A town called indifference chickens out of taking a stand

Monday, January 14th, 2008

Watching last week’s final instalment of Hugh’s Chicken Run, I had to wonder if the residents of the town of Axminster had any idea of the image they were presenting of themselves and their town. Probably not. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall managed to increase the town’s consumption of free range chicken to 60% of one week’s total chicken sales, but I doubt the percentage would have been anywhere near the same just one week later, let alone a month or a year on.

The focus of a camera lens always distorts, but the overall impression the show gave of Axminster was of a town I would not like to visit, let alone live in; the number of narrow-minded, wilfully ignorant and self-justifying people who were interviewed was downright depressing. Viewers were treated—if that’s the right word—to ranting pub-goers swilling pints while moaning about how little they have to spend (presumably beer is a necessity whereas animal welfare is optional), grunting fast food shop owners whose mathematical skills were non-existent when trying to calculate the cost of running a business where free-range was on the menu, and women who again trotted out the argument that cheap is the overriding concern when feeding their families, with little regard for the quality of the food they were buying or its origins. We were treated to a number of tirades that came across as idiotic or contrived—like the guy who said we shouldn’t care about animal welfare as long as people are starving in Africa. Oh, please. Isn’t it possible to concern yourself with both issues, and then some? Obviously not.

There were notable, wonderful exceptions—the lady who decided her fish and chip shop would henceforth be free-range after customers went out of their way to compliment the noticeably better quality of the food she was serving up; the butcher who made a point of offering free-range chicken alongside the standard variety. And then there were the allotment people, who seemed to truly learn something lasting and, for them, immensely valuable from their experience of raising chickens and later slaughtering them for the table.

Of the supermarkets, I was surprised at just how badly the Co-Op came across, ordering Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall not to enter the store; this behaviour coming from a company that trades on a reputation for promoting ethical standards in fair trade and in its banking arm, and takes part in Hebden Bridge’s ‘no plastic bags‘ initiative, was shocking. Tesco’s didn’t come across well either, which was unsurprising given the power the chain has, not only over our shopping habits but also our farmers’ devastatingly poor incomes. The store manager proved himself a bit silly at best, having a go at Fearnley-Whittingstall and throwing him out of the store only to later appear to have had a change of attitude (no doubt because his overlords got wind of his abuse of a celebrity chef recorded on film for the nation to see).

Sainsbury’s impressed me just a little bit. I never thought they’d actually go through with the promise the company’s representatives made to show videos of the different lives led by broiler chickens versus free-range right next to the chiller cabinet where chickens were for sale. It would be interesting to see that followed through nationally, as I am convinced it would directly impact on sales of broiler chickens and massively increase sales of free-range, assuming sufficient free-range chickens were provided for sale. One of the issues is clearly availability, and of course prices would quickly go down for the ethically sound stuff if these supermarkets found themselves unable to shift all the cheap chicken they put on the shelves.

But do I really think Sainsbury’s would roll out this visceral and truthful video ploy nationwide? No.

The local newspaper contributed to the received impression of Axminster as a dead-end town for dead-end people, with its unfair attack on Fearnley-Whittingstall, blaming him directly for house price inflation (yes, I was boggled by that as well). I really wouldn’t have been surprised if the celebrity chef had been hunted down by a mob and burned at the stake. You could almost imagine the editor of the paper being an old man with an axe to grind about nearly everything, in classic Victor Meldrew fashion. Whatever the truth, the local rag, along with most everything else, came across as horribly provincial.

I groaned at the game of Chinese Whispers being played out over the prices Fearnley-Whittingstall charged in his shop for free-range organic produce; it seemed people were far more willing to take the word of others than actually go find out anything for themselves. But then, the most popular newspaper in England is the Daily Mail, and people do believe what they read; the tabloid has devoted several articles since the series of programmes aired last week to trashing not only Fearnley-Whittingstall personally, presenting him as a liar, but attacking as ridiculous the very notion that intensive farming of chickens for eggs and meat is in any way cruel at all. I say let’s stick those journalists in small boxes for a year, living up to their necks in their own shit, and see what they have to say then.

For many people across the country these programmes were their only encounter with Axminster to date. At one point during the show I had to wonder, why do people live there if they’re all so damned unhappy? Are they just marking time, waiting to die? Axminster really needs do some serious public relations work to improve its image after the transmission of Hugh’s Chicken Run. It appears to be a town happily put down by its own residents and workers, who like nothing better than to moan about their lot and the ’state of the nation’. Give me a break. If you don’t like it, move elsewhere. Get some ambition, that might help.

Last week’s series of programmes will change and open far more minds than it will entrench the uncaring or self-excusing in their views and shopping habits. It’s just a shame that Axminster didn’t come across as being the place to start a revolution in care and compassion. Perhaps this is because the residents felt forgotten by the rest of the country, economically-deprived and in need of some care and compassion themselves before they can turn their attention to the plight of Britain’s intensively-farmed chickens; this might be so, and if it is the case, then some sympathy is called for. But Axminster isn’t the only town in Britain with low wages and poor employment prospects.

I do hope Axminster learns from the experience; it should, if it ever wants to attract people to visit and work in the area.