Living Under Regulation

wrangler

ruwithme wrote: »

Their using them satellites already. I'd say some staff,seniors too,could have a few pounds stopped in their wages for non compliance of their employment t &c,s if the satellite was focused on them.

Bloody awful that this sort of crap is being used for minor generally breaches.

Satelites have been used for years, there was farmers in trouble over poor mapping ten years ago, some farmers with uncontrolled rushes, claiming in sites of new houses, and one even claiming on a lake, it was probably 2012 that northern Ireland farmers were fined a percentage across the board for overclaiming, the department here went after the individual errant farmers at the time.
Nothing to be feared if you're doing it right

wrangler

GNWoodd wrote: »

Has there ever been any discussion , even here in Ireland with regard to farmers being subsided as against true payment for food ?
Subsidies are compensation for the primary producer not receiving a true price for product .
Yet every year there are more and conditions attached
No union worth its salt would have allowed this to evolve

All farmers have to do is strike.... :rolleyes:
Market has to be allowed work
Supply 90% ...... demand 100% = utopia
Supply 100% ....demand 90% = chaos

GNWoodd

wrangler wrote: »

Satelites have been used for years, there was farmers in trouble over poor mapping ten years ago, some farmers with uncontrolled rushes, claiming in sites of new houses, and one even claiming on a lake, it was probably 2012 that northern Ireland farmers were fined a percentage across the board for overclaiming, the department here went after the individual errant farmers at the time.
Nothing to be feared if you're doing it right

Doing it right introduces a level of subjectivity .
What would be acceptable to most reasonable bosses may not be acceptable to a zealot
And there are zealots in every walk of life

wrangler

GNWoodd wrote: »

Doing it right introduces a level of subjectivity .
What would be acceptable to most reasonable bosses may not be acceptable to a zealot
And there are zealots in every walk of life

A lot of the problem is some farmers don't like authority, If they don't agree with the Ts and Cs they shouldn't apply for the scheme.

GNWoodd

wrangler wrote: »

A lot of the problem is some farmers don't like authority, If they don't agree with the Ts and Cs they shouldn't apply for the scheme.

If they don’t apply they don’t get the compensation for not being properly paid in the first place

ruwithme

Chance her on anyway lads & just hope wrangler isn't the inspector. (Sounds very straight & all)

wrangler

GNWoodd wrote: »

If they don’t apply they don’t get the compensation for not being properly paid in the first place

No one owes you a living, farmers will take advantage same as Goodman

K.G.

If didnt fill out your bps form would you be relatively free from all this stuff

wrangler

K.G. wrote: »

If didnt fill out your bps form would you be relatively free from all this stuff

Regulations will be there anyway, I never found them onerous and I always maxed out my subs while I was at it. I could never see what the problem was. We're well paid for abiding by regulations

Jjameson

wrangler wrote: »

Regulations will be there anyway, I never found them onerous and I always maxed out my subs while I was at it. I could never see what the problem was. We're well paid for abiding by regulations

My 81 year old father in law had his sfp held up over a track in a field where he drove a jeep to look at cattle during the summer. 300€ would scarcely cover the cost of the inspection?
Have you had a change of heart on our beloved civil service?

A compliant conscientious farmer needs a whip while food processing industry put horse meat (horses with zero paperwork and treated with pharmaceuticals) into a “beef pie” don’t have any such issue.

Are you too young to remember the beef tribunal?

wrangler

Jjameson wrote: »

My 81 year old father in law had his sfp held up over a track in a field where he drove a jeep to look at cattle during the summer. 300€ would scarcely cover the cost of the inspection?
Have you had a change of heart on our beloved civil service?

A compliant conscientious farmer needs a whip while food processing industry put horse meat (horses with zero paperwork and treated with pharmaceuticals) into a “beef pie” don’t have any such issue.

Are you too young to remember the beef tribunal?

None of those things would matter to me but your examples there are good reasons to be fed up our public service, surely their purpose is in the name ''servants of the public''........not happening is it.

There was a blitz on poor mapping years ago and while people like your father in law were innocently caught out, there was also blatant fraud so never think that goodman is the only one that stretches the rules, I had a roadway myself but I'd always under estimate the hectares so no penalty

Jjameson

wrangler wrote: »

[/B]


None of those things would matter to me but your examples there are good reasons to be fed up our public service, surely their purpose is in the name ''servants of the public''........not happening is it.

There was a blitz on poor mapping years ago and while people like your father in law were innocently caught out, there was also blatant fraud so never think that goodman is the only one that stretches the rules, I had a roadway myself but I'd always under estimate the hectares so no penalty

No roadway just wheel marks on a dry grass field. The cost of the inspection and processing would far exceed than the payment on the area involved in any case.

K.G.

wrangler wrote: »

Regulations will be there anyway, I never found them onerous and I always maxed out my subs while I was at it. I could never see what the problem was. We're well paid for abiding by regulations

But in my view you would have to be convicted of causing pollution and the burden of proof would be quite high.rules like spreading dates ,stocking rates,less spreading,round feeders etc they d look like some ejits filling courts with that kind of stuff.after that youd only have the bord bia which isnt that onerous

Jjameson

K.G. wrote: »

But in my view you would have to be convicted of causing pollution and the burden of proof would be quite high.rules like spreading dates ,stocking rates,less spreading,round feeders etc they d look like some ejits filling courts with that kind of stuff.after that youd only have the bord bia which isnt that onerous

The nature of food processing is 24 hours a day. Try finding documentation relating to labelling and traceability spot checking.
The reputational damage to our food exports was caused by the Goodmans Queallys and their ilk but bord bias marketing is about proclaiming the enormity of farm inspections Criminalising us by association.

MIKEKC

GNWoodd wrote: »

The sooner farmers get paid for what we produce and move away from subsidies the better .
Get paid for what we produce today
Nobody should have to comply with hundreds of pages of regulations and be at the mercy of any public servant
The farm organisations and politicians have a lot to answer for when every decision eroded our independence.

Regardless of subsidies we will always have to go by regulations

MIKEKC

wrangler wrote: »

Satelites have been used for years, there was farmers in trouble over poor mapping ten years ago, some farmers with uncontrolled rushes, claiming in sites of new houses, and one even claiming on a lake, it was probably 2012 that northern Ireland farmers were fined a percentage across the board for overclaiming, the department here went after the individual errant farmers at the time.
Nothing to be feared if you're doing it right

True ,nothing to be feared if you are doing it right. The problem is that a large number of farmers are not abiding by the rules . Then fear inspections. Very few inspections so farmers become complacent. Glas farmers with commonage are getting away without complying with commonage framework plan. A very important part of this scheme was to protect commonage , yet very few put up sheep. All still getting paid.

MIKEKC

wrangler wrote: »

A lot of the problem is some farmers don't like authority, If they don't agree with the Ts and Cs they shouldn't apply for the scheme.

Very good point Wrangler. When they see that they get paid while breaking the rules they will continue to take part in the schemes

K.G.

But my real point is we have become so institutionalized to cap we cant seem to think outside of it.ditching the payments especially for people with payments of say 10 k a year is becoming a real possibility for dairy farmers

jaymla627

K.G. wrote: »

But my real point is we have become so institutionalized to cap we cant seem to think outside of it.ditching the payments especially for people with payments of say 10 k a year is becoming a real possibility for dairy farmers

When you see how lightly the chap in cork got off for numerous slurry discharges into a river destroying the fish population in the process, if you just forgo the cap farm away responsible, I reckon you'll be left alone, if derogation isn't renewed for 2021 half the dairy farmers in the country will be doing the above anyway, retrospectively if a lad has availed of tams grants and then isn't compliant with cap rules going forward will the government recoup the money

wrangler

jaymla627 wrote: »

When you see how lightly the chap in cork got off for numerous slurry discharges into a river destroying the fish population in the process, if you just forgo the cap farm away responsible, I reckon you'll be left alone, if derogation isn't renewed for 2021 half the dairy farmers in the country will be doing the above anyway, retrospectively if a lad has availed of tams grants and then isn't compliant with cap rules going forward will the government recoup the money

Local council here would be always on to pollution, but they'd give farmers a few weeks to tidy up, it'd be an arrogant farmer that'd get his name in the paper over it