Three new articles by Nick Green






Report by Nick Green, Cumbria. 12th May 2002.


I have reported previously on the latent effects of traumatic incidents and in particular Post Traumatic Stress Disorder since and during FMD. Cumbria Health Authority has stated that they expect to see an increase in mental health problems after FMD 2001. This has happened, we have been told.

 The Farm Crisis Network has recently advised us, that in Devon they currently have more than 600 farmers suffering trauma related problems. This they said was many more than the same time last year during the height of the epidemic. This latent effect after trauma can be explained scientifically and is the “normal” course of PTSD.

 I have also been informed that the NHS has withdrawn funding (presumably on Herr Blair’s orders) for the Devon Rural Nurses, who are a support team helping the farming and rural communities post FMD.

 I note that it costs £700.00 to send one of these excellent Rural Nurses on a 4-day training course covering relevant subjects.

 I also note that it costs the British taxpayer £287,000 per month to keep the Millennium Dome standing empty. Blair’s “White Elephant” will remain empty for at least a further year.

 You may well remember that Canon Langley, local Minister, told me last year that some slaughter men had been so mentally affected, that they had been admitted to “Garlands”. This was the old name for a mental hospital in Carlisle.


Finally, if that was not enough, I have also been told today, from an extremely reliable source, that a slaughter man from the Gloucester area has been heavily traumatised after working on culls in the Devon area. This man so regrets his actions that he is driving to Devon and visiting every farm that he helped cull animals on to apologise personally.

 At least this man has taken a honourable route.

 Which is a damn sight more than could be said for that gutless coward Blair and his ministers.

Have any of you once heard an apology or any remark appertaining to any sense of sorrow during or since the FMD fiasco?


Answer, NO.






 Report by Nick Green, Cumbria. 12th May 2002.


I have been given permission to release information pertaining to Higher Fonstone Farm, Launceston, Cornwall. Didi Phillips and Nick Graham own this farm. Higher Fonstone farm is located just inside the County of Cornwall, not far from the Devon Border. This farm, and in particular its animals, had the misfortune to be contiguous to an infected premise. In this case contiguous meant:-


7        The only boundary of Higher Fonstone farm contiguous to the I/P was a boundary of a small 37-acre wood.

7        The infected animals on the I/P were estimated to be 1mile from the stock on Higher Fonstone Farm. In evidence supplied by the MAFF vet, Mr DAVID FIELDS,VO, Truro,  he states “ The sheep on Higher Fonstone Farm were grazing in a field that was approx. 500 metres from the boundary of the I/P (The other side of the wood) and the cattle were housed 750 metres from the boundary of the I/P.

7        There were 15 contiguous farms to the I/P.

7        No local risk assessment was carried out.



The vet , Mr David Fields states in his VO MANUSCRIPT FORM (Annex A) that he telephoned Didi Phillips & Nick Graham to discuss the fact that they were contiguous to an I/P. Fields goes on to state that, “They would let their animals be slaughtered.” He said later in a letter dated 28th August 2001 that, “Mr Graham had agreed to the cull and immediately decided not to appeal.”


Didi Phillips refutes this strongly and said “We never agreed to the animals slaughter. We told Fields that we wanted to appeal and he told us it would not make any difference.”


Field signed the Form A around 5pm on 1st April 2001. (Annex B) This was after he had inspected all the stock and had declared them “Completely healthy, no sign of FMD, but they still have to go.”.


Field went on in the letter dated 28th August 2001, “ No formal risk assessment was carried out of contiguous premises other than to identify them. My instructions, which again are summarised in:- FMD Slaughter Policy On Contiguous Premises 6/4/2001, para.-8 called for rapid risk assessment ONLY if the farmer objected to having their stock taken. It also states that in all the circumstances of this epidemic, that susceptible animals on contiguous premises will have been exposed to infection,”


So, Field has apparently lied to avoid a “Rapid Risk Assessment”. The very odd statement that “all contiguous premises will have been exposed to infection” stand up to no scrutiny at all. The Donaldson article (Vet record), May 2001 and the sheer lack of infected stock found on contiguous farms destroy this myth. (3,305 farms culled as contiguous and NONE were infected.).


Field was so confident that the stock DID NOT have FMD he refused to blood test them as they would return Negative Results.


The stock on Higher Fonstone Farm was killed by MAFF between 0915 and 1115, 2nd April 2001.





When Didi Phillips and Nick Graham asked the Truro DVM, JAN KELLY why other contiguous farms were not culled out , she arrogantly said,:-


Kelly said,  - “After you were culled out, I changed my mind.”


Field stated,


In serving a Form A on the aforementioned premises I followed instructions issued by MAFF contained in Paragraph 10 of Section X of Chapter 3 of the SVS Chapters and Emergency instruction 2001/73//VEXDT.

As far as 1 was aware, the guidelines governing the serving of a Form A were found under Article 4(1)(a) of the Foot-and-Mouth Diseasc Order 1983.  These state that "or where through any other cause a constable or an inspector or the Divisional Veterinary Officer has reasonable grounds for supposing that disease exists or has within 56 days existed on any premises, he shall serve a notice - Form A on the occupier of the said premises declaring them to be an infected place.

 A number of reasons I believed that it is was not necessary to make a formal "diagnosis"

of FMD in the stock on a premises in order to have reasonable grounds to suspect disease and serve a Form A;


a:     There is no mention of diagnosis having to be made under Article 4(1)(a) of the Foot -­and-Mouth Disease Order 1983.  The order uses the wording "where through any other cause" allowing, information from an@, source to be part of the judgement process.


b:     The aforementioned article gives leave for a Police Constable to serve a Form A. I presume that such a constable would not be making a diagnosis but using other available information.

c..    In investigating a report case of a notifiable disease e.g. FMD, Swine Fever, it was and always has been, normal practice for a Form A to be served on arrival; that is before entry to a premise and before examination of any stock. 1 think this shows that a precedent for the degree of reasonable grounds necessary to serve Form A already existed in practice, and that this did not include a diagnosis of FMD or any great degree, of certainty that disease was present on the premises.


I therefore felt that a clinical examination and formal diagnosis of F.MD was not a necessary prerequisite to the serving of a Form A, nor was it intended to be. 1 believed that Form A could be served on the basis of information available at the time to the individual concerned.  I also believe that the level of reasonable grounds for suspicion necessary for the serving of Form A has been set historically by precedent at a low level, because of the consequences of allowing disease to spread.”



It appears that The VO, Mr Davis Fields, has been economical with the truth.


In the very near future, I will release more evidence including faxes, letters and memo’s that will expose the bullying, intimidation and lying conducted by MAFF and bestowed on the owners of Higher Fonstone Farm, Cornwall.





























 Report by Nick Green, Cumbria. 11th. May 2002


 In every aspect of my life, professionally, domestically and socially RESPECT has to be earned. It is not a right.

 It would be inconceivable of me to be able to RESPECT many of the current breeds of Politicians on both sides of the House

 One such person who epitomises may total DISRESPECT, DISTRUST and HATRED is none other than that excuse for a man, Mr. WHITTY.

 I have met Whitty, and although regarded as intelligent, this fact simply adds more weight to the charge that he is LYING consistently to the public, House of Lords and others.

 His most recent assertions in the House of Lords, concerning the 3km/Firebreak Cull defy belief.

 I do not need to go over his inaccurate statements, or the legal aspects, or the FACTS. They are well known to all of us.

 What is astonishing is that Prime Minister Blair openly supports this LYING. As seen recently, Stephen Byers, Transport Minister, has so obviously LIED and has been so obviously backed by Blair and his cronies.

 How much more of this ongoing scandal must the English people take?

 I would remind Blair, Byers, Whitty and all the other liars on BOTH sides of the House, that PERJURY is a very serious charge. There remains at least one disgraced Politician in PRISON for LYING.

 It may be that the REAL reason for Blair NOT having an open Inquiry to give evidence under oath is that HIS Ministers would be compelled to LIE and therefore would be committing PERJURY. Whereas at the moment they can just carry on LYING at will.

 As I have said before, Blair's refusal to hold the Inquiry we all want is a GROSS ACT OF COWARDICE.