anton wrote:
"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "anton" contains these words:

Use of compost from "mixed" waste

Where catering or household waste contains meat or other
products
derived from animals then,
although it may be composted, it may not, currently, be used on
land. The Animal By- Products Order prohibits the use of this
mixed compost on land where animals (including wild birds) may
have access. However, this position, is set to change. The draft
EU Regulation on Animal By -Products will allow the use of
properly composted mixed waste on all land except pastural land.
We expect this Regulation to come into force in the Spring of
2002."

The above quote is not from the url you quote, and I suspect that
you've missed a trick.

Yes, sorry, I'd wandered onto another page dated June 2001 :~}

Please give the source of your quote.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/...opics/compost/
Right. So rewind to your original url and you'll find that the
composting and spreading on land of stuff that's been in a kitchen
(even a domestic kitchen, not a commercial one) has been illegal,
because of potential contamination with animal products, since
2001.

The amendments which may change this are in the future as is
implicit
in your original url dated 2004.

We are governed by liars that have turned the civil service, who
were
formerly merely incompetent, into propagandists for their masters.
Accordingly, any government offering has to read very closely, and
the bits that possibly fooled you a
* the references to 'amended' legislation, without clarity as to
whether this was the original (2001) amendment or the amended
amended
legislation (2006?);
*the reference to green waste which suggests broccoli stalks etc to
you and me but actually excludes these if they have been in a
kitchen;
and
*'properly composted' which may suggest one thing to you but
actually
requires a lot of automated control systems, temperature sensors,
and
record keeping.

happy activation-free (cos it's an animal product)composting

Anton, you're just panicking. Time to grow up. They found a fault in
the original legislation, and they're repairing it. You're the man
I'd go to first for advice about fruit trees; but when it comes to
textual analysis, well, if you don't mind, I'll do it myself.

Mike.

In article ,
Mike Lyle wrote:

Anton, you're just panicking. Time to grow up. They found a fault in
the original legislation, and they're repairing it. You're the man
I'd go to first for advice about fruit trees; but when it comes to
textual analysis, well, if you don't mind, I'll do it myself.

However, I am afraid that I must support him about the Civil Service
as an organisation. While there are still some honest and responsible
people in it, I am not sure that there are any in the levels where the
policy is made. There used to be, and there was a time where many
of them were extremely competent, too, but that was in the days when
there was a Scientific Civil Service.

In this case, I don't think that the intent ever was to produce
legislation to ensure safe composting, so much as to adhere to EU
attempts to do that while minimising the amount of effect the new
legislation would have. They got that wrong, which is why it needs
amending to reduce the political impact. I wish that I were wrong.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Mike Lyle wrote:

Anton, you're just panicking. Time to grow up. They found a fault
in
the original legislation, and they're repairing it. You're the man
I'd go to first for advice about fruit trees; but when it comes to
textual analysis, well, if you don't mind, I'll do it myself.

However, I am afraid that I must support him about the Civil
Service
as an organisation. While there are still some honest and
responsible
people in it, I am not sure that there are any in the levels where
the
policy is made. There used to be, and there was a time where many
of them were extremely competent, too, but that was in the days
when
there was a Scientific Civil Service.

In this case, I don't think that the intent ever was to produce
legislation to ensure safe composting, so much as to adhere to EU
attempts to do that while minimising the amount of effect the new
legislation would have. They got that wrong, which is why it needs
amending to reduce the political impact. I wish that I were wrong.

Aye to all that. But they _did_ amend it: can't say fairer than that.

Mike.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Lyle wrote:


[can't see Mike's post, so replying through yours, Nick]


Anton, you're just panicking.

?? No panic here. I'll continue with my illegal composting methods.

Time to grow up.

Too late for that. I'm just setting the record straight on what the dopey
legislation is, as a large number of people find it hard to believe.

They found a fault in
the original legislation, and they're repairing it.

If that were the full statement of the facts, then I would have no problem.
However, yours is not an accurate short description of what they have done.
A better summary is:

They found a fault in the original legislation, propagandised and
bullshitted to try to conceal this, and they have still not repaired it.

You're the man
I'd go to first for advice about fruit trees;

thank you, but I'm only an enthusiastic amateur. Brogdale and the RHS have
some real fruit experts.

but when it comes to
textual analysis, well, if you don't mind, I'll do
it myself.

Well textually analyse away, old sport, and if you can come up with a
statement of mine that doesn't match the facts then say so and be prepared
to defend your assertion.

However, I am afraid that I must support him about the Civil Service
as an organisation. While there are still some honest and responsible
people in it, I am not sure that there are any in the levels where the
policy is made. There used to be, and there was a time where many
of them were extremely competent, too, but that was in the days when
there was a Scientific Civil Service.

Partial correction accepted, Nick. There are clearly some civil servants
left who are competent, and some who are not politicised, and I shouldn't
have implied that they are all the same.

In this case, I don't think that the intent ever was to produce
legislation to ensure safe composting, so much as to adhere to EU
attempts to do that while minimising the amount of effect the new
legislation would have. They got that wrong, which is why it needs
amending to reduce the political impact. I wish that I were wrong.

I personally think that legislation has no place in domestic composting.
The place of government is to /encourage/ suitable composting methods &
choice of materials.

Commercial composting/ waste management is a different story, in that
legislation is appropriate- but even this is producing a number of farcical
overspends as councils attempt to comply with half-thought-out directives

--
Anton

In article , Franz Heymann
writes

I find it hard to imagine anybody putting any unused tea-bags on the
compost heap, except as a result of an occasional mistake.
{:-))



I put three boxes of a disgusting line in green tea once. Went back to
my decaffeinated earl grey and my normal green leaf tea.

Only place to put the bags was on the compost, non one could be
persuaded to try the green tea!

janet
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

anton wrote:
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Lyle wrote:


[can't see Mike's post, so replying through yours, Nick]


Anton, you're just panicking.

?? No panic here. I'll continue with my illegal
composting methods.

But we've seen that they _aren't_ illegal. Unless you mean you're not
using only domestic waste.

Time to grow up.

Too late for that.

Well, come to that, me too!

I'm just setting the record straight on what the
dopey legislation is, as a large number of people find it hard to
believe.

They found a fault in
the original legislation, and they're repairing it.

If that were the full statement of the facts, then I would have no
problem. However, yours is not an accurate short description of
what
they have done. A better summary is:

They found a fault in the original legislation, propagandised and
bullshitted to try to conceal this, and they have still not
repaired
it.

I just don't get the last bit: the paragraph you quoted (and one of
us seems to have snipped) quite clearly says it's OK on the domestic
scale.

You're the man
I'd go to first for advice about fruit trees;

thank you, but I'm only an enthusiastic amateur. Brogdale and the
RHS have some real fruit experts.

but when it comes to
textual analysis, well, if you don't mind, I'll do
it myself.

Well textually analyse away, old sport, and if you can come up with
a
statement of mine that doesn't match the facts then say so and be
prepared to defend your assertion.

I think I did: see above.

[...]
In this case, I don't think that the intent ever was to produce
legislation to ensure safe composting, so much as to adhere to EU
attempts to do that while minimising the amount of effect the new
legislation would have. They got that wrong, which is why it
needs
amending to reduce the political impact. I wish that I were
wrong.

Six and two threes here. The same could be presented in a favourable
light: they might say "In complying fully with the EU rules, we want
to minimise the inconvenience to business and the public. We find
that, as often with new legislation, something important got left
out, and we're trying to make the regulations more practical. This is
very difficult."

I personally think that legislation has no place in domestic
composting. The place of government is to /encourage/ suitable
composting methods & choice of materials.

Nobody in his right mind could disagree.

Commercial composting/ waste management is a different story, in
that
legislation is appropriate- but even this is producing a number of
farcical overspends as councils attempt to comply with
half-thought-out directives

I've already said there's a bass-ackwards approach to animal health
implicit in the whole thing: but it doesn't seem to be the civil
servants who are to blame for that.

Mike.

wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:23:32 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:


I personally think that legislation has no place in domestic
composting. The place of government is to /encourage/ suitable
composting methods & choice of materials.

Nobody in his right mind could disagree.

The next post should be a quote from the Daily Telegraph about the
German woman refused unemployment benefits because she refused to
become a prostitute when offered a job.

You mean they did a _Daily Mail_ story, but in longer words? Hang,
on, I'm getting inspired..."Asylum seekers eat British pussy". Or is
that the _Sun_?

Mike.

In article ,
writes

The next post should be a quote from the Daily Telegraph about the
German woman refused unemployment benefits because she refused to
become a prostitute when offered a job.


I think the saddest thing is not that it's true or untrue but that many
of us BELIEVE it to be a feasible scenario!

Janet
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:53:19 +0000, Janet Tweedy
wrote:

In article ,
writes

The next post should be a quote from the Daily Telegraph about
the
German woman refused unemployment benefits because she refused to
become a prostitute when offered a job.


I think the saddest thing is not that it's true or untrue but that
many of us BELIEVE it to be a feasible scenario!
http://tinyurl.com/63yet
'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your
benefits'
By Clare Chapman
(Filed: 30/01/2005)

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual
services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her
unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

[...]

Gosh! I find the legal problem intriguing; and I confess that it had
never occurred to me as a consequence of legalising the game. This is
now way OT, of course; but I wonder how they'll get around it?
Introducing a general conscience clause would be fraught with
difficulties: it's one thing to allow conscientious objectors to
refuse to be forced into the army, or to allow an unemployed rabbi to
turn down the post of Lutheran Pastor; but what about refusing to
work in a casino because you think it's immoral, or at a meat counter
because you're a vegan? Hmm...

Mike.

"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
writes

The next post should be a quote from the Daily Telegraph about the
German woman refused unemployment benefits because she refused to
become a prostitute when offered a job.

I think the saddest thing is not that it's true or untrue but that many
of us BELIEVE it to be a feasible scenario!
Janet

Seems to be true. This article was in the Telegraph.........
http://tinyurl.com/5vmsv

Jenny

wrote
"JennyC" wrote:
"Janet Tweedy" wrote
writes

The next post should be a quote from the Daily Telegraph about the
German woman refused unemployment benefits because she refused to
become a prostitute when offered a job.

I think the saddest thing is not that it's true or untrue but that many
of us BELIEVE it to be a feasible scenario!
Janet

Seems to be true. This article was in the Telegraph.........
http://tinyurl.com/5vmsv

It's true there was an article in the DT. Whether the article is true
is another matter.
Martin

Well they wanted unemployed people here in Holland to become Bonsai
trainers.......It was the job most suited to the unskilled according to the
government of the day !

Jenny

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:49:49 +0000 (UTC), in uk.rec.gardening Franz
wrote:

~
~"jane" wrote in message
...
~ On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:24:13 GMT, Janet Baraclough
~ wrote:
~
~ ~The message
~ ~from (jane) contains these words:
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ Perhaps we should start a new thread on better hot home
~composting
~ ~ techniques! I'm all ears... (though please can the chaps note
~that for
~ ~ us ladies, providing recycled beer activation doesn't happen when
~up
~ ~ the allotments!)
~ ~
~ ~ Speak for yourself!When I had an allotment, there were no loos
~on the
~ ~site, and I was usually up there for half a day with accompanying
~ ~infants. Older people would spend the entire day there.
~ ~Occasionally they disappeared discreetly into their rickety
~hut....or
~ ~behind their compost heap/rhubarb patch.
~ ~
~
~ :-)
~
~ Trouble is we've a *very* open site like an amphitheatre so can be
~ overlooked by a bus route and main road to housing estate. I did put
~a
~ bucket in the shed at one point but it now gets used for escorting
~ bindweed off the premises and rarely for the original intention!
~
~Invest in a second bucket?

I know, way too logical :-) but yes, probably will do at some point!

Need to dig out the compost heap first, so I can redistribute the
non-rotted stuff. Might happen to do a lawn cut this weekend and add
some grass clippings too. Though more likely to be moss clippings.

~ I have been tempted to put a bolt on the shed door - inside!
~
~I would have thought that that would be a prime requirement..
Actually getting the roof nailed back on is first!

We were lucky - we have no outer lock and no windows so the vandals
who destroyed part of nearly every shed on site over Christmas didn't
break any of the main structure, and the roof felt was already
flapping. All we had was a redistribution of the shed contents all
over the place.

I felt sorry for the newbie family who'd put up a recycled shed, and
put a tiny little stained glass window in. We'd all been saying how
lovely it was.

Not any more :-(


--
jane

Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone,
you may still exist but you have ceased to live.
Mark Twain

Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks!

In message , jane
writes
I felt sorry for the newbie family who'd put up a recycled shed, and
put a tiny little stained glass window in. We'd all been saying how
lovely it was.
Not any more :-(
jane

Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone,
you may still exist but you have ceased to live.
Mark Twain


Having read your first, it's hard to live by your second ...

--
Klara, Gatwick basin