Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Bernard sodding Matthews

56 replies

Greensleeves · 19/04/2007 13:24

at this

OP posts:
Eleusis · 19/04/2007 13:32

Why does this upset you?

Trinityrhino · 19/04/2007 13:33

why?

iris66 · 19/04/2007 13:36

I echo that Greensleeves !!!
How on earth are we supposed to trust any manufacturer if they are bloody compensated for shirking the responsibility for ensuring ingredient sources are safe!!!!! Jeeeeeeeeees

Gingermonkey · 19/04/2007 13:36

Don't get me started on on this! It was on the news on Radio 2 earlier and I was shouting at the radio. Apparently Jack Straw isn't overly impressed about it and the Bernard Matthews spokesman said it was fair, and that the company had lost millions because of the bird flu outbreak. This £600K would just cover the cost of replacement birds. Why is it big companies always get compensation for stuff - Rover went bust so the company was compensated. I bet if my DH's business went tits up they'd tell us to F-off if we asked for a hand out

mrsflowerpot · 19/04/2007 13:36

because presumably they were doing something wrong to get the disease in there in the first place? it's not like they have flocks of happy free-range poultry roaming around that could have had contact with wild birds.

Trinityrhino · 19/04/2007 13:37

Has this thing kicked off yet?

ruty · 19/04/2007 13:39

he should be paying damages for bad animal husbandry and bringing birdflu into the uk instead of getting compensation - horrible man-gah my keyboard is shot

donnie · 19/04/2007 13:41

wonder if all the sacked workers will be compensated in like manner? as if I really need to ask....

Original poster
Greensleeves · 19/04/2007 13:42

I can't believe anyone can't grasp why this is an outrage.

OP posts:
donnie · 19/04/2007 13:48

just heard one of the chief execs of BM on radio 4 - " we didn't actually break any laws".

Trouble is, he is right. The law is an ass.

iris66 · 19/04/2007 13:54

"we didn't actually break any laws" !!!!!!!!!!!! oh FFS !!! well that's ok then Mr Bernard Matthews exec but what happened to bloody social responsibility? Oh I forgot - there is none in business

I'm so glad I missed the interview - I think I would have spontaneously combusted!

iris66 · 19/04/2007 13:56

This issue is making me soooooooooooo angry!! I need to walk away now because I know I'll have to discuss it all with DD when she gets home as she's just handed in her final piece of A level coursework which was about said company re crisis management!!

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Eleusis · 19/04/2007 14:00

Hmmm... I see your point that is was they who brought the contaminated bird in and they should be responsible for the consequences.

But, I guess what I was thinking is if business are penalised for contracting bird flu, then it will only encourage them to hide it. I support farmers being paid for mad cow or foot and mouth for the same reason.

We don' really want to encourage people to hide birdflu, do we?

themoon66 · 19/04/2007 14:01

Who is paying them compensation? Surely it should be their own insurance company if they are up to date with their premiums?

saralou100 · 19/04/2007 14:01

didn'the know something beforehand... or am i making that up??

donnie · 19/04/2007 14:06

iris66......I am still on fire....

ruty · 19/04/2007 14:06

i just wish people would not buy his crappy meat

sandyballs · 19/04/2007 14:07

It's not really compensation, more reimbursement for property destroyed, in this case poultry. If that wasn't the case then farms would not report the first signs of disease, they would try to cover it up or deal with it themselves, resulting in a much more serious situation.

trice · 19/04/2007 14:08

If farmers are not generously compensated for slaughtering animals in these cases they will find ways of hiding them or moving them before the quaruntine takes effect. Bernard Matthews may be foul but paying out to them sends a message to all farmers that in these cases they will not loose out significantly if they comply with the law. It is only common sense.

winnie · 19/04/2007 14:08

yep, Greensleeves, I agree. this is outrageous

Callisto · 19/04/2007 14:26

I think it is very different to pay compensation to a farmer whose livelihood is his herd or flock. The loss of a complete herd without compensation would bankcrupt most farmers. Bernard Matthews is a different concept and I certainly wouldn't call what they does 'farming'. I can see why we need fast reporting of bird flu etc, but this didn't happen with BM anyway. There was a cover up of sorts, they brought bird flu into the country and yet they are still being paid compensation. IMO they should be fined for their actions.

Callisto · 19/04/2007 14:27

I mean 'they do' not 'they does'.

FlossALump · 19/04/2007 14:31

but wot if they went bust and we couldn't have our turkey twizzlers for tea? Then no-one would vote the government back in for sure would they? Was just too much of a risk...

clairemow · 19/04/2007 14:36

I agree with Sandyballs and Eleusis - the early reporting of bird flu is what is important here. And I hate to say it, but actually in the context of a big company like BM, £589,000 isn't a large amount - it's about £4 per bird that was slaughtered.

Waiting now to be shot down...

Original poster
Greensleeves · 19/04/2007 15:13

LOL at BM being "foul" trice

If farmers/factory farming magnates like BM hide or drag their feet reporting disease outbreaks, they should go to prison. Simple as that. And if we really believe the industry is this corrupt (which I do), then plough the money being wasted on compensating a multi-millionaire fatcat into financing more inspectors, spot checks and compulsory reporting.

Paying somebody public money (or any bloody money) because they cut corners out of greed and slovenliness isn't any kind of answer.

OP posts: