Newsbot Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 The Manx Royal Agricultural Show will be bigger and better than ever when it returns in 2008, organisers say. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/6943890.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Cancelled show will "bounce back" the Manx Royal Agricultural Show will be bigger and better than ever when it returns in 2008, organisers say. Approximates to "There's no Foot 'n' Mouth scare. Oh shit, we panicked and cancelled too soon. What do we say now?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I understand cancelling too late but how do you cancel too soon? Imagine the fallout if they hadn't cancelled and foot & mouth had struck. I've said it before but sometimes I think that governments are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I see what you mean. I can toe the establishment line myself when I need to. But, where was the outbreak and was it threatening the whole UK? When it suits, the 'Adjacent Isle' is just a stone's throw away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Personally, I'm not particularly pro or anti government. Some things they seem to do well and some are questionable but the foot & mouth thing seems a bit of a no win situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 why not give advance warning of next year's cancellation 'just in case'. An agricultural show based heavily on livestock is always somewhat problematical to the 'just in case' reaction- the livestock events could have been put on hold with the rest of the show taking place, which would have allowed a few days to clarify the situation. There had been 1 outbreak 200 miles away, the govt should have been aware of any livestock moved within the incubation period and verified these were ok - after that any infectation must arrive via visitors - disinfection at the port should have been enough as the UK obviously thought it unnecessary to ban movement of vehicles on motorways etc - as I keep on saying, all previous infections have been via the industry and one of the lessons of the previous outbreak learnt it is the fast ban on movement of livestock, not people unconnected with the industry, that is important to restrict the spread. Gawne is to be criticised for a kneejerk reation that was unnecessary and needed to be graduated as the situation evolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I agree that this is often the case but in respect of F&M the actions the IoM have taken have been completely out of line with the steps taken in the UK, Island, Jersey etc. Either the UK erc is being very complacent or the IoM has been OTT. I take the latter view judging from my own knowledge of F&M but also from talking to vets etc in the UK some of who were heavily involved at a very senior level in the last outbreak and have been incredulous at the actions the IoM has taken. Currently footpaths are still closed across farm land and you and not meant to walk across farm land. I presume this is partly at the request of the farmers who on the other hand appear to be happy to operate camp sites on their land and welcme people in. I wonder which one they make money from. I agree the appropriate and prudent steps needed to be taken by the IoM Govt but in this case I would say the steps taken OTT. AFter all if Angelsey is happy to run its annual two day show tomorrow. all be it without cloven footed animals, I fund it difficult to see why the Royal show with smaller numbers had to be called off so quickly I've said it before but sometimes I think that governments are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 The politicians and advisors are paid to make tough calls, some of which you can not win. In this case the hard decsion to make was to weigh up the evidence and risks and introduce appropriate steps. At most these would have been on a par with the steps in the UK. Northern Island has brought in virtually no restrictions. The easy decision was for a knee jerk blanket ban on everything which was a cover your backside, I can not be blamed or critiscised option. It got them being praised by the farmers leaders etc In my opinion the decision in this case was not based on weighing up the body of evidence of what was required to keep F&M out and from spreading but weighing up what was required to prevent any public questioning of the decisionor critisism from the farming community. I just get the impression that they bottled making the tougher call and having to argue their case. I do not necesarily blame them as you have to try and get elected again in a few years time! Maybe it would have been better if O'Donnell the Chief Vet in the IoM had been the public face of the case rather than a politician Personally, I'm not particularly pro or anti government. Some things they seem to do well and some are questionable but the foot & mouth thing seems a bit of a no win situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I'll tell you what, yessir, I was jus' lookin' at the Manx Radio website an' saw they had an article 'bout this foot'n'mouth Clic here an' that Phil Gawne doesn't half seemed to 'av' aged and looks right serious these days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 'They reached them independent of political influence. They came up with the advice and subject to the measures being put in place to safeguard the Isle of Man from foot-and-mouth and I was happy to accept that advice.' from Manx Online report on restricted viewing areas for MGP Maybe Gawne could publish this advice so we could all learn from it (maybe even send a copy to the UK) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 why not give advance warning of next year's cancellation 'just in case'. An agricultural show based heavily on livestock is always somewhat problematical to the 'just in case' reaction- the livestock events could have been put on hold with the rest of the show taking place, which would have allowed a few days to clarify the situation. There had been 1 outbreak 200 miles away, the govt should have been aware of any livestock moved within the incubation period and verified these were ok - after that any infectation must arrive via visitors - disinfection at the port should have been enough as the UK obviously thought it unnecessary to ban movement of vehicles on motorways etc - as I keep on saying, all previous infections have been via the industry and one of the lessons of the previous outbreak learnt it is the fast ban on movement of livestock, not people unconnected with the industry, that is important to restrict the spread. Gawne is to be criticised for a kneejerk reation that was unnecessary and needed to be graduated as the situation evolved. The showground is a farm (used for livestock purposes).. how can you not allow livestock for 'the risk' yet allow the show to carry on very near to the owner farmer's very own stock (and right next to his barns etc)? Perhaps if the royal show people owned a premises (I realise they were looking into it at one time) of their own, but it'd be pretty hypocritical to stage it on someone's farm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 My own opinion is that the risk was so small that the show should have gone on with animals - my comment was that everyone says well 'just in case' so maybe for 'political' reasons accept that public opinion would prefer that animals not be shown - like most 'political' solutions mostly irrational (eg as a measure of acceptable political risk the Island accepts a 1% risk of death to TT contestants in order purely to provide entertainment) - my thesis is where does any infection come from if no livestock or industry personnel previously in contact with infected animals (live or dead) were on-Island - no-one has demonstrated transmissiuon by other means except over very short distances - the virus needs moisture to live outside of its hosts. Both these conditions are reasonably easy to check - the former by manifest records by the shipping company - the latter by general awareness by those in the industry who would come forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 But there were movements of animals in the 'incubation' period.. How was it to be known (in the first few days) that the outbreak was confined to Surrey? Some of the animals were imported 1 or 2 days before knowledge of the virus, so how was a proper quarantine to have been maintained? I'm not saying they haven't overreacted on some parts of the scare, but I wouldn't say cancelling animal movements to the show was one.. 20/20 hindsight is beautiful though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 The paper reported imporation several weeks before(not days) - there is an incubation time + a survival time of the virus outside of the host. The danger period is the sum of these but checking the moved animals within the 7-10days incubation period would confirm no transmission. I'm very happy for the initial total ban on movement of livestock - this then needs to be relaxed on a region by region basis as any moved animals (in this case both very small numbers and some time prior, I understand) have been checked. As the show was some days away there was sufficient time to check. If you read my posts I was saying the same thing at the start (and if they can be rescued from the now defunct MT MB the same 6 years ago) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I'll tell you what, yessir, I was jus' lookin' at the Manx Radio website an' saw they had an article 'bout this foot'n'mouth Clic here an' that Phil Gawne doesn't half seemed to 'av' aged and looks right serious these days Isn't that Brian Stowell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.