September 1st 2000: Bse-cjd Victims rise to 82.

According to edinburgh’s cjd surveillance unit website, the total number of definite and probable cases of vCJD at the beginning of september was 82. This is 7 more than reported at the beginning of july. This is the biggest bimonthly increase in the number of bse-cjd victims.

September 1st 2000: John Krebbs states that Organic Food isn’t Better than Drugged up Foods.

Whenever there is a bse crisis the tories/labour governments inevitably responded by doing two things. Firstly, lots of adverts paid for by the meat and livestock commission begin to appear on tv and in newspapers. Secondly, a prestigious figure is wheeled in to reassure the public that everything is just as safe now as it was decades ago. On this occasion it is john krebbs, the head of the new food safety agency which came into existence on april 1st this year. The government has already given krebbs the task of rolling back the completely superflous bse regulations imposed on the pharming industry, “Notably, the Government has promised a high-profile review of the main bse controls, including the slaughter of all cattle over 30 months to see if the measures are proportionate to the assessed risk. It will take place after the report of bse inquiry in the autumn and will be made by the chief scientific officer, Sir Robert May, Liam Donaldson (Chief Medical Officer) and Sir John Krebs (chairman of the Food Standards Agency).”[89]

The pin-striped krebbs states that there is no proof that organic food is safer or healthier than ordinary food i.e. the drugged up, pesticide/herbicide/fungicide drenched food produced by the pharmacology industry. It is quite remarkable that the head of the supposedly independent and impartial body such as the fsa could make such a denigratory remark about the organic food industry - intended to damage the industry - and such a blatant defence of conventional pharming.

Unfortunately, krebbs’s statement is true. There is no proof. No scientific research has been carried out to compare the health of those who eat organic and those who do not. Even if it had been carried out it would have very low validity because few people consume solely 100% organic food. To all intents and purposes, the statement is unprovable or unfalsifiable. But, if he was to be honest and decent, then he should also have stated that there is no proof that beef is free from bse.

The implication of his statement is that all the toxic chemicals and drugs being sprayed onto crops are perfectly safe. This is just a blatant lie. It is impossible to prove that any toxic poison is safe. Krebb’s propaganda is clever - by denying that organic food is healthier or safer than conventional food, he is also implying that toxic poisons are safe without having to make such a bold statement which few people would take at face value.

Scientifically, the organic food industry cannot rely on the propaganda that their food is safer and healthier. They would be much better advised just to present consumers with the choice, ‘do they want to eat food which has been drenched in poionous chemicals or food which hasn’t been treated in this way’.

What’s interesting about krebb’s intervention is that ever since the start of the bse epidemic, governments have been defending the beef industry by stating that there is no evidence that beef is unsafe. (Occasionally they stepped right across the scientific line in the sand and stated that brutish beef is perfectly safe - which is a lie). He’s now extending this argument to say that, ‘there is no proof that organic food is safer than chemical food’. But then again the reverse is also true that ‘there is no proof that chemical food is safer than organic food’.

In the past statements by eminent and respectable scientific people to defend the livestock industry might have swayed large numbers of people but the public has been misled so often by such people over the last 15 years that far fewer are likely to believe anything they say. Krebbs statement is all too reminiscent of the tory government’s efforts in the early 1990s to counter the considerable public revulsion against the beef industry’s defense of bse. In those days it was john gummer who came out and stuffed his own daughter with beef. It has to be suspected that there is a file in the bowels of the maffia labelled ‘Dirty tricks to be played against the public during a self-induced Pharming crisis’.

September 5th 2000: Anderson given Reinforcements at St Mary’s.

The collinge - anderson saga takes a new twist when a provincial paper reports that a huge transfer deal has gone through in which the entire oxford boys team have been bought up by a top london club to reunite them with their old player-manager, “Three top oxford research professors and 80 of their staff have been poached by london’s imperial college - taking £7m in research grants with them. All three - prof roy anderson, brian spratt and geoffrey smith - are involved in research into how diseases spread and will continue that work in the wright-fleming institute, to be housed at st mary’s hospital, paddington. Professor anderson is the top of his field in mathematical modelling of how viruses like hiv and bse spread. Prof spratt, an expert on evolution of bacteria, was recruited to oxford by prof anderson. When they move, they will take with them £7m in research grants from the wellcome foundation.”[90] Quite what collinge thinks of being surrounded by increasing numbers of number shufflers is not known. Clearly, st mary’s hospital is becoming a major centre for bse research.

September 7-14th 2000: The Pharmers’ Third Rebellion. What a surprise - the Country’s biggest scroungers provoke an Insurrection for more Subsidies.

The International Dimension of the Insurrection.

On thursday 7th september the mirror reports that in france, lorry drivers are continuing with their action to force the government to reduce fuel prices, “French lorry drivers yesterday rejected a 15% cut in diesel tax and stepped up their blockades. The country ground to a halt as most filling stations ran out of fuel. Cabbies, ambulance and tour bus drivers also joined the dispute.”[91]

The success of french pharmers and lorry drivers in bringing the country to a standstill (which eventually forces the french government to reduce petrol and diesel taxes) is perceived quite differently by two different sectors of the brutish establishment. The media and politicians denounce such acts of lawlessness dismissing them as typical outbursts of gallic hot-headedness. However, as far as the country’s landowning elite, the pharming community, are concerned the tactics opened up an extension to the blockading tactics they’d beeing using over the last three years.

Pharmers united with Lorry Drivers to Protest about Rises in Fuel Prices.

The legend in the making about the fools’ protest is that on the evening of wednesday 6th september a group of pharmers accidentally met up with some lorry drivers and started complaining about the increases in fuel prices. After some discussion they suddenly hit on the idea of protesting about the increases by blockading an oil refinery. A blockade is established at the nearby shell oil refinery in stanlow, near ellesmere port, cheshire. This version of events is far from accurate.

At this point in time the mirror is quite sympathetic and even suggests the government should make a fuel price cut, “Chancellor gordon brown was urged last night to use a £1.25 billion windfall to knock 4p off a litre of petrol. Drivers were hit by a 2p increase to an average of 82p a litre yesterday as world oil prices soared. Another 2p rise is expected this weekend .. About £1 billion comes from the petroleum revenue tax levied on oil companies. Another £270 million is from vat due to rising forecourt prices.”[92]

Pharmers still in a State of Total Denial - they’d even deny their own Existence if they didn’t keep feeding themselves with Bse infected Meat and Dairy Produce.

The idea that long-haired pharming layabouts sitting on their backsides doing nothing all day except filling in forms for government grants, compensation payments, concessions, and subsidies, suddenly decided to join a protest about fuel taxes doesn’t make sense because they pay hardly any diesel tax. Pharmers pay only a piddling 3p per litre in tax for diesel - one of the innumerable state subsidies given to these scrounging layabouts, “For more than 200,000 privileged people in britain, cheap fuel is constantly on tap. Ironically farmers, the driving force behind many blockades and pickets, benefit from a huge diesel subsidy, which rarely attracts attention. The £250 million a year hand out ensures that the fuel used to power tractors and other vehicles on the land ­ but not officially on the open road ­ comes at a third of the cost of the diesel on the filling station forecourt. Red diesel ­ so called because it is tinged red ­ is delivered straight to the farm and attracts excise duty of only 31.3% a litre. This means it currently sells at around 23.9p a litre. Introduced after 1945 to bolster food production, red diesel is now seen by some agricultural economists as an anomaly difficult to justify. Although the use of red diesel off the farm is prohibited, it has long been suspected that farmers pump it into four wheel drive vehilces for the road and use it to take animals to market.”[93]

Not surprisingly, pharmers were a little reluctant to explain what they were doing protesting about increases in fuel taxes when they were getting their fuel for next to nothing. At first they deny they are getting cheap fuel. This denialism is just about par for the course with pharmers who once

* denied their Cows were getting bse,

* denied that oomans might contract this highly infectious disease, and currently

* deny that bse is rife in Cattle herds,

* deny that beef is infected with bse, and

* deny that they are the country’s biggest recipients of welfare benefit payments.

It is one thing trying to deny their cheap fuel subsidy which nobody knew about, but it is quite another trying to deny all government subsidies when everyone knows about the subsidies pharmers have been receiving. David handley, chairman of the pressure group ‘farmers for action’ said, “We’re not subsidized on anything. I don’t know where this bloody nonsense has come from.”[94] That pharmers deny they receive any subsidies reveals the extent of their political power in getting over their point of view. The following day colin pickthall mp responds to handley’s lies by highlighting the .. “headage payments, premiums, arable payments, set-aside, organic grants, countryside stewardship grants, red diesel allowance.”[95] He suggested that if pharmers like handley haven’t noticed the benefit of such lavish subsidies then the subsidies might as well be abolished.

It has to be asked, what was the point of pharmers risking huge fines, and possibly even imprisonment, by committing criminal activities such as blockading oil refineries, in order to abolish the 3p tax they had to pay on red diesel? This simply does not make any sense.

The Dispute Spreads.

The action taken at stanlow is followed by blockades at the other 15 oil refineries around the country. Many people couldn’t understand why this ‘spontaneous’ demonstration was so successful. The reason for this is that pharmers have been practicising civil disobedience, social disruption, and even criminality, ever since the labour government came into office.

First Pharmers’ Rebellion.

On thursday 27th november 1997 many newspapers carried a full page advertisement paid for by the countryside alliance.[96] This advertisement makes interesting reading, “On 10th july 120,000 of us came to hyde park from all corners of the country and our message was ‘Listen to Us’. For a long time, we have felt that our views have been neglected, misrepresented and misunderstood.” (The government had been in power for only a year and the rural elite massed 120,000 people into hyde to protest they were not being listened to!). The advertisements were intended to try and influence public opinion about the vote on Fox hunting in the house of commons the following day - friday 28th november 1997. The mood of anger in rural communities became more intense when mps voted for a ban. On the evening of sunday november 30th pharmers started blockading holyhead port and in the early hours of the following morning engaged in criminal destruction of property, “As soggy red cartons containing 40 tonnes of tesco beefburgers lay floating in holyhead harbour, yesterday the welsh secretary condemned the welsh farmers who dumped the irish lorry’s cargo in the sea at the decline in their incomes. Up to 400 farmers gathered at holyhead and port officials agreed that all trucks carrying beef or beef products from ireland on the three ferries would be sent back. The burger lorry was attacked as it was being re-loaded into the high speed ferry. But will williams, vice chairman of the anglesey branch of the pharmers union of wales supported the action .. “we are supposed to be part of europe but we do not have a level playing field.””[97] One of the pharmers’ main demands during this bout of rural terrorism was that the government should apply for a £1 billion subsidy from the european commission. However, the government refused to do so because most of the money would have had to come from brutish taxpayers, “Farmers are also angry that the government refuses to apply for bse compensation from the european union. The government argues that for every £100 compensation the british taxpayer must give £71.”[98] The police never caught the criminals responsible for the hijacking and ransacking of the lorry - although if they’d been Animal liberation activists it is certain mi5 would have been called in to photograph the blockaders, the pharmer-loving media would have screamed blue murder, and the mirror would have splashed their photos across a double page spread and asked for the public’s help in identifying the culprits.

The mass demonstrations and blockades of holyhead port spread around the country as other pharmers set up protests at other ports. These protests went on for nearly two months. They became increasingly organized. As bbc1’s panorama programme highlighted, pharmers were even intimidating supermarket managers selling imported meat. When lorries carrying imported meat passed through the docks, pharmers tailed them to find out which supermarkets they were delivering to and then paid a ‘friendly’ visit to supermarket managers to insist they sell only brutish meat. It was only when the government agreed to launch a buy brutish campaign and started spreading the word that cunningham was going to be sacked, that the first pharmers’ rebellion of 1997-1998 died down. However, sporadic groups of militant pharmers around the country continued their blockading activities.

After the blockade of the stanlow oil refinery, a number of pharmers had to abandon their own blockades of various other industries to concentrate their efforts on the country’s oil refineries. One commentator points out that .. ‘farmers for action were .. “picketing milk processors and supermarkets in the months leading up to the refinery blockades ..”[99] It was also reported that, “Farmers called off their blockade of unigate dairy but vowed to continue to campaign against the low price of milk. A small band of farmers stopped any dairy products leaving the unigate dairy, kidlington, yesterday by blocking entrances for seven hours as part of a nationwide protest. The farmers called off the blockade in the early hours to return to milk their cows.”[100] For the last three years militant, rent a mob, pharmers have been organizing flying pickets to blockade anything which has taken their fancy. It was only a question of time before they were able to find a popular cause through which they could pursue their own agenda by exercising a bit of rural terrorism.

Sheep Industry is about to suffer the same Fate as the Beef Industry.

The thatcher government has become infamous in history for denying the existence of mad cow disease and then the existence of mad oomans’ disease. These diseases were manifestations of a diseased political culture in which the house of lords, dominated by pharmers, had a political veto over democratically elected governments. The fact has to be faced that what the tory government did to hide bse and protect the interests of beef pharmers, the labour government is currently doing to hide bse in Sheep and to protect Sheep pharmers. The last time a scientist tried to force the labour government to face this issue he was completely and utterly buried by labour spin doctors who orchestrated a vicious and, it has to be said, evil campaign to undermine his credibility. Over the last few weeks more evidence has been emerging about the likelihood of bse in Sheep. Sheep pharmers know that it is only a matter of time before the government is forced to acknowledge that bse is rife amongst the country’s Sheep flocks. The current pharmers’ rebellion has a great deal to do with the welsh Sheep pharmers’ goal of securing the same lavish compensation enjoyed by english beef pharmers to help them through the collapse of their industry when it comes.

It was far from accidental that the blockade of the stanlow oil refinery near ellesmere port was close to holyhead port where the first pharmers’ rebellion started. Sheep pharmers in north wales are some of the most militant in the country - especially over Fox hunting. One of the pharmers who became a national spokesperson for the blockaders was brynle williams who runs a Sheep and Cattle pharm in north wales. He’s .. “a farmer’s union activist who runs a 200 acre farm and gets up at dawn to feed his a cattle and sheep. His first language is welsh.”[101] A commentator reveals a link between the bouts of rural terrorism at holyhead and stanlow .. “a small group of self ­described nobodies were driving through the darkness towards the shell stanlow refinery at ellesmere port and a date with history. The convoy had been been born out of a meeting convened by brynle williams .. The meeting, at ruthin cattle market, the previous monday, had been addressed by politicians including peter rogers, a conservative member of the welsh assembly. Mr rogers became a farming hero after he addressed farmers picketing irish lorries at holyhead in november 1997 in a protest that spawned the militant farmers’ movement.”[102] It is highly likely that some of the pharmers involved in the first dispute were also involved in the second.

Second Pharmers’ Rebellion.

The second pharmers’ rebellion came in the last quarter of 1999 when pharmers orchestrated a consumer boycott of french goods because, for some utterly bizarre reason, the french government refused to allow its citizens to eat bse-infected beef.

Third Pharmers’ Rebellion.

The fools’ protest wasn’t as spontaneous as the tory media make out. Firstly, the pharmers had been rehearsing for it ever since the electorate voted for a labour government - which, in pharmers’ eyes, was a rather foolish thing for them to do. Indeed, as a pharmers’ friend stated on bbc2’s newsnight programme, the pharmers have been spoiling for a fight with the government ever since it was elected.[103] Secondly, what made it easy for pharmers to organize the dispute was that at the time it started many of them were already blockading various industries around the country so all they had to do was move to the nearest oil refinery.

The Perfect launch Pad for an Insurrection.

To pharmers the fuel protests were a god-send. Here was a massively popular issue which had the support of the vast bulk of the electorate. It was somewhat embarrassing for pharmers that motorists were having to pay higher fuel taxes because pharmers were enjoying subsidies for their fuel (not to mention the £20 a week every family has to pay to subsidize pharmers extravagant lifestyles) but this issue was conveniently forgotten in the heat of battle. To the pharmers the fuel protests were also a god-send in the sense that the protests weren’t getting anywhere. What these protests needed to make them successful was rural terrorism. The pharmers’ role in the fools’ protest is key. The ‘dump the pump’ campaign was getting nowhere. By themselves, motorists would never have gone beyond this campaign. The truckers ‘go slow convoys’ were getting nowhere. Despite their considerable power, truckers were surprisingly law abiding and had never gone beyond slowing down traffic and blocking streets. It was only when motorists and lorry drivers were joined by insurrectionist pharmers who brought with them a three year history of blockading ports and factories that the fuel protests made any political headway. It was only because of pharmers’ introduction of militant blockading tactics that these three groups began to have a devastating economic impact. The fuel protests would never have succeeded if pharmers hadn’t hijacked the protests for their own ends.

The protests by motorists and hauliers over fuel prices was the perfect platform for pharmers to pursue their own objectives. Their first aim was to force the government, via europe, to provide another £1 billion worth of emergency subsidies. Pharmers have been trying to persuade the government to apply for this pot of gold in brussels ever since labour got into power. They make it seem that all that has to be done is to send a driver to brussels to pick up the gold and then redistribute it to pharmers. But there is no pot of gold. All that the european commission does is give the brutish government permission to give pharmers more subsidies. Brutish taxpayers such as motorists and hauliers have to pay for the subsidies given to pharmers. Pharmers’ second objective is to obtain a guarantee that Sheep pharmers will receive the same level of compensation as english beef pharmers if the industry is eventually declared to be contaminated with bse. So far, beef pharmers have received £4 billion in bse subsidies but the Sheep industry is ten times bigger than the beef industry so it is not difficult gauging the costs involved.

It is clear pharmers will go on causing social disruption either until blair capitulates or until he defeats them - and given his appalling record of capitulations (see addneda item no16), the former is much more likely than the latter. The pharmers make little attempt to disguise the fact that they are willing to bring down the blair government. And in this goal they have the support of extreme, right wing, rural terrorists, i.e. the landowning aristocracy, the Fox hunters, badger baiters, the lumpenproletarian rural rednecks, etc who don’t have the slightest scruples in joining in a dispute to bring down the government.

To argue that the recent protests are about fuel taxes is erroneous. True, motorists and hauliers want reductions in fuel taxes but pharmers aren’t interested in this issue. They have a completely different agenda - one which is in contradiction to the interests of motorists and hauliers. Their agenda is financial but it is also political. They want the labour government to keep subsidizing rural communities to the hilt but to stop interfering in rural life. If the government does not accede to these demands they are quite willing to bring down the government and replace it with a tory government that would provide the subsidies. This is not just an economic issue. It is a political one. It is about pharmers rights to go on producing bse-contaminated beef and murdering tens of thousands of people through bse-cjd; it is about pharmers’ rights to enormous social subsidies which no other industry receives; and it is about the way that phamers dominate political life in this country either through an unelected house of commons or through rural violence against urban people.

The Dispute.

The Politics of Nothingness.

The blockade by pharmers and hauliers is quickly supported by taxi drivers and motorists who object to paying any taxes for wrecking the Earth. The public’s response to the pharmers’ law breaking activities is highly sympathetic but once again it has to be imagined what its response would have been if the protestors had been members of the Animal liberation front, or greens, or miners, or the increasing numbers of people who have lost relatives murdered by the ‘no such thing as bse’ pharmers - the tory press would have whipped up the public into a state of animosity against the blockaders and the police would have been sent in and everyone arrested. The great fools’ protest has revealed that the supposed majesty of brutish law is just the legalization of social discrimination. As far as the media and large parts of the public are concerned it doesn’t matter what the pharmers do -they don’t have to pay local rates, they aren’t constrained by local planning restrictions, they don’t abide by bse regulations to limit a bse-cjd epidemic, and now it appears they don’t even have to abide by the law - no wonder there are thousands of travellers roaming the countryside trying to grab some land and present themselves as pharmers in order that they too might enjoy the same luxurious social privileges.

The most outstanding quality of the dispute is nothingness. Politicians do nothing. The police do nothing. The oil companies do nothing. The oil tanker drivers do nothing. Nobody does anything. The media, with no direction from labour’s renown spin doctors, more or less cheerfully supports the blockaders and highlights the sympathy the motorized eco-nazis have for what the rural terrorists are doing. Politically, it is as if time stood still. The blockaders don’t have to do anything because everyone else is doing nothing for them. Most of the blockades are carried out by tiny numbers of people under rather gentlemanly conditions. It is commonly accepted that in total the blockades were manned by about 1,500-2,000 people. In some cases only two or three blockaders were necessary to stop oil tankers from going into or leaving the oil refineries whilst at other sites agreements were reached which stopped the tankers from moving but allowed blockaders to go back to their pharms. It is the fact that the blockades were so invisible that enabled the blockaders to argue that what they were doing was not blockading the oil refineries. Blockades are, by their nature, illegal so the blockaders pretended they weren’t involved in criminal activities because nobody was doing anything. Although the police should have intervened to break up the blockades how could they do so in a dispute when the blockaders were back on their pharms harvesting their crops? This is not to diminish the fact that there was a backdrop of intimidation to the blockaders’ actions. Many tanker drivers were rightly fearful about what the blockaders’ could have done if they’d decided to do so. After all tanker drivers, like the rest of the public, had seen on tv how these rural terrorists hijacked and ransacked a lorry at holyhead without the police bothering to do anything about it. Most them couldn’t have failed to have been aware of pharmers’ and lorry drivers’ seething anger.

The reason why nobody did anything was because oil tanker drivers were highly sympathetic to the blockaders and these self employed managers, in the style of old fasioned, trade union militants, wouldn’t cross the blockades. The oil companies didn’t make any effort to send out tanker drivers on deliveries because they wanted to pressure the government to reduce the tax on fuel. The oil companies’ collusion with the blockaders is easy to perceive if it is imagined what their reaction would have been if it had been greens, the Animal liberation front, or miners, who’d been blockading their refineries. They’d have been in the media at the first opportunity complaining at the violence and intimidation of their drivers and the desperate need to keep the country running. Not one oil company representative spoke to the media throughout the entire dispute. John snow of channel four’s ‘news at 7’ tried to question a group of them when they left 10 downing street and, when they refused to make a comment, chased them down the street asking why they were colluding with the blockaders. The police too displayed their usual social bigotry allowing pharmers to get away with illegal or criminal activities which they would never have tolerated by other social classes.

Within a matter of days petrol stations were out of petrol and over the weekend it looked as if the country was going to grind to a halt. The blockaders must have been amazed at the way the country was crumbling before them without doing anything at all. At the beginning of the week, blair was still on a lecture tour around the country oblivious to what was going on. Indeed, the mirror managed to obtain an amazing picture of the prime minister being driven past a queues at a petrol station.[104] On tuesday morning something must have shocked him out of his complacency because by midday he was back in london and started to take charge of the situation. Later that afternoon he made the government’s position clear. He rejected the demand for a reduction in fuel prices and focussed on the blockaders’ challenge to democratic government. He spoke quietly without any thatcherite defiance or hectoring. He seemed almost numb with disbelief. Perhaps he was shocked at how close the country had been to a collapse. Perhaps he was saddened by the realization that his attempts to woo big business and the rural middle classes had failed so miserably. He’d deserted many of his own supporters for the prospects of new friends on the greener side of the valley only to discover that many of them despised him.

Blair used the impact of the blockade on the nhs as his main propaganda tool for forcing the blockaders to back down. And yet even by wednesday evening the blockaders still seemed enthusiastic about their actions. On wednesday night one of the leaders of the ‘pharmers for action - more state subsidies’[105] was interviewed on his farm and he stated it would be a shame if the government fell because of the blockades but he was quite prepared to see it happen. However, in the early hours of thursday morning, the stanlow blockaders suddenly decided to lift their blockade and the rest of the blockaders around the country straggled home behind them. Very strange.

This is the third, and most extreme, of the pharmers’ rebellions during the labour administration. It is the second time in barely a year that pharmers have pushed the country towards a disaster - firstly the consumer boycott of french goods that pushed the country towards a trade war with europe and, now, exploiting public annoyances over fuel price increases. Pharmers are going to reduce the country to a standstill until either they are given even more subsidies to produce diseased ridden products which will boost the bse-cjd epidemic or they topple the government.

Militant Pharmers forcing a Democratically Elected Government to Ditch its Budget.

Hardly more than a month ago the labour party was in delerium over the chancellor’s budget promising huge spending on hospitals, schools, roads, and (eventually) pensioners. The government is now faced with the prospect of having to provide vast sums of money for:

* motorists (by reducing petrol taxes),

* hauliers (by reducing diesel taxes) and

* pharmers (applying to europe to spend more on subsidies and guaranteeing compensation to bse-infected Sheep pharmers).

How much would the concessions cost if they were granted? Motorists would want about 6p off petrol (£3 billion); hauliers 30p off diesel (half a billion); pharmers would want 3p off their red diesel; £1 billion in european grants; whilst the Sheep industry would need £15-20 billion in compensation for bse.

The government couldn’t just allow this sum of money to flood the economy without pushing up inflation so they’d have to take the money from somewhere else. It’s possible to spend huge sums of money on hospitals, schools, roads, and pensions, but there is not the slightest possibility of spending huge sums on hospitals, schools, roads, pensioners, motorists, hauliers, and pharmers. If more money is spent on motorists, hauliers, and pharmers, then less will have to be spent on schools, hospitals and pensioners. Is gordon brown, who’s carefully cultivated his iron chancellor image, going to spend a whole year drawing up a budget and within a matter of weeks having to change it completely to accommodate pharmers’ need for yet more subsidies?

The Aftermath of the Dispute.

Pharmers Threatening to Hold the Country to Ransom.

The sun newspaper quickly took up the role of the revolutionary communist newspaper pravda during the russian revolution. It issued a warning that unless the government altered its budget to suit the interests of pharmers, hauliers, and motorists, then in 60 days’ time (i.e. roughly monday 13th november) then rural terrorists would once again blockade the oil refineries and this time bring the country to a standstill for as long as it takes to win concessions. The sun is promoting insurrection. The hauliers also issued their insurrectionary warning, “Roger king, chief executive of the road haulage association, said, “We are not looking for tuppence off fuel duty, but a significant reduction. We are talking about 30p off a litre for essential users such as the haulage industry. We had no idea we had that power - and it could be used again.”[106] The rest of the media support the pharmers’ attempt to hold the country to ransom. But blair still doesn’t seem to have cottoned on to the fact that he is facing a rural insurrection.

After the dispute the labour government started going into a spin. The guardian carried a front page article revealing the chancellor is not going to allow his budgetary strategy to be blown off course and his reputation ruined. If blair makes changes then brown’s got to go. David frost mentions that three cabinet ministers have written articles over the weekend referring to spineless brown.[107] Brown is blaming blair for not appreciating the disaster quickly enough and blair is annoyed that brown has already created an uproar about pensions and now the same thing has happened over fuel taxes.

Why is it that the Media refuses to blame Militant Pharmers for promoting Insurrectionary Politics? The Blame Somebody Else Pantomime goes on and on and on.

The media’s bias in this dispute is striking as regards they way they refuse to highlight that there has been in existence for the last three years a group of militant pharmers who have been blockading ports, supermarkets, dairy industries and now oil refineries in the pursuit of militant politics to get the labour government to give it huge subsidies and, if they don’t, to pursue a course of insurrectionary politics to bring down the government. Virtually all commentators on the fools’ protest sustain a conspiracy of silence over the role played by militant miners - sorry militant pharmers. They all try and blame somebody else for what happened because, it seems, under no circumstances are they willing to blame pharmers for anything. Thus we have the following:-

David Mellor.

Mellor blames the oil companies, the protestors are decent people, “Don’t use up all your contempt on the government for last week’s petrol fiasco. Save a big dollop for the oil companies - they really deserve it. The protestors weren’t thugs - just decent people driven to desperation by chancellor gordon brown’s pig-headed (sic) refusal to give ground on petrol duty.”[108]

Sunday People.

The editor of the sunday people fails to spot any militant pharmers, belonging to the national farmers union, hijacking lorries, “The demonstrators were not old-style union militants, hell-bent on attacking the estblishment, but ordinary truckers and pharmers who livelihoods depend on petrol. So this was no political protest. The declared aim was not to bring the government down, but to bring it to its sense.”[109]

Observer

The views of editor of the observer are no different from those of the sunday people, “The government appeared powerless to stop them. A dozen reluctant activists ­ backed by no unions, no shadowy multi-millionaires, no foreign governments and whose organization such as it was, didn’t even have headed notepaper ­ were making demands on the prime minister. And he had to listen.”[110] But the pharmers had a union, the national pharmers union. Over the last three years they have a record of industrial action matched by no other group in society.

The media isn’t just in denial about pharmers’ role in this particular dispute. It is in total denial about anything that pharmers do. For a full list of the medias’ denials about pharmers, who lead a charmed life of privileges, subsidies, and endlessly complimentary press coverge, see addenda item no.15: ‘The Great Game (of Bse)’.

Why is it that the Media refuses to Highlight Pharmers’ Massive Subsidies?

The media’s bias in this dispute is striking. It failed to ask why, in a country obsessed by dole scroungers and the abolition of state subsidies, that pharmers should receive vast state subsidies? Why is it that the media refuses to highlight the fact that this crisis was inspired by pharmers who are up to their necks in subsidies?

There is one easy way of settling the fuel price dispute. David handley of ‘farmers for action’ denies he receives any state subsidies. Since pharmers are so contemptuous of these lavish subsidies then perhaps the subsidies should be abolished and the money used to reduce fuel prices. This would not only give pharmers a sense of personal dignity and self worth which they seem to lack because of their slavish addiction to the welfare benefit system, it would also reduce the size of the pending bse-cjd epidemic, and help to combat global burning. The dominance of pharmers’ propaganda in society can be seen from the fact that most people believe that motorists contribute more to global burning than pharmers. Many find it a shock to be told that the reverse is true. The same reaction occurs when people discover the lethality of bse-cjd. Pharmers’ propaganda presents bse-cjd as a disease which is no more threatening than the common cold whereas it is as infectious as hiv-aids. Pharmers are the biggest recipients of state subsidies, they exacerbate global burning more than any other group in society, and they continue to deny that one of the world’s deadliest diseases continues to be spread by the consumption of beef, and probably other meats. What is there to argue about?

Understanding the Dispute.

Only a few commentators seem to have a clue that the dispute was hijacked by militant farmers with an insurrectionary agenda:

Brian Reade

“We are being conned on a dreadful and frightening scale. It is no wonder the wool is being pulled so expertly (over people’s eyes) - the men doing so have had a lifetime’s training. They are farmers. At least they were. Now they are highly organized activists who, building on the sympathy culled from the countryside alliance anti-hunt marches, scent a wider victory. They are flying pickets seizing on discontent to force the government into giving them the cash and concessions they’ve demanded since the bse crisis. Why were farmers for action activists allowed to picket milk processors and supermarkets in the months leading up to the refinery blockades without the police getting heavy handed or mi5 taking photographs?” [111]

David Blunkett

“David blunkett, vented the fury of many ministers when he accused protesting farmers of being self interested subsidy junkies. He threw caution to the wind at a conference in sheffield, accusing farmers of wasting public money on a massive scale during the bse crisis. “It wasn’t after all city dwellers who were responsible for losing the nation £20 billion through the fiasco of bse,” he thundered.”[112]

Patrick Wintour.

.. “a small group of self ­described nobodies were driving through the darkness towards the shell stanlow refinery at ellesmere port and a date with history. The convoy had been been born out of a meeting convened by brynle williams .. The meeting, at ruthin cattle market, the previous Monday, had been addressed by politicians including peter rogers, a conservative meber of the welsh assembly. Mr rogers became a farming hero after he addressed farmers picketing irish lorries at holyhead in november 1997 in a protest that spawned the militant farmers’ movement.”[113]

The Dominance of Rural Issues During the Blair Administration.

Ruralites have virtually set the agenda for the blair government ever since it was elected:-

the bse crisis.

the reform of the house of lords;

the hyde park demonstration and then the countryside march in 1998;

fox hunting;

the three month-long beef war with france;

the promotion of genetic engineering;

the refusal to take action over a range of bse policies;

the tony martin case where ruralites demand the right to blast people (urbanites) in the back with pump action shotguns;

and now the fuel tax.

Is it any wonder that urbanites are getting sick and tired of having to put up with these yapping, whingeing scroungers?

Pharmers Can’t work out whether they’re in Europe of Not

Brutish pharmers get the bulk of their subsidies from europe. When the european community rightly imposed the world wide ban on brutish beef, brutish pharmers became more and more antagonistic towards europe. The tory government launched a frenzied attack on behalf of the pharmers against the european community. The pharmers, like many other sectors of society, loathe all things european, they loathe the french, european bureaucracy, european laws and common european politices. The believe that britain should make up its own laws and be a proud and independent nation. And yet, at the present time, pharmers’ are protesting vehemently that the labour government won’t apply on their behalf for grants from europe. It seems that when pharmers want money they support europe; when they don’t they hate it. One of the most notable aspects of the pharmers’ insurrection is the huge number of europhobes demanding that the labour government change its policies in order to bring about parity with their counterparts in europe. Hence the hauliers want the same fuel tax as europeans; the motorists want the same petrol taxes as europeans. In other words they support policy harmonization; and pharmers want the same subsidies as european pharmers. This is rather bizarre, “Ironically, when they call for a level playing field with the rest of the continent, the tory truckers are demanding a harmonization of tax policy across the european union - a move to which they are bitterly hostile in every other sphere.”[114] When pharmers demand they should have a level playing field with their european competitors what they mean is not only cheaper fuel prices but the same lavish subsidies as their european counterparts; the abolition of all Animal welfare regulations; and the abolition of all bse health regulations which prevent them from boosting the epidemics of bse and bse-cjd. So what are these groups for and what are they against? They don’t want to be in europe but they want to be the same as europeans. They want the power to create their own policies and enact their own laws but insist on a level playing field with the rest of europe where there are common policies for all peoples.

A Quick Mention of the Environmental Implications

The labour government has not made the slightest attempt to promote environmental ideas and hardly ever bothered to used the environment argument as a means of defending high fuel prices, “Ministers could ­ but rarely have ­ argued for higher petrol duties on environmental grounds. Within new labour, it is believed that being green is for wimps.”[115] Indeed, blair abandoned support for environmentalism when it was decided to go back to road building and removed the fuel tax escalator.

One of the most obvious political responses to pharmers holding the country to ransom is the need to diversify power sources. Unfortunately there’s a little bit of a bind with this idea. Most alternative energy schemes rely on pharmers e.g. green petrol, bio-diesel, wind pharms, etc. Does it make any sense to give pharmers even more control over the country’s petrol and energy supplies than they have already? It isn’t difficult to imagine that pharmers would use their power over energy supplies to extract substantial subsidies from governments. They would probably push up the price of green petrol to such exhorbitant levels that lorry drivers would be forced to blockade pharms and urban dwellers to trounce their crops.

Porritt made the interesting point that besides working out who should get the money - motorists, hauliers, pharmers or hospitals, education, and pensioners, there is a considerable need to protect the environment to guarantee the country’s credibility at the forthcoming climate change conference, “As luck would have it, the 60 days he has been granted by the protestors more or less coincides with the timing of the next international climate change conference in the hague in november. Between now and then the government’s position must be made crystal clear.” [116]

September 15th 2000: Profound Revelations: The Infectivity of Sheep and Bse in Blood.

A scientist makes an announcement about a SINGLE experiment on ONE Animal because he believes the implications are so profound. This is probably without precedent in scientific history. Few scientists would ever dare to publicize their work based on a single incident if it wasn’t for the shocking implications of the discovery, “Professor chris bostock, director of the institute for animal health in edinburgh, which helped carry out the research, said .. "In scientific terms we don't normally send out a report on a single case - but we feel it's very significant," he told bbc news online.” A Sheep was fed on bse-infected Cattle brains. Before the Animal showed any sign of bse, the scientist carried out a blood transfusion, and then gave the blood to another Sheep which later came down with the disease, “The single case was reported in the medical journal The Lancet and involved a sheep given bse-infected cattle brain to eat. When the sheep's blood was transfused into another sheep, the second animal fell ill with a bse-like disease - even though the first had yet to display any symptoms.” The discovery highlights the infectivity of Sheep, the presence of bse in blood, the prevalence of bse in Sheep, and the contagiousness of bse in its pre-clinical state, and the presence of bse in meat.

Animal Experiments.

Bostock extrapolates from this experiment to make a judgment about oomans’ vulnerability to bse, “Professor Chris Bostock .. said that the experiments in sheep were the closest possible to human tests. "It suggests there is a risk from blood transfusion in the human population.” The mundi club has continually denied that such extrapolations are feasible. This experiment doesn’t reveal anything new about the dangers of bse to oomans. What it shows is that scientists are having to use a dramatic bit of scientific hype to persuade politicians to take seriously a common sense suspicion about the lethality of bse - a suspicion which was aroused over a decade ago when the disease spread like wildlfire from Cows, to Goats, Cats, and Monkeys. Nobody but a rancid pharmer-bigot could possibly believe bse isn’t a threat to Sheep, or that it isn’t present in meat and ooman blood and that it can’t be spread through ooman blood transfusions. What this experiment reveals is the degree to which scientists’ views are being suppressed by the pharming industry thereby forcing them to resort to desperate antics like this to make themselves heard and to give credence to a common sense argument that should have been translated into policy a decade ago, “Scientists have found the strongest evidence yet that blood transfusions could potentially transmit the brain disease, new variant cjd. Their research also shows that blood taken before the disease itself emerges could still harbour the infection. A sheep infected with the brain disease BSE passed on the disease to another sheep through a blood transfusion. But the experts involved say that blood stocks in the UK are already treated to reduce the risk - and that the benefits of transfusions are likely to far outweigh any risks.” Three of the first 23 victims of bse were blood donors.

Blood Transfusions.

A couple of years ago scientists forced the government into taking measures to stop the spread of bse through blood transfusions. However, the government did not stop blood transfusions. It believes the disease exists only in white blood cells and uses leucodepletion depletion to remove them from blood. If this is true then the policy will stop the spread of the disease but if it isn’t then the disease is still being spread by blood transfusions, “A government spokesman said: "The research points out that whole blood is not used for human blood transfusions in the UK. "White cells are now removed from blood for transfusion (leucodepletion) and all blood products used in the UK are made from plasma imported from countries where there is no evidence of vCJD."“[117] Despite the fact that the european commission has just released a report stating that bse is spreading over europe the brutish government is now having to pretend that bse and bse-cjd does not exist on the continent.

Bse in Sheep.

During the 1980s, Sheep were given huge amounts of bse infected feed. Many of them must have contracted the disease. They must have passed on the disease to their offspring which means the disease is undoubtedly rampant throughout the Sheep industry. Pharmers used to deny that Sheep could get the disease until scientists injected bse-infected material into their brains. Pharmers rejected these experiment because they wanted to further delay any action being taken against the Sheep industry and so they argued the experiment didn’t replicate pharm conditions. They continued to argue that Sheep couldn’t get bse. Even when Sheep developed the disease after ingesting bse-infected beef, the pharmers continued to dismiss the idea that Sheep flocks were contaminated by the disease on the same grounds i.e. that the experiment did not replicate farm conditions even though it took place on a maffia owned farm! The fact is bse infected feed was given to Sheep flocks around the country and the disease is still prevalent in these herds so that everytime people eat lamb they are also in danger of contracting the disease.

The Contagiousness of pre-clinical Bse.

One of the great bse fantasies concocted by the maffia to defend pharmers’ interests was that bse did not become infectious until its host showed physical signs of the disease. Prior to physical signs of the disease, bse was non-infectious. There was of course not the slightest evidence for this hypothesis. At best it was sheer fantasy - at worst it was a plain old fashioned lie intended to deceive the public into eating bse-contaminated meat. Nobody had the slightest idea what the bse prion was doing between the time it entered a Cow’s body and the time the victim started to act like a tory pharmer in the house of lords. To believe that a prion entered a Cow’s body in a non infectious state, remained in that state until something triggered a change to make the prion infectious, which then immediately manifested itself in physical symptoms in the host is bizarre. And yet this fantasy has been at the basis of the maffia’s refusal to do anything over the last fifteen years. The likelihood is that when bse gets into the blood stream it is already infectious; it will immediately start infecting its host; and if it is transferred, either accidentally or deliberately, into the bloodstream of other Animals, it will start infecting them. There is absolutely no evidence for the maffia’s distinction between a non-infectious, pre-clinical state and a highly infectious, clinical state. Such a distinction is a political device to enable pharmers to go on selling disease ridden beef and lamb to consumers being duped by evil propaganda that the meat they are eating is ‘perfectly safe’. If pre-clinical bse is as deadly as clinical bse then the government’s policy of slaughtering Cows under 30 months of age is an irrelevance. This policy is based on the belief that the disease is non-infectious in its pre-clinical state so slaughtering Cows before they get bse means that it is safe to eat such Animals.

The Presence of Bse in Meat.

Another of the maffia’s fantasies is that bse is not present in blood - this is why they believe it is safe to eat blood soaked meat. If bse is in blood, as it must obviously be, then it is also present in meat being sold around the country. The ban on the sale of Animal organs to prevent people contracting bse was a total ruse to give the impression that all other meat was free of bse when it was not - how could it be when the disease was in the blood?

The BBC.

Bbc tv news features an article on the announcement and it is given prominence on its on-line news service.

The Mirror.

Bbc tv news features an article on the announcement and it is given prominence on its on-line news service.

September 17th 2000: Bse-Cjd Baby Dying: Bse has to be in Blood.

The sunday telegraph reports that a baby whose mother died of bse-cjd may have contracted the disease, “If confirmed, this would be the first known example of vcjd being transmitted from mother to child, and will heighten fears that the disease can be transmitted through blood. One leading microbiologist believes that some of the 67 people who have already died of vcjd may have inherited it from their mothers, rather than contracting it from eating infected meat.”[118]

The David Frost Show.

The two people reviewing the papers on the david frost show ignored the tragedy of pharmers’ murdering this baby and focussed solely on how wonderful the pharmers were to lead the fuel price insurrection and threaten an insurrection in the next 60 days.

September 10th 2000: Vernon Coleman believes Sheep have Bse.

“Deaths from the human variety of mad cow disease are increasing alarmingly. If the trend continues, as many as 500,000 britons could die. It is still not too late to limit your risk. First, do not eat beef. Second, don’t eat lamb or mutton. Mad cow disease now also affects shheep. A few years ago i saw a sheep die from mad cow disease. And a vet told me that the government was deliberately destroying sheep which had a new version of the disease. I believe the government knows that sheep are affected.”[119]

September 19th 2000: Rumour Starts Petrol Panic Again

A radio presenter told his listeners that he’d heard rumours that the blockaders were about to mount another blockade. The rumour spread around the entire country and lengthy queues formed outside most of the country’s petrol stations indicating that motorists were extremely nervous about being caught out as they had been last time. The rumour was undoubtedly started by the blockaders as a bit of black propaganda to keep the government on its toes as regards the 60 day deadline. What is interesting about this rumour, however, was that it was started in wales. Yet again the source of the troubles seems to be pinpointed.