AT the height of the foot-and-mouth crisis, a widespread view in the countryside was that the outbreak was a fiendish Government plot. The motive, according to the earliest theory, was revenge for the Tory bashing of the miners. This gave way to a conviction that the outbreak had been engineered to reduce the number of farmers.

Utterly preposterous of course. But William Hague, then Tory leader, was probably acknowledging these bizarre views when he referred in the Commons to the "deep suspicion'' in the countryside about the origin of the outbreak. At any rate, that's my "deep suspicion''.

It's now strange to find a member of Mr Hague's own party, a neighbouring MP to boot, uttering words which, if coming from the Government, would be seized on as proof that the Government instigated foot-and-mouth. For David Curry, MP for Skipton and Ripon, has delivered an astonishing attack on what he calls "dog-and-stick farmers''.

That is how Mr Curry categorises "half" of Britain's upland farmers. And their reliance on a dog and stick isn't their only handicap. Most are over 50 and, worse, have "no qualifications''.

So what should these ageing, ignorant, out-of-date farmers do? "The compensation for foot-and-mouth is generous and represents the best chance for many of them to make an honourable exit,'' declares Mr Curry.

If the Minister for Rural Affairs, which embraces farming, had said this, the Government would be in the dock. Mr Curry's views still carry weight because he is chairman of a Commons select committee on rural affairs. Hopefully, his colleagues will tell him he has got the wrong end of the stick - and probably the dog too.

Dog-and-stick farming represents the non-intensive face of agriculture that most people now agree needs to be encouraged. Dog-and-stick farmers are already more likely than their agri-business counterparts to be into tourism and conservation, which Mr Curry himself says must join farming in the broad concept of "countryside stewardship''.

The larger the farm, the bigger role will food production probably play on it. Certainly, ranching the uplands, emptying the hills and dales of farming families, whose houses, gentrified and minus all their former activity, then become holiday cottages or second homes, will rip the social heart out of the countryside and not improve the landscape one jot. With or without "qualifications", dog-and-stick farmers give us much of the best of our countryside. We should be cherishing them, not urging them into extinction.

Many readers, perhaps even most, will remember when the remission on a prison sentence was one third. Margaret Thatcher, that renowned law-and-order zealot, increased it to a half. Now, the time served is due to be cut again. A pilot scheme just launched in London encourages courts to reduce sentences by about ten cent for criminals, including those who commit burglary and assault, willing to apologise to their victims and do ten hours of community or charity work. Known as Restorative Justice, it will probably make Britain's courts our best acting school.

Published: Wednesday, October 03, 2001