"Oh No" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pat Gardiner wrote:

The whole thing needs a thorough investigation, not covering up, merely
because Britain has cocked up yet another animal health problem through
civil sevice corruption.


I do think you should say incompetence rather than corruption. You
might even find people round here start agreeing with you. If you make
charges of corruption you should actually be able to produce documented
evidence of people receiving bribes, or equivalent, that would stand up
in court. Otherwise you are yourself open to charges of slander. Unless
you have a solicitor's opinion that your evidence is solid, you should
reduce your accusations to a level that people can take seriously,
otherwise you are merely inviting the sort of treatment you often get
round here.

No, I said corruption and I meant it. The latest one uncovered is the small
slaughterhouse scam, where the SVS "adapted" the EU regulations to ensure
the employment of their fellow vets when cheaper non-vets were all that was
needed.

I do not think any of the government organisations I have criticised would
dare take any action. They have too much to hide. You can't go suing people
when hiding your own crimes behind crown immunity.

With the greatest respect (genuine!) much of what most people believe of
libel and slander is simply wrong. As one small example, I could not be
guilty of slander, my comments are with one exception, when I called the SVS
a bunch of crooks, I think, on BBC radio and got invited back as a result,
are always in writing - hence potentially libellous - not slanderous.

I say potentially because in almost every case they are not libellous in the
legal sense, and even where they may be a bit sharp, all of the usual
defences to libel apply. Do you know what the defences are? Check.

Also, one thing you learn in business is that irrespective of the letter of
the law, practicality rules. The practical day to day rules of commonsense
will always come into play and mitigate against casual defamation actions.

Charles, there was nothing I could do to make myself popular on
uk.business.agriculture. The politburo decided on an all out gang attack.
You know perfectly well, I was constantly abused and accused of not having
given evidence to a Select Committee. I had - and Malcolm, in fairness, was
the man to confirm it. How he got hold of a copy of the document is of no
consequence.

I took gratuitous abuse for a long time, before defending myself by
retaliating. As you can see, the retaliation was effective.

Now, let's turn to a more interesting point. I have always told all of you
quite bluntly that the Americans were watching. If was no bluff, I knew that
the American security services were fully appraised of what was going on
here in Norfolk from September 2000. People who knew me well from my
previous career, and that I knew were from the US security services, were
reading and reported. You will appreciate that it is a federal offence to
identify them.

Surely by now, the more intelligent readers must know that I have enough
commonsense to be unusually truthful in a sometimes frightening situation.

Why would I lie? The attack on my former business career was ridiculous, and
easily disprovable by reference to Companies House. I ran 17 companies, many
in sensitive fields, had no busters, no bad debts and an impeccable record.
I sold out twice, partly due to ill health, and in both cases solvent
groups.

I actually don't give a bugger whether anyone here believes me or not. The
fact that they organise attacks using deliberate lies rather than simply
ignoring me raises questions about their motives

What I mostly care about is the human health risks caused by covering up
animal epidemics in the UK. It has to stop and I regard it as an absolute
moral imperative to do my best to improve matters. Fate put me at the centre
of events and with the relevant experience to handle the situation. You
don't walk away from something like that.

As you probably realise I was given four months to live back in September
2004 and even after a successful rare operation, the five year survival rate
was only 20 percent. I'm doing rather well, but do you seriously think that
I would bother with all this, if I was not convinced of the truth, justice
and importance of the case.

I partially housebound for much of the time - and that together with the
long term prognosis made litigation ridiculous in both directions. So I have
to take the libels on the chin, but that won't stop me kicking the
perpetrators all over the Usenet.


--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com