if the (foot and mouth) epidemic is not quickly controlled.”[26]

31.3.2001 - £80 million

“Government minister estelle morris yesterday pledged £80 million a year to fund small schools. The cash will help rural schools band together to pay for teachers and joint lessons.”[27]

12.4.2001 - £15 million

“Environment minister michael meacher yesterday announced a £15million aid package for rural businesses.”[28]

23.4.2001 - £40 million

“Children in hard hit rural areas will benefit from a £40 million fund set up by the government. The three year scheme will be targeted at 16 of the worst-off areas and aims to help 20,000 children by 2004. Health minister yvette cooper said, “Families on low incomes in rural areas face equally difficult problems and need different kinds of help and support.” The £40 million will provide extra child-care facilities, mobile health clinics and transportation to and from antenatal clinics.””[29]

1.5.2001 - £43 million

“Thirty market towns in counties hit by foot and mouth were among 43 nationwide to be given around £1 million in aid. Announcing the package, john prescott said it would transform the towns into vibrant hubs of rural communities.”[30]

8.5.2001 - £24 million

“Country firms devastated by the foot and mouth crisis are to be given an extra £24million. Michael meacher said grants of up to £15,000 would be targeted at up to 10,000 tourist and other ventures in the worst hit areas “to ensure viable businesses survive to help recovery.”[31]

26.7.2001 - £900 million

“What has come to light as the F&M compensation bill hits £900million ...”[32]

2: A Summary of the Extravagant, Exorbitant, Subsidies which the Landowning Elite are awarding themselves for producing Shit Infested products on their Green Deserts.

Subsidies to Pharmers for doing what they’re supposed to do.

The government gives pharmers subsidies to get them to do something:-

• produce cadavers;

• export meat.

Subsidies to help Pharmers do what they’re supposed to do.

The government also gives pharmers subsidies to help them to do something:-

• land clearance,

• irrigation,

• pesticide usage,

• drainage.

Subsidies to get Pharmers to do Something else other than Produce Diseased products.

• Look after the countryside;

• go green.

Subsidies to get Pharmers not to do Something.

Pharmers are also given subsidies NOT to do something:

• flattening their land like a pancake - which makes floods inevitable;

• cutting down Woods and Hedges;

• ploughing up ancient monuments.

Subsidies for Pharmers to do Nothing.

Pharmers get so pissed off about governments giving them subsidies to do one thing then another, there are times when all they want is to be subsidized to do nothing at all:

• countryside stewardship grants;

• set-aside.

Extra Special Subsidies to get Particularly Wealthy Pharmers to do Nothing.

For extremely wealthy pharmers, doing nothing is so arduous they have to be given extraordinarily enormous subsidies, “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.[33]

Subsidies to Consumers to get them to eat Pharm Products that will damage their Health, turn them into Mindless meatballs, and Wreck the Earth.

"Government subsidies connive in manipulating our diet - to eat fat. For example, an 80% subsidy is given to caterers of school meals and hospitals if they use full fat dairy products in their cooking, but is not given if the caterers use skimmed milk and low fat products."[34]

Subsidies for issues which Pharmers have just conjured out of thin Air.

Increasingly, pharmers are demanding subsidies for anything they dreamt up the previous day:-

• free publicity to give the public the confidence to eat pharmers’ disease ridden muck, “In January 1998 a £2m marketing campaign was launched to attempt to restore confidence in British beef.”[35]

• currency depreciation, “A further £66m will compensate dairy, beef and sheep farmers for losses caused by the exchange rate. ..”[36]

Tax Concessions.

Pharmers also get substantial tax concessions:

• no local rates - i.e. free police, free fire service, free water service, free drainage service. They then turn around and insist on bobbies down every village lane;

• the abolition of taxation on tractors, etc. etc.

• no need for planning applications.

Subsidies for the Installation of Services.

Pharmers also get a huge range of services at subsidized rates paid for by the urban poor:

• gas, electricity, water, telephones etc installed at national rates.

Subsidies to repair the Damage which Pharmers Inflict on themselves.

Pharmers are given subsidies to repair the damage they inflicted on themselves as a result of spending their previous subsidies:-

• damage inflicted on their land by flooding caused by installing land drainage systems, “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.”[37]

• subsidies for the installation of flood defence systems because of the floods caused by subsidies for land drainage systems.

Indirect Subsidies to repair the Damage which Pharmers Inflict on Society.

The government sometimes provides compensation for the victims of pharmers’ criminality as a means of discouraging victims from suing, or stringing up, pharmers. More and more subsidies are having to be paid out because of the damage which pharmers are inflicting on society:-

• the national health service dealing with ooman health problems resulting from the large amounts of disease ridden, muck pharmers are producing;

• the national health service dealing with ooman health problems resulting from the large amounts of pollution that pharmers release into the environment;

• the disposal of large numbers of livestock who have contracted bse or foot and mouth disease.

Indirect Subsidies to repair the Damage which Pharmers Inflict on the Environment.

Instead of insisting on the polluters’ pay principle, the government repairs damage that pharmers inflict on the environment as a result of spending their previous subsidies. This provides pharmers with an indirect subsidy:-

• pharmers cause more water pollution than any other industry but the cost of cleaning up their pollution is paid for by the government;

• measures taken to bring water quality up to standard after pharmers have dumped vast quantities of shit into the country’s rivers;

• damage caused by global burning.

3: Pharmers’ Welfare Benefit Frauds.

3.1: Mass Criminality within the European Agricultural Policy.

Not content with getting vast sums of money for doing nothing but sitting around on their backsides all day counting up their subsidies, the country’s pharmers have been engaged in subsidy scams which have netted them truly massive welfare benefits, “Farmers and fishermen are fleecing euro coffers of £3 billion a year, watchdogs revealed yesterday. The court of auditors in brussels said up to 5% of the entire e.u. budget was now unaccounted for. Huge amounts were wrongly paid out in subsidies to beef farmers caught up in the ‘mad cow’ crisis and to trawlermen facing shrinking fish stocks.”[38] Throughout the 1990s brutland’s right-wing, euro-septic loons denounced brutish membership of the european community because, it was argued, other member countries did not abide by the rules of the common agricultural policy and allowed their pharmers to get away with large scale fraud. The foot and mouth epidemic shows what a lot of hypocrisy such an attitude is - brutish pharmers are some of the worst culprits for defrauding the european community.

3.2: Mass Criminality surrounding Bse.

For pharmers’ mass criminality during the bse epidemic please see terra firm no.16 ‘Pharmers Responsibilities for Spreading Bse-cjd and Murdering 53 People’.

3.3: A Cascade of Pharmers’ Scams during the Foot and Mouth Epidemic: A Scale of Fraud never previously envisaged in this country.

Pharmers have been engaged in defrauding compensation payments ever since such payments were first instituted. However, there is reason to believe that the subsidy scams for the foot and mouth epidemic reached a pinnacle never previously attained. This section looks at the scams subsidy by subsidy for this is a case of serial frauds on a massive scale.

Stimulating the Disease.

Firstly, a pharmer was responsible for causing the outbreak of foot and mouth disease by keeping slave Animals in appalling conditions and feeding them pigswill. The pharmer may not have intended to trigger off a foot and mouth outbreak but neither did he seem to be taking precautions against such an outcome. And yet he got £50,000 in compensation for the slaughter of his Animals. At present he is currently facing a number of charges, “The farmer blamed for the foot and mouth outbreak is to face 10 charges, it was revealed yesterday. Burnside farm in heddon-on-the-wall, northumberland - which he runs with his brother ronnie, 59 - was linked to the cheale meats abattoir in essex where foot and mouth was first discovered. Other charges include illegal disposal of pig carcasses, failing to record the movement of two pigs from county durham to his farm and operating an unlicensed collecting centre for other farmers’ pigs. Mr waugh also claimed he cannot clean up his farm because of delays by maff in removing pig slurry and waste. A maff spokesman said the delay was due to “significant problems in disposing of 60,000 gallons of pig slurry and other waste.”[39] One of the critical questions here is why was this pharmer sending his Animals all the way down to an essex abattoir rather than to one a lot closer to home?

Triggering off the Disease through Bed and Breakfasting.

Secondly, the reason the disease spread so rapidly around the country was because an infected Animal was sold to a Sheep dealer and this passed the disease to a large number of other Animals who were then sold to pharms around the country. This Sheep dealer did not know the Animals were infected nor did he intend to spread the disease. This pharmer received a million and a half quid in compensation. The disease spread primarily because large numbers of pharmers were engaged in a criminal, welfare benefit scam i.e. bed and breakfasting. What is pertinent here is that this fraudulent activity was possible only because successive tory and labour governments had been unable to force pharmers to implement a passport scheme for Sheep. Europe had been demanding such a scheme for a decade or so but Sheep pharmers vehemently opposed it because they knew it would end their lucrative fraudulent activities. The labour government had managed to force such a scheme onto Cattle pharmers but had not succeeded with Sheep pharmers. If mcblair had had the backbone to force Sheep pharmers to implement the scheme it would have prevented the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic. Mcblair’s capitulation to the pharming industry was responsible for this epidemic.

Pharmers demand the High Slaughter, High Compensation Policy.

Thirdly, when the foot and mouth epidemic was discovered pharmers insisted on a slaughter policy to combat the spread of the disease. This was in preference to a vaccination policy which was much cheaper than the slaughter policy.

Consequential Compensation.

Fourthly, once the government started to implement the slaughter policy, pharmers’ leaders like ben gill suddenly started demanding “consequential subsidies” for pharmers suffering from the consequences of the policy that pharmers had forced the government to adopt. No wonder pharmers had insisted on the culling policy when even those not affected by the disease were likely to make some money out of the policy.

After the national pharmers union had outlined the compensation mountain the government was making available to pharmers, pharmers suddenly realized they could earn more money with the disease than without it. The snivelling mcblair government had capitulated to the national pharmers union to such an extent that it had provided an enormous financial incentive for large numbers of pharmers living around infected areas to spread the disease.

Pharmers turn Valuers.

At first the compensation for culled Animals was based on valuers estimating the value of the slaughtered flocks. Unfortunately, the time taken to carry out this valuation contributed to the spread of the disease. Pharmers and valuers sometimes colluded over the value of the slaughtered Animals, “The compensation bill is soaring past government estimates because valuers and farmers have been colluding to rack up livestock prices way above the market rate. It fits in with claims made by the army that farmers had spread the disease by “lending” sheep to neighbours for head counts, and deliberately infected their flock to gain a compo cheque. I am not surprised farmer are screwing us again. They suck more out of the exchequer than any other section of society.”[40]

This valuation system provided an opportunity for pharmers to engage in another welfare benefit scam. Pharmers set themselves up as valuers in order to make quite a bit of money from this activity. In turn this provided an incentive for some pharmers to infect their flock if they knew one of the valuers on the list of government approved valuers, “The report highlighted payments that were significantly higher than the guideline rates and questioned the procedure of allowing farmers to choose their own valuer from a ministry list.”[41]

In order to speed up the culling process the government switched back to a fixed payment system. Unfortunately this system provided payments for Animals that were in excess of the market price of these Animals so, once again, there was a financial incentive for pharmers to infect their own flocks. This was such a lucrative scheme that the government eventually had to abolish it and revert back to the valuation method.

Pharmers infecting their own Flocks.

When pharmers decided to infect their own flocks they had a choice of options open to them. They could either buy an infected Animal to pass on the disease or they could put their Animals legs in boiling water to simulate the disease. It is believed that this is one of the reasons that tests conducted on slaughtered Animals discovered that 30% of the Animals did not have the disease.

Pharmers turn Cleansing Operators.

After infecting their Animals and having them slaughtered, pharmers then started demanding compensation for cleaning up their land so they could eventually resume their disease producing activities. However, pharmers didn’t hire independent experts to do the job. They bought themselves a few buckets and sponges, set themselves up in business as cleansing operatives, awarded themselves the contract, and billed the maffia for £100,000 for cleaning up their own pharm, “What has come to light as the F&M compensation bill hits £900million is that the people who whinge the loudest, yet dig deepest into the taxpayers’ pockets, are milking us dry again. Yes, the good old english farmers. The reason their clean up bills are, on average, 10 times that on the continent, is that half the contractors are farmers themselves, taking months to do a job that should take weeks. On £15 an hour. Some have even been using the cash to repair old buildings and buy machinery.”[42]

It has been pointed out that the compensation for slaughtered Animals was higher than the Animals’ market value so this provided a financial incentive for pharmers to infect their flocks with the disease. This incentive was substantial but many pharmers would have dismissed it because it wasn’t worth the time and effort. However, when there was the possibility of getting an extra hundred thousand pounds for cleaning up their pharms the incentive became overwhelming.

Investigations by the European Community.

It is reported that the european commission is to investigate the claims about pharmers defrauding the government over the foot and mouth compensation mountain, “The European Commission's anti-fraud office has launched an investigation into the system of compensating UK farmers hit by foot-and-mouth disease. The move follows a report by the EU's Food and Veterinary Office two months ago which branded the UK's compensation system as "excessive". The consequences for the UK could be severe as it is thought the EU will foot 60% of the bill for compensating farmers.”[43] However, nobody should hold their breathe in anticipation of mass arrests. The eu doesn’t want the bad publicity and will try to cover up any illegality rather than trying to expose it.

3.4: The Remarkably Licentious Attitudes of the Anti-Welfare Brutish Media to Pharmers’ Welfare Benefit Frauds.

The Sun.

Ever since it was first published, the sun has been the most loud-mouthed, vulgar, and paranoic, tabloid about social security frauds - whilst at the same time saying virtually nothing about income tax fraud. But it is also a pharmer loving rag so, no matter how enormous the scale of the fraud that pharmers have been perpetrating, it refused to make any critical comments about what the pharmers were doing. Quite amazingly, it just wrote off the vast compensation payments to pharmers with the casual comment that .. “the chancellor has been handed a £3bn windfall - enough to pay the bills for slaughtered livestock.”[44] The pharmers have just swindled £3 billion quid in welfare benefits and the sun says thank goodness the government has acquired a windfall to pay off the fraudsters.

Mirror.

The mirror, like all other national newspapers, has run many a story about welfare benefit cheats. After years of supporting the government’s vast subsidies to pharmers, the mirror reverts back to its knee-jerk social morality when dealing with dole scroungers, “Yet welfare reform has been a hurdle which few governments have even attempted. A culture has grown of dependence on welfare. Of people who fiddle benefits. This is not a victimless crime. Every pound got by cheating is a pound taken from a hard working taxpayer.”[45] It’s as if it is perfectly acceptable for pharmers to steal billions of pounds of welfare benefits but it is an appalling crime for anyone else to do so. However, when it seemed as if the foot and mouth epidemic might suddenly flare up again requiring further billions to be handed over to scrounger pharmers, the mirror suddenly adopts, for the first time in the last decade or so, a more critical attitude towards the pharmers, “Yet there are lots of people in the countryside who are losing patience with farmers. But they see them getting huge compensation while tourism and other rural industries suffer with virtually no help. The best advice and the best interests of the country demand that vaccination begins at once.”[46]

4. Subsidies to other Industries.

Whilst conventional politicians pretend they are serious about combating global burning they are subsidizing the biggest contributors to global burning. It is one thing for industries to pollute the environment but it is altogether another matter doing so as a result of government subsidies.

4.1: Fossil Fuels.

America.

In the u.s. the fossil fuel industry receives enormous subsidies .. “the u.s. continues to subsidize the fossil fuel industry directly by more than $18billion a year and to provide it with tax breaks for exploration, production and foreign royalties, as well as military protection .. at the cost of $57 billion per year.”[47]

Oecd.

“Another example of perverse public policy is support for energy production. Global energy subsidies currently total US$200 000 million a year (de Moor, in press). OECD countries spend some US$82 000 million a year subsidizing energy production, the equivalent of about US$90 per person, mostly through tax breaks, cheap provision of public infrastructure and services, subsidized capital and price support (OECD 1997). A common feature in global energy policy is that more than 80 per cent of the subsidies concern fossil fuels, the most polluting energy sources. Nuclear energy, with its risks for human health and the environment, receives 8 per cent and gets more support than renewable forms of energy. Governments are thus actually subsidizing pollution. Removing all energy subsidies would reduce global CO2 emissions by 10 per cent while at the same time stimulating economic efficiency and growth (OECD 1997).”[48]

Western Europe.

“Greenpeace has produced figures to show that western european countries have spent a billion dollars in the past nine years subsidizing conventional fuels with low royalties for oil extraction, tax breaks and direct subsidies, more than $400 million on nuclear power, and only $149 million on renewables. Britain spends 10 times as much on fossil fuel and more than 20 times as much on nuclear power as it did on renewable energy.” (Norman Moss ‘Managing the Planet. The Politics of the New Millenium’ Earthscan, London 2000 p.148).

Globally.

“Another example of perverse public policy is support for energy production. Global energy subsidies currently total US$200 000 million a year (de Moor, in press).”[49]

World Bank.

“Between 1993 and 1997, the (world) bank invested $9.4 billion in fossil fuel projects that will accelerate climate change, and less than $300 million on schemes to prevent it.”[50]; “What is surprising is that the world bank is doling out billions of dollars a year for fossil fuel projects - the single greatest contributor to climate change. Between 1992 and mid 1998, the bank has in fact spent 25 times more money in fuelling climate change through fossil fuel projects than in averting it by renewable energy generation. Since the rio de janeiro Earth summit in 1992, the world bank has spent $13.6 billion on coal mines, oil and gas fields and fossil fuelled power plants in developing countries and the former soviet bloc.”[51]

4.2: Nuclear Power Stations.

Nuclear energy receives far more subsidies than renewable forms of energy.

4.3: Car Industry and Motorists.

United States - Car Subsidies.

The social costs of cars are enormous. It has been estimated that, in the united states, car use is subsidized by as much as $121 billion annually .. “car use is subsidized by as much as $121 billion annually which the federal government spent on roads, including new ones, which will serve only to increase car use.”[52]

United States - Externalities of the Car.

It is believed that, “External costs approaching 1 trillion dollars a year, perhaps a seventh of the american gdp, are borne by everyone but not reflected in drivers’ direct costs.”[53]

5. A Tale of Pharmers’ Subsidies.

Once upon a time pharmers used to make money by selling pharming products. However, in the age of the laissez-faire, global, free market, economics pharmers realized they could make far more money by pharming subsidies. They didn’t welcome the bse epidemic but it provided them with insights into the possibilities of profiteering from diseases. When the foot and mouth epidemic started pharmers discovered that compensation for the disease was so lavish they would be far better off with the disease. They wouldn’t be a little better off - they would be hugely better off. So, instead of making money by pharming, or by pharming subsidies, they realized they could make even more money by pharming diseases. One pharmer states that if she’d accepted the chance of infecting her Animals she would have received 10 times more for them than they were currently worth. It .. “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.”[54]

So, with this substantial financial inducement behind them, pharmers had two options. Either buy a diseased Sheep which was selling for £2-5,000 depending on how desperately pharmers wanted to infect their herds - this was about 100 times the value of a healthy Sheep. Or, much less riskily, they could simply put their Animals’ legs in boiling water to mimic the disease - which explains why tests on Animals slaughtered for having symptoms of the disease show that 30% of them did not have the disease at all, “Senior vets have suggested as many as 30% of cases confirmed in the field have proved negative in laboratory tests.”[55] Of course pharmers turned this statistic to their advantage by suggesting that the slaughter was completely unnecessary so they ought to receive even more compensation, “There is growing anger among farmers after the Ministry of Agriculture admitted hundreds of farms where animals were culled for foot-and-mouth may not have had the disease at all. An internationally renowned laboratory where the animals were tested for foot-and-mouth said 30% of the herds confirmed as infected showed no sign of the disease. The admission has raised the possibility that herds at hundreds of farms were wrongly diagnosed, leading to the unnecessary slaughter of thousands of animals.”[56]

As pharmers spread foot and mouth around the country many also set themselves up in business as valuers to value their chums’ livestock - and very grateful they were too for their generous estimates of Animals’ worth. (Pharmers are allowed to choose the valuer they want from an approved list kept by the maffia). Pharmers then employed their friends from local hunts to carry out the slaughter. But pharmers weren’t content with just these bits of compensation. They bought themselves a bucket and spade, set themselves up in business as ‘cleansing operators’ and received massive amounts of money for cleaning up their own pharms - something they would have had to have done anyway if they wanted to get back into business after the foot and mouth epidemic was over, “Mr Morley (agriculture minister) said farmers would get the first chance to tender for contracts to clean their farms.”[57]

In some cases part of the cleansing and disinfectant operation involved demolishing old buildings which couldn’t be properly cleansed and replacing them with new buildings - the costs of which could be included as part of the cleansing operation and thus claimed as a subsidy. There was talk of the government reclaiming this money, “But some (government) costs might be reclaimed from them (pharmers) where improvements to buildings went beyond those necessary to disinfect them.”[58] but the likelihood of this happening is remote. With such vast amounts of compensation in the bank, some pharmers decided to buy themselves some lessons from top public relations/ media consultancy company to refine their whinging, designed to elicit sympathy from the public, when it was time to milk the livestock again. Or the compensation could have been used to buy rounds of drinks in the local pub.