Saw a great show on the Travel Channel yesterday about Southern US BBQs - they used young goat hearts and praised them very highly. Not keen on older goat - it's a bit tough.
I love liver. All varieties of it. Couldn't eat heart - it's a bit too visceral for me. Heart cat food smelled very strong and put me right off trying heart myself.
The white bits are fat in black pudding, though there may be barley in some versions. It's a bit like a very dry sausage (fat aside) in terms of texture. Not quite certain how to describe the taste- slightly dry meaty but not very strong.
It's not like either really in my view at least. Not as "dense" in taste or certainly texture. But we may all taste things slightly differently I suppose. We'll never know!
Ox tongue is a delicacy. Black pudding is delicious, either with fat or oatmeal. I just love offal in general; it's cheaper, tastier and usually more nutritious than 'normal' meat.
Heart is nice, chop it up and make it into a stew if you don't like the look of it. I once made lambs hearts stuffed with haggis and braised them in red wine and beef stock, they were excellent. One of my favourite breakfasts is devilled kidneys on toast.
Never eaten buffalo. Saw a fascinating show a while ago about lamb in the USA, it's corn fed so tastes completely different to ours as grass fed.
We have a large Nepalese community locally so I can easily buy it. I probably won't bother again, but I do buy goat meat for curries and will try an Irish stew with goat some time.
I didn't like Icelandic lamb very much, which surprised me as it is supposed to be the dog's b******s. The answer is it has a very quick growing season - in the land of the midnight sum you can eat grass 24/7 - so has a very delicate flavour. I would rather eat something that has been living up a fell for a year or three.
Osborne defending Abramovich paying just £90000 is great !
You genuinely don't understand, so no point discussing the issue.
There are people coming in to Britain and buying assets like houses [ investment ? how many jobs does that create ? ] and where the price of those houses go up every quarter equal to the earnings of an average Briton.
For that pain, they pay £90000.
A £3m house in London inflates by about £300k every year. £90000 is peanuts !
5% or thereabouts of the population are allergic to Quorn - it made me throw up for an hour the last time I had it, and I couldn't lift my arms for a week. It's the best thing to be allergic to - something you eat as a replacement for something. It's like being allergic to peanut substitute.
Sell at 5% for as much as I can
Can't understand why people tell those that are uncomfortable eating animals killed for our pleasure that they shouldn't eat meat substitute? Why not?! Who cares?!
We really aren't hurting anyone
People can eat what they like as far as I am concerned but I just don't get why there would be an issue w someone who likes the taste of meat but feels uncomfortable eating it, eating something that tastes similar but isn't a dead animal
Trust the "anti-SNP" BBC moderator to get debate onto the SNP weakness of the gap in tax income compared to now if Scotland gain full fiscal autonomy at the current price of North sea oil.
There are people coming in to Britain and buying assets like houses [ investment ? how many jobs does that create ? ] and where the price of those houses go up every quarter equal to the earnings of an average Briton.
For that pain, they pay £90000.
A £3m house in London inflates by about £300k every year. £90000 is peanuts !
The stamp duty alone on that investment is £360,000.
Trust the "anti-SNP" BBC moderator to get debate onto the SNP weakness of the gap in tax income compared to now if Scotland gain full fiscal autonomy at the current price of North sea oil.
Don't see this "trouble" Sturgeon was supposed to be in, she let the others rant about oil prices then killed the argument at the end getting a decent reception from a relatively poor audience.
Don't see this "trouble" Sturgeon was supposed to be in, she let the others rant about oil prices then killed the argument at the end getting a decent reception from a relatively poor audience.
The estate agents who sells the property. Then lets it. The lawyer that does the conveyancing. The people who service the property or maintain it. Clean it. The accountants who organise the taxation.
Then the people at starbucks who sell all the above their latte in the morning.
Don't see this "trouble" Sturgeon was supposed to be in, she let the others rant about oil prices then killed the argument at the end getting a decent reception from a relatively poor audience.
I can think of only one example in history of a sovereign state Freely and Fairly electing a majority for incorporation into another state (Texas and by plularity at their assembly not by referendum). Couple other examples of vote rigging and manipulation such as the Anshluss...But the vast majority of nations do not vote to stop being nations...
Somebody once said the number of democracies worldwide at the end of WW2 was...seven. Democracy as we understand it today is relatively new, and even in the UK it dates back to what, the first Reform Act (1852) or even whichever Act expanded the franchise again in the 1910's. Previously, country building was simple: a big man with a sword invited you to kneel, and you knelt or picked up a sword of your own. If popular democratic formation of sovereign states is rare in history (and I do not have the time to confirm that), then that is more down to the newness of popular democracy than to state formation per se.
But enough of my chuntering on. To answer your implicit question, states which have incorporated themselves into others post-1900 include Schleswig/Holstein/whatever, and (of course) the integration of the German Democratic Republic into the Federal Republic.
@joncraig: David Coburn, Scots UKIP MEP in Scots leaders debate, makes Nigel Farage sound like a pinko Guardian reader. Condemned by the other leaders.
Don't see this "trouble" Sturgeon was supposed to be in, she let the others rant about oil prices then killed the argument at the end getting a decent reception from a relatively poor audience.
Little obvious warmth towards her,
The feet stamping from the Labour hacks who've infiltrated the audience is loud and clear. BBC Scotland playing their bit for SLAB.
@iainmartin1: Day looms when Westminster gives Scotland full fiscal autonomy. And the SNP says: er no, Westminster wants to give Scotland too many powers!
Don't see this "trouble" Sturgeon was supposed to be in, she let the others rant about oil prices then killed the argument at the end getting a decent reception from a relatively poor audience.
Little obvious warmth towards her,
The feet stamping from the Labour hacks who've infiltrated the audience is loud and clear. BBC Scotland playing their bit for SLAB.
I can think of only one example in history of a sovereign state Freely and Fairly electing a majority for incorporation into another state (Texas and by plularity at their assembly not by referendum). Couple other examples of vote rigging and manipulation such as the Anshluss...But the vast majority of nations do not vote to stop being nations...
Somebody once said the number of democracies worldwide at the end of WW2 was...seven. Democracy as we understand it today is relatively new, and even in the UK it dates back to what, the first Reform Act (1852) or even whichever Act expanded the franchise again in the 1910's. Previously, country building was simple: a big man with a sword invited you to kneel, and you knelt or picked up a sword of your own. If popular democratic formation of sovereign states is rare in history (and I do not have the time to confirm that), then that is more down to the newness of popular democracy than to state formation per se.
But enough of my chuntering on. To answer your implicit question, states which have incorporated themselves into others post-1900 include Schleswig/Holstein/whatever, and (of course) the integration of the German Democratic Republic into the Federal Republic.
BBC's Have Your Say is unimpressed with this policy proposal. That surprised me.
Really? When you think of it, this is a de facto shift of the burden of taxation from the wealthy to the ordinary man in the street.
We ban non doms.
They leave.
We have to make up the tax shortfall.
So where will these people go to? The USA - doesn't have such a thing as non-dom status. France? It's a socialist nightmare so we hear. A tax haven? You'll have a job commuting to work in the city every day or going out for dinner in Mayfair - if someone's minded to go to the inconvenience they probably are already. It's getting rid of an unfair anomaly in the system. Claiming 'all rich people will leave' is getting a little bit like the boy who cried wolf - yes, if you raise taxation to punitive levels, people will leave, but pretending the rich will all decamp en masse at a change which brings us into line with most other countries, or every tinker with the tax code is daft. Even Cameron and Osborne know this, hence why the two main attack lines are that they're doing things already, and that Balls is contradicting himself (quoting him very selectively - it hardly seems up there with 'kick me out if I don't cut immigration'). When Tories have made that argument it's been half-heartedly as a way of deflating enthusiasm for it rather than outraged opposition.
It's a win for Labour but a minor one, anyone thinking it will shift the polls needs to sober up. I think most people will like the idea, as it seems a fair one, but probably know that it's pretty small beer in the scheme of things.
Don't see this "trouble" Sturgeon was supposed to be in, she let the others rant about oil prices then killed the argument at the end getting a decent reception from a relatively poor audience.
Little obvious warmth towards her,
The feet stamping from the Labour hacks who've infiltrated the audience is loud and clear. BBC Scotland playing their bit for SLAB.
As for white pudding, one can make skirlie (coarse oatmeal and onion, basically) if one wants a more herbivorous option. Very good baked and served with roast chicken, too.
@BBCsarahsmith: #leadersdeabte @NicolaSturgeon says something material would have to change before she proposes another #indyref. Not heard that before
It'll make no difference, but Sturgeon is being monstered here. She is completely losing it. At least she is better than the UKIP bloke
3 debates in 6 days and 2 inside 24 hours is a bit much.
Anna and I have 3 debates in 5 days from Sunday (Sun, Mon, Thur). Should be fun. There are two more soon afterwards. Traditionally, Broxtowe debates till the cows come home - I think we had 7 last time, all of them seen as more or less score draws.
BBC's Have Your Say is unimpressed with this policy proposal. That surprised me.
Really? When you think of it, this is a de facto shift of the burden of taxation from the wealthy to the ordinary man in the street.
We ban non doms.
They leave.
We have to make up the tax shortfall.
So where will these people go to? The USA - doesn't have such a thing as non-dom status. France? It's a socialist nightmare so we hear. A tax haven? You'll have a job commuting to work in the city every day or going out for dinner in Mayfair - if someone's minded to go to the inconvenience they probably are already. It's getting rid of an unfair anomaly in the system. Claiming 'all rich people will leave' is getting a little bit like the boy who cried wolf - yes, if you raise taxation to punitive levels, people will leave, but pretending the rich will all decamp en masse at a change which brings us into line with most other countries, or every tinker with the tax code is daft. Even Cameron and Osborne know this, hence why the two main attack lines are that they're doing things already, and that Balls is contradicting himself (quoting him very selectively - it hardly seems up there with 'kick me out if I don't cut immigration'). When Tories have made that argument it's been half-heartedly as a way of deflating enthusiasm for it rather than outraged opposition.
It's a win for Labour but a minor one, anyone thinking it will shift the polls needs to sober up. I think most people will like the idea, as it seems a fair one, but probably know that it's pretty small beer in the scheme of things.
They'll probably go to Ireland - much cheaper and London is an hours flight away.
Mike, my oldest and youngest lads were at the debate tonight, both first time voters and planning to vote Conservative. My middle son is planning to vote SNP.
Cook destroyed the last shred of credibility he had left. Welcome to the Jim Murphy show, the anal riming of Murphy is becoming nauseating.
I don't think the moderator has been pro anybody. He has been fairly questioning all of the 6 politicians (well maybe apart from UKIP who has hardly had said a thing)
Someone has informed you that No won the referendum, right?
Democratically people want Nationalists to run the provincial government. Democratically they also want to be part of a greater Union.
People chose the SNP to run the Holyrood parliaments. It is not a "province", it is a national government.
They choose in May 2011. They will choose and may choose differently in May 2016.
People voted No in a referendum.
They made this choice in September 2014. It would see only correct and reasonable to vote again before September 2019 at the latest if parties supporting this are elected to government.
Nah, neither correct nor reasonable.
Was the promise of the referendum that it was 'once in a generation', or 'once in a lifetime', I forget?
If the SNP stand for election in 2016 with a clear manifesto commitment for another independence referendum, and they then win that election, then the electorate would have spoken. The case for a referendum would be irresistible.
If the electorate don't want another referendum so soon then they will be free to vote for a whole plethora of other parties who would not have such a manifesto commitment. That's how British democracy used* to work. General elections were held in order to endorse (or reject) controversial manifesto commitments.
The only question for the SNP is whether it makes sense to hold another referendum so soon. Losing the referendum in 2014 has served to solidify support for independence and convert it into support for the SNP, but can they win over the extra 6% of the Scottish electorate needed to win an independence referendum? What would happen if they lost a second referendum?
* I say "used" because these days the parties tend to hide difficult choices from the electorate, and hope that they will have forgotten about the unpopular policies enacted early in a Parliament by the time of the next election. See for example tuition fees, increases to VAT, etc.
The poll was conducted before I started campaigning, so with my skills, you can stick 5% on the Tory share of the vote. But that's my legendary modesty kicking in, more like 10%.
Overall it isn't hard to believe UKIP getting squeezed.
Go to bed with Nigel, wake up with Ed is having some influence on the doorstep.
I have a prediction, the Con and Lab vote share will go up in the marginals from 2010.
Wasn't the answer to [Schleswig-Holstein question] something like "There are only three people who know the answer to that - one is dead, another is mad and I've forgotten it"
Palmerston. Continuing the fine tradition of inaccurately analysing Europe since 55 BC...
About non-doms,I think Labour could have done better on a bomb-shell of a policy.
And the Tories have done as well as they could with a popular left-wing policy.
Tightening the rules on non-doms is not necessarily a left-wing policy. If you choose to live in a country you should jolly well contribute by paying taxes on the same basis as everyone else. I pay taxes at pretty high marginal rates - and both my parents were immigrants - and I am fed up with others inheriting a tax domicile that allows them to live in the same country with the same advantages but pay tax on a lesser and more favourable basis, as if paying tax were some optional hobby.
The devil is in the detail, of course, which is where Labour tend to fall over their own shoelaces. But there is something very unappealing about very rich people complaining about being asked to comtribute and saying they'll leave if they don't get things their own way.
Blackmail is still blackmail, whether it's done by some union leader threatening strikes or some wealthy foreigner threatening to leave.
Our economy - even in London - has to amount to more than just servicing the needs of the spoilt rich.
Comments
I didn't like Icelandic lamb very much, which surprised me as it is supposed to be the dog's b******s. The answer is it has a very quick growing season - in the land of the midnight sum you can eat grass 24/7 - so has a very delicate flavour. I would rather eat something that has been living up a fell for a year or three.
For that pain, they pay £90000.
A £3m house in London inflates by about £300k every year. £90000 is peanuts !
This audience clearly more left than last night's audience. Why?
BBC Bias ?
I'll get my coat.
And the Tories have done as well as they could with a popular left-wing policy.
Hundreds.
The estate agents who sells the property. Then lets it. The lawyer that does the conveyancing. The people who service the property or maintain it. Clean it. The accountants who organise the taxation.
Then the people at starbucks who sell all the above their latte in the morning.
And on and on it goes. Its called economic growth
It's like talking to a child.
Isn't the audience meant to be silent in these debates?
But enough of my chuntering on. To answer your implicit question, states which have incorporated themselves into others post-1900 include Schleswig/Holstein/whatever, and (of course) the integration of the German Democratic Republic into the Federal Republic.
Terrible moderation from James Cook he's just letting Murphy rant on and on.
Reason 157 why the Tories are going to lose!
If Rentoul says it,it must be true.
It's a win for Labour but a minor one, anyone thinking it will shift the polls needs to sober up. I think most people will like the idea, as it seems a fair one, but probably know that it's pretty small beer in the scheme of things.
If the electorate don't want another referendum so soon then they will be free to vote for a whole plethora of other parties who would not have such a manifesto commitment. That's how British democracy used* to work. General elections were held in order to endorse (or reject) controversial manifesto commitments.
The only question for the SNP is whether it makes sense to hold another referendum so soon. Losing the referendum in 2014 has served to solidify support for independence and convert it into support for the SNP, but can they win over the extra 6% of the Scottish electorate needed to win an independence referendum? What would happen if they lost a second referendum?
* I say "used" because these days the parties tend to hide difficult choices from the electorate, and hope that they will have forgotten about the unpopular policies enacted early in a Parliament by the time of the next election. See for example tuition fees, increases to VAT, etc.
But that "shamefully using the most vunerable to make a political point" statement will be replayed on the news and will haunt her for years.
The poll was conducted before I started campaigning, so with my skills, you can stick 5% on the Tory share of the vote. But that's my legendary modesty kicking in, more like 10%.
Overall it isn't hard to believe UKIP getting squeezed.
Go to bed with Nigel, wake up with Ed is having some influence on the doorstep.
I have a prediction, the Con and Lab vote share will go up in the marginals from 2010.
Is that why she's struggling. It's a very mixed message to my ears.
There's a fire in his belly.
The devil is in the detail, of course, which is where Labour tend to fall over their own shoelaces. But there is something very unappealing about very rich people complaining about being asked to comtribute and saying they'll leave if they don't get things their own way.
Blackmail is still blackmail, whether it's done by some union leader threatening strikes or some wealthy foreigner threatening to leave.
Our economy - even in London - has to amount to more than just servicing the needs of the spoilt rich.