91Èȱ¬

Sorry, Laura. I don't buy it. So what if a laboratory made a mistake and farmers have difficulties? These things happen. The world isn't perfect. Instead of something interesting that gets people engaged we've got more chest beating and tearing of clothes. Does making people look stupid and talking up anger do anything useful or build cooperation? Can't see that. I think, you would benefit taking a step back from this one and calming down.

The Guardian has an opinion on Alistair Campbell suggesting politicians shouldn't be scared by big media barons, and an opinion by David Cameron on dealing with poverty at the community level. These tackle "no-mind" and "invest in loss", respectively. While the Guardian's opinion of Alistair Campbell is a little sneery, and David Cameron only has half the plot, both opinions are worth considering as they expand the positive consensus.

You've talked up stupidity and anger, and more argumentative and personal comments have been getting through the moderation. Maybe what I'm saying, here, is a bit strong and pisses a few people off. Sure, I'll run with that but I can see it and quit digging a hole. I think, you'd benefit from picking better issues and developing a better conversational style but how you approach that issue is up to you. Me? I'm just going to take a break and "do nothing".

It's an eat your own dogfood thing.

It would certainly be unfortunate and embarrassing if the latest outbreak of foot and mouth disease in British cattle herds was caused by a government lab.

Nonetheless... Old Coyote Knose that it's more than that. Aside from the current outbreak, may I suggest that you reference back to 2001 and think of the causes of that earlier outbreak. Obviously... disease signals that an environment (be it a human body, a farm, a country or a planet) is toxic or under stress. Behold! Look at the whole world, the environment beyond Britain. See what is happening: war, radical climate change and ozone depletion being only three symptoms.

There are too many of us on this planet competing for too little space... and limited energy and resources. On every level, the environment is taking a toll; hoof and mouth disease tells the tale.

The way the DEFRA report is worded, giving a possibility of deliberate human contamination. My first thought was here we go again scapegoat time, it is David Kelly all over again. If this government do put the finger of blame on a person or persons then I think it would warrant an independent investigation to have any widespread credibility.

Good morning Laura,
I would wait for some more time until a final report is forthcoming. This could have been a deliberate terrorist act, or someone that might have vested interest in an outbreak?
I wonder who, if that is the case! Have a nice day.

Farmers may well be furious with the government, well so am I. After the last out break of foot and mouth the government should have made animal insurance compulsary. If a factory burns down the government doesn,t build a new one if the owner has no fire insurance, why should farmers be treated differently. Farmers who fail to insure their busness should not recieve a penny in compensation, but they will. In reality it's small money compared to the massive subsidies they allready recieve 40% of the farmers income comes from us the tax payer.

Roll on a government that will sort the farming industries out. It beggers belief that New Zealand lamb is cheaper than Welsh lamb

Laura Kuenssberg,

I like the 91Èȱ¬ news and think it is the gold standard of broadcasting media. Therefore as it sets the benchmark for broadcast news - please, please, please get the editors to chop out footage of dead animals.

If they will not do it all the time can their be a suspension of it at times of the day when people are eating?

There is nothing worse than eating your meal and seeing dead animals on the news! It is also highly insensitive to the owners of the culled animals, who will see footage time and again of their animals post - slaughter.

What a nice way to avoid responsibility! Why don't we try and find a scapegoat for every government blunder? The conclusion is that if the private company (the guilty party) is working for the government inside government facilities under government orders then the only one to blame is the private company. Lovely. Unfortunately, it does not wash.

I somehow suspect that very large amounts of compensation and much talk by ministers of the 'tireless work of our heroic farmers' will enough to keep the farming community from demanding scalps. Particularly - as usual - the compensation, of course.

AMJ#6 I agree with your comment completely.

Accidents/mistakes/human error call it what you will, they happen each minute of each day. This should not be a Government issue; If I catch a cold I am unable to gain compensation from the idiot that sneezed.

I am keeping everything crossed and hope no more incidents for the farmers etc sake.

Everyone is treading very carefully around this full Report business - which is apt - I suspect the bowls of disinfection are out of sight but in regular use by the soft shoe shufflers.

And Debbie Reynolds involved too? Yes very apt but best not "Make 'em Laugh" though!

This is in reply to #1:

Laura, and Nick for that matter, are concerned with reporting 'politics'. That's their job believe it or not. Now, there are various forces that can work for and against a government. If the government is seen to have been negligent, as this report might conclude, it could very well sway public confidence in the government. In a system where the public chooses the government, like Britain, this may well signal its demise. This would invariably effect most/all people in the country. Therefore Charles Hardwidge, I think your argument is a bit short-sighted. The only thing Laura should be criticised for is letting your foul language through moderation.

AMJ#6
Indeed, if an uninsured factory burns down it is difficult to feel sympathy for the owner. Ditto with uninsured livestock, right up to the point that we discover that it was a government agency that deliberately set the fire.

Bob

(In a weak moment I am tempted to ask if it is even possible to insure cattle against fire, them being so soggy an' all)

In wartime home produced food was vital.

The support of successive governments dates to before this time I believe.

We live in a world with growing populations in which competition over scarce resources like water, food, energy will be the sources for conflicts which almost certainly will cause war.

Some say that Iraq is in that category. Certainly the Bush family seem to have carried the US oil interest into their governments' activities.

(Whatever their intention I believe it is and was justified on other grounds)

It does not seem that a wholly free market will protect the UK from likely conflicts, this is a valid area for Government intervention.

Whether compensation and subsidies on the scale we expect are suitable is another matter.

I think it would help if farmers spent less time moaning. I enjoyed being a farm hand, machines replaced most of what I did.

The farmer still prospers in a generally enjoyable workplace.

Laura, and Nick for that matter, are concerned with reporting 'politics'. That's their job believe it or not. Now, there are various forces that can work for and against a government. If the government is seen to have been negligent, as this report might conclude, it could very well sway public confidence in the government. In a system where the public chooses the government, like Britain, this may well signal its demise. This would invariably effect most/all people in the country. Therefore Charles Hardwidge, I think your argument is a bit short-sighted. The only thing Laura should be criticised for is letting your foul language through moderation.

I just saw another flat and cynical report. Laura's blogging is just too humdrum and emotive for me, and after a run of it I got fed up with it. The media loves to beat issues into the ground and whip up the crowd. It has its place but not all the time. Sure, government can benefit from scrutiny but the media aren't above it. Neither am I. It's why I took a break to calm down and reflect.

Look at the recent situation with the Iraq War: government, media, and public in the respective countries have their role. There's good and bad on all sides but lets focus on the media. Yes, embedded media was a mistake but so is too much flabby reporting. Behind the image of openness and scrutiny is leaking operational intelligence and declining morale. It matters.

Far from heralding a demise or being short sighted this perspective is taking on all stakeholders in a neutral way. It's not scrutiny for the sake of scrutiny, or finger pointing for the sake of finger pointing, it's a fundamental question I'm mindful of everyday. Being habitual and reactive has its place but if this nebulous "better" is to be developed it needs to be challenged. Wake up. Be mindful.