Rob Seward

No it won’t you need to bring wildlife into a place of safety clean water interconnecting habitat you need whole countryside community yet you won’t support farming or pay realistically for conservation measures,you don’t know how it works but you have all the answers ! Cash doesn’t clean the water or save no boundary wildlife it’s green wash till you deliver it all but you alienate those that hold the future of countryside. @NoFarmsNoFoods @NFFNUK @NFUPress @RosieP4 @BylinesEast @Jes_Squirrell @SWTWildFarms @Gameandwildlife @CDodson_Thatch @TrooperSnooks @PaddyGalbraith @OakbankGame

Labour Loves the Countryside. It Just Hates the People Who Run It. A woman walks into a tailor's shop in Helmsley, North Yorkshire. She loves the heather hills, she says. The wooded dales. The purple moorland stretching to the horizon. What she cannot stand is the shooting that takes place on the Glorious Twelfth. Jeremy Shaw, the tailor, has heard this before. He considers whether to explain that the heather she travelled three hours to admire exists because of the grouse moor she despises. The gamekeepers who manage the land, suppress the bracken, and keep the moorland in the condition that makes it worth visiting. The cake, in other words, was baked by the baker she came to castigate. What is worrying is that the government shares her confusion. On March 18, Labour published its Land Use Framework. Half a million acres earmarked for solar panels. Nine percent of farmland committed to rewilding. And buried on page 45, a proposal to license game bird shooting, potentially restricting pheasant and partridge releases onto estates. The trail hunting ban came first. Licensing comes next. Each measure arrives with its own rationale. Together they form a programme. Licensing does not prohibit. Bureaucracy does not ban. Smaller shoots simply cannot absorb compliance costs, fold quietly, and nobody in Whitehall answers for the consequence. A Natural England case near Helmsley shows the method. A longstanding partridge shoot was barred from releasing birds until after the season had already started. Shoot days cancelled. Revenue gone. Natural England's hands formally clean. Helmsley bucks every trend in British retail. Four pubs in the town square. A Michelin-starred inn nearby. A tailor forty years in business in what a mentor once called a dying trade. Seventy-five percent of Shaw's revenue is shooting-related. The Pheasant hotel runs at sixty percent shooting occupancy through winter. The deli sells local cheese to Norwegian and German sportsmen. Shooting contributes £3.3 billion annually to the UK economy and supports nearly 147,000 jobs. Pull the shooting thread and the weave comes apart. One Helmsley pub changed hands a few years ago. The new owners decided they wanted nothing to do with shoot trade. They lost heavily, then went back to the estates cap in hand. The market delivered the verdict that policy is not yet ready to impose openly. Licensing achieves the same result without anyone having to take responsibility. The conservation argument collapses under scrutiny. Grouse moor owners have restored 217,000 acres of upland heath in the past 25 years. The almost-extinct curlew is four times more likely to fledge on a managed grouse moor than on unmanaged moorland. The landscape that Whitehall has identified as the problem is the reason the landscape exists in the form they claim to value. When asked what economic trade-offs it had actually modelled, the government was vague. Officials said they recognised shooting's cultural importance and would work with industry toward a sustainable relationship. Starmer has been invited to visit Helmsley and see how the economy functions. He has not replied. He should go. He should meet the gamekeeper loading double guns through winter to keep the household solvent. The beaters earning seventy pounds a day. The tailor measuring 24 keepers for tweed suits stitched with Essex lining and Yorkshire zips. What rural Britain is being offered instead is a licensing regime that will first eliminate smaller shoots, then larger ones, then the hotels and tailors and pubs, until the moorland reverts to bracken and the towns that shooting sustained join the dying high streets that apparently only the countryside had managed to avoid. The heather on the North York Moors, Jeremy Shaw at Carters Country Wear, and the market town of Helmsley. All three exist because of shooting. Labour's Land Use Framework puts all three at risk.

@JPBWFarm Back in 1993 I was visiting Zimbabwe when there were $10zim/£1. I was fortunate (but not for farm friends) to view a document declaring that Mugabe's generals were coming to sieze their farm. At least Mugabe had the balls to tell the farmers what was about to happen...........

Today, rural Britain begins to die. By 2035, Labour will have made 🪫 2% of our farmland under solar panels 🐄 9% of land lost from food production 🗺️ A civil servant's map to tell you what you can farm 🤝 A socialist land grab that lets activists seize control of your farm Destroying generations of history and the nation's food security with it.

“The great red diesel robbery.” ~ Farmer Charles Goadby @thisfarmlife

"Who here would do their day job at a price where they cannot afford to feed their family? And then be told diversify to survive"💸☝️ Alan Hughes @ #BattleFest 2025 "Ploughing on? The state of British farming"🧑‍🌾🔥 👇

I’m a chemist. I need to say this - because it’s getting dangerous out there. The biggest health myth in the world isn’t about vaccines. Or GMOs. Or fluoride. It’s the root of all of them. It’s called chemophobia - and it’s killing science. Fear of “chemicals” now drives vaccine rejection, GMO bans, food hysteria, and entire political movements. From tampons to tap water, people have been taught to fear chemistry - the very thing that keeps us alive. Chemophobia tells us: “Natural is good.” “Synthetic is bad.” That’s a lie. Botulinum toxin is 100% natural and one of the deadliest molecules known. Aspirin is synthetic and life-saving. We’ve gone from banning harmful substances for good reason…to banning safe, well-tested molecules for emotional reasons. You’ve seen the slogans: “If you can’t pronounce it, don’t eat it.” “Paraben-free.” “Clean beauty.” They sound empowering. But they’re not science - they’re marketing. And they’re making the world dumber, poorer, and sicker. Your body doesn’t care if a molecule comes from a plant or a lab. Vitamin C is vitamin C. Formaldehyde is formaldehyde and your body makes more of it every day than any vaccine ever could. Dose matters. Source doesn’t. This fear isn’t harmless. It shapes public policy. It blocks innovation. It raises food prices. It slows down cancer treatments. Chemophobia is now mainstream and it’s costing lives. Scientists aren’t losing because we’re wrong. We’re losing because fear spreads faster than facts. Because influencers sell fear for clicks. Because lawyers monetize doubt. And because scientists are too tired to fight back. So here’s my message, as a chemist and as a citizen: Learn how toxicology works. Call out chemical fear-mongering. Support policies based on evidence, not emotion. Chemistry isn’t the enemy. It’s the reason you have clean water, safe food, and modern medicine. If we let fear win, we lose all of it.

Another use for tankcam, which tramliner is giving me grief

@agricontract @EmmaforWycombe @NFUtweets Surely by the time we apply (sept) and potentially get accepted (how long for confirmation), it'll be too late in the year for rotational options, potentially leaving yet another funding gap

New sfi options reduced to 71 and capped at 100k @EmmaforWycombe announced just now at #NFU26 @NFUtweets

So @defra @angelaeagle would you care to clarify which of these is correct please? The email you sent me on the right says you’re cutting delinked payments so you can invest more in environmental schemes yet you’re now considering cutting SFi payments? Where are you going to allocate the savings to? And while you’re at it and @Keir_Starmer constantly says you are giving the biggest ag budget in years, can you please get him to amend his record which keeps spinning us false info. @FWAbiKay

THIS NEEDS SHARING. THIS NEEDS TO GO VIRAL! Astonishing. Tesco’s are selling their “quality roast beef” and adding potato starch to it… And you’re paying £9.99 a kilo for the privilege. I cannot believe why anybody wants to buy meat from Tesco. Not only do they not pay their Farmers fairly and undermine their produce with additives- they are ripping the consumer off big time. Share this message FAR AND WIDE. Support your proper meat suppliers.

Delinquents who graffiti public property should be fined £5,000 or given 100 hours litter picking. These criminals are vandalising the public realm - and ruining it for everyone.

@AnnaLongthorp Elderly farming family parents have not enough to retire, have to step away and take no benefit of farm asset, would have to rent back the farmhouse or cottage, paying market value. Untimely tragic deaths, injury or ill health. #IHT #tragedytax

To keep food cheap - it’s not farmers reporting mega profits,check out supermarkets! Squeezing suppliers, squeezing consumers. Farmers are not being unreasonable in asking to change a policy that punishes single mums, young unexpected deaths,people that die in the wrong order 3/3

The #FamilyFarmTax campaign has gone somewhat quiet a) because most of us are knackered after over a year of tireless campaigning and being thrown a mere bone that rescued some b) Labour have presented financial information to make farmers look greedy if we carry on 1/3

UK inheritance tax (IHT) receipts will rise to around £14.5bn by 2030-31. The UK has one of the highest IHT rates among developed nations. It’s an appalling punishment tax on the bereaved and it destroys many family businesses. Inheritance tax should be axed.

If a practice is too cruel for food produced in Britain, it should be too cruel for food imported into Britain. I spoke in Parliament to argue that higher welfare standards on British farms should not be undermined by lower-welfare imports.

Kent - known as ‘The Garden of England’… 😱⁦@kentlivenews⁩

🚨 Farmers are taking the Government to court over Inheritance Tax. A legal challenge over proposed changes to Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief has been fast-tracked to an urgent High Court hearing. 🗣️ “By deciding not to have a proper consultation, the Government improperly denied us the chance to influence the policy,” said Cambridgeshire farmer @Farmer_Tom_UK. READ MORE: ow.ly/MMOU50Y4grB

Dear #Westsussexcountycouncil @MSDCnews #westsussexhighways you are a disgrace. GET OUT from behind your fat desks and look after our infrastructure, yesterday I picked 2/3 of wheelie bin of litter and today cleared a drain grid, it took 3 mins, see the time stamp

#keepbritaintidy I guess you didn't mean to crash your car. No-one was injured, how about come back and pick your litter up #cardebris ck16bgf

Any farmer types migrated there Gatekeeper to telus? Pros/cons. Telus seem to have their fingers into all things data.

Glyphosate isn’t controversial because it’s understudied. It’s controversial because the evidence is ignored. Fact 1. This chemical is exhaustively studied: •40+ years of data. •Thousands of studies. •Reviewed repeatedly across continents. Fact 2. Global regulators agree: Every major regulatory authority that assesses real-world exposure reaches the same conclusion: •US EPA •EFSA •ECHA •Health Canada 👉 Not carcinogenic at human exposure levels. 👉 Not genotoxic. 👉 No unacceptable health risk when used as directed. This is not one agency. This is not a global conspiracy. Fact 3: The largest human study says no. •54,000+ pesticide applicators. •Followed since 1993. •No link to overall cancer. •No consistent link to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. If glyphosate caused cancer, this study should have found it. It didn’t. Fact 4: Food residues are not the issue. •Residues are far below safety limits. •Dietary exposure does not pose a cancer risk. •Drinking water exposure is not a health hazard. “Toxic” without dose is not toxicology. Fact 5: Worker exposure is also low. •Measured exposures are far below NOAELs. •Regulators repeatedly conclude: not of concern. So where does the scare come from? One outlier → IARC IARC did a hazard classification, not a risk assessment. They put glyphosate in the same category as: •Red meat. •Hot beverages. •Being a barber. IARC explicitly ignores exposure. Regulators do not. This is the entire conflict: Hazard-only classification vs Risk-based regulation. Confuse the two - and fear wins. Bottom line: No pesticide regulator on Earth currently considers glyphosate a cancer risk at real-world exposure levels. The science is boring. It’s to put a stop to the misinformation.