FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Substandard e.u meat
Substandard e.u meat
Jump to: Newest in thread
Looks like several e.u suppliers were back at it supplying tbenuk with substandard meat.
Thank god for brexit we can legally check these at the customs border now...all that hullabaloo about the single market protection for Northern Ireland and e.u and its the e.u supplying substandard meat to the uk market.
Another brexot benefit as we couldn't do these customs checks before hand |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"Looks like several e.u suppliers were back at it supplying tbenuk with substandard meat.
Thank god for brexit we can legally check these at the customs border now...all that hullabaloo about the single market protection for Northern Ireland and e.u and its the e.u supplying substandard meat to the uk market.
Another brexot benefit as we couldn't do these customs checks before hand"
context ? "EU meat" under my Google news is light of stories. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Looks like several e.u suppliers were back at it supplying tbenuk with substandard meat.
Thank god for brexit we can legally check these at the customs border now...all that hullabaloo about the single market protection for Northern Ireland and e.u and its the e.u supplying substandard meat to the uk market.
Another brexot benefit as we couldn't do these customs checks before handcontext ? "EU meat" under my Google news is light of stories. "
Well. No doubt this won't be on the approved links so I'll get banned again for actually backing up what I say with facts and articles. Whilst others proclaim bollocks and lie and never back up anything they say.
https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/crime/unprecedented-volumes-of-illegal-meat-seized-at-dover
Illegal meat from the e.u making its way to the uk.
We couldn't check these in the e.u so who knows how many made their way ehre qcross 20 years of membership |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"Looks like several e.u suppliers were back at it supplying tbenuk with substandard meat.
Thank god for brexit we can legally check these at the customs border now...all that hullabaloo about the single market protection for Northern Ireland and e.u and its the e.u supplying substandard meat to the uk market.
Another brexot benefit as we couldn't do these customs checks before handcontext ? "EU meat" under my Google news is light of stories.
Well. No doubt this won't be on the approved links so I'll get banned again for actually backing up what I say with facts and articles. Whilst others proclaim bollocks and lie and never back up anything they say.
https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/crime/unprecedented-volumes-of-illegal-meat-seized-at-dover
Illegal meat from the e.u making its way to the uk.
We couldn't check these in the e.u so who knows how many made their way ehre qcross 20 years of membership"
this reads like smuggling in many instances. Wheely bins of meat doesn't sound too legit !
Also sounds like this is "news" because our checks have been pushed. That's a worry if there are these large health concerns. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ermbiMan 46 weeks ago
Ballyshannon |
"Looks like several e.u suppliers were back at it supplying tbenuk with substandard meat.
Thank god for brexit we can legally check these at the customs border now...all that hullabaloo about the single market protection for Northern Ireland and e.u and its the e.u supplying substandard meat to the uk market.
Another brexot benefit as we couldn't do these customs checks before hand"
Maybe you should read again. The UK government has delayed in bringing in the checks on these goods. Its not a brexit benefit as the UK had the same food standards as the EU before leaving |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Looks like several e.u suppliers were back at it supplying tbenuk with substandard meat.
Thank god for brexit we can legally check these at the customs border now...all that hullabaloo about the single market protection for Northern Ireland and e.u and its the e.u supplying substandard meat to the uk market.
Another brexot benefit as we couldn't do these customs checks before hand"
"Maybe you should read again. The UK government has delayed in bringing in the checks on these goods. Its not a brexit benefit as the UK had the same food standards as the EU before leaving "
Perhaps you should be the one reading again. The UK has delayed bringing in full checks, but obviously some checks are being made, since some sub-standard meat has been discovered.
As the OP said, we were legally not allowed to check these shipments while we were still in the EU. After Brexit, we now can. I think that having the ability to stop sub-standard meat from reaching our shores can reasonably be described as a Brexit benefit, even if we don't fully exercise that ability. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Looks like several e.u suppliers were back at it supplying tbenuk with substandard meat.
Thank god for brexit we can legally check these at the customs border now...all that hullabaloo about the single market protection for Northern Ireland and e.u and its the e.u supplying substandard meat to the uk market.
Another brexot benefit as we couldn't do these customs checks before hand
Maybe you should read again. The UK government has delayed in bringing in the checks on these goods. Its not a brexit benefit as the UK had the same food standards as the EU before leaving
Perhaps you should be the one reading again. The UK has delayed bringing in full checks, but obviously some checks are being made, since some sub-standard meat has been discovered.
As the OP said, we were legally not allowed to check these shipments while we were still in the EU. After Brexit, we now can. I think that having the ability to stop sub-standard meat from reaching our shores can reasonably be described as a Brexit benefit, even if we don't fully exercise that ability."
This will only remain as a tenuous potential Brexit benefit untill we lower our food safety standards. Not sure if the Tories will achieve this, and/or the trade deal with the US.
Still, it's probably the most solid case for an actual real life benefit so far. Which is good to see finally. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Looks like several e.u suppliers were back at it supplying tbenuk with substandard meat.
Thank god for brexit we can legally check these at the customs border now...all that hullabaloo about the single market protection for Northern Ireland and e.u and its the e.u supplying substandard meat to the uk market.
Another brexot benefit as we couldn't do these customs checks before handcontext ? "EU meat" under my Google news is light of stories.
Well. No doubt this won't be on the approved links so I'll get banned again for actually backing up what I say with facts and articles. Whilst others proclaim bollocks and lie and never back up anything they say.
https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/crime/unprecedented-volumes-of-illegal-meat-seized-at-dover
Illegal meat from the e.u making its way to the uk.
We couldn't check these in the e.u so who knows how many made their way ehre qcross 20 years of membershipthis reads like smuggling in many instances. Wheely bins of meat doesn't sound too legit !
Also sounds like this is "news" because our checks have been pushed. That's a worry if there are these large health concerns. "
Hopefully this will give them a kick to introduce more checks as promised though it should not take a situation like this to highlight the importance. The other concern as mentioned is, if pre brexit the UK was not allowed to check produce from the EU then how much of this type of meat was sent here and used while a member. If pretty basic checks have already found what they have then when there was no checks allowed, God knows what came in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Where does it say it was coming from EU suppliers?"
In the OP.
Plus, the article that was linked to above states that the meat was found at Dover port, which only receives arrivals from EU countries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK? "
my reading is of the former. Stories of holdalls and Wheely bins don't suggest legit.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"This is scary. Go to google, type in “meat”, click news. Nothing about this on main stream media "
the trouble is some news is simply an ongoing issue.
Trying to get stuff in illegally happens every day. The swine flu risk and delay in border checks has been reported previously.
Fair play to Morley for finding a source that quantifies the size of illegal captures. But something that gets a few paragraphs in a niche weekly is probably not hugely newsworthy for MSM.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 46 weeks ago
Brighton |
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK? my reading is of the former. Stories of holdalls and Wheely bins don't suggest legit.
"
That is what I thought. So the Brexit Bonus is more customs checks at the border (was it 100% unchecked before?) but this story seems to be getting spun as THE EU sending dodgy meat rather than criminals based in the EU sending dodgy meat? Right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 46 weeks ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK? my reading is of the former. Stories of holdalls and Wheely bins don't suggest legit.
That is what I thought. So the Brexit Bonus is more customs checks at the border (was it 100% unchecked before?) but this story seems to be getting spun as THE EU sending dodgy meat rather than criminals based in the EU sending dodgy meat? Right?"
Seems so |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK? my reading is of the former. Stories of holdalls and Wheely bins don't suggest legit.
That is what I thought. So the Brexit Bonus is more customs checks at the border (was it 100% unchecked before?) but this story seems to be getting spun as THE EU sending dodgy meat rather than criminals based in the EU sending dodgy meat? Right?"
more checks in theory. They keep getting delayed. And surely there's something that allows countries to check cargo is what it says it is. Even in the CU?
The EU story may be about swine flu controls, and our ability (in theory) to do our own thing even if in practice we don't enforce it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And surely there's something that allows countries to check cargo is what it says it is. Even in the CU?"
The free movement of goods meant that we weren't allowed to perform checks on what came in from the EU. We could do random checks to look for contraband, but not checks to ensure the provenance of the goods being transported. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"And surely there's something that allows countries to check cargo is what it says it is. Even in the CU?
The free movement of goods meant that we weren't allowed to perform checks on what came in from the EU. We could do random checks to look for contraband, but not checks to ensure the provenance of the goods being transported."
because it English sucks more than a fab straight lad ... What do you mean by provenance in this instance ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And surely there's something that allows countries to check cargo is what it says it is. Even in the CU?"
"The free movement of goods meant that we weren't allowed to perform checks on what came in from the EU. We could do random checks to look for contraband, but not checks to ensure the provenance of the goods being transported."
"because it English sucks more than a fab straight lad ... What do you mean by provenance in this instance ?"
I knew I shouldn't have used that word. It's difficult to find unambiguous wording.
So, when we were in the EU, generally speaking we could not stop a lorry entering the UK from the EU. We could randomly stop traffic to check for illegal goods (like weapons or smuggled people) and we could stop a vehicle for road traffic violations, but otherwise we couldn't stop it.
If a lorry arrived with a bill of lading that said it was carrying EU-origin beef, we could check the meat to see if it was stuffed with cannabis, but we couldn't take samples to check that it was beef and not horse. We were required to allow anything that could legally be traded to pass through our borders. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"And surely there's something that allows countries to check cargo is what it says it is. Even in the CU?
The free movement of goods meant that we weren't allowed to perform checks on what came in from the EU. We could do random checks to look for contraband, but not checks to ensure the provenance of the goods being transported.
because it English sucks more than a fab straight lad ... What do you mean by provenance in this instance ?
I knew I shouldn't have used that word. It's difficult to find unambiguous wording.
So, when we were in the EU, generally speaking we could not stop a lorry entering the UK from the EU. We could randomly stop traffic to check for illegal goods (like weapons or smuggled people) and we could stop a vehicle for road traffic violations, but otherwise we couldn't stop it.
If a lorry arrived with a bill of lading that said it was carrying EU-origin beef, we could check the meat to see if it was stuffed with cannabis, but we couldn't take samples to check that it was beef and not horse. We were required to allow anything that could legally be traded to pass through our borders."
ah right. I understood we could do risk based checks, but that's more for contraband etc. Afaik DNA testing happened at factories etc. So agree there is something here that Brexit could have solved (it hasn't yet) but afaik it's not the issue at hand here which is more smuggling or containers not having what they say in them (which we could check for) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" but afaik it's not the issue at hand here which is more smuggling or containers not having what they say in them (which we could check for) "
We couldn't do that either. We could open a container to check its contents if there were some suspicion that criminal activity were taking place, but not otherwise. We could not open a container for the sole reason of checking that it contained what it said on the bill of lading. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 46 weeks ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
A quick browse of the article suggests that none of this crap would have arrived legitimately prior to Brexit so one would like to assume it would have been checked.
Especially since it probably originated outside of the EU
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
" but afaik it's not the issue at hand here which is more smuggling or containers not having what they say in them (which we could check for)
We couldn't do that either. We could open a container to check its contents if there were some suspicion that criminal activity were taking place, but not otherwise. We could not open a container for the sole reason of checking that it contained what it said on the bill of lading."
Not sure I agree based on a quick search as that sounds odd
, “Customs controls may in particular consist of examining goods, taking samples, verifying
the accuracy and completeness of the information given in a declaration or notification and the existence,
authenticity, accuracy and validity of documents, examining the accounts of economic operators and other
records, inspecting means of transport, inspecting luggage and other goods carried by or on persons and
carrying out official enquiries and other similar acts.”
Part of unions custom code. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 46 weeks ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
Assuming this meat had originated outside the EU and the shipment papers state that it is transiting EU countries enroute to the UK would the EU countries bother checking whereas when the UK was in the EU it's likely that the shipment would have been checked at the first point if entry into the EU ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK? "
Could be both and could have been going on for many years. The article did mention wheelie bins but said it included a situation with wheelie bin not that all cases were like that or if the wheelie bin case was isolated. They do say it is the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps with few details it should be classed as a non story as per others |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"but afaik it's not the issue at hand here which is more smuggling or containers not having what they say in them (which we could check for)"
"We couldn't do that either. We could open a container to check its contents if there were some suspicion that criminal activity were taking place, but not otherwise. We could not open a container for the sole reason of checking that it contained what it said on the bill of lading."
"Not sure I agree based on a quick search as that sounds odd
, “Customs controls may in particular consist of examining goods, taking samples, verifying
the accuracy and completeness of the information given in a declaration or notification and the existence,
authenticity, accuracy and validity of documents, examining the accounts of economic operators and other
records, inspecting means of transport, inspecting luggage and other goods carried by or on persons and
carrying out official enquiries and other similar acts.”"
You're looking at paragraph 2 of section 2 of PE733.135. If you read section 2 paragraph 1 it states that 'customs controls' means “specific acts performed by the customs authorities in order to ensure compliance with the customs legislation and other legislation governing the entry, exit, transit, movement, storage and end-use of goods moved between the customs territory of the Union and countries or territories outside that territory ...". In other words, 'customs controls' apply only to things that cross the EU customs border. When we were in the EU, we were inside that border, so there were no customs controls applied to goods that originated within that border. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Looks like several e.u suppliers were back at it supplying tbenuk with substandard meat.
Thank god for brexit we can legally check these at the customs border now...all that hullabaloo about the single market protection for Northern Ireland and e.u and its the e.u supplying substandard meat to the uk market.
Another brexot benefit as we couldn't do these customs checks before hand
Maybe you should read again. The UK government has delayed in bringing in the checks on these goods. Its not a brexit benefit as the UK had the same food standards as the EU before leaving "
It was literally found in Dover due to the customs checks
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK? "
The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale.
This proves its fallable and likely has been.
One thing is for sure. This is absolutely a brexit benefit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"but afaik it's not the issue at hand here which is more smuggling or containers not having what they say in them (which we could check for)
We couldn't do that either. We could open a container to check its contents if there were some suspicion that criminal activity were taking place, but not otherwise. We could not open a container for the sole reason of checking that it contained what it said on the bill of lading.
Not sure I agree based on a quick search as that sounds odd
, “Customs controls may in particular consist of examining goods, taking samples, verifying
the accuracy and completeness of the information given in a declaration or notification and the existence,
authenticity, accuracy and validity of documents, examining the accounts of economic operators and other
records, inspecting means of transport, inspecting luggage and other goods carried by or on persons and
carrying out official enquiries and other similar acts.”
You're looking at paragraph 2 of section 2 of PE733.135. If you read section 2 paragraph 1 it states that 'customs controls' means “specific acts performed by the customs authorities in order to ensure compliance with the customs legislation and other legislation governing the entry, exit, transit, movement, storage and end-use of goods moved between the customs territory of the Union and countries or territories outside that territory ...". In other words, 'customs controls' apply only to things that cross the EU customs border. When we were in the EU, we were inside that border, so there were no customs controls applied to goods that originated within that border."
ah good spot, thank you.
Okay, so the EU doesn't do border checks, but checked at source, is that correct? Eg are the farmers/factories doing something wrong.
(I can't get my head around that the accept this risk entirely without some mitigation) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is scary. Go to google, type in “meat”, click news. Nothing about this on main stream media the trouble is some news is simply an ongoing issue.
Trying to get stuff in illegally happens every day. The swine flu risk and delay in border checks has been reported previously.
Fair play to Morley for finding a source that quantifies the size of illegal captures. But something that gets a few paragraphs in a niche weekly is probably not hugely newsworthy for MSM.
"
It absolutely should be. Given that so many report tripe imf reports and ask what are brexit benefits.
Thisnks undeniably one. And suddenly they're silent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A quick browse of the article suggests that none of this crap would have arrived legitimately prior to Brexit so one would like to assume it would have been checked.
Especially since it probably originated outside of the EU
"
You literally can't check it in the SM and CU.
That was the entire point Of the SM and E.U
And a HUGE reason why the NIP was a massive problem the e.u saying it couldn't open ITS borders to non e.u standard stuff coming form the uk from other countries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 46 weeks ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
"A quick browse of the article suggests that none of this crap would have arrived legitimately prior to Brexit so one would like to assume it would have been checked.
Especially since it probably originated outside of the EU
You literally can't check it in the SM and CU.
That was the entire point Of the SM and E.U
And a HUGE reason why the NIP was a massive problem the e.u saying it couldn't open ITS borders to non e.u standard stuff coming form the uk from other countries."
Eh ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Okay, so the EU doesn't do border checks, but checked at source, is that correct? Eg are the farmers/factories doing something wrong.
(I can't get my head around that the accept this risk entirely without some mitigation) "
Each company has to be certified, meaning that they have to show that they know all the rules before they can do business. After that they are pretty much just trusted to follow the regulations. There are spot checks in all parts of the food chain, but most of it relies on self-certification.
That worked well when the EU was small. But then they let in all the Eastern European countries, and they tend to have a different attitude to rule following. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 46 weeks ago
|
"Okay, so the EU doesn't do border checks, but checked at source, is that correct? Eg are the farmers/factories doing something wrong.
(I can't get my head around that the accept this risk entirely without some mitigation)
Each company has to be certified, meaning that they have to show that they know all the rules before they can do business. After that they are pretty much just trusted to follow the regulations. There are spot checks in all parts of the food chain, but most of it relies on self-certification.
That worked well when the EU was small. But then they let in all the Eastern European countries, and they tend to have a different attitude to rule following."
that makes sense. Kinda like how it works within a country. We had to trust other countries were doing it right.
Given the border checks have been pushed back pushed til some point this year, that feels we are neither able to influence the EU checking approach, nor have our own checks. So worst of both worlds for now ?
I'm still not sure how much of this story would have been missed under EU, as this didn't sound like contaminated meat but common smuggling.
The higher numbers could be because of better checks, or more smuggling, or both. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 46 weeks ago
Brighton |
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK?
The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale.
This proves its fallable and likely has been.
One thing is for sure. This is absolutely a brexit benefit."
Oh Morley your blind hatred for all things EU means you are grabbing hold of anything and everything to prove the Brexit decision. You are trying to position this as a systemic failure when what it actually proves is there are dodgy fuckers out there looking to circumvent the system. Twas ever thus! There are criminal elements in every country in the world, the countries that are members of the EU are not different.
Border checks catching this is undoubtedly a Brexit benefit. But stop trying to paint this as something more than it is. Criminals doing what criminals do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 46 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
Every EU country is able to do spot checks at any location, not just at the border, to make sure that food standards are being upheld.
The EU Rapid Alert System on Food and Feed (RASFF) is there to share information about risks on food.
If a particular source within the EU is repeatedly a problem, the European Commission can be asked to investigate.
The European Commission can also launch an investigation on its own initiative.
If that doesn't work then there can be infringement proceedings in the EU's lower court.
Legal points arising from a case in the lower court can be answered in the upper court. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 46 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
There's an EU Food Safety Agency to help national food inspectors.
Tackling cross border crime is in the interest of every EU country.
That's why there's the Europol and Eurojust agencies to help national police forces.
The Schengen Information System covers goods as well as people. The SIS is used all the time by all the EU countries, including the ones that are not yet inside the Schengen area.
There's a European Law Enforcement Training Centre to help national police forces learn how policing works in their neighbouring countries.
There's food safety committees in the European Parliament. Agriculture, health and security ministers and diplomats meet at the Council of the EU.
Altogether it's better and safer to be inside the EU.
Not what Great Britain has been doing - losing all the benefits of membership, increasing the opportunity for crime, costing itself more and having worse information. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK?
The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale.
This proves its fallable and likely has been.
One thing is for sure. This is absolutely a brexit benefit.
Oh Morley your blind hatred for all things EU means you are grabbing hold of anything and everything to prove the Brexit decision. You are trying to position this as a systemic failure when what it actually proves is there are dodgy fuckers out there looking to circumvent the system. Twas ever thus! There are criminal elements in every country in the world, the countries that are members of the EU are not different.
Border checks catching this is undoubtedly a Brexit benefit. But stop trying to paint this as something more than it is. Criminals doing what criminals do. "
It was a systematic failure.
The e.u can't guarantee the standards of what it imports and then re exports.
It never could.it's likely this has been going on for decades.we only know now because we left the e.u
This is fact |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Every EU country is able to do spot checks at any location, not just at the border, to make sure that food standards are being upheld.
The EU Rapid Alert System on Food and Feed (RASFF) is there to share information about risks on food.
If a particular source within the EU is repeatedly a problem, the European Commission can be asked to investigate.
The European Commission can also launch an investigation on its own initiative.
If that doesn't work then there can be infringement proceedings in the EU's lower court.
Legal points arising from a case in the lower court can be answered in the upper court."
No. No e.u country can do amy spot checks on customs and goods |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
get banned again for actually backing up what I say with facts and articles
https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/crime/unprecedented-volumes-of-illegal-meat-seized-at-dover
"
Asking for a friend who’s had two forum bans for posting links for the benefit of doubters. And a recent OP with a link to their introduce topic
Any guidance on “links” or is it down to the moderator on the day |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
get banned again for actually backing up what I say with facts and articles
https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/crime/unprecedented-volumes-of-illegal-meat-seized-at-dover
Asking for a friend who’s had two forum bans for posting links for the benefit of doubters. And a recent OP with a link to their introduce topic
Any guidance on “links” or is it down to the moderator on the day "
Down to the mod I assume and their political persuasions |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Asking for a friend who’s had two forum bans for posting links for the benefit of doubters. And a recent OP with a link to their introduce topic
Any guidance on “links” or is it down to the moderator on the day "
The forum rules say that you can post to any well recognised news site, and Wikipedia. I've posted dozens of links to government sites, which I assume are also allowed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ermbiMan 45 weeks ago
Ballyshannon |
"Looks like several e.u suppliers were back at it supplying tbenuk with substandard meat.
Thank god for brexit we can legally check these at the customs border now...all that hullabaloo about the single market protection for Northern Ireland and e.u and its the e.u supplying substandard meat to the uk market.
Another brexot benefit as we couldn't do these customs checks before hand"
Just point out where it says EU suppliers doing this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Just point out where it says EU suppliers doing this
The link above states that the meat was found at Dover, which only handles freight from the EU."
Let’s be clear though, this is not legitimate EU suppliers, it is criminals smuggling. Big difference. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK?
The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale.
This proves its fallable and likely has been.
One thing is for sure. This is absolutely a brexit benefit.
Oh Morley your blind hatred for all things EU means you are grabbing hold of anything and everything to prove the Brexit decision. You are trying to position this as a systemic failure when what it actually proves is there are dodgy fuckers out there looking to circumvent the system. Twas ever thus! There are criminal elements in every country in the world, the countries that are members of the EU are not different.
Border checks catching this is undoubtedly a Brexit benefit. But stop trying to paint this as something more than it is. Criminals doing what criminals do.
It was a systematic failure.
The e.u can't guarantee the standards of what it imports and then re exports.
It never could.it's likely this has been going on for decades.we only know now because we left the e.u
This is fact"
Now you are talking about importing to the EI then exporting to the UK. I don’t think the article said anything about origin of the meat did it?
This is about criminals. There are criminals in the UK too who will deal is domestic meat that is not following rules and guidance and dodgy businesses prepared to use that meat. You seem to be implying this is a uniquely EU problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is about criminals."
That's what you want it to be about, so that you can easily dismiss it, but that's not what the rest of us are discussing.
This thread is about discovering dodgy meat imports from the EU, that previously would have got through because we weren't allowed to check them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"This is about criminals.
That's what you want it to be about, so that you can easily dismiss it, but that's not what the rest of us are discussing.
This thread is about discovering dodgy meat imports from the EU, that previously would have got through because we weren't allowed to check them."
Actually I have already said this is a brexit benefit as border checks are catching (some) of this. But we need clarity as otherwise a cursory read of some posts would leave the impression that legitimate EU based businesses or even the EU itself are exporting dodgy meat to the UK and that is not the case. It is criminals. Context matters. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But we need clarity as otherwise a cursory read of some posts would leave the impression that legitimate EU based businesses or even the EU itself are exporting dodgy meat to the UK ..."
Why do we need that clarity? The story is about dodgy meat being brought into the UK. It doesn't matter if it comes from criminal activity or a legitimate business. What matters is that we put measures in place to stop it.
"... that is not the case. It is criminals."
You make it sound like some shady underground criminal network is creating and shipping meat illegally. How do you know that no legitimate EU based business is involved? What makes you think that it isn't a legitimate EU business acting illegally? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"But we need clarity as otherwise a cursory read of some posts would leave the impression that legitimate EU based businesses or even the EU itself are exporting dodgy meat to the UK ...
Why do we need that clarity? The story is about dodgy meat being brought into the UK. It doesn't matter if it comes from criminal activity or a legitimate business. What matters is that we put measures in place to stop it.
... that is not the case. It is criminals.
You make it sound like some shady underground criminal network is creating and shipping meat illegally. How do you know that no legitimate EU based business is involved? What makes you think that it isn't a legitimate EU business acting illegally?"
If meat is being exported that does not meet EU standards then that is criminal. I doubt very much that is the activity of legitimate businesses but willing to be corrected if you know and can prove otherwise?
Do you have evidence that is IS legitimate EU businesses? If you do then can you share that information so we can discuss that! If that turns out to be true then I will join the outrage.
Presumably HMRC, Border Force, and the relevant police services have that information as well and are working with EU counterparts to trace it back? If they don’t and you do then I hope you will share with the relevant authorities? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You make it sound like some shady underground criminal network is creating and shipping meat illegally. How do you know that no legitimate EU based business is involved? What makes you think that it isn't a legitimate EU business acting illegally?"
"If meat is being exported that does not meet EU standards then that is criminal. I doubt very much that is the activity of legitimate businesses but willing to be corrected if you know and can prove otherwise?
Do you have evidence that is IS legitimate EU businesses? If you do then can you share that information so we can discuss that! If that turns out to be true then I will join the outrage."
I have no evidence whatsoever, which is why I haven't claimed to know anything. My suspicion is that it's coming from an otherwise legitimate Eastern European meat processor. Those countries tend to treat regulations as guidelines.
You, on the other hand, said "this is not legitimate EU suppliers, it is criminals". I'm sure you wouldn't make that assertion with no evidence, so what is it that you know but haven't told us? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"You make it sound like some shady underground criminal network is creating and shipping meat illegally. How do you know that no legitimate EU based business is involved? What makes you think that it isn't a legitimate EU business acting illegally?
If meat is being exported that does not meet EU standards then that is criminal. I doubt very much that is the activity of legitimate businesses but willing to be corrected if you know and can prove otherwise?
Do you have evidence that is IS legitimate EU businesses? If you do then can you share that information so we can discuss that! If that turns out to be true then I will join the outrage.
I have no evidence whatsoever, which is why I haven't claimed to know anything. My suspicion is that it's coming from an otherwise legitimate Eastern European meat processor. Those countries tend to treat regulations as guidelines.
You, on the other hand, said "this is not legitimate EU suppliers, it is criminals". I'm sure you wouldn't make that assertion with no evidence, so what is it that you know but haven't told us?"
If the meat does not meet EU standards then it is illegal and that represents criminal activity. Surely that is an inarguable fact?
You have a supposition with no evidence. I am stating a fact. If a legitimate Eastern European business is (one of) the source then they are acting illegally ergo criminally.
This matters because without including that in any discussion and just saying things like “the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK” is totally (and I suspect deliberately) misleading. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"You make it sound like some shady underground criminal network is creating and shipping meat illegally. How do you know that no legitimate EU based business is involved? What makes you think that it isn't a legitimate EU business acting illegally?
If meat is being exported that does not meet EU standards then that is criminal. I doubt very much that is the activity of legitimate businesses but willing to be corrected if you know and can prove otherwise?
Do you have evidence that is IS legitimate EU businesses? If you do then can you share that information so we can discuss that! If that turns out to be true then I will join the outrage.
I have no evidence whatsoever, which is why I haven't claimed to know anything. My suspicion is that it's coming from an otherwise legitimate Eastern European meat processor. Those countries tend to treat regulations as guidelines.
You, on the other hand, said "this is not legitimate EU suppliers, it is criminals". I'm sure you wouldn't make that assertion with no evidence, so what is it that you know but haven't told us?
If the meat does not meet EU standards then it is illegal and that represents criminal activity. Surely that is an inarguable fact?
You have a supposition with no evidence. I am stating a fact. If a legitimate Eastern European business is (one of) the source then they are acting illegally ergo criminally.
This matters because without including that in any discussion and just saying things like “the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK” is totally (and I suspect deliberately) misleading."
Hopefully you won’t now try to make a semantics argument?
Legitimate business acting within the rules (ie legitimately) = not illegal/not criminal
Legitimate business not following rules = acting illegally/criminally so not actually legitimate
Legitimate business with some dodgy staff doing illegal things = criminals hidden within the business but not the business itself
Etc
Either way they are criminals. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the meat does not meet EU standards then it is illegal and that represents criminal activity. Surely that is an inarguable fact?
You have a supposition with no evidence. I am stating a fact. If a legitimate Eastern European business is (one of) the source then they are acting illegally ergo criminally."
No disagreement there. Supplying illegal meat is a criminal act, and makes the perpetrator a criminal. What I don't understand is why you were so keen to separate legitimate suppliers and criminals in your earlier posts. Since the supply of illegal meat can only be done by criminals, why spend all that time telling us that it wasn't legitimate suppliers?
"This matters because without including that in any discussion and just saying things like “the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK” is totally (and I suspect deliberately) misleading."
No one is saying "the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK". You've made that up. In Morley's original post he talked about EU suppliers, not 'the EU'. The only person here that thinks it's 'the EU' is you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"If the meat does not meet EU standards then it is illegal and that represents criminal activity. Surely that is an inarguable fact?
You have a supposition with no evidence. I am stating a fact. If a legitimate Eastern European business is (one of) the source then they are acting illegally ergo criminally.
No disagreement there. Supplying illegal meat is a criminal act, and makes the perpetrator a criminal. What I don't understand is why you were so keen to separate legitimate suppliers and criminals in your earlier posts. Since the supply of illegal meat can only be done by criminals, why spend all that time telling us that it wasn't legitimate suppliers?
This matters because without including that in any discussion and just saying things like “the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK” is totally (and I suspect deliberately) misleading.
No one is saying "the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK". You've made that up. In Morley's original post he talked about EU suppliers, not 'the EU'. The only person here that thinks it's 'the EU' is you."
Not correct. My entire point has been to ensure context is maintained otherwise people read something but have a different takeaway (bad pun alert) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This matters because without including that in any discussion and just saying things like “the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK” is totally (and I suspect deliberately) misleading."
"No one is saying "the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK". You've made that up. In Morley's original post he talked about EU suppliers, not 'the EU'. The only person here that thinks it's 'the EU' is you."
"Not correct. My entire point has been to ensure context is maintained otherwise people read something but have a different takeaway (bad pun alert)"
Which bit isn't correct? There are 4 sentences in that post, which of them do you assert is incorrect? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"This matters because without including that in any discussion and just saying things like “the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK” is totally (and I suspect deliberately) misleading.
No one is saying "the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK". You've made that up. In Morley's original post he talked about EU suppliers, not 'the EU'. The only person here that thinks it's 'the EU' is you.
Not correct. My entire point has been to ensure context is maintained otherwise people read something but have a different takeaway (bad pun alert)
Which bit isn't correct? There are 4 sentences in that post, which of them do you assert is incorrect?"
Last point.
I asked
""So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK?"
And Morley replied
"The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale.
This proves its fallable and likely has been."
Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 45 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"This matters because without including that in any discussion and just saying things like “the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK” is totally (and I suspect deliberately) misleading.
No one is saying "the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK". You've made that up. In Morley's original post he talked about EU suppliers, not 'the EU'. The only person here that thinks it's 'the EU' is you.
Not correct. My entire point has been to ensure context is maintained otherwise people read something but have a different takeaway (bad pun alert)
Which bit isn't correct? There are 4 sentences in that post, which of them do you assert is incorrect?
Last point.
I asked
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK?
And Morley replied
The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale.
This proves its fallable and likely has been.
Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals."
where was the meat found and insepcted? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 45 weeks ago
|
Can I check... While in the EU we couldn't check duffle bags and Wheely bins as long as they had the correct customs clearance ?
Nor could we check that produce was being transported in a safe (eg chilled) way.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"This matters because without including that in any discussion and just saying things like “the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK” is totally (and I suspect deliberately) misleading.
No one is saying "the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK". You've made that up. In Morley's original post he talked about EU suppliers, not 'the EU'. The only person here that thinks it's 'the EU' is you.
Not correct. My entire point has been to ensure context is maintained otherwise people read something but have a different takeaway (bad pun alert)
Which bit isn't correct? There are 4 sentences in that post, which of them do you assert is incorrect?
Last point.
I asked
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK?
And Morley replied
The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale.
This proves its fallable and likely has been.
Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals.
where was the meat found and insepcted?"
Not sure where you are going with that. I have been raising one point the whole time (to make sure nobody conflates because you know people do). The people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK are criminals not legitimate businesses (see definition above to avoid semantic argument). Saying well nobody is saying that” totally ignores historical posts and sentiment towards the EU by certain posters. It is the guilty by association approach. I just wanted to ensure clarity because IMO it was needed.
MrD has put forward a supposition the source is companies in Eastern European countries and that they ignore the rules and that it was better before they joined (paraphrasing). I am not saying he is wrong but does he have evidence or is this a hunch? Bit of a sweeping statement!
Let’s assume it is one or more dodgy Eastern European company...it raises a question for me. Why bother? Why smuggle into the UK when they have a borderless open market of c.500m people within the EU? Why risk capture/interception? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can I check... While in the EU we couldn't check duffle bags and Wheely bins as long as they had the correct customs clearance ?"
No. Whilst in the EU there was no customs clearance. We were required to let in all goods, unchecked.
We could do random checks for illegal goods, and targeted checks where intelligence suspected illegality. We were not allowed to do random checks on quality or accuracy of paperwork.
"Nor could we check that produce was being transported in a safe (eg chilled) way."
If the bill of lading said that it was carrying meat, and the container was obviously not chilled, then that would be evidence of illegality, so we could have checked that.
But if it was a chilled container, we had no right to open it to see if it contained wheelie bins or not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 45 weeks ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
The EU has some of the highest food standards and most rigourous checks in the world.
The fact that some dodgy smugglers have packaged some road kill and sent it to the UK has nothing to do with the EU. If it originated from a regulated food manufacturer that would be a completely different issue.
Brexit benefit ... Ha ...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
Did a search on “illegal meat” on that Farmers Weekly website. Returns some horrible articles and shows a big problem of things arriving by post of in luggage through airports from around the world.
Here was one that caught my eye...
“ILLEGALLY imported meat – including a smoked monkey carcass – has been seized by customs officials at the Eurostar train terminal in London.
Lambeth Council Regulatory Services destroyed a quantity of illegal bushmeat including a smoked monkey carcass from a Eurostar passenger arriving at Waterloo from Paris.
The revelation came on Wednesday (July 31), the day after two sniffer dogs were brought in to detect consignments of illegal meat at Heathrow airport.”
That was from 2002. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals."
Yes he is. As he says, "The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale. This proves its fallable and likely has been".
That's all true. The recent finding shows that the EU isn't the trustworthy guardian of standards that it is often held up to be. But at no point did Morley claim that 'the EU' were sending this stuff deliberately. I'm sure he'll be happy to agree that this activity is being performed by criminals. That doesn't change his point that criminality clearly happens within the EU, and now we are in a position to prevent it reaching our shores. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals.
Yes he is. As he says, "The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale. This proves its fallable and likely has been".
That's all true. The recent finding shows that the EU isn't the trustworthy guardian of standards that it is often held up to be. But at no point did Morley claim that 'the EU' were sending this stuff deliberately. I'm sure he'll be happy to agree that this activity is being performed by criminals. That doesn't change his point that criminality clearly happens within the EU, and now we are in a position to prevent it reaching our shores."
If that was what he meant then I agree. I do not think it was as simple as that and I do believe, based on posting history, that it was another stick so it needed more clarification. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals.
Yes he is. As he says, "The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale. This proves its fallable and likely has been".
That's all true. The recent finding shows that the EU isn't the trustworthy guardian of standards that it is often held up to be. But at no point did Morley claim that 'the EU' were sending this stuff deliberately. I'm sure he'll be happy to agree that this activity is being performed by criminals. That doesn't change his point that criminality clearly happens within the EU, and now we are in a position to prevent it reaching our shores.
If that was what he meant then I agree. I do not think it was as simple as that and I do believe, based on posting history, that it was another stick so it needed more clarification."
In another thread you said "You do realise it is possible to post articles to stimulate discussion and to do so without agreeing or disagreeing with them right? I don’t have to accept anything. I posted a partisan article and threw down the gauntlet for a discussion. Sometimes people are odd on here?"
If what you're saying here about Morley is the standards you hold then surely the same applies to you? Based in posting history and all that. You'll probably say it's not the same, but y'know  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 45 weeks ago
|
"Can I check... While in the EU we couldn't check duffle bags and Wheely bins as long as they had the correct customs clearance ?
No. Whilst in the EU there was no customs clearance. We were required to let in all goods, unchecked.
We could do random checks for illegal goods, and targeted checks where intelligence suspected illegality. We were not allowed to do random checks on quality or accuracy of paperwork.
Nor could we check that produce was being transported in a safe (eg chilled) way.
If the bill of lading said that it was carrying meat, and the container was obviously not chilled, then that would be evidence of illegality, so we could have checked that.
But if it was a chilled container, we had no right to open it to see if it contained wheelie bins or not."
Apols, can't do clever quotes easily.
By customs clearance I meant the right docs and audit trail. The SM border isn't entirely frictionless.
Your second answer suggests we could check things if there was evidence of illegality. My question is how many of this illegal meat would have been caught in the EU.
And also how much of an opportunity has been created from being part of SM. Eg from no longer being part of the audit trail.
Part of what I'm struggling with is that an MP has said the risk is increasing ... It's not clear from when ... But a lot of the comments here suggest the risk should have dropped off a cliff. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals.
Yes he is. As he says, "The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale. This proves its fallable and likely has been".
That's all true. The recent finding shows that the EU isn't the trustworthy guardian of standards that it is often held up to be. But at no point did Morley claim that 'the EU' were sending this stuff deliberately. I'm sure he'll be happy to agree that this activity is being performed by criminals. That doesn't change his point that criminality clearly happens within the EU, and now we are in a position to prevent it reaching our shores.
If that was what he meant then I agree. I do not think it was as simple as that and I do believe, based on posting history, that it was another stick so it needed more clarification.
In another thread you said "You do realise it is possible to post articles to stimulate discussion and to do so without agreeing or disagreeing with them right? I don’t have to accept anything. I posted a partisan article and threw down the gauntlet for a discussion. Sometimes people are odd on here?"
If what you're saying here about Morley is the standards you hold then surely the same applies to you? Based in posting history and all that. You'll probably say it's not the same, but y'know "
Ha ha actually that is a fair challenge. In that thread I do not think I came down strongly on one side or another. Maybe I did? I think we all know Morley is vehemently anti EU though right?
Are you saying I am pro EU? I don’t think I am. I was certainly Remain and still think Brexit is a mistake. But I would not now support going back as we will never get the sweet deal we had. For me the EU was flawed but the pros outweighed the cons and also outweighed the pros of Brexit.
So my focus here was ensuring we did not lose sight of this being criminals. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals.
Yes he is. As he says, "The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale. This proves its fallable and likely has been".
That's all true. The recent finding shows that the EU isn't the trustworthy guardian of standards that it is often held up to be. But at no point did Morley claim that 'the EU' were sending this stuff deliberately. I'm sure he'll be happy to agree that this activity is being performed by criminals. That doesn't change his point that criminality clearly happens within the EU, and now we are in a position to prevent it reaching our shores.
If that was what he meant then I agree. I do not think it was as simple as that and I do believe, based on posting history, that it was another stick so it needed more clarification.
In another thread you said "You do realise it is possible to post articles to stimulate discussion and to do so without agreeing or disagreeing with them right? I don’t have to accept anything. I posted a partisan article and threw down the gauntlet for a discussion. Sometimes people are odd on here?"
If what you're saying here about Morley is the standards you hold then surely the same applies to you? Based in posting history and all that. You'll probably say it's not the same, but y'know
Ha ha actually that is a fair challenge. In that thread I do not think I came down strongly on one side or another. Maybe I did? I think we all know Morley is vehemently anti EU though right?
Are you saying I am pro EU? I don’t think I am. I was certainly Remain and still think Brexit is a mistake. But I would not now support going back as we will never get the sweet deal we had. For me the EU was flawed but the pros outweighed the cons and also outweighed the pros of Brexit.
So my focus here was ensuring we did not lose sight of this being criminals."
I'm not saying you're pro EU as such but judging on posting history you certainly do come down on the side of 'the UK is fucked financially without the EU'.
The issue here is we have no idea who sent this meat. You're in the 'it was a criminal' camp, technically correct, because even if it was legitimate companies, it was still a criminal act, ergo. criminals.
I'm not inclined to argue one way or the other, because as I said, we have no idea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals.
Yes he is. As he says, "The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale. This proves its fallable and likely has been".
That's all true. The recent finding shows that the EU isn't the trustworthy guardian of standards that it is often held up to be. But at no point did Morley claim that 'the EU' were sending this stuff deliberately. I'm sure he'll be happy to agree that this activity is being performed by criminals. That doesn't change his point that criminality clearly happens within the EU, and now we are in a position to prevent it reaching our shores.
If that was what he meant then I agree. I do not think it was as simple as that and I do believe, based on posting history, that it was another stick so it needed more clarification.
In another thread you said "You do realise it is possible to post articles to stimulate discussion and to do so without agreeing or disagreeing with them right? I don’t have to accept anything. I posted a partisan article and threw down the gauntlet for a discussion. Sometimes people are odd on here?"
If what you're saying here about Morley is the standards you hold then surely the same applies to you? Based in posting history and all that. You'll probably say it's not the same, but y'know
Ha ha actually that is a fair challenge. In that thread I do not think I came down strongly on one side or another. Maybe I did? I think we all know Morley is vehemently anti EU though right?
Are you saying I am pro EU? I don’t think I am. I was certainly Remain and still think Brexit is a mistake. But I would not now support going back as we will never get the sweet deal we had. For me the EU was flawed but the pros outweighed the cons and also outweighed the pros of Brexit.
So my focus here was ensuring we did not lose sight of this being criminals.
I'm not saying you're pro EU as such but judging on posting history you certainly do come down on the side of 'the UK is fucked financially without the EU'.
The issue here is we have no idea who sent this meat. You're in the 'it was a criminal' camp, technically correct, because even if it was legitimate companies, it was still a criminal act, ergo. criminals.
I'm not inclined to argue one way or the other, because as I said, we have no idea. "
We are going off topic but I do not think we are fucked financially without the EU. I don’t think I have ever said that. The full outcomes won’t be known for a generation and as per forecasting related thread, there are too many variables and unknowns in the future to fully predict and adjustments snd changes can affect outcomes along the way.
My entire position is that I think it is better to be inside the tent pissing out rather than outside trying to piss in. The tent might not be perfect but it wasn’t all that bad either IMO.
Glad we agree the meat issue is criminals.
I said early doors in this thread that tighter customs/border checks to catch this stuff is a Brexit benefit. There needs to be some right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 45 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"This matters because without including that in any discussion and just saying things like “the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK” is totally (and I suspect deliberately) misleading.
No one is saying "the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK". You've made that up. In Morley's original post he talked about EU suppliers, not 'the EU'. The only person here that thinks it's 'the EU' is you.
Not correct. My entire point has been to ensure context is maintained otherwise people read something but have a different takeaway (bad pun alert)
Which bit isn't correct? There are 4 sentences in that post, which of them do you assert is incorrect?
Last point.
I asked
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK?
And Morley replied
The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale.
This proves its fallable and likely has been.
Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals.
where was the meat found and insepcted?
Not sure where you are going with that. I have been raising one point the whole time (to make sure nobody conflates because you know people do). The people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK are criminals not legitimate businesses (see definition above to avoid semantic argument). Saying well nobody is saying that” totally ignores historical posts and sentiment towards the EU by certain posters. It is the guilty by association approach. I just wanted to ensure clarity because IMO it was needed.
MrD has put forward a supposition the source is companies in Eastern European countries and that they ignore the rules and that it was better before they joined (paraphrasing). I am not saying he is wrong but does he have evidence or is this a hunch? Bit of a sweeping statement!
Let’s assume it is one or more dodgy Eastern European company...it raises a question for me. Why bother? Why smuggle into the UK when they have a borderless open market of c.500m people within the EU? Why risk capture/interception?"
Anything worth money and is saleable will attract criminals and those criminals will try and fly under the radar, and not bring items through legal channels.
going back to my question, was the meat brought into the country as legitimate meat or smuggled in?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals.
Yes he is. As he says, "The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale. This proves its fallable and likely has been".
That's all true. The recent finding shows that the EU isn't the trustworthy guardian of standards that it is often held up to be. But at no point did Morley claim that 'the EU' were sending this stuff deliberately. I'm sure he'll be happy to agree that this activity is being performed by criminals. That doesn't change his point that criminality clearly happens within the EU, and now we are in a position to prevent it reaching our shores.
If that was what he meant then I agree. I do not think it was as simple as that and I do believe, based on posting history, that it was another stick so it needed more clarification.
In another thread you said "You do realise it is possible to post articles to stimulate discussion and to do so without agreeing or disagreeing with them right? I don’t have to accept anything. I posted a partisan article and threw down the gauntlet for a discussion. Sometimes people are odd on here?"
If what you're saying here about Morley is the standards you hold then surely the same applies to you? Based in posting history and all that. You'll probably say it's not the same, but y'know
Ha ha actually that is a fair challenge. In that thread I do not think I came down strongly on one side or another. Maybe I did? I think we all know Morley is vehemently anti EU though right?
Are you saying I am pro EU? I don’t think I am. I was certainly Remain and still think Brexit is a mistake. But I would not now support going back as we will never get the sweet deal we had. For me the EU was flawed but the pros outweighed the cons and also outweighed the pros of Brexit.
So my focus here was ensuring we did not lose sight of this being criminals.
I'm not saying you're pro EU as such but judging on posting history you certainly do come down on the side of 'the UK is fucked financially without the EU'.
The issue here is we have no idea who sent this meat. You're in the 'it was a criminal' camp, technically correct, because even if it was legitimate companies, it was still a criminal act, ergo. criminals.
I'm not inclined to argue one way or the other, because as I said, we have no idea.
We are going off topic but I do not think we are fucked financially without the EU. I don’t think I have ever said that. The full outcomes won’t be known for a generation and as per forecasting related thread, there are too many variables and unknowns in the future to fully predict and adjustments snd changes can affect outcomes along the way.
My entire position is that I think it is better to be inside the tent pissing out rather than outside trying to piss in. The tent might not be perfect but it wasn’t all that bad either IMO.
Glad we agree the meat issue is criminals.
I said early doors in this thread that tighter customs/border checks to catch this stuff is a Brexit benefit. There needs to be some right?"
As I said, judging by posting history. That's what you're judging Morley by, so it's only fair you accept the same judgement.
Any, you're right, we're way off topic now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"This matters because without including that in any discussion and just saying things like “the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK” is totally (and I suspect deliberately) misleading.
No one is saying "the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK". You've made that up. In Morley's original post he talked about EU suppliers, not 'the EU'. The only person here that thinks it's 'the EU' is you.
Not correct. My entire point has been to ensure context is maintained otherwise people read something but have a different takeaway (bad pun alert)
Which bit isn't correct? There are 4 sentences in that post, which of them do you assert is incorrect?
Last point.
I asked
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK?
And Morley replied
The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale.
This proves its fallable and likely has been.
Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals.
where was the meat found and insepcted?
Not sure where you are going with that. I have been raising one point the whole time (to make sure nobody conflates because you know people do). The people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK are criminals not legitimate businesses (see definition above to avoid semantic argument). Saying well nobody is saying that” totally ignores historical posts and sentiment towards the EU by certain posters. It is the guilty by association approach. I just wanted to ensure clarity because IMO it was needed.
MrD has put forward a supposition the source is companies in Eastern European countries and that they ignore the rules and that it was better before they joined (paraphrasing). I am not saying he is wrong but does he have evidence or is this a hunch? Bit of a sweeping statement!
Let’s assume it is one or more dodgy Eastern European company...it raises a question for me. Why bother? Why smuggle into the UK when they have a borderless open market of c.500m people within the EU? Why risk capture/interception?
Anything worth money and is saleable will attract criminals and those criminals will try and fly under the radar, and not bring items through legal channels.
going back to my question, was the meat brought into the country as legitimate meat or smuggled in?
"
My reading of the article was smuggled. It wasn’t fully clear as it referenced being packed with other food produce such as cheese (sounds like smuggling) and referenced wheelie bins (which do not sound to a layperson like suitable containers for transporting meat).
Did you read it? What was your take? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals.
Yes he is. As he says, "The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale. This proves its fallable and likely has been".
That's all true. The recent finding shows that the EU isn't the trustworthy guardian of standards that it is often held up to be. But at no point did Morley claim that 'the EU' were sending this stuff deliberately. I'm sure he'll be happy to agree that this activity is being performed by criminals. That doesn't change his point that criminality clearly happens within the EU, and now we are in a position to prevent it reaching our shores.
If that was what he meant then I agree. I do not think it was as simple as that and I do believe, based on posting history, that it was another stick so it needed more clarification.
In another thread you said "You do realise it is possible to post articles to stimulate discussion and to do so without agreeing or disagreeing with them right? I don’t have to accept anything. I posted a partisan article and threw down the gauntlet for a discussion. Sometimes people are odd on here?"
If what you're saying here about Morley is the standards you hold then surely the same applies to you? Based in posting history and all that. You'll probably say it's not the same, but y'know
Ha ha actually that is a fair challenge. In that thread I do not think I came down strongly on one side or another. Maybe I did? I think we all know Morley is vehemently anti EU though right?
Are you saying I am pro EU? I don’t think I am. I was certainly Remain and still think Brexit is a mistake. But I would not now support going back as we will never get the sweet deal we had. For me the EU was flawed but the pros outweighed the cons and also outweighed the pros of Brexit.
So my focus here was ensuring we did not lose sight of this being criminals.
I'm not saying you're pro EU as such but judging on posting history you certainly do come down on the side of 'the UK is fucked financially without the EU'.
The issue here is we have no idea who sent this meat. You're in the 'it was a criminal' camp, technically correct, because even if it was legitimate companies, it was still a criminal act, ergo. criminals.
I'm not inclined to argue one way or the other, because as I said, we have no idea.
We are going off topic but I do not think we are fucked financially without the EU. I don’t think I have ever said that. The full outcomes won’t be known for a generation and as per forecasting related thread, there are too many variables and unknowns in the future to fully predict and adjustments snd changes can affect outcomes along the way.
My entire position is that I think it is better to be inside the tent pissing out rather than outside trying to piss in. The tent might not be perfect but it wasn’t all that bad either IMO.
Glad we agree the meat issue is criminals.
I said early doors in this thread that tighter customs/border checks to catch this stuff is a Brexit benefit. There needs to be some right?
As I said, judging by posting history. That's what you're judging Morley by, so it's only fair you accept the same judgement.
Any, you're right, we're way off topic now. "
Judge away  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"[Removed by poster at 15/01/24 11:11:04]
Tease  "
I said we have no idea (in response to Notme) but you'd already answered. The article states some products arrive in commercial packaging without health warnings etc.
I don't think the article is clear enough to know one way or the other. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 45 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"This matters because without including that in any discussion and just saying things like “the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK” is totally (and I suspect deliberately) misleading.
No one is saying "the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK". You've made that up. In Morley's original post he talked about EU suppliers, not 'the EU'. The only person here that thinks it's 'the EU' is you.
Not correct. My entire point has been to ensure context is maintained otherwise people read something but have a different takeaway (bad pun alert)
Which bit isn't correct? There are 4 sentences in that post, which of them do you assert is incorrect?
Last point.
I asked
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK?
And Morley replied
The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale.
This proves its fallable and likely has been.
Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals.
where was the meat found and insepcted?
Not sure where you are going with that. I have been raising one point the whole time (to make sure nobody conflates because you know people do). The people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK are criminals not legitimate businesses (see definition above to avoid semantic argument). Saying well nobody is saying that” totally ignores historical posts and sentiment towards the EU by certain posters. It is the guilty by association approach. I just wanted to ensure clarity because IMO it was needed.
MrD has put forward a supposition the source is companies in Eastern European countries and that they ignore the rules and that it was better before they joined (paraphrasing). I am not saying he is wrong but does he have evidence or is this a hunch? Bit of a sweeping statement!
Let’s assume it is one or more dodgy Eastern European company...it raises a question for me. Why bother? Why smuggle into the UK when they have a borderless open market of c.500m people within the EU? Why risk capture/interception?
Anything worth money and is saleable will attract criminals and those criminals will try and fly under the radar, and not bring items through legal channels.
going back to my question, was the meat brought into the country as legitimate meat or smuggled in?
My reading of the article was smuggled. It wasn’t fully clear as it referenced being packed with other food produce such as cheese (sounds like smuggling) and referenced wheelie bins (which do not sound to a layperson like suitable containers for transporting meat).
Did you read it? What was your take?"
I haven't read it. The outcome seems clear to me, if it was smuggled in, that is a normal thing that is being looked for every day. However, if it was being hidden amongst legitimate cargo, it is a win for tighter boarder control. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"This matters because without including that in any discussion and just saying things like “the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK” is totally (and I suspect deliberately) misleading.
No one is saying "the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK". You've made that up. In Morley's original post he talked about EU suppliers, not 'the EU'. The only person here that thinks it's 'the EU' is you.
Not correct. My entire point has been to ensure context is maintained otherwise people read something but have a different takeaway (bad pun alert)
Which bit isn't correct? There are 4 sentences in that post, which of them do you assert is incorrect?
Last point.
I asked
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK?
And Morley replied
The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale.
This proves its fallable and likely has been.
Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals.
where was the meat found and insepcted?
Not sure where you are going with that. I have been raising one point the whole time (to make sure nobody conflates because you know people do). The people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK are criminals not legitimate businesses (see definition above to avoid semantic argument). Saying well nobody is saying that” totally ignores historical posts and sentiment towards the EU by certain posters. It is the guilty by association approach. I just wanted to ensure clarity because IMO it was needed.
MrD has put forward a supposition the source is companies in Eastern European countries and that they ignore the rules and that it was better before they joined (paraphrasing). I am not saying he is wrong but does he have evidence or is this a hunch? Bit of a sweeping statement!
Let’s assume it is one or more dodgy Eastern European company...it raises a question for me. Why bother? Why smuggle into the UK when they have a borderless open market of c.500m people within the EU? Why risk capture/interception?
Anything worth money and is saleable will attract criminals and those criminals will try and fly under the radar, and not bring items through legal channels.
going back to my question, was the meat brought into the country as legitimate meat or smuggled in?
My reading of the article was smuggled. It wasn’t fully clear as it referenced being packed with other food produce such as cheese (sounds like smuggling) and referenced wheelie bins (which do not sound to a layperson like suitable containers for transporting meat).
Did you read it? What was your take?
I haven't read it. The outcome seems clear to me, if it was smuggled in, that is a normal thing that is being looked for every day. However, if it was being hidden amongst legitimate cargo, it is a win for tighter boarder control."
Oh you didn’t read it? Rather unthorough and below par for you NotMe?
Back to my point. Why would these criminals bother? Surely the cost and risk is far higher trying to get the dodgy meat into the UK then simply shipping it around a borderless internal market? Whoever is buying this meat (which hopefully is part of the investigation, must be UK based. What are they using it for? Aren’t there similar folks across the EU who would but it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lfasoCouple 45 weeks ago
South East |
Back in 2005, the Government of the day published a document entitled:
"Stopping illegal imports of animal products into Great Britain".
The executive summary states:
"Under the Single market goods can travel freely from one EU state to another without checks. Because of this, the threat posed to Great Britain from illegally imported animal products depends on the effectiveness of border controls in other Member States."
The solution took 11 years and a referendum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 45 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"This matters because without including that in any discussion and just saying things like “the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK” is totally (and I suspect deliberately) misleading.
No one is saying "the EU are exporting sub standard meat to the UK". You've made that up. In Morley's original post he talked about EU suppliers, not 'the EU'. The only person here that thinks it's 'the EU' is you.
Not correct. My entire point has been to ensure context is maintained otherwise people read something but have a different takeaway (bad pun alert)
Which bit isn't correct? There are 4 sentences in that post, which of them do you assert is incorrect?
Last point.
I asked
"So is this people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK (ie dodgy fuckers) or is it legitimate EU businesses trying to con the UK?
And Morley replied
The e.u is meant to be fool proof in its following of meat from growing the calf to delivery to market and sale.
This proves its fallable and likely has been.
Morley is using this as another stick to bash the EU and has not (I think) acknowledged in any of his posts that this is criminals.
where was the meat found and insepcted?
Not sure where you are going with that. I have been raising one point the whole time (to make sure nobody conflates because you know people do). The people smuggling sub standard meat into the UK are criminals not legitimate businesses (see definition above to avoid semantic argument). Saying well nobody is saying that” totally ignores historical posts and sentiment towards the EU by certain posters. It is the guilty by association approach. I just wanted to ensure clarity because IMO it was needed.
MrD has put forward a supposition the source is companies in Eastern European countries and that they ignore the rules and that it was better before they joined (paraphrasing). I am not saying he is wrong but does he have evidence or is this a hunch? Bit of a sweeping statement!
Let’s assume it is one or more dodgy Eastern European company...it raises a question for me. Why bother? Why smuggle into the UK when they have a borderless open market of c.500m people within the EU? Why risk capture/interception?
Anything worth money and is saleable will attract criminals and those criminals will try and fly under the radar, and not bring items through legal channels.
going back to my question, was the meat brought into the country as legitimate meat or smuggled in?
My reading of the article was smuggled. It wasn’t fully clear as it referenced being packed with other food produce such as cheese (sounds like smuggling) and referenced wheelie bins (which do not sound to a layperson like suitable containers for transporting meat).
Did you read it? What was your take?
I haven't read it. The outcome seems clear to me, if it was smuggled in, that is a normal thing that is being looked for every day. However, if it was being hidden amongst legitimate cargo, it is a win for tighter boarder control.
Oh you didn’t read it? Rather unthorough and below par for you NotMe?
Back to my point. Why would these criminals bother? Surely the cost and risk is far higher trying to get the dodgy meat into the UK then simply shipping it around a borderless internal market? Whoever is buying this meat (which hopefully is part of the investigation, must be UK based. What are they using it for? Aren’t there similar folks across the EU who would but it? "
It depends if the meat is being bought in good faith, or if it being shipped in to then be sold on.
Either way a good result in stopping it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 45 weeks ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
"Back in 2005, the Government of the day published a document entitled:
"Stopping illegal imports of animal products into Great Britain".
The executive summary states:
"Under the Single market goods can travel freely from one EU state to another without checks. Because of this, the threat posed to Great Britain from illegally imported animal products depends on the effectiveness of border controls in other Member States."
The solution took 11 years and a referendum."
They published a lot of stuff. Doesn't make it true
£365m to NHS ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They published a lot of stuff. Doesn't make it true
£365m to NHS ?"
They didn't claim £365m, they claimed £350m. But you are correct, that figure was untrue.
The actual increase (in real terms) was £390m. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 45 weeks ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
"They published a lot of stuff. Doesn't make it true
£365m to NHS ?
They didn't claim £365m, they claimed £350m. But you are correct, that figure was untrue.
The actual increase (in real terms) was £390m."
Probably mostly due to COVID not to fulfil any promise |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They published a lot of stuff. Doesn't make it true
£365m to NHS ?"
"They didn't claim £365m, they claimed £350m. But you are correct, that figure was untrue.
The actual increase (in real terms) was £390m."
"Probably mostly due to COVID not to fulfil any promise"
The increase was implemented in 2019, before CoViD was detected. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
From what I recall of the article, there was a case of meat in some wheelie bins which is obviously smuggling but they only mention the one case like that and did not even hint that it was typical. Can it be the case that both criminals have done this and so called legitimate suppliers also doing this, which makes them now criminals but does not change the fact they were legitimate suppliers before. To suggest it is one or the other seems odd to me. Also lets hope they start proper checks more often as I read that EU internal checks on food safety have been reduced from proper checks to visual checks only. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 45 weeks ago
|
"From what I recall of the article, there was a case of meat in some wheelie bins which is obviously smuggling but they only mention the one case like that and did not even hint that it was typical. Can it be the case that both criminals have done this and so called legitimate suppliers also doing this, which makes them now criminals but does not change the fact they were legitimate suppliers before. To suggest it is one or the other seems odd to me. Also lets hope they start proper checks more often as I read that EU internal checks on food safety have been reduced from proper checks to visual checks only."
if you read Morley's article,they had a link to their sister paper ...
"The haul included raw animal products loosely stored in carrier bags and tissue without temperature control, refrigeration or labelled identification. These items were not separated from ready-to-eat products, such as cheese, crisps and cake.
Some illegal raw meat products were discovered in holdalls, taped-up second-hand cardboard boxes and sealed cool boxes."
Now this could be legitimate suppliers turned rogue. A bit of a gamble.
I'm slightly sceptical about this angle given where it was going
"They were destined to be sold at markets and independent stores in Britain."
But there could be cases that are suppliers starting to cut corners given the lack of UK checks.
(Delayed 5 times now, latest being august). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"From what I recall of the article, there was a case of meat in some wheelie bins which is obviously smuggling but they only mention the one case like that and did not even hint that it was typical. Can it be the case that both criminals have done this and so called legitimate suppliers also doing this, which makes them now criminals but does not change the fact they were legitimate suppliers before. To suggest it is one or the other seems odd to me. Also lets hope they start proper checks more often as I read that EU internal checks on food safety have been reduced from proper checks to visual checks only.if you read Morley's article,they had a link to their sister paper ...
"The haul included raw animal products loosely stored in carrier bags and tissue without temperature control, refrigeration or labelled identification. These items were not separated from ready-to-eat products, such as cheese, crisps and cake.
Some illegal raw meat products were discovered in holdalls, taped-up second-hand cardboard boxes and sealed cool boxes."
Now this could be legitimate suppliers turned rogue. A bit of a gamble.
I'm slightly sceptical about this angle given where it was going
"They were destined to be sold at markets and independent stores in Britain."
But there could be cases that are suppliers starting to cut corners given the lack of UK checks.
(Delayed 5 times now, latest being august). "
Yes your right it did and I think some of those were related to the wheelie bins though not sure. Again this was not said to be a typical haul and they did mention its the tip of the iceberg. Yes it is entirely possible that legitimate suppliers are trying to offload poor produce on the UK with using normal packing as well as criminal gangs smuggling poor produce in wheelie bins.The lack of checks in the past is no secret. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When a population gets too big that it can't grow enough food for itself its time to look at population control."
That was about 30 years ago. Do you have children..
And no I decided at the age of 27 the planet was over crowding so I do not |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 45 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"From what I recall of the article, there was a case of meat in some wheelie bins which is obviously smuggling but they only mention the one case like that and did not even hint that it was typical. Can it be the case that both criminals have done this and so called legitimate suppliers also doing this, which makes them now criminals but does not change the fact they were legitimate suppliers before. To suggest it is one or the other seems odd to me. Also lets hope they start proper checks more often as I read that EU internal checks on food safety have been reduced from proper checks to visual checks only.if you read Morley's article,they had a link to their sister paper ...
"The haul included raw animal products loosely stored in carrier bags and tissue without temperature control, refrigeration or labelled identification. These items were not separated from ready-to-eat products, such as cheese, crisps and cake.
Some illegal raw meat products were discovered in holdalls, taped-up second-hand cardboard boxes and sealed cool boxes."
Now this could be legitimate suppliers turned rogue. A bit of a gamble.
I'm slightly sceptical about this angle given where it was going
"They were destined to be sold at markets and independent stores in Britain."
But there could be cases that are suppliers starting to cut corners given the lack of UK checks.
(Delayed 5 times now, latest being august).
Yes your right it did and I think some of those were related to the wheelie bins though not sure. Again this was not said to be a typical haul and they did mention its the tip of the iceberg. Yes it is entirely possible that legitimate suppliers are trying to offload poor produce on the UK with using normal packing as well as criminal gangs smuggling poor produce in wheelie bins.The lack of checks in the past is no secret."
Let's just say what the majority of right wing people on here are tip toeing around...
The UK left the EU and just as well as obviously the evil EU are desperately smuggling sub standard goods (including meat) into the UK.
Had it not been for the gloriously successful Brexit this would never have been discovered as customs officials would have ignored wheely bins stuffed with suspect meat at borders as their brains were subject to EU rules therefore unable to think for themselves.
Fortunately, thanks to our valiant contributor, who started this very important thread, we now know how successful Brexit has been.
We can take satisfaction that UK customs will now open wheely bins at border posts rather than assuming that it is a legitimate way of transporting meat.
All hail Brexit.
The mighty Brexit has yet again proven to be a wondrous thing especially if, as many excellent posts on this forum show, you take snippets of information and grossly exaggerate them.
All hail the mighty Brexit.
Without which, the UK economy would not have fallen so much and recovered to a level last seen 10 years ago.
All hail the mighty Brexit.
Without which 90% of the people on here would not be able to climax over their screens so often.
All hail the mighty Brexit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"From what I recall of the article, there was a case of meat in some wheelie bins which is obviously smuggling but they only mention the one case like that and did not even hint that it was typical. Can it be the case that both criminals have done this and so called legitimate suppliers also doing this, which makes them now criminals but does not change the fact they were legitimate suppliers before. To suggest it is one or the other seems odd to me. Also lets hope they start proper checks more often as I read that EU internal checks on food safety have been reduced from proper checks to visual checks only.if you read Morley's article,they had a link to their sister paper ...
"The haul included raw animal products loosely stored in carrier bags and tissue without temperature control, refrigeration or labelled identification. These items were not separated from ready-to-eat products, such as cheese, crisps and cake.
Some illegal raw meat products were discovered in holdalls, taped-up second-hand cardboard boxes and sealed cool boxes."
Now this could be legitimate suppliers turned rogue. A bit of a gamble.
I'm slightly sceptical about this angle given where it was going
"They were destined to be sold at markets and independent stores in Britain."
But there could be cases that are suppliers starting to cut corners given the lack of UK checks.
(Delayed 5 times now, latest being august).
Yes your right it did and I think some of those were related to the wheelie bins though not sure. Again this was not said to be a typical haul and they did mention its the tip of the iceberg. Yes it is entirely possible that legitimate suppliers are trying to offload poor produce on the UK with using normal packing as well as criminal gangs smuggling poor produce in wheelie bins.The lack of checks in the past is no secret.
Let's just say what the majority of right wing people on here are tip toeing around...
The UK left the EU and just as well as obviously the evil EU are desperately smuggling sub standard goods (including meat) into the UK.
Had it not been for the gloriously successful Brexit this would never have been discovered as customs officials would have ignored wheely bins stuffed with suspect meat at borders as their brains were subject to EU rules therefore unable to think for themselves.
Fortunately, thanks to our valiant contributor, who started this very important thread, we now know how successful Brexit has been.
We can take satisfaction that UK customs will now open wheely bins at border posts rather than assuming that it is a legitimate way of transporting meat.
All hail Brexit.
The mighty Brexit has yet again proven to be a wondrous thing especially if, as many excellent posts on this forum show, you take snippets of information and grossly exaggerate them.
All hail the mighty Brexit.
Without which, the UK economy would not have fallen so much and recovered to a level last seen 10 years ago.
All hail the mighty Brexit.
Without which 90% of the people on here would not be able to climax over their screens so often.
All hail the mighty Brexit."
I think what he was pointing out is that all imports can now be checked as opposed to just wheelie bins. The problem as I see it us that these checks have taken far to long to get started and are still not being fully done yet. That's a big failure of the government in my opinion and as the border check people say, what they reported is the tip of the iceberg so God knows how much poor produce has been sent |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ermbiMan 45 weeks ago
Ballyshannon |
Clarity was needed there as false news from someone near the opening of the thread implied it was EU suppliers. Criminality yes but no point in tarnishing all EU suppliers with the same brush.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Clarity was needed there as false news from someone near the opening of the thread implied it was EU suppliers. Criminality yes but no point in tarnishing all EU suppliers with the same brush."
What makes you believe that no EU meat supplier was involved? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Clarity was needed there as false news from someone near the opening of the thread implied it was EU suppliers. Criminality yes but no point in tarnishing all EU suppliers with the same brush.
What makes you believe that no EU meat supplier was involved?"
What makes you think they were? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 45 weeks ago
|
"Clarity was needed there as false news from someone near the opening of the thread implied it was EU suppliers. Criminality yes but no point in tarnishing all EU suppliers with the same brush.
What makes you believe that no EU meat supplier was involved?
What makes you think they were?"
you folks may wish to agree what you mean by a supplier here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The fact is that if someone smuggled substandard meat, it would have made little difference whether we were in the EU or not.
Such commodities are searched for and sometimes found. Our border checks haven't increased or diminished since Brexit.
Smuggling is smuggling whether the commodities are drugs, excise goods, weaponry, people, fake unlicensed goods, health hazards or copyright infringements.
And while we have a law against importing something on the naughty list, there will always be a criminal who wants to profit from it.
Isn't simply blaming the EU, similar to stating that smuggling can only be smuggled if the EU's systems are somehow complicit as opposed to simply looking at it in terms of criminals seeking criminal profitability? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Clarity was needed there as false news from someone near the opening of the thread implied it was EU suppliers. Criminality yes but no point in tarnishing all EU suppliers with the same brush."
"What makes you believe that no EU meat supplier was involved?"
"What makes you think they were?"
I'm not suggesting either way. I'm just curious as to how _ermbi is quite so certain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The fact is that if someone smuggled substandard meat, it would have made little difference whether we were in the EU or not."
Sigh.
Read the rest of the thread. Before Brexit we were not allowed to check. Now we can. That's a difference. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Clarity was needed there as false news from someone near the opening of the thread implied it was EU suppliers. Criminality yes but no point in tarnishing all EU suppliers with the same brush.
What makes you believe that no EU meat supplier was involved?
What makes you think they were?
I'm not suggesting either way. I'm just curious as to how _ermbi is quite so certain."
Ah plausible deniability love your style MrD  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The fact is that if someone smuggled substandard meat, it would have made little difference whether we were in the EU or not.
Sigh.
Read the rest of the thread. Before Brexit we were not allowed to check. Now we can. That's a difference."
We could always check anything coming into the UK for criminality.
The EU even insisted on further checks on conformity either at the border or at the network of ICTs that were set up in response.
Why do people believe that we couldn't? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The fact is that if someone smuggled substandard meat, it would have made little difference whether we were in the EU or not.
Sigh.
Read the rest of the thread. Before Brexit we were not allowed to check. Now we can. That's a difference.
We could always check anything coming into the UK for criminality.
The EU even insisted on further checks on conformity either at the border or at the network of ICTs that were set up in response.
Why do people believe that we couldn't?"
Absolutely correct. I suppose that the freezers in Dover docks were simply for show? Port health would carry out regular checks on foodstuffs and still do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We could always check anything coming into the UK for criminality."
Yes, we could always do random checks for criminality, i.e. transport of prohibited items. What we couldn't do is random checks on standards and quality, unless there was some reason to suspect illegality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We could always check anything coming into the UK for criminality.
Yes, we could always do random checks for criminality, i.e. transport of prohibited items. What we couldn't do is random checks on standards and quality, unless there was some reason to suspect illegality."
I don't think that Port Health were actually checking for criminality even though they have no criminal agenda.
Trading Standards would check conformity as well.
I think that reality trumped googled theory for years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 45 weeks ago
|
"We could always check anything coming into the UK for criminality.
Yes, we could always do random checks for criminality, i.e. transport of prohibited items. What we couldn't do is random checks on standards and quality, unless there was some reason to suspect illegality."
which brings is back to (not) knowing how much of this fell in the latter category and which were only caught because of being outside the SM. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ermbiMan 45 weeks ago
Ballyshannon |
"Clarity was needed there as false news from someone near the opening of the thread implied it was EU suppliers. Criminality yes but no point in tarnishing all EU suppliers with the same brush.
What makes you believe that no EU meat supplier was involved?
What makes you think they were?
I'm not suggesting either way. I'm just curious as to how _ermbi is quite so certain."
I think if you read back I did not make a definitive statement. Maybe challenge the OP on his thread title. He seems to have made a certain statement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Clarity was needed there as false news from someone near the opening of the thread implied it was EU suppliers. Criminality yes but no point in tarnishing all EU suppliers with the same brush."
"What makes you believe that no EU meat supplier was involved?"
"What makes you think they were?"
"I'm not suggesting either way. I'm just curious as to how _ermbi is quite so certain."
"I think if you read back I did not make a definitive statement."
You said that the implication that an EU supplier was involved was "false news". That sounds definitive to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ermbiMan 45 weeks ago
Ballyshannon |
"Clarity was needed there as false news from someone near the opening of the thread implied it was EU suppliers. Criminality yes but no point in tarnishing all EU suppliers with the same brush.
What makes you believe that no EU meat supplier was involved?
What makes you think they were?
I'm not suggesting either way. I'm just curious as to how _ermbi is quite so certain.
I think if you read back I did not make a definitive statement.
You said that the implication that an EU supplier was involved was "false news". That sounds definitive to me."
Yes and that's what I said. You are skirting past what the OP said about EU suppliers. Call it out |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 45 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
"The fact is that if someone smuggled substandard meat, it would have made little difference whether we were in the EU or not.
Smuggling is smuggling whether the commodities are drugs, excise goods, weaponry, people, fake unlicensed goods, health hazards or copyright infringements."
There are EU agencies and data sharing schemes to tackle all of these things.
The European Food Safety Agency.
The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
The Rapid Alert System for customs controls.
The European Police Office - Europol.
The European Border and Coastguard Agency - Frontex.
The Schengen Information System, now in its second version, SIS II.
The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.
The European Intellectual Property Office.
There are about 30 EU agencies. Two of them used to be in London. Now they're in Amsterdam and Paris instead.
There are meetings for government ministers and diplomats on all these things.
There are committees in the European Parliament on all these things.
There are European Commission departments for all these things.
Smuggling is a cross-border issue so it qualifies to be tackled at the European level.
The EU is only for the things that are cross-border in nature or can only be best done together.
Everything else is for each country to do on its own.
The UK was inside and fully taking part. Everyone was better off.
Now with Great Britain in particular adrift, all the countries of Europe including the UK are worse off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 45 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
Take another example.
Eurodac.
The European database of fingerprints.
https://www.eulisa.europa.eu/Activities/Large-Scale-It-Systems/Eurodac
It's used for asylum seekers who have lost all their papers.
It's also used to help make it harder for terrorists and criminals with multiple identities.
Does the UK have direct access to Eurodac? Is the UK helping to run the system?
No, the UK now has to put in requests and wait for replies.
No, the UK is too mean to pay in so every country is worse off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Take another example.
Eurodac.
The European database of fingerprints."
You've drifted again. You're back on your favourite topic of how we shouldn't have left the EU, and you've forgotten that we're taking about sub-standard meat imports. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Take another example.
Eurodac.
The European database of fingerprints.
You've drifted again. You're back on your favourite topic of how we shouldn't have left the EU, and you've forgotten that we're taking about sub-standard meat imports."
There might be fingerprints on the dodgy meat? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Take another example.
Eurodac.
The European database of fingerprints."
"You've drifted again. You're back on your favourite topic of how we shouldn't have left the EU, and you've forgotten that we're taking about sub-standard meat imports."
"There might be fingerprints on the dodgy meat? "
I'd like to see how he's going to justify including The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, and The European Intellectual Property Office. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Take another example.
Eurodac.
The European database of fingerprints.
You've drifted again. You're back on your favourite topic of how we shouldn't have left the EU, and you've forgotten that we're taking about sub-standard meat imports.
There might be fingerprints on the dodgy meat?
I'd like to see how he's going to justify including The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, and The European Intellectual Property Office."
Drugs hidden in the meat?
The best practice process for smuggling might be copyrighted?
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Take another example.
Eurodac.
The European database of fingerprints.
https://www.eulisa.europa.eu/Activities/Large-Scale-It-Systems/Eurodac
It's used for asylum seekers who have lost all their papers.
It's also used to help make it harder for terrorists and criminals with multiple identities.
Does the UK have direct access to Eurodac? Is the UK helping to run the system?
No, the UK now has to put in requests and wait for replies.
No, the UK is too mean to pay in so every country is worse off."
. The end result is the same so makes no difference. With modern technology it is hardly going to take much time to monitor an account or transmit a payment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 45 weeks ago
|
"Take another example.
Eurodac.
The European database of fingerprints.
https://www.eulisa.europa.eu/Activities/Large-Scale-It-Systems/Eurodac
It's used for asylum seekers who have lost all their papers.
It's also used to help make it harder for terrorists and criminals with multiple identities.
Does the UK have direct access to Eurodac? Is the UK helping to run the system?
No, the UK now has to put in requests and wait for replies.
No, the UK is too mean to pay in so every country is worse off.. The end result is the same so makes no difference. With modern technology it is hardly going to take much time to monitor an account or transmit a payment. "
depends if Fujitsu have been involved ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 45 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Take another example.
Eurodac.
The European database of fingerprints.
https://www.eulisa.europa.eu/Activities/Large-Scale-It-Systems/Eurodac
It's used for asylum seekers who have lost all their papers.
It's also used to help make it harder for terrorists and criminals with multiple identities.
Does the UK have direct access to Eurodac? Is the UK helping to run the system?
No, the UK now has to put in requests and wait for replies.
No, the UK is too mean to pay in so every country is worse off.. The end result is the same so makes no difference. With modern technology it is hardly going to take much time to monitor an account or transmit a payment. depends if Fujitsu have been involved ... "
Ouch! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 45 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
"The end result is the same so makes no difference. With modern technology it is hardly going to take much time to monitor an account or transmit a payment. "
Um, no, the data is in the hands of the EU and supervised ultimately by the EU's two-stage court that included British judges.
The UK did help to run the fingerprint database. The UK had instant access to the system.
After refusing the essential role of the EU court that is needed in case of disputes about the system, the UK has non-member status.
The UK might be quick at putting in a request. But it can't hurry the reply.
The EU UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement covers data exchange on security but it can only be slower and less useful.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 45 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
What is true for fingerprints is also true for food. The same principles of EU data sharing applies.
It's not been the EU's idea for GB to delay import checks on food of animal origin five times.
It's not been the EU's idea for GB to risk farm diseases, contaminated food and smuggling, by allowing imports without all the proper data.
The EU well remembers the mad cow disease outbreak and the foot-and-mouth outbreak from the UK.
If you ask people around the world to think of a picture that reminds them of the UK they may well think of piles of burning cattle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The UK did help to run the fingerprint database. The UK had instant access to the system.
After refusing the essential role of the EU court that is needed in case of disputes about the system, the UK has non-member status.
The UK might be quick at putting in a request. But it can't hurry the reply"
The replies will arrive in the normal prompt and accurate manner that they did beforehand.
Unless you're suggesting that the EU might deliberately slow things down just to punish us for leaving. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ip2Man 45 weeks ago
Near Maidenhead |
"Unless you're suggesting that the EU might deliberately slow things down just to punish us for leaving."
There's no need for that. The UK has wrecked things enough for itself without needing any extra help.
The European Rapid Alert System on Food and Feed is based on EU law.
That means it relies upon the service provided by the European Commission, and the supervisory role of the EU's lower and upper court.
https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/rasff_en
I think it's difficult to see how the EU can extend the full functionality of the RASFF to a country that won't accept the role the Commission and the EU's courts.
If it did, and something goes wrong, like on the protection of personal data, what's the remedy?
This is what the anti-EU people have never understood and still don't?
It's not just the functionality. EU law is also about the supervision, the legal framework and the dispute resolution mechanism that allows the system to work.
It seems that the anti-EU brigade believe that non-membership shouldn't mean being *treated* as a non-member.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 45 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"More good news: The Animal Welfare (Live Exports) Bill passed its third reading this week. Another animal welfare benefit previously blocked by membership of the EU."
All hail Brexit and everyone who worships it as without it the UK would obviously still be under the evil clutches of the EU.
Power to the people and, of course Brexit!
Yes Brexity Brexit and the worshipers - whoopy ding |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lfasoCouple 45 weeks ago
South East |
"More good news: The Animal Welfare (Live Exports) Bill passed its third reading this week. Another animal welfare benefit previously blocked by membership of the EU.
All hail Brexit and everyone who worships it as without it the UK would obviously still be under the evil clutches of the EU.
Power to the people and, of course Brexit!
Yes Brexity Brexit and the worshipers - whoopy ding"
The Bill received cross-party support, so it would seem that your objection to it is a niche view to say the least. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 45 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"More good news: The Animal Welfare (Live Exports) Bill passed its third reading this week. Another animal welfare benefit previously blocked by membership of the EU.
All hail Brexit and everyone who worships it as without it the UK would obviously still be under the evil clutches of the EU.
Power to the people and, of course Brexit!
Yes Brexity Brexit and the worshipers - whoopy ding
The Bill received cross-party support, so it would seem that your objection to it is a niche view to say the least."
Where did I object?
Please don't put words into my mouth 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More good news: The Animal Welfare (Live Exports) Bill passed its third reading this week. Another animal welfare benefit previously blocked by membership of the EU."
Was this completely not allowed for the UK while members or something just not done by the government's. If this was definitely not allowed then I would say good news |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 45 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
Brexit divergence from EU destroying UK’s vital environmental protections.
Vital legal protections for the environment and human health are being destroyed in post-Brexit departures from European legislation.
The UK is falling behind the EU on almost every area of environmental regulation, as the bloc strengthens its legislation while the UK weakens it.
In some cases, ministers are removing EU-derived environmental protections from the statute book entirely.
Businesses and environmental groups have been left in the dark as to the extent of the regressions because there is no government body tracking the divergence between the EU and the UK.
In practice, it means:
Water in the UK will be dirtier than in the EU.
There will be more pesticides in Britain’s soil.
Companies will be allowed to produce products containing chemicals that the EU has restricted for being dangerous.
At least seven big policies have been changed that have put a chasm between the EU and the UK on environmental regulation. These include:
EU-derived air pollution laws that will be removed under the retained EU law bill.
Dozens of chemicals banned in the EU are still available for use in the UK.
Thirty-six pesticides banned in the EU have not been outlawed in the UK.
The UK is falling behind on reducing carbon emissions as the EU implements carbon pricing.
The EU is compensating those who are struggling to afford the costs of the green transition, while the UK is not.
The EU is implementing stricter regulations on battery recycling, while the UK is not.
Deforestation is being removed from the EU supply chain, while the UK’s proposed scheme is more lax and does not come in until a year later.
However, someone else reported sunlit uplands...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 45 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"In some cases, ministers are removing EU-derived environmental protections from the statute book entirely.
Would you like to name one, so that we can all see how bad the problem is?"
Hundreds of green laws covering areas such as air quality, habitats, and rivers were wiped from the statute books on New Years Day as part of the government's post-Brexit drive to ditch legislation derived from the EU.
Under the government's controversial Retained EU Law legislation, almost 600 regulations, orders, decisions, treaties, and schemes, which the UK was party to as a member of the European Union were all axed at the end of 2023.
Among the most controversial rules that have been ditched are parts of the so-called National Emission Ceiling (NEC) regulations, which set legally binding goals to reduce five air pollutants for 2020 and 2030 backed by a national plan of action.
The list goes on and on and, as you are interested, is worth reading.
A little finger work and your friend Google will keep you right.
Sunlit uplands though - just not in the UK.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In some cases, ministers are removing EU-derived environmental protections from the statute book entirely."
"Would you like to name one, so that we can all see how bad the problem is?"
"Hundreds of green laws covering areas such as air quality, habitats, and rivers were wiped from the statute books on New Years Day as part of the government's post-Brexit drive to ditch legislation derived from the EU.
Under the government's controversial Retained EU Law legislation, almost 600 regulations, orders, decisions, treaties, and schemes, which the UK was party to as a member of the European Union were all axed at the end of 2023.
Among the most controversial rules that have been ditched are parts of the so-called National Emission Ceiling (NEC) regulations, which set legally binding goals to reduce five air pollutants for 2020 and 2030 backed by a national plan of action.
The list goes on and on and, as you are interested, is worth reading.
A little finger work and your friend Google will keep you right.
Sunlit uplands though - just not in the UK."
So your example is the repeal of regulations 9 and 10 of the National Emission Ceiling (NEC) regulations. Regulation 9 requested the Secretary of State to produce a National Air Pollution Control Programme to detail how pollution targets would be met. Regulation 10 was a commitment to consult the public before making changes to that Programme.
There are no changes to the new limits, or the dates on which they will come into force, just the removal of the requirement to publish a pathway for doing it, and no public consultation if any change is required.
Is that the best example of "destroying environmental protections" that you could think of? Or would you like to provide us with a better example to show how terrible these law changes are? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 45 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"In some cases, ministers are removing EU-derived environmental protections from the statute book entirely.
Would you like to name one, so that we can all see how bad the problem is?
Hundreds of green laws covering areas such as air quality, habitats, and rivers were wiped from the statute books on New Years Day as part of the government's post-Brexit drive to ditch legislation derived from the EU.
Under the government's controversial Retained EU Law legislation, almost 600 regulations, orders, decisions, treaties, and schemes, which the UK was party to as a member of the European Union were all axed at the end of 2023.
Among the most controversial rules that have been ditched are parts of the so-called National Emission Ceiling (NEC) regulations, which set legally binding goals to reduce five air pollutants for 2020 and 2030 backed by a national plan of action.
The list goes on and on and, as you are interested, is worth reading.
A little finger work and your friend Google will keep you right.
Sunlit uplands though - just not in the UK.
So your example is the repeal of regulations 9 and 10 of the National Emission Ceiling (NEC) regulations. Regulation 9 requested the Secretary of State to produce a National Air Pollution Control Programme to detail how pollution targets would be met. Regulation 10 was a commitment to consult the public before making changes to that Programme.
There are no changes to the new limits, or the dates on which they will come into force, just the removal of the requirement to publish a pathway for doing it, and no public consultation if any change is required.
Is that the best example of "destroying environmental protections" that you could think of? Or would you like to provide us with a better example to show how terrible these law changes are?"
Why would I waste my time?
I am reporting what I have now read from two different sources.
You either believe them or you don't.
I am not here to educate you and am simply posting what I see as being an issue post Brexit.
If the articles were not true then I would expect some denial by the government who would take it up directly with the sources and demand a public apology or more.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am reporting what I have now read from two different sources."
So you admit that you don't actually know or understand any of the details, you're just quoting someone else's opinion.
"You either believe them or you don't."
Since you've not told us who they are, I don't have the option to do either.
"If the articles were not true then I would expect some denial by the government who would take it up directly with the sources and demand a public apology or more."
Yes, because the government famously chases down every single false statement that gets published on the internet, and forces the publishers to apologise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 44 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"I am reporting what I have now read from two different sources.
So you admit that you don't actually know or understand any of the details, you're just quoting someone else's opinion.
You either believe them or you don't.
Since you've not told us who they are, I don't have the option to do either.
If the articles were not true then I would expect some denial by the government who would take it up directly with the sources and demand a public apology or more.
Yes, because the government famously chases down every single false statement that gets published on the internet, and forces the publishers to apologise."
Gosh - just catching up and read your last post above.
Aren't you clever!
Bet you have loads of friends! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
