A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here. I note that West Anglia is being nationalised next year (becoming part of the Overground). When LU nationalised the old Solverlink (west London) line, they completely transformed both the service and the despicably disgusting, badly lit, disgraceful stations.
I have no issue with halal meat providing it is stunned. Some muslims take the view that halal meat should not be stunned. Some people may prefer not to eat any sort of halal.
A clear labelling system of non stun halal, stun halal and non halal would be helpful and beneficial to all.
When the word "racism" was changed to mean whatever lefties wanted it to, it was inevitable this would happen
Khalid Khan UKIP @KhanUKIP 8h White middle class #Leftard protesters yelling 'racist' at Black Asian and Ethnic #UKIP candidates including me today pic.twitter.com/IrPmJeWARO
It's a shame that, when he wants to make a (fair) point about ill-judged epithets, he does so himself. It's not the Leftie bit that grates (unlike PB Tories most Lefties are happy enough to be described as such) but the 'ard bit... What's the etymology of that, do you think?
Leftie is fine. Leftard is not.
-ard is a respectable suffix indicating a member of a characteristic group, as in coward, dullard and drunkard.
But here it is a compound word ("leftie" and "retard") not a suffix
Some compound words are quite evocative, descriptive and correct.
It's also unpleasant and inaccurate.
Lefties are wrong. They are not retarded. There is a difference.
Mr. Charles, Are you quite sure that the "-ard" bit is from "Retard"? There is, rather a lot of evidence that the use of such a suffix has no such connection and, indeed, long pre-dates the very modern and very American use of "Retard" as a noun to describe a person with serious learning difficulties.
In this context, yes.
It started in America (doesn't it always) where it was "Libtard", a perjorative description used for Democrats. It then mutated into our own charming form.
Fair enough, I suppose. Are all nouns ending in "-ard" going to be classified in the same way? A small number of, actually, very ignorant people in the USA should not be able to change the meaning of the worlds foremost language. I worry sometimes.
Good to see a discussion on cannabis though if you believe that evidence is the guiding light of policy,here is a good source of information. http://idpc.net/
Those of us who support legal regulation include many who worked in both law enforcement and health.Perhaps the difference in this debate is that the campaign for change based on evidence is well funded as the likes of George Soros and Sir Richard Branson support it.If we want to reduce harm,there has to be strict regulation which is why legal regulation,not legalisation,not the status quo,is the way forward.Currently,most illegal drugs are heavily contaminated and it is this that kills people.Legal regulation stops that. Furthermore,cannabis is already prescribed to MS patients, for example, with good outcomes and where it can be shown to give beneficial health effects,surely we can agree to deny a patient a medication which can significantly help them because the law prevents it is wrong? Medical cannabis should be available to all whom it will benefit, without fear of legal sanction. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27299579
When the word "racism" was changed to mean whatever lefties wanted it to, it was inevitable this would happen
Khalid Khan UKIP @KhanUKIP 8h White middle class #Leftard protesters yelling 'racist' at Black Asian and Ethnic #UKIP candidates including me today pic.twitter.com/IrPmJeWARO
It's a shame that, when he wants to make a (fair) point about ill-judged epithets, he does so himself. It's not the Leftie bit that grates (unlike PB Tories most Lefties are happy enough to be described as such) but the 'ard bit... What's the etymology of that, do you think?
Leftie is fine. Leftard is not.
-ard is a respectable suffix indicating a member of a characteristic group, as in coward, dullard and drunkard.
But here it is a compound word ("leftie" and "retard") not a suffix
Some compound words are quite evocative, descriptive and correct.
It's also unpleasant and inaccurate.
Lefties are wrong. They are not retarded. There is a difference.
True; not all lefties are retarded, but there are a hell of a lot that are.
Mental illness is not something to joke about. I would assume that the majority of people who have a keen interest in politics are at or above the average IQ.
I have no issue with halal meat providing it is stunned. Some muslims take the view that halal meat should not be stunned. Some people may prefer not to eat any sort of halal.
A clear labelling system of non stun halal, stun halal and non halal would be helpful and beneficial to all.
I agree. What is more insidious is that the hind quarters of every kosher killed animal is unused and passed into the general food chain unlabelled. The huge amount of hindquarter beef is from this source. If anything, the kosher method of killing is worse than some halal.
The argument now seems to be that if you don’t want to eat halal meat then you’re Islamophobic. In short, not being a Muslim is now an act of Islamophobia. Strewth.
Good blog. Wake up Britain before we are under sharia law by default.
What exactly would be wrong with eating halal meat? Serious question.
The cruelty with which the animals are killed.
That's not the problem or the argument. The problem is that halal meat is being served up to the public by stealth. The argument is that our modern British society is frightened of offending 4% of the population because they are muslims. Please do read the blog!
It's entirely the problem.
Supermarkets, etc, want to supply their Muslim customers with meat that is acceptable. They have also decided that it is more cost effective to have a single supply chain. Consequently in the pursuit of cheap food they ensure all their meat is halal.
I don't have a problem with them doing that - but I would rather pay more for non-halal meat ("stewardship and dominion" implies responsibility). Hence the requirement for clear labelling.
Nothing to do with offending anyone. It's the interplay of revenue and cost.
Jon Cruddas articulating the feelings of many of the working class
Have to admire Cruddas, he seems light years away from many other Labour politicians and supporters
"They feel abandoned, and Ukip is exploiting this mood in Labour's English heartlands, the ex-industrial areas in which decent work and the old culture of the working class have been devastated.
The consequences of this devastation can be seen in the stagnation and fall in wages, in the rise of low-skilled, low-paid work, in workplace stress, in loss of community, and in the growing levels of mental illness. People are working longer and harder for less. They are angry about the high levels of immigration, where concerns about the effects on jobs and wages – real enough – mask a deeper sense of people losing control over their lives.
They are angry about the benefits system, not for lack of generosity but because they believe the system has lost the contributory principle that made it fair. And they believe that parliament is theirs and that it is the sovereign expression of their country but that it has ignored them for years.
Across England there is a desire for a sense of permanence and security. The English are independent-minded but they feel powerless to shape the future of their country. They have lost trust in politics because politics lost interest in them"
Interesting article. One way of looking at it is that the political class lost interest in ordinary white English people about 30 years ago because it found them boring. Dealing with the problems of ethnic minorities, gay people, etc. was inherently more interesting for them from an intellectual point of view.
In making all of their meat halal and not telling us, the supermarkets are making an assumption. That non muslims do not care how the meat they eat is slaughtered.
This is an interesting article about the dangers of skunk. A friend of mine underwent a similar change in his teens - dropped out of school, skipped his A Levels and basically missed out on 10 years of life before getting back on track & studying at Brighton Uni...
Separately - and more disturbingly - if you look at the local newspapers and the other times his mother has written this story, the boy is called Aaron. Why would the Mail feel the need to rename him Henry? There's a pretty obvious explanation - but I hope it's not true. Can anyone else think of an alternative one?
The argument now seems to be that if you don’t want to eat halal meat then you’re Islamophobic. In short, not being a Muslim is now an act of Islamophobia. Strewth.
Good blog. Wake up Britain before we are under sharia law by default.
What exactly would be wrong with eating halal meat? Serious question.
Cruelty to animals. I want to know what kind of meat and other food I'm eating. Halal and kosher slaughter is, to my mind, unnecessarily cruel to the animal. I don't want to eat such meat and want to have the knowledge to make that choice. I see no reason why meat for the majority should be killed in accordance with the laws of small religious minorities, when we have laws against animal cruelty.
We've debated this a few times here. Essentially as I understand it the position is:
1. Slaughterhouses are generally horrible places for animals, as you'd expect - the smell and noise makes them intrinsically inhumane. We are kidding ourselves if we think that halal is the main issue. 2. Halal slaughter traditionally is interpreted inter alia as meaning that animals should not be stunned before being killed. Stunning is clearly preferable for the animals though it only saves a few seconds of the suffering, right at the end. Other aspects of halal aren't particularly objectionable and some are marginally better (the animal is required to be killed with a single blow). 3. Under the last government, all but one of the halal slaughterhouses were quietly persuaded to introduce stunning, with the help of a forward-looking imam who argued that the traditional texts were ambiguous. It wasn't made prominent, to avoid the slaughterhouses that agreed to switch being hassled by traditionalists wanting them to switch back. I don't know if this remains the position, though. 4. Meat doesn't need to be labelled as halal even if it is. It would be helpful in clarifying the position to require that so we all knew where we were. However, it would be better still if the label indicated pre-stunning or otherwise, since as noted above that's a different issue, or if pre-stunning were required.
A problem is that the issue has been hijacked into a proxy for arguing about the position of Islam. Pre-stunning is a genuine issue but any idea that slaughterhouses are basically OK places except for halal practices is frankly hooey, and not always advanced by people with animal welfare uppermost in their minds. Demanding a general effort to make slaughterhouses less terrifying (how about pre-stunning before ENTRY?) would be a lot more impressive.
The argument now seems to be that if you don’t want to eat halal meat then you’re Islamophobic. In short, not being a Muslim is now an act of Islamophobia. Strewth.
Good blog. Wake up Britain before we are under sharia law by default.
What exactly would be wrong with eating halal meat? Serious question.
The cruelty with which the animals are killed.
That's not the problem or the argument. The problem is that halal meat is being served up to the public by stealth. The argument is that our modern British society is frightened of offending 4% of the population because they are muslims. Please do read the blog!
It's entirely the problem.
Supermarkets, etc, want to supply their Muslim customers with meat that is acceptable. They have also decided that it is more cost effective to have a single supply chain. Consequently in the pursuit of cheap food they ensure all their meat is halal.
I don't have a problem with them doing that - but I would rather pay more for non-halal meat ("stewardship and dominion" implies responsibility). Hence the requirement for clear labelling.
Nothing to do with offending anyone. It's the interplay of revenue and cost.
You are so utterly wrong Charles, in that you turn a blind eye to the fact that some shops and restaurants are now not serving bacon or pork because they now only serve halal meat. Soon you wont be able ti have your sarnie. Perhaps you and a lot like you will wake up at last.
The argument now seems to be that if you don’t want to eat halal meat then you’re Islamophobic. In short, not being a Muslim is now an act of Islamophobia. Strewth.
Good blog. Wake up Britain before we are under sharia law by default.
What exactly would be wrong with eating halal meat? Serious question.
The cruelty with which the animals are killed.
That's not the problem or the argument. The problem is that halal meat is being served up to the public by stealth. The argument is that our modern British society is frightened of offending 4% of the population because they are muslims. Please do read the blog!
It's entirely the problem.
Supermarkets, etc, want to supply their Muslim customers with meat that is acceptable. They have also decided that it is more cost effective to have a single supply chain. Consequently in the pursuit of cheap food they ensure all their meat is halal.
I don't have a problem with them doing that - but I would rather pay more for non-halal meat ("stewardship and dominion" implies responsibility). Hence the requirement for clear labelling.
Nothing to do with offending anyone. It's the interplay of revenue and cost.
That isn't quite true. A lot of meat the supermarkets buy, they have no choice over. If they want to import New Zealand lamb, it is pretty much certain to be "halal".
The mega slaughter houses in New Zealand do it partly because they export quite a lot of Middle East and it boils down to economics. Firstly, a single supply chain, but also in the name of religious freedom, you can basically ignore animal welfare. No need to mess around stunning them etc, you just get some bloke to wander along mumbling some prayer and be done with it.
From what I understand Muslims scholars in the UK have said that stunned animals are still halal, but the Jewish community have said absolutely not Kosher.
"And they believe that parliament is theirs and that it is the sovereign expression of their country but that it has ignored them for years."
...
Come on, make the connection John, it's not hard.
Interesting use of 'they believe'. That parliament is ours is an incontrovertible fact. Only an idiot like Cruddas would write about the strange phenomena of people believing parliament is theirs. His language just reinforces the gulf between his like and ours.
One or two strange comments about - "not all lefties are retarded" - well, that's nice. Presumably we can say the same about righties as well or should be "rightards" or "kiptards" or whatever. If you don't agree with someone, let's demean them by coming up with an insulting name - ho hum.
Halal - it's probably fair to say that most of the restaurants in East Ham High Street are halal and say so. They know that if they weren't, they probably wouldn't survive as viable businesses. Oddly enough, the KFC was halal but then went back on that. I don't have a strong view on it to be honest.
Personally, I take a strongly theological view about eating meat: if the good Lord had not meant us to eat beef, He would not have given us the blessing of claret to accompany it.
The argument now seems to be that if you don’t want to eat halal meat then you’re Islamophobic. In short, not being a Muslim is now an act of Islamophobia. Strewth.
Good blog. Wake up Britain before we are under sharia law by default.
What exactly would be wrong with eating halal meat? Serious question.
The cruelty with which the animals are killed.
That's not the problem or the argument. The problem is that halal meat is being served up to the public by stealth. The argument is that our modern British society is frightened of offending 4% of the population because they are muslims. Please do read the blog!
It's entirely the problem.
Supermarkets, etc, want to supply their Muslim customers with meat that is acceptable. They have also decided that it is more cost effective to have a single supply chain. Consequently in the pursuit of cheap food they ensure all their meat is halal.
I don't have a problem with them doing that - but I would rather pay more for non-halal meat ("stewardship and dominion" implies responsibility). Hence the requirement for clear labelling.
Nothing to do with offending anyone. It's the interplay of revenue and cost.
That isn't quite true. A lot of meat the supermarkets buy, they have no choice over. Want New Zealand lamb, it is pretty much certain to be "halal".
The mega slaughter houses in New Zealand do it partly because they export quite a lot of Middle East, but boils down to economics. Firstly, a single supply chain, but also in the name of religious freedom, you can basically ignore animal welfare. No need to mess around stunning them etc, you just get some bloke to wander along mumbling some prayer and be done with it.
From what I understand Muslims scholars in the UK have said that stunned animals are still halal, but the Jewish community have said absolutely not.
All they need to do is label it. Then people have a choice. Why don't Tesco and indeed the New Zealand lamb importers label their stuff as Halal? Could it be that 90% of their customers wouldn't touch it with a barge pole once they knew what it meant? No surely not.
A bloke at work is retiring soon and is a train buff. Thinking of getting him a suitable book as a surprise leaving present but want it to be both something he would value (ie worthy of his avid interest and knowledge) and something he would probably have not got already.
Any ideas from train people ?
I am not sure I can be much help, Dr. Sunil is probably our best source on such things but I suspect Mr. Jessop might have a few ideas.
One thought though. Young Sunil has often mentioned a Railway Atlas that showed where the railways used to be and how they have changed over time. I can't recall the details of the book and have no idea how much it might cost. It is however, the sort of book I would love to receive as a present, not least because whilst I might love to own such a thing I could never justify buying it for myself.
I've got 'Ian Allan's Pre-grouping atlas and gazetteer' on my bookcase, and very useful it is too.
But Sunil's got a different one. Sadly I can't remember the one he recommends (and has contributed to).
But it's a good idea, an ideal gift for a railway nut. Ian Allen's is linked to below:
I've got it myself - extremely useful for a social-historical research project I am doing (it transforms understanding when one knows what stations and what lines existed at the time). One caveat, I'm not sure if it shows military-naval installations (secret) but then OS maps don't either.
An Amazon token might be more useful than a book token however - book tokens restrict choice to a High St bookshop which may not have the specialist stock, and the specialist transport/military shops don't always take book tokens.
Now I have a question for Mr Jessop please. I seem to remember there were two Peter Parkers - Sir and plain vanilla - in BR ... which one was meant?
If Aliens landed and witnessed the halal/kosher debate combined with the schism twixt Catholicism and Anglicans they would quite rightly conclude we were primitives with no place in a civilised universe. Bloody superstitious crap, the lot of it.
The argument now seems to be that if you don’t want to eat halal meat then you’re Islamophobic. In short, not being a Muslim is now an act of Islamophobia. Strewth.
Good blog. Wake up Britain before we are under sharia law by default.
What exactly would be wrong with eating halal meat? Serious question.
The cruelty with which the animals are killed.
ritish society is frightened of offending 4% of the population because they are muslims. Please do read the blog!
It's entirely the problem.
Supermarkets, etc, want to supply their Muslim customers with meat that is acceptable. They have also decided that it is more cost effective to have a single supply chain. Consequently in the pursuit of cheap food they ensure all their meat is halal.
I don't have a problem with them doing that - but I would rather pay more for non-halal meat ("stewardship and dominion" implies responsibility). Hence the requirement for clear labelling.
Nothing to do with offending anyone. It's the interplay of revenue and cost.
You are so utterly wrong Charles, in that you turn a blind eye to the fact that some shops and restaurants are now not serving bacon or pork because they now only serve halal meat. Soon you wont be able ti have your sarnie. Perhaps you and a lot like you will wake up at last.
Mike you're having a not very good advert for UKIP day.
As to UKIP and per Cruddas' piece I would agree but it conflates perception with reality.
The perception is that UKIP is standing up for the non-elite, non-Oxbridge, non-politician ordniary person who has been screwed over by the establishment - classic NOTA. And it is a good story and a lot of people feel disenfranchised most particularly as the previous NOTA party ended up in Govt.
But the reality of UKIP is that at present they are a single issue pressure group espousing a distasteful anti-immigration message. Now, do we need to have a discussion about immigration? Yep. Do many people agree that immigration should be carefully managed? Yep also. Does that present a problem with our membership of the EU on current terms? Yeperooney.
But the delivery mechanism of UKIP, as far as I have seen via leaflets (less so on billboards), harks back to the worst days of NF/BNP sloganising.
They need to sort that out pronto if they are to be anything other than marginalised once people examine (and many current UKIP "supporters" will examine) the breadth of their policy platform, once it emerges.
'A problem is that the issue has been hijacked into a proxy for arguing about the position of Islam.'
Didn't realize the animal welfare lobby was so weak.
Quite so. It's the bleeding hearts that have hijacked the issue in an attempt to paint all opposition as intolerant. Like they always do from their Tuscan villas
@TOPPING: Indeed, and, furthermore, since MikeK seems particularly exercised about halal meat, it is rather odd of him to support UKIP, a party particularly keen on free trade with countries like New Zealand.
"Under the last government, all but one of the halal slaughterhouses were quietly persuaded to introduce stunning,"
I think in past few years there has been quite an expansion in Halal slaughterhouses. DM claims 1 in 4 are now halal. Furthermore, in the Daily Mail article there are two contradicting statistics (no surprise there then from DM), and they are unclear if they refer to UK slaughtered or meat consumed in the UK, but it would seem that
"However 19 per cent of halal sheep are not pre-stunned along with 16 per cent of cattle and 12 per cent of poultry."
"the 10 per cent of Halal meat which is derived from animals killed without pre-stunning."
If those percentages are accurate and relate to UK slaughtered animals, that has to be more than 1 slaughterhouse.
Are you using "skunk" as a generic term? If so, please don't repeat the line that it is a thousand times more powerful than normal grass"
To do so will only get you pitying looks from all but the most ignorant of listeners.
I'm tempted to ingest a drug, but it has the following side effects
Diarrhea dizziness fast heartbeat hyperglycemia, including blurred vision, drowsiness, dry mouth, flushed dry skin, fruit-like breath odor, increased urination, ketones in urine, loss of appetite, nausea, stomachache, tiredness, troubled breathing, unusual thirst, or vomiting (in newborn babies) hypoglycemia, including anxious feeling, blurred vision, cold sweats, confusion, cool pale skin, drowsiness, excessive hunger, fast heartbeat, nausea, nervousness, restless sleep, shakiness, or unusual tiredness or weakness (in newborn babies) irritability, nervousness, or severe jitters (in newborn babies) nausea (severe) tremors trouble in sleeping vomiting
In addition it is addictive and has the following withdrawal symptoms should I be unlucky enough to get hooked:
– Headaches, irritability, inability to concentrate, drowsiness, insomnia, and pain in the stomach, upper body, and joints – may appear within 12 to 24 hours after discontinuation of intake, peak at roughly 48 hours, and usually last from 2 to 9 days. Withdrawal is categorized as a mental disorder.
I understand a lot of what Nick Palmer says about the halal question. He is of course sensible and diplomatic as always. However whilst there is some truth in that a lot of opposition to halal slaughter is not motivated by animal welfare (but more against islam itself) he must concede hopefully that a lot of opposition to fox hunting was not down to animal welfare but more class warfare I don't know for certain how Nick voted in the fox hunting debate but can guess .
Are you using "skunk" as a generic term? If so, please don't repeat the line that it is a thousand times more powerful than normal grass"
To do so will only get you pitying looks from all but the most ignorant of listeners.
I'm tempted to ingest a drug, but it has the following side effects
Diarrhea dizziness fast heartbeat hyperglycemia, including blurred vision, drowsiness, dry mouth, flushed dry skin, fruit-like breath odor, increased urination, ketones in urine, loss of appetite, nausea, stomachache, tiredness, troubled breathing, unusual thirst, or vomiting (in newborn babies) hypoglycemia, including anxious feeling, blurred vision, cold sweats, confusion, cool pale skin, drowsiness, excessive hunger, fast heartbeat, nausea, nervousness, restless sleep, shakiness, or unusual tiredness or weakness (in newborn babies) irritability, nervousness, or severe jitters (in newborn babies) nausea (severe) tremors trouble in sleeping vomiting
In addition it is addictive and has the following withdrawal symptoms should I be unlucky enough to get hooked:
– Headaches, irritability, inability to concentrate, drowsiness, insomnia, and pain in the stomach, upper body, and joints – may appear within 12 to 24 hours after discontinuation of intake, peak at roughly 48 hours, and usually last from 2 to 9 days. Withdrawal is categorized as a mental disorder.
If people are that bothered about animal welfare, give up or cut down on meat
If you could ask the animals, they would rather not be killed at all. Dancing on the head of a pin and thinking yourselves compassionate because you eat animals that were only bred in the first place to be slaughtered, albeit in a slightly nicer (?) way is bullshit to me.
Are you using "skunk" as a generic term? If so, please don't repeat the line that it is a thousand times more powerful than normal grass"
To do so will only get you pitying looks from all but the most ignorant of listeners.
I'm tempted to ingest a drug, but it has the following side effects
Diarrhea dizziness fast heartbeat hyperglycemia, including blurred vision, drowsiness, dry mouth, flushed dry skin, fruit-like breath odor, increased urination, ketones in urine, loss of appetite, nausea, stomachache, tiredness, troubled breathing, unusual thirst, or vomiting (in newborn babies) hypoglycemia, including anxious feeling, blurred vision, cold sweats, confusion, cool pale skin, drowsiness, excessive hunger, fast heartbeat, nausea, nervousness, restless sleep, shakiness, or unusual tiredness or weakness (in newborn babies) irritability, nervousness, or severe jitters (in newborn babies) nausea (severe) tremors trouble in sleeping vomiting
In addition it is addictive and has the following withdrawal symptoms should I be unlucky enough to get hooked:
– Headaches, irritability, inability to concentrate, drowsiness, insomnia, and pain in the stomach, upper body, and joints – may appear within 12 to 24 hours after discontinuation of intake, peak at roughly 48 hours, and usually last from 2 to 9 days. Withdrawal is categorized as a mental disorder.
@TOPPING: Indeed, and, furthermore, since MikeK seems particularly exercised about halal meat, it is rather odd of him to support UKIP, a party particularly keen on free trade with countries like New Zealand.
Just back from a nice bacon sandwich and a cuppa. No Richard, I'm not objecting to halal meat or indeed kosher meat to people who want it. What I'm against is the stealthy way that halal is being introduced, unknown to the vast majority to the people who eat it. Please read the blog.
I want animals to be stunned before slaughter so that their suffering at the end of their lives is minimised as far as possible. I do not eat kosher meat. I do not want to eat halal meat if the animals have not been killed in accordance with UK animal welfare laws. So I want to know this when I buy meat. I do not want to be deceived by supermarkets or butchers. Nor do I wish to stop Muslims eating halal meat if that is their wish. But I do not wish the religious requirements of a minority to determine what meat is sold to those of us who are not Muslim and the best way of ensuring that all of us get a choice is for the meat to be labelled.
We're pretty much told everything else about our food - whether the animal was loved by its mother - so I see no good reason why we cannot be told this as well. If that means that supermarkets find that people don't buy the meat and that they need to have two supply chains, well , tough. But minorities should not, in effect, dictate to the majority as a result of a lack of transparency, which is what is happening now.
< 1. Slaughterhouses are generally horrible places for animals, as you'd expect - the smell and noise makes them intrinsically inhumane. We are kidding ourselves if we think that halal is the main issue. 2. Halal slaughter traditionally is interpreted inter alia as meaning that animals should not be stunned before being killed. Stunning is clearly preferable for the animals though it only saves a few seconds of the suffering, right at the end. Other aspects of halal aren't particularly objectionable and some are marginally better (the animal is required to be killed with a single blow). 3. Under the last government, all but one of the halal slaughterhouses were quietly persuaded to introduce stunning, with the help of a forward-looking imam who argued that the traditional texts were ambiguous. It wasn't made prominent, to avoid the slaughterhouses that agreed to switch being hassled by traditionalists wanting them to switch back. I don't know if this remains the position, though. 4. Meat doesn't need to be labelled as halal even if it is. It would be helpful in clarifying the position to require that so we all knew where we were. However, it would be better still if the label indicated pre-stunning or otherwise, since as noted above that's a different issue, or if pre-stunning were required.
A problem is that the issue has been hijacked into a proxy for arguing about the position of Islam. Pre-stunning is a genuine issue but any idea that slaughterhouses are basically OK places except for halal practices is frankly hooey, and not always advanced by people with animal welfare uppermost in their minds. Demanding a general effort to make slaughterhouses less terrifying (how about pre-stunning before ENTRY?) would be a lot more impressive.
Not sure the fox hunting ban would have been passed with just people motivated by animal welfare . Would have needed a lot of others motivated by class warfare as well .
I want animals to be stunned before slaughter so that their suffering at the end of their lives is minimised as far as possible. I do not eat kosher meat. I do not want to eat halal meat if the animals have not been killed in accordance with UK animal welfare laws. So I want to know this when I buy meat. I do not want to be deceived by supermarkets or butchers. Nor do I wish to stop Muslims eating halal meat if that is their wish. But I do not wish the religious requirements of a minority to determine what meat is sold to those of us who are not Muslim and the best way of ensuring that all of us get a choice is for the meat to be labelled.
We're pretty much told everything else about our food - whether the animal was loved by its mother - so I see no good reason why we cannot be told this as well. If that means that supermarkets find that people don't buy the meat and that they need to have two supply chains, well , tough. But minorities should not, in effect, dictate to the majority as a result of a lack of transparency, which is what is happening now.
I agree with every word you said. Thumbs up lots of likes.
Hunting hasn't been banned at all, round my friend's house there is a regular lamping session going on in the fields behind and my friend's father goes 'hunting' on a regular basis. He also runs the local Working Men's club. I think its with ferrets to flush rabbits - not sure though.
I did a consultation a few years ago now about a poor lad who was involved in a serious RTA, got PTSD, started taking cannabis and then developed severe schizophrenia. We consulted with an expert in the field as to whether we could make the causal connection for the pupose of damages.
The advice we got was the evidence about cannabis or skunk causing schizophrenia was very light and uncertain. The major epidemiological argument against was that a massive increase in the consumption of cannabis had not led to any measurable increase in the diagnosis of schizophrenia. Whilst this might be because there had been changes in practice in terms of diagnosis the evidence was unclear and certainly did not show anything like the increase that a direct causal link should highlight.
Certain things were clearer. Firstly, if you have a pre-disposition to schizophrenia taking cannabis or skunk is likely to accelerate its onset. This was particularly the case for teenage boys who were the most vulnerable group for the condition.
Secondly, if you have been using skunk in particular there is some evidence that the onset of the condition may be more severe than otherwise might have been the case although demonstrating that in any particular case was somewhat problematic.
For the vast majority of us who do not have a pre-disposition to schizophrenia the use of these drugs is relatively safe, at least compared with other legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol.
As I say his was a few years ago but I don't understand the medical assessment to have changed in the interim.
I want animals to be stunned before slaughter so that their suffering at the end of their lives is minimised as far as possible. I do not eat kosher meat. I do not want to eat halal meat if the animals have not been killed in accordance with UK animal welfare laws. So I want to know this when I buy meat. I do not want to be deceived by supermarkets or butchers. Nor do I wish to stop Muslims eating halal meat if that is their wish. But I do not wish the religious requirements of a minority to determine what meat is sold to those of us who are not Muslim and the best way of ensuring that all of us get a choice is for the meat to be labelled.
We're pretty much told everything else about our food - whether the animal was loved by its mother - so I see no good reason why we cannot be told this as well. If that means that supermarkets find that people don't buy the meat and that they need to have two supply chains, well , tough. But minorities should not, in effect, dictate to the majority as a result of a lack of transparency, which is what is happening now.
I agree with every word you said. Thumbs up lots of likes.
Horrible proposal to create premier league B teams coming from FA today. People care much more about club football than the national team these days ,both in this country and many abroad. Why break up the league structure to solve (if that what it does) a perceived weakness in the national team?
A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here. I note that West Anglia is being nationalised next year (becoming part of the Overground). When LU nationalised the old Solverlink (west London) line, they completely transformed both the service and the despicably disgusting, badly lit, disgraceful stations.
More power to their elbow.
"A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here."
That's an opinion based on belief, not data and analysis. The Co-op's recent troubles show that mutual ideals can be less then ideal in running a large, mutifaceted organisation.
Your argument about LU is both cherrypicking (I could point you to numerous other places that the railway is renovating stations to improve the passenger experience), and ignores the fact that upgrading stations is the responsibility of the nationalised Network Rail. Witness the £850 million spent transforming Reading over the last few years.
In fact, I'm fairly certain that a co-operative would grind the railways into the ground. That's why no-one is going to take that eight-year old proposal seriously.
There does seem to be an increase in risk among the young and adolescents.
In fact, it is one of the arguments for legislation, Criminals are more likely to supply to underage people than a regulated supplier who has a license to consider. No one expects that regulated sales will stop cannabis getting into the wrong hands, same as tobacco and booze, but it would help, and stop criminals becoming rich
A bloke at work is retiring soon and is a train buff. Thinking of getting him a suitable book as a surprise leaving present but want it to be both something he would value (ie worthy of his avid interest and knowledge) and something he would probably have not got already.
Any ideas from train people ?
I am not sure I can be much help, Dr. Sunil is probably our best source on such things but I suspect Mr. Jessop might have a few ideas.
One thought though. Young Sunil has often mentioned a Railway Atlas that showed where the railways used to be and how they have changed over time. I can't recall the details of the book and have no idea how much it might cost. It is however, the sort of book I would love to receive as a present, not least because whilst I might love to own such a thing I could never justify buying it for myself.
I've got 'Ian Allan's Pre-grouping atlas and gazetteer' on my bookcase, and very useful it is too.
But Sunil's got a different one. Sadly I can't remember the one he recommends (and has contributed to).
But it's a good idea, an ideal gift for a railway nut. Ian Allen's is linked to below:
I've got it myself - extremely useful for a social-historical research project I am doing (it transforms understanding when one knows what stations and what lines existed at the time). One caveat, I'm not sure if it shows military-naval installations (secret) but then OS maps don't either.
An Amazon token might be more useful than a book token however - book tokens restrict choice to a High St bookshop which may not have the specialist stock, and the specialist transport/military shops don't always take book tokens.
Now I have a question for Mr Jessop please. I seem to remember there were two Peter Parkers - Sir and plain vanilla - in BR ... which one was meant?
A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here. I note that West Anglia is being nationalised next year (becoming part of the Overground). When LU nationalised the old Solverlink (west London) line, they completely transformed both the service and the despicably disgusting, badly lit, disgraceful stations.
More power to their elbow.
"A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here."
That's an opinion based on belief, not data and analysis. The Co-op's recent troubles show that mutual ideals can be less then ideal in running a large, mutifaceted organisation.
Your argument about LU is both cherrypicking (I could point you to numerous other places that the railway is renovating stations to improve the passenger experience), and ignores the fact that upgrading stations is the responsibility of the nationalised Network Rail. Witness the £850 million spent transforming Reading over the last few years.
In fact, I'm fairly certain that a co-operative would grind the railways into the ground. That's why no-one is going to take that eight-year old proposal seriously.
I know Labour love state run things but there are plenty of other areas where nationalisation may be justified before you get to trains. The trains have been successful since privatisation compared to BR days (more people use them , more services, more investment ,less monotone ,more punctual (to me anyway) and certainly nicer staff). By all means look at water or gas supply but trains? Why?
A bloke at work is retiring soon and is a train buff. Thinking of getting him a suitable book as a surprise leaving present but want it to be both something he would value (ie worthy of his avid interest and knowledge) and something he would probably have not got already.
Any ideas from train people ?
I am not sure I can be much help, Dr. Sunil is probably our best source on such things but I suspect Mr. Jessop might have a few ideas.
One thought though. Young Sunil has often mentioned a Railway Atlas that showed where the railways used to be and how they have changed over time. I can't recall the details of the book and have no idea how much it might cost. It is however, the sort of book I would love to receive as a present, not least because whilst I might love to own such a thing I could never justify buying it for myself.
I've got 'Ian Allan's Pre-grouping atlas and gazetteer' on my bookcase, and very useful it is too.
But Sunil's got a different one. Sadly I can't remember the one he recommends (and has contributed to).
But it's a good idea, an ideal gift for a railway nut. Ian Allen's is linked to below:
I've got it myself - extremely useful for a social-historical research project I am doing (it transforms understanding when one knows what stations and what lines existed at the time). One caveat, I'm not sure if it shows military-naval installations (secret) but then OS maps don't either.
An Amazon token might be more useful than a book token however - book tokens restrict choice to a High St bookshop which may not have the specialist stock, and the specialist transport/military shops don't always take book tokens.
Now I have a question for Mr Jessop please. I seem to remember there were two Peter Parkers - Sir and plain vanilla - in BR ... which one was meant?
"The review also calls for a ban on non-EU players outside of the top flight and a reduction in non-home-grown players in Premier League squads."
If implemented, I am going to love to see how long that would last.
Say a club has the option to buy a highly experienced non-EU international on a free, who would get a work permit (the regulations involve factors like how often they have played for the country), are they going to pass up this opportunity?
And the second part, again legally how could that ever be enforced?
Horrible proposal to create premier league B teams coming from FA today. People care much more about club football than the national team these days ,both in this country and many abroad. Why break up the league structure to solve (if that what it does) a perceived weakness in the national team?
If the matches are competitive and involve lots of young and evolving players I can see these matches drawing quite a crowd, especially if they are priced sensibly.
In the pre-Brosnan era seeing young players come through from the youth team and developing their careers was a lot of the pleasure of following a team who were not going to be actually winning anything that often. Mercenaries from abroad who came and went eventually resulted in me giving up my season ticket.
"The review also calls for a ban on non-EU players outside of the top flight and a reduction in non-home-grown players in Premier League squads."
If implemented, I am going to love to see how long that would last.
Say a championship team have the option to buy a highly experienced non-EU international, who would get a work permit (the regulations involve factors like how often they have played for the country), are they going to pass up this opportunity?
And the second part, again legally how could that ever be enforced?
"The review also calls for a ban on non-EU players outside of the top flight and a reduction in non-home-grown players in Premier League squads."
If implemented, I am going to love to see how long that would last.
Say a championship team have the option to buy a highly experienced non-EU international, who would get a work permit (the regulations involve factors like how often they have played for the country), are they going to pass up this opportunity?
And the second part, again legally how could that ever be enforced?
The influx of foreign players in the Premier League has not stopped good enough English players coming through its just increased the standard of the top league so less English players can make the grade to the top flight. If they do , they tend to be in the English team. In a way it makes the England manager's job easier as it separates out the wheat from the chaff for him
A bloke at work is retiring soon and is a train buff. Thinking of getting him a suitable book as a surprise leaving present but want it to be both something he would value (ie worthy of his avid interest and knowledge) and something he would probably have not got already.
Any ideas from train people ?
I am not sure I can be much help, Dr. Sunil is probably our best source on such things but I suspect Mr. Jessop might have a few ideas.
One thought though. Young Sunil has often mentioned a Railway Atlas that showed where the railways used to be and how they have changed over time. I can't recall the details of the book and have no idea how much it might cost. It is however, the sort of book I would love to receive as a present, not least because whilst I might love to own such a thing I could never justify buying it for myself.
I've got 'Ian Allan's Pre-grouping atlas and gazetteer' on my bookcase, and very useful it is too.
But Sunil's got a different one. Sadly I can't remember the one he recommends (and has contributed to).
But it's a good idea, an ideal gift for a railway nut. Ian Allen's is linked to below:
I've got it myself - extremely useful for a social-historical research project I am doing (it transforms understanding when one knows what stations and what lines existed at the time). One caveat, I'm not sure if it shows military-naval installations (secret) but then OS maps don't either.
An Amazon token might be more useful than a book token however - book tokens restrict choice to a High St bookshop which may not have the specialist stock, and the specialist transport/military shops don't always take book tokens.
Now I have a question for Mr Jessop please. I seem to remember there were two Peter Parkers - Sir and plain vanilla - in BR ... which one was meant?
A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here. I note that West Anglia is being nationalised next year (becoming part of the Overground). When LU nationalised the old Solverlink (west London) line, they completely transformed both the service and the despicably disgusting, badly lit, disgraceful stations.
More power to their elbow.
"A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here."
That's an opinion based on belief, not data and analysis. The Co-op's recent troubles show that mutual ideals can be less then ideal in running a large, mutifaceted organisation.
Your argument about LU is both cherrypicking (I could point you to numerous other places that the railway is renovating stations to improve the passenger experience), and ignores the fact that upgrading stations is the responsibility of the nationalised Network Rail. Witness the £850 million spent transforming Reading over the last few years.
In fact, I'm fairly certain that a co-operative would grind the railways into the ground. That's why no-one is going to take that eight-year old proposal seriously.
I know Labour love state run things but there are plenty of other areas where nationalisation may be justified before you get to trains. The trains have been successful since privatisation compared to BR days (more people use them , more services, more investment ,less monotone ,more punctual (to me anyway) and certainly nicer staff). By all means look at water or gas supply but trains? Why?
It is intellectually incoherent to have the gas and leccy privatised whilst broadcasting remains nationalised.
Either privatise the BBC or nationalise the power !
A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here. I note that West Anglia is being nationalised next year (becoming part of the Overground). When LU nationalised the old Solverlink (west London) line, they completely transformed both the service and the despicably disgusting, badly lit, disgraceful stations.
More power to their elbow.
"A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here."
That's an opinion based on belief, not data and analysis. The Co-op's recent troubles show that mutual ideals can be less then ideal in running a large, mutifaceted organisation.
Your argument about LU is both cherrypicking (I could point you to numerous other places that the railway is renovating stations to improve the passenger experience), and ignores the fact that upgrading stations is the responsibility of the nationalised Network Rail. Witness the £850 million spent transforming Reading over the last few years.
In fact, I'm fairly certain that a co-operative would grind the railways into the ground. That's why no-one is going to take that eight-year old proposal seriously.
I know Labour love state run things but there are plenty of other areas where nationalisation may be justified before you get to trains. The trains have been successful since privatisation compared to BR days (more people use them , more services, more investment ,less monotone ,more punctual (to me anyway) and certainly nicer staff). By all means look at water or gas supply but trains? Why?
I've never been able to understand why water and sewerage is better off in private hands rather than public.
There does seem to be an increase in risk among the young and adolescents.
In fact, it is one of the arguments for legislation, Criminals are more likely to supply to underage people than a regulated supplier who has a license to consider. No one expects that regulated sales will stop cannabis getting into the wrong hands, same as tobacco and booze, but it would help, and stop criminals becoming rich
I agree that exposing any growing brain to hallucinogens is not a good idea. The vulnerability of teenage boys seemed to be linked to that. But supplying alcohol to anyone under age is currently illegal. How do you think that is going?
My concern is that a regulated, freely available product is even more likely (like alcohol) to end up in the wrong hands.
The Times of Israel @TimesofIsrael 32m From the day he signed the deal, #Assad has used chem weapons over 30 times, & in every case citizens were killed" http://toi.sr/1kR2w2P
This is an interesting article about the dangers of skunk. A friend of mine underwent a similar change in his teens - dropped out of school, skipped his A Levels and basically missed out on 10 years of life before getting back on track & studying at Brighton Uni...
Separately - and more disturbingly - if you look at the local newspapers and the other times his mother has written this story, the boy is called Aaron. Why would the Mail feel the need to rename him Henry? There's a pretty obvious explanation - but I hope it's not true. Can anyone else think of an alternative one?
There does seem to be an increase in risk among the young and adolescents.
In fact, it is one of the arguments for legislation, Criminals are more likely to supply to underage people than a regulated supplier who has a license to consider. No one expects that regulated sales will stop cannabis getting into the wrong hands, same as tobacco and booze, but it would help, and stop criminals becoming rich
I agree that exposing any growing brain to hallucinogens is not a good idea. The vulnerability of teenage boys seemed to be linked to that. But supplying alcohol to anyone under age is currently illegal. How do you think that is going?
My concern is that a regulated, freely available product is even more likely (like alcohol) to end up in the wrong hands.
A regulated trade would eliminate the strongest strains, though, just as legal alcohol [virtually] eliminated methanol-riddled moonshine.
The argument now seems to be that if you don’t want to eat halal meat then you’re Islamophobic. In short, not being a Muslim is now an act of Islamophobia. Strewth.
Good blog. Wake up Britain before we are under sharia law by default.
What exactly would be wrong with eating halal meat? Serious question.
The cruelty with which the animals are killed.
That's not the problem or the argument. The problem is that halal meat is being served up to the public by stealth. The argument is that our modern British society is frightened of offending 4% of the population because they are muslims. Please do read the blog!
It's entirely the problem.
Supermarkets, etc, want to supply their Muslim customers with meat that is acceptable. They have also decided that it is more cost effective to have a single supply chain. Consequently in the pursuit of cheap food they ensure all their meat is halal.
I don't have a problem with them doing that - but I would rather pay more for non-halal meat ("stewardship and dominion" implies responsibility). Hence the requirement for clear labelling.
Nothing to do with offending anyone. It's the interplay of revenue and cost.
You are so utterly wrong Charles, in that you turn a blind eye to the fact that some shops and restaurants are now not serving bacon or pork because they now only serve halal meat. Soon you wont be able ti have your sarnie. Perhaps you and a lot like you will wake up at last.
A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here. I note that West Anglia is being nationalised next year (becoming part of the Overground). When LU nationalised the old Solverlink (west London) line, they completely transformed both the service and the despicably disgusting, badly lit, disgraceful stations.
More power to their elbow.
"A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here."
That's an opinion based on belief, not data and analysis. The Co-op's recent troubles show that mutual ideals can be less then ideal in running a large, mutifaceted organisation.
Your argument about LU is both cherrypicking (I could point you to numerous other places that the railway is renovating stations to improve the passenger experience), and ignores the fact that upgrading stations is the responsibility of the nationalised Network Rail. Witness the £850 million spent transforming Reading over the last few years.
In fact, I'm fairly certain that a co-operative would grind the railways into the ground. That's why no-one is going to take that eight-year old proposal seriously.
I know Labour love state run things but there are plenty of other areas where nationalisation may be justified before you get to trains. The trains have been successful since privatisation compared to BR days (more people use them , more services, more investment ,less monotone ,more punctual (to me anyway) and certainly nicer staff). By all means look at water or gas supply but trains? Why?
I've never been able to understand why water and sewerage is better off in private hands rather than public.
Look at what's happened in Northern Ireland with publicy owned water utilities, and underinvestment.
A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here. I note that West Anglia is being nationalised next year (becoming part of the Overground). When LU nationalised the old Solverlink (west London) line, they completely transformed both the service and the despicably disgusting, badly lit, disgraceful stations.
More power to their elbow.
"A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here."
That's an opinion based on belief, not data and analysis. The Co-op's recent troubles show that mutual ideals can be less then ideal in running a large, mutifaceted organisation.
Your argument about LU is both cherrypicking (I could point you to numerous other places that the railway is renovating stations to improve the passenger experience), and ignores the fact that upgrading stations is the responsibility of the nationalised Network Rail. Witness the £850 million spent transforming Reading over the last few years.
In fact, I'm fairly certain that a co-operative would grind the railways into the ground. That's why no-one is going to take that eight-year old proposal seriously.
I know Labour love state run things but there are plenty of other areas where nationalisation may be justified before you get to trains. The trains have been successful since privatisation compared to BR days (more people use them , more services, more investment ,less monotone ,more punctual (to me anyway) and certainly nicer staff). By all means look at water or gas supply but trains? Why?
It is intellectually incoherent to have the gas and leccy privatised whilst broadcasting remains nationalised.
Either privatise the BBC or nationalise the power !
Rubbish. Nationalisation and privatisation (and the myriad of states in between) are tools in a toolbox. You look at the problem(s) to be fixed and apply the correct tool. Sometimes the tool will have to be created.
The problem with *everyone* who favours renationalisation of the railways is that they want it on ideological grounds, and have not looked at the problems that need fixing. They have also not done the next step and evaluated the downsides of their proposals. After all, the nationalised BR was far from perfect.
They want to use a hammer to drill a hole that might not be needed anyway.
I did address that concern in my post. Legislation will not stop kids from getting hold of drugs, but believe me, It is way too easy at present. A heroin addict has zero qualms who he sells to as long as it gets him his next "fix". On top of which, illegal drugs are the lifeblood of most young street gangs, with the possibility to move up the ladder for the more daring/ruthless/psychotic.
A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here. I note that West Anglia is being nationalised next year (becoming part of the Overground). When LU nationalised the old Solverlink (west London) line, they completely transformed both the service and the despicably disgusting, badly lit, disgraceful stations.
More power to their elbow.
"A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here."
That's an opinion based on belief, not data and analysis. The Co-op's recent troubles show that mutual ideals can be less then ideal in running a large, mutifaceted organisation.
Your argument about LU is both cherrypicking (I could point you to numerous other places that the railway is renovating stations to improve the passenger experience), and ignores the fact that upgrading stations is the responsibility of the nationalised Network Rail. Witness the £850 million spent transforming Reading over the last few years.
In fact, I'm fairly certain that a co-operative would grind the railways into the ground. That's why no-one is going to take that eight-year old proposal seriously.
I know Labour love state run things but there are plenty of other areas where nationalisation may be justified before you get to trains. The trains have been successful since privatisation compared to BR days (more people use them , more services, more investment ,less monotone ,more punctual (to me anyway) and certainly nicer staff). By all means look at water or gas supply but trains? Why?
I've never been able to understand why water and sewerage is better off in private hands rather than public.
Look at what's happened in Northern Ireland with publicy owned water utilities, and underinvestment.
I've no idea what happened in NI. Do you have any links?
I was puzzled why Labour were moaning so much in recent days about Mr Cameron being toxic to the No campaign (and also unhappy with Messrs Hammond etc.) (not the sentiment, but the timing). However, one might take the view that Mr Miliband & Co. have every reason to encourage Mr Cameron to leave in the event of a No vote, given he's more likely to win a Tory victory in the ensuing EWNI GE than, say, Mr Gove as leader ... it'd help make up for losing the current net bonus of about 20-30 Labour seats ...
I want animals to be stunned before slaughter so that their suffering at the end of their lives is minimised as far as possible. I do not eat kosher meat. I do not want to eat halal meat if the animals have not been killed in accordance with UK animal welfare laws. So I want to know this when I buy meat. I do not want to be deceived by supermarkets or butchers. Nor do I wish to stop Muslims eating halal meat if that is their wish. But I do not wish the religious requirements of a minority to determine what meat is sold to those of us who are not Muslim and the best way of ensuring that all of us get a choice is for the meat to be labelled.
We're pretty much told everything else about our food - whether the animal was loved by its mother - so I see no good reason why we cannot be told this as well. If that means that supermarkets find that people don't buy the meat and that they need to have two supply chains, well , tough. But minorities should not, in effect, dictate to the majority as a result of a lack of transparency, which is what is happening now.
Comments
A Coop railway has a decent chance of being better than the chiselling charlatans who run commuter franchises into the ground down here. I note that West Anglia is being nationalised next year (becoming part of the Overground). When LU nationalised the old Solverlink (west London) line, they completely transformed both the service and the despicably disgusting, badly lit, disgraceful stations.
More power to their elbow.
Some people may prefer not to eat any sort of halal.
A clear labelling system of non stun halal, stun halal and non halal would be helpful and beneficial to all.
http://idpc.net/
Those of us who support legal regulation include many who worked in both law enforcement and health.Perhaps the difference in this debate is that the campaign for change based on evidence is well funded as the likes of George Soros and Sir Richard Branson support it.If we want to reduce harm,there has to be strict regulation which is why legal regulation,not legalisation,not the status quo,is the way forward.Currently,most illegal drugs are heavily contaminated and it is this that kills people.Legal regulation stops that.
Furthermore,cannabis is already prescribed to MS patients, for example, with good outcomes and where it can be shown to give beneficial health effects,surely we can agree to deny a patient a medication which can significantly help them because the law prevents it is wrong? Medical cannabis should be available to all whom it will benefit, without fear of legal sanction.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27299579
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics
Supermarkets, etc, want to supply their Muslim customers with meat that is acceptable. They have also decided that it is more cost effective to have a single supply chain. Consequently in the pursuit of cheap food they ensure all their meat is halal.
I don't have a problem with them doing that - but I would rather pay more for non-halal meat ("stewardship and dominion" implies responsibility). Hence the requirement for clear labelling.
Nothing to do with offending anyone. It's the interplay of revenue and cost.
...
Come on, make the connection John, it's not hard.
1. Slaughterhouses are generally horrible places for animals, as you'd expect - the smell and noise makes them intrinsically inhumane. We are kidding ourselves if we think that halal is the main issue.
2. Halal slaughter traditionally is interpreted inter alia as meaning that animals should not be stunned before being killed. Stunning is clearly preferable for the animals though it only saves a few seconds of the suffering, right at the end. Other aspects of halal aren't particularly objectionable and some are marginally better (the animal is required to be killed with a single blow).
3. Under the last government, all but one of the halal slaughterhouses were quietly persuaded to introduce stunning, with the help of a forward-looking imam who argued that the traditional texts were ambiguous. It wasn't made prominent, to avoid the slaughterhouses that agreed to switch being hassled by traditionalists wanting them to switch back. I don't know if this remains the position, though.
4. Meat doesn't need to be labelled as halal even if it is. It would be helpful in clarifying the position to require that so we all knew where we were. However, it would be better still if the label indicated pre-stunning or otherwise, since as noted above that's a different issue, or if pre-stunning were required.
A problem is that the issue has been hijacked into a proxy for arguing about the position of Islam. Pre-stunning is a genuine issue but any idea that slaughterhouses are basically OK places except for halal practices is frankly hooey, and not always advanced by people with animal welfare uppermost in their minds. Demanding a general effort to make slaughterhouses less terrifying (how about pre-stunning before ENTRY?) would be a lot more impressive.
"I don't mind being brought into the world and fattened up so I can be murdered, not at all..."
"As long as the murder is carried out in a way that makes those who eat us feel ok about it?"
"Exactly"
The mega slaughter houses in New Zealand do it partly because they export quite a lot of Middle East and it boils down to economics. Firstly, a single supply chain, but also in the name of religious freedom, you can basically ignore animal welfare. No need to mess around stunning them etc, you just get some bloke to wander along mumbling some prayer and be done with it.
From what I understand Muslims scholars in the UK have said that stunned animals are still halal, but the Jewish community have said absolutely not Kosher.
One or two strange comments about - "not all lefties are retarded" - well, that's nice. Presumably we can say the same about righties as well or should be "rightards" or "kiptards" or whatever. If you don't agree with someone, let's demean them by coming up with an insulting name - ho hum.
Halal - it's probably fair to say that most of the restaurants in East Ham High Street are halal and say so. They know that if they weren't, they probably wouldn't survive as viable businesses. Oddly enough, the KFC was halal but then went back on that. I don't have a strong view on it to be honest.
'If they don't stun halal, it should be made illegal.'
That's why it's illegal in countries like Denmark & Sweden,any halal meat has to be imported.
An Amazon token might be more useful than a book token however - book tokens restrict choice to a High St bookshop which may not have the specialist stock, and the specialist transport/military shops don't always take book tokens.
Now I have a question for Mr Jessop please. I seem to remember there were two Peter Parkers - Sir and plain vanilla - in BR ... which one was meant?
Bloody superstitious crap, the lot of it.
As to UKIP and per Cruddas' piece I would agree but it conflates perception with reality.
The perception is that UKIP is standing up for the non-elite, non-Oxbridge, non-politician ordniary person who has been screwed over by the establishment - classic NOTA. And it is a good story and a lot of people feel disenfranchised most particularly as the previous NOTA party ended up in Govt.
But the reality of UKIP is that at present they are a single issue pressure group espousing a distasteful anti-immigration message. Now, do we need to have a discussion about immigration? Yep. Do many people agree that immigration should be carefully managed? Yep also. Does that present a problem with our membership of the EU on current terms? Yeperooney.
But the delivery mechanism of UKIP, as far as I have seen via leaflets (less so on billboards), harks back to the worst days of NF/BNP sloganising.
They need to sort that out pronto if they are to be anything other than marginalised once people examine (and many current UKIP "supporters" will examine) the breadth of their policy platform, once it emerges.
'A problem is that the issue has been hijacked into a proxy for arguing about the position of Islam.'
Didn't realize the animal welfare lobby was so weak.
"the dangers of skunk."
Are you using "skunk" as a generic term? If so, please don't repeat the line that it is a thousand times more powerful than normal grass"
To do so will only get you pitying looks from all but the most ignorant of listeners.
Those throats are not being slit by middle class white people.
The fox hunting lobby should take note. Invite muslims to join you.
I think in past few years there has been quite an expansion in Halal slaughterhouses. DM claims 1 in 4 are now halal. Furthermore, in the Daily Mail article there are two contradicting statistics (no surprise there then from DM), and they are unclear if they refer to UK slaughtered or meat consumed in the UK, but it would seem that
"However 19 per cent of halal sheep are not pre-stunned along with 16 per cent of cattle and 12 per cent of poultry."
"the 10 per cent of Halal meat which is derived from animals killed without pre-stunning."
If those percentages are accurate and relate to UK slaughtered animals, that has to be more than 1 slaughterhouse.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64331
Fair play to you sir.
Besides, it's far easier to go for the Toffs, and more in keeping with their political leanings.
Diarrhea
dizziness
fast heartbeat
hyperglycemia, including blurred vision, drowsiness, dry mouth, flushed dry skin, fruit-like breath odor, increased urination, ketones in urine, loss of appetite, nausea, stomachache, tiredness, troubled breathing, unusual thirst, or vomiting (in newborn babies)
hypoglycemia, including anxious feeling, blurred vision, cold sweats, confusion, cool pale skin, drowsiness, excessive hunger, fast heartbeat, nausea, nervousness, restless sleep, shakiness, or unusual tiredness or weakness (in newborn babies)
irritability, nervousness, or severe jitters (in newborn babies)
nausea (severe)
tremors
trouble in sleeping
vomiting
In addition it is addictive and has the following withdrawal symptoms should I be unlucky enough to get hooked:
– Headaches, irritability, inability to concentrate, drowsiness, insomnia, and pain in the stomach, upper body, and joints – may appear within 12 to 24 hours after discontinuation of intake, peak at roughly 48 hours, and usually last from 2 to 9 days. Withdrawal is categorized as a mental disorder.
Any advice ?
Amen to that!
I don't know for certain how Nick voted in the fox hunting debate but can guess .
Give up alchohol, or cut it down a fair bit
If you could ask the animals, they would rather not be killed at all. Dancing on the head of a pin and thinking yourselves compassionate because you eat animals that were only bred in the first place to be slaughtered, albeit in a slightly nicer (?) way is bullshit to me.
raph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100270578/my-compulsory-halal-pizza-is-hard-to-swallow/
I want animals to be stunned before slaughter so that their suffering at the end of their lives is minimised as far as possible. I do not eat kosher meat. I do not want to eat halal meat if the animals have not been killed in accordance with UK animal welfare laws. So I want to know this when I buy meat. I do not want to be deceived by supermarkets or butchers. Nor do I wish to stop Muslims eating halal meat if that is their wish. But I do not wish the religious requirements of a minority to determine what meat is sold to those of us who are not Muslim and the best way of ensuring that all of us get a choice is for the meat to be labelled.
We're pretty much told everything else about our food - whether the animal was loved by its mother - so I see no good reason why we cannot be told this as well. If that means that supermarkets find that people don't buy the meat and that they need to have two supply chains, well , tough. But minorities should not, in effect, dictate to the majority as a result of a lack of transparency, which is what is happening now.
1. Slaughterhouses are generally horrible places for animals, as you'd expect - the smell and noise makes them intrinsically inhumane. We are kidding ourselves if we think that halal is the main issue.
2. Halal slaughter traditionally is interpreted inter alia as meaning that animals should not be stunned before being killed. Stunning is clearly preferable for the animals though it only saves a few seconds of the suffering, right at the end. Other aspects of halal aren't particularly objectionable and some are marginally better (the animal is required to be killed with a single blow).
3. Under the last government, all but one of the halal slaughterhouses were quietly persuaded to introduce stunning, with the help of a forward-looking imam who argued that the traditional texts were ambiguous. It wasn't made prominent, to avoid the slaughterhouses that agreed to switch being hassled by traditionalists wanting them to switch back. I don't know if this remains the position, though.
4. Meat doesn't need to be labelled as halal even if it is. It would be helpful in clarifying the position to require that so we all knew where we were. However, it would be better still if the label indicated pre-stunning or otherwise, since as noted above that's a different issue, or if pre-stunning were required.
A problem is that the issue has been hijacked into a proxy for arguing about the position of Islam. Pre-stunning is a genuine issue but any idea that slaughterhouses are basically OK places except for halal practices is frankly hooey, and not always advanced by people with animal welfare uppermost in their minds. Demanding a general effort to make slaughterhouses less terrifying (how about pre-stunning before ENTRY?) would be a lot more impressive.
Not sure the fox hunting ban would have been passed with just people motivated by animal welfare . Would have needed a lot of others motivated by class warfare as well .
That's what's important after all.
"Any evidence that Halal meat tastes any better or worse"
It was considered that a bull had to be "bated" with dogs before being killed, or it would ruin the meat.
Time for a scientific study perhaps?>
I don't own a whippet before anyone asks
The advice we got was the evidence about cannabis or skunk causing schizophrenia was very light and uncertain. The major epidemiological argument against was that a massive increase in the consumption of cannabis had not led to any measurable increase in the diagnosis of schizophrenia. Whilst this might be because there had been changes in practice in terms of diagnosis the evidence was unclear and certainly did not show anything like the increase that a direct causal link should highlight.
Certain things were clearer. Firstly, if you have a pre-disposition to schizophrenia taking cannabis or skunk is likely to accelerate its onset. This was particularly the case for teenage boys who were the most vulnerable group for the condition.
Secondly, if you have been using skunk in particular there is some evidence that the onset of the condition may be more severe than otherwise might have been the case although demonstrating that in any particular case was somewhat problematic.
For the vast majority of us who do not have a pre-disposition to schizophrenia the use of these drugs is relatively safe, at least compared with other legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol.
As I say his was a few years ago but I don't understand the medical assessment to have changed in the interim.
Be safe! know your limits.
http://www.caffeineinformer.com/caffeine-safe-limits
Political site...blathering on about politics the whole time...
What's to be done with me?
I was reading the other day that legal US west coast growers are now putting some Mexican drug cartels out of business.
Legalise tax and regulate
Why break up the league structure to solve (if that what it does) a perceived weakness in the national team?
That's an opinion based on belief, not data and analysis. The Co-op's recent troubles show that mutual ideals can be less then ideal in running a large, mutifaceted organisation.
Your argument about LU is both cherrypicking (I could point you to numerous other places that the railway is renovating stations to improve the passenger experience), and ignores the fact that upgrading stations is the responsibility of the nationalised Network Rail. Witness the £850 million spent transforming Reading over the last few years.
In fact, I'm fairly certain that a co-operative would grind the railways into the ground. That's why no-one is going to take that eight-year old proposal seriously.
There does seem to be an increase in risk among the young and adolescents.
In fact, it is one of the arguments for legislation, Criminals are more likely to supply to underage people than a regulated supplier who has a license to consider.
No one expects that regulated sales will stop cannabis getting into the wrong hands, same as tobacco and booze, but it would help, and stop criminals becoming rich
Each cup is served with a defibrillator on the side :-}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Parker_(British_businessman)
By all means look at water or gas supply but trains? Why?
If implemented, I am going to love to see how long that would last.
Say a club has the option to buy a highly experienced non-EU international on a free, who would get a work permit (the regulations involve factors like how often they have played for the country), are they going to pass up this opportunity?
And the second part, again legally how could that ever be enforced?
In the pre-Brosnan era seeing young players come through from the youth team and developing their careers was a lot of the pleasure of following a team who were not going to be actually winning anything that often. Mercenaries from abroad who came and went eventually resulted in me giving up my season ticket.
No guarantees but surely worth a try.
Most of the problems with trains are rails, signals etc.
ie the already nationalised part.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-sir-robert-reid-1468132.html
Either privatise the BBC or nationalise the power !
My concern is that a regulated, freely available product is even more likely (like alcohol) to end up in the wrong hands.
The Times of Israel @TimesofIsrael 32m
From the day he signed the deal, #Assad has used chem weapons over 30 times, & in every case citizens were killed" http://toi.sr/1kR2w2P
Should you be told when you're buying halal meet? We debate the subject on Sky News next
https://twitter.com/Unnamedinsider/status/464412387203092480/photo/1/large
The problem with *everyone* who favours renationalisation of the railways is that they want it on ideological grounds, and have not looked at the problems that need fixing. They have also not done the next step and evaluated the downsides of their proposals. After all, the nationalised BR was far from perfect.
They want to use a hammer to drill a hole that might not be needed anyway.
One said "Hey Bert, did you head about this mad cow disease? I'm a bit worried - I hear young Joe on the next door farm came down with it"
Bert: "Nah. Not worried at all"
Fred: "Why not?"
Bert: "'Cos I'm a penguin"
(I'll get my coat)
I did address that concern in my post. Legislation will not stop kids from getting hold of drugs, but believe me, It is way too easy at present. A heroin addict has zero qualms who he sells to as long as it gets him his next "fix".
On top of which, illegal drugs are the lifeblood of most young street gangs, with the possibility to move up the ladder for the more daring/ruthless/psychotic.
Edit for getting my mucking words furdeled
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100270671/cameron-wouldnt-quit-if-scotland-votes-yes-but-he-would-forever-be-the-man-who-lost-the-union/
But I am by no means an expert, so wouldn't differentiate beyond that.
The utterly dreadful state of the game then compared to now is completely glossed over time and again.
I noticed during the recent Hillsborough commemorations nobody thought to ask why those fences were there in the first place.
I was puzzled why Labour were moaning so much in recent days about Mr Cameron being toxic to the No campaign (and also unhappy with Messrs Hammond etc.) (not the sentiment, but the timing). However, one might take the view that Mr Miliband & Co. have every reason to encourage Mr Cameron to leave in the event of a No vote, given he's more likely to win a Tory victory in the ensuing EWNI GE than, say, Mr Gove as leader ... it'd help make up for losing the current net bonus of about 20-30 Labour seats ...