Where do you even begin with this?

The video also includes one of the lamest 'bottom' jokes ever aired.

The video, titled "The Bottom Line," has been roundly condemned by industry bodies, including the Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF) and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations (NFFO), for what they describe as a "simplistic and emotionally manipulative" attack on the commercial fishing fleet.

Federations have been quick to point out what they see as a complete lack of balance in the film, which lays the blame for marine ecosystem changes squarely at the feet of the fishing industry. Fishermen argue the film deliberately ignores a host of other significant factors, including the well-documented impacts of climate change, industrial and agricultural pollution, and the rapid expansion of offshore energy installations.

Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive of the SFF, stated that the film presents a "jaundiced and partial view" that fails to acknowledge the huge strides made by the industry in sustainability and conservation over the past two decades.

"To present commercial fishing as the sole cause of the ocean's problems is both disingenuous and fundamentally wrong," she commented. "Our members are on the water every day and are committed to a healthy marine environment. This film does a great disservice to the fishermen who work tirelessly to put food on our tables within a highly regulated and science-led framework."

A central point of contention is the film's depiction of bottom trawling. Industry leaders have branded the footage used as "misleading," arguing that it fails to differentiate between legal, regulated trawling and the illegal, unregulated fishing practices that the UK fleet has long campaigned against. They stress that modern trawling gear is designed to minimise seabed impact and that the fleet operates under strict spatial and temporal restrictions.

The NFFO has echoed these concerns, highlighting that the film's narrative conveniently overlooks the UK's position as a world leader in fisheries management. They argue that such "one-sided" campaigns risk severely damaging a vital domestic food production sector by misleading the public and pressuring retailers to boycott British-caught fish.

The unified message from the fishing industry is a call for a more balanced and evidence-based discussion, urging for an end to what they term "sensationalist" and "celebrity-led" campaigns that threaten the livelihoods of coastal communities across the nation.

Latest octopus bloom action from the MMO.

 

Southwest Octopus Bloom - Update 02 June 2025 Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is aware of an octopus bloom which is occurring in the southwest, most prominently in ICES division 7.e. Concerns have been raised by industry members regarding the impacts being observed in shellfish fisheries and effects on stocks in the surrounding areas.

MMO recently met with fisheries managers and scientists to discuss the bloom and the issues and opportunities it may bring and consider potential actions required.

Octopus is included in the Channel Demersal Non-Quota Species Fisheries Management Plan, due to their increasing abundance in the South West English Channel. Short term measures for Octopus are to monitor catches and designing a research plan for gathering data and considering management of the fishery. MMO have been collating landings information, and research into the viability of a UK Octopus fishery is being developed. To improve the evidence base MMO have produced species ID cards for Common, Horned and Curled octopus, to support better reporting of landings, these ID cards are available upon request at local MMO offices.

We are continuing conversations with industry representatives to explore ways to support those sections of industry affected by the octopus bloom. A meeting with industry representatives has been scheduled for 6 June and we will update stakeholders with the outcomes of our discussions.

Can crawfish keep crawling!

The 2024-2025 seasonal closure consultation with Defra has concluded 

Detail of outcome

Having considered the consultation responses, scientific and environmental evidence, socio-economic impacts and relevant legislation and policy, MMO will introduce a closure of the crawfish fishery for all UK and EU vessels in:

English waters of ICES area 7 from 16 December 2024 to 31 May 2025 (inclusive). This closure length will protect berried and juvenile crawfish whilst balancing socio-economic considerations and allowing the shellfish industry time to adapt business processes.

Further information on a summary of responses received and reasoning behind the decision is available in the decision document.

What happens next?

The closure will be enacted by a licence variation.

The variation included a prohibition to all vessels fishing, retaining on board, storing or landing crawfish from 16 December 2024 to 31 May 2025 (inclusive) in English waters of ICES area 7.

The full story behind the decirion making porcess can be followed here.  

Monday morning in Newlyn

It's a long way up from the deck of a punt after a 5am start this morning...

there's big crabbers and small crabbers...

landing the morning's catch, and one of tise boxes just has the paperwork...

they're heading west, this one caught not far from Mousehole - there was an update from the MMO the other day:  

Southwest Octopus Bloom - The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is aware of an octopus bloom which is occurring in the southwest, most prominently in ICES division 7e. Concerns have been raised by industry members regarding the impacts being observed in shellfish fisheries and effects on stocks in the surrounding areas.

MMO recently met with fisheries managers and scientists to discuss the bloom and the issues and opportunities it may bring and consider potential actions required.

Octopus is included in the Channel Demersal Non-Quota Species Fisheries Management Plan, due to their increasing abundance in the South West English Channel. Short term measures for Octopus are to monitor catches and designing a research plan for gathering data and considering management of the fishery. MMO have been collating landings information, and research into the viability of a UK Octopus fishery is being developed. To improve the evidence base MMO have produced species ID cards for Common, Horned and Curled octopus, to support better reporting of landings, these ID cards are available upon request at local MMO offices.

We are continuing conversations with industry representatives to explore ways to support those sections of industry affected by the octopus bloom. A meeting with industry representatives has been scheduled for 6 June and we will update stakeholders with the outcomes of our discussions....

most of the visiting the Scottish prawn boats land their whitefish on the market...

and a few fresh langoustine...

mid-tide landings of hake from the Ygraine...

Stelissa...

Britannia V...

and Silver Dawn...

and there's no escaping dogs for the netters it seems...

head-on monk...

even the Scottish boats with their much larger trawls pick up vey few cod these days..

more dogs...

still doing it by hand, if only there was was a grading machine for mackerel and other small fish...

the crawfish season is well underway...

and turbot...

the odd big monk can still be caught on the banks west of Scilly...

landing time...

for the big crabber...

the latest batch of Douglas fir fenders have arrived...

another punt on the slip for an out-of-water MCA inspection...

Padstow registered crabber, Isabella is a fine looking boat...

but dwarfed by the visiting Scottish scalloper, Alcedo.

 

EU fisheries/trade deal - a reminder of the CFPO's position a few months ago!

CFPO Position Paper March 2025

For the attention of: UK Government Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

This paper outlines what is at stake in the forthcoming TCA negotiations and proposes how improvements to the current deal could be obtained that would benefit the fishing sectors in both the UK and EU.

The Context

The UK/EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement was concluded on Christmas Eve 2020. Fishing rights were amongst the last items to be settled, indicating that they were a political priority for both sides.

In order to secure the wider benefits of a UK/EU trade deal the UK conceded a number of red lines on fisheries, including:

Abandoning an exclusive 12-mile exclusive limit to cover UK coastal waters – which, broadly speaking is an international norm

Agreeing to UK quota shares which although slightly increased for some stocks, failed to align with the principle of zonal attachment, leaving the gross mismatch through which throughout the period of the UK’s membership of the EU, EU fleets had taken the lions’ share of the catch in UK waters

The additional quota granted to the UK under the TCA, was not only a fraction of what the concept of zonal attachment would justify but was for a small number of species which for the most part brought limited economic advantage to the UK. It is not insignificant that zonal attachment is an international norm when allocating fish stocks which span more than one exclusive economic zone, and in fact has formed the basis of the EU’s own fisheries agreement with Norway that has stood for more than 40 years.

The UK’s ambitions in its negotiations with the EU were therefore not in the slightest bit outlandish, but were in line with international law (UNCLOS) and aimed to rebalance an asymmetric, exploitative, relationship between the UK and the EU on fisheries that had been in place since the UK joined the EEC in 1975.

In the 2020 negotiations, the EU naturally resisted this change which had brought the fishing industries in a range of EU member states so many benefits, that might otherwise expect to accrue to the UK.

Aside from conceding access rights to the EU, and quota shares that reflect historic patterns rather than the UK’s legal entitlement, the TCA is significant for important legal changes:

The TCA means that both parties have regulatory autonomy within their respective EEZs. The UK is no longer subject to the Common Fisheries Policy (except insofar as it has voluntarily opted to retain elements of EU fisheries legislation) and the European Court of Justice. The powers to set quotas and manage fisheries in UK waters are now vested with UK ministers through the Fisheries Act 2020. The devolution settlement is dealt with through Joint Fisheries Statements Negotiations each autumn for an annual bilateral UK/EU fisheries agreement, which acknowledges the fact that many of the stocks fished in both UK and EU waters are shared, which requires a degree of common management particularly in setting total allowable catches Tonnage limits placed on the exploitation of some 200 non-quota stocks, some of which have high economic value and many which have low economic value. The tonnage limits (which have subsequently been found to be an unworkable concept) reflect the historic access that EU fleets have held to fish in UK waters. Significance of 2026

The significance of 2026 is that the transitional arrangements in the TCA, covering reciprocal access rights to each other’s waters expire in June of that year. From 2026, reciprocal access will become part of the annual negotiations process. Importantly, the UK could after that date and with important caveats, seek to leverage additional quota from the EU in return for access for EU fleets to fish in UK waters. One important caveat is that within the terms of the TCA, if such a development was to result in socio- economic disadvantage to EU fleets, proportionate countermeasures may legally be taken by the EU, including the imposition of trade tariffs and possibly other disincentives.

Unfinished Business

Fishermen on their way into the House of commons to argue the case for an exclusive 12 mile limit - in 1980 

6-12-mile limit

At present, under the TCA, UK vessels have the exclusive right to fish within the 0-6nm zone, whilst a list of named EU vessels are licenced to fish within parts of the UK 6- 12nm zone, including the south and southwest coast and Bristol Channel. Although the economic benefit of this access is limited (France, the main EU member state whose vessels fish in UK coastal waters, is estimated to take only around 1% of its catch within the UK 6-12nm zone), the presence of large EU vessels operating within this area impedes the sustainable management of a range of stocks of importance to the UK inshore fleets.

It is recognised internationally that an exclusive 12-mile limit is a prerequisite for the rational management of the vulnerable coastal zone. For this reason alone, it should therefore be close to the top of the UK’s priorities in the forthcoming UK/EU negotiations.

Quota Shares

The vast gulf between what the UK might reasonably expect under the principle of zonal attachment and its current shares under the TCA, and the difficulties faced because acute shortage of quota, ensures that this will remain as a potentially toxic issue between the UK and the EU into the future. Different governments may afford different political priority to the issue but it will not go away until something closer to equity is achieved.

EU Perspective

Understandably, given the stakes during the 2020 negotiations, the EU afforded high priority to maintaining the advantages that remaining EU member states had secured under the Common Fisheries Policy. The inbuilt advantage to the EU, in terms of automatic access to the UK’s EEZ (principle of equal access) and quota shares (principle of relative stability) meant that the EU invested large amounts of political capital in retaining the status quo. As a result, automatic access for EU fleets was maintained and a shift to quota shares more closely aligned with zonal attachment, was severely constrained in the TCA.

On the other hand, the UK now has regulatory autonomy reflecting sovereignty over UK waters. Over time measures adopted by the UK may impact on the operations of EU vessels fishing within the UK EEZ. Furthermore, there is potential in the annual bilateral negotiations for the UK to use access to the UK EEZ as leverage for additional quota. This potential for instability is a major concern to the EU, as is the scope for the UK to use its regulatory autonomy to constrain EU vessels fishing activities in various ways. (The referral of the UK’s prohibition for fishing for sandeels in UK waters to arbitration in the Hague will be a pivotal test case).

On fisheries, therefore, the EU might be expected to seek to:

• Secure guaranteed access to fish in UK waters for periods longer than one year 

• Resist any attempt by the UK to revisit the quota allocation keys set in the TCA 

• Obtain a more formal seat at the table as the UK develops its fisheries management plans as an alternative to EU retained law Constituencies

Defra, under reserved powers will take the lead in the forthcoming negotiations but will be cognisant of the interests of the different constituent parts of the UK under the devolution settlement.

Likewise, the EU is not a unitary state, and especially in fisheries negotiations faces a challenge of coordinating the different interests within the member states. France, holding the greatest advantage from the status quo (both under the CFP and TCA) can be expected to lobby hardest for its interests. Ireland, which took the brunt of quota distribution despite being the member state which contributes most in terms of waters and resources, can be expected to remain disgruntled.

CFPO Perspective

Prior to the TCA negotiations, the UK fishing industry (National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and Scottish Fishermen’s Federation) agreed a set of high-level objectives:

Reciprocal access and quota shares to be decided within the context of annual fisheries negotiations.

• Zonal attachment to be the guiding principle for quota shares 

• The exercise of regulatory autonomy within the UK EE 

• An exclusive 12-mile limit to protect coastal fisheries 

• Minimise impediments to market access

We see no reason to revise those objectives as we approach the 2026 negotiations.

Non-Quota Species: Although there were good reasons to place limits on catches of non-quota species at the time the TCA was signed, the current regime based on tonnage limits for non-quota species is not fit for purpose and it is difficult to see how it could ever work, given the widely differing number of species and values concerned. Progress should continue to be made in designing and adopting multi-annual strategies for the most valuable stocks concerned, whilst the overall advantage that the EU obtains from catching non-quota species in UK waters should be priced into the negotiations on access.

Compromise

Negotiations are negotiations and realists recognise that opening positions are just that, opening positions, and that to secure a deal compromise by both parties will be required. It makes no sense to flag in advance where the UK might be willing to compromise to secure overall advantage but we can see a space for discussion where:

Reciprocal access for EU fleets for a defined period longer than a year might be agreed in return for commensurate concessions Without sacrificing regulatory autonomy, a forum might be established for UK/EU discussions on a dynamic coordinated approach to fisheries management issues on which the EU has a privileged partnership position (possibly under the aegis of the Specialised Committee on Fisheries). Where domestic fisheries policy (UK fisheries management plans, dovetails with international obligations on the rational management of shared stocks is a vitally important – but so far largely untested area) In return, the UK would be granted,

An exclusive 12-mile limit, for those parts of the UK coast where this is important Without necessarily revisiting the TCA allocation keys, annual or multi-annual transfer of additional quota to the UK on those stocks where there is a demonstrable and acute shortage (for example where the landing obligation creates “chokes” Broader Picture

Both the UK and the EU are committed to sustainable fishing and any agreement would naturally honour those principles. The changes in the marine environment from warming seawater temperatures requires, however, a much more agile regulatory response and understanding of the process in train than has been the case to date. Likewise, the potential for displacement of fishing activities arising from management measures within marine protected areas and the expansion of offshore renewables requires a level of effective cooperation and coordination, irrespective of regulatory autonomy.

At the same time, fishing policy is not immune or insulated from the changing political priorities across the UK, the EU and indeed across the globe. What is indisputable is that food security will remain a central priority and it is within this broader context that the forthcoming negotiations should be approached.

All this suggests that the UK/EU fisheries relationship requires a flexibility and a level of goodwill that is difficult to achieve whilst the UK remains trapped within a neo-colonial and exploitative relationship. Steps in the direction suggested above would:

Afford the EU fleets greater security and a reasonable degree of influence over management measures in UK waters (without surrendering regulatory autonomy of sovereignty) Provide a stronger basis for sustainable fisheries management within the sensitive coastal zone Bring a degree of relief to those UK fisheries where quota shortages remain acute Lay the foundations for a stronger joint collaboration in facing significant management challenges ahead

Conclusion

It is not difficult to see the forthcoming negotiations as a zero-sum game. If, however, space can be identified through which both parties can emerge with something of significant benefit to them, the outcome could be judged a success that lays the foundation for a more stable, less toxic, and more flexible fisheries relationship.

Thursday eveing into the first #FishyFriday in June

Late Thursday afternoon; at the beginning of the sailing season the yachts are noticeably larger and often come from further afield...

one of the regular visiting Spanish flagged boats just landed...

the award winning lugger Barnabas is looking very spruce...

it's  a wrap for the Ocean Vision...

one of several visiting Scottish boats working their heavy prawn gear...

that consign their frozen-at-sea langoustine straight to the road...

smaller yachts get to be...

lifted into the water from Sandy Cove boatyard...

Friday morning and most of the fleet are at sea...

but not all...

the market has a good mix of fish including some summer scallops...

in-season megrim sole from the beramers that landed...

and a few JDs from Tom on the Guardian...

red mullet...

and monk top the quality fish landings...

while the octopus bloom shows...

shows no signs of diminishing...

as the morning's fish are cleared quickly away...

Marie Claire landing at the market...

astern of one of the port's smallest boats, Torri Gwynt.

 

Back to the Future?

 

Exclusive 12 mile limit - what 12 mile limit?

The NFFO has given its opinion of the Europe Trade & Cooperation AgreementTrade and Cooperation Agreement - and it doesn't make good reading:

"A new deal with the EU drags UK fishing back into a past we thought had been left behind, as fishing communities’ prospects are traded away yet again.

Our industry has been much in the public eye and in the news this week, as the UK and the EU reached a new deal on fisheries matters. A summit in London that had been billed as the start of a process of revisiting our post-Brexit relationship turned out also to be the end of it. Hurried talks behind the scenes had already ended in agreement. History repeated itself, as the EU again pushed for more concessions on fishing at the last possible moment and the UK again lost its nerve: caving in to pressure so that its government could announce a quickly done deal.

The deal reached in the 1970s, when the UK joined the EU, restricted the ability of British fishing boats to work in their own waters, while giving that right to European fishermen. The result was a huge decline in the British fishing industry and the start of a long period of economic hardship in coastal communities. European fleets, meanwhile, were helped to thrive: growing beyond the ability of their own waters to support them and becoming massively dependent on the freedom to take resources from Britain’s seas.

When we left the EU, there was very little immediate change for Britain’s fishermen, to their intense disappointment. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement that set the scene for relations between the UK and the EU allowed the previous situation to continue unchecked for another five years. We may have left the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, but its boats could still work in our waters, up to the inshore line 6 miles from the coast.

The one saving grace in this otherwise bleak picture was the promise that, after five more years of business as usual, the UK would again be able to control access to its own waters. From 2026, access for European boats to UK would be negotiated on an annual basis. The same relationship that both the UK and EU already have with Norway, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands would apply between them as well.

The ability to determine who will fish in your national waters is a significant benefit to any nation, and a prerequisite for being considered an independent coastal state. Those other North Atlantic nations use that power to strengthen their hand in the annual negotiations over quotas and total allowable catches from the various fish stocks that they share.

Just as the UK was about to acquire that power for the first time in more than 50 years, our government has surrendered it.

They have agreed that EU boats can continue fishing freely in UK waters for the next 12 years. Instead of adding that vital card to our hand in the annual fisheries negotiations, we have given it to the other player and the UK fishing industry has received nothing of value in return.

The NFFO, in conjunction with UKAFPO, had been speaking to the government about the renegotiation of the TCA for some months. Knowing that the EU would want a multi-year deal on access to our waters, we suggested ways in which this negotiation could achieve benefits for our industry. Our negotiators could have insisted that European boats operate only outside of 12 miles from our coast. They could have used the leverage offered by the power to grant or decline access to obtain more quota for the British fishing fleet, to rebalance the unjust and inequitable distribution that has restricted our industry since the 1970s. They could have insisted on better collaboration on the management of non-quota species. They could have done any of this and more, but in the end did none of it, instead giving away the single best tool we will ever have for improving the lives of fishermen and fishing communities.

The prime minister and others have been determined to say that the fishing industry has not lost anything through this deal. They talk about it as a rollover of the existing arrangement, as though nothing has really changed. The reality is quite different.

If nothing had changed, the 2020 agreement would still be in force; the UK would soon have the power to decide annually who could access its waters; and benefits for the UK could be negotiated from anyone wanting to be granted that right. Instead, when the EU demanded to not have to abide by the deal it signed up to five years ago, our government capitulated to that demand and changed the deal.

Moreover, it would be quite untrue to say that the UK’s fishermen lost nothing from this change.

They lost the prospect of becoming more like the fishermen of Iceland, Norway and the Faroes: whose governments use access to national waters to secure them a better outcome from annual quota negotiations.

They lost the most straightforward and direct route to kickstarting sustainable growth in the UK’s fishing sector.

They lost the possibility of starting to remedy a 50 year-long injustice that has consistently disadvantaged fishermen and held back their communities.

They lost hope.

It has been suggested that access to our waters for the next 12 years was traded in return for an agreement to make exporting food and agricultural products between the UK and the EU simpler and less costly. Some have tried to claim that this will benefit the fishing industry, as though there was not already a good trade in fish and shellfish between the UK and the EU. True, that trade became more difficult after Brexit, but exporters adapted to the new systems and trade resumed.

No doubt trade in some products will become easier under this new agreement, but that is expected mostly to benefit supermarkets and exporters. It is completely fanciful to suggest that these merchants and wholesalers will pass any savings from the new system all the way down the supply chain to the men and women who actually catch the fish. Europe’s importers and consumers may benefit from being able to demand lower prices from those they buy from in the UK, but Britain’s fishermen are unlikely to see a penny.

In an attempt to deny this reality, much has been made of the fact that salmon and bivalve mollusc exports to the EU will now be easier, as though this were somehow a benefit to fishermen. These, of course, are farmed animals. In terms of trade, fish farming has no more in common with wild capture fisheries than sheep farming does. Commentators with no experience of the fishing industry who continually insist otherwise demonstrate only that their ignorance is matched by their arrogance.

The most comical attempt to pretend that fishermen will be happy with this deal has been the suggestion that giving away access to our waters provides them with ‘certainty’ and ‘stability’ that they welcome. I suppose knowing with absolute certainty that you are going to get nothing out of a deal every year is a stable situation. It’s not a very desirable one, though. Doctors describe a patient’s condition as ‘stable’ when no change is expected. That, of course, is precisely why we are so angry.

Some who seek to defend the indefensible have gone even further: criticising the UK fishing industry, as though we had asked for something unreasonable and been rightly denied it. Such dismissals of fishing generally centre around the idea that our industry is small: an insignificant contributor to GDP and therefore reasonably and justifiably surrendered to increase profitability elsewhere. Fishing’s importance is minimised by describing the industry’s value only in terms of the price that fishermen receive for the catch that they land. All the other supporting trades and industries that depend entirely on that catch for their continued existence are ignored. All of the jobs in ports and fish markets; the engineers, ship builders, and hauliers; manufacturers of fishing gear and safety equipment; processors, retailers and restaurants – all these and more are ignored. Economic analysis of the Cornish fishing fleet, for example, has suggested that the seafood sector there supports 15 jobs on land for every fisherman at sea. Even if we look only at those people who work on the deck of a boat producing food, there are still around 11,000 of them. However much outsiders may want to diminish the importance fishing, it surely feels very important to those 11,000 families depending on it. For the commentators so keen to see fishing traded away to benefit a different sector, other people’s livelihoods are evidently a price they are willing to pay. They should have the honesty to admit that fact, rather deploying rhetorical tricks to pretend that fishing communities are simply too small to count.

This is not to say that nothing positive was announced for fishing this week. A fishing and coastal communities fund has been announced, worth £360 million, and this clearly has the potential to do some real good. As always, however, the devil is in the detail. The total sum appears to be based on a £30 million grant for each of the 12 years of access to British waters that has been surrendered to the EU. European boats use that access to take £450m-£500m of fish from UK waters every year. It is hardly an equal exchange. Moreover, if the plan is to give that money out in annual instalments, we must have real concerns about whether the fund will survive the two general elections (at least) and numerous government spending reviews that will inevitably take place over that time period.

The most important question is what exactly that money will be spent on. We have seen promises like this in the past, most notably the £100 million support fund for fisheries that was supposed to follow Britain’s exit from the EU. Very little of that sum ever materialised in a form that was accessible to fishermen. We hope that this government will work more closely with fishermen and their representatives, to ensure that this money goes directly to help an industry that has just seen its best hope for future growth and security given away. All doubts aside, the government has signalled that it wants to work with us by creating this fund and we can only take their intentions at face value and accept that opportunity.

For now, we wait to see exactly what is being offered and also to see the precise terms of the agreement has been reached with the EU. The fine details of that deal are still unknown, but it is the job of parliament to scrutinise the activity of government and so we will presumably know more when our elected representatives are shown the terms of the proposal and debate them. On Tuesday, the prime minister did not respond when asked how parliament would have its say on the fisheries portion of this deal, which is not reassuring. Nevertheless, he had previously promised that “none of this can go through without legislation”, so we can assume that the full and frank scrutiny that is the purpose of parliament will occur, so that the rest of us can understand exactly what it is that our government has done and how it will affect us in the future.

Life and business will go on for fishermen and the communities they support. We have lost much of what little was gained when we left the European Union, but we have not lost our pride in the fundamental and necessary things that our industry does. We provide food, jobs, and the continuation of a long and honourable heritage. These are things that matter far more to people who live on our coasts than some of those who work in Westminster appear to appreciate. Indeed, if the messages of support that have poured into the NFFO this week are anything to go by, they matter very much to a lot of people, all over the UK.

Those who have been so quick to dismiss and diminish us this week should perhaps reflect on that."

Full story courtesy of the NFFO website.