Pat's Note: You can see why the former Chief Vet of the UK was so keen
to have criminal activities by his staff in England in 2000
investigated in Scotland by the Scottish Executive.

It was unconstiutional, of course, but we live in the world's first,
only and doubtless last Vetocracy.

Mind you if Scotland does go independant, they will be the last to be
run by bent vets, mostly graduates of the aptly nicknamed Royal Dick.

Hides like leather, they stick like glue. The Scots are going to have
a hell of a job getting rid of them and returning to western
civilisation.

Salmond's got a problem. If he uses the vets to further his ambitions,
it won't look too good if MRSA is found in British pigs.

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/756965?UserKey=0

Saturday 26 July 2008

Scotland’s FMD action plan is slated
Government’s contingency proposals come in for stinging criticism
By Joe Watson

Published: 26/07/2008

Jim Scudamore: inquiry


Scotland’s foot-and-mouth contingency plan has been condemned as not
fit for purpose in a scathing report by independent consultants.

Analytic Red tear apart the existing Scottish Government document,
saying it falls short of the aspirations that it specifies.

The firm’s biggest hammer blow is the stinging criticism that the plan
does not meet the fundamental principles for a national contingency
plan for the strategic management of a disease outbreak.

The firm says the existing plan lacks:

The appropriate content and structure for dealing with disease.

The required capacity to deal with the scale and pattern of an
outbreak.

The proven ability to deliver an immediate response to all aspects if
disease breaks out.

The necessary policy and operational responses that would be needed
immediately in a major disease outbreak.

The condemnation is a significant blow as the livestock sector had
believed the foot-and-mouth plan to have been fully reviewed and
updated by the former Liberal Democrat-Labour controlled Scottish
Executive in the wake of the 2001 disease outbreak that cost Scotland
hundreds of millions of pounds.

The latest report was ordered by Professor Jim Scudamore as part of
his inquiry into the lessons to be learned from the bungling
incompetence in England that caused last year’s foot-and-mouth
outbreak in Surrey and the escape of the virus from the UK Government
run Pirbright research site.

His report when it was published last month made 55 recommendations,
key among which was renegotiating the budgetary arrangements between
Scotland and the UK to prevent a repeat of the problems that emerged
last year.

Analytic Red’s report – now published on the government’s website –
recommends Scotland’s contingency plan is rewritten as a separate
national document that regards any foot-and-mouth outbreak as a
“crisis” and which focuses on using national emergency teams as part
of the response.

The firm calls on the government to take full account of industry
views in rewriting the plan and to ensure that any new document fully
recognises the wider economic impacts of all the disease control
options that might be taken.

The consultants add: “While our findings are radical, ours is not a
counsel of despair.”

The Scottish Government admitted to the Press and Journal a review of
the contingency plan was now under way and that a revised document –
taking account of the views in all recent reports – would be published
later this year.

A spokeswoman said Prof Scudamore had highlighted that both the
Scottish Government and industry were generally satisfied with the
response to last year’s English outbreak.

ANM Group chief executive Brian Pack said the report was a remarkable
document, adding that he was pleased the government had accepted such
a critical analysis of the plan.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com

In article , Pat Gardiner
<URL:mailto:pat.gardiner@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:

Pat you blithering idiot...

> Government’s contingency proposals come in for stinging criticism
> By Joe Watson

If you're going to violate someone's copyright to warp into spurious
evidence for your fantasies DO NOT select alarmist subject lines.

Cheerio,  

-- 

>>   derek@farm-direct.co.uk
>>   http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:16:47 +0100, Derek Moody
 wrote:

>In article , Pat Gardiner
><URL:mailto:pat.gardiner@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Pat you blithering idiot...
>
>> Government’s contingency proposals come in for stinging criticism
>> By Joe Watson
>
>If you're going to violate someone's copyright to warp into spurious
>evidence for your fantasies DO NOT select alarmist subject lines.
>
>Cheerio,  

On reflection, it was a poor subject line and I have changed it to
something more appropriate.

However, nothing should be allowed to cover the fact that criminal
activities by Scottish vets operating under the then unified SVS and
the command of the then Chief vet of the UK, were investigated by the
Scottish Executive.

That is unconstitutional. It should have been the police in Norfolk
and I told Scudamore so at the time, but he resused to allow them in.

Had the covert examination of cattle by his former assistant been
exposed, we would not have had half the animal health problems since
and there would be no need for anyone to jump at headlines

The prospect of independence is going to their heads. 

Devolution was in 2000. I guess all the ones operating south of the
border were anxious to go home and jump on the devolution gravy train,
now it is the independance band wagon.

Anyway, you can butter up the Scottish Nationalists if you like. You
won't get political asylum. 

Anyway, what are you doing reading me? 

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com

In article , Pat Gardiner 
 writes
>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:16:47 +0100, Derek Moody
> wrote:
>
>>In article , Pat Gardiner
>><URL:mailto:pat.gardiner@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Pat you blithering idiot...
>>
>>> Government’s contingency proposals come in for stinging criticism
>>> By Joe Watson
>>
>>If you're going to violate someone's copyright to warp into spurious
>>evidence for your fantasies DO NOT select alarmist subject lines.
>>
>>Cheerio,
>
>On reflection, it was a poor subject line and I have changed it to
>something more appropriate.
>
>However, nothing should be allowed to cover the fact that criminal
>activities by Scottish vets operating under the then unified SVS and
>the command of the then Chief vet of the UK, were investigated by the
>Scottish Executive.
>
What "crime" was committed and which law was broken?
>
>Devolution was in 2000.

It was in 1999. Can't you get anything right?

-- 
Malcolm

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:02:22 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
 wrote:

>
>In article , Pat Gardiner 
> writes
>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:16:47 +0100, Derek Moody
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article , Pat Gardiner
>>><URL:mailto:pat.gardiner@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>Pat you blithering idiot...
>>>
>>>> Government’s contingency proposals come in for stinging criticism
>>>> By Joe Watson
>>>
>>>If you're going to violate someone's copyright to warp into spurious
>>>evidence for your fantasies DO NOT select alarmist subject lines.
>>>
>>>Cheerio,
>>
>>On reflection, it was a poor subject line and I have changed it to
>>something more appropriate.
>>
>>However, nothing should be allowed to cover the fact that criminal
>>activities by Scottish vets operating under the then unified SVS and
>>the command of the then Chief vet of the UK, were investigated by the
>>Scottish Executive.
>>
>What "crime" was committed and which law was broken?
>>
>>Devolution was in 2000.
>
>It was in 1999. Can't you get anything right?


Read it again. Going to their heads in August 2000, when Scudamore's
assistant was in England faking blood tests on pigs and examining
cattle on the QT for FMD. Six months before they admitted it was here.

Will you please stop stalking me? I have asked you many times before.
Salmond won't thank you, when he finds out what was going on under his
nose.

You could at least have the decency not to join the others in
abandoning poor old Moody to his fate. Just because he was daft enough
to publish the FMD  nonsense on his site and can't deny involvement is
no reason to leave him to his fate.

You could show a bit more loyalty.

Anyway, no more stalking, please.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com

In message , Pat Gardiner 
 writes
>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:02:22 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article , Pat Gardiner
>> writes
>>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:16:47 +0100, Derek Moody
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article , Pat Gardiner
>>>><URL:mailto:pat.gardiner@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Pat you blithering idiot...
>>>>
>>>>> Government’s contingency proposals come in for stinging criticism
>>>>> By Joe Watson
>>>>
>>>>If you're going to violate someone's copyright to warp into spurious
>>>>evidence for your fantasies DO NOT select alarmist subject lines.
>>>>
>>>>Cheerio,
>>>
>>>On reflection, it was a poor subject line and I have changed it to
>>>something more appropriate.
>>>
>>>However, nothing should be allowed to cover the fact that criminal
>>>activities by Scottish vets operating under the then unified SVS and
>>>the command of the then Chief vet of the UK, were investigated by the
>>>Scottish Executive.
>>>
>>What "crime" was committed and which law was broken?
>>>
>>>Devolution was in 2000.
>>
>>It was in 1999. Can't you get anything right?
>
>
>Read it again.

I've read it again. It says: "Devolution was in 2000".

It wasn't, it was in 1999.

>Going to their heads in August 2000, when Scudamore's
>assistant was in England faking blood tests on pigs and examining
>cattle on the QT for FMD. Six months before they admitted it was here.
>
>Will you please stop stalking me? I have asked you many times before.
>Salmond won't thank you, when he finds out what was going on under his
>nose.
>
You have made 138 posts this month. I have responded to 4 of them.

That, Pat, is not "stalking", it is showing the utmost restraint in the 
face of your spewing out, several times a day, a stream of material, 
some of it irrelevant to this newsgroup, lifted from a variety of media 
and invariably preceded by your often nonsensical and not infrequently 
inaccurate or misleading claims. I have confined myself to correcting a 
mere handful of those claims. You should thank me for making the 
corrections and so preventing you from misinforming the many readers you 
have claimed are flocking to this newsgroup.

-- 
Malcolm

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:13:01 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
 wrote:

>In message , Pat Gardiner 
> writes
>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:02:22 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article , Pat Gardiner
>>> writes
>>>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:16:47 +0100, Derek Moody
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article , Pat Gardiner
>>>>><URL:mailto:pat.gardiner@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Pat you blithering idiot...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Government’s contingency proposals come in for stinging criticism
>>>>>> By Joe Watson
>>>>>
>>>>>If you're going to violate someone's copyright to warp into spurious
>>>>>evidence for your fantasies DO NOT select alarmist subject lines.
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheerio,
>>>>
>>>>On reflection, it was a poor subject line and I have changed it to
>>>>something more appropriate.
>>>>
>>>>However, nothing should be allowed to cover the fact that criminal
>>>>activities by Scottish vets operating under the then unified SVS and
>>>>the command of the then Chief vet of the UK, were investigated by the
>>>>Scottish Executive.
>>>>
>>>What "crime" was committed and which law was broken?
>>>>
>>>>Devolution was in 2000.
>>>
>>>It was in 1999. Can't you get anything right?
>>
>>
>>Read it again.
>
>I've read it again. It says: "Devolution was in 2000".
>
>It wasn't, it was in 1999.
>
Malcolm, takng a short sentence out of context by removing text and
commenting on the deliberately altered meaning is the stuff of
adolencence.

Unworthy of people associated with the Scottish Givernment or  with
your academic qualifications.

If you try to be sensible, I will explain to you later why I think it
right that Scotland should be immediately granted full independance
from the United Kingdom.

I am, therefore, a Scottish Nationalist supporter and will have to
have a word with our mutual leader if you will insist on dragging
Scotland into disrepute <grin>

By the way, don't count on the oil revenue. The Americans will have
that for reparations if the strains of superbugs on the Canadian/US
border came from the UK and the Scottish Executve were
involved....which they were.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com

In article , Pat Gardiner 
 writes
>On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:13:01 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
> wrote:
>
>>In message , Pat Gardiner
>> writes
>>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:02:22 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article , Pat Gardiner
>>>> writes
>>>>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:16:47 +0100, Derek Moody
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article , Pat Gardiner
>>>>>><URL:mailto:pat.gardiner@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pat you blithering idiot...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Government’s contingency proposals come in for stinging criticism
>>>>>>> By Joe Watson
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you're going to violate someone's copyright to warp into spurious
>>>>>>evidence for your fantasies DO NOT select alarmist subject lines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheerio,
>>>>>
>>>>>On reflection, it was a poor subject line and I have changed it to
>>>>>something more appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>>However, nothing should be allowed to cover the fact that criminal
>>>>>activities by Scottish vets operating under the then unified SVS and
>>>>>the command of the then Chief vet of the UK, were investigated by the
>>>>>Scottish Executive.
>>>>>
>>>>What "crime" was committed and which law was broken?

Why not answer these two questions? Presumably you can't.

>>>>>
>>>>>Devolution was in 2000.
>>>>
>>>>It was in 1999. Can't you get anything right?
>>>
>>>
>>>Read it again.
>>
>>I've read it again. It says: "Devolution was in 2000".
>>
>>It wasn't, it was in 1999.
>>
>Malcolm, takng a short sentence out of context by removing text and
>commenting on the deliberately altered meaning is the stuff of
>adolencence.
>
I think you should read what you wrote again. That sentence can only 
have one meaning. It is impossible to alter it. You might have believed 
that you had put the sentence "Devolution was in 2000" into some kind of 
context, but it was still wrong, whatever the context.

>Unworthy of people associated with the Scottish Givernment or  with
>your academic qualifications.
>
Pathetic nonsense. Pointing out someone's errors is being kind to them. 
And you need all the help you can get.

>If you try to be sensible, I will explain to you later why I think it
>right that Scotland should be immediately granted full independance
>from the United Kingdom.
>
I couldn't care less what you think on the matter. It is irrelevant, 
like so much of what you post here.

>I am, therefore, a Scottish Nationalist supporter and will have to
>have a word with our mutual leader if you will insist on dragging
>Scotland into disrepute <grin>
>
More pathetic nonsense.

>By the way, don't count on the oil revenue. The Americans will have
>that for reparations if the strains of superbugs on the Canadian/US
>border came from the UK and the Scottish Executve were
>involved....which they were.
>
By the way, why you don't you try and talk sense for a time. That last 
paragraph is nothing but  meaningless wittering.

-- 
Malcolm

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:55:25 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
 wrote:

>
>In article , Pat Gardiner 
> writes
>>On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:13:01 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In message , Pat Gardiner
>>> writes
>>>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:02:22 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article , Pat Gardiner
>>>>> writes
>>>>>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:16:47 +0100, Derek Moody
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article , Pat Gardiner
>>>>>>><URL:mailto:pat.gardiner@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Pat you blithering idiot...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Government’s contingency proposals come in for stinging criticism
>>>>>>>> By Joe Watson
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you're going to violate someone's copyright to warp into spurious
>>>>>>>evidence for your fantasies DO NOT select alarmist subject lines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cheerio,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On reflection, it was a poor subject line and I have changed it to
>>>>>>something more appropriate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>However, nothing should be allowed to cover the fact that criminal
>>>>>>activities by Scottish vets operating under the then unified SVS and
>>>>>>the command of the then Chief vet of the UK, were investigated by the
>>>>>>Scottish Executive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>What "crime" was committed and which law was broken?
>
>Why not answer these two questions? Presumably you can't.

I thought it was an especially stupid remark. Obviously faking a blood
test during an epidemic is a criminal offence as was the accompanying
intimidation.

I don't need to go further, for a start it depends on which
jurisdiction the case is brought and tried. I doubt that it will be
under Scottish Law since the offences were committed in England, which
is rather the point.

You obviously are being your usual tiresome self and trying to restart
your usual stalking ,. So this will be my last attempt to answer you.

>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Devolution was in 2000.
>>>>>
>>>>>It was in 1999. Can't you get anything right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Read it again.
>>>
>>>I've read it again. It says: "Devolution was in 2000".
>>>
>>>It wasn't, it was in 1999.
>>>
>>Malcolm, takng a short sentence out of context by removing text and
>>commenting on the deliberately altered meaning is the stuff of
>>adolencence.
>>
>I think you should read what you wrote again. That sentence can only 
>have one meaning. It is impossible to alter it. You might have believed 
>that you had put the sentence "Devolution was in 2000" into some kind of 
>context, but it was still wrong, whatever the context.

>
>>Unworthy of people associated with the Scottish Givernment or  with
>>your academic qualifications.
>>
>Pathetic nonsense. Pointing out someone's errors is being kind to them. 
>And you need all the help you can get.

I notice you continue to take a short sentence out of its context and
continue not to quote it in full. It is capable of two meanings, so
what?

The date is not material either, so is is just another attempt to
stroke your ego by stalking.

I realise that you are worried about circulating evidence to a Select
Committee without permission, but you should not be harassing me.

Scottish children are being hurt by animal diseases reaching the
hospitals too.
>
>snip<

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com

In article , Pat Gardiner 
 writes
>On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:55:25 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article , Pat Gardiner
>> writes
>>>On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:13:01 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message , Pat Gardiner
>>>> writes
>>>>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:02:22 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In article , Pat Gardiner
>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:16:47 +0100, Derek Moody
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article , Pat Gardiner
>>>>>>>><URL:mailto:pat.gardiner@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pat you blithering idiot...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Government’s contingency proposals come in for stinging criticism
>>>>>>>>> By Joe Watson
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you're going to violate someone's copyright to warp into spurious
>>>>>>>>evidence for your fantasies DO NOT select alarmist subject lines.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Cheerio,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On reflection, it was a poor subject line and I have changed it to
>>>>>>>something more appropriate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>However, nothing should be allowed to cover the fact that criminal
>>>>>>>activities by Scottish vets operating under the then unified SVS and
>>>>>>>the command of the then Chief vet of the UK, were investigated by the
>>>>>>>Scottish Executive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>What "crime" was committed and which law was broken?
>>
>>Why not answer these two questions? Presumably you can't.
>
>I thought it was an especially stupid remark. Obviously faking a blood
>test during an epidemic is a criminal offence as was the accompanying
>intimidation.

So, this is just your old unproven story trotted out several years after 
the alleged event and about which nothing whatsoever has ever happened. 
I wonder why not.
>
>I don't need to go further, for a start it depends on which
>jurisdiction the case is brought and tried. I doubt that it will be
>under Scottish Law since the offences were committed in England, which
>is rather the point.
>
If any offences were committed, of course. I wonder why nothing has been 
done about it for all these years.

>You obviously are being your usual tiresome self and trying to restart
>your usual stalking ,. So this will be my last attempt to answer you.
>
Thank you for owning up to not being able to answer me. And you should, 
perhaps and not for the first time, endeavour to realise that you are 
posting your endless repetitious rubbish to a public newsgroup which can 
be read and responded to by anyone in the world without your permission.

>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Devolution was in 2000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It was in 1999. Can't you get anything right?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Read it again.
>>>>
>>>>I've read it again. It says: "Devolution was in 2000".
>>>>
>>>>It wasn't, it was in 1999.
>>>>
>>>Malcolm, takng a short sentence out of context by removing text and
>>>commenting on the deliberately altered meaning is the stuff of
>>>adolencence.
>>>
>>I think you should read what you wrote again. That sentence can only
>>have one meaning. It is impossible to alter it. You might have believed
>>that you had put the sentence "Devolution was in 2000" into some kind of
>>context, but it was still wrong, whatever the context.
>
>>
>>>Unworthy of people associated with the Scottish Givernment or  with
>>>your academic qualifications.
>>>
>>Pathetic nonsense. Pointing out someone's errors is being kind to them.
>>And you need all the help you can get.
>
>I notice you continue to take a short sentence out of its context and
>continue not to quote it in full. It is capable of two meanings, so
>what?
>
I have quoted the sentence in full. If you don't believe me, go back and 
read it again. The context doesn't matter in the slightest. There is 
only one meaning to the sentence and you got it wrong.

>The date is not material either, so is is just another attempt to
>stroke your ego by stalking.
>
The date is very material, because you got it wrong. If you can get a 
simple matter like that wrong, why should anyone believe anything else 
you claim? And look up "stalking" in a dictionary and stop being stupid.

>I realise that you are worried about circulating evidence to a Select
>Committee without permission, but you should not be harassing me.
>
You claimed that I couldn't get hold of the evidence, remember?

And look up "harassing" in a dictionary and stop being stupid.

>Scottish children are being hurt by animal diseases reaching the
>hospitals too.

Ah yes, you haven't answered my question about how many pig farms there 
are in the catchment area of the Vale of Leven Hospital. You were quick 
enough to say that a Lincoln hospital with MRSA was "in pig country", 
yet you haven't said the same thing about the Vale of Leven. If the one, 
why not the other? Or can it be that either you don't know the answer or 
that you do and it doesn't fit your risible hypothesis?

-- 
Malcolm

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:13:59 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
 wrote:

>
>In article , Pat Gardiner 
> writes
>>On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:55:25 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
I have decided to reply, because it happens to suit me and some of the
readers;


>>Scottish children are being hurt by animal diseases reaching the
>>hospitals too.
>
>Ah yes, you haven't answered my question about how many pig farms there 
>are in the catchment area of the Vale of Leven Hospital. You were quick 
>enough to say that a Lincoln hospital with MRSA was "in pig country", 
>yet you haven't said the same thing about the Vale of Leven. If the one, 
>why not the other? Or can it be that either you don't know the answer or 
>that you do and it doesn't fit your risible hypothesis?

1. I do not know the location and/or ownership of pig farms or pigs in
either Great Britain or Northern Ireland.

2. I do know the names of some of the major owners, now and in the
past, in Great Britain, Ireland and Canada. That's published stuff and
sometimes local knowledge.

3. The main body of information is not published and the major pig
owners have lobbied the government and instructed their subcontractors
to keep it secret. 

They claim, pehaps not unreasonably, that they fear the attentions of
animal rights if the material was published. They also claim that they
might attract the attention of terrorists, probably less
realistically.

4. The lobbying was persistent and and energetic. They were after the
same protections given to the live animal experiment people.The
intermittent campaign was a bit over the top. 

The British government refused IIRC to allow the usual Companies House
entries to be truncated. Never-the-less reliable current information
is sparse and often shrouded in various company pyramid structures.

5. We do know that in many cases the ownership of the pigs and the
premises has become separated. I still, for example, do not know the
identity of the BPEX member running the Cornish operation specially
targeted. I probably could find out, but it does not matter.

6 The Animal Aid raid back in May and the TV programme more recently
came as a shock, not just to me, but to the pig industry.

7. That the animal rights people were able to locate the farms and the
ones owned by the great and the good of BPEX shook everyone. They had
detailed inside information.

8 They got pictures of sick pigs and empty antibiotic packaging,
exactly what everyone expected. The pigs have been sick for nearly a
decade and have been treated with huge quantities of antibiotics. That
is only cruel in the sense of keeping sick pigs alive.

9. Now, I have no idea who ***Pete*** actually is. I don't share many
of his views, but otherwise he rarely bothers anyone who behaves
reasonably. I have my opinions of who he might be, but they are only
opinions. Judging by your frequent jousts with him, that he always
seems to win, you know more than I do about who he is.

10. What did shake me was the very evening the news broke, he posted
here saying he was off to New York.  I had no more idea than anyone
else what he is doing there.

11. I would imagine that the location and ownership of Britain's,
pigs, pig farms is now better known in America than it is in Britain.
The SVS in England or in Scotland will not have missed the posting or
the implications.

Now to answer your question. You can't do science with either no data
or faked data, which is presumably the real reason for holding it back
or faking it in the first place.

Most pigs in Scotland are I believe in the Grampian region.  We do
know that Scots have been found with piggy MRSA and various other
incidents have leaked.

Otherwise it is a news blackout. Not the first time foreigners have
known more about what was going on in Britain than the people here, if
you recall from your history books.

As you will realise, I posed this for the edification of others. 

You can concentrate on the immaterial, and tying to disrupt my
campaign whilst epidemics ravage Scotland. It is a matter for you.

PS, I have changed the header. Poor lonely Moody has had enough
publicity for the moment. Sooner or later will see sense and take that
FMD nonsense down from his site. There is no point in courting
attention.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com

In article , Pat Gardiner 
 writes
>On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:13:59 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article , Pat Gardiner
>> writes
>>>On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:55:25 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>I have decided to reply, because it happens to suit me and some of the
>readers;
>
ROFL!!!

"So this will be my last attempt to answer you."

Good on you, Pat. I just love it when you change your mind. You should 
do it more often and admit when you are wrong. Catharsis is good for the 
soul. Please note and remember that devolution in Scotland occurred in 
1999.

>>>Scottish children are being hurt by animal diseases reaching the
>>>hospitals too.
>>
>>Ah yes, you haven't answered my question about how many pig farms there
>>are in the catchment area of the Vale of Leven Hospital. You were quick
>>enough to say that a Lincoln hospital with MRSA was "in pig country",
>>yet you haven't said the same thing about the Vale of Leven. If the one,
>>why not the other? Or can it be that either you don't know the answer or
>>that you do and it doesn't fit your risible hypothesis?
>
>1. I do not know the location and/or ownership of pig farms or pigs in
>either Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
>
But you knew that Lincoln was in "pig country". And you trumpeted the 
problems at the Vale of Leven Hospital and then deliberately linked them 
to pigs. Why did you do that if you didn't know whether or not there 
were pigs in the hospital's catchment area? Were you letting your 
prejudices take precedence over your knowledge?

>2. I do know the names of some of the major owners, now and in the
>past, in Great Britain, Ireland and Canada. That's published stuff and
>sometimes local knowledge.
>
So what? How many pig farms are there in the catchment of the Vale of 
Leven Hospital, which you deliberately linked to pigs?

>3. The main body of information is not published and the major pig
>owners have lobbied the government and instructed their subcontractors
>to keep it secret.
>
So what? How many pig farms are there in the catchment of the Vale of 
Leven Hospital, which you deliberately linked to pigs?

snip usual rubbish.
>
>Now to answer your question. You can't do science with either no data
>or faked data, which is presumably the real reason for holding it back
>or faking it in the first place.
>
Nonsense. You yourself rarely produce the slightest bit of evidence to 
back up your claims.

>Most pigs in Scotland are I believe in the Grampian region.  We do
>know that Scots have been found with piggy MRSA and various other
>incidents have leaked.
>
Do you actually know where the Vale of Leven is? If not, why did you 
deliberately link the problems there with pigs?

>
>PS, I have changed the header. Poor lonely Moody has had enough
>publicity for the moment. Sooner or later will see sense and take that
>FMD nonsense down from his site. There is no point in courting
>attention.
>
Your choice of header is often not apposite.

-- 
Malcolm

Pat Gardiner wrote:
> 
> I have decided to reply,

That is a real shame.  On second thoughts, perhaps not such a shame as
it does provide entertainment.

> because it happens to suit me and some of the readers;

Which readers?

<Snip some of the usual Pat nonsense>

> 9. Now, I have no idea who ***Pete*** actually is. I don't share many
>  of his views, but otherwise he rarely bothers anyone who behaves 
> reasonably. I have my opinions of who he might be, but they are only 
> opinions. Judging by your frequent jousts with him, that he always 
> seems to win, you know more than I do about who he is.

What has Pete got to do with this post?  Just some more rubbish to fill
out your post?

> 10. What did shake me was the very evening the news broke, he posted 
> here saying he was off to New York.  I had no more idea than anyone 
> else what he is doing there.

Surprised he is so silent.  I do believe New York has excellent links to
the internet.

<another snip of Pat's rubbish>

> As you will realise, I posed this for the edification of others.

No I hadn't.  I thought your stated purpose in posting all your largely
irrelevant rubbishy posts to this newsgroup was to ensure they were in
the public domain in an area where the authorities could not remove
them.  Why the hell the authorities would show the slightest interest in
the rubbish you post I have no idea but even you are entitled to hold
deluded views.

> PS, I have changed the header.

and I have changed the subject to something that is actually appropriate
to virtually all your posts.

-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

In article <488cd4b9$0$26082$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger 
 writes
>Pat Gardiner wrote:
>
>> 9. Now, I have no idea who ***Pete*** actually is. I don't share many
>>  of his views, but otherwise he rarely bothers anyone who behaves 
>>reasonably. I have my opinions of who he might be, but they are only 
>>opinions. Judging by your frequent jousts with him, that he always 
>>seems to win, you know more than I do about who he is.
>
>What has Pete got to do with this post?  Just some more rubbish to fill
>out your post?
>
And it is, as usual from Pat, complete and utter rubbish. I have not had 
any "jousts" with Pete, simply because I don't ever respond to him on 
this or any other newsgroup that he plagues. How exactly you "joust" 
with someone you don't respond to is something perhaps Pat would like to 
explain, otherwise he has yet again shown himself unable to read or to 
comprehend the written word.

-- 
Malcolm

On Jul 27, 2:13 am, Malcolm Ogilvie  wrote:
> In message , Pat Gardiner
>  writes
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:02:22 퍝, Malcolm Ogilvie
> > wrote:
>
> >>In article , Pat Gardiner
> >> writes
> >>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:16:47 퍝, Derek Moody
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>In article , Pat Gardiner
> >>>><URL:mailto:pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>Pat you blithering idiot...
>
> >>>>> Government’s contingency proposals come in for stinging criticism
> >>>>> By Joe Watson
>
> >>>>If you're going to violate someone's copyright to warp into spurious
> >>>>evidence for your fantasies DO NOT select alarmist subject lines.
>
> >>>>Cheerio,
>
> >>>On reflection, it was a poor subject line and I have changed it to
> >>>something more appropriate.
>
> >>>However, nothing should be allowed to cover the fact that criminal
> >>>activities by Scottish vets operating under the then unified SVS and
> >>>the command of the then Chief vet of the UK, were investigated by the
> >>>Scottish Executive.
>
> >>What "crime" was committed and which law was broken?
>
> >>>Devolution was in 2000.
>
> >>It was in 1999. Can't you get anything right?
>
> >Read it again.
>
> I've read it again. It says: "Devolution was in 2000".
>
> It wasn't, it was in 1999.
>
> >Going to their heads in August 2000, when Scudamore's
> >assistant was in England faking blood tests on pigs and examining
> >cattle on the QT for FMD. Six months before they admitted it was here.
>
> >Will you please stop stalking me? I have asked you many times before.
> >Salmond won't thank you, when he finds out what was going on under his
> >nose.
>
> You have made 138 posts this month. I have responded to 4 of them.
>
> That, Pat, is not "stalking", it is showing the utmost restraint in the
> face of your spewing out, several times a day, a stream of material,
> some of it irrelevant to this newsgroup, lifted from a variety of media
> and invariably preceded by your often nonsensical and not infrequently
> inaccurate or misleading claims. I have confined myself to correcting a
> mere handful of those claims. You should thank me for making the
> corrections and so preventing you from misinforming the many readers you
> have claimed are flocking to this newsgroup.
>
> --
> Malcolm

Hi there, Malcolm.    Pat isn't spewing .....he's passing on good,
relevant and very serious information.

You make yourself look bad with your constant chastisements.    He's
actually done you quite a service.    Next time you go to the
hospital, think about that.   Actually, the two of you are both quite
intelligent people.    If you could settle your differences and quit
the bickering, it could be really good for a lot of people.    Just a
suggestion,

Burkie