All revolving around the use of animals.

I spoke with J today and he didn't understand what the trust was for in terms of land being available, for whom is the question. There is no condition that a person has to be vegan as that would be hard to define, however having no animals or their by-products on the land says a lot. Exceptions can and are made, but each exception is one of a) a personal use unknown to others, b) a personal use with temporary consent by a responsible person, c) a personal agreement ,in contract with the trust.

However in the absence of others initially I have to explain the rules and investigate the person's abilitiy to apply the rules to themselves.

The rule is clearly laid out on the internet and is part of the Trust Deed recorded with the inland revenue.

Rule 6

6) Animals are only to be taken on to trust property if they are in immediate danger or suffering some attendable physical injuries whence passed they will be returned wherefrom they came.

The problem has arisen in that exceptions can be made and in this case J&J thought an exception would be made in their case especially given Michal's support.

However over the next few months I considered the following:

1. Bringing leather on to the land: This is a curious event as it hasn't been spoken of since, largely as I was reluctant to throw a spanner in the works whilst the issue over cats was still be assessed.

   J&J visited with their daughter E. We were sitting close on the grass and E pulled out a load of leather to work on. I asked if she would mind not doing it here. J apologised saying they new I was vegan have should have thought about it.

   Later J&J returned from setting up their tent without E. On querying her whereabouts J said she was in the triangle field, embarrassed about her having brought leather. I said it wasn't a big deal as we all make foo-pah's here and there and I'd go and get her.

   J was quite insistent that I should not go to see her and to leave her alone.

   Well I went anyway despite the 'order' only to find E with her leather work in-hand, which she quickly put in the tent.

   E and I went to 'my place' and nought more was said on the issue amongst us

   However my friend G was there and commented later on how bossy J was, referring to her telling me not to go to the triangle field to see E. We wondered if she new E was leathering up? :)

2. Having cats is quite a responsibility, to kill another for food for your preferred creature, something I personally would not sanction or be complicit in, let alone the trust. See About the Cat
3. Other work involving support or use of domesticated animals, beehives, woollen carpets. This was brought to my notice by others and it led me to wonder how they would expect to carry on their ventures; not from the land I was to declare.; and yet I could see no good reason for them to give up such a comfortable business. It was becoming harder to see how all the sacrifices they would have to make would happen and that they would be happy if they did. Maybe they didn't tell me as they were unsure as to what they wanted.
4. Not having read the trust deed or at best not understanding rule 6 See Red text and Yellow highlighted text halfway down Jam to Roger
5. Complicitness. J pointed out that as a part of the whole I am complicit in there being cats anyway etc.. Whereas I agree there are other thoughts. First it relates to the use of the land which has rules, just as people will manage any environment they are responsible for. their. That I live on planet where anything goes doesn't mean I am going to materially indulge many things. Personally I also have scope which the trust of the land doesn't not have. I can buy a bar of milk chocolate in town and eat it there but not bring it to the land. I can stroke a cat and be complicit with others in their animal use, but not bring the cat to the land.

The above led me to think there were too many issues to resolve and communication over such wasn't going that well, especially considering 1, 4, 3 and 5 (**)