Simon Fairlie and partner Gill Baron, both in their 70s and stalwarts of the green / land rights movement threatened with eviction over unspecified claims of 'bullying'. Dairy, market garden, scythe-selling business and the Land Magazine (which SF and GB edit, alongside a few others) all under threat. Some arsehole probably wants to get rid of the hippies and turn the place into an upmarket hotel. Petition here:
Coup d’État at Monkton Wyld Court Operators of “Britain’s Oldest Microdairy” Ordered to Leave the Premises.
The Land Magazine made Homeless.
The head gardener at Monkton Wyld Court ordered to leave, “with immediate effect”.
On 9 May 2023, six trustees of Monkton Wyld Court, an educational charity managed by a long-standing intentional community, ordered two long standing members of the community to leave. Gill Barron (73) and Simon Fairlie (72) have been living and working at MWC since 2010, when they joined the community to revive the flagging micro-dairy and neglected farmland. Five of the six trustees who ordered their departure have been trustees of the charity for just four months. The trustees also coerced xxx xxx MBE, into resigning from the board of trustees. She had been a trustee for 15 years, and had spoken up in favour of Gill and Simon. Two other trustees have recently resigned.
More recently our grower, Jasmine Hills, has been told to leave “with immediate effect” for no given reason. Five other people living and working at MWC are expected to leave in protest, and the community and charity are in meltdown. As a result the microdairy, which dates back to 1941 and is probably the oldest established dairy of its size in the UK will have to shut down. The Land magazine, a highly respected journal published from MWC, will have to suspend publication until it can locate new offices.
Gill and Simon are accused by one prospective member of the community on a six month trial (aka W.S.) of influencing community decisions through intimidation, but no evidence has been provided as to what decisions have been forced through in this way. They are also accused by the same complainant of bullying. The Anti-Bullying Alliance defines bullying as “The repetitive, intentional hurting of one person or group by another person or group, where the relationship involves an imbalance of power.” Nothing that Simon and Gill are alleged to have done in any way matches this description. In fact it is more accurate as a description of how the trustees have treated Simon and Gill over the last six weeks.
The trustees commissioned an investigation into these allegations from a poorly qualified HR consultant, without allowing Simon or Gill to view the complaints or any other evidence against them, so they could not respond to the allegations. Simon and Gill only saw the complaints when the report of the investigation was delivered, it’s verdict being that they were guilty. Other evidence still remains “redacted”. They were summoned to a “disciplinary procedure” a few days later which ordered them to leave Monkton Wyld.
The justification for this Kafaka-esque kangaroo court was that this was a “whistleblowing complaint”. However the Employment Rights legislation states: “Personal grievances (for example bullying, harassment, discrimination) are not covered by whistleblowing law, unless your particular case is in the public interest.” (www.gov.uk/whistleblowing). Despite repeated requests, the trustees failed to explain what legal advice they had taken that this was a “whistleblowing complaint in the public interest”.
The procedure followed by the trustees, which will make Gill and Simon homeless, is in their view in conflict with Article 5 (Right to a Fair and Public Hearing) and Article 8 (Right to Respect for the Home). The unproven allegations of bullying are defamatory.
On the NEWS page, Simon explains step by step how this happened, as a cautionary tale for those who put their faith in charities as a social structure. They are inherently undemocratic, making them vulnerable to “carpetbaggers” who can acquire considerable power over the future of the charity in a short time and without investing a penny of their own money.
If you wish to raise a complaint about the way the trustees have acted, you can do so by emailing the trustees monktonwyldtrustees@gmail.com. We are forging an evidence-based case that we will forward to the Charity Commission alleging that –
• that the charity is not doing what it claims to (ie it is getting rid of its flagship educational facility, the farm); • it is harming people (namely Gill, Simon, Jasmine and all those affected); • that it is endangering the financial position of the charity, by forcing the farm business to move, by firing key workers, by prompting the resignation of other workers, by prejudicing the attractiveness of the venue to much of its clientele, and by disrupting the functioning of the community that has successfully and profitably managed the charity for the last 15 years; • and it is conducting disciplinary hearings of questionable lawfulness (see posts).
If you wish to support our complaint to the Charity Commission, please email chapter7@tlio.org.uk
Judge for yourself: full documentation of the matter, including W.S.’s complaint, Kelly Marsden’s report and Simon’s Proof of Evidence, etc can be sent to you: write to – chapter7@tlio.org.uk
More information will be posted on this website on the NEWS page as it comes in.
*****
Further details of what sounds like a real stitch-up:
Had no progress until I turned off the various script blockers. Then I had to confirm via email. Change.org is a pain. Must have clicked 'not now' a dozen times to all the requests for money and social media shares... Maybe that's why they're only at 8 sigs after 2 weeks? Expected that they'd have more support than that.Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
I use a browser instance in Safe Mode* for these things. I've previously had no issues with their
What's microdairy, anyway? A few "free range" cows? And we do them a favour by relieving them of their milk! Isn't that what calves are for? So, to get the milk we must separate the cow from her calf shortly after birth. And if the cow wasn't kept constantly pregnant in the first place there wouldn't be all this excess milk. And what happens to male calves? Veal? And what happens to the cow when she can't get pregnant any more? Lots of awkward questions. The dairy industry and the meat industry are abominations that go hand in hand. Vegetarianism is a sham. Cows have a shite life.
Ignoring that (as so many do) it does sound like Fairlie is getting a raw deal here.
Heard him once at The Big Green Gathering talking about the Enclosures. Fascinating stuff. Powerful speaker. Heard him also at one of the Climate Camps.
I was a bit disappointed by the so-called Green Gathering, mind, when looking up at the car park on a hill that contained hundreds and hundreds of cars. And I'd have felt the exact same way if they'd all been electric.
I hope this debacle doesn't impact "The Land" magazine. A fascinating read. Though I don't agree with all the opinions it certainly demands that one has ones facts in order. One of the best magazines out there. Even has references.
Re: I like Fairlie but I abhor dairy, micro or otherwise. So,
I volunteered at a microdairy for a while a few winters ago. Small herd, about thirty-odd + one bull, calves at foot for about a month, I think, then separated, some of the females kept to join the herd, males being sold off to a beef farm. The calves and mothers were still visibly (and audibly!) distressed by separation for a few days, then they appeared to get resigned to it. They got to stay out on pasture all year through careful management and rotation, though they might have preferred a barn when it got really wet. I don't know cows well enough to say for certain but they seemed content enough. Not without its problems as you note, esp with the larger scale stuff and the way cows have been bred into milk factories that can barely lift their udders off the ground, but then there's the farmer's reply that if nobody ate meat or dairy then the cows wouldn't exist in the first place. From a selfish point of view the milk, yoghurts & cheeses were delicious...
Haven't had the pleasure of meeting Fairlie or seeing him talk, though I did some scything with Gill one one occasion and she was very pleasant and outspoken without a filter, but in a nice way. Just found this vid of Fairlie debating Monbiot which I'll go and watch now:
Yes and no. The FAO estimated about 15% of ghg emissions were from livestock, mainly blaming methane from cattle. This has been challenged on the basis that it measures the gwp (global warming potential) of methane at the highest possible level and also doesn't take into account the fact that methane only stays in the atmosphere for a short time and is based on a 'natural' carbon cycle. CO2 by comparison stays in the atmosphere for so long it's basically cumulative, and fossil fuels are adding fresh carbon from underground, not cycling what's already available on the surface. It's a bit involved... There were a few in depth articles about it in The Land magazine which I've posted here before:
Monbiot in the above vid said it's bs, that the FAO have now taken this effect into account and come up with an even higher percentage of ghg emissions from livestock, and that Fairlie is retailing propaganda from Big Meat and is basically a climate denier as a result (from 57:35) Haven't seen what he's basing that on, so can't comment but it seems odd that the estimate would increase if they had really taken those factors into account. Also it fits Monbiot's style of throwing out accusations and guilt by association when his argument is weak, so take that with a pinch of salt... I think Fairlie is right to rubbish the claim that the warming effect of livestock methane is greater than the entire transport sector, given the cumulative nature of the CO2 emissions from the latter.
The Technical Summary of the IPCC AR6 Physical Science Basis report discusses "Atmospheric concentration of methane: The SRCCL reported a resumption of atmospheric CH4 concentration growth since 2007. The AR6 reports a faster growth over 2014–2019 and assesses growth since 2007 to be largely driven by emissions from the fossil fuels and agriculture (dominated by livestock) sectors. (Section TS.2.2)". (p.42)
" In the 1990s, CH4 concentrations plateaued, but started to increase again around 2007 at an average rate of 7.6 ± 2.7 ppb yr–1 (2010–2019; high confidence). There is high confidence that this recent growth is largely driven by emissions from fossil fuel exploitation, livestock, and waste, with ENSO driving multi-annual variability of wetland and biomass burning emissions. In 2019, ERF from CH4 was 0.54 Wm–2. {2.2.3, 5.2.2, 7.3}" (p.69)
Incidentally, the recent Summary of the Synthesis Report, (The Longer Report) the IPCC list "efficient livestock management" as both a mitigation and an adaptation option. (p.78).
I've only checked Working Group I (Science) The Technical report, and the Synthesis Report summary. I'll let you have the pleasure of checking the full Physical Science Report as well as the Mitigation and Adaptation reports.
We shouldn't be making assumptions when there is so much science around.
I'm tempted to toss in that much used Upton Sinclair quote with an adaptation but I'm way too busy and probably just too nice to do such a thing
Incidentally, the IPCC is a very conservative body. They don't want to frighten us! James Hansen had a recent paper of his turned down by them.
Re: The production of methane by cows and other livestock is a problem. See the recent IPCC AR6 reports.
Agree it's a problem, just that it's not as much of a problem (eg: compared to fossil fuel use) as it has been made out to be, and thus lets fossil fuel producers off the hook.
On the methane increase since 2007, I remember reading about a NASA study that had pinned this increase on the fracking boom which got going round about that time:
'“the team showed that about 17 teragrams per year of the increase is due to fossil fuels, another 12 is from wetlands or rice farming, while fires are decreasing by about 4 teragrams per year,” NASA said in a January 2 press release. “The three numbers combine to 25 teragrams a year — the same as the observed increase.” [...] “The sharp increase in methane emissions correlates closely with the U.S. fracking boom,” said Jim Warren, executive director of the climate watchdog group NC WARN. “Leaking and venting of unburned gas — which is mostly methane — makes natural gas even worse for the climate than coal.” - https://www.desmog.com/2018/01/16/nasa-study-resolves-climate-mystery-confirms-methane-spike-ties-oil-gas/
Though undoubtedly the livestock industry also increased in size during that time (the article doesn't mention livestock as part of the calculation for some reason).
I do keep the Sinclair quote in mind and try to account for work-based bias when considering these topics fwiw. I'm back in veg growing now anyway, so am free to think what I like about livestock You do get a different kind of knowledge about these things from having done them firsthand though, I've found. Nothing's as cut-and-dried as it might seem at first glance... But yeah, confirmation bias is definitely something to guard against, and seductive as in any other line of employment.
'A new book has forced me to reconsider my views on food. [...] [In 2002] After reviewing the figures, I concluded that veganism “is the only ethical response to what is arguably the world’s most urgent social justice issue.” I still believe that the diversion of ever wider tracts of arable land from feeding people to feeding livestock is iniquitous and grotesque. So does the book I’m about to discuss. I no longer believe that the only ethical response is to stop eating meat.
In Meat: a benign extravagance, Simon Fairlie pays handsome tribute to vegans for opening up the debate(2). He then subjects their case to the first treatment I’ve read that is both objective and forensic. His book is an abattoir for misleading claims and dodgy figures, on both sides of the argument.
There’s no doubt that the livestock system has gone horribly wrong. [...] But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. [...]
Similarly daft assumptions underlie the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s famous claim that livestock are responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, a higher proportion than transport(4). Fairlie shows that it made a number of basic mistakes. It attributes all deforestation that culminates in cattle ranching in the Amazon to cattle: in reality it is mostly driven by land speculation and logging. It muddles up one-off emissions from deforestation with ongoing pollution. It makes similar boobs in its nitrous oxide and methane accounts, confusing gross and net production. (Conversely, the organisation greatly underestimates fossil fuel consumption by intensive farming: its report seems to have been informed by a powerful bias against extensive livestock keeping).
Overall, Fairlie estimates that farmed animals produce roughly 10% of the world’s emissions: still too much, but a good deal less than transport(5).
Livestock farming is responsible for more greenhouse gas pollution than all the world’s transport. Yet governments won’t touch it.
There are just two actions needed to prevent catastrophic climate breakdown: leave fossil fuels in the ground and stop farming animals. [...]
Livestock farming, a recent paper in the journal Sustainability estimates, accounts for between 16.5% and 28% of all greenhouse gas pollution. The wide range of these figures is an indication of how badly this issue has been neglected. As the same paper shows, the official figure (14.5%), published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, is clearly wrong. Everyone in the field knows it, yet few attempts have been made to update it. Even if the minimum number (16.5%) applies, this is greater than all the world’s transport emissions. And it is growing fast. [...]
This issue has become even more urgent now we know the heating impact of methane is rising. Livestock farming is the world’s greatest source of methane released by human activities. Yet there is no mention of it in the Global Methane Pledge launched at last year’s climate summit.
*****
Had a brief look at the papers he cites, and could find no indication that the authors had looked at the methane question (though the second paper is behind a paywall), apparently taking its 'global warming potential' as a given:
on June 9, 2023, 2:13 pm
