PDA

View Full Version : Compensation for Bernard Matthews



Angela
19-Apr-07, 18:45
I see that the Bernard Matthews company is to receive almost £600,000 in taxpayers' money to compensate for the killing of healthy turkeys at the time of the bird flu scare.

Is it only me that doesn't understand why on earth they should? :roll:

MadPict
19-Apr-07, 19:00
Guess the same rules apply as the foot and mouth outbreak compensations?

Angela
19-Apr-07, 19:16
I suppose so MadPict, but I thought it hadn't been quite ruled out that Bernard Matthews had been respsonsible for the outbreak in the first place.

Perhaps I'm wrong -it's only money anyway...[lol] :lol:

quirbal
19-Apr-07, 19:16
well as far as they are concerned all they are interested in is money, and considering that all the worry about bird flu cost them a lot of money, they will certainly feel as though they should be fully compensated.

not that i agree with it, that is.

Rheghead
19-Apr-07, 19:21
I suppose so MadPict, but I thought it hadn't been quite ruled out that Bernard Matthews had been respsonsible for the outbreak in the first place.

Perhaps I'm wrong -it's only money anyway...

Correct me if I am wrong but weren't farmers responsible for the spread of foot and mouth? I accept not all were responsible but I saw a lot of 'midnight' livestock movements during those dark times.:(

j4bberw0ck
19-Apr-07, 21:16
Is it only me that doesn't understand why on earth they should? :roll:

European law. UK Government has no option. Whether compensation should be payable to food processors or farmers is a bit of a vexed issue; they do seem to occupy a mysteriously privileged niche in the economy. Rather like MPs and Civil Servants with their pensions.

It's also argued that if you pay compensation to a livestock producer then there's no incentive for them to cover up serious biothreats like bird flu. However, as Rheghead said, certain farmers transported infected beasts from one farm to the next during the last foot and mouth epidemic, infecting cattle deliberately, so their owners could claim market value compensation without having to pay to bring the things to market condition.

Angela
19-Apr-07, 22:05
I thought there would be a reason really, jw0ck.

No doubt I'm just letting my anti- Bernard Matthews prejudices show here...:roll:

JAWS
20-Apr-07, 02:46
Does anybody know if any of the farmers who brike the law with Moonlight Movements were ever found and prosecuted?

stratman
20-Apr-07, 12:47
Does anybody know if any of the farmers who brike the law with Moonlight Movements were ever found and prosecuted?
Yes there was one in Glasbury on Wye in South wales

stratman
20-Apr-07, 12:53
As it is documented that the Bernard Matthews building conditions were sub standard surely a fine of greater value than the compensation would be approapriate.

Solus
20-Apr-07, 13:04
Very true Stratman, i had forgot about that, possibly because it was kind of " forgotten " by various groups !!

orkneylass
20-Apr-07, 19:04
I guess you have to look at it the other way round. If you were facing losing all your stock and going bust, you'd be tempted to cover up an outbreak and hope for the best. the risk to public health could be huge. People dealing in animal products need to know that doing the right thing about an outbreak is not something they will be penalised for. Which is worse? a few farmers playing the sytem or a full scale bird flu outbeak that fits the nightmare scenario we have been warned about?

Solus
20-Apr-07, 20:58
I would hope that they would do the decent thing and not cover it up,
but we are talking here of a huge company here, not a sole farmer trying to make a living out of the land.

£600,000 to the likes of matthews!! he could carry that loss and bounce back in a year, where by a farmer, could not recover and would indeed need a helping hand replace his stock, buildings etc. i would rather see help going to where it is needed not to prop up a well established business who i am sure could, like i said recover from that set back, but they start shouting about lost time, possible cut backs on staff to recoup costs etc

quirbal
20-Apr-07, 22:04
It is important to realise that at the moment the cause of the outbreak is currently unknown, so under these circumstances Bernard Matthews is certainly entitled to compensation and should be treated as any other poultry farmer would, large or small.

If they are found to be negligent then compensation should be withdrawn and any paid should be refunded.

Also prosecution should be looked at if negligence is proved to be the case (such as importing the infection from Hungary).

j4bberw0ck
20-Apr-07, 23:49
Ooooh looky here!


That's an outrageous statement to make without proof to back it up

.....delivered along with negative rep :lol:. He / she / it refers to my post >>>here<<< (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=214667&postcount=6) and so I assume the objection is to my saying that certain farmers transported infected beasts to other herds so compensation could be claimed.

Well, Mr / Mrs Vegetable, it was a state of affairs actively investigated by DEFRA at the time. A significant number of cases were thought to have occurred but most were local scuttlebut. One case which did happen was several sheep brought in a van from Cumbria to Caithness, from the driver's brother's farm in the infected area in Cumbria, to another brother's farm in Caithness. There was also reportage of a number of investigations >>>like this<<< (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/07/30/nfnm30.xml).

None of which is wholly conclusive, I grant you, but it's more believable than your "oh farmers would never do such a thing" stance. Any time you want to apologise, I'm willing to forgive :lol: - but that's just my open, pleasant, nature shining through again.

Rheghead
21-Apr-07, 00:33
Ooooh looky here!



.....delivered along with negative rep :lol:. He / she / it refers to my post >>>here<<< (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=214667&postcount=6) and so I assume the objection is to my saying that certain farmers transported infected beasts to other herds so compensation could be claimed.

Well, Mr / Mrs Vegetable, it was a state of affairs actively investigated by DEFRA at the time. A significant number of cases were thought to have occurred but most were local scuttlebut. One case which did happen was several sheep brought in a van from Cumbria to Caithness, from the driver's brother's farm in the infected area in Cumbria, to another brother's farm in Caithness. There was also reportage of a number of investigations >>>like this<<< (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/07/30/nfnm30.xml).

None of which is wholly conclusive, I grant you, but it's more believable than your "oh farmers would never do such a thing" stance. Any time you want to apologise, I'm willing to forgive :lol: - but that's just my open, pleasant, nature shining through again.

I am a Cumbrian and I can assure you that the worst public health attrocities were comitted by Cumbrian farmers, they did what they did because it was their time and they were scared and tried to act in the way they thought would ensure their survival. It was the job of Government to stop them and make them do what was for the best interest of all farmers.

_Ju_
21-Apr-07, 22:22
It's complicated to find a value that will sufficiently compensate farmers for their losses (so that they will not try to hide outbreaks of infectious diseases) and yet will not be of such a value that it would be worth their while to make sure they became infected. There have been situations where the same infected carcases have been passed from farm to farm ( large intensive production farms....not just small producers) to be able to claim compensation for the birds that had to be destroyed. The controls in this country are, however, tighter than in most and probably alot better than what they used to be before foot and mouth and BSE).

As for Bernard Mathews, though it was not proven it is highly likely that they infected their own birds, because the biosecurity on their animal by-products was not good enough. Seagulls and other birds were feasting on infected trimmings, and it is sugested that when they flew over the adjacent farm they infected the turkeys ( through droppings in food water?). They are being prosecuted for the faliures in the controls of ABP's, but the FSA/DEFRA/MHS could not prove the origen of the infection. If it were up to me they would not get the compensation, having, in all probability, caused the situation themselves.

JAWS
21-Apr-07, 22:53
Don't the sheep in Cumbria spend most of their time out wandering unrestricted on the open fells rather than in fields on separate farms?

The incident in Sutherland was caused by one particular Crofter who let it be known that he had visited his brother, who had foot and mouth on his farm in Cumbria, and had then travelled back to his Croft. I don't recall any mention that he had brought any sheep back with him. His own sheep were destroyed as a precaution along with, I believe, those on surrounding Crofts.
Very shortly after he gave up the Croft and moved out of the area.

I'm sure that if the Serious Rumour Squad had been correct about massive numbers of Midnight Movements the Government would have made sure there were as many prosecutions as possible to get out of paying compensation to those involved.
As I recall, there was a lot of speculation about Fraudulent Farmers with very few facts to back it up.

JimH
21-Apr-07, 23:40
The original point - should Bernard Matthews have compensation - Of course.
He is a farmer, like any other, and entitled to it, after having a lot of good stock destroyed.
I know it often offends people when large organisations use the system, but that is what it is there for.
It was not in place many years ago, when a youth named Bernard Matthews bought 2 dozen turkey eggs from Norwich Market.
Good luck to him, he has worked hard for it, and still gives a lot back to the community.

sweetpea
21-Apr-07, 23:41
What I dont get is that BM keeps his chicks in a hole in the ground compared to my birds who can roam wherever they want. If a fox comes and gets my 12 chicks does I get any compo, i don't think so. Off to get a big shed, lol...

_Ju_
22-Apr-07, 01:15
What I dont get is that BM keeps his chicks in a hole in the ground compared to my birds who can roam wherever they want. If a fox comes and gets my 12 chicks does I get any compo, i don't think so. Off to get a big shed, lol...

A fox is not a declarable infecto-contagious disease. If BM had a fox infestation he would not recieve a penny. If the place was hit by lightening and burnt down the he would get no money from defra.... I am not sure what is in place for small holders but if your chicks got bird flu or had to be destroyed because they were within a certain area, you would/should be compensated.

j4bberw0ck
22-Apr-07, 09:21
On the subject of (allegedly) fraudulent farmers (who normally walk on water and aren't prey to any elements of human greed, of course, oh no, not a one :lol: ) a current case in Shetland apparently involves a farmer part of whose flock got scrapie. Compensation became payable for scrapie infection, I'm told, about 2 years ago at the rate of something like £500 a ram, £60 for a ewe - well above market value.

The farmer allegedly bought up all the sheep he could, mixed them with the scrapie-infected flock and then after a few days reported it. Compensation claim £360,000; arrested after £168,000 paid because he got rumbled. There may very well be some exaggeration in those figures but the gist of it'll serve.

Can I also say how despicable it is that in these days of good Euro-thinking and gender-neutral understanding, that the compensation rates for male and female animals are different, and indeed greater for male animals? This is clear evidence of the unhealthy tradition of the male-dominated Civil Service and male-dominated farming and an attempt to keep females oppressed.......

OK, I'll get me coat.

stratman
22-Apr-07, 20:36
Immediately prior to foot and mouth Welsh farmers were complaining that ewes were fetching £0.25 a head at Abergavenny market and then were paid £60 (I believe) a head compo.
I lost £30000 on a house sale near Brecon because the 5 pyres that could be seen and smelled burning put people off. Had to sell to next door. No compo for me. :~(

badger
23-Apr-07, 15:47
The original point - should Bernard Matthews have compensation - Of course.
He is a farmer, like any other, and entitled to it, after having a lot of good stock destroyed.
I know it often offends people when large organisations use the system, but that is what it is there for.
It was not in place many years ago, when a youth named Bernard Matthews bought 2 dozen turkey eggs from Norwich Market.
Good luck to him, he has worked hard for it, and still gives a lot back to the community.
Wonder if you'd be so keen on him if you were a turkey? They don't exactly have much of a life in those factories. Also it was reported that one building was not in a good state of repair, which for a company that size is pretty slack. Don't these places have regular inspections? If not, they should. I agree the best thing is to give him the compensation if it's a legal requirement then fine him for whatever went wrong.