Dear Member
I know time is precious and that I am asking probably rather a lot.
I would, however, like you all to complete a membership survey – a task that should take no more than 20 minutes and all of which can be done from the comfort of your seat without even having to lift a pen.
This web-based survey will help provide council with your views on how the organisation moves forward.
I'd suggest it is essential you all take part. Council would like to hear good and bad. There is no point in doing this if we are not going to get anything other than a true indication of what you want from the Guild. If you don't like the things we do then tell us; similarly if you want to give praise then please do so.
Your answers will be fed into an automated system that will allow council to see at a glance what your opinions are. We will publish the responses we receive.
Again, could I appeal to you to respond to the survey.
I look forward to seeing your responses. To get to the survey just cut and paste the following into your web browser
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=g1G7L95kZcLwEGrCvs5e9g_3d_3d
Many thanks and best wishes
Joe Watson
Chairman
Monday, June 23, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Ignorance bliss at the BBC
The BBC was taken to task last week by the BBC Trust for its London centric view of news in the UK.
The corporation is today carrying an amazing report that confirms – if any evidence were ever needed – that ignorance remains bliss within the London newsroom.
A news report carried on Radio 2 claims that Unite, the union representing farmworkers, is seeking a 6% rise in pay talks which started today.
The correspondent clearly said the increase would apply across the country. What complete and utter rubbish.
Britain has a system of statutory agricultural wages boards. Discussions start today for England only.
The Scottish board met recently and agreed to propose a 4.1% rise in the minimum rates paid to farm staff. That is currently out to consultation and is likely to be agreed in October.
One really does wonder when we will, if ever, be able to listen to the BBC network news and hear a report that is factually accurate?.
It was quite wrong to say across the country in today's report as, quite clearly, the discussions that start today are relevant to England only.
It should also be borne in mind that while the union is seeking a 6% rise that increase might not necessarily apply to all farmworkers. The discussions today are to set new legally-binding minimum pay rates for farm staff. The correspondent is obviously unaware that the majority of farmworkers in Britain are paid considerably more than the set minimum wages and that they are unlikely to be receiving the 6% rise the report incorrectly inferred.
I've asked the BBC to explain itself.
The corporation is today carrying an amazing report that confirms – if any evidence were ever needed – that ignorance remains bliss within the London newsroom.
A news report carried on Radio 2 claims that Unite, the union representing farmworkers, is seeking a 6% rise in pay talks which started today.
The correspondent clearly said the increase would apply across the country. What complete and utter rubbish.
Britain has a system of statutory agricultural wages boards. Discussions start today for England only.
The Scottish board met recently and agreed to propose a 4.1% rise in the minimum rates paid to farm staff. That is currently out to consultation and is likely to be agreed in October.
One really does wonder when we will, if ever, be able to listen to the BBC network news and hear a report that is factually accurate?.
It was quite wrong to say across the country in today's report as, quite clearly, the discussions that start today are relevant to England only.
It should also be borne in mind that while the union is seeking a 6% rise that increase might not necessarily apply to all farmworkers. The discussions today are to set new legally-binding minimum pay rates for farm staff. The correspondent is obviously unaware that the majority of farmworkers in Britain are paid considerably more than the set minimum wages and that they are unlikely to be receiving the 6% rise the report incorrectly inferred.
I've asked the BBC to explain itself.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Plain English
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of rubbish that passes these days for the spoken word and which sadly ends up in print.
That we use it is because we as a profession have become lazy. Yes, lazy. You heard me, lazy. That's exactly what I said and I make no apologies for saying so. Journalists are no longer doing what they are paid to do in filtering out the rubbish that people often tell us.
We accept without thinking quotes and statements and then like lambs heading to the slaughter cut and paste the tosh and make it pass as quotes, or use it to justify what spokesmen or spokeswomen say.
Please don't dare take me to task for not using the politically correct phrase of spokesperson. A Defra spokesperson said, A Scottish Government spokesperson said, etc. For goodness sake do we no longer have men and women who speak on behalf of organisations, or are they all devoid of their various bodily bits (neutered possibly) that make them just a person?
And why do we repeatedly say people commented rather than said it? Commented seems to be an expression appearing in an ever increasing number of PR statements. Have PRs been got at by the PC Police, or is it because their clients are forcing it through and consultants no longer have the balls to tell those instructing them that they are making themselves look like eejits (that's an expression used by Terry Wogan)?
Would these also be the same clients who try to ensure their releases are filled with meaningless business-speak? He who pays the piper does indeed call the tune, but surely the piper should be hitting back and telling clients that using the latest meaningless phrase is often the quickest sure-fire way of ensuring their release ends up in the bucket.
The reason for my rant comes in response to various pieces of information that have passed my way in recent months, notably from Government it has to be said. The civil service has become a hotbed for political correctness and meaningless waffle spouted in ever increasing volumes by the communications departments and ministers.
I asked the Scottish Government recently if it had adjusted the rules under its Scottish rural development programme so that the taxpayer was being asked once more to dig into their pockets to shift fence posts surrounding water courses that they had already paid by the public purse. The reason for you and me having to fund them for a second time was because some civil servant somewhere along the line appears to think it is a good idea to waste yet more taxpayer pounds.
The answer proved illuminating. It's such a nonsense answer filled with waffle that I've copied it below.
"The spreading of fertilisers close to water courses entails a significant risk of pollution of the water. The concentrations of nitrates from agricultural sources in surface waters and groundwaters have required certain parts of Scotland, especially in the East, to be designated under the Nitrates Directive. In the existing NVZ Action Programme the spreading of manure and slurry within 10 metres of a watercourse is prohibited.
"The Scottish Executive consulted in November 2006 on proposals to amend the Scottish Action Programme, as the rules were in certain respects inadequate to protect Scotland's water environment. Prohibiting manufactured fertilisers within 2 metres of a watercourse is a proposal for the amendment of the Action Programme. The proposal was issued 18 months ago, not "in the last two weeks".
"????? is referring to rules in the new Rural Priorities, under which farmers may be paid some £286 per hectare per year for the Creation and management of water margins and enhanced riparian buffer areas (measure 35) or £267/ha/yr for the Management of buffer areas for fens and lowland raised bogs (measure 37). He notes that under sub-section (2) the area for which these payments may be made in an NVZ must start after the 2m margin/buffer on which no fertiliser will be permitted in the revised Action Programme.
"It is a basic principle of the SRDP, as of other environmental schemes, that payment to operators is not to be made for something which is a legal requirement. Exceptions may be made; for instance in the SRDP we expect to fund up to 40% of the cost of slurry storage, even in NVZs where a minimum slurry storage capacity will be specified in regulations. But the general rule is clear and generally accepted.
"The payment of £286 (or £267)/ha/year under measure is thus targeted to those farmers who are willing to take action to protect Scotland's water environment, over and above what they are (or will be) required to do under basic environmental protection legislation. We don’t feel the Scottish Government should be paying farmers for action to comply with the law."
Wonderful! If you understand it I suspect you have a civil service background. Plain English in Government communications went out the window years ago. Further, considerable, probing ensured the answer was finally confirmed that taxpayers were being asked – for a second time – to pay for and relocate fence posts and wire.
European civil servants are even more proficient. Look at this response after I asked the European Commission in July 2006 to explain why it was changing processing rules on mince.
“Annex III, Section V, Chapter III, point 2 (B) to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 requires that when prepared from chilled meat, minced meat must be prepared (ii) in the case of animal other than poultry, within no more than six days of their slaughter or (iii) within no more than 15 days from the slaughter of the animals in the case of boned, vacuum-packed beef and veal.
“It may be that to take account of particular habits of consumption, the United Kingdom may have authorised, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 94/65/EC, the production and placing on the market of minced meat to be sold in their territory only provided it did not bear a Community health mark. But we have no details on this.”
Now has that cleared up the issue for you? It certainly didn't for me.
What makes my blood boil even more though is that we as a profession are accepting this nonsense.
I used the EC response in full to show readers that Sir Humphrey (Yes Minister) is still alive and well.
Such a shame that Sir Humphrey appears to be winning the battle in a publishing sense and that we as a profession are allowing Plain English to disappear.
Would love to hear your views.
That we use it is because we as a profession have become lazy. Yes, lazy. You heard me, lazy. That's exactly what I said and I make no apologies for saying so. Journalists are no longer doing what they are paid to do in filtering out the rubbish that people often tell us.
We accept without thinking quotes and statements and then like lambs heading to the slaughter cut and paste the tosh and make it pass as quotes, or use it to justify what spokesmen or spokeswomen say.
Please don't dare take me to task for not using the politically correct phrase of spokesperson. A Defra spokesperson said, A Scottish Government spokesperson said, etc. For goodness sake do we no longer have men and women who speak on behalf of organisations, or are they all devoid of their various bodily bits (neutered possibly) that make them just a person?
And why do we repeatedly say people commented rather than said it? Commented seems to be an expression appearing in an ever increasing number of PR statements. Have PRs been got at by the PC Police, or is it because their clients are forcing it through and consultants no longer have the balls to tell those instructing them that they are making themselves look like eejits (that's an expression used by Terry Wogan)?
Would these also be the same clients who try to ensure their releases are filled with meaningless business-speak? He who pays the piper does indeed call the tune, but surely the piper should be hitting back and telling clients that using the latest meaningless phrase is often the quickest sure-fire way of ensuring their release ends up in the bucket.
The reason for my rant comes in response to various pieces of information that have passed my way in recent months, notably from Government it has to be said. The civil service has become a hotbed for political correctness and meaningless waffle spouted in ever increasing volumes by the communications departments and ministers.
I asked the Scottish Government recently if it had adjusted the rules under its Scottish rural development programme so that the taxpayer was being asked once more to dig into their pockets to shift fence posts surrounding water courses that they had already paid by the public purse. The reason for you and me having to fund them for a second time was because some civil servant somewhere along the line appears to think it is a good idea to waste yet more taxpayer pounds.
The answer proved illuminating. It's such a nonsense answer filled with waffle that I've copied it below.
"The spreading of fertilisers close to water courses entails a significant risk of pollution of the water. The concentrations of nitrates from agricultural sources in surface waters and groundwaters have required certain parts of Scotland, especially in the East, to be designated under the Nitrates Directive. In the existing NVZ Action Programme the spreading of manure and slurry within 10 metres of a watercourse is prohibited.
"The Scottish Executive consulted in November 2006 on proposals to amend the Scottish Action Programme, as the rules were in certain respects inadequate to protect Scotland's water environment. Prohibiting manufactured fertilisers within 2 metres of a watercourse is a proposal for the amendment of the Action Programme. The proposal was issued 18 months ago, not "in the last two weeks".
"????? is referring to rules in the new Rural Priorities, under which farmers may be paid some £286 per hectare per year for the Creation and management of water margins and enhanced riparian buffer areas (measure 35) or £267/ha/yr for the Management of buffer areas for fens and lowland raised bogs (measure 37). He notes that under sub-section (2) the area for which these payments may be made in an NVZ must start after the 2m margin/buffer on which no fertiliser will be permitted in the revised Action Programme.
"It is a basic principle of the SRDP, as of other environmental schemes, that payment to operators is not to be made for something which is a legal requirement. Exceptions may be made; for instance in the SRDP we expect to fund up to 40% of the cost of slurry storage, even in NVZs where a minimum slurry storage capacity will be specified in regulations. But the general rule is clear and generally accepted.
"The payment of £286 (or £267)/ha/year under measure is thus targeted to those farmers who are willing to take action to protect Scotland's water environment, over and above what they are (or will be) required to do under basic environmental protection legislation. We don’t feel the Scottish Government should be paying farmers for action to comply with the law."
Wonderful! If you understand it I suspect you have a civil service background. Plain English in Government communications went out the window years ago. Further, considerable, probing ensured the answer was finally confirmed that taxpayers were being asked – for a second time – to pay for and relocate fence posts and wire.
European civil servants are even more proficient. Look at this response after I asked the European Commission in July 2006 to explain why it was changing processing rules on mince.
“Annex III, Section V, Chapter III, point 2 (B) to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 requires that when prepared from chilled meat, minced meat must be prepared (ii) in the case of animal other than poultry, within no more than six days of their slaughter or (iii) within no more than 15 days from the slaughter of the animals in the case of boned, vacuum-packed beef and veal.
“It may be that to take account of particular habits of consumption, the United Kingdom may have authorised, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 94/65/EC, the production and placing on the market of minced meat to be sold in their territory only provided it did not bear a Community health mark. But we have no details on this.”
Now has that cleared up the issue for you? It certainly didn't for me.
What makes my blood boil even more though is that we as a profession are accepting this nonsense.
I used the EC response in full to show readers that Sir Humphrey (Yes Minister) is still alive and well.
Such a shame that Sir Humphrey appears to be winning the battle in a publishing sense and that we as a profession are allowing Plain English to disappear.
Would love to hear your views.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
On a role?
Is the Guild finally on a roll I have to ask?
I've pinched myself several times in the last 24 hours as we appear finally on the verge of relaunching the Stuart Seaton Award for Provincial Newspapers. It's taken several years, but I can now report progress thanks to the magnificent endeavours of council member Liz Snaith over the last three weeks.
She's now presented to me a proposal that will this year see the Guild once again present the award that was donated in memory of the former editor of Farmers Guardian.
The plan now goes to council's awards sub-committee before coming back to the next full council meeting on June 27.
The hope is that if it goes through council we can launch the award at the Royal Show party on July 3 and entries invited. The wish would be for the award to be presented at the Guild's harvest lunch in London in October.
I also hope to report progress on our Horticultural Award which has disappointingly not been presented for several years. This annoys me considerably and the matter has to be addressed as it has dragged on for far too long. Solutions are being sought.
The other good news, again thanks to Liz, is that we are progressing a membership survey.
This will go out to everyone soon, I hope.
Council cannot function properly without us knowing what you the members want so that is why we will be asking your views over, what I expect will be a web-based platform, in the coming months. This is a unique opportunity for you to provide the organisation with a real steer on what you want and to tell us exactly what you think of us.
I want to know, as I am sure does the rest of council, warts and all whether we are going in the right direction currently, or whether you believe we need to do more.
I've pinched myself several times in the last 24 hours as we appear finally on the verge of relaunching the Stuart Seaton Award for Provincial Newspapers. It's taken several years, but I can now report progress thanks to the magnificent endeavours of council member Liz Snaith over the last three weeks.
She's now presented to me a proposal that will this year see the Guild once again present the award that was donated in memory of the former editor of Farmers Guardian.
The plan now goes to council's awards sub-committee before coming back to the next full council meeting on June 27.
The hope is that if it goes through council we can launch the award at the Royal Show party on July 3 and entries invited. The wish would be for the award to be presented at the Guild's harvest lunch in London in October.
I also hope to report progress on our Horticultural Award which has disappointingly not been presented for several years. This annoys me considerably and the matter has to be addressed as it has dragged on for far too long. Solutions are being sought.
The other good news, again thanks to Liz, is that we are progressing a membership survey.
This will go out to everyone soon, I hope.
Council cannot function properly without us knowing what you the members want so that is why we will be asking your views over, what I expect will be a web-based platform, in the coming months. This is a unique opportunity for you to provide the organisation with a real steer on what you want and to tell us exactly what you think of us.
I want to know, as I am sure does the rest of council, warts and all whether we are going in the right direction currently, or whether you believe we need to do more.
Wee John
Delighted to be able to report that John Fraser, the recently retired chief photographer at The Scottish Farmer, was the centre of attention in Belfast last week.
Wee John has for years been a regular at the Balmoral Show. For years he has also had fascination for vintage farm machinery.
John's colleagues in Northern Ireland took him by surprise by holding a presentation to mark his retiral.
His gift .. a vintage tractor, of course.
Guild Northern Ireland chairman Rodney Magowan does, however, point out that the machine in question was a miniature rather than a full-sized version.
A full-sized version could have posed problems for Wee John on the return flight to Glasgow and resulted in a rather large excess baggage charge. Still it makes a change from having to pay the fare home for him and Ken Fletcher after he was responsible for them missing the flight home from last year's show..
Wee John has for years been a regular at the Balmoral Show. For years he has also had fascination for vintage farm machinery.
John's colleagues in Northern Ireland took him by surprise by holding a presentation to mark his retiral.
His gift .. a vintage tractor, of course.
Guild Northern Ireland chairman Rodney Magowan does, however, point out that the machine in question was a miniature rather than a full-sized version.
A full-sized version could have posed problems for Wee John on the return flight to Glasgow and resulted in a rather large excess baggage charge. Still it makes a change from having to pay the fare home for him and Ken Fletcher after he was responsible for them missing the flight home from last year's show..
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Well done Katie
Some truly magnificent news ... Katie Lomas of Farmers Guardian has won this year's professional development award for young journalists from the International Federation of Agricultural Journalists.
Katie has proved herself a real world beater as she was judged the number one candidate in the award sponsored by Alltech, the leading animal nutrition firm based in the US.
Katie is the livestock reporter on FG. Her prize is a week-long trip to Austria and Slovenia in September to the IFAJ world congress.
It is the second year in succession that the publication has provided a winning candidate. Last year Clemmie Gleeson won.
All I can say is well done Katie! A truly remarkable achievement and one that is well-earned.
Katie has proved herself a real world beater as she was judged the number one candidate in the award sponsored by Alltech, the leading animal nutrition firm based in the US.
Katie is the livestock reporter on FG. Her prize is a week-long trip to Austria and Slovenia in September to the IFAJ world congress.
It is the second year in succession that the publication has provided a winning candidate. Last year Clemmie Gleeson won.
All I can say is well done Katie! A truly remarkable achievement and one that is well-earned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
