Sack Owen Paterson !

[the_stig 6,614]

 

 

How can you compare them though? Why would you want to? I must be missing th

e point here....

most are missing the point that this is initiated by anti`s to discredit the cull

Strange one to me mate. The badgers needed culled, it cost x amount. Houses flooded, costs x amount. Holes in the road, costs x amount. Roof blew off a school, cost x amount. What the f**k does any of that to do with the badger cull lol. I must be thick.

 

so how do you justify chucking x amount at a badger cull but not chucking x amount at say for example keeping a little village school open or making badly hit areas flood defences better

[the_stig 6,614]

 

 

 

 

 

 

WOW!

 

Someone has been listening to Dr May and all his followers!!!

 

It DID NOT cost that much to cull badgers!!

 

The police bill was huge because they are overpaid and were ineffectual....

 

I'm probably in the minority here, because I've met OP personally, and despite my best efforts, I actually liked the fellah.

 

He's pro hunting, pro farming and pro countryside..... and unlike most politicians he stands up for what he believes in.

 

Please don't publish the lies and inaccuracies pimped about by Dominic Dyer, Brian May, Bill Oddball and all the other antis that promote an animal rights agenda!

so if the police bill was huge for whatever reason ------ then the cost per badger would be £1,300 ?

If it was, than surely that would have been down to the scruffy b*****ds who tried to disrupt the cull would it not mate?

 

£1,311 per badger just for policing -----with other costs it worked out at £4,121 per badger culled. compared to what they`ve done for the floods i think is the comparrison ,?

 

the reality is what can be done until the water recedes

 

yeah like this is the first time its happened some areas that where hit last time round have had fook all done ---anyway my issues not with the floods

 

the cull was never going to be cheap, it was a test to see if effective culling was achievable thats why the anti`s put so much effort into disrupting it, thats why the policing costs were so expensive

 

i do get that otherwise it would of been around 30 quid a badger -----

[paulus 26]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WOW!

 

Someone has been listening to Dr May and all his followers!!!

 

It DID NOT cost that much to cull badgers!!

 

The police bill was huge because they are overpaid and were ineffectual....

 

I'm probably in the minority here, because I've met OP personally, and despite my best efforts, I actually liked the fellah.

 

He's pro hunting, pro farming and pro countryside..... and unlike most politicians he stands up for what he believes in.

 

Please don't publish the lies and inaccuracies pimped about by Dominic Dyer, Brian May, Bill Oddball and all the other antis that promote an animal rights agenda!

so if the police bill was huge for whatever reason ------ then the cost per badger would be £1,300 ?

If it was, than surely that would have been down to the scruffy b*****ds who tried to disrupt the cull would it not mate?

 

£1,311 per badger just for policing -----with other costs it worked out at £4,121 per badger culled. compared to what they`ve done for the floods i think is the comparrison ,?

 

the reality is what can be done until the water recedes

 

yeah like this is the first time its happened some areas that where hit last time round have had fook all done ---anyway my issues not with the floods

 

the cull was never going to be cheap, it was a test to see if effective culling was achievable thats why the anti`s put so much effort into disrupting it, thats why the policing costs were so expensive

 

i do get that otherwise it would of been around 30 quid a badger -----

 

next step would be to let farmers sort it at ground level, cost = 0

[Matt 160]

It should be remembered that the farmers themselves paid for the cull.

 

The costs to the taxpayer were the humaneness monitoring by civil servants, and the policing which was deliberately ramped up by the antis who's sole intention was to make the policing as expensive as possible.

 

That picture posted in the first post of this thread has been lifted straight off an anti.

 

It should also be remembered that the cost of bTB, largely caused by the reservoir of disease found in wildlife, and badgers in particular, is heading towards a billion pounds in ten years. We ignore the badgerTB problem at the risk of the health of our national cattle herd, and the health and wealth of YOU, the general public.

 

Controlling the badger menace has nothing to do with flooding and using the flooding as a way of promoting an anti cull agenda is just typical of the animal rights scum that pushed the cost of policing the trial culls up so high.

[baw 4,360]

 

 

 

 

How can you compare them though? Why would you want to? I must be missing th

e point here....

most are missing the point that this is initiated by anti`s to discredit the cull

Strange one to me mate. The badgers needed culled, it cost x amount. Houses flooded, costs x amount. Holes in the road, costs x amount. Roof blew off a school, cost x amount. What the f**k does any of that to do with the badger cull lol. I must be thick.

so how do you justify chucking x amount at a badger cull but not chucking x amount at say for example keeping a little village school open or making badly hit areas flood defences better

I can't justify it, I don't have to either, that's the job of politicians. It's there job to decide where the money goes. I'm sure money goes to a lot of projects that cost a lot more than the badger cull, so again, what is the connection? Can you tell me please?

[Matt 160]

The antis hate Owen Paterson because he supports hunting and takes a pragmatic approach to managing badgers.

 

Posting their propaganda pictures is just helping them

[Malt 379]

 

 

 

How can you compare them though? Why would you want to? I must be missing th

e point here....

 

most are missing the point that this is initiated by anti`s to discredit the cull

Strange one to me mate. The badgers needed culled, it cost x amount. Houses flooded, costs x amount. Holes in the road, costs x amount. Roof blew off a school, cost x amount. What the f**k does any of that to do with the badger cull lol. I must be thick.

so how do you justify chucking x amount at a badger cull but not chucking x amount at say for example keeping a little village school open or making badly hit areas flood defences better

Thats the problem right there mate.. None of those things need justifying IMO, they are all things that need money spending on them. Money could always be better spent elsewhere but where do you draw the line.. The government and councils get plenty of bloody money out of us they just piss it away. A job that would cost a fiver usually ends up costing £500 when it's any type of government who's paying for it, local or national..

[the_stig 6,614]

 

 

 

 

How can you compare them though? Why would you want to? I must be missing th

e point here....

most are missing the point that this is initiated by anti`s to discredit the cull

Strange one to me mate. The badgers needed culled, it cost x amount. Houses flooded, costs x amount. Holes in the road, costs x amount. Roof blew off a school, cost x amount. What the f**k does any of that to do with the badger cull lol. I must be thick.

so how do you justify chucking x amount at a badger cull but not chucking x amount at say for example keeping a little village school open or making badly hit areas flood defences better

I can't justify it, I don't have to either, that's the job of politicians. It's there job to decide where the money goes. I'm sure money goes to a lot of projects that cost a lot more than the badger cull, so again, what is the connection? Can you tell me please?

 

there is no connection apart from money spent in one place and not the other... ----------------------right i`m off to play in the thick corner your all to clever for me this morning

[baw 4,360]

Pmsl stig

[baw 4,360]

The antis hate Owen Paterson because he supports hunting and takes a pragmatic approach to managing badgers.

 

Posting their propaganda pictures is just helping them

Why keep it up then?

[Brewman 1,192]

How many badgers will the flood cull at no extra expense?

 

Who will the antis whinge at now? I wonder if any will drown gallantly saving Mr Brock.

[Blackbriar 8,569]

I'm almost offended to be thought of as a supporter of May and his ilk............................!!! I never mention 'anti's' and I certainly don't support the idiots !!

 

The point I was trying to make is that DEFRA made an unholy mess of what should have been two fairly straightforward projects - to cull a few badgers (which I support BTW!), and to stop furniture floating away. When they failed on both counts, they set about trying to blame others.

 

The actual 'cost per badger' immaterial - but it's a lot more difficult to argue that the whole project was well planned, well handled generally, or even worthwhile ! DEFRA and the floods..............already been done to death on here !

 

So, my offence is saved for Owen Paterson, no-one else.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Blackbriar

[Malt 379]

DEFRA has got nothing to do with flood defences though mate, that's down to the Environment Agency.. They both get allotted their money from central government but how they spend it is down to them. If you want to vent spleen about the lack of money spent on flood defences and managing the rivers it should be directed at the EA.. They did deem spending £21 million on a bloody bird sanctuary more important than sending a few dredgers out after all..

[paulus 26]

DEFRA has got nothing to do with flood defences though mate, that's down to the Environment Agency.. They both get allotted their money from central government but how they spend it is down to them. If you want to vent spleen about the lack of money spent on flood defences and managing the rivers it should be directed at the EA.. They did deem spending £21 million on a bloody bird sanctuary more important than sending a few dredgers out after all..

the EA are governed as to what they can do by the government, they in turn are directed by Europe, the EU directive that contains the one pound expenditure for every eight pounds of savings is weighted to higher populated areas, the EA is effectively working with their hands tied.

[Malt 379]

 

DEFRA has got nothing to do with flood defences though mate, that's down to the Environment Agency.. They both get allotted their money from central government but how they spend it is down to them. If you want to vent spleen about the lack of money spent on flood defences and managing the rivers it should be directed at the EA.. They did deem spending £21 million on a bloody bird sanctuary more important than sending a few dredgers out after all..

 

the EA are governed as to what they can do by the government, they in turn are directed by Europe, the EU directive that contains the one pound expenditure for every eight pounds of savings is weighted to higher populated areas, the EA is effectively working with their hands tied.

Well the EU can f**k off and all! :laugh: TBH mate a lot of flack is directed at the EU when it suits the government. They bleat on about their hands being tied by EU laws yet they told the ECHR to swivel this week when they said whole life terms were inhumane. They pick and choose just like the rest of them when it suits. They constantly play a game using the UK population's difficult relationship with the rest of Europe as a political tool to get their own way and deflect some of the shit.