Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander
nor are you a govt official.
howard
I think the RSPCA has a right as you say to be allowed in as others have failed
maybe roger could follow this up
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
Took me 2 minutes to find out online who is responsible - nothing to do with the RSPCA, who do some good work but at times are just a bunch of politically motivated busybodies (tin hat on time!)-
Export Health Certificates Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Ray, I will join you with the tin hat, their foot soldiers do an excellent job but when it comes to the head office lot I agree with you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
part of the guide.
a) none of the 4 things mentioned below have been complied with in the last week, i have seen photos that i will not put on her as they are so distressing.
The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (WATO) (England) Order 2006 (PDF 74KB) (and similar legislation in Scotland and Wales) requires that:
Livestock are not caused injury or unnecessary suffering
They are fit to travel
Those transporting and handling cattle are trained and competent
Rules on journey times, resting, watering and feeding are observed
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith Sansum, in post 88 you write:
"If I were govt official getting your proposal, it should be taken in a light hearted way, a way of light eentertainment. Then they would need to get back to the serious business of the port".
In fact, on 19 February 2013 the DfT replied to me along the same lines as your post, so nothing new there.
However, unlike you, I didn't convert my attitude into one of sheer hate.
My attempts concerning the Port of Dover were rejected, but I can hold my head high in the knowledge that I didn't degenerate into nurturing and expressing sheer hatred.
Do you know that hatred can be harmful to a person's health?
It also reflects in their attitude and their words.
Why the sheer hate, Keith Sansum?
I believe in the Church of the Fair Lady, which protects my soul from sheer hate.
So your hate-posts don't really bother me, which must be a disappointment to you!
Chris- Forum Admin
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Oct 2009
- Posts: 357
Had the following in from the Port of Dover regarding live animal export inspections...
----------------------------------
In terms of the legal position regarding the inspection of live animal cargoes, the Port can advise that DHB liaises closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and its regulating agency, the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA), which is responsible for carrying out statutory inspections. The Port of Dover is not involved directly in animal welfare matters, although DHB is rigorous in demanding through the relevant authorities that all aspects of animal welfare whilst in the Port are fully complied with.
In a letter dated 16 April 2013 addressed to Mr Gavin Grant, Chief Executive of the RSCPA, the Port recommended that the RSPCA approached the AHVLA regarding the matter of inspections. However, DEFRA has been crystal clear that the RSCPA would NOT be permitted to take part in any statutory checks made by AHVLA inspectors. The Dover Mercury recently carried a front page report on this subject, which clearly confirms the position
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/east_kent_mercury/news/rspca-can-not-inspect-export-4396/.
Port of Dover
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
good to know the port of dover are looking in.
ahlva inspectors supervise the loading of the animals and then again prior to shipment from the port which surprises me as i would have thought there was no need of a permanent presence at the port even taking into account animals shipped out for breeding purposes.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander;
I hate very few people (and certainly I have nothing to hate you over)
I disagree with you often(thats not hate)
At last you accept the govt disowned your proposal.
You say the govt also took your proposal in a light hearted way(interesting)[QUOTE="Alexander D"]Keith Sansum, in post 88 you write:
"If I were govt official getting your proposal, it should be taken in a light hearted way, a way of light eentertainment. Then they would need to get back to the serious business of the port".
In fact, on 19 February 2013 the DfT replied to me along the same lines as your post, so nothing new there.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
No, Keith, in Feb 2013 I posted here that the DfT informed me that nothing of my representation regarding port tolls had been accepted. It was the only part of my representation that I thought had been accepted, as it was mentioned in the Dec '12 Decision Minister's letter.
So I assumed your yesterday's post was just to rub it in with salt and vinegar.
Life's hard enough Keith without someone putting the boot in.
PS if you don't believe it, then look it up on one of the numerous port threads from Feb '13.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander;
In all honesty a number of representions have gone in the past (including your own) The Govt still has the very difficult job of deciding what happens next.
From the info I see, and the posts here, the DHB will not remain in charge, and changes will take place.
How this will happen, and who the new set up will be is down the govt.
All we can do is wait,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
House of Commons:
Written Answers - Environment Food and Rural Affairs: Livestock: Transport (10 Sep 2013)
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2013-09-10a.167697.h&s=speaker%3A24777#g167697.q0
Charlie Elphicke: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs how many lorries of live farm animals for further
fattening or slaughter have left English ports since 1 May 2013; and of
those shipments how many lorries were inspected by the Animal Health and
Veterinary Laboratory Agency both at loading and at the port.
Guest 717- Registered: 16 Jun 2011
- Posts: 468
The expression 'jumping on the bandwagon' springs to mind.
Keeps politics to myself
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
to be fair to charlie he has been banging the drum about this since the trade moved here, as has clair hawkins his opposite number.
as we can see from ed's link the livestock more often than not are not checked once they have left the farm so surely the rspca should be given the opportunity to see for themselves if the ahvla are not doing the job?
Guest 717- Registered: 16 Jun 2011
- Posts: 468
I have attended and taken part in a number of charity events in Dover. I used to watch Charlie turn up, have his photo taken for the paper and then disappear with barely a word to the ppl taking part. Is it no wonder I mistrust the man? Claire would always chat and take part.
Keeps politics to myself
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
an interesting observation
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
but a good point made kieth.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
And a very true one ,then we see the photos in the press of him with the party saying "He got this done or that done but infact all he had done was his photo.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
on the subject of live exports anyone that gets the "they work for you" e mails will be aware that charlie has been very active in trying to bring pressure to bear in order to stop the trade.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I think gywn before was on the same case
as is Claire .
Its a cross party thing
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i never said it wasn't keith in fact i did say that clair was of the same mind.
the point is that charlie is in the commons and able to do more while gwynn and clair are not.