FARMERS, landowners, animal welfare groups (even the RSPCA) and countryside lovers are combining in a rare alliance to try to persuade the Government from embarking on their plan to slaughter healthy sheep and lambs.

The move which has brought about this "rural revolt" is aimed at halting the spread of foot-and-mouth disease, currently savaging the countryside and country economy.

Agriculture Minister Nick Brown is robust in his defence of what many see to be a radical change of policy, stating that it is merely an extension of the measures that are required to keep ahead of the crisis. "We have it under control", he was reported to have said last week, and this was supported by some of his colleagues.

But there are many who are yet to be convinced and think that this is just yet another example of U-turning.

This is probably because within each Government statement there is, what is now becoming all-too regularly, a little ambiguity. Some might call it "spin". But, whatever, it forced Mr Brown into an apology and an embarrassing retraction in the Commons last week.

A further U-turn, sorry, amplification of policy, came from Messrs Brown and Meacher. The former gave the loud and clear message: "Stay away from the countryside, do not cross gates, do not collect any virus". So what happened? People (mostly) obeyed the edict and the country tourism industry instantly became a non-industry. Foul was cried and Mr Michael Meacher, put in charge of a foot-and-mouth task force at short notice by Mr Blair, was soon saying: "We did not mean do not go to the country - go there, stay there, but do not venture outside your hotel door.

Well, whatever this week's news brings, we are certain that the people of Worcestershire will be paying the price of this Governmental inexactitude, be it in agriculture, tourism, over the shop counter or merely in "not being able to walk the dog" terms.

No wonder that the rural pressure groups are massing in revolt.