Frances Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Apologies if it's been asked elsewhere but has anyone else thought what the Governments stance on this outbreak would have been if it had happened back in April or May? Would they have cancelled the Centenary TT? such hypothetical questions are virtually unanswerable - my guess is that now they would answer yes they would have cancelled it but at the time with many millions of compensation looming they may well have found an escape mechanism. The current restrictions are an overkill - there has been no importation of cloven hoofed livestock 'for several weeks' - in all previous outbreaks the most likely cause of all outbreaks was physical movement of animals or the vehicles used to transport then cross infecting another batch. However as someone has already hinted cancelling the MGP might well avoid problems suggested by the lead article in last weeks paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heathen Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 such hypothetical questions are virtually unanswerable - my guess is that now they would answer yes they would have cancelled it but at the time with many millions of compensation looming they may well have found an escape mechanism.The current restrictions are an overkill - there has been no importation of cloven hoofed livestock 'for several weeks' - in all previous outbreaks the most likely cause of all outbreaks was physical movement of animals or the vehicles used to transport then cross infecting another batch. However as someone has already hinted cancelling the MGP might well avoid problems suggested by the lead article in last weeks paper. That's pretty much what I thought myself. Spin doctors would have been working some serious overtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted August 7, 2007 Author Share Posted August 7, 2007 as the F&M appears to be spreading, i can't see how they can run the MGP if they follow the same guidelines/ideas that led to cancelling the TT. all the same requirements for access to land etc are just the same for both events. as the Don said last time, it is an animal welfare issue. so it must be this time too? it would appear to be 'who to compensate? ' i'm sure both sides would rather money without the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 it is an animal welfare issue 99.9% of all concerned animals are going to be shot before the end of their natural life - why should bringing the date forward be a welfare issue - economic issue yes. Our minister has had a lifetime history of acting first then thinking through the consequences at his leisure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 The IoM seems to be completely out of step with what is happening in the UK, Northern Ireland & Jersey. I wonder which has got it wrong! Northern Island has last time I checked no movement restriction controls in restrict of any animals. No footpaths closed etc UK has restriction controls in respect of animals that can catch F&M but that is it. And outside the 3KM or 10km immediate restriction area horses can be freely transported, exercised, footpaths are open etc. Next week sees the Angelsey show at which nearly 60,000 people attend and that is going ahead with no cattle etc. They still expect 1,000 horses to be in attendance. Scotlad was talking of lifting some of the movement controls this week. The IOM has complete restriction on animals including horses. Many footpaths closed, Royal Show and farmers markets cancelled. This morning Nick Pinder was on about the wildlfe park being closed and almost proud that it was the ONLY widlife park in GB that was closed for the total period of the last outbreak. This despite it having very few animals that can catch F&M. I am alll for prudent and necessary steps to be taken but the IoM in my view appears to be OTT in its reaction and when challenged states that we would not want in over in the IoM. No I would not but that does not mean I support taking action way in excess of what is actually required to stop the disease spreading it is an animal welfare issue Our minister has had a lifetime history of acting first then thinking through the consequences at his leisure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccm Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 It's the same with the Airport, complete over reaction to the terrorist threat, my cousin has just return from a three month trip across Europe and the Far east and he says the tightest restrictions were at Ronaldsway compared to the sixteen or so airports he visited during that time. How about some common-sense people? Or is it just a power thing? The Minister sh*tting himself if he doesn't do right by the farmers and the farmers themselves flexing a bit of muscle and showing they have the ability to shut the Island down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Try the boat. Foot passengers have airline type scans, shoes and belts off. Cars nothing unless you are picked out for a quick check! It's the same with the Airport, complete over reaction to the terrorist threat, my cousin has just return from a three month trip across Europe and the Far east and he says the tightest restrictions were at Ronaldsway compared to the sixteen or so airports he visited during that time. How about some common-sense people? Or is it just a power thing? The Minister sh*tting himself if he doesn't do right by the farmers and the farmers themselves flexing a bit of muscle and showing they have the ability to shut the Island down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Overreaction is the new British disease. IMO it is media-political driven, a fear of not being seen to react and being villified by the press for not doing so, as well as a general lack of understanding of, and inability to quantify, 'risk'. The terrorists have been allowed to change our way of life and allowed politicians to erode our own civil liberties. The fear-mongers and health freaks started to win as soon as they realised that lobbying was a waste of time, and it was far easier to get things done by getting elected or joining the civil service. Every psuedo-scientific report gets full coverage on the news and taken as fact. Things will only change when we elect capable people with the right motives and the ability to see this and do something about it...and there is as much chance of that as finding a snowball in Hades...meanwhile the lunatic hippy generation have taken over and now have full control of the asylum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balin Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Just a thought......... We've been slipped a few titbits that suggest that there have been recent Cattle... ahem... livestock imports to the Isle. Now then... what if some were from Pirbright, Surrey? How over the piggin' top would the measures be then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ade Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 The livestock imports (3?) over the weekend were from Surrey I think. I seem to recall it was reported on MR. Edited to add: Sorry, the imports may not have come from Surrey, but there were 3 imports, and some visitors who have been at Pilbright are/have also visited here. Manx Radio news item Perhaps the Island isn't being too over cautious after all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggle Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Personally I don't think the measures are over the top. A pain in the arse yes, but if the measures put in place restrict the movement of potential virus, which will help protect the livestock on the island, then it has to be good. If the virus does get on the Island, pretty much all the livestock will end up being destroyed. This thing will spread fast and there are no real natural boundaries over here to stop it. As for the GP, If it's called off I will be disappointed but if it helps, even a little, to reduce the risk of the virus getting over here, it must be a good thing. /me awaits flames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Just a thought......... We've been slipped a few titbits that suggest that there have been recent Cattle... ahem... livestock imports to the Isle. Now then... what if some were from Pirbright, Surrey? How over the piggin' top would the measures be then? Have you ??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poke4091 Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Could someone in the agricultural industry explain why we need regular livestock imports from anywhere. Why can we not breed our own for local consumption and meat exports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Fair enough then, How far do you want to go. Perhaps we should stop all boats and flights to the Island until it is all over. Make everybody stay at home. That will restrict the potential movement of the virus. Totally unnecessary and in reality would not make a blind bit of difference. That is what we are discussing. Not that some precautions are not necessary but that many that have been introduced are and will not make a blind bit of difference one way or the other. Personally I don't think the measures are over the top. A pain in the arse yes, but if the measures put in place restrict the movement of potential virus, which will help protect the livestock on the island, then it has to be good. If the virus does get on the Island, pretty much all the livestock will end up being destroyed. This thing will spread fast and there are no real natural boundaries over here to stop it. As for the GP, If it's called off I will be disappointed but if it helps, even a little, to reduce the risk of the virus getting over here, it must be a good thing. /me awaits flames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molly Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Could someone in the agricultural industry explain why we need regular livestock imports from anywhere. Why can we not breed our own for local consumption and meat exports? Just ask your sister from foxdale why her child looks so funny. I am guessing it is for the same reason! Im joking of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.