So Ive been through the press in France Germany Italy and Spain and none of them have reported on the world changing events surrounding Greg Wallace.
Do they understand nothing ?
Rather a sadly dismissive post. If a rather forward camp man pulled his todger out, his modesty covered only by a sock, because he thought it might attract your interest, I suspect you would be quite justifiably outraged. Is there a difference?
when did he have his todger out, the fantasies are escalating
Apparently he didn't it was covered by a sock. My mistake.
The thing is that these sorts of actions are on an escalating ladder. Today it is "todger out", but what about tomorrow or next week? When does flashing no longer satisfy and so the perpetrator moves up to assault or rape or murder?
Are we supposed to wait until it gets really, deadly serious?
Jermaine Jenas's feet didn't touch the ground for "sexting".How the hell did Wallace keep his presenting role after claims were made about his behaviour in 2018? Moving on from your point this was only a handful of years after Savile. I am not suggesting a parallel, however it does seem blind eyes remain blind to national treasures.
We're setting the bar very very low if Greg Wallace is a national treasure. I don't mean to join the pile-on here. He was no worae a broadcaster than many. But he's hardly Joanna Lumley.
Our local Masterchef finalist insists that he is utterly charming and better than anyone else at putting people at their ease when trying to deal with the stress of the Masterchef kitchen.
My wife says we are to cancel our TV licence if he is kicked out.
What I am fascinated by is who thinks constantly talking about how you like to do your shagging to every person you meet is what they want to hear? He sounds like Jay from the Inbetweeners when made to his 50s.
So Ive been through the press in France Germany Italy and Spain and none of them have reported on the world changing events surrounding Greg Wallace.
Do they understand nothing ?
Rather a sadly dismissive post. If a rather forward camp man pulled his todger out, his modesty covered only by a sock, because he thought it might attract your interest, I suspect you would be quite justifiably outraged. Is there a difference?
when did he have his todger out, the fantasies are escalating
Apparently he didn't it was covered by a sock. My mistake.
The thing is that these sorts of actions are on an escalating ladder. Today it is "todger out", but what about tomorrow or next week? When does flashing no longer satisfy and so the perpetrator moves up to assault or rape or murder?
Are we supposed to wait until it gets really, deadly serious?
Jermaine Jenas's feet didn't touch the ground for "sexting".How the hell did Wallace keep his presenting role after claims were made about his behaviour in 2018? Moving on from your point this was only a handful of years after Savile. I am not suggesting a parallel, however it does seem blind eyes remain blind to national treasures.
We're setting the bar very very low if Greg Wallace is a national treasure. I don't mean to join the pile-on here. He was no worae a broadcaster than many. But he's hardly Joanna Lumley.
Our local Masterchef finalist insists that he is utterly charming and better than anyone else at putting people at their ease when trying to deal with the stress of the Masterchef kitchen.
My wife says we are to cancel our TV licence if he is kicked out.
Mrs Foxy was rather scathing earlier about Wallace. Very much good riddance as far as she is concerned.
Just eat what you want, but vary and moderate your desires where possible.
You'll take more years off your life by worrying about what you're eating, and be unhappier. Most diets are just fads designed to take your money and make you unhappy.
That's easy to say, but not as easy to do.
We've rapidly moved from a state that existed for hundreds of thousands of years - relatively, or very, scarce food and intense physical activity to get it - to one where there is a large surplus of food, particularly food stuffed with sugar, an industry determined to sell as much food as possible, and sedentary working lives.
Put like that it's perhaps surprising that the obesity stats aren't way worse.
In particular a craving for high energy salty foods.
Obesity is a worldwide issue, rampant in the urban areas across Africa, Middle East and Asia.
Laissez-faire on diets isn't working, just look around next time you are in a High St or Supermarket.
One reason why exclusion diets like Bart's carnivore diet can work is that by heavily restricting the choice of food available you make food less interesting and it becomes harder to eat too many calories.
I experienced that for the very short period I was on a restricted diet before a colonoscopy. Steamed fish and plain rice is fine, as is grilled chicken breast and plain pasta, but they get really boring, really quickly. Grilled chicken is about 150 calories per 100g. So you'd need to eat about 1.7kg of chicken a day to meet your daily calorie requirement. I like chicken, but I'd find that hard to do because it would be so dull.
Now, I'm sure that Bart makes his meat tasty and interesting to eat in a variety of ways. I'm not saying he's someone with zero interest in food as a Dionysian pleasure. But essentially every approach to eating less food is one of self-denial, and so unless society can find a way to encourage people to cultivate self-denial as a virtue more generally, we shouldn't be surprised that people struggle with it, and that governments are turning to more heavy-handed approaches instead.
The thing with a carnivore-based diet (which allows eggs, dairy, cheese etc) is there's no shortage of tasty food to have and no guilt from having as much of it as you want.
So yes if I want a quick and simple meal I can do that, with eg tonight's meal being a quick and easy one after I got home from work of just chicken breast seasoned and thrown into the air fryer to cook for 15 minutes, with a side of black pudding added to the air fryer halfway through.
Though there's no shortage of interesting and tasty food available for me to have and to be honest the bits I'm cutting out primarily are the bits I'd be less interested in but previously felt obliged to have on top of the food I would want.
EG I used to love eating cheese and crackers, but now still eating the cheese but omitting the biscuits is no worse for me.
Most self-denial diets I've failed with because they're unsustainable. Personally I can sustain this one as I'm keeping the bits I love and dropping the bits I'm not too fussed with anyway.
What about drinks? Does alcohol count as carbs?
Alcohol is fine, it is its own macronutrient like protein, fat and carbs. There are some carbs in beer but you can have a couple of pints within your carb allowance with a keto diet.
Rum doesn't have any carbs.
* while often referred to as zero-carb, there are carbs contained within some processed meats especially, eg sausages, black pudding etc - the rule of thumb I aim to stick to is fewer than 20g of carbs per day.
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
The syrupy instant porridge perhaps is the wrong sort of cereal, but a lot of granola and muesli contains a lot of sugar.
Bloomin' doctors... telling us wot's healthy........
(21 posts remaining)
I don't really support this ban, but our carb heavy breakfast is a dangerous meal.
Ironically a food fand thought healthy when it originated in the USA.
Breakfast is a Dangerous Meal: Why You Should Ditch Your Morning Meal For Health and Wellbeing https://amzn.eu/d/hP1LPEj
Good to see you drop by, even if only briefly. PB is a poorer place without you.
Breakfast for me
2 weetabix plus blueberries plus coffee plus actimel blueberry
Just eat what you want, but vary and moderate your desires where possible.
You'll take more years off your life by worrying about what you're eating, and be unhappier. Most diets are just fads designed to take your money and make you unhappy.
That's easy to say, but not as easy to do.
We've rapidly moved from a state that existed for hundreds of thousands of years - relatively, or very, scarce food and intense physical activity to get it - to one where there is a large surplus of food, particularly food stuffed with sugar, an industry determined to sell as much food as possible, and sedentary working lives.
Put like that it's perhaps surprising that the obesity stats aren't way worse.
In particular a craving for high energy salty foods.
Obesity is a worldwide issue, rampant in the urban areas across Africa, Middle East and Asia.
Laissez-faire on diets isn't working, just look around next time you are in a High St or Supermarket.
One reason why exclusion diets like Bart's carnivore diet can work is that by heavily restricting the choice of food available you make food less interesting and it becomes harder to eat too many calories.
I experienced that for the very short period I was on a restricted diet before a colonoscopy. Steamed fish and plain rice is fine, as is grilled chicken breast and plain pasta, but they get really boring, really quickly. Grilled chicken is about 150 calories per 100g. So you'd need to eat about 1.7kg of chicken a day to meet your daily calorie requirement. I like chicken, but I'd find that hard to do because it would be so dull.
Now, I'm sure that Bart makes his meat tasty and interesting to eat in a variety of ways. I'm not saying he's someone with zero interest in food as a Dionysian pleasure. But essentially every approach to eating less food is one of self-denial, and so unless society can find a way to encourage people to cultivate self-denial as a virtue more generally, we shouldn't be surprised that people struggle with it, and that governments are turning to more heavy-handed approaches instead.
The thing with a carnivore-based diet (which allows eggs, dairy, cheese etc) is there's no shortage of tasty food to have and no guilt from having as much of it as you want.
So yes if I want a quick and simple meal I can do that, with eg tonight's meal being a quick and easy one after I got home from work of just chicken breast seasoned and thrown into the air fryer to cook for 15 minutes, with a side of black pudding added to the air fryer halfway through.
Though there's no shortage of interesting and tasty food available for me to have and to be honest the bits I'm cutting out primarily are the bits I'd be less interested in but previously felt obliged to have on top of the food I would want.
EG I used to love eating cheese and crackers, but now still eating the cheese but omitting the biscuits is no worse for me.
Most self-denial diets I've failed with because they're unsustainable. Personally I can sustain this one as I'm keeping the bits I love and dropping the bits I'm not too fussed with anyway.
What about drinks? Does alcohol count as carbs?
Alcohol is fine, it is its own macronutrient like protein, fat and carbs. There are some carbs in beer but you can have a couple of pints within your carb allowance with a keto diet.
Rum doesn't have any carbs.
* while often referred to as zero-carb, there are carbs contained within some processed meats especially, eg sausages, black pudding etc - the rule of thumb I aim to stick to is fewer than 20g of carbs per day.
Alcohol is composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen ... it's a carbohydrate.
On the topic, let us hope and pray this is how stays with the public.
Because one of the worst issues with Trump 2.0 win is that there are now loads of wild right-wingers in this country just inching to run a Trump-style 'Make Britain Great Again' campaign of lies and disinformation with a plan to destroy our own democracy. They think he's shown that's how you win.
Couldn't happen here etc etc?
Trump is a very unpleasant individual on a personal level. Voters might like his courseness, not care about it, or think he is worth it anyway, but I feel like we're less used to it, and a politician would have to be very very well liked to overcome distaste. So I think people trying to ape Trump will do badly - even in american many Trump wannabes have not done well.
True. Maybe he is unique. I hope so.
The UK has already had its "Trump" aka Boris.
Desperate for money, proven liar, adulterer, ignores the rules, only lightly in touch with reality, not really all that bright and on the political right.
I cannot seeing us electing a UK Trump no matter how many fascists and right-wing extremists spend their time frothing and yelling.
Boris is more the like British Trudeau. Testing late-stage liberalism to destruction.
Surely that was Liz Lettuce Truss?
Boris just lied to the electorate, promised to make Britain Great Again and then proved that he was an utter fantasist over and over again. The last estimate I heard was that UKplc was down about £140bn thanks to Boris, Farage and their merry men.
At least he never claimed that women liked to be grabbed by the pussy...
So Ive been through the press in France Germany Italy and Spain and none of them have reported on the world changing events surrounding Greg Wallace.
Do they understand nothing ?
Rather a sadly dismissive post. If a rather forward camp man pulled his todger out, his modesty covered only by a sock, because he thought it might attract your interest, I suspect you would be quite justifiably outraged. Is there a difference?
when did he have his todger out, the fantasies are escalating
Apparently he didn't it was covered by a sock. My mistake.
The thing is that these sorts of actions are on an escalating ladder. Today it is "todger out", but what about tomorrow or next week? When does flashing no longer satisfy and so the perpetrator moves up to assault or rape or murder?
Are we supposed to wait until it gets really, deadly serious?
Jermaine Jenas's feet didn't touch the ground for "sexting".How the hell did Wallace keep his presenting role after claims were made about his behaviour in 2018? Moving on from your point this was only a handful of years after Savile. I am not suggesting a parallel, however it does seem blind eyes remain blind to national treasures.
We're setting the bar very very low if Greg Wallace is a national treasure. I don't mean to join the pile-on here. He was no worae a broadcaster than many. But he's hardly Joanna Lumley.
Our local Masterchef finalist insists that he is utterly charming and better than anyone else at putting people at their ease when trying to deal with the stress of the Masterchef kitchen.
My wife says we are to cancel our TV licence if he is kicked out.
My older daughter and her mum love Gregg, and they barely agree on anything
He has quite a lot of fans who won’t like his crucifixion, justified or not
Just eat what you want, but vary and moderate your desires where possible.
You'll take more years off your life by worrying about what you're eating, and be unhappier. Most diets are just fads designed to take your money and make you unhappy.
That's easy to say, but not as easy to do.
We've rapidly moved from a state that existed for hundreds of thousands of years - relatively, or very, scarce food and intense physical activity to get it - to one where there is a large surplus of food, particularly food stuffed with sugar, an industry determined to sell as much food as possible, and sedentary working lives.
Put like that it's perhaps surprising that the obesity stats aren't way worse.
In particular a craving for high energy salty foods.
Obesity is a worldwide issue, rampant in the urban areas across Africa, Middle East and Asia.
Laissez-faire on diets isn't working, just look around next time you are in a High St or Supermarket.
Indeed. We eat a pile of utter shite in this country – and feed it to our children. Most 'low-fat' food is processed rubbish. Everything that comes in a box is laced with sugar, masquerading to be actual food. Ready meals are riddled with additives.
LOSE THE LANDFILL PACKAGING.
We are a sad nation of fussy eaters.
People need to learn to cook. And eat actual food. Meat, veg, fish, dairy. Actual food. Ban the junk 'food' advertising at all times. Adults are as bad as kids.
I might write a Knappers Gazette article on the Beauty of Backwaters
Places forgotten by time, transport and history that have - perhaps as a consequence - retained their charm. And they STILL have that sleepy quality
Mompos is a perfect example. It was important in its day. The Colombian Spanish nobility fled here to avoid the fierce English raids on the coast. Heh
And it was also a massively important trading port on the great river
But then it became a literal backwater as the river silted and then cars and roads etc
In Britain I would say all of Herefordshire. It is still weirdly hard to reach and as a result is arguably the loveliest most unspoiled county in England
Any others?
Newtown, on the island. Trashed by the French some time in the 1300s, never recovered, but kept its MP as a ‘rotten borough’ with just a handful of electors, through to the Reform Act. Now just a few houses at the end of a silted up estuary.
Acquilae, in Fruili, in Roman times one of the most important cities in the known world, trashed by the Huns, inhabitants fled off to the marshes and eventually founded Venice and Grado, of which you might have heard. Now just a string of under-visited Roman remains strung out along the side of a very straight road. With a pizza place opposite.
Cahokia, outside St Louis. Considered once to have been a major settlement, probably predating the ‘native’ Americans, now just a collection of mounds in a field.
Any of a collection of former gold rush towns in Colorado and California, such as Elmo, Cripple Creek or Leadville.
Some of the major Hanseatic trading towns, which time has passed by since trading interest switched to the Atlantic, such as Lubeck or Visby.
Italy has various towns abandoned after major earthquakes, such as old Noto in Sicily and Craco in Basilicata.
Dunwich on the east coast, which sunk beneath the waves.
Delphi in Greece, now just a small village
Tintagel in your home county; you don’t need the story.
Even my now home town, the place to be and be seen in Victorian times, with multiple steamers daily, outreach lectures by Oxford University in the summertime, and rocketing land prices. Now, not quite so hectic.
Or you could make a case for Amalfi - not sleepy or overlooked nowadays, but believed to have once been in the top ten most populous cities of the western world.
Mokpo in SW South Korea.
Way back when a strategic port - a base for legendary Admiral Yi Sun-sin's turtle fleet, in the long war against Japanese invasion. Later a busy entrepôt for the Japanese colonialists.
Now, like much of the southwest, a backwater.
I missed the SW entirely in my trip around Korea. On the list for next time (I also want to see Gwanju).
Just eat what you want, but vary and moderate your desires where possible.
You'll take more years off your life by worrying about what you're eating, and be unhappier. Most diets are just fads designed to take your money and make you unhappy.
That's easy to say, but not as easy to do.
We've rapidly moved from a state that existed for hundreds of thousands of years - relatively, or very, scarce food and intense physical activity to get it - to one where there is a large surplus of food, particularly food stuffed with sugar, an industry determined to sell as much food as possible, and sedentary working lives.
Put like that it's perhaps surprising that the obesity stats aren't way worse.
In particular a craving for high energy salty foods.
Obesity is a worldwide issue, rampant in the urban areas across Africa, Middle East and Asia.
Laissez-faire on diets isn't working, just look around next time you are in a High St or Supermarket.
One reason why exclusion diets like Bart's carnivore diet can work is that by heavily restricting the choice of food available you make food less interesting and it becomes harder to eat too many calories.
I experienced that for the very short period I was on a restricted diet before a colonoscopy. Steamed fish and plain rice is fine, as is grilled chicken breast and plain pasta, but they get really boring, really quickly. Grilled chicken is about 150 calories per 100g. So you'd need to eat about 1.7kg of chicken a day to meet your daily calorie requirement. I like chicken, but I'd find that hard to do because it would be so dull.
Now, I'm sure that Bart makes his meat tasty and interesting to eat in a variety of ways. I'm not saying he's someone with zero interest in food as a Dionysian pleasure. But essentially every approach to eating less food is one of self-denial, and so unless society can find a way to encourage people to cultivate self-denial as a virtue more generally, we shouldn't be surprised that people struggle with it, and that governments are turning to more heavy-handed approaches instead.
The thing with a carnivore-based diet (which allows eggs, dairy, cheese etc) is there's no shortage of tasty food to have and no guilt from having as much of it as you want.
So yes if I want a quick and simple meal I can do that, with eg tonight's meal being a quick and easy one after I got home from work of just chicken breast seasoned and thrown into the air fryer to cook for 15 minutes, with a side of black pudding added to the air fryer halfway through.
Though there's no shortage of interesting and tasty food available for me to have and to be honest the bits I'm cutting out primarily are the bits I'd be less interested in but previously felt obliged to have on top of the food I would want.
EG I used to love eating cheese and crackers, but now still eating the cheese but omitting the biscuits is no worse for me.
Most self-denial diets I've failed with because they're unsustainable. Personally I can sustain this one as I'm keeping the bits I love and dropping the bits I'm not too fussed with anyway.
What about drinks? Does alcohol count as carbs?
Alcohol is fine, it is its own macronutrient like protein, fat and carbs. There are some carbs in beer but you can have a couple of pints within your carb allowance with a keto diet.
Rum doesn't have any carbs.
* while often referred to as zero-carb, there are carbs contained within some processed meats especially, eg sausages, black pudding etc - the rule of thumb I aim to stick to is fewer than 20g of carbs per day.
Alcohol is composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen ... it's a carbohydrate.
Alcohol is not a carbohydrate, it is its own macronutrient.
Carbs have 4 calories per gram while alcohol is 7. They are different things and your body processes them differently.
Carbs are converted rapidly into blood sugar which is why they are so harmful for so many people and cause spike and crash cravings, alcohol is not the same thing at all.
Just eat what you want, but vary and moderate your desires where possible.
You'll take more years off your life by worrying about what you're eating, and be unhappier. Most diets are just fads designed to take your money and make you unhappy.
That's easy to say, but not as easy to do.
We've rapidly moved from a state that existed for hundreds of thousands of years - relatively, or very, scarce food and intense physical activity to get it - to one where there is a large surplus of food, particularly food stuffed with sugar, an industry determined to sell as much food as possible, and sedentary working lives.
Put like that it's perhaps surprising that the obesity stats aren't way worse.
In particular a craving for high energy salty foods.
Obesity is a worldwide issue, rampant in the urban areas across Africa, Middle East and Asia.
Laissez-faire on diets isn't working, just look around next time you are in a High St or Supermarket.
Indeed. We eat a pile of utter shite in this country – and feed it to our children. Most 'low-fat' food is processed rubbish. Everything that comes in a box is laced with sugar, masquerading to be actual food. Ready meals are riddled with additives.
LOSE THE LANDFILL PACKAGING.
We are a sad nation of fussy eaters.
People need to learn to cook. And eat actual food. Meat, veg, fish, dairy. Actual food. Ban the junk 'food' advertising at all times. Adults are as bad as kids.
"Cooking" is not difficult if you want to cook and be lazy about it.
Get meat, season meat, put meat in air fryer, turn air fryer on. When it beeps, take food out. Eat food. For best results turn it over halfway through.
This shift on immigration from Labour is really intriguing and the fact they’ve done it so early suggests they think it’s a major problem area but also one they feel they can tackle.
I do think if they manage to cut immigration next year and the next they’ll be perceived quite differently.
Another pig just flew past
Why are you so horrible to everyone? What have we ever done to you?
why are you such a wimp, as much chance of those dullards cutting immigration as me being pope.
The hat might suit you malc, "the hat maketh the man." Something like that anyway.
'Manners maketh man'
My music teacher sent me to detention many times (unfairly) and each time I had to write that 600 times
Isn't it makyth ?
1200 times please.
Seems unfair to insist on proper spelling for a saying with roots well before the first English dictionary.
I only got lines once.
One was "e.g.," x75 because I wrote it without the comma. It was x25 but I had done three of them.
That was a HISTORY teacher FFS. Who slightly resembled Mike Graham (see Jabba the Hutt), and who was known as "Slob".
There was something else I have forgotten on the same occasion.
When I was at boarding school I used to have a rather nice little line in dictating peoples' punishment essays for them. They would get, say, 1500 words on the tips of Robin Hood's arrows and they would come to me and I would dictate 1500 words exactly as fast as they could write so they didn't have to think at all for a modest fee. Looking back, maybe I was always preordained to be a court lawyer.
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
Whose turn is it next on The World's Gone To Shit show?
Why it's dear old France.
Welcome aboard mon frères!!!
It isn't really new though. The whole time Macron has been in office any small changes he has tried to make have been met with NON. And the country is perhaps even more split than the US, with the far left and the far right having sizable public backing.
It's quite a conservative budget, a mix of tax rises and spending cuts to try to bring the deficit down.
Rejecting it will not just bring political chaos but also financial. Not passing it also means no indexation of income tax thresholds so increases taxes significantly.
Both French far Left and far Right voted against. Trussites and Corbynites joining forces to cause chaos.
I might write a Knappers Gazette article on the Beauty of Backwaters
Places forgotten by time, transport and history that have - perhaps as a consequence - retained their charm. And they STILL have that sleepy quality
Mompos is a perfect example. It was important in its day. The Colombian Spanish nobility fled here to avoid the fierce English raids on the coast. Heh
And it was also a massively important trading port on the great river
But then it became a literal backwater as the river silted and then cars and roads etc
In Britain I would say all of Herefordshire. It is still weirdly hard to reach and as a result is arguably the loveliest most unspoiled county in England
Any others?
Newtown, on the island. Trashed by the French some time in the 1300s, never recovered, but kept its MP as a ‘rotten borough’ with just a handful of electors, through to the Reform Act. Now just a few houses at the end of a silted up estuary.
Acquilae, in Fruili, in Roman times one of the most important cities in the known world, trashed by the Huns, inhabitants fled off to the marshes and eventually founded Venice and Grado, of which you might have heard. Now just a string of under-visited Roman remains strung out along the side of a very straight road. With a pizza place opposite.
Cahokia, outside St Louis. Considered once to have been a major settlement, probably predating the ‘native’ Americans, now just a collection of mounds in a field.
Any of a collection of former gold rush towns in Colorado and California, such as Elmo, Cripple Creek or Leadville.
Some of the major Hanseatic trading towns, which time has passed by since trading interest switched to the Atlantic, such as Lubeck or Visby.
Italy has various towns abandoned after major earthquakes, such as old Noto in Sicily and Craco in Basilicata.
Dunwich on the east coast, which sunk beneath the waves.
Delphi in Greece, now just a small village
Tintagel in your home county; you don’t need the story.
Even my now home town, the place to be and be seen in Victorian times, with multiple steamers daily, outreach lectures by Oxford University in the summertime, and rocketing land prices. Now, not quite so hectic.
Or you could make a case for Amalfi - not sleepy or overlooked nowadays, but believed to have once been in the top ten most populous cities of the western world.
Newtown's really one of the hidden gems of the South Island IMV - a whole mediaeval town plan complete with a town hall in the middle of nowhere, just some derelict burgage plots and the odd house.
Just eat what you want, but vary and moderate your desires where possible.
You'll take more years off your life by worrying about what you're eating, and be unhappier. Most diets are just fads designed to take your money and make you unhappy.
That's easy to say, but not as easy to do.
We've rapidly moved from a state that existed for hundreds of thousands of years - relatively, or very, scarce food and intense physical activity to get it - to one where there is a large surplus of food, particularly food stuffed with sugar, an industry determined to sell as much food as possible, and sedentary working lives.
Put like that it's perhaps surprising that the obesity stats aren't way worse.
In particular a craving for high energy salty foods.
Obesity is a worldwide issue, rampant in the urban areas across Africa, Middle East and Asia.
Laissez-faire on diets isn't working, just look around next time you are in a High St or Supermarket.
One reason why exclusion diets like Bart's carnivore diet can work is that by heavily restricting the choice of food available you make food less interesting and it becomes harder to eat too many calories.
I experienced that for the very short period I was on a restricted diet before a colonoscopy. Steamed fish and plain rice is fine, as is grilled chicken breast and plain pasta, but they get really boring, really quickly. Grilled chicken is about 150 calories per 100g. So you'd need to eat about 1.7kg of chicken a day to meet your daily calorie requirement. I like chicken, but I'd find that hard to do because it would be so dull.
Now, I'm sure that Bart makes his meat tasty and interesting to eat in a variety of ways. I'm not saying he's someone with zero interest in food as a Dionysian pleasure. But essentially every approach to eating less food is one of self-denial, and so unless society can find a way to encourage people to cultivate self-denial as a virtue more generally, we shouldn't be surprised that people struggle with it, and that governments are turning to more heavy-handed approaches instead.
The thing with a carnivore-based diet (which allows eggs, dairy, cheese etc) is there's no shortage of tasty food to have and no guilt from having as much of it as you want.
So yes if I want a quick and simple meal I can do that, with eg tonight's meal being a quick and easy one after I got home from work of just chicken breast seasoned and thrown into the air fryer to cook for 15 minutes, with a side of black pudding added to the air fryer halfway through.
Though there's no shortage of interesting and tasty food available for me to have and to be honest the bits I'm cutting out primarily are the bits I'd be less interested in but previously felt obliged to have on top of the food I would want.
EG I used to love eating cheese and crackers, but now still eating the cheese but omitting the biscuits is no worse for me.
Most self-denial diets I've failed with because they're unsustainable. Personally I can sustain this one as I'm keeping the bits I love and dropping the bits I'm not too fussed with anyway.
What about drinks? Does alcohol count as carbs?
Alcohol is fine, it is its own macronutrient like protein, fat and carbs. There are some carbs in beer but you can have a couple of pints within your carb allowance with a keto diet.
Rum doesn't have any carbs.
* while often referred to as zero-carb, there are carbs contained within some processed meats especially, eg sausages, black pudding etc - the rule of thumb I aim to stick to is fewer than 20g of carbs per day.
Alcohol is composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen ... it's a carbohydrate.
Or is it that all carbohydrates are alcohols? Got hydroxyl groups.
*Dredges up ancient knowledge* maybe the hydroxyl group needs to be functional or something.
So Ive been through the press in France Germany Italy and Spain and none of them have reported on the world changing events surrounding Greg Wallace.
Do they understand nothing ?
Rather a sadly dismissive post. If a rather forward camp man pulled his todger out, his modesty covered only by a sock, because he thought it might attract your interest, I suspect you would be quite justifiably outraged. Is there a difference?
when did he have his todger out, the fantasies are escalating
Apparently he didn't it was covered by a sock. My mistake.
The thing is that these sorts of actions are on an escalating ladder. Today it is "todger out", but what about tomorrow or next week? When does flashing no longer satisfy and so the perpetrator moves up to assault or rape or murder?
Are we supposed to wait until it gets really, deadly serious?
Jermaine Jenas's feet didn't touch the ground for "sexting".How the hell did Wallace keep his presenting role after claims were made about his behaviour in 2018? Moving on from your point this was only a handful of years after Savile. I am not suggesting a parallel, however it does seem blind eyes remain blind to national treasures.
We're setting the bar very very low if Greg Wallace is a national treasure. I don't mean to join the pile-on here. He was no worae a broadcaster than many. But he's hardly Joanna Lumley.
Our local Masterchef finalist insists that he is utterly charming and better than anyone else at putting people at their ease when trying to deal with the stress of the Masterchef kitchen.
My wife says we are to cancel our TV licence if he is kicked out.
My older daughter and her mum love Gregg, and they barely agree on anything
He has quite a lot of fans who won’t like his crucifixion, justified or not
Just eat what you want, but vary and moderate your desires where possible.
You'll take more years off your life by worrying about what you're eating, and be unhappier. Most diets are just fads designed to take your money and make you unhappy.
That's easy to say, but not as easy to do.
We've rapidly moved from a state that existed for hundreds of thousands of years - relatively, or very, scarce food and intense physical activity to get it - to one where there is a large surplus of food, particularly food stuffed with sugar, an industry determined to sell as much food as possible, and sedentary working lives.
Put like that it's perhaps surprising that the obesity stats aren't way worse.
In particular a craving for high energy salty foods.
Obesity is a worldwide issue, rampant in the urban areas across Africa, Middle East and Asia.
Laissez-faire on diets isn't working, just look around next time you are in a High St or Supermarket.
Indeed. We eat a pile of utter shite in this country – and feed it to our children. Most 'low-fat' food is processed rubbish. Everything that comes in a box is laced with sugar, masquerading to be actual food. Ready meals are riddled with additives.
LOSE THE LANDFILL PACKAGING.
We are a sad nation of fussy eaters.
People need to learn to cook. And eat actual food. Meat, veg, fish, dairy. Actual food. Ban the junk 'food' advertising at all times. Adults are as bad as kids.
"Cooking" is not difficult if you want to cook and be lazy about it.
Get meat, season meat, put meat in air fryer, turn air fryer on. When it beeps, take food out. Eat food. For best results turn it over halfway through.
Not exactly culinary school.
Yes, I am really skeptical when I see claims that people don't know how to cook, or rather how that is presented as a difficult problem to overcome.
I don't cook often and often do not eat well, I literally had 3 pieces of vegemite toast for dinner. But when we have even a slight desire to make something it's easy to find something, well, easy to do. It isn't a lack of knowledge, it's a lack of will (and/or time).
Addressing that lack of will may be the harder problem, but it's not actually the same problem as not knowing how to cook.
So Ive been through the press in France Germany Italy and Spain and none of them have reported on the world changing events surrounding Greg Wallace.
Do they understand nothing ?
Rather a sadly dismissive post. If a rather forward camp man pulled his todger out, his modesty covered only by a sock, because he thought it might attract your interest, I suspect you would be quite justifiably outraged. Is there a difference?
when did he have his todger out, the fantasies are escalating
Apparently he didn't it was covered by a sock. My mistake.
The thing is that these sorts of actions are on an escalating ladder. Today it is "todger out", but what about tomorrow or next week? When does flashing no longer satisfy and so the perpetrator moves up to assault or rape or murder?
Are we supposed to wait until it gets really, deadly serious?
Jermaine Jenas's feet didn't touch the ground for "sexting".How the hell did Wallace keep his presenting role after claims were made about his behaviour in 2018? Moving on from your point this was only a handful of years after Savile. I am not suggesting a parallel, however it does seem blind eyes remain blind to national treasures.
We're setting the bar very very low if Greg Wallace is a national treasure. I don't mean to join the pile-on here. He was no worae a broadcaster than many. But he's hardly Joanna Lumley.
Our local Masterchef finalist insists that he is utterly charming and better than anyone else at putting people at their ease when trying to deal with the stress of the Masterchef kitchen.
My wife says we are to cancel our TV licence if he is kicked out.
My older daughter and her mum love Gregg, and they barely agree on anything
He has quite a lot of fans who won’t like his crucifixion, justified or not
I might write a Knappers Gazette article on the Beauty of Backwaters
Places forgotten by time, transport and history that have - perhaps as a consequence - retained their charm. And they STILL have that sleepy quality
Mompos is a perfect example. It was important in its day. The Colombian Spanish nobility fled here to avoid the fierce English raids on the coast. Heh
And it was also a massively important trading port on the great river
But then it became a literal backwater as the river silted and then cars and roads etc
In Britain I would say all of Herefordshire. It is still weirdly hard to reach and as a result is arguably the loveliest most unspoiled county in England
Any others?
Newtown, on the island. Trashed by the French some time in the 1300s, never recovered, but kept its MP as a ‘rotten borough’ with just a handful of electors, through to the Reform Act. Now just a few houses at the end of a silted up estuary.
Acquilae, in Fruili, in Roman times one of the most important cities in the known world, trashed by the Huns, inhabitants fled off to the marshes and eventually founded Venice and Grado, of which you might have heard. Now just a string of under-visited Roman remains strung out along the side of a very straight road. With a pizza place opposite.
Cahokia, outside St Louis. Considered once to have been a major settlement, probably predating the ‘native’ Americans, now just a collection of mounds in a field.
Any of a collection of former gold rush towns in Colorado and California, such as Elmo, Cripple Creek or Leadville.
Some of the major Hanseatic trading towns, which time has passed by since trading interest switched to the Atlantic, such as Lubeck or Visby.
Italy has various towns abandoned after major earthquakes, such as old Noto in Sicily and Craco in Basilicata.
Dunwich on the east coast, which sunk beneath the waves.
Delphi in Greece, now just a small village
Tintagel in your home county; you don’t need the story.
Even my now home town, the place to be and be seen in Victorian times, with multiple steamers daily, outreach lectures by Oxford University in the summertime, and rocketing land prices. Now, not quite so hectic.
Or you could make a case for Amalfi - not sleepy or overlooked nowadays, but believed to have once been in the top ten most populous cities of the western world.
Mokpo in SW South Korea.
Way back when a strategic port - a base for legendary Admiral Yi Sun-sin's turtle fleet, in the long war against Japanese invasion. Later a busy entrepôt for the Japanese colonialists.
Now, like much of the southwest, a backwater.
I missed the SW entirely in my trip around Korea. On the list for next time (I also want to see Gwanju).
I'd have added Cromarty (that I mentioned earlier) as it is out on the tip of a peninsula (the Black Isle) and was frozen c. 1830 with herring decline and bypassed by the railways. But it revived quite a bit with the Nigg fab yard nearby. Still, it's got lots of 18thc character and the location on the Firth is grand, with the oil platforms adding detail to the sea and mountain scape like harvesters in a Constable painting.
This shift on immigration from Labour is really intriguing and the fact they’ve done it so early suggests they think it’s a major problem area but also one they feel they can tackle.
I do think if they manage to cut immigration next year and the next they’ll be perceived quite differently.
Another pig just flew past
Why are you so horrible to everyone? What have we ever done to you?
He is a PB institution and certainly knows how to wind up Labour supporters
I thought Horse had gone some-variety-of-Conservative, or did I miss (or add) something?
Just eat what you want, but vary and moderate your desires where possible.
You'll take more years off your life by worrying about what you're eating, and be unhappier. Most diets are just fads designed to take your money and make you unhappy.
That's easy to say, but not as easy to do.
We've rapidly moved from a state that existed for hundreds of thousands of years - relatively, or very, scarce food and intense physical activity to get it - to one where there is a large surplus of food, particularly food stuffed with sugar, an industry determined to sell as much food as possible, and sedentary working lives.
Put like that it's perhaps surprising that the obesity stats aren't way worse.
In particular a craving for high energy salty foods.
Obesity is a worldwide issue, rampant in the urban areas across Africa, Middle East and Asia.
Laissez-faire on diets isn't working, just look around next time you are in a High St or Supermarket.
Indeed. We eat a pile of utter shite in this country – and feed it to our children. Most 'low-fat' food is processed rubbish. Everything that comes in a box is laced with sugar, masquerading to be actual food. Ready meals are riddled with additives.
LOSE THE LANDFILL PACKAGING.
We are a sad nation of fussy eaters.
People need to learn to cook. And eat actual food. Meat, veg, fish, dairy. Actual food. Ban the junk 'food' advertising at all times. Adults are as bad as kids.
"Cooking" is not difficult if you want to cook and be lazy about it.
Get meat, season meat, put meat in air fryer, turn air fryer on. When it beeps, take food out. Eat food. For best results turn it over halfway through.
Not exactly culinary school.
Yes, I am really skeptical when I see claims that people don't know how to cook, or rather how that is presented as a difficult problem to overcome.
I don't cook often and often do not eat well, I literally had 3 pieces of vegemite toast for dinner. But when we have even a slight desire to make something it's easy to find something, well, easy to do. It isn't a lack of knowledge, it's a lack of will (and/or time).
Addressing that lack of will may be the harder problem, but it's not actually the same problem as not knowing how to cook.
I think the willpower is the real bugbear not time.
We've cooked most of our meals for the past 14 years in the air fryer, long since before it was popular. That used to be niche, but has now become almost universal.
Most meals can be cooked in 15 minutes - and you don't need to remain in the kitchen for that time.
People who aren't cooking are not doing so by choice.
It's pretty astonishing. Are things really so polarised that it's not worth unanimity to stand against attempts to impose martial law? Why did the ruling party lawmakers who did turn up to vote it down even bother, if they don't care to impeach afterwards? Are there not some number who would think this crosses a line where party loyalty is not worth it?
Just eat what you want, but vary and moderate your desires where possible.
You'll take more years off your life by worrying about what you're eating, and be unhappier. Most diets are just fads designed to take your money and make you unhappy.
That's easy to say, but not as easy to do.
We've rapidly moved from a state that existed for hundreds of thousands of years - relatively, or very, scarce food and intense physical activity to get it - to one where there is a large surplus of food, particularly food stuffed with sugar, an industry determined to sell as much food as possible, and sedentary working lives.
Put like that it's perhaps surprising that the obesity stats aren't way worse.
In particular a craving for high energy salty foods.
Obesity is a worldwide issue, rampant in the urban areas across Africa, Middle East and Asia.
Laissez-faire on diets isn't working, just look around next time you are in a High St or Supermarket.
Indeed. We eat a pile of utter shite in this country – and feed it to our children. Most 'low-fat' food is processed rubbish. Everything that comes in a box is laced with sugar, masquerading to be actual food. Ready meals are riddled with additives.
LOSE THE LANDFILL PACKAGING.
We are a sad nation of fussy eaters.
People need to learn to cook. And eat actual food. Meat, veg, fish, dairy. Actual food. Ban the junk 'food' advertising at all times. Adults are as bad as kids.
"Cooking" is not difficult if you want to cook and be lazy about it.
Get meat, season meat, put meat in air fryer, turn air fryer on. When it beeps, take food out. Eat food. For best results turn it over halfway through.
Not exactly culinary school.
Yes, I am really skeptical when I see claims that people don't know how to cook, or rather how that is presented as a difficult problem to overcome.
I don't cook often and often do not eat well, I literally had 3 pieces of vegemite toast for dinner. But when we have even a slight desire to make something it's easy to find something, well, easy to do. It isn't a lack of knowledge, it's a lack of will (and/or time).
Addressing that lack of will may be the harder problem, but it's not actually the same problem as not knowing how to cook.
I think the willpower is the real bugbear not time.
We've cooked most of our meals for the past 14 years in the air fryer, long since before it was popular. That used to be niche, but has now become almost universal.
Most meals can be cooked in 15 minutes - and you don't need to remain in the kitchen for that time.
People who aren't cooking are not doing so by choice.
I agree it's not really time. People may overestimate the time it might take, or regard the approximate 1hr I spent making a chowder a few weeks ago as too much, but its a lighter hurder to overcome than many problems, given much can be done faster than that.
So Ive been through the press in France Germany Italy and Spain and none of them have reported on the world changing events surrounding Greg Wallace.
Do they understand nothing ?
Rather a sadly dismissive post. If a rather forward camp man pulled his todger out, his modesty covered only by a sock, because he thought it might attract your interest, I suspect you would be quite justifiably outraged. Is there a difference?
when did he have his todger out, the fantasies are escalating
Apparently he didn't it was covered by a sock. My mistake.
The thing is that these sorts of actions are on an escalating ladder. Today it is "todger out", but what about tomorrow or next week? When does flashing no longer satisfy and so the perpetrator moves up to assault or rape or murder?
Are we supposed to wait until it gets really, deadly serious?
Jermaine Jenas's feet didn't touch the ground for "sexting".How the hell did Wallace keep his presenting role after claims were made about his behaviour in 2018? Moving on from your point this was only a handful of years after Savile. I am not suggesting a parallel, however it does seem blind eyes remain blind to national treasures.
We're setting the bar very very low if Greg Wallace is a national treasure. I don't mean to join the pile-on here. He was no worae a broadcaster than many. But he's hardly Joanna Lumley.
Our local Masterchef finalist insists that he is utterly charming and better than anyone else at putting people at their ease when trying to deal with the stress of the Masterchef kitchen.
My wife says we are to cancel our TV licence if he is kicked out.
What I am fascinated by is who thinks constantly talking about how you like to do your shagging to every person you meet is what they want to hear? He sounds like Jay from the Inbetweeners when made to his 50s.
We should have a sweepstake on which male celebrity of a certain age comes out to support Wallace and scuppers their career.
These guys claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility ? The Trump tax cut is unfunded, and expires next year. Renewing it would add hundreds of billions to the deficit.
Asked @RepJasonSmith about @MikeCrapo pitch that Republicans don’t need to pay for extending Trump tax cuts because they’re current law -
So Ive been through the press in France Germany Italy and Spain and none of them have reported on the world changing events surrounding Greg Wallace.
Do they understand nothing ?
Rather a sadly dismissive post. If a rather forward camp man pulled his todger out, his modesty covered only by a sock, because he thought it might attract your interest, I suspect you would be quite justifiably outraged. Is there a difference?
when did he have his todger out, the fantasies are escalating
Apparently he didn't it was covered by a sock. My mistake.
The thing is that these sorts of actions are on an escalating ladder. Today it is "todger out", but what about tomorrow or next week? When does flashing no longer satisfy and so the perpetrator moves up to assault or rape or murder?
Are we supposed to wait until it gets really, deadly serious?
Jermaine Jenas's feet didn't touch the ground for "sexting".How the hell did Wallace keep his presenting role after claims were made about his behaviour in 2018? Moving on from your point this was only a handful of years after Savile. I am not suggesting a parallel, however it does seem blind eyes remain blind to national treasures.
We're setting the bar very very low if Greg Wallace is a national treasure. I don't mean to join the pile-on here. He was no worae a broadcaster than many. But he's hardly Joanna Lumley.
Our local Masterchef finalist insists that he is utterly charming and better than anyone else at putting people at their ease when trying to deal with the stress of the Masterchef kitchen.
My wife says we are to cancel our TV licence if he is kicked out.
What I am fascinated by is who thinks constantly talking about how you like to do your shagging to every person you meet is what they want to hear? He sounds like Jay from the Inbetweeners when made to his 50s.
We should have a sweepstake on which male celebrity of a certain age comes out to support Wallace and scuppers their career.
Given a load of journos stuck their neck out for Huw Edwards, I think the "I knew nothing" will be the response this time.
Jermaine Jenas has to be pissed, they threw him under the bus for some flirty texts with women who either were interested in real life (but were a junior on a programme he presented) or said well it was my job to flirt with such people. It seems his crimes were he overstepped the mark when they said no with some more texts of oh come you know you want to. Obviously the fact he was willing to cheat on his wife makes his scummy, but quite different to Gregg Wallace who it seems you meet and all he wants to talk about / show his meat and two veg.
Whose turn is it next on The World's Gone To Shit show?
Why it's dear old France.
Welcome aboard mon frères!!!
It isn't really new though. The whole time Macron has been in office any small changes he has tried to make have been met with NON. And the country is perhaps even more split than the US, with the far left and the far right having sizable public backing.
It's quite a conservative budget, a mix of tax rises and spending cuts to try to bring the deficit down.
Rejecting it will not just bring political chaos but also financial. Not passing it also means no indexation of income tax thresholds so increases taxes significantly.
Both French far Left and far Right voted against. Trussites and Corbynites joining forces to cause chaos.
Certainly looks a lot more sensible than anything Reeves came up with. Like America, the polarisation in France seems to have got to the point that rational government is pretty much impossible.
Just eat what you want, but vary and moderate your desires where possible.
You'll take more years off your life by worrying about what you're eating, and be unhappier. Most diets are just fads designed to take your money and make you unhappy.
That's easy to say, but not as easy to do.
We've rapidly moved from a state that existed for hundreds of thousands of years - relatively, or very, scarce food and intense physical activity to get it - to one where there is a large surplus of food, particularly food stuffed with sugar, an industry determined to sell as much food as possible, and sedentary working lives.
Put like that it's perhaps surprising that the obesity stats aren't way worse.
In particular a craving for high energy salty foods.
Obesity is a worldwide issue, rampant in the urban areas across Africa, Middle East and Asia.
Laissez-faire on diets isn't working, just look around next time you are in a High St or Supermarket.
One reason why exclusion diets like Bart's carnivore diet can work is that by heavily restricting the choice of food available you make food less interesting and it becomes harder to eat too many calories.
I experienced that for the very short period I was on a restricted diet before a colonoscopy. Steamed fish and plain rice is fine, as is grilled chicken breast and plain pasta, but they get really boring, really quickly. Grilled chicken is about 150 calories per 100g. So you'd need to eat about 1.7kg of chicken a day to meet your daily calorie requirement. I like chicken, but I'd find that hard to do because it would be so dull.
Now, I'm sure that Bart makes his meat tasty and interesting to eat in a variety of ways. I'm not saying he's someone with zero interest in food as a Dionysian pleasure. But essentially every approach to eating less food is one of self-denial, and so unless society can find a way to encourage people to cultivate self-denial as a virtue more generally, we shouldn't be surprised that people struggle with it, and that governments are turning to more heavy-handed approaches instead.
The thing with a carnivore-based diet (which allows eggs, dairy, cheese etc) is there's no shortage of tasty food to have and no guilt from having as much of it as you want.
So yes if I want a quick and simple meal I can do that, with eg tonight's meal being a quick and easy one after I got home from work of just chicken breast seasoned and thrown into the air fryer to cook for 15 minutes, with a side of black pudding added to the air fryer halfway through.
Though there's no shortage of interesting and tasty food available for me to have and to be honest the bits I'm cutting out primarily are the bits I'd be less interested in but previously felt obliged to have on top of the food I would want.
EG I used to love eating cheese and crackers, but now still eating the cheese but omitting the biscuits is no worse for me.
Most self-denial diets I've failed with because they're unsustainable. Personally I can sustain this one as I'm keeping the bits I love and dropping the bits I'm not too fussed with anyway.
What about drinks? Does alcohol count as carbs?
Alcohol is fine, it is its own macronutrient like protein, fat and carbs. There are some carbs in beer but you can have a couple of pints within your carb allowance with a keto diet.
Rum doesn't have any carbs.
* while often referred to as zero-carb, there are carbs contained within some processed meats especially, eg sausages, black pudding etc - the rule of thumb I aim to stick to is fewer than 20g of carbs per day.
Alcohol is composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen ... it's a carbohydrate.
Or is it that all carbohydrates are alcohols? Got hydroxyl groups.
*Dredges up ancient knowledge* maybe the hydroxyl group needs to be functional or something.
I'd say it is risky saying "X" is "FINE", without qualification.
It is all context dependent, around aims and objectives, and dependent on the metabolism of the people whom you are speaking, and the diet they are following.
In diabetic and some nutrition circles, alcoholic drinks (and refined foods) are sometimes described as "empty carbs" - because they have had the useful complex carbs removed or broken down, and cause a faster not slower absorption of glucose - a spike.
The Google bot is quite good on it:
Empty carbs, also known as refined or simple carbohydrates, are carbohydrates that have been processed to remove fiber, vitamins, and minerals. They are often referred to as "bad" carbs.
Empty carbs are digested quickly and have a high glycemic index, which means they cause blood sugar levels to spike. This can lead to a crash in blood sugar levels, which can trigger hunger and cravings. The short-lived fullness can lead to overeating, weight gain, and conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure.
So Ive been through the press in France Germany Italy and Spain and none of them have reported on the world changing events surrounding Greg Wallace.
Do they understand nothing ?
Rather a sadly dismissive post. If a rather forward camp man pulled his todger out, his modesty covered only by a sock, because he thought it might attract your interest, I suspect you would be quite justifiably outraged. Is there a difference?
when did he have his todger out, the fantasies are escalating
Apparently he didn't it was covered by a sock. My mistake.
The thing is that these sorts of actions are on an escalating ladder. Today it is "todger out", but what about tomorrow or next week? When does flashing no longer satisfy and so the perpetrator moves up to assault or rape or murder?
Are we supposed to wait until it gets really, deadly serious?
Jermaine Jenas's feet didn't touch the ground for "sexting".How the hell did Wallace keep his presenting role after claims were made about his behaviour in 2018? Moving on from your point this was only a handful of years after Savile. I am not suggesting a parallel, however it does seem blind eyes remain blind to national treasures.
We're setting the bar very very low if Greg Wallace is a national treasure. I don't mean to join the pile-on here. He was no worae a broadcaster than many. But he's hardly Joanna Lumley.
Our local Masterchef finalist insists that he is utterly charming and better than anyone else at putting people at their ease when trying to deal with the stress of the Masterchef kitchen.
My wife says we are to cancel our TV licence if he is kicked out.
What I am fascinated by is who thinks constantly talking about how you like to do your shagging to every person you meet is what they want to hear? He sounds like Jay from the Inbetweeners when made to his 50s.
We should have a sweepstake on which male celebrity of a certain age comes out to support Wallace and scuppers their career.
Given a load of journos stuck their neck out for Huw Edwards, I think the "I knew nothing" will be the response this time.
Nah there's always one who says it's just on set banter, and women should get a sense of humour.
The question is who will take that shotgun to their own feet?
These guys claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility ? The Trump tax cut is unfunded, and expires next year. Renewing it would add hundreds of billions to the deficit.
Asked @RepJasonSmith about @MikeCrapo pitch that Republicans don’t need to pay for extending Trump tax cuts because they’re current law -
I might write a Knappers Gazette article on the Beauty of Backwaters
Places forgotten by time, transport and history that have - perhaps as a consequence - retained their charm. And they STILL have that sleepy quality
Mompos is a perfect example. It was important in its day. The Colombian Spanish nobility fled here to avoid the fierce English raids on the coast. Heh
And it was also a massively important trading port on the great river
But then it became a literal backwater as the river silted and then cars and roads etc
In Britain I would say all of Herefordshire. It is still weirdly hard to reach and as a result is arguably the loveliest most unspoiled county in England
Any others?
Newtown, on the island. Trashed by the French some time in the 1300s, never recovered, but kept its MP as a ‘rotten borough’ with just a handful of electors, through to the Reform Act. Now just a few houses at the end of a silted up estuary.
Acquilae, in Fruili, in Roman times one of the most important cities in the known world, trashed by the Huns, inhabitants fled off to the marshes and eventually founded Venice and Grado, of which you might have heard. Now just a string of under-visited Roman remains strung out along the side of a very straight road. With a pizza place opposite.
Cahokia, outside St Louis. Considered once to have been a major settlement, probably predating the ‘native’ Americans, now just a collection of mounds in a field.
Any of a collection of former gold rush towns in Colorado and California, such as Elmo, Cripple Creek or Leadville.
Some of the major Hanseatic trading towns, which time has passed by since trading interest switched to the Atlantic, such as Lubeck or Visby.
Italy has various towns abandoned after major earthquakes, such as old Noto in Sicily and Craco in Basilicata.
Dunwich on the east coast, which sunk beneath the waves.
Delphi in Greece, now just a small village
Tintagel in your home county; you don’t need the story.
Even my now home town, the place to be and be seen in Victorian times, with multiple steamers daily, outreach lectures by Oxford University in the summertime, and rocketing land prices. Now, not quite so hectic.
Or you could make a case for Amalfi - not sleepy or overlooked nowadays, but believed to have once been in the top ten most populous cities of the western world.
Newtown's really one of the hidden gems of the South Island IMV - a whole mediaeval town plan complete with a town hall in the middle of nowhere, just some derelict burgage plots and the odd house.
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
He's turning into the Daily Express, and the comments are a found poem.
There are two separate points here on the actual legislation (ignoring the party political stuff as I suspect this started well before the election)
1. I object on principle to the idea of banning adverts based on someone's idea of what is or is not healthy. particularly given how far the scientific opinion on that has shifted over the last few decades. 2. Accepting that the Government does want to play Nanny state, the proposed list is incoherent garbage. Including such staples as porridge and calling it junk food is just plain stupid. And including Tea and Coffee but excluding alcohol - which is the only one of these items that is actualy illegal to sell to kids - is just wildly idiotic.
The list opens up the whole process to justified ridicule
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
So Ive been through the press in France Germany Italy and Spain and none of them have reported on the world changing events surrounding Greg Wallace.
Do they understand nothing ?
Rather a sadly dismissive post. If a rather forward camp man pulled his todger out, his modesty covered only by a sock, because he thought it might attract your interest, I suspect you would be quite justifiably outraged. Is there a difference?
when did he have his todger out, the fantasies are escalating
Apparently he didn't it was covered by a sock. My mistake.
The thing is that these sorts of actions are on an escalating ladder. Today it is "todger out", but what about tomorrow or next week? When does flashing no longer satisfy and so the perpetrator moves up to assault or rape or murder?
Are we supposed to wait until it gets really, deadly serious?
Jermaine Jenas's feet didn't touch the ground for "sexting".How the hell did Wallace keep his presenting role after claims were made about his behaviour in 2018? Moving on from your point this was only a handful of years after Savile. I am not suggesting a parallel, however it does seem blind eyes remain blind to national treasures.
We're setting the bar very very low if Greg Wallace is a national treasure. I don't mean to join the pile-on here. He was no worae a broadcaster than many. But he's hardly Joanna Lumley.
Our local Masterchef finalist insists that he is utterly charming and better than anyone else at putting people at their ease when trying to deal with the stress of the Masterchef kitchen.
My wife says we are to cancel our TV licence if he is kicked out.
What I am fascinated by is who thinks constantly talking about how you like to do your shagging to every person you meet is what they want to hear? He sounds like Jay from the Inbetweeners when made to his 50s.
We should have a sweepstake on which male celebrity of a certain age comes out to support Wallace and scuppers their career.
Given a load of journos stuck their neck out for Huw Edwards, I think the "I knew nothing" will be the response this time.
Nah there's always one who says it's just on set banter, and women should get a sense of humour.
The question is who will take that shotgun to their own feet?
It surely isn't believable that his co-host never saw nothing....How many 100s of these episodes have they made and it appears he never shut up about shagging (has done, wants to do, how other people do it).
Just eat what you want, but vary and moderate your desires where possible.
You'll take more years off your life by worrying about what you're eating, and be unhappier. Most diets are just fads designed to take your money and make you unhappy.
That's easy to say, but not as easy to do.
We've rapidly moved from a state that existed for hundreds of thousands of years - relatively, or very, scarce food and intense physical activity to get it - to one where there is a large surplus of food, particularly food stuffed with sugar, an industry determined to sell as much food as possible, and sedentary working lives.
Put like that it's perhaps surprising that the obesity stats aren't way worse.
In particular a craving for high energy salty foods.
Obesity is a worldwide issue, rampant in the urban areas across Africa, Middle East and Asia.
Laissez-faire on diets isn't working, just look around next time you are in a High St or Supermarket.
One reason why exclusion diets like Bart's carnivore diet can work is that by heavily restricting the choice of food available you make food less interesting and it becomes harder to eat too many calories.
I experienced that for the very short period I was on a restricted diet before a colonoscopy. Steamed fish and plain rice is fine, as is grilled chicken breast and plain pasta, but they get really boring, really quickly. Grilled chicken is about 150 calories per 100g. So you'd need to eat about 1.7kg of chicken a day to meet your daily calorie requirement. I like chicken, but I'd find that hard to do because it would be so dull.
Now, I'm sure that Bart makes his meat tasty and interesting to eat in a variety of ways. I'm not saying he's someone with zero interest in food as a Dionysian pleasure. But essentially every approach to eating less food is one of self-denial, and so unless society can find a way to encourage people to cultivate self-denial as a virtue more generally, we shouldn't be surprised that people struggle with it, and that governments are turning to more heavy-handed approaches instead.
The thing with a carnivore-based diet (which allows eggs, dairy, cheese etc) is there's no shortage of tasty food to have and no guilt from having as much of it as you want.
So yes if I want a quick and simple meal I can do that, with eg tonight's meal being a quick and easy one after I got home from work of just chicken breast seasoned and thrown into the air fryer to cook for 15 minutes, with a side of black pudding added to the air fryer halfway through.
Though there's no shortage of interesting and tasty food available for me to have and to be honest the bits I'm cutting out primarily are the bits I'd be less interested in but previously felt obliged to have on top of the food I would want.
EG I used to love eating cheese and crackers, but now still eating the cheese but omitting the biscuits is no worse for me.
Most self-denial diets I've failed with because they're unsustainable. Personally I can sustain this one as I'm keeping the bits I love and dropping the bits I'm not too fussed with anyway.
What about drinks? Does alcohol count as carbs?
Alcohol is fine, it is its own macronutrient like protein, fat and carbs. There are some carbs in beer but you can have a couple of pints within your carb allowance with a keto diet.
Rum doesn't have any carbs.
* while often referred to as zero-carb, there are carbs contained within some processed meats especially, eg sausages, black pudding etc - the rule of thumb I aim to stick to is fewer than 20g of carbs per day.
Alcohol is composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen ... it's a carbohydrate.
Or is it that all carbohydrates are alcohols? Got hydroxyl groups.
*Dredges up ancient knowledge* maybe the hydroxyl group needs to be functional or something.
It is risky saying "X" is "FINE", without qualification.
It is all context dependent, around aims and objectives, and dependent on the metabolism of the people whom you are speaking.
In diabetic and some nutrition circles, alcoholic drinks (and refined foods) are sometimes described as "empty carbs" - because they have had the useful complex carbs removed or broken down, and cause a faster not slower absorption of glucose - a spike.
The Google bot is quite good on it:
Empty carbs, also known as refined or simple carbohydrates, are carbohydrates that have been processed to remove fiber, vitamins, and minerals. They are often referred to as "bad" carbs.
Empty carbs are digested quickly and have a high glycemic index, which means they cause blood sugar levels to spike. This can lead to a crash in blood sugar levels, which can trigger hunger and cravings. The short-lived fullness can lead to overeating, weight gain, and conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure.
Again, there is a distinction to be drawn between alcohol itself (which is its own macronutrient and is not a carbohydrate) and alcohol[ic drinks] which I already said can include carbohydrates. Which is why I specified that beer does include carbohydrates.
Beer includes the most carbs. Dry wines don't include many but sweet wines include more. Spirits don't include any, unless you use a mixer that does with them, but liquors do.
I'll happily have a pint of beer, but if I'm having a few drinks I'll typically stick to either red wine or rum.
One real story, that I have not got a very good handle on, and for which there is no easy answer:
The secretary of state for Northern Ireland has begun the process of formally repealing the controversial Legacy Act.
The act, which was brought in by the Conservative government, introduced a ban on inquests and civil actions related to incidents during the Troubles.
It also sought to offer a conditional amnesty for people suspected of Troubles-related crimes in exchange for co-operating with a new information recovery body.
Labour pledged to repeal the Legacy Act if they won the general election in July.
Just eat what you want, but vary and moderate your desires where possible.
You'll take more years off your life by worrying about what you're eating, and be unhappier. Most diets are just fads designed to take your money and make you unhappy.
That's easy to say, but not as easy to do.
We've rapidly moved from a state that existed for hundreds of thousands of years - relatively, or very, scarce food and intense physical activity to get it - to one where there is a large surplus of food, particularly food stuffed with sugar, an industry determined to sell as much food as possible, and sedentary working lives.
Put like that it's perhaps surprising that the obesity stats aren't way worse.
In particular a craving for high energy salty foods.
Obesity is a worldwide issue, rampant in the urban areas across Africa, Middle East and Asia.
Laissez-faire on diets isn't working, just look around next time you are in a High St or Supermarket.
Indeed. We eat a pile of utter shite in this country – and feed it to our children. Most 'low-fat' food is processed rubbish. Everything that comes in a box is laced with sugar, masquerading to be actual food. Ready meals are riddled with additives.
LOSE THE LANDFILL PACKAGING.
We are a sad nation of fussy eaters.
People need to learn to cook. And eat actual food. Meat, veg, fish, dairy. Actual food. Ban the junk 'food' advertising at all times. Adults are as bad as kids.
"Cooking" is not difficult if you want to cook and be lazy about it.
Get meat, season meat, put meat in air fryer, turn air fryer on. When it beeps, take food out. Eat food. For best results turn it over halfway through.
Not exactly culinary school.
Yes, I am really skeptical when I see claims that people don't know how to cook, or rather how that is presented as a difficult problem to overcome.
I don't cook often and often do not eat well, I literally had 3 pieces of vegemite toast for dinner. But when we have even a slight desire to make something it's easy to find something, well, easy to do. It isn't a lack of knowledge, it's a lack of will (and/or time).
Addressing that lack of will may be the harder problem, but it's not actually the same problem as not knowing how to cook.
I think the willpower is the real bugbear not time.
We've cooked most of our meals for the past 14 years in the air fryer, long since before it was popular. That used to be niche, but has now become almost universal.
Most meals can be cooked in 15 minutes - and you don't need to remain in the kitchen for that time.
People who aren't cooking are not doing so by choice.
I agree it's not really time. People may overestimate the time it might take, or regard the approximate 1hr I spent making a chowder a few weeks ago as too much, but its a lighter hurder to overcome than many problems, given much can be done faster than that.
I mean, you can make multiple servings of that chowder (or curry, or casserole, or whatever delicious dinner you fancy) the just divide the rear into freezer blocks. Thereafter, each dinner takes you minutes warming in a saucepan and as Bart says you don’t even need to be in the kitchen for some of that time.
The lack of cooking in this country needs sorting. We could start by having proper cooking lessons at school, just to get children used to the idea. And make them actual cooking, not “home economics” “food technology” “domestic science” or some other shite that is mostly meaningless paperwork.
So Ive been through the press in France Germany Italy and Spain and none of them have reported on the world changing events surrounding Greg Wallace.
Do they understand nothing ?
Rather a sadly dismissive post. If a rather forward camp man pulled his todger out, his modesty covered only by a sock, because he thought it might attract your interest, I suspect you would be quite justifiably outraged. Is there a difference?
when did he have his todger out, the fantasies are escalating
Apparently he didn't it was covered by a sock. My mistake.
The thing is that these sorts of actions are on an escalating ladder. Today it is "todger out", but what about tomorrow or next week? When does flashing no longer satisfy and so the perpetrator moves up to assault or rape or murder?
Are we supposed to wait until it gets really, deadly serious?
Jermaine Jenas's feet didn't touch the ground for "sexting".How the hell did Wallace keep his presenting role after claims were made about his behaviour in 2018? Moving on from your point this was only a handful of years after Savile. I am not suggesting a parallel, however it does seem blind eyes remain blind to national treasures.
We're setting the bar very very low if Greg Wallace is a national treasure. I don't mean to join the pile-on here. He was no worae a broadcaster than many. But he's hardly Joanna Lumley.
Our local Masterchef finalist insists that he is utterly charming and better than anyone else at putting people at their ease when trying to deal with the stress of the Masterchef kitchen.
My wife says we are to cancel our TV licence if he is kicked out.
What I am fascinated by is who thinks constantly talking about how you like to do your shagging to every person you meet is what they want to hear? He sounds like Jay from the Inbetweeners when made to his 50s.
We should have a sweepstake on which male celebrity of a certain age comes out to support Wallace and scuppers their career.
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
He's turning into the Daily Express, and the comments are a found poem.
There are two separate points here on the actual legislation (ignoring the party political stuff as I suspect this started well before the election)
1. I object on principle to the idea of banning adverts based on someone's idea of what is or is not healthy. particularly given how far the scientific opinion on that has shifted over the last few decades. 2. Accepting that the Government does want to play Nanny state, the proposed list is incoherent garbage. Including such staples as porridge and calling it junk food is just plain stupid. And including Tea and Coffee but excluding alcohol - which is the only one of these items that is actualy illegal to sell to kids - is just wildly idiotic.
The list opens up the whole process to justified ridicule
Soon after the ban we’ll wonder why we were ever dumb enough to allow junk food to be advertised to children. Virtually everything on the list is garbage.
I’m still getting over the shock that kle4 considers “three slices of toast and Vegemite” a suitable dinner
It was a particularly poor and lazy day in fairness.
Though a toast heavy diet works well for me when I decide to lose weight, every couple of years or so (though a nutritionist would probably balk at it as a suggestion). Egg on toast and some paprika? Good stuff.
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
He's turning into the Daily Express, and the comments are a found poem.
There are two separate points here on the actual legislation (ignoring the party political stuff as I suspect this started well before the election)
1. I object on principle to the idea of banning adverts based on someone's idea of what is or is not healthy. particularly given how far the scientific opinion on that has shifted over the last few decades. 2. Accepting that the Government does want to play Nanny state, the proposed list is incoherent garbage. Including such staples as porridge and calling it junk food is just plain stupid. And including Tea and Coffee but excluding alcohol - which is the only one of these items that is actualy illegal to sell to kids - is just wildly idiotic.
The list opens up the whole process to justified ridicule
Soon after the ban we’ll wonder why we were ever dumb enough to allow junk food to be advertised to children. Virtually everything on the list is garbage.
Reading comments online about the healthcare CEO who murdered in New York. Zero sympathy, eye-watering savagery from people who have had claims denied, chronic conditions and so on.
Amazing to watch from a UK perspective.
I was going to make the same point. I haven't seen Americans cheering on a death like this since bin Laden copped it.
I might write a Knappers Gazette article on the Beauty of Backwaters
Places forgotten by time, transport and history that have - perhaps as a consequence - retained their charm. And they STILL have that sleepy quality
Mompos is a perfect example. It was important in its day. The Colombian Spanish nobility fled here to avoid the fierce English raids on the coast. Heh
And it was also a massively important trading port on the great river
But then it became a literal backwater as the river silted and then cars and roads etc
In Britain I would say all of Herefordshire. It is still weirdly hard to reach and as a result is arguably the loveliest most unspoiled county in England
Any others?
Newtown, on the island. Trashed by the French some time in the 1300s, never recovered, but kept its MP as a ‘rotten borough’ with just a handful of electors, through to the Reform Act. Now just a few houses at the end of a silted up estuary.
Acquilae, in Fruili, in Roman times one of the most important cities in the known world, trashed by the Huns, inhabitants fled off to the marshes and eventually founded Venice and Grado, of which you might have heard. Now just a string of under-visited Roman remains strung out along the side of a very straight road. With a pizza place opposite.
Cahokia, outside St Louis. Considered once to have been a major settlement, probably predating the ‘native’ Americans, now just a collection of mounds in a field.
Any of a collection of former gold rush towns in Colorado and California, such as Elmo, Cripple Creek or Leadville.
Some of the major Hanseatic trading towns, which time has passed by since trading interest switched to the Atlantic, such as Lubeck or Visby.
Italy has various towns abandoned after major earthquakes, such as old Noto in Sicily and Craco in Basilicata.
Dunwich on the east coast, which sunk beneath the waves.
Delphi in Greece, now just a small village
Tintagel in your home county; you don’t need the story.
Even my now home town, the place to be and be seen in Victorian times, with multiple steamers daily, outreach lectures by Oxford University in the summertime, and rocketing land prices. Now, not quite so hectic.
Or you could make a case for Amalfi - not sleepy or overlooked nowadays, but believed to have once been in the top ten most populous cities of the western world.
Newtown's really one of the hidden gems of the South Island IMV - a whole mediaeval town plan complete with a town hall in the middle of nowhere, just some derelict burgage plots and the odd house.
Used to be a nice pub on the road junction back on the main road, too, for dinners.
The New Inn at Shalfleet. A few years back the receivers went in and boarded the place up, which was a surprise as it was good and popular - as you say. I believe it’s now open again under new ownership/management.
Uh oh. This is trouble ahead for the Labour government.
It’s completely the wrong call by the Bank of England. Its substituting expansive playmakers into the game far too early - Labour need to call this out with need of caution, slow and carfull unwinding. By my analysis - I’m one of PBs macro economic experts now after the weekend success - Labour need at least another 2.5 years of varying degrees of austerity budgets, like the last one, or risk cominga cropper with income screwing inflation at end of parliament.
Why should the Bank of England have all this power to bring on the flair players far too early in the game? The Chancellor and Prime Minister, who we can sack for the calls, should be the ones making this call. The Prime Ministers desk should have the power, it’s a huge failure of UK democracy.
Le Pen is talking live on TF1 now, playing a straight bat and saying that she will cooperate with the new PM and isn’t demanding Macron’s resignation.
The ideal for Le pen is an increasingly weak, politically palsied macron; laughably impotent, endlessly putting together unworkable coalitions but somehow stumbling to the nest POTFR elex. Which she then wins as the nation cries out for the spank of firm governance from Madame Le Matron
I am begging - begging! - the Tories to make "Actually, a Fixed Penalty Notice for breaching Covid rules is not the same as a criminal conviction" into the centrepiece of their Christmas campaign.
Is Kemi on dangerous ground here? Wasn't it true that had Harriet Harman kicked up a fuss Kemi could have been in serious hot water over her admission regarding interference with Harman's computer?
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
He's turning into the Daily Express, and the comments are a found poem.
There are two separate points here on the actual legislation (ignoring the party political stuff as I suspect this started well before the election)
1. I object on principle to the idea of banning adverts based on someone's idea of what is or is not healthy. particularly given how far the scientific opinion on that has shifted over the last few decades. 2. Accepting that the Government does want to play Nanny state, the proposed list is incoherent garbage. Including such staples as porridge and calling it junk food is just plain stupid. And including Tea and Coffee but excluding alcohol - which is the only one of these items that is actualy illegal to sell to kids - is just wildly idiotic.
The list opens up the whole process to justified ridicule
Soon after the ban we’ll wonder why we were ever dumb enough to allow junk food to be advertised to children. Virtually everything on the list is garbage.
Tea? Coffee? Porridge? Ravioli?
You have a very strange view of garbage. Mind you, you have avery strange view of most things so I am not exactly surprised.
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
He's turning into the Daily Express, and the comments are a found poem.
There are two separate points here on the actual legislation (ignoring the party political stuff as I suspect this started well before the election)
1. I object on principle to the idea of banning adverts based on someone's idea of what is or is not healthy. particularly given how far the scientific opinion on that has shifted over the last few decades. 2. Accepting that the Government does want to play Nanny state, the proposed list is incoherent garbage. Including such staples as porridge and calling it junk food is just plain stupid. And including Tea and Coffee but excluding alcohol - which is the only one of these items that is actualy illegal to sell to kids - is just wildly idiotic.
The list opens up the whole process to justified ridicule
Soon after the ban we’ll wonder why we were ever dumb enough to allow junk food to be advertised to children. Virtually everything on the list is garbage.
Tea? Coffee? Porridge? Ravioli?
You have a very strange view of garbage. Mind you, you have avery strange view of most things so I am not exactly surprised.
I don't think any of it should be banned out of principle of free speech.
However there has to be some misrepresentation going on surely here to suggest tea and coffee? There's no sugar or calories in plain tea and coffee?
I assume it's "coffee drinks" as opposed to actual coffee, eg bottled drinks that can have the equivalent of many spoons of sugar in them, that are on the list?
Reading comments online about the healthcare CEO who murdered in New York. Zero sympathy, eye-watering savagery from people who have had claims denied, chronic conditions and so on.
Amazing to watch from a UK perspective.
I was going to make the same point. I haven't seen Americans cheering on a death like this since bin Laden copped it.
Probably indirectly killed more Americans than Osama.
The porridge banned under the policy is that with added sugar, ergo junk food. The list looks pretty sound to me.
No it isn't. Either you can't read or you are lying and hoping no one will check.
The Government page says:
“Breakfast cereals including ready-to-eat cereals, granola, muesli, porridge oats and other oat-based cereals.”
It makes no mention at all of added sugar.
It does earlier in the page.
If a food or drink product is included in one of the categories of the schedule, it will only be in scope of the advertising restrictions if the product is deemed ‘less healthy’ when applying the 2004 to 2005 NPM using the 2011 technical guidance. The technical guidance provides instructions on how to calculate the NPM score for different products ...
The NPM uses a simple scoring system where points are allocated on the basis of the nutrient content of 100g of a food or drink. Points are awarded for both:
‘A’ nutrients (energy, saturated fat, total sugar and sodium) ‘C’ nutrients (fruit, vegetables and nut content, fibre and protein)
The porridge banned under the policy is that with added sugar, ergo junk food. The list looks pretty sound to me.
No it isn't. Either you can't read or you are lying and hoping no one will check.
The Government page says:
“Breakfast cereals including ready-to-eat cereals, granola, muesli, porridge oats and other oat-based cereals.”
It makes no mention at all of added sugar.
This is the press release they gave the BBC,
The government will classify products according to a scoring system based on their sugar, fat and protein content, banning advertising on all foods designated as "less healthy". This means healthy versions of products – including porridge products with no added sugar, salt or fat, and unsweetened yoghurt products – will not be subject to the ban.
The porridge banned under the policy is that with added sugar, ergo junk food. The list looks pretty sound to me.
No it isn't. Either you can't read or you are lying and hoping no one will check.
The Government page says:
“Breakfast cereals including ready-to-eat cereals, granola, muesli, porridge oats and other oat-based cereals.”
It makes no mention at all of added sugar.
Read the story more carefully. Why have you got into this bizarre habit of jumping down my throat recently? It’s unlike you.
This means healthy versions of products – including porridge products with no added sugar, salt or fat, and unsweetened yoghurt products – will not be subject to the ban.
Le Pen is talking live on TF1 now, playing a straight bat and saying that she will cooperate with the new PM and isn’t demanding Macron’s resignation.
The ideal for Le pen is an increasingly weak, politically palsied macron; laughably impotent, endlessly putting together unworkable coalitions but somehow stumbling to the nest POTFR elex. Which she then wins as the nation cries out for the spank of firm governance from Madame Le Matron
I am begging - begging! - the Tories to make "Actually, a Fixed Penalty Notice for breaching Covid rules is not the same as a criminal conviction" into the centrepiece of their Christmas campaign.
Is Kemi on dangerous ground here? Wasn't it true that had Harriet Harman kicked up a fuss Kemi could have been in serious hot water over her admission regarding interference with Harman's computer?
Yes. She's lucky Starmer isn't fleeter of foot/cautious given never went to court as was her boasting in the Speccie. But showing exactly why she's likely to be a liability for the Tories. Will walk into every fight Labour want to have with her as can't resist, when should be spending every moment resetting the Tories' reputation and letting Labour get into its own messes.
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
He's turning into the Daily Express, and the comments are a found poem.
There are two separate points here on the actual legislation (ignoring the party political stuff as I suspect this started well before the election)
1. I object on principle to the idea of banning adverts based on someone's idea of what is or is not healthy. particularly given how far the scientific opinion on that has shifted over the last few decades. 2. Accepting that the Government does want to play Nanny state, the proposed list is incoherent garbage. Including such staples as porridge and calling it junk food is just plain stupid. And including Tea and Coffee but excluding alcohol - which is the only one of these items that is actualy illegal to sell to kids - is just wildly idiotic.
The list opens up the whole process to justified ridicule
Soon after the ban we’ll wonder why we were ever dumb enough to allow junk food to be advertised to children. Virtually everything on the list is garbage.
Tea? Coffee? Porridge? Ravioli?
You have a very strange view of garbage. Mind you, you have avery strange view of most things so I am not exactly surprised.
I don't think any of it should be banned out of principle of free speech.
However there has to be some misrepresentation going on surely here to suggest tea and coffee? There's no sugar or calories in plain tea and coffee?
I assume it's "coffee drinks" as opposed to actual coffee, eg bottled drinks that can have the equivalent of many spoons of sugar in them, that are on the list?
Not that anything should be.
We talked about this previously on here and looked at the research for things like sin taxes. The most effective approach was encouraging manufactures to reformulate products rather than sugar tax / advertising bans. The instant coffee in a can products for example often have stupid amounts of sugar (even today) which really isn't necessary.
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
He's turning into the Daily Express, and the comments are a found poem.
There are two separate points here on the actual legislation (ignoring the party political stuff as I suspect this started well before the election)
1. I object on principle to the idea of banning adverts based on someone's idea of what is or is not healthy. particularly given how far the scientific opinion on that has shifted over the last few decades. 2. Accepting that the Government does want to play Nanny state, the proposed list is incoherent garbage. Including such staples as porridge and calling it junk food is just plain stupid. And including Tea and Coffee but excluding alcohol - which is the only one of these items that is actualy illegal to sell to kids - is just wildly idiotic.
The list opens up the whole process to justified ridicule
Soon after the ban we’ll wonder why we were ever dumb enough to allow junk food to be advertised to children. Virtually everything on the list is garbage.
Tea? Coffee? Porridge? Ravioli?
You have a very strange view of garbage. Mind you, you have avery strange view of most things so I am not exactly surprised.
Tea and coffee DRINKS with added sugar!
Stop calling me a liar, Richard. That’s twice in a week and on neither occasion did I lie (or indeed attack you in any way).
I have no idea what’s got into you because 99% of the time you are a gent to debate.
We really are at a very uncertain point. The US in transition to who knows what, France on the brink, Germany heading for an election, Romania possibly electing a crazy President who wants to block Ukrainian exports through their waters. And that is to forget the middle east. All the while we have the axis of autocracy seeking to cause chaos. I don't remember another point like this in my lifetime. The financial crisis and Brexit look piddling in comparison.
With Biden falling asleep, Scholz done for and Macron in crisis, welcome Sir Keir as acting leader of the free world for the next seven weeks.
There is one silver lining or two.
All the axis of autocracy countries have terrible demographic problems. And free countries have some outstanding universities that enable those countries to create outstanding military technology.
The autocrats don’t have unlimited supplies of young men who can be sent to die for the greater glory of the dictator, nor do they have access to the best weaponry.
Ultimately, being a dictatorship really is shit as the ability to engage in free thought and ideas is stymied by the worry that you could suddenly be branded an 'enemy of the people' and sent to the Gulag/shot. Better to keep your head down and stay quiet.
And before anyone says, Germany was successful early on DESPITE the Nazis, not because of them.
Just eat what you want, but vary and moderate your desires where possible.
You'll take more years off your life by worrying about what you're eating, and be unhappier. Most diets are just fads designed to take your money and make you unhappy.
That's easy to say, but not as easy to do.
We've rapidly moved from a state that existed for hundreds of thousands of years - relatively, or very, scarce food and intense physical activity to get it - to one where there is a large surplus of food, particularly food stuffed with sugar, an industry determined to sell as much food as possible, and sedentary working lives.
Put like that it's perhaps surprising that the obesity stats aren't way worse.
In particular a craving for high energy salty foods.
Obesity is a worldwide issue, rampant in the urban areas across Africa, Middle East and Asia.
Laissez-faire on diets isn't working, just look around next time you are in a High St or Supermarket.
You may have missed the current social media drama around the 'Rumin8' seaweed cattle feed. It seems seaweed powder is like a magnet for 5G/Bill Gates/Antivax people who were otherwise getting bored.
Seaweed - just say no. While you ram nitrite-riddled day-glo bacon down your neck.
Rumin8 is an interesting company - the scientific adviser is an old friend of mine.
Fundamentally a natural product that increases productivity and reduces methane has got to be a good thing, right?
Errr.
So long as you don't mind being tracked, sure.
There’s an Austrian company I know that puts a monitoring device in your cow if you need one
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
He's turning into the Daily Express, and the comments are a found poem.
There are two separate points here on the actual legislation (ignoring the party political stuff as I suspect this started well before the election)
1. I object on principle to the idea of banning adverts based on someone's idea of what is or is not healthy. particularly given how far the scientific opinion on that has shifted over the last few decades. 2. Accepting that the Government does want to play Nanny state, the proposed list is incoherent garbage. Including such staples as porridge and calling it junk food is just plain stupid. And including Tea and Coffee but excluding alcohol - which is the only one of these items that is actualy illegal to sell to kids - is just wildly idiotic.
The list opens up the whole process to justified ridicule
Soon after the ban we’ll wonder why we were ever dumb enough to allow junk food to be advertised to children. Virtually everything on the list is garbage.
Tea? Coffee? Porridge? Ravioli?
You have a very strange view of garbage. Mind you, you have avery strange view of most things so I am not exactly surprised.
I don't think any of it should be banned out of principle of free speech.
However there has to be some misrepresentation going on surely here to suggest tea and coffee? There's no sugar or calories in plain tea and coffee?
I assume it's "coffee drinks" as opposed to actual coffee, eg bottled drinks that can have the equivalent of many spoons of sugar in them, that are on the list?
Not that anything should be.
We talked about this previously on here and looked at the research for things like sin taxes. The most effective approach was encouraging manufactures to reformulate products rather than sugar tax / advertising bans. The instant coffee in a can products for example often have stupid amounts of sugar (even today) which really isn't necessary.
Instant coffee in a can isn’t necessary, full stop. What is the point of it? Just make a cup of coffee with, you know, actual coffee.
(Note, I wouldn’t ban it but advertising it to children is just stupid).
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
He's turning into the Daily Express, and the comments are a found poem.
There are two separate points here on the actual legislation (ignoring the party political stuff as I suspect this started well before the election)
1. I object on principle to the idea of banning adverts based on someone's idea of what is or is not healthy. particularly given how far the scientific opinion on that has shifted over the last few decades. 2. Accepting that the Government does want to play Nanny state, the proposed list is incoherent garbage. Including such staples as porridge and calling it junk food is just plain stupid. And including Tea and Coffee but excluding alcohol - which is the only one of these items that is actualy illegal to sell to kids - is just wildly idiotic.
The list opens up the whole process to justified ridicule
Soon after the ban we’ll wonder why we were ever dumb enough to allow junk food to be advertised to children. Virtually everything on the list is garbage.
Tea? Coffee? Porridge? Ravioli?
You have a very strange view of garbage. Mind you, you have avery strange view of most things so I am not exactly surprised.
I don't think any of it should be banned out of principle of free speech.
However there has to be some misrepresentation going on surely here to suggest tea and coffee? There's no sugar or calories in plain tea and coffee?
I assume it's "coffee drinks" as opposed to actual coffee, eg bottled drinks that can have the equivalent of many spoons of sugar in them, that are on the list?
Not that anything should be.
We talked about this previously on here and looked at the research for things like sin taxes. The most effective approach was encouraging manufactures to reformulate products rather than sugar tax / advertising bans. The instant coffee in a can products for example often have stupid amounts of sugar (even today) which really isn't necessary.
Instant coffee in a can isn’t necessary, full stop. What is the point of it? Just make a cup of coffee with, you know, actual coffee.
(Note, I wouldn’t ban it but advertising it to children is just stupid).
Personally I never buy them, but given the amount of shelf space they now take up, I presume the cold in a can must be a popular segment of the market. Perhaps people think they are healthier than energy drinks when they need their caffeine hit, without realising the stupid amount of sugar most of them have added to them?
Anyone else feeling really anxious about the collapse of governments in France, Germany and Netherlands? Especially with far-left and far-right parties bringing down a centrist administration in France. Just feels ominous.
Le Pen is talking live on TF1 now, playing a straight bat and saying that she will cooperate with the new PM and isn’t demanding Macron’s resignation.
The ideal for Le pen is an increasingly weak, politically palsied macron; laughably impotent, endlessly putting together unworkable coalitions but somehow stumbling to the nest POTFR elex. Which she then wins as the nation cries out for the spank of firm governance from Madame Le Matron
I am begging - begging! - the Tories to make "Actually, a Fixed Penalty Notice for breaching Covid rules is not the same as a criminal conviction" into the centrepiece of their Christmas campaign.
Is Kemi on dangerous ground here? Wasn't it true that had Harriet Harman kicked up a fuss Kemi could have been in serious hot water over her admission regarding interference with Harman's computer?
Yes. She's lucky Starmer isn't fleeter of foot/cautious given never went to court as was her boasting in the Speccie. But showing exactly why she's likely to be a liability for the Tories. Will walk into every fight Labour want to have with her as can't resist, when should be spending every moment resetting the Tories' reputation and letting Labour get into its own messes.
In fairness, Harman deserves credit for just accepting Kemi’s apology and leaving it there. Wish there was more of that in public life. But, yes, it’s rather hypocritical from Badenoch I suppose.
The porridge banned under the policy is that with added sugar, ergo junk food. The list looks pretty sound to me.
It doesn't to me. The whole premise just seems overkill to me if you end up having to distinguish between the good and bad porridge. I'm not libertarian, but that's such a level of detail that just seems over the top for government. It's not like the definitions of acceptable or not will remain static.
Anyone else feeling really anxious about the collapse of governments in France, Germany and Netherlands? Especially with far-left and far-right parties bringing down a centrist administration in France. Just feels ominous.
Unless serious growth can return to these Western European countries the problems won't go away.
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
He's turning into the Daily Express, and the comments are a found poem.
There are two separate points here on the actual legislation (ignoring the party political stuff as I suspect this started well before the election)
1. I object on principle to the idea of banning adverts based on someone's idea of what is or is not healthy. particularly given how far the scientific opinion on that has shifted over the last few decades. 2. Accepting that the Government does want to play Nanny state, the proposed list is incoherent garbage. Including such staples as porridge and calling it junk food is just plain stupid. And including Tea and Coffee but excluding alcohol - which is the only one of these items that is actualy illegal to sell to kids - is just wildly idiotic.
The list opens up the whole process to justified ridicule
Soon after the ban we’ll wonder why we were ever dumb enough to allow junk food to be advertised to children. Virtually everything on the list is garbage.
Tea? Coffee? Porridge? Ravioli?
You have a very strange view of garbage. Mind you, you have avery strange view of most things so I am not exactly surprised.
I don't think any of it should be banned out of principle of free speech.
However there has to be some misrepresentation going on surely here to suggest tea and coffee? There's no sugar or calories in plain tea and coffee?
I assume it's "coffee drinks" as opposed to actual coffee, eg bottled drinks that can have the equivalent of many spoons of sugar in them, that are on the list?
Not that anything should be.
We talked about this previously on here and looked at the research for things like sin taxes. The most effective approach was encouraging manufactures to reformulate products rather than sugar tax / advertising bans. The instant coffee in a can products for example often have stupid amounts of sugar (even today) which really isn't necessary.
Instant coffee in a can isn’t necessary, full stop. What is the point of it? Just make a cup of coffee with, you know, actual coffee.
(Note, I wouldn’t ban it but advertising it to children is just stupid).
Personally I never buy them, but given the amount of shelf space they now take up, I presume the cold in a can must be a popular segment of the market. Perhaps people think they are healthier than energy drinks when they need their caffeine hit, without realising the stupid amount of sugar most of them have added to them?
Who knows? I tasted one once - it was gross. Just tasted of sugar and that gummy mouthfeel you get in processed milk drinks.
Iced coffee takes seconds to make yourself. It’s just fresh coffee, shaken over ice, with milk. That’s it.
This is one of the more dubious cases arising from the summer riots.
A former boxer prosecuted for saying in a YouTube video that "young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs". He initially pled not guilty and was remanded in custody without bail in August. After being locked up for months he's eventually pled guilty to a charge of 'sending communication of an offensive nature' and will now be sentenced.
meanwhile a member if the Rochdale grooming gangs, who was sentenced to 19 years in prison will be released tommorow after serving less than half his sentence.
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
He's turning into the Daily Express, and the comments are a found poem.
There are two separate points here on the actual legislation (ignoring the party political stuff as I suspect this started well before the election)
1. I object on principle to the idea of banning adverts based on someone's idea of what is or is not healthy. particularly given how far the scientific opinion on that has shifted over the last few decades. 2. Accepting that the Government does want to play Nanny state, the proposed list is incoherent garbage. Including such staples as porridge and calling it junk food is just plain stupid. And including Tea and Coffee but excluding alcohol - which is the only one of these items that is actualy illegal to sell to kids - is just wildly idiotic.
The list opens up the whole process to justified ridicule
Soon after the ban we’ll wonder why we were ever dumb enough to allow junk food to be advertised to children. Virtually everything on the list is garbage.
Tea? Coffee? Porridge? Ravioli?
You have a very strange view of garbage. Mind you, you have avery strange view of most things so I am not exactly surprised.
I don't think any of it should be banned out of principle of free speech.
However there has to be some misrepresentation going on surely here to suggest tea and coffee? There's no sugar or calories in plain tea and coffee?
I assume it's "coffee drinks" as opposed to actual coffee, eg bottled drinks that can have the equivalent of many spoons of sugar in them, that are on the list?
Not that anything should be.
We talked about this previously on here and looked at the research for things like sin taxes. The most effective approach was encouraging manufactures to reformulate products rather than sugar tax / advertising bans. The instant coffee in a can products for example often have stupid amounts of sugar (even today) which really isn't necessary.
Instant coffee in a can isn’t necessary, full stop. What is the point of it? Just make a cup of coffee with, you know, actual coffee.
(Note, I wouldn’t ban it but advertising it to children is just stupid).
Personally I never buy them, but given the amount of shelf space they now take up, I presume the cold in a can must be a popular segment of the market. Perhaps people think they are healthier than energy drinks when they need their caffeine hit, without realising the stupid amount of sugar most of them have added to them?
Who knows? I tasted one once - it was gross. Just tasted of sugar and that gummy mouthfeel you get in processed milk drinks.
Iced coffee takes seconds to make yourself. It’s just fresh coffee, shaken over ice, with milk. That’s it.
Personally I have a cold brew "device"...but I admit that might be a bit OTT.
As someone who does not drink, smoke, or do drugs, I feel like I deserve to see adverts for junk food now and again. Especially stuff which is just slightly unhealthier versions of everyday things.
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
He's turning into the Daily Express, and the comments are a found poem.
There are two separate points here on the actual legislation (ignoring the party political stuff as I suspect this started well before the election)
1. I object on principle to the idea of banning adverts based on someone's idea of what is or is not healthy. particularly given how far the scientific opinion on that has shifted over the last few decades. 2. Accepting that the Government does want to play Nanny state, the proposed list is incoherent garbage. Including such staples as porridge and calling it junk food is just plain stupid. And including Tea and Coffee but excluding alcohol - which is the only one of these items that is actualy illegal to sell to kids - is just wildly idiotic.
The list opens up the whole process to justified ridicule
Soon after the ban we’ll wonder why we were ever dumb enough to allow junk food to be advertised to children. Virtually everything on the list is garbage.
Tea? Coffee? Porridge? Ravioli?
You have a very strange view of garbage. Mind you, you have avery strange view of most things so I am not exactly surprised.
I don't think any of it should be banned out of principle of free speech.
However there has to be some misrepresentation going on surely here to suggest tea and coffee? There's no sugar or calories in plain tea and coffee?
I assume it's "coffee drinks" as opposed to actual coffee, eg bottled drinks that can have the equivalent of many spoons of sugar in them, that are on the list?
Not that anything should be.
We talked about this previously on here and looked at the research for things like sin taxes. The most effective approach was encouraging manufactures to reformulate products rather than sugar tax / advertising bans. The instant coffee in a can products for example often have stupid amounts of sugar (even today) which really isn't necessary.
Yes, the coffee in a can thing irritates me. I love my coffee but don't drink any of them as the sugar in them, even the ones not labelled as flavoured, is insane.
Which is annoying as coffee is naturally sugarfree!
So Ive been through the press in France Germany Italy and Spain and none of them have reported on the world changing events surrounding Greg Wallace.
Do they understand nothing ?
Rather a sadly dismissive post. If a rather forward camp man pulled his todger out, his modesty covered only by a sock, because he thought it might attract your interest, I suspect you would be quite justifiably outraged. Is there a difference?
when did he have his todger out, the fantasies are escalating
Apparently he didn't it was covered by a sock. My mistake.
The thing is that these sorts of actions are on an escalating ladder. Today it is "todger out", but what about tomorrow or next week? When does flashing no longer satisfy and so the perpetrator moves up to assault or rape or murder?
Are we supposed to wait until it gets really, deadly serious?
Jermaine Jenas's feet didn't touch the ground for "sexting".How the hell did Wallace keep his presenting role after claims were made about his behaviour in 2018? Moving on from your point this was only a handful of years after Savile. I am not suggesting a parallel, however it does seem blind eyes remain blind to national treasures.
We're setting the bar very very low if Greg Wallace is a national treasure. I don't mean to join the pile-on here. He was no worae a broadcaster than many. But he's hardly Joanna Lumley.
Our local Masterchef finalist insists that he is utterly charming and better than anyone else at putting people at their ease when trying to deal with the stress of the Masterchef kitchen.
My wife says we are to cancel our TV licence if he is kicked out.
What I am fascinated by is who thinks constantly talking about how you like to do your shagging to every person you meet is what they want to hear? He sounds like Jay from the Inbetweeners when made to his 50s.
We should have a sweepstake on which male celebrity of a certain age comes out to support Wallace and scuppers their career.
Given a load of journos stuck their neck out for Huw Edwards, I think the "I knew nothing" will be the response this time.
Nah there's always one who says it's just on set banter, and women should get a sense of humour.
The question is who will take that shotgun to their own feet?
It surely isn't believable that his co-host never saw nothing....How many 100s of these episodes have they made and it appears he never shut up about shagging (has done, wants to do, how other people do it).
A lot of the allegations are from programmes other than Masterchef that Gregg Wallace presented. On Masterchef itself, it is likely that John and Gregg are not on set together (or at all) for much of the time chefs are cooking.
And to take your maths – How many 100s of these episodes have they made and it appears he never shut up about shagging – well, in that case, why aren't there more accusations?
Of course, it is still early days and more allegations are emerging, but still there are an awful lot of Masterchef contestants over the years who have yet to speak. Maybe they saw nothing. Maybe they did see it as harmless banter. If you watch Masterchef, you will see how often chefs hug each other. Why is it all right for Monica to speak of hugging cooks, or for Pru and the Bake Off gang to smirk about soggy bottoms? Maybe Wallace is right that the complaints come from the Celebrities version where the stakes are lower and contestants posher.
TRiE suggested that if Gregg had apologised right at the start, his career could have survived, but instead his every intervention has made things worse.
The porridge banned under the policy is that with added sugar, ergo junk food. The list looks pretty sound to me.
It doesn't to me. The whole premise just seems overkill to me if you end up having to distinguish between the good and bad porridge. I'm not libertarian, but that's such a level of detail that just seems over the top for government. It's not like the definitions of acceptable or not will remain static.
It’s really not. Garbage like Ready Brek etc are processed junk food. Oats are natural ingredients that are rightly exempt from the ban. Like the difference between tea leaves and Liptonice.
I’m still getting over the shock that kle4 considers “three slices of toast and Vegemite” a suitable dinner
It was a particularly poor and lazy day in fairness.
Though a toast heavy diet works well for me when I decide to lose weight, every couple of years or so (though a nutritionist would probably balk at it as a suggestion). Egg on toast and some paprika? Good stuff.
With that diet I’m not surprised you are thin, bald and gray
So Ive been through the press in France Germany Italy and Spain and none of them have reported on the world changing events surrounding Greg Wallace.
Do they understand nothing ?
Rather a sadly dismissive post. If a rather forward camp man pulled his todger out, his modesty covered only by a sock, because he thought it might attract your interest, I suspect you would be quite justifiably outraged. Is there a difference?
when did he have his todger out, the fantasies are escalating
Apparently he didn't it was covered by a sock. My mistake.
The thing is that these sorts of actions are on an escalating ladder. Today it is "todger out", but what about tomorrow or next week? When does flashing no longer satisfy and so the perpetrator moves up to assault or rape or murder?
Are we supposed to wait until it gets really, deadly serious?
Jermaine Jenas's feet didn't touch the ground for "sexting".How the hell did Wallace keep his presenting role after claims were made about his behaviour in 2018? Moving on from your point this was only a handful of years after Savile. I am not suggesting a parallel, however it does seem blind eyes remain blind to national treasures.
We're setting the bar very very low if Greg Wallace is a national treasure. I don't mean to join the pile-on here. He was no worae a broadcaster than many. But he's hardly Joanna Lumley.
Our local Masterchef finalist insists that he is utterly charming and better than anyone else at putting people at their ease when trying to deal with the stress of the Masterchef kitchen.
My wife says we are to cancel our TV licence if he is kicked out.
What I am fascinated by is who thinks constantly talking about how you like to do your shagging to every person you meet is what they want to hear? He sounds like Jay from the Inbetweeners when made to his 50s.
We should have a sweepstake on which male celebrity of a certain age comes out to support Wallace and scuppers their career.
Given a load of journos stuck their neck out for Huw Edwards, I think the "I knew nothing" will be the response this time.
Jermaine Jenas has to be pissed, they threw him under the bus for some flirty texts with women who either were interested in real life (but were a junior on a programme he presented) or said well it was my job to flirt with such people. It seems his crimes were he overstepped the mark when they said no with some more texts of oh come you know you want to. Obviously the fact he was willing to cheat on his wife makes his scummy, but quite different to Gregg Wallace who it seems you meet and all he wants to talk about / show his meat and two veg.
The notable thing about Wallace was how quickly celebrities/ex-colleagues who'd come across him were to slag him off - even before some of the more damaging allegations. Rod Stewart was straight out the gate.
Not sure about colleagues but most football fans couldn't stand Jenas.
If you're either well liked or are seen as really important - then people in will try and defend you until it becomes untenable. If not, lots will be waiting for the chance to stick the boot in.
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
He's turning into the Daily Express, and the comments are a found poem.
There are two separate points here on the actual legislation (ignoring the party political stuff as I suspect this started well before the election)
1. I object on principle to the idea of banning adverts based on someone's idea of what is or is not healthy. particularly given how far the scientific opinion on that has shifted over the last few decades. 2. Accepting that the Government does want to play Nanny state, the proposed list is incoherent garbage. Including such staples as porridge and calling it junk food is just plain stupid. And including Tea and Coffee but excluding alcohol - which is the only one of these items that is actualy illegal to sell to kids - is just wildly idiotic.
The list opens up the whole process to justified ridicule
Soon after the ban we’ll wonder why we were ever dumb enough to allow junk food to be advertised to children. Virtually everything on the list is garbage.
Tea? Coffee? Porridge? Ravioli?
You have a very strange view of garbage. Mind you, you have avery strange view of most things so I am not exactly surprised.
I don't think any of it should be banned out of principle of free speech.
However there has to be some misrepresentation going on surely here to suggest tea and coffee? There's no sugar or calories in plain tea and coffee?
I assume it's "coffee drinks" as opposed to actual coffee, eg bottled drinks that can have the equivalent of many spoons of sugar in them, that are on the list?
Not that anything should be.
We talked about this previously on here and looked at the research for things like sin taxes. The most effective approach was encouraging manufactures to reformulate products rather than sugar tax / advertising bans. The instant coffee in a can products for example often have stupid amounts of sugar (even today) which really isn't necessary.
Instant coffee in a can isn’t necessary, full stop. What is the point of it? Just make a cup of coffee with, you know, actual coffee.
(Note, I wouldn’t ban it but advertising it to children is just stupid).
Personally I never buy them, but given the amount of shelf space they now take up, I presume the cold in a can must be a popular segment of the market. Perhaps people think they are healthier than energy drinks when they need their caffeine hit, without realising the stupid amount of sugar most of them have added to them?
Who knows? I tasted one once - it was gross. Just tasted of sugar and that gummy mouthfeel you get in processed milk drinks.
Iced coffee takes seconds to make yourself. It’s just fresh coffee, shaken over ice, with milk. That’s it.
Personally I have a cold brew "device"...but I admit that might be a bit OTT.
Interesting. What does it do? (I’m genuinely interested by the way, love my coffee)
I’m still getting over the shock that kle4 considers “three slices of toast and Vegemite” a suitable dinner
It was a particularly poor and lazy day in fairness.
Though a toast heavy diet works well for me when I decide to lose weight, every couple of years or so (though a nutritionist would probably balk at it as a suggestion). Egg on toast and some paprika? Good stuff.
With that diet I’m not surprised you are thin, bald and gray
I only go on that diet when I feek I need to lose a lot of weight quite quickly. As things stand I'm a generally bit pudgy and my hair is going fine (judging by my parents I should have nothing to worry about there).
The porridge banned under the policy is that with added sugar, ergo junk food. The list looks pretty sound to me.
Round here, children look slim but many parents fat. If this carries countrywide, then the entire basis is wrong, both in its target and the likely cause being lack of exercise rather than food.
As someone who does not drink, smoke, or do drugs, I feel like I deserve to see adverts for junk food now and again. Especially stuff which is just slightly unhealthier versions of everyday things.
Sugar-added stuff is not “slightly unhealthier”. In most cases, it’s processed garbage masquerading as “everyday things”. And you can see the ads if you really want (question: why do you want to see ads?) - just not before 9pm.
The porridge banned under the policy is that with added sugar, ergo junk food. The list looks pretty sound to me.
It doesn't to me. The whole premise just seems overkill to me if you end up having to distinguish between the good and bad porridge. I'm not libertarian, but that's such a level of detail that just seems over the top for government. It's not like the definitions of acceptable or not will remain static.
It’s really not. Garbage like Ready Brek etc are processed junk food. Oats are natural ingredients that are rightly exempt from the ban. Like the difference between tea leaves and Liptonice.
If we care that much about people making an unhealthy choice then really should just go ahead and ban us from doing unhealthy things, if advertising it is bad so is eating it.
I’m still getting over the shock that kle4 considers “three slices of toast and Vegemite” a suitable dinner
It was a particularly poor and lazy day in fairness.
Though a toast heavy diet works well for me when I decide to lose weight, every couple of years or so (though a nutritionist would probably balk at it as a suggestion). Egg on toast and some paprika? Good stuff.
With that diet I’m not surprised you are thin, bald and gray
I only go on that diet when I feek I need to lose a lot of weight quite quickly. As things stand I'm a generally bit pudgy and my hair is going fine (judging by my parents I should have nothing to worry about there).
Just eat what you want, but vary and moderate your desires where possible.
You'll take more years off your life by worrying about what you're eating, and be unhappier. Most diets are just fads designed to take your money and make you unhappy.
That's easy to say, but not as easy to do.
We've rapidly moved from a state that existed for hundreds of thousands of years - relatively, or very, scarce food and intense physical activity to get it - to one where there is a large surplus of food, particularly food stuffed with sugar, an industry determined to sell as much food as possible, and sedentary working lives.
Put like that it's perhaps surprising that the obesity stats aren't way worse.
In particular a craving for high energy salty foods.
Obesity is a worldwide issue, rampant in the urban areas across Africa, Middle East and Asia.
Laissez-faire on diets isn't working, just look around next time you are in a High St or Supermarket.
Indeed. We eat a pile of utter shite in this country – and feed it to our children. Most 'low-fat' food is processed rubbish. Everything that comes in a box is laced with sugar, masquerading to be actual food. Ready meals are riddled with additives.
LOSE THE LANDFILL PACKAGING.
We are a sad nation of fussy eaters.
People need to learn to cook. And eat actual food. Meat, veg, fish, dairy. Actual food. Ban the junk 'food' advertising at all times. Adults are as bad as kids.
"Cooking" is not difficult if you want to cook and be lazy about it.
Get meat, season meat, put meat in air fryer, turn air fryer on. When it beeps, take food out. Eat food. For best results turn it over halfway through.
Not exactly culinary school.
Yes, I am really skeptical when I see claims that people don't know how to cook, or rather how that is presented as a difficult problem to overcome.
I don't cook often and often do not eat well, I literally had 3 pieces of vegemite toast for dinner. But when we have even a slight desire to make something it's easy to find something, well, easy to do. It isn't a lack of knowledge, it's a lack of will (and/or time).
Addressing that lack of will may be the harder problem, but it's not actually the same problem as not knowing how to cook.
I think the willpower is the real bugbear not time.
We've cooked most of our meals for the past 14 years in the air fryer, long since before it was popular. That used to be niche, but has now become almost universal.
Most meals can be cooked in 15 minutes - and you don't need to remain in the kitchen for that time.
People who aren't cooking are not doing so by choice.
I agree it's not really time. People may overestimate the time it might take, or regard the approximate 1hr I spent making a chowder a few weeks ago as too much, but its a lighter hurder to overcome than many problems, given much can be done faster than that.
I mean, you can make multiple servings of that chowder (or curry, or casserole, or whatever delicious dinner you fancy) the just divide the rear into freezer blocks. Thereafter, each dinner takes you minutes warming in a saucepan and as Bart says you don’t even need to be in the kitchen for some of that time.
The lack of cooking in this country needs sorting. We could start by having proper cooking lessons at school, just to get children used to the idea. And make them actual cooking, not “home economics” “food technology” “domestic science” or some other shite that is mostly meaningless paperwork.
Maybe equipping today's youth with large, sharp knives is courageous.
I’m still getting over the shock that kle4 considers “three slices of toast and Vegemite” a suitable dinner
It was a particularly poor and lazy day in fairness.
Though a toast heavy diet works well for me when I decide to lose weight, every couple of years or so (though a nutritionist would probably balk at it as a suggestion). Egg on toast and some paprika? Good stuff.
Isn't poached egg on toast what Mrs Thatcher used to serve to those working late at Number 10?
Just eat what you want, but vary and moderate your desires where possible.
You'll take more years off your life by worrying about what you're eating, and be unhappier. Most diets are just fads designed to take your money and make you unhappy.
That's easy to say, but not as easy to do.
We've rapidly moved from a state that existed for hundreds of thousands of years - relatively, or very, scarce food and intense physical activity to get it - to one where there is a large surplus of food, particularly food stuffed with sugar, an industry determined to sell as much food as possible, and sedentary working lives.
Put like that it's perhaps surprising that the obesity stats aren't way worse.
In particular a craving for high energy salty foods.
Obesity is a worldwide issue, rampant in the urban areas across Africa, Middle East and Asia.
Laissez-faire on diets isn't working, just look around next time you are in a High St or Supermarket.
One reason why exclusion diets like Bart's carnivore diet can work is that by heavily restricting the choice of food available you make food less interesting and it becomes harder to eat too many calories.
I experienced that for the very short period I was on a restricted diet before a colonoscopy. Steamed fish and plain rice is fine, as is grilled chicken breast and plain pasta, but they get really boring, really quickly. Grilled chicken is about 150 calories per 100g. So you'd need to eat about 1.7kg of chicken a day to meet your daily calorie requirement. I like chicken, but I'd find that hard to do because it would be so dull.
Now, I'm sure that Bart makes his meat tasty and interesting to eat in a variety of ways. I'm not saying he's someone with zero interest in food as a Dionysian pleasure. But essentially every approach to eating less food is one of self-denial, and so unless society can find a way to encourage people to cultivate self-denial as a virtue more generally, we shouldn't be surprised that people struggle with it, and that governments are turning to more heavy-handed approaches instead.
The thing with a carnivore-based diet (which allows eggs, dairy, cheese etc) is there's no shortage of tasty food to have and no guilt from having as much of it as you want.
So yes if I want a quick and simple meal I can do that, with eg tonight's meal being a quick and easy one after I got home from work of just chicken breast seasoned and thrown into the air fryer to cook for 15 minutes, with a side of black pudding added to the air fryer halfway through.
Though there's no shortage of interesting and tasty food available for me to have and to be honest the bits I'm cutting out primarily are the bits I'd be less interested in but previously felt obliged to have on top of the food I would want.
EG I used to love eating cheese and crackers, but now still eating the cheese but omitting the biscuits is no worse for me.
Most self-denial diets I've failed with because they're unsustainable. Personally I can sustain this one as I'm keeping the bits I love and dropping the bits I'm not too fussed with anyway.
What about drinks? Does alcohol count as carbs?
Alcohol is fine, it is its own macronutrient like protein, fat and carbs. There are some carbs in beer but you can have a couple of pints within your carb allowance with a keto diet.
Rum doesn't have any carbs.
* while often referred to as zero-carb, there are carbs contained within some processed meats especially, eg sausages, black pudding etc - the rule of thumb I aim to stick to is fewer than 20g of carbs per day.
Alcohol is composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen ... it's a carbohydrate.
The perfect food is an Irish Coffee. All the essential food groups are there - alcohol, fat , sugar and caffeine.
As someone who does not drink, smoke, or do drugs, I feel like I deserve to see adverts for junk food now and again. Especially stuff which is just slightly unhealthier versions of everyday things.
Sugar-added stuff is not “slightly unhealthier”. In most cases, it’s processed garbage masquerading as “everyday things”. And you can see the ads if you really want (question: why do you want to see ads?) - just not before 9pm.
I don't care about seeing the ads, before or after 9pm, I just think this level of nannying from government is unnecessary in the first place.
And the difference between unhealthier and slightly unhealthier is not going to be scientific. It's obviously unhealthier, that's not disputable, so how much unhealthier is permissable to be advertised? That will be arbitrarily defined since Xg more or less added sugar is surely not a massive tipping point, but necessarily they've had to come up with something that is measurable.
I’m still getting over the shock that kle4 considers “three slices of toast and Vegemite” a suitable dinner
It was a particularly poor and lazy day in fairness.
Though a toast heavy diet works well for me when I decide to lose weight, every couple of years or so (though a nutritionist would probably balk at it as a suggestion). Egg on toast and some paprika? Good stuff.
With that diet I’m not surprised you are thin, bald and gray
I only go on that diet when I feek I need to lose a lot of weight quite quickly. As things stand I'm a generally bit pudgy and my hair is going fine (judging by my parents I should have nothing to worry about there).
So it’s not a photo of you in your avatar…
It's my aspiration, physically and philosophically.
They are stark raving mad, of all the crap food around they pick porridge, total nutters.
Is porridge commonly advertised to children?
It seems to me that the ban is on 'breakfast cereals', and it's the Metro who have translated that into granola, mueseli, and porridge - but the sort of cereals that are actually advertised to kids are, er, slightly different...
I think you have misunderstood. It is not a question of whether it is advertised to children. It is a blanket ban on advertising these products before 9pm or at all online. It doesn't matter who they are directed at, they will be banned. The full list is found on the Government website and explicitly includes granola, mueseli, and porridge along with Tea and Coffee - but not alcohol.
I'm interested in the Starmer, STARMER, STARMER !!! attack lines, especially given that the "healthy" or not healthy" scoring system is vintage 2011 aiui. Speaking as somebody who is forced to be interested in nutrition, it's a fascinating summary system.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
He's turning into the Daily Express, and the comments are a found poem.
There are two separate points here on the actual legislation (ignoring the party political stuff as I suspect this started well before the election)
1. I object on principle to the idea of banning adverts based on someone's idea of what is or is not healthy. particularly given how far the scientific opinion on that has shifted over the last few decades. 2. Accepting that the Government does want to play Nanny state, the proposed list is incoherent garbage. Including such staples as porridge and calling it junk food is just plain stupid. And including Tea and Coffee but excluding alcohol - which is the only one of these items that is actualy illegal to sell to kids - is just wildly idiotic.
The list opens up the whole process to justified ridicule
Soon after the ban we’ll wonder why we were ever dumb enough to allow junk food to be advertised to children. Virtually everything on the list is garbage.
Tea? Coffee? Porridge? Ravioli?
You have a very strange view of garbage. Mind you, you have avery strange view of most things so I am not exactly surprised.
I don't think any of it should be banned out of principle of free speech.
However there has to be some misrepresentation going on surely here to suggest tea and coffee? There's no sugar or calories in plain tea and coffee?
I assume it's "coffee drinks" as opposed to actual coffee, eg bottled drinks that can have the equivalent of many spoons of sugar in them, that are on the list?
Not that anything should be.
We talked about this previously on here and looked at the research for things like sin taxes. The most effective approach was encouraging manufactures to reformulate products rather than sugar tax / advertising bans. The instant coffee in a can products for example often have stupid amounts of sugar (even today) which really isn't necessary.
Instant coffee in a can isn’t necessary, full stop. What is the point of it? Just make a cup of coffee with, you know, actual coffee.
(Note, I wouldn’t ban it but advertising it to children is just stupid).
Personally I never buy them, but given the amount of shelf space they now take up, I presume the cold in a can must be a popular segment of the market. Perhaps people think they are healthier than energy drinks when they need their caffeine hit, without realising the stupid amount of sugar most of them have added to them?
Who knows? I tasted one once - it was gross. Just tasted of sugar and that gummy mouthfeel you get in processed milk drinks.
Iced coffee takes seconds to make yourself. It’s just fresh coffee, shaken over ice, with milk. That’s it.
Personally I have a cold brew "device"...but I admit that might be a bit OTT.
Interesting. What does it do? (I’m genuinely interested by the way, love my coffee)
It doesn't really do anything that special. The filter is such that when you load in the grinds / water, it works such that it slowly "brew" the coffee.
You stick it in the corner overnight, then in the morning, press the button, it releases the cold brew into the insulated container that you can take with you.
Was a Mrs U present. Works as advertised, but not really necessary.
The porridge banned under the policy is that with added sugar, ergo junk food. The list looks pretty sound to me.
It doesn't to me. The whole premise just seems overkill to me if you end up having to distinguish between the good and bad porridge. I'm not libertarian, but that's such a level of detail that just seems over the top for government. It's not like the definitions of acceptable or not will remain static.
It’s really not. Garbage like Ready Brek etc are processed junk food. Oats are natural ingredients that are rightly exempt from the ban. Like the difference between tea leaves and Liptonice.
If we care that much about people making an unhealthy choice then really should just go ahead and ban us from doing unhealthy things, if advertising it is bad so is eating it.
Eating it is bad for you but so are many things. The difference is that we are advertising this garbage to children, who then nag their parents for it incessantly. Same principle why supermarkets stopped putting racks of sweets by the tills.
So Ive been through the press in France Germany Italy and Spain and none of them have reported on the world changing events surrounding Greg Wallace.
Do they understand nothing ?
Rather a sadly dismissive post. If a rather forward camp man pulled his todger out, his modesty covered only by a sock, because he thought it might attract your interest, I suspect you would be quite justifiably outraged. Is there a difference?
when did he have his todger out, the fantasies are escalating
Apparently he didn't it was covered by a sock. My mistake.
The thing is that these sorts of actions are on an escalating ladder. Today it is "todger out", but what about tomorrow or next week? When does flashing no longer satisfy and so the perpetrator moves up to assault or rape or murder?
Are we supposed to wait until it gets really, deadly serious?
Jermaine Jenas's feet didn't touch the ground for "sexting".How the hell did Wallace keep his presenting role after claims were made about his behaviour in 2018? Moving on from your point this was only a handful of years after Savile. I am not suggesting a parallel, however it does seem blind eyes remain blind to national treasures.
We're setting the bar very very low if Greg Wallace is a national treasure. I don't mean to join the pile-on here. He was no worae a broadcaster than many. But he's hardly Joanna Lumley.
Our local Masterchef finalist insists that he is utterly charming and better than anyone else at putting people at their ease when trying to deal with the stress of the Masterchef kitchen.
My wife says we are to cancel our TV licence if he is kicked out.
What I am fascinated by is who thinks constantly talking about how you like to do your shagging to every person you meet is what they want to hear? He sounds like Jay from the Inbetweeners when made to his 50s.
We should have a sweepstake on which male celebrity of a certain age comes out to support Wallace and scuppers their career.
Given a load of journos stuck their neck out for Huw Edwards, I think the "I knew nothing" will be the response this time.
Jermaine Jenas has to be pissed, they threw him under the bus for some flirty texts with women who either were interested in real life (but were a junior on a programme he presented) or said well it was my job to flirt with such people. It seems his crimes were he overstepped the mark when they said no with some more texts of oh come you know you want to. Obviously the fact he was willing to cheat on his wife makes his scummy, but quite different to Gregg Wallace who it seems you meet and all he wants to talk about / show his meat and two veg.
Jermaine Jenas and Huw Edwards worked directly for the BBC, whereas Gregg Wallace worked for independent production companies with whom the BBC had no involvement other than buying programmes.
Comments
Gregg Wallace’s ghostwriter says he sexually harassed her
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy47dz8yp4vo
What I am fascinated by is who thinks constantly talking about how you like to do your shagging to every person you meet is what they want to hear? He sounds like Jay from the Inbetweeners when made to his 50s.
12 days.
12 livestreams.
A bunch of new things, big and small.
12 Days of OpenAI starts tomorrow.
https://x.com/OpenAI/status/1864328928267259941
Rum doesn't have any carbs.
* while often referred to as zero-carb, there are carbs contained within some processed meats especially, eg sausages, black pudding etc - the rule of thumb I aim to stick to is fewer than 20g of carbs per day.
Boris just lied to the electorate, promised to make Britain Great Again and then proved that he was an utter fantasist over and over again. The last estimate I heard was that UKplc was down about £140bn thanks to Boris, Farage and their merry men.
At least he never claimed that women liked to be grabbed by the pussy...
(12 posts remaining)
He has quite a lot of fans who won’t like his crucifixion, justified or not
A very disconcerting condition. Last time it lasted a couple of weeks then faded.
LOSE THE LANDFILL PACKAGING.
We are a sad nation of fussy eaters.
People need to learn to cook. And eat actual food. Meat, veg, fish, dairy. Actual food. Ban the junk 'food' advertising at all times. Adults are as bad as kids.
Way back when a strategic port - a base for legendary Admiral Yi Sun-sin's turtle fleet, in the long war against Japanese invasion.
Later a busy entrepôt for the Japanese colonialists.
Now, like much of the southwest, a backwater.
I missed the SW entirely in my trip around Korea. On the list for next time (I also want to see Gwanju).
Carbs have 4 calories per gram while alcohol is 7. They are different things and your body processes them differently.
Carbs are converted rapidly into blood sugar which is why they are so harmful for so many people and cause spike and crash cravings, alcohol is not the same thing at all.
Get meat, season meat, put meat in air fryer, turn air fryer on. When it beeps, take food out. Eat food. For best results turn it over halfway through.
Not exactly culinary school.
And a contributor to PB, of course.
Black Belt Barrister has gone somewhat loopy again, acknowledging about 5 times that this is a subject he knows nothing about, and has not researched properly, so he is not giving any real information, but he is giving an OBJECTIVE report as a LAWYER.
Yet his whole shtick is to go and imply that a pre-school breakfast by a provider organisation incorporating a bagel is somehow problematic because bagels are on the "do not advertise online before the threshold" list. When the association only exists in his head.
It adds up to be heathly. Then ... BUT IT'S GOT JAM ON IT in the picture.
It's like the opponents of the ULEZ insisting the Mayor's electric vehicle is some sort of double standard.
A festival of silos, and the outrage-bots of Clacton jumping up and inchoately in the comments for exactly the same reason they jump up and down every time they breathe. To paraphrase Marvin the Paranoid Android, if they stopped shouting there would be a danger their brains might turn themselves on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCrRcuFYkNA
He's turning into the Daily Express, and the comments are a found poem.
https://www.bruegel.org/first-glance/barniers-balancing-act-skilful-precarious-budget-plan
Rejecting it will not just bring political chaos but also financial. Not passing it also means no indexation of income tax thresholds so increases taxes significantly.
Both French far Left and far Right voted against. Trussites and Corbynites joining forces to cause chaos.
https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/isle-of-wight/newtown-national-nature-reserve-and-old-town-hall
Used to be a nice pub on the road junction back on the main road, too, for dinners.
*Dredges up ancient knowledge* maybe the hydroxyl group needs to be functional or something.
(Seems to be a thing these days.)
The ruling People Power Party has adopted its official party position opposing President Yoon's impeachment.
https://x.com/yejinjgim/status/1864335512145662245
I don't cook often and often do not eat well, I literally had 3 pieces of vegemite toast for dinner. But when we have even a slight desire to make something it's easy to find something, well, easy to do. It isn't a lack of knowledge, it's a lack of will (and/or time).
Addressing that lack of will may be the harder problem, but it's not actually the same problem as not knowing how to cook.
We've cooked most of our meals for the past 14 years in the air fryer, long since before it was popular. That used to be niche, but has now become almost universal.
Most meals can be cooked in 15 minutes - and you don't need to remain in the kitchen for that time.
People who aren't cooking are not doing so by choice.
The Trump tax cut is unfunded, and expires next year. Renewing it would add hundreds of billions to the deficit.
Asked @RepJasonSmith about @MikeCrapo pitch that Republicans don’t need to pay for extending Trump tax cuts because they’re current law -
“It’s the right idea,” Smith says..
https://x.com/LauraEWeiss16/status/1864428651544039798
Makes Liz Truss look like Milton Friedman.
Jermaine Jenas has to be pissed, they threw him under the bus for some flirty texts with women who either were interested in real life (but were a junior on a programme he presented) or said well it was my job to flirt with such people. It seems his crimes were he overstepped the mark when they said no with some more texts of oh come you know you want to. Obviously the fact he was willing to cheat on his wife makes his scummy, but quite different to Gregg Wallace who it seems you meet and all he wants to talk about / show his meat and two veg.
It is all context dependent, around aims and objectives, and dependent on the metabolism of the people whom you are speaking, and the diet they are following.
In diabetic and some nutrition circles, alcoholic drinks (and refined foods) are sometimes described as "empty carbs" - because they have had the useful complex carbs removed or broken down, and cause a faster not slower absorption of glucose - a spike.
The Google bot is quite good on it:
Empty carbs, also known as refined or simple carbohydrates, are carbohydrates that have been processed to remove fiber, vitamins, and minerals. They are often referred to as "bad" carbs.
Empty carbs are digested quickly and have a high glycemic index, which means they cause blood sugar levels to spike. This can lead to a crash in blood sugar levels, which can trigger hunger and cravings. The short-lived fullness can lead to overeating, weight gain, and conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure.
The question is who will take that shotgun to their own feet?
1. I object on principle to the idea of banning adverts based on someone's idea of what is or is not healthy. particularly given how far the scientific opinion on that has shifted over the last few decades.
2. Accepting that the Government does want to play Nanny state, the proposed list is incoherent garbage. Including such staples as porridge and calling it junk food is just plain stupid. And including Tea and Coffee but excluding alcohol - which is the only one of these items that is actualy illegal to sell to kids - is just wildly idiotic.
The list opens up the whole process to justified ridicule
Beer includes the most carbs. Dry wines don't include many but sweet wines include more. Spirits don't include any, unless you use a mixer that does with them, but liquors do.
I'll happily have a pint of beer, but if I'm having a few drinks I'll typically stick to either red wine or rum.
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/alcohol-and-blood-sugar.html
The secretary of state for Northern Ireland has begun the process of formally repealing the controversial Legacy Act.
The act, which was brought in by the Conservative government, introduced a ban on inquests and civil actions related to incidents during the Troubles.
It also sought to offer a conditional amnesty for people suspected of Troubles-related crimes in exchange for co-operating with a new information recovery body.
Labour pledged to repeal the Legacy Act if they won the general election in July.
The Act has been opposed by victims' groups and all the main political parties in Northern Ireland.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9gp8g32v5o
The lack of cooking in this country needs sorting. We could start by having proper cooking lessons at school, just to get children used to the idea. And make them actual cooking, not “home economics” “food technology” “domestic science” or some other shite that is mostly meaningless paperwork.
Goodnight people
(11 posts remaining)
Though a toast heavy diet works well for me when I decide to lose weight, every couple of years or so (though a nutritionist would probably balk at it as a suggestion). Egg on toast and some paprika? Good stuff.
Always come to mind.
"Sleeper (1973) Clips - Healthy Food and Tobacco"
But point taken.
It’s completely the wrong call by the Bank of England. Its substituting expansive playmakers into the game far too early - Labour need to call this out with need of caution, slow and carfull unwinding. By my analysis - I’m one of PBs macro economic experts now after the weekend success - Labour need at least another 2.5 years of varying degrees of austerity budgets, like the last one, or risk cominga cropper with income screwing inflation at end of parliament.
Why should the Bank of England have all this power to bring on the flair players far too early in the game? The Chancellor and Prime Minister, who we can sack for the calls, should be the ones making this call. The Prime Ministers desk should have the power, it’s a huge failure of UK democracy.
You have a very strange view of garbage. Mind you, you have avery strange view of most things so I am not exactly surprised.
However there has to be some misrepresentation going on surely here to suggest tea and coffee? There's no sugar or calories in plain tea and coffee?
I assume it's "coffee drinks" as opposed to actual coffee, eg bottled drinks that can have the equivalent of many spoons of sugar in them, that are on the list?
Not that anything should be.
The Government page says:
“Breakfast cereals including ready-to-eat cereals, granola, muesli, porridge oats and other oat-based cereals.”
It makes no mention at all of added sugar.
If a food or drink product is included in one of the categories of the schedule, it will only be in scope of the advertising restrictions if the product is deemed ‘less healthy’ when applying the 2004 to 2005 NPM using the 2011 technical guidance. The technical guidance provides instructions on how to calculate the NPM score for different products ...
The NPM uses a simple scoring system where points are allocated on the basis of the nutrient content of 100g of a food or drink. Points are awarded for both:
‘A’ nutrients (energy, saturated fat, total sugar and sodium)
‘C’ nutrients (fruit, vegetables and nut content, fibre and protein)
The government will classify products according to a scoring system based on their sugar, fat and protein content, banning advertising on all foods designated as "less healthy". This means healthy versions of products – including porridge products with no added sugar, salt or fat, and unsweetened yoghurt products – will not be subject to the ban.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgrwzx8er9o
This means healthy versions of products – including porridge products with no added sugar, salt or fat, and unsweetened yoghurt products – will not be subject to the ban.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgrwzx8er9o
Stop calling me a liar, Richard. That’s twice in a week and on neither occasion did I lie (or indeed attack you in any way).
I have no idea what’s got into you because 99% of the time you are a gent to debate.
And before anyone says, Germany was successful early on DESPITE the Nazis, not because of them.
(Note, I wouldn’t ban it but advertising it to children is just stupid).
The hacking campaign is one of the largest intelligence compromises in US history, with at least eight major companies targeted."
https://news.sky.com/story/dozens-of-nations-hit-by-china-hack-as-americans-warned-to-stop-sending-texts-13267081
Iced coffee takes seconds to make yourself. It’s just fresh coffee, shaken over ice, with milk. That’s it.
This country has become a complete joke.
The country I used to love has made me hate it.
Which is annoying as coffee is naturally sugarfree!
And to take your maths – How many 100s of these episodes have they made and it appears he never shut up about shagging – well, in that case, why aren't there more accusations?
Of course, it is still early days and more allegations are emerging, but still there are an awful lot of Masterchef contestants over the years who have yet to speak. Maybe they saw nothing. Maybe they did see it as harmless banter. If you watch Masterchef, you will see how often chefs hug each other. Why is it all right for Monica to speak of hugging cooks, or for Pru and the Bake Off gang to smirk about soggy bottoms? Maybe Wallace is right that the complaints come from the Celebrities version where the stakes are lower and contestants posher.
TRiE suggested that if Gregg had apologised right at the start, his career could have survived, but instead his every intervention has made things worse.
Not sure about colleagues but most football fans couldn't stand Jenas.
If you're either well liked or are seen as really important - then people in will try and defend you until it becomes untenable. If not, lots will be waiting for the chance to stick the boot in.
And the difference between unhealthier and slightly unhealthier is not going to be scientific. It's obviously unhealthier, that's not disputable, so how much unhealthier is permissable to be advertised? That will be arbitrarily defined since Xg more or less added sugar is surely not a massive tipping point, but necessarily they've had to come up with something that is measurable.
https://asobubottle.co.uk/products/cold-brew
You stick it in the corner overnight, then in the morning, press the button, it releases the cold brew into the insulated container that you can take with you.
Was a Mrs U present. Works as advertised, but not really necessary.