Pharmers' Responsibilities for Spreading Bse-Cjd and Murdering 48 People.

1: Introduction: Why Aren't Pharmers Treated as Criminals?

One of the most striking aspects of the bse disaster is that pharmers are responsible for killing 53 people (so far) from bse-cjd and yet the public does not condemn them for this slaughter. Why is it that pharmers are not vilified as mass murderers or even ostracized as criminal outcasts? Even after so many deaths, and with the prospects of many more to come, the public still has a very positive image of pharmers. Pharmers continue to be as appreciated in society as professional classes such as doctors, nurses, teachers. It is as if the public believes that pharmers had no responsibility whatsoever for the spread of bse or bse-cjd and were just as much helpless victims of this disease as those who have perished or have had to be put down because of it.

Similarly, there is no news about pharmers being overwhelmed by grief for having murdered so many people and infected millions of others with a deadly disease. Large numbers of pharmers do not seem to be living in a distraught state incapable of living with their consciences for what they have done. What is common amongst pharmers is not grief or a stricken conscience but stroppy belligerence at a public which won't provide them with increased subsidies. Pharmers don't seem to have any conscience over bse - all they seem to have is an abundance of gall stomping around the country demanding that their victims compensate them with even more subsidies. The families of those who have died from bse-cjd have had no compensation whatsoever for their loss but they are currently subsidizing their murderers to the tune of £20 a week. This is one of the few cases throughout the entire history of the ooman race where criminals believe they are entitled to compensation from their victims.

As far as is known, no pharmer in this country has ever apologized for what has happened. The national pharmers union has not only not apologized for murdering 53 people, it has never even apologized for having been catastrophically wrong about its continual insistence that bse could not affect ooman health. It hasn't shown the slightest contrition. It hasn't shown the slightest sympathy for its victims. Indeed, hardly had the news broken in march 1996 that there were 10 suspected cases of this pharmers' disease than the nfu were demanding firstly, that the government launches a publicity campaign to highlight the safety of brutish beef and, secondly, that compensation was needed for pharmers who might suffer loss of earnings for the fact that people didn't want to eat their sewage filled, diseased-ridden, corpses. 'Ten people dead from bse-cjd? So what - what we need is more compensation'. As far as is known the nfu has not made any attempt to ensure that the bse-cjd victims are treated properly during their decline into death - indeed, one suspects that the nfu fears that if billions of pounds have to be spent on caring for the sick then their own subsidies might well be at risk.

It is remarkable that a class of people have been able to maintain the public's trust and respect after murdering so many people and treating their deaths with such contempt. It is bizarre that they can act so contemptuously towards the rest of society and still be held in high regard. In many ways this parallels their political privileges in a modern society. Margaret thatcher's government refused to give subsidies to lame duck industries and obliterated the mining industry because it was no longer financially viable, and yet it continued giving the pharming industry massive subsidies. The new labour government detests welfare benefit scroungers and yet it still seems willing to ensure that pharmers receive huge subsidies for sitting on their backsides all day doing nothing but filling in forms for compensation payments. It is as if pharmers are totally above politics and even, totally above the law. Perhaps brutish consumers are so satiated with consumerism they no longer have any time to consider political issues. The total docility of the brutish public could hardly be more evident than over the bse saga - it as if they believe that pharmers have a right to cull consumers should this be deemed necessary.

2: Pharmers Total Refusal to Assess the Threat Posed by Bse.

Throughout the bse crisis a substantial proportion of the country's pharmers contributed, to one extent or another, to the spread of bse in Cattle and thereby bse-cjd in oomans. They were utterly contemptuous of public health and went out of their way to evade public health regulations. When they complained about being entangled in red tape what they meant were the bse restrictions. The main reasons that pharmers sacrificed consumers' lives was greed and the fear of losing their livelihoods. However, pharmers deserve little compassion for this fear given their support for thatcher's dismantling of the mining industry which dumped tens of thousands of miners onto the scrapheap. For the first ten years of this crisis up until 1996, the main excuse pharmers employed to defend their material interests, and placate their consciences, was the absolute refusal to believe that bse posed a threat to ooman health. Despite the continual accumulation of evidence revealing the threat posed by bse, they refused to countenance such evidence. Once they'd adopted the ideological line that bse couldn't be a threat to ooman health, pharmers felt justified in doing whatever they wanted - even if this meant taking risks with other people's lives. However, these pharmers cannot escape responsibility for their crimes by saying they couldn't believe the disease posed a threat to ooman health. Their refusal to accept any evidence to the contrary makes them guilty. It doesn't matter how seriously they believed that bse wasn't a threat to ooman health, by ignoring the increasing evidence they are guilty of murder - 48 so far.

As in all cases of mass murder, some are more guilty than others. Many pharmers continued to feed livestock with meat and bone meal (mbm) that was suspected of containing bse-infected material. Others sold bse-infected Animals into the food chain. Although pharmers had no cast iron evidence that a particular Cow was infected, they understood Cattle behaviour well-enough to realize when there was something wrong. Throughout the crisis, when pharmers saw one of their Cattle behaving strangely many of them quickly put the Animal onto the market before the symptoms became too prominent. There are huge numbers of pharmers around the country who knowingly sold for public consumption diseased Animals which must have infected huge numbers of people with a deadly disease. Other pharmers were involved in the illegal export of meat which probably contained the disease. They obtained bogus export certificates stating that their Cattle were from bse-free herds when they weren't. Others killed bse-infected Animals and buried them on their pharms in order to pretend that their herds were bse-free so that they could then legitimately export Animals which were also likely to have the disease. Many of the country's pharmers are murderers; there is little difference between them and other mass murderers.

Although the tory governments of the 1980s-1990s must take primary responsibility for this epidemic, pharmers have to accept a substantial share of the blame. Unfortunately, it is still far too early to say just how many people they have murdered. The following sections highlight on the many ways in which rural terrorists murdered urban consumers.

3: Pharmers Selling Bse-Infected Cattle for Public Consumption.

In the mid 1980s, when the first victims of bse began to appear on pharms up and down the country, pharmers were so indifferent to their condition they continued selling the Animals to abattoirs for public consumption.

4: Pharmers Refusing to Declare Bse Cattle unless they get Compensated for the Loss.

In the mid 1980s, as the numbers of bse-infected Cattle increased and pharmers realize they had an epidemic on their hands, they began campaigning for compensation for putting down the poor diseased Animals. Pharmers believed they had a god given right to compensation for diseased Animals. However, until this compensation became available, they continued selling diseased Cattle for ooman consumption. Historically, pharmers have been so used to receiving financial compensation for everything they do, they felt totally justified in demanding compensation for bse. Is there any other industry in the world in which workers are compensated for producing shoddy diseased products? Pharmers' attitudes were almost like highway robbery - if you don't want bse-cjd then give us your money, "That very week, the eu had lifted the beef ban on cattle from northern ireland in herds which had been bse-free for eight years. Anticipating that the ban on beef from scotland would in due course also be lifted, with the same stipulation, some scottish farmers, said my informant, were prepared to give up the compensation payments for destroyed bse-infected cattle rather than report they had died from bse." [1]

5: Pharmers Selling Bse-Infected Cattle whilst Receiving only Half Compensation.

In august 1988 the tory government realized that something had to be done to stop the increasing numbers of pharmers selling bse-infected Cattle to abattoirs for public consumption. So it made compulsory the slaughter of bse-infected Cattle and offered pharmers 50% compensation for their losses. (This in itself was a compromise with pharmers' demands since, in most other countries, herds affected by bse are destroyed). Many pharmers believed this level of compensation was inadequate and refused to incur such a large loss so they continued selling Animals into the meat trade. As soon as they became aware that Cattle might have the disease they were sold to an abattoir before the disease became too obvious. The statistics show that pharmers continued selling bse-infected Cattle for ooman consumption until full compensation was offered in february 1990, "Dr dunlop, hull's medical officer of health, said that before compensation was raised to 100% value in february, the maximum number of animals notified as suffering from the disease was 221. But six weeks after farmers were offered the full value of destroyed animals, the weekly figure had risen to 350. "I consider that this is a clear indication that formerly some animals suffering from bse were not destroyed but probably entered the food chain," he said." [2] ; "The earl of lindsay, a scottish office minister, admitted last week that this cash-saving policy (half compensation for slaughtered cows) encouraged farmers to pass off sick Animals as healthy, and prolonged the period during which oomans were fed potentially lethal beef" [3] Michael elliott pointed out that, "Not surprisingly there were rumours that some farmers didn't report Cows with bse (during the time the government offered half compensation for bse infected Animals) but sold them before the symptoms were too obvious." [4]

In january 1994, the government decided to try and create the impression that the bse epidemic was declining rapidly by cutting the scale of the compensation given to pharmers for diseased Animals. The government knew the cut would lead to large numbers of pharmers ignoring the compensation scheme and, once again, putting diseased Animals into the meat trade. When pharmers stopped declaring bse-infected Cattle it seemed as if bse was dying out when, in reality, it was increasing at a more rapid rate.

The same defiance for public health could also found amongst the country's Sheep pharmers who demanded compensation for 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." [5]

6: Pharmers Dumping Bse-Infected Carcasses because of the Increase in the Cost of Disposal.

During normal years in the Animal exploitation industry, a large number of Animals die as a result of accidents or disease. Pharmers used to sell these Animals to knackerers who would process the carcasses for protein. The bse epidemic led to a huge increase in livestock fatalities. However, at the same time, knackerers also began to obtain supplies of protein from other sources and this led to a protein glut. Thus, for the first time in living memory, pharmers had to pay knackerers to remove dead Animals, "Until 1990 knackers would pay farmers £30-50 for a Cow and up to £5 for a Calf. Sheep and Pigs would be taken away for free. And now a knackerer charges £40 to take away a Cow from a farm. .. although renderers used to pay knackers £60 per tonne for bones, now charge £40 a tonne to take them away!" [6] The outcome of this reversal in the relationship between pharmers and knackerers was hardly surprising, "Some farmers now just dump the Animal after removing all identifying marks." [7] Those pharmers who couldn't afford to pay for the slaughter and disposal of bse-infected Cattle (or refused to do so) just dumped or buried carcasses wherever they could.

In march 1991, the scale of the illegal dumping carried out by pharmers was estimated to be three-quarters of a million, "Nearly half of the 1.5 million dead Animals normally collected by knackermen are being buried on farms or being dumped." [8] This is a huge reduction in the collection of carcasses - although it doesn't indicate how many of these Animals were bse-infected Cattle. The scale of this reduction overwhelms the official number of Cattle slaughtered for having the disease e.g. some 43,155 diseased Cattle were slaughtered at the peak of the bse epidemic in 1992. It was stated, "The hills are alive, or rather dead, with thousands of deceased Sheep and Cows." [9]

7: Pharmers Continued to Use Infected Feedstuff after the Ban on Ruminant Feed.

In july 1988, in an attempt to curb the rapid escalation in the number of bse cases, the government banned manufacturers from using ruminant material in ruminant feed. However, it refused to stop manufacturers from using bse-infected material in the manufacture of feed for non-ruminants. From that point onwards, feed manufacturers had to produce two kinds of feed: one for Cattle which shouldn't contain any ruminant material and another for Pigs and Chicken which could contain ruminant material (and which was likely to be infected with bse). When the number of bse cases continued to rise after the introduction of the ban, people started looking for the reason. Three main suggestions were made. Firstly, and most obviously, that the manufacture of Cattle feed was being infected by the manufacture of feed for non-ruminants, "It took officials years to figure it out. They finally realized the Cattle feed ban had not worked because it didn't apply to feed for Pigs and Hens. In the mills the same machinery was used for everything. If pipes weren't completely cleaned perfectly legal feed for Pigs and Poultry with suspect meat and bone meal in it could contaminate feed destined for Cows. [10] Secondly, it was suggested that pharmers continued to use bse-infected feed which they had stockpiled prior to the ban. And, finally, it was suspected that pharmers were feeding Cattle with feed designed solely for non-ruminants. [11]

Some commentators believed that pharmers had stockpiles of the old, bse-infected, feed and continued to feed it to their Cattle up to a year after it was banned. One commentator suggested that some pharmers had huge stockpiles which lasted for years. On the other hand, richard lacey and stephen dealler defended pharmers by arguing that most pharmers bought small quantities of feed on a regular basis so that after the ban was introduced most of the old suspect feed would have been used up within a relatively short period of time. However, this does not let pharmers off the hook.

Many mixed pharmers (i.e. those who keep both ruminants and non-ruminants etc) did not order two different types of feed i.e. the non ruminant feed for ruminants and ruminant feed for non ruminants. They tended to order extra quantities of feed for Pigs and Chickens (which could still legally contain bse-infected material) which they also fed to their Cattle. These pharmers didn't want to go to all the time, trouble, and expense of ordering two different lots of feed, keeping them entirely separate on the pharm, when they could use just one. It is possible, therefore, that many brutish Cattle were still being fed bse-contaminated feed right up to march 1996 when the government banned the use of ruminant protein in the manufacture of all livestock feed. The number of pharmers exploiting this loophole is not known. It seems logical to suggest that the more mixed pharmers there were, the greater the number of Cattle continuing to be infected with bse. Dealler and lacey didn't believe this was a major factor in the continued rise of bse after 1988. (They believed the increase in the number of bse cases was due primarily to maternal transmission). However, michael elliott suggests that the problem of pharmers using bse-infected ruminant feed was far bigger than just mixed pharmers. He argues there were a large number of pharmers who reared xmas Turkeys. These turkeys were bought in june and reared on feed which was also given to Cattle. [12]

It is by no means clear at present whether the continued rise in bse cases after 1988 was caused by contamination during the manufacturing process, by pharmers using bse-infected feed, or by vertical (maternal) transmission, so it is not yet possible to determine the level of pharmers' guilt for spreading bse. Whilst there may have been pharmers who continued to use the old contaminated feed long after the ban was imposed, and many pharmers who used the same feeds for both ruminant and non-ruminant livestock, it is impossible to determine the exact numbers of pharmers involved. A rough approximation will become possible only when the scale of maternal transmission has been determined. If most bse cases after 1988 were caused by maternal transmission then pharmers cannot be blamed for spreading the disease, whereas if maternal transmission was not a major factor, as the government maintains, then pharmers would be to blame. It should be pointed out that even if pharmers could not be blamed for the maternal transmission of bse, many pharmers were still guilty of putting Animals which they knew to be infected with bse into the food chain.

8: Pharmers Openly Selling Bse-Infected Cattle on the Market.

Pharmers' disregard for public health could be seen at its most blatant and its most contemptuous when Cattle displaying obvious symptoms of bse were publically auctioned in front of crowds of pharmers, abattoir owners, and Animal health inspectors! "'World in Action' went to two Cattle markets in britain and found that Cows with bse were being put on the market. (The infected Cattle) are not spotted by the market inspector." [13] The 'world in action' undercover investigators found three Cattle at these markets which were obviously infected with bse. Pharmers made no attempt to disguise their state and no pharmer protested about the condition of the Cattle. The investigators decided to buy the Cattle to prevent them from being sold to abattoirs and thus ending up in the food-chain. Tests later confirmed all of them had bse. This practice was widespread .. "every time a case was found, the canny farmer quickly sent her to market in order to claim full market price. To this day, Cows infected with bse are being sold to farms all over britain. Many thousands have been sold abroad in recent years." [14]

9: Pharmers sabotaging the Cattle Registration (or traceability) scheme.

In 1990, after one of the medias' spasmodic outrages over bse, a number of european countries banned the importation of brutish beef. France was the first to do so on june 1st 1990 and italy and germany soon followed suit. Lengthy negotiations ensued in the european community. On june 8th a deal was struck. It was agreed that exports of beef and Cattle from brutland could be resumed only if the brutish adopted a Cattle registration scheme. (European countries who agreed to this compromise were utterly mad - america, russia and a large number of other countries put an immediate ban on brutish exports which are still in place a decade later). This scheme was supposed to guarantee that exported beef/Animals came from a herd which had been free of bse for two years, "France, italy and germany would resume imports. In return, gummer promised them certificates saying that beef was from a herd free of bse for two years." [15] ; "E.c. agreements eventually restored the trade in beef but demanded that the UK database (on the movement of cattle) would be used to assist checking of export certification." [16] ; .. "the british would only export Cattle from herds known to be clear of disease and would only export meat off the bone (a difficult task)." [17]

The Cattle registration/tracking scheme was supposed to register details about every Cattle in the country and to track their movements if sold to different pharmers, "Cattle born in the UK should be specifically marked and identified. The mother of any Calf should be known and all these details should be recorded. Initially the aim was .. to record this information .. in a database on a central computer. When an exporter needed to know whether the Calf he wanted to buy or export would be permitted in the e.c., he would be able to consult the computer." [18] European countries rather foolishly allowed the importation of brutish beef and Cattle during the period when the scheme was being planned and established. The great brutish tory government and the great brutish pharmers soon reneged on the deal. Neither wanted this scheme - 'it was bureaucratic'. From 1990 to the announcement of 10 bse-cjd victims in march 1996 the export of Cattle and beef continued almost as normal during the bse epidemic. Europe will pay a heavy price for trusting tory politicians and tory pharmers.

The maffia didn't want a Cattle tracking scheme. It knew that such a scheme would reveal the truth about the scale and transmission of bse - that bse was far more extensive than was currently being revealed in official figures and that the disease was being vertically transmitted. It was reported at the bse inquiry in 1998 that moves to introduce a computerised registry of Cattle 7 years ago were blocked by the maffia even though it could have shortened the bse epidemic and helped to track diseased cattle. Paul Bunyan, chief scientific advisor at the ministry told the bse inquiry in London that in february 1991 he backed moves to introduce a national data centre. The maff rejected the idea despite a parallel recommendation from the Wilson committee set earlier that year by the milk marketting board and the national cattle breeders association. [19]

Pharmers didn't want a Cattle registration scheme. It would have meant that they would no longer be able to bury bse-infected Cattle or sell them to 'cull-Cattle dealers' and pretend they had a bse-free herd. They therefore opposed the scheme on the grounds that it was an additional level of bureaucracy requiring a huge amount of time to fill in forms and maintain the register. Because pharmers ideologically refused to accept that bse was a threat to ooman health they believed such measures to control bse were irrelevant - pharmers have very little concern for what is now called customer care. They did their best to undermine the Cattle registration scheme. The tory government, composed of large herds of pharmers, was not in the slightest bit interested in pressurizing pharmers into abiding by the e.c. agreement. Reneging on contracts is nothing to tory governments or pharmers. It is all too typical of the gall of tory governments that they renege on deals with their partners and then spend years condemning them for not allowing the importation of bse-infected beef.

The Cattle passport scheme was a joke from the start, "At the time it was not clear how this would work, as inadequate information was present on the database of maff and there were inadequate numbers of people to staff the supply of such enormous amounts of data to exporters." [20] .The consequence was, as dealler points out, "There was no information reaching the press or an exporter checking the Cattle he was taking out of the country, finding one or two to be from infected herds, and taking them back for a refund." [21] The policy was never implemented, "By 1994 it had become clear that some farmers were not being asked if their Cattle were from an infected herd and so export was taking place using documents signed by vets saying that the Cattle were from a bse-free herd, when the vet had no way of knowing." [22] Maffia officials gleefully sat on their corrupt backsides allowing the scheme to sink into chaos, "Government advisers ignored warnings that regulations governing cattle products were not tight enough, a meat industry expert has claimed. Peter Carrigan, a meat technology consultant, will tell the bse inquiry on Tuesday that he set out his fears about black-market sales in a letter to Keith Meldrum, the then chief vet, in the early 1990s." [23] Ah, meldrum, sitting at the top of the maffia food chain. What a hero in the bse crisis he was. They say that in times of crisis there's always someone who rises to meet the challenge. Strange though that he doesn't step into the public spotlight to claim his moments of glory against all those people in the department who wanted a free market in bse-infected diseases. Such modesty to suggest that bse was all the fault of those below him. Let's hope that this man consumed vast quantities of best brutish beef - with bse-flavouring.

The essence of the Cattle registration scheme was that those wishing to export Cattle would be able to look at the register to obtain the necessary information about the origins of these particular Cattle/beef. There was, unfortunately, one teeny, weeny drawback to the scheme - the maffia didn't like people looking at the register because it contained sensitive information! This was whitehall secrecy gone mad. The maffia is one of the most secretive organizations ever known - except for nfu officials who seem to be able to stroll into the building and see ministers and civil servants whenever it take their fancy. So, in 1994, the maffia found itself creating a kafkaesque situation, "Cattle meat was being exported for sale in Europe without evidence that it did not come from a bse-free herd. Claims were made that pressure was being put on the vets to sign certificates without evidence. The computer system that had been set up was now found to be ineffective. It could only take information from the abattoirs and could not supply information as to whether a cow that was being slaughtered was from an infected herd or not. It was shown that abattoirs were attempting to export beef that was from infected herds and that the computer, supposedly carrying the information about all the cattle, was not permitted to give that information out for data control reasons." [24]

The european community periodically visited brutland to check up on the state of the scheme. It soon realized the maffia were re-enacting the great escape as if they were being held prisoner in a prisoner of war camp behind enemy lines, "Mr berlingieri (of the e.c. inspectorate) outlined the findings of six separate inspections in the u.k. by e.u. officials from the commission's office of veterinary control over the period may 1990 to may 1996. He told the hearing that the early inspections, in particular, revealed shortcomings in Animal records with insufficient data on the identification and movement of slaughtered Animals. Even by the third visit in may 1994, it was still difficult to check the movement history of slaughtered Animals. The following visit in september 1995 noted that there was still no control register of Animal movements in england, scotland and wales. On the other hand, controls on the destruction of specified bovine offal had been strengthened considerably by september 1995 and the risk of contamination in feed mills had been reduced." [25]

Each of these visits led the tory government to make more cosmetic efforts to resuscitate what was virtually a bogus register, "New beef trade certification discussed 11th august 1994. The minister, mr waldegrave, met the leaders of the farming and meat industries and agreed some major changes .." [26]

By march 1996, when the tory government mass murderers made their announcement of 10 bse-cjd victims, the scheme was inoperable. The european commission responded, entirely justifiably, by banning the export of brutish beef and Cattle until a fully functioning Cattle passport system had been established. With a great deal of effort and commitment this scheme could have been up and running by the end of 1996. But, despite these deaths and the potential for a bse-cjd epidemic, the tory government and pharmers still prevaricated over its implementation. They preferred their old trusted way of doing things - trying to coerce europe into allowing the resumption of beef exports. The scheme continued to be mired in farce for another year or so, "Northumberland county council wrote to douglas hogg seven months ago .. "asking you to help them eradicate bse. They told you how records of bse-infected Cattle are not being kept, how they suspect everyone from supermarkets to hotels is passing dodgy beef off as lamb, how Animals over 30 months old are getting into the food chain illegally, that Cattle identification documents were "disappearing", and so on." [27] ; "Earlier implementation of the creation of the computerised traceability system would have enabled the maff to react more swiftly and effectively to the bse crisis according to the National Audit Office. This demanded that although the scheme was set up in August 1996 but really only saved 15 million because of the abuse of the system." [28]

It should be pointed out that even if the Cattle identity scheme had been working properly it would not have been effective in stopping the export of bse infected Cattle, "Maff maintains that a Calf's ear tag allows a computer check to be made on whether its mother was a suspected or actual bse case. Viva! maintains that such a check is valueless as the five-year incubation period in Cattle ensures that many Calves will be from infected mothers who show no symptoms." [29]

The labour government's commitment to the Cattle registration scheme was much greater than the tory government's because it realized the only way europe was going to permit the resumption of bse exports was if it provided evidence that Cattle didn't come from bse infected herds. However, the mafia and the pharmers still look upon it as european red tape which can be dismissed - even though it might also help to curb the spread of a deadly disease. By the end of 1999 it was reported that over 90,000 Cattle had gone missing from the current passport system, "Last week the agriculture ministry admitted that 90,000 Cattle have gone missing from its surveillance scheme." [30] Thankfully one of the people involved in assessing the level of deception in the Cattle registration scheme has .. "sent a file detailing his evidence to the french authorities." [31] so the prospects of exporting bse to europe have been severely curtailed.

10: Pharmers Trading in Illicit Health Certificates under the Cattle Registration Scheme.

If it is difficult to discover how many pharmers were responsible for boosting the number of bse cases by giving their Cattle bse-infected feed, the same is also true as regards the numbers of pharmers undermining the Cattle registration scheme, "An illicit trade in bogus health certificates for Cattle threatens to undermine government attempts to control bse. A year long operation by maff officials has revealed that thousands of Calves sold with a clean bill of health may have come from infected herds." [32] Some countries took action against such corruption, "Iran banned irish beef after the sunday times exposed an international ring that sold ear tags and blank health certificates which could have allowed unscrupulous dealers to export infected Animals." [33]

11: Pharmers maintain Bse-Free Herds by Selling Bse-Infected Cattle to Cull Cattle Dealers.

The financial losses which pharmers could suffer for admitting they had a bse victim in their herd led to the emergence of 'cull Cattle dealers' i.e. pharmers who bought bse-infected Cattle. This arrangement was beneficial to both sets of pharmers. The pharmer-dealers made a profit by collecting compensation fees from the government whilst the pharmer-givers could then claim they had a bse-free herd .. "the practice of selling Cows with bse on to "cull Cow dealers" who then claim the compensation for the Cow. This allows the farmer to maintain bse-free status." [34] ; "Farmers sold Cattle with signs of disease to intermediate farms, presumably to avoid the social stigma and a drop in the value of their herds. A number of farms, including one near ilkley in yorkshire and one near chester, would buy Cattle and have them taken away by the veterinary officers. The original farm from which the Cow had come would not have to admit to any cases of bse when other Cattle were taken to market, and the farmer would therefore get more money for them." [35] ; "A farmer was fined £30,000 with £8,500 costs at plymouth crown court for wrongly claiming that Cattle he sold had come from farms with no cases of "mad cow" disease. David dunster, 63, of dartington, devon, admitted applying false trade descriptions to 44 Cattle. The Animals were traced to herds which had bse outbreaks." [36] It was exactly this sort of grossly unethical behaviour that the Cattle registration scheme was supposed to stop.

12: Cattle Smuggling.

Another evasion of the Cattle registration scheme involved pharmers retagging english Cattle to suggest they had come from ireland where pharmers were far better at covering up the disease, "One well-known scam was for Calves from the virtually bse-free irish republic, en route through england to france, to have brutish Calves added along the journey, as the lorries stopped to rest and water their cargo." [37] Some pharmers in northern ireland evaded the Cattle registration scheme by smuggling Animals into eire where they were given new identity tags and sold as bse-free irish meat. The amount of cross-border co-operation amongst warring bipeds is amazing when it comes to murdering Animals.

13: Pharmers Evasion of the Cattle Identification Scheme: Falsifying the Sale of Bse-Infected Meat.

"Some farmers and dealers have been falsifying records in order to sell meat from suspect Cattle as though they were certified bse-free." [38]

14: Pharmers Changing the Age of their Cattle.

In 1996, after the tory government introduced the policy of culling Cattle over 30 months old, pharmers' fortunes fluctuated wildly. There were times when it was more lucrative for them to pretend that one of their old Cows was young and, other times, when livestock prices were falling, to pretend that a young Cow was old in order to claim compensation for culling the Animal, "Bob stevenson, the president of the british veterinary association, said that some farmers might be tempted to extract teeth from mature Cattle to make them appear young enough to qualify for ooman consumption." [39]

15: Pharmers Under-Reporting of Bse cases to protect their Interests.

Pharmers proved to be liars, cheats and frauds when it came to reporting cases of bse. By 1995, "Underreporting of cases in 1992 and 1993 was shown to reach 60%. It now became clear that the feed ban that took place in 1988 was too late. In fact, around 90% of the dairy cattle in the UK turned out being in an infected herd and, due to the apparently limited in-herd rate it seemed that the disease was, by 1988 running out of cattle to involve." [40]

16: Pharmers continuing to dump Animals in open Graves - Yet more Examples of the Under-reporting of Bse.

Two knackermen and a renderer went to see richard lacey because their businesses were in decline as a result of pharmers burying their diseased Animals. They wanted to show him what was happening .. "they told me that to dispose of dead cattle, some farmers had taken to burying dead carcasses in shallow graves in remote areas of the highlands, south-west scotland and the north of england. Many of the buried cattle, he said, had died from bse. That very week, the eu had lifted the beef ban on cattle from northern ireland in herds which had been bse-free for eight years. Anticipating that the ban on beef from scotland would in due course also be lifted, with the same stipulation, some scottish farmers, said my informant, were prepared to give up the compensation payments for destroyed bse-infected cattle rather than report they had died from bse." [41] Lacey recounted the story at the bse enquiry, "Farmers were accused yesterday of killing and burying sick cattle on their farms to avoid having to report them as suspect cases of "mad cow" disease. Richard Lacey, the Professor of Microbiology at Leeds University, told the public inquiry into bse that he did not accept government figures showing a sharp decline in the number of infected cattle. Professor Lacey, a longstanding critic of official policy, said government scientists had underestimated the transmission of the disease from cow to calf and had relied too heavily on the hypothesis that contaminated feed was the main source of infection. He said he expected cases of human bse, or new-variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (nvCJD), to rise in the next century, and it was likely that the human infection could also be passed from mothers to offspring. "It seems likely that intraspecies transfer will occur through, for example, blood materials and surgery," he added. Professor Lacey said he had been told by knackermen and renderers that "because the value of carcasses is now negative, the animals are being buried on a massive scale in farm burials"." [42]

17: Pharmers and Butchers conniving to sell bse infected Beef.

Some pharmers and butchers around the country were so contemptuous of the bse-on-the-bone ban, like all the other stupid regulations they had had to put up with to protect public health, that they continued providing carcasses for the morons who wanted to take the risk of eating it .. "the latest embarrassment in the handling the bse crisis, the undercover export of more than 1,600 tonnes of beef. In a commons written answer at westminster, jack cunningham announces new secondary legislation would be introduced to clarify and strengthen the powers of officials to prevent illegal exports and increase checks at ports. The government last night acted to extend powers to stop the illegal export of brutish beef and prosecute offenders following an admission that the tory government failed to block the loophole during its beef war with brussels. .. in brussels the european commission accused britain of waiting nearly two months before launching a full investigation into whether beef had been illegally exported. The commission reappeared yesterday that it is still considering whether to take legal action against britain for inefficient controls." [43]

18: Pharmers' Lies about Prevalence of Scrapie in Sheep.

In the past, many Sheep pharmers reported cases of scrapie in their flocks. In 1994 scrapie was made a notifiable disease. Thereafter the disease virtually disappeared. Sheep pharmers were worried that what happened to Cattle pharmers would also happen to them if the public discovered the prevalence of the disease. [44]

19: Conclusions.

19.1: Just how Dreadful Pharmers Really are. The Rural Contempt for Urban people.

A significant numbers of pharmers in this country refused to abide by the government's paltry regulations protecting consumer health against the spread of bse and bse-cjd. Their behaviour showed they couldn't care less about consumers' health. But this is hardly surprising given that even under normal circumstances pharmers sell products which are only slightly less lethal than cigarettes.

Virtually all pharmers around the country helped to spread the disease and must therefore take some of the blame. They not merely ignored regulations, which they dismissed as 'red tape' or government interference, they ignored the scientific evidence on which these regulations were based. The greater the scientific evidence that the disease was highly infectious, the greater the effort that pharmers put into ignoring it. Pharmers were in a total state of denial. They didn't care that they might be putting consumers' health at risk by selling bse-infected Animals for public consumption because they didn't give a toss about urban consumers. Although the tory government must take the largest share of the blame for the spread of the disease, the fact is that government ministers knew that even if they took the disease seriously and formulated radical policies to combat the epidemic, their chances of persuading pharmers to implement these policies were minimal. The government knew that pharmers were ignoring even minor regulations so it wasn't difficult to work out what would happen if more draconian measures were adopted. As soon as jack cunningham introduced substantial policies to combat bse pharmers started blockading ports and acting like a bunch of swp/anarchist students on an anti-government rally - the only difference was that these mobs had enough political clout behind them to get him chucked out of office.

Rural people have a stock of objections to all government regulations. They complain that regulations are imposed on them by urban legislators (as if the house of commons and the house of lords hasn't been packed with herds of tory pharmers for the last three centuries); they complain that urban people don't understand nature, or the ways of the countryside. This is, of course, blarney. But these excuses are vital to rural people because they can use them to bolster their contempt for urban people thereby making it easier to sell diseased products to urbanites. It is a far easier for pharmers to sell diseased products to people they can't stand than it is to sell them to friends. Pharmers carefully foster a contempt for urban people to make it easier for them to sell diseased produce to urbanites.

19.2: The Brutish Public Consumes Diseased Beef in order to help Pharmers Protest Against the French who won't eat Diseased Beef.

Despite the fact that pharmers have been slaughtering an increasing number of people and posing a health threat which might verge on the nuclear scale, they have continued to receive public respect and lavish public subsidies. Indeed, pharmers propaganda has been so effective that during the last quarter of 1999 they were able to whip up the public into a frenzy of animosity against the french for refusing to eat bse-infected beef so that it even became a matter of patriotic duty for the great brutish planks to consume diseased beef. For those who uphold a positive view of ooman nature, this situation should reveal some dreadful truths about the prospects for ooman survival. After all, if the public won't challenge pharmers who are spreading a fatal disease around the world, what chance is there of the public challenging them over their leading role in boosting global burning?

19.3: Who are the Real Terrorists?

It has to be suggested that since pharmers don't obey the law why should anyone else? Pharmers sold diseased meat onto the market when they were not supposed to do so; they sold t-bone steaks, they vandalized lorries importing foreign beef; they set up flying pickets to force the government to pay compensation for loss of earnings resulting from the appreciation of the currency. Animal rightists could easily deduce from this that the only way to change things is by breaking the law. Pharmers adopted far more extreme tactics than Animal rights protestors demonstrating against the live Animal exports. For years pharmers had condemned such actions as being lawless anarchism and threatened to sue all concerned but apparently they see no reason why they shouldn't use this tactic when it suits their interests. If Animal rights activists had hijacked a container of live Animals and then set the Animals free, some beef loving, large landowner, of a judge would have called them urban terrorists and sentenced them to 18 years imprisonment for wrecking private property. It's alright for pharmers to murder 53 people (so far) but it is a total horror for anyone to try and protect Animals from the hordes of eco-nazis currently wrecking the planet. Is it possible that pharmers will get rid of the meat-eating Earth-wreckers before these eco-nazis destabilize the Earth's life support system?