SFP Changes - Scrub to Pasture

Damo810

Uncle has a .67 Ha plot which was left as habitat for reps 3. Got a form today I think it was and while all other fields are down as permanent pasture this plot is down as reps 3 natural habitat. The plan was to change this back to grass this year, drainage etc. What does he have to change of this green form he got to declare its going back into production? the little booklet only says to change it if he wants to make it a permanent natural habitat.


Thanks.

Damo810

Anyone?

benjydagg

Damo810 wrote: »

Uncle has a .67 Ha plot which was left as habitat for reps 3. Got a form today I think it was and while all other fields are down as permanent pasture this plot is down as reps 3 natural habitat. The plan was to change this back to grass this year, drainage etc. What does he have to change of this green form he got to declare its going back into production? the little booklet only says to change it if he wants to make it a permanent natural habitat.


Thanks.

On the application form for parcel usage, just change the crop to grass. Simples.
If he is going to join the new environmental scheme, he might be better off leaving this habitat intact.
Removing a habitat can mean a cross compliance penalty under GAEC. Check with your advisor. (the one that did the REPS plan).

annubis

folks have a fenced off rough bit of ground, it was a habitat back in REPS 3, i never got into reps 4 as it had shut before my reps 3 was finished, now its taken out of my maps as is down as scrub, should that be the case since it was originally a habitat?

sonnybill

Spent past 2 days felling 6in + diameter trees as repeatedly getting reductions even though it’s grass beneath and grazed tight .

I don’t know as I hate knocking them but I’ve no choice as it’s hitting me in the pocket leaving them as is as BpS and glas payments based on the overall area.

_Brian

sonnybill wrote: »

Spent past 2 days felling 6in + diameter trees as repeatedly getting reductions even though it’s grass beneath and grazed tight .

I don’t know as I hate knocking them but I’ve no choice as it’s hitting me in the pocket leaving them as is as BpS and glas payments based on the overall area.

This is the BS aspect of the system.
It insists on destruction of habitat no matter what sense is involved.

Bass Reeves

annubis wrote: »

folks have a fenced off rough bit of ground, it was a habitat back in REPS 3, i never got into reps 4 as it had shut before my reps 3 was finished, now its taken out of my maps as is down as scrub, should that be the case since it was originally a habitat?

sonnybill wrote: »

Spent past 2 days felling 6in + diameter trees as repeatedly getting reductions even though it’s grass beneath and grazed tight .

I don’t know as I hate knocking them but I’ve no choice as it’s hitting me in the pocket leaving them as is as BpS and glas payments based on the overall area.

_Brian wrote: »

This is the BS aspect of the system.
It insists on destruction of habitat no matter what sense is involved.

Absolutely crazy we are giving money out for micky mouse envoirment schemes to try and recreate natural habitats. Them we penalise lads that have habitats and encouage them to destroy said habitats. I have about 5 acres excluded from my maps because they are habitats. Part of a fort that is overgrown and a area with reed in it that is part of a wetland. I have often taught about reclaiming same.

Look at lads being forced to burn mountain scrubland to claim there SFP or get diggers in. These are way better habitats than artificalones created. Putting up bird boxes and then lads penalized for having trees and they then cutting them because of this.

_Brian

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Absolutely crazy we are giving money out for micky mouse envoirment schemes to try and recreate natural habitats. Them we penalise lads that have habitats and encouage them to destroy said habitats. I have about 5 acres excluded from my maps because they are habitats. Part of a fort that is overgrown and a area with reed in it that is part of a wetland. I have often taught about reclaiming same.

Look at lads being forced to burn mountain scrubland to claim there SFP or get diggers in. These are way better habitats than artificalones created. Putting up bird boxes and then lads penalized for having trees and they then cutting them because of this.

We’ve cleared patches of gorse, beaten back rushes over recent years.

Now I see no pheasants about at all as they used this for cover.

But as you say “schemes” are paying to hang a nest box on a tree in the hopes something will come to it.

My neighbor planted maybe 60 acres of spruce and when this grows it will be devoid of life, yet it gets forestry premium and if I’m correct sfp on it too ??

wrangler

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Absolutely crazy we are giving money out for micky mouse envoirment schemes to try and recreate natural habitats. Them we penalise lads that have habitats and encouage them to destroy said habitats. I have about 5 acres excluded from my maps because they are habitats. Part of a fort that is overgrown and a area with reed in it that is part of a wetland. I have often taught about reclaiming same.

Look at lads being forced to burn mountain scrubland to claim there SFP or get diggers in. These are way better habitats than artificalones created. Putting up bird boxes and then lads penalized for having trees and they then cutting them because of this.

Have to remember that a condition of the BPS is good agriculure condition and should always be targetted at farmers not conservationist and never the twain shall cross or else our BPS would be diluted across every sort of rubbish land,
Entitlements from land sold for development would be transferred onto every sort of rubbsh land
There's lots of land coming suitable for wildlife as farms are neglected and abandoned. Ensure the survival of the farmers first
Every million that's diverted to neglected land has to come from somewhere.

Capercaillie

_Brian wrote: »

We’ve cleared patches of gorse, beaten back rushes over recent years.

Now I see no pheasants about at all as they used this for cover.

But as you say “schemes” are paying to hang a nest box on a tree in the hopes something will come to it.

My neighbor planted maybe 60 acres of spruce and when this grows it will be devoid of life, yet it gets forestry premium and if I’m correct sfp on it too ??

DAFM want production at all costs, environmental considerations are irrelevant. IFA wanted agri-environmental schemes that paid for doing feck all. So that's what we got.

Capercaillie

sonnybill wrote: »

Spent past 2 days felling 6in + diameter trees as repeatedly getting reductions even though it’s grass beneath and grazed tight .

I don’t know as I hate knocking them but I’ve no choice as it’s hitting me in the pocket leaving them as is as BpS and glas payments based on the overall area.

BFP should take into consideration ecosystem services, instead farmers are basically forced to destroy these habitats. Can you not get into a forestry scheme with the trees?

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

DAFM want production at all costs, environmental considerations are irrelevant. IFA wanted agri-environmental schemes that paid for doing feck all. So that's what we got.

Money for nothing, win ,win

Capercaillie

wrangler wrote: »

Money for nothing, win ,win

IFA/DAFM got what they wanted, so it was win win for them.

Bass Reeves

wrangler wrote: »

Have to remember that a condition of the BPS is good agriculure condition and should always be targetted at farmers not conservationist and never the twain shall cross or else our BPS would be diluted across every sort of rubbish land,
Entitlements from land sold for development would be transferred onto every sort of rubbsh land
There's lots of land coming suitable for wildlife as farms are neglected and abandoned. Ensure the survival of the farmers first
Every million that's diverted to neglected land has to come from somewhere.

The problem with this theory is that land that is excluded from BFP is then excluded from being used in envoirmental schemes. It will backfire on commercial farmers in the longterm. One side effect of doing away with land that had to be excluded in tillage before is the huge reduction in wildlife especially in insects and bees. In certain area's in Europe they are starting to reach tipping points where crop pollination is becoming an issue.

What is a real problem is that before 2002 there was no real issue with what was growing on land. There could be furze, rushers or rocks it was immaterial as the payment was production based. When the farm payment was put onto an area based farming aid especially now with sattilite based inspection is that land that was eligible is now ineligible but farmers were putting in this land pre 2002 with the same issues but now find there small payments getting smaller. This is hard to take along with the way GLAS is a poor imitation of REPS with larger intensive farmers now able to access the money easier than smaller extensive famers.

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

i got what IFA/DAFM got what they wanted, so it was win win for them.

And farmers. It's not compulsory for anyone to signup to those schemes.
My neighbour was congratulating me on how well I was encouraging wild life lately with the increase in little birds around for the last couple years, I promptly informed him that the demise of all his cats (12+) due to inbreeding had finally let little birds hatch again in my hedges.
To tell you the truth I've got such a sickening of the dogooders (National parks and wildlife, inland fisheries etc) over the years that I'd do nothing for wildlife.
The way the saddos block the maintenace of the Shannon is criminal

Capercaillie

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The problem with this theory is that land that is excluded from BFP is then excluded from being used in envoirmental schemes. It will backfire on commercial farmers in the longterm. One side effect of doing away with land that had to be excluded in tillage before is the huge reduction in wildlife especially in insects and bees. In certain area's in Europe they are starting to reach tipping points where crop pollination is becoming an issue.

What is a real problem is that before 2002 there was no real issue with what was growing on land. There could be furze, rushers or rocks it was immaterial as the payment was production based. When the farm payment was put onto an area based farming aid especially now with sattilite based inspection is that land that was eligible is now ineligible but farmers were putting in this land pre 2002 with the same issues but now find there small payments getting smaller. This is hard to take along with the way GLAS is a poor imitation of REPS with larger intensive farmers now able to access the money easier than smaller extensive famers.

430 million in NDP was earmarked for NATURA 2000 farmers, this was diverted to pillar I payments. With Foodwise 2020 the focus has been on production, the department has stripped money from extensive farmers to incentivize expansion in more intensive systems.

Bass Reeves

wrangler wrote: »

And farmers. It's not compulsory for anyone to signup to those schemes.
My neighbour was congratulating me on how well I was encouraging wild life lately with the increase in little birds around for the last couple years, I promptly informed him that the demise of all his cats (12+) due to inbreeding had finally let little birds hatch again in my hedges.
To tell you the truth I've got such a sickening of the dogooders (National parks and wildlife, inland fisheries etc) over the years that I'd do nothing for wildlife.
The way the saddos block the maintenace of the Shannon is criminal

I wonder who is the saddo. Your attitude to wildlife, envoirmental schemes, smaller farmers is fairly sickening. We can see were IFA thinking has came from.

wrangler

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The problem with this theory is that land that is excluded from BFP is then excluded from being used in envoirmental schemes. It will backfire on commercial farmers in the longterm. One side effect of doing away with land that had to be excluded in tillage before is the huge reduction in wildlife especially in insects and bees. In certain area's in Europe they are starting to reach tipping points where crop pollination is becoming an issue.

What is a real problem is that before 2002 there was no real issue with what was growing on land. There could be furze, rushers or rocks it was immaterial as the payment was production based. When the farm payment was put onto an area based farming aid especially now with sattilite based inspection is that land that was eligible is now ineligible but farmers were putting in this land pre 2002 with the same issues but now find there small payments getting smaller. This is hard to take along with the way GLAS is a poor imitation of REPS with larger intensive farmers now able to access the money easier than smaller extensive famers.

Well going back to justin McCarthys point, maybe bigger farmers do need it more considering the improvement in the economy and jobs for parttime farmers

wrangler

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I wonder who is the saddo. Your attitude to wildlife, envoirmental schemes, smaller farmers is fairly sickening. We can see were IFA thinking has came from.

You obviously don't live near the Shannon or never had anything to do with trying to get some relief for the hardship that's thrust on to the public by the aforementioned bodies'

Apparently now that maintenance finally got the go ahead they've given the job to the office of public works instead of an independent contractor.
Will the job ever get done now

_Brian

wrangler wrote: »

Money for nothing, win ,win

And natural habitat is destroyed while lads get paid to hang garden ornaments on trees.

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

And natural habitat is destroyed while lads get paid to hang garden ornaments on trees.

Wildlife will be alright, there's thousands of acres of neglected land all round Ireland and thousands of acres of native trees beside motorways

grassroot1

There is no reason that with some consideration we cannot farm and protect wildlife as previous generations did.
If we were paid for protecting the habitats that we have instead of keeping extra cattle we might get a better price for the ones we sell.
The bottom line for a farmer is what is in their bank account not how many cattle they have.
Most farmers understand that they are guardians of the farm for their lifetime and do value the flora and fauna.

Capercaillie

wrangler wrote: »

Wildlife will be alright, there's thousands of acres of neglected land all round Ireland and thousands of acres of native trees beside motorways

How many breeding corncrake, redshank, twite, lapwing, grey partridge left on farmland All virtually extinct, all once common farmland species. Not everything is about production. Ireland portrays its agriculture as sustainable and green! How does mass extinction fit into that message....

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

How many breeding corncrake, redshank, twite, lapwing, grey partridge left on farmland All virtually extinct, all once common farmland species. Not everything is about production. Ireland portrays its agriculture as sustainable and green! How does mass extinction fit into that message....

Where's the ford factory in Cork now where's the woolen industries, the flax and linen......you either adapt or you know what, a lot of industries gone since corncrakes were running around in the hay meadows

Capercaillie

wrangler wrote: »

Where's the ford factory in Cork now where's the woolen industries, the flax and linen......you either adapt or you know what, a lot of industries gone since corncrakes were running around in the hay meadows

NPWS have a good scheme working with farmers protecting the last of the corncrake, while at same time keepings farmers working the land. Origin Green myth will be exposed the way agriculture is intensifying.

Bass Reeves

Capercaillie wrote: »

How many breeding corncrake, redshank, twite, lapwing, grey partridge left on farmland All virtually extinct, all once common farmland species. Not everything is about production. Ireland portrays its agriculture as sustainable and green! How does mass extinction fit into that message....

The real problem is the insect and bee population. since the removal of setaside in Europe there has been a sharp downturn in smaller bird species. It is suspected that the lack of insects has affected this.

It was interesting this year with a hot summer to see the absence of butterflies, horseflies, bees, etc. they seem to be on the verge of extinction in certain parts of the country.

Say my name

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The real problem is the insect and bee population. since the removal of setaside in Europe there has been a sharp downturn in smaller bird species. It is suspected that the lack of insects has affected this.

It was interesting this year with a hot summer to see the absence of butterflies, horseflies, bees, etc. they seem to be on the verge of extinction in certain parts of the country.

I was remarking when I was topping the "weeds" in my reseed earlier this year at the amount of moths, butterflies and insects that were coming off it as I was topping it.
I almost felt guilty for doing so.
But then the thought of the rent money I was paying over to the landlord quickly erased any guilt.



You're 100% correct though.

Birdnuts

wrangler wrote: »

You obviously don't live near the Shannon or never had anything to do with trying to get some relief for the hardship that's thrust on to the public by the aforementioned bodies'

Apparently now that maintenance finally got the go ahead they've given the job to the office of public works instead of an independent contractor.
Will the job ever get done now

This issue with the Shannon is the peat silt from BNM operations and the dam at ardnacrusha. It has FA to do with what you are on about. The Mississipee is the most dredged river in the world and still floods. The Shannon has a floodplain and if land use issues in the catchement where dealt with then there would no issue.

_Brian

wrangler wrote: »

Where's the ford factory in Cork now where's the woolen industries, the flax and linen......you either adapt or you know what, a lot of industries gone since corncrakes were running around in the hay meadows

Are you really openly saying that its ok for people to farm in a manner that runs wild animals one by one to extinction..



I find that a very disturbing attitude and I wouldnt want the general population to think that it was in any way common among farmers.

Birdnuts

_Brian wrote: »

Are you really openly saying that its ok for people to farm in a manner that runs wild animals one by one to extinction..



I find that a very disturbing attitude and I wouldnt want the general population to think that it was in any way common among farmers.

Up to very recently many generations in this country got near zero environmental education growing up - you only have to witness the amount of rubbish strewn around our countryside, beaches, towns etc. compared to other EU countries to see that:(

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

Are you really openly saying that its ok for people to farm in a manner that runs wild animals one by one to extinction..



I find that a very disturbing attitude and I wouldnt want the general population to think that it was in any way common among farmers.

What do real farmers do to preserve wildlife, I don't see much evidence of it around here, plenty of ditches being cut here for the last month

_Brian

I work with farmers all the time and they are glad to see wildlife on their farms and many frustrated that there is so much conflict with the way things are going, destruction of native habitat and loss of diversity.
You somehow drew a comparison between human created industry and wild life that developed over hundreds if not thousands of years - and you seem to think it’s ok to wipe these out within a puny human lifetime.

I’ve seen no activity on hedge cutting locally here - but sher maybe we’re not these “real” farmers the IFA et al are so strongly promoting and protecting.

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

I work with farmers all the time and they are glad to see wildlife on their farms and many frustrated that there is so much conflict with the way things are going, destruction of native habitat and loss of diversity.
You somehow drew a comparison between human created industry and wild life that developed over hundreds if not thousands of years - and you seem to think it’s ok to wipe these out within a puny human lifetime.

I’ve seen no activity on hedge cutting locally here - but sher maybe we’re not these “real” farmers the IFA et al are so strongly promoting and protecting.

As I say there's plenty of neglected land around that there's no need to interfere with real farming,

_Brian

Real farming again.

Like real men don’t go to doctors, you seem to think real farming has no need to be mindful of the environment or wildlife.

Capercaillie

wrangler wrote: »

As I say there's plenty of neglected land around that there's no need to interfere with real farming,

Species like corncrake need land to be farmed to survive. They need farmers who manage land sympathetically for wildlife.

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

Real farming again.

Like real men don’t go to doctors, you seem to think real farming has no need to be mindful of the environment or wildlife.

Surely in looking after my animals the environment is looked after, good enough for them will be good enough for me. the rest will have to adapt or ....

Capercaillie

wrangler wrote: »

Surely in looking after my animals the environment is looked after, good enough for them will be good enough for me. the rest will have to adapt or ....

If that's the case there should be no support/assistance for any farmers affected by fodder crisis.

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

If that's the case there should be no support/assistance for any farmers affected by fodder crisis.

Well it's not sustainable to be going cap in hand to the govt every couple of years, is it, no other industry would be tolerated

Birdnuts

wrangler wrote: »

As I say there's plenty of neglected land around that there's no need to interfere with real farming,

I can see why the IFA is losing membership:rolleyes:

wrangler

Birdnuts wrote: »

I can see why the IFA is losing membership:rolleyes:

Pitiful effort at a retort,
You worry about your sad little animals and I'll look after my animals.
i've hosted the biggest ever IGA sheep conference , I've won the Indo Sheep Farmer Of the year, I've entertained agri delegations here from all over the world. Prices at my clearance sale were a testament to my stock
Do you think if my farm wasn't 110% any of that would be happening.....that's why I don't thnk That inspections or tagging is onerous, I don't whinge about the department, People can walk on to this farm any day of the year.
I wonder would your business stand up to the same transparency, I doubt it very much and yet you dare to criticise. When a farmer has that attention to detail he doesn't have time for stupid hobbies

Birdnuts

wrangler wrote: »

Pitiful effort at a retort,
You worry about your sad little animals and I'll look after my animals.
i've hosted the biggest ever IGA sheep conference , I've won the Indo Sheep Farmer Of the year, I've entertained agri delegations here from all over the world. Prices at my clearance sale were a testament to my stock
Do you think if my farm wasn't 110% any of that would be happening.....that's why I don't thnk That inspections or tagging is onerous, I don't whinge about the department, People can walk on to this farm any day of the year.
I wonder would your business stand up to the same transparency, I doubt it very much and yet you dare to criticise. When a farmer has that attention to detail he doesn't have time for stupid hobbies

You must have difficulty accessing the shops little folk like me do with that size of head on ya. I'm happy enough with the bit of farming I do so you can park your arrogance and contempt somewhere else

wrangler

Birdnuts wrote: »

You must have difficulty accessing the shops little folk like me do with that size of head on ya. I'm happy enough with the bit of farming I do so you can park your arrogance and contempt somewhere else

You're obviously not happy with the bit of farming I do, plenty of areas left for wildlife without more land being let run wild.

Capercaillie

wrangler wrote: »

Pitiful effort at a retort,
You worry about your sad little animals and I'll look after my animals.
i've hosted the biggest ever IGA sheep conference , I've won the Indo Sheep Farmer Of the year, I've entertained agri delegations here from all over the world. Prices at my clearance sale were a testament to my stock
Do you think if my farm wasn't 110% any of that would be happening.....that's why I don't thnk That inspections or tagging is onerous, I don't whinge about the department, People can walk on to this farm any day of the year.
I wonder would your business stand up to the same transparency, I doubt it very much and yet you dare to criticise. When a farmer has that attention to detail he doesn't have time for stupid hobbies

Any agri-environmental awards? Any photos of this super duper farm?

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

Any agri-environmental awards? Any photos of this super duper farm?

If I was doing anti environment, international visitors wouldn't be coming here to see the green image. Lambs were always mainly grass fed here.
Plenty of photos around if you looked for them
Birdnuts must have thought he was dealing with a messer

Capercaillie

wrangler wrote: »

If I was doing anti environment, international visitors wouldn't be coming here to see the green image. Lambs were always mainly grass fed here.
Plenty of photos around if you looked for them
Birdnuts must have thought he was dealing with a messer

Been mainly fed grass does not automatically mean environmentally sound. Origin green is mostly spin.

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

Been mainly fed grass does not automatically mean environmentally sound. Origin green is mostly spin.

Perception is everything, we had a delegation of chinese meat processors here, one of whom was described as the Larry goodman of processing multiplied by ten, He was well impressed with the grass,the sheep and especially the flock health. There was ewes lambing at the time and they were amused at us giving individual attention to every lamb There's 146m sheep in china...don't know whether they're extensive or intensive, What he did say was that the sheep industry is ready to go and there is significant investment starting in the sheep industry in china.
I doubt Ireland has a place supplying any quantity of lamb to China.
Bord Bia need farmers on board to entertain these guys

Capercaillie

wrangler wrote: »

Perception is everything, we had a delegation of chinese meat processors here, one of whom was described as the Larry goodman of processing multiplied by ten, He was well impressed with the grass,the sheep and especially the flock health. There was ewes lambing at the time and they were amused at us giving individual attention to every lamb There's 146m sheep in china...don't know whether they're extensive or intensive, What he did say was that the sheep industry is ready to go and there is significant investment starting in the sheep industry in china.
I doubt Ireland has a place supplying any quantity of lamb to China.
Bord Bia need farmers on board to entertain these guys

Do you think Chinese give a damn about biodiversity/environmental protection? They are stripping the resources of the planet.

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

Do you think Chinese give a damn about biodiversity/environmental protection? They are stripping the resources of the planet.

I suppose with no family coming after me it wouldn't be foremost on my mind.
They won't be reeled in anyway
Did you ever hear of the serenity prayer, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.
so so true
You know what they say, Customer is always right

Say my name

wrangler wrote: »

Perception is everything, we had a delegation of chinese meat processors here, one of whom was described as the Larry goodman of processing multiplied by ten, He was well impressed with the grass,the sheep and especially the flock health. There was ewes lambing at the time and they were amused at us giving individual attention to every lamb There's 146m sheep in china...don't know whether they're extensive or intensive, What he did say was that the sheep industry is ready to go and there is significant investment starting in the sheep industry in china.
I doubt Ireland has a place supplying any quantity of lamb to China.
Bord Bia need farmers on board to entertain these guys

It's a bit off topic but there was a Chinese trade delegation visiting a pump manufacturing factory in wexford town a few years back.

The red carpet was rolled out and the full grand tour was given.

The feckers went home and made the exact same pumps with just the parts measurements slightly different.

I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. They have the integrity of Larry Goodman multiplied by ten too.

Dinzee Conlee

Some of the rules around biodiversity are silly - cut down scrub (habitat) and then get paid for putting in some artifical habitat, in which species prob wont live as quickly... It makes no sense... But this is the way we do things in Ireland am afraid...

Re the ongoing argument on here re being environmentally friendly or farming with nature... This is subjective - but I think organic farmers are prob the ones most in tune with nature...

I wonder about those of us who think we are being environmentally friendly, but still put out chemical fertilisers and spray herbicides - we are probably at odds with nature in some form...

But - and here is where its gets interesting.

We throw out bag manure, and we spray weeds, we top back old grass, we cut back ditches, but we tell ourselves its ok, as we leave some habitat in the corner of the top field, or we dont drain the well field, or we dont spray or fertilse 'as much' as other people, or there is no visible difference in what we are doing...

But, I wonder are we doing some damage to some species by introducing artificial elements - the same way as the dept are telling us to do with the GLAS measures, just on a micro level? Its very evident to see bird numbers declining, not so easy to see changes in the soil... and ultimately we are all dependent on the soil...

Lastly, I would say I try to farm as environmentally as I can... But, finances come into play too...
Years ago, we used to have a lot of hares, when the place was run very extensively... But now, we are a bit more intensive, the hares don't have the same long grass to settle in, as its topped, cut for silage, grazed tighter, etc...
I have more money in my pocket, but less hares - I would like to have the hares back, would I give up the money to have them back - No, I don't think so...

wrangler

Say my name wrote: »

It's a bit off topic but there was a Chinese trade delegation visiting a pump manufacturing factory in wexford town a few years back.

The red carpet was rolled out and the full grand tour was given.

The feckers went home and made the exact same pumps with just the parts measurements slightly different.

I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. They have the integrity of Larry Goodman multiplied by ten too.

Probably no shrewder than any business person, 'twas no accident that ireland invented the term 'cute hoor'