On today's Panelbase poll does it not strike our unionist posters as significant that 10 years after the election of an SNP Government the NATS are still a country mile ahead of the unionist parties and a full 10 per cent up on what they achieved in 2007.
And that after 3 months of being written off as past it by Scotland's London run media!
The SNP have the support of most people who backed independence, and the Conservatives and Labour have the support of those who opposed it. That doesn't seem surprising.
Which equates to the SNP being very far from a busted flush, contrary to much subsample-driven Yoon hypotheses.
The subsamples suggesting that the SNP had fallen to third were indeed nonsense. I think they are likely to remain the largest single party in Scotland for some time yet. But the days when they were pushing 50% seem to be behind them, at least for now.
SLAB has had a lot of negative publicity surrounding Kezia's standing down and is effectively leaderless for the present and some months to come. The options being discussed look pretty uninspired too. Even so, I suspect that the Panelbase poll has understated their support to the benefit of the SNP.
I think uninspired is generous. From my point of view, Sarwar would be preferrable because we know he's f***ing useless at everything apart from spotting the main chance, while we can't be sure of that with Richard Leonard. Mind you, Leonard seems to have tied himself up in familiar knots e.g. a longstanding member of CND but still supporting the retention of Trident, campaigning for Remain but voting to support Article 50, anti austerity while London & Welsh Labour sit on their hands.
I am amazed and impressed that you know that much about Richard Leonard. A couple of weeks ago I was completely ignorant of his existence. To describe his profile as an MSP as low would be like suggesting that south Florida is currently becoming a little breezy.
On today's Panelbase poll does it not strike our unionist posters as significant that 10 years after the election of an SNP Government the NATS are still a country mile ahead of the unionist parties and a full 10 per cent up on what they achieved in 2007.
And that after 3 months of being written off as past it by Scotland's London run media!
The SNP have the support of most people who backed independence, and the Conservatives and Labour have the support of those who opposed it. That doesn't seem surprising.
Which equates to the SNP being very far from a busted flush, contrary to much subsample-driven Yoon hypotheses.
The subsamples suggesting that the SNP had fallen to third were indeed nonsense. I think they are likely to remain the largest single party in Scotland for some time yet. But the days when they were pushing 50% seem to be behind them, at least for now.
SLAB has had a lot of negative publicity surrounding Kezia's standing down and is effectively leaderless for the present and some months to come. The options being discussed look pretty uninspired too. Even so, I suspect that the Panelbase poll has understated their support to the benefit of the SNP.
I think uninspired is generous. From my point of view, Sarwar would be preferrable because we know he's f***ing useless at everything apart from spotting the main chance, while we can't be sure of that with Richard Leonard. Mind you, Leonard seems to have tied himself up in familiar knots e.g. a longstanding member of CND but still supporting the retention of Trident, campaigning for Remain but voting to support Article 50, anti austerity while London & Welsh Labour sit on their hands.
How is campaigning for Remain but voting to invoke Article 50 tying yourself up in knots? It's simply being a democrat and accepting the will of the people.
If Scotland were to vote to become independent then it would take an Act of Parliament to make it so. Should those who had campaigned against independence vote against such an enabling act? Or should.they accept the will of the voters?
I guess I should have added 'all other things being equal' at the end of my previous post. Of course there are many other factors at play when it comes to tropical weather.
Yes. This is an interesting, if slightly out of date, chart from the NOAA showing the number of hurricanes to make landfall in the US http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
I think we would struggle to see a clear pattern. There was a peak in the 1930s-40s but it looks pretty consistent with a very slight downward trend otherwise.
The criteria of US landfall may not be the most meaningful of course but it is strange. More energy should equal more violence but it does not seem to be doing so.
The accumulated cyclone energy index which shows the total amount of energy in Atlantic storms from the NOAA shows the same thing.
It seems to me to show a more obvious pick up from1995 to 2004 although not as much since. Possibly el nino effects?
What I think is undeniable is that the casual and lazy linking of the current situation to global warming by the media has no credible basis whatsoever.
On today's Panelbase poll does it not strike our unionist posters as significant that 10 years after the election of an SNP Government the NATS are still a country mile ahead of the unionist parties and a full 10 per cent up on what they achieved in 2007.
And that after 3 months of being written off as past it by Scotland's London run media!
The SNP have the support of most people who backed independence, and the Conservatives and Labour have the support of those who opposed it. That doesn't seem surprising.
Which equates to the SNP being very far from a busted flush, contrary to much subsample-driven Yoon hypotheses.
The subsamples suggesting that the SNP had fallen to third were indeed nonsense. I think they are likely to remain the largest single party in Scotland for some time yet. But the days when they were pushing 50% seem to be behind them, at least for now.
SLAB has had a lot of negative publicity surrounding Kezia's standing down and is effectively leaderless for the present and some months to come. The options being discussed look pretty uninspired too. Even so, I suspect that the Panelbase poll has understated their support to the benefit of the SNP.
I think uninspired is generous. From my point of view, Sarwar would be preferrable because we know he's f***ing useless at everything apart from spotting the main chance, while we can't be sure of that with Richard Leonard. Mind you, Leonard seems to have tied himself up in familiar knots e.g. a longstanding member of CND but still supporting the retention of Trident, campaigning for Remain but voting to support Article 50, anti austerity while London & Welsh Labour sit on their hands.
I am amazed and impressed that you know that much about Richard Leonard. A couple of weeks ago I was completely ignorant of his existence. To describe his profile as an MSP as low would be like suggesting that south Florida is currently becoming a little breezy.
I vaguely remembered the Article 50 thing (he was one of only 3 SLab msps who voted to support it in Holyrood). The rest is all learned in the last 2 weeks!
On today's Panelbase poll does it not strike our unionist posters as significant that 10 years after the election of an SNP Government the NATS are still a country mile ahead of the unionist parties and a full 10 per cent up on what they achieved in 2007.
And that after 3 months of being written off as past it by Scotland's London run media!
The SNP have the support of most people who backed independence, and the Conservatives and Labour have the support of those who opposed it. That doesn't seem surprising.
Which equates to the SNP being very far from a busted flush, contrary to much subsample-driven Yoon hypotheses.
The subsamples suggesting that the SNP had fallen to third were indeed nonsense. I think they are likely to remain the largest single party in Scotland for some time yet. But the days when they were pushing 50% seem to be behind them, at least for now.
SLAB has had a lot of negative publicity surrounding Kezia's standing down and is effectively leaderless for the present and some months to come. The options being discussed look pretty uninspired too. Even so, I suspect that the Panelbase poll has understated their support to the benefit of the SNP.
I think uninspired is generous. From my point of view, Sarwar would be preferrable because we know he's f***ing useless at everything apart from spotting the main chance, while we can't be sure of that with Richard Leonard. Mind you, Leonard seems to have tied himself up in familiar knots e.g. a longstanding member of CND but still supporting the retention of Trident, campaigning for Remain but voting to support Article 50, anti austerity while London & Welsh Labour sit on their hands.
It is a dumb and dumber competition, thick well connected millionaire useless regional party placeman versus thick union connected typical London labour viewpoint placeman
Hurricanes / typhoons / tropical cyclones feed off hot seawater. Seawater temperatures are rising in regions prone to these weather phenomena. Stronger hurricanes will result.
Except of course they haven't. Contrary to the media and alarmists this is not the strongest hurricane ever to make landfall. Nor is the situation of 3 hurricanes in a row unique. And the frequency of the most powerful hurricanes has dropped dramatically (as has the frequency of all Atlantic and Caribbean hurricanes). According to the NOAA the period of recent warming over the last 50 years has coincided with a 60% drop in category 4 and 5 hurricanes compared to the previous 50 years.
As with everything to do with the climate, the very straightforward basic lab science does not transfer easily into the vastly more complex real world.
Yes, if you cherry-pick your intervals well enough, it is still possible to deny an increase in storm intensity and frequency. I'm not sure why you'd want to do that though. Overall, both the frequency and intensity of Atlantic storms do appear to be increasing, at least according to this graph from the NOAA website:
Not cherry picking at all. The NOAA themselves say that storm numbers before the 1920s are extremely unreliable and almost certainly undercounted by a significant amount. This is why they choose to compare the period from 1920 to 1970 with the current period as the measures are broadly comparable. So if you want to accuse the NOAA of cherry picking then go right ahead.
Organisers estimated there were between 10,000 and 15,000 people at the start of the march, adding that numbers rose to about 50,000 at its height as people joined along the way.
The police did not provide any estimates and the BBC is unable to verify these figures.
On today's Panelbase poll does it not strike our unionist posters as significant that 10 years after the election of an SNP Government the NATS are still a country mile ahead of the unionist parties and a full 10 per cent up on what they achieved in 2007.
And that after 3 months of being written off as past it by Scotland's London run media!
The SNP have the support of most people who backed independence, and the Conservatives and Labour have the support of those who opposed it. That doesn't seem surprising.
Which equates to the SNP being very far from a busted flush, contrary to much subsample-driven Yoon hypotheses.
The subsamples suggesting that the SNP had fallen to third were indeed nonsense. I think they are likely to remain the largest single party in Scotland for some time yet. But the days when they were pushing 50% seem to be behind them, at least for now.
SLAB has had a lot of negative publicity surrounding Kezia's standing down and is effectively leaderless for the present and some months to come. The options being discussed look pretty uninspired too. Even so, I suspect that the Panelbase poll has understated their support to the benefit of the SNP.
I think uninspired is generous. From my point of view, Sarwar would be preferrable because we know he's f***ing useless at everything apart from spotting the main chance, while we can't be sure of that with Richard Leonard. Mind you, Leonard seems to have tied himself up in familiar knots e.g. a longstanding member of CND but still supporting the retention of Trident, campaigning for Remain but voting to support Article 50, anti austerity while London & Welsh Labour sit on their hands.
How is campaigning for Remain but voting to invoke Article 50 tying yourself up in knots? It's simply being a democrat and accepting the will of the people.
If Scotland were to vote to become independent then it would take an Act of Parliament to make it so. Should those who had campaigned against independence vote against such an enabling act? Or should.they accept the will of the voters?
If he wants to respect the will of English & Wesh voters over Scottish ones (including the ones whose votes that he by default received on the Central Scotland list), that's fine. I look forward to him making the case for that.
On today's Panelbase poll does it not strike our unionist posters as significant that 10 years after the election of an SNP Government the NATS are still a country mile ahead of the unionist parties and a full 10 per cent up on what they achieved in 2007.
And that after 3 months of being written off as past it by Scotland's London run media!
The SNP have the support of most people who backed independence, and the Conservatives and Labour have the support of those who opposed it. That doesn't seem surprising.
Which equates to the SNP being very far from a busted flush, contrary to much subsample-driven Yoon hypotheses.
The subsamples suggesting that the SNP had fallen to third were indeed nonsense. I think they are likely to remain the largest single party in Scotland for some time yet. But the days when they were pushing 50% seem to be behind them, at least for now.
SLAB has had a lot of negative publicity surrounding Kezia's standing down and is effectively leaderless for the present and some months to come. The options being discussed look pretty uninspired too. Even so, I suspect that the Panelbase poll has understated their support to the benefit of the SNP.
I think uninspired is generous. From my point of view, Sarwar would be preferrable because we know he's f***ing useless at everything apart from spotting the main chance, while we can't be sure of that with Richard Leonard. Mind you, Leonard seems to have tied himself up in familiar knots e.g. a longstanding member of CND but still supporting the retention of Trident, campaigning for Remain but voting to support Article 50, anti austerity while London & Welsh Labour sit on their hands.
I am amazed and impressed that you know that much about Richard Leonard. A couple of weeks ago I was completely ignorant of his existence. To describe his profile as an MSP as low would be like suggesting that south Florida is currently becoming a little breezy.
I vaguely remembered the Article 50 thing (he was one of only 3 SLab msps who voted to support it in Holyrood). The rest is all learned in the last 2 weeks!
I had the pleasure (ahem) of meeting Mr Sarwar in the battle of Reform Street (no one was hurt but some people were jolly rude to each other) during the referendum campaign. He was quite charming to my mother in law but an emptier suit I have rarely met. If that is the best that SLAB can do they are in trouble.
On today's Panelbase poll does it not strike our unionist posters as significant that 10 years after the election of an SNP Government the NATS are still a country mile ahead of the unionist parties and a full 10 per cent up on what they achieved in 2007.
And that after 3 months of being written off as past it by Scotland's London run media!
The SNP have the support of most people who backed independence, and the Conservatives and Labour have the support of those who opposed it. That doesn't seem surprising.
Which equates to the SNP being very far from a busted flush, contrary to much subsample-driven Yoon hypotheses.
The subsamples suggesting that the SNP had fallen to third were indeed nonsense. I think they are likely to remain the largest single party in Scotland for some time yet. But the days when they were pushing 50% seem to be behind them, at least for now.
SLAB has had a lot of negative publicity surrounding Kezia's standing down and is effectively leaderless for the present and some months to come. The options being discussed look pretty uninspired too. Even so, I suspect that the Panelbase poll has understated their support to the benefit of the SNP.
I think uninspired is generous. From my point of view, Sarwar would be preferrable because we know he's f***ing useless at everything apart from spotting the main chance, while we can't be sure of that with Richard Leonard. Mind you, Leonard seems to have tied himself up in familiar knots e.g. a longstanding member of CND but still supporting the retention of Trident, campaigning for Remain but voting to support Article 50, anti austerity while London & Welsh Labour sit on their hands.
I am amazed and impressed that you know that much about Richard Leonard. A couple of weeks ago I was completely ignorant of his existence. To describe his profile as an MSP as low would be like suggesting that south Florida is currently becoming a little breezy.
I vaguely remembered the Article 50 thing (he was one of only 3 SLab msps who voted to support it in Holyrood). The rest is all learned in the last 2 weeks!
I guess I should have added 'all other things being equal' at the end of my previous post. Of course there are many other factors at play when it comes to tropical weather.
Yes. This is an interesting, if slightly out of date, chart from the NOAA showing the number of hurricanes to make landfall in the US http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
I think we would struggle to see a clear pattern. There was a peak in the 1930s-40s but it looks pretty consistent with a very slight downward trend otherwise.
The criteria of US landfall may not be the most meaningful of course but it is strange. More energy should equal more violence but it does not seem to be doing so.
The accumulated cyclone energy index which shows the total amount of energy in Atlantic storms from the NOAA shows the same thing.
It seems to me to show a more obvious pick up from1995 to 2004 although not as much since. Possibly el nino effects?
What I think is undeniable is that the casual and lazy linking of the current situation to global warming by the media has no credible basis whatsoever.
I guess I should have added 'all other things being equal' at the end of my previous post. Of course there are many other factors at play when it comes to tropical weather.
Yes. This is an interesting, if slightly out of date, chart from the NOAA showing the number of hurricanes to make landfall in the US http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
I think we would struggle to see a clear pattern. There was a peak in the 1930s-40s but it looks pretty consistent with a very slight downward trend otherwise.
The criteria of US landfall may not be the most meaningful of course but it is strange. More energy should equal more violence but it does not seem to be doing so.
The accumulated cyclone energy index which shows the total amount of energy in Atlantic storms from the NOAA shows the same thing.
It seems to me to show a more obvious pick up from1995 to 2004 although not as much since. Possibly el nino effects?
What I think is undeniable is that the casual and lazy linking of the current situation to global warming by the media has no credible basis whatsoever.
Farage's new friends in the AfD are such nice people... Their lead candidate seems to have written an email in 2013 in which she says Germany's leaders are 'pigs' who are 'puppets of the winning powers in WW2 who want to keep the German people down'.
I guess I should have added 'all other things being equal' at the end of my previous post. Of course there are many other factors at play when it comes to tropical weather.
Yes. This is an interesting, if slightly out of date, chart from the NOAA showing the number of hurricanes to make landfall in the US http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
I think we would struggle to see a clear pattern. There was a peak in the 1930s-40s but it looks pretty consistent with a very slight downward trend otherwise.
The criteria of US landfall may not be the most meaningful of course but it is strange. More energy should equal more violence but it does not seem to be doing so.
The accumulated cyclone energy index which shows the total amount of energy in Atlantic storms from the NOAA shows the same thing.
It seems to me to show a more obvious pick up from1995 to 2004 although not as much since. Possibly el nino effects?
What I think is undeniable is that the casual and lazy linking of the current situation to global warming by the media has no credible basis whatsoever.
Farage's new friends in the AfD are such nice people... Their lead candidate seems to have written an email in 2013 in which she says Germany's leaders are 'pigs' who are 'puppets of the winning powers in WW2 who want to keep the German people down'.
I had the pleasure (ahem) of meeting Mr Sarwar in the battle of Reform Street (no one was hurt but some people were jolly rude to each other) during the referendum campaign. He was quite charming to my mother in law but an emptier suit I have rarely met. If that is the best that SLAB can do they are in trouble.
Tricky to think who would be the best that SLab could do though. I guess all parties can display 'the present incumbent is rubbish compared to his/her predecessor' mindset, but it's pretty much justified with SLab.
Hurricanes / typhoons / tropical cyclones feed off hot seawater. Seawater temperatures are rising in regions prone to these weather phenomena. Stronger hurricanes will result.
Except of course they haven't. Contrary to the media and alarmists this is not the strongest hurricane ever to make landfall. Nor is the situation of 3 hurricanes in a row unique. And the frequency of the most powerful hurricanes has dropped dramatically (as has the frequency of all Atlantic and Caribbean hurricanes). According to the NOAA the period of recent warming over the last 50 years has coincided with a 60% drop in category 4 and 5 hurricanes compared to the previous 50 years.
As with everything to do with the climate, the very straightforward basic lab science does not transfer easily into the vastly more complex real world.
Yes, if you cherry-pick your intervals well enough, it is still possible to deny an increase in storm intensity and frequency. I'm not sure why you'd want to do that though. Overall, both the frequency and intensity of Atlantic storms do appear to be increasing, at least according to this graph from the NOAA website:
Not cherry picking at all. The NOAA themselves say that storm numbers before the 1920s are extremely unreliable and almost certainly undercounted by a significant amount. This is why they choose to compare the period from 1920 to 1970 with the current period as the measures are broadly comparable. So if you want to accuse the NOAA of cherry picking then go right ahead.
I may be missing something, and perhaps 20 years is not enough time to judge, but the period since 1995 does seem to have been the most active.
I had the pleasure (ahem) of meeting Mr Sarwar in the battle of Reform Street (no one was hurt but some people were jolly rude to each other) during the referendum campaign. He was quite charming to my mother in law but an emptier suit I have rarely met. If that is the best that SLAB can do they are in trouble.
Tricky to think who would be the best that SLab could do though. I guess all parties can display 'the present incumbent is rubbish compared to his/her predecessor' mindset, but it's pretty much justified with SLab.
I make an exception for Iain Gray of course.
I think they could do worse than go back to Johann Lamont. She stood down to give Murphy a go but seemed pretty reasonable to me.
Farage's new friends in the AfD are such nice people... Their lead candidate seems to have written an email in 2013 in which she says Germany's leaders are 'pigs' who are 'puppets of the winning powers in WW2 who want to keep the German people down'.
Organisers estimated there were between 10,000 and 15,000 people at the start of the march, adding that numbers rose to about 50,000 at its height as people joined along the way.
The police did not provide any estimates and the BBC is unable to verify these figures.
I had the pleasure (ahem) of meeting Mr Sarwar in the battle of Reform Street (no one was hurt but some people were jolly rude to each other) during the referendum campaign. He was quite charming to my mother in law but an emptier suit I have rarely met. If that is the best that SLAB can do they are in trouble.
Tricky to think who would be the best that SLab could do though. I guess all parties can display 'the present incumbent is rubbish compared to his/her predecessor' mindset, but it's pretty much justified with SLab.
I make an exception for Iain Gray of course.
I think they could do worse than go back to Johann Lamont. She stood down to give Murphy a go but seemed pretty reasonable to me.
David, nice for your granny but useless as a politician. Be better bringing back Wendy. PS: both candidates are truly awful but I would expect the lefties will get Leonard in and we will just have a corbyn carbon copy up here.
I had the pleasure (ahem) of meeting Mr Sarwar in the battle of Reform Street (no one was hurt but some people were jolly rude to each other) during the referendum campaign. He was quite charming to my mother in law but an emptier suit I have rarely met. If that is the best that SLAB can do they are in trouble.
Tricky to think who would be the best that SLab could do though. I guess all parties can display 'the present incumbent is rubbish compared to his/her predecessor' mindset, but it's pretty much justified with SLab.
I make an exception for Iain Gray of course.
I think they could do worse than go back to Johann Lamont. She stood down to give Murphy a go but seemed pretty reasonable to me.
David, nice for your granny but useless as a politician. Be better bringing back Wendy.
She was probably the brightest of the lot but has gone off to find a life and is no longer in the Parliament.
Panelbase found that if a Holyrood election were held tomorrow the SNP would be on 42% in the constituency vote, down 5% from the 2016 Scottish election, with the Tories on 28% (+6%), Labour on 22% (-1%), Lib Dems on 6% (-2%) and the Greens at 2% (+1%). Support for a new referendum within 18 months, while the UK negotiates to leave the EU, has fallen to 17%, the lowest level yet, down from 28% in May and 32% in April.
Some 58% say there should not be another independence referendum in the next few years, up from 52% in May. Support for Scottish independence has slipped from 45% in the 2014 referendum to 43%, while opposition is up two points to 57%.
In the 2017 local election results in Scotland the SNP got 32% of first preferences. In the 2017 GE, with their allies in the Greens only standing in a couple of seats, they got 37%. I think it is fair to say that the sample size for both those elections was somewhat larger than Panelbase.
I frankly do not believe that poll.
I tend to agree. Also pre-Holyrood polls in 2016 underestimated the Labour vote.
Farage's new friends in the AfD are such nice people... Their lead candidate seems to have written an email in 2013 in which she says Germany's leaders are 'pigs' who are 'puppets of the winning powers in WW2 who want to keep the German people down'.
There is a genuine difficulty with posters on this site and stories in the Scottish press.
Most of you assume that the tartan editions of The Sunday Times or The Times or The Telegraph are like their parent papers in London. In other words they all have their editorial lines but by in large their reporting has some reference point to the truth.
They are not. These tartan editions are occupied by small cabals of three or four die hard unionists like Jason Allerdyce and the pals he has recruited who will manipulate any information and present it as negative to the SNP and or independence.
Thus a poll showing after 20 years the Parliament is generally highly popular on every subject is cited (absurdly) as third of those who didn't want it in the first place would now vote to abolish it!
The SNP who are 15 per cent up on the first elections of 1999 and ten per cent up on their result of 2007, after a decade in power, are lanquishing only 14 POINTS AHEAD of their nearest unionist opponent!
Thus it is best not to cite copy from the Sunday Times as anything other than something akin to political leaflets.
The only thing to not from this poll is that contrary to the hopes of unionist papers and posters and despite months of consistent attacks the SNP is still well ahead.
The main target of Unionists was to get the SNP under 45% and support for independence under 45% both of which have been achieved according to today's Panelbase.
That does not mean the SNP is now a 'busted flush' of course but I am far less bothered about whether the centre left SNP or the hard left Corbyn Labour party is the largest party in Scotland than I am about independence, especially now the Scottish Tories have also got comfortably over a quarter of the votes in Scotland.
Jesus, the combination of textures there doesn't bear thinking about.
Elizabeth David described this as the world's worst recipe (from, I think, a Womens Institute cookery book)
"Italian salad 1 pint cold cooked macaroni ½ pint cooked or tinned pears ½ pint grated raw carrot French dressing to moisten 2 heaped tablespoons minced onion ½ pint cooked or minced string beans
Mix the chopped macaroni and vegetables; moisten with French dressing, flavouring with garlic if liked. Serve on a dish lined with lettuce leaves. Decorate with mayonnaise and minced pimento or chives."
(One theory is that "pears" is a typo for "peas").
Blair concluded warning Brexit followed by a Corbyn government would be disastrous for Britain
Yep, it was a fair point. He also, correctly, observed that the British would never vote for the kind of low regulation, low tax, low public spending programmes the Brexit right wants. Brexit is a distraction.
I don't completely disagree, even Boris I think understands that, hence his backing for a public sector pay rise. I think post Brexit UK will longer term look more like Canada in its relationship with the EU than Singapore and in a decade or so once EU immigration has been brought under control we may even return to the single market and rejoin EFTA, especially if we get a moderate Labour PM by then
If he wants to respect the will of English & Wesh voters over Scottish ones (including the ones whose votes that he by default received on the Central Scotland list), that's fine. I look forward to him making the case for that.
It wasn't a Scottish referendum it was a UK one. Either he believes in the UK or not and if he does he should look at the UK total.
It would take English MPs to grant Scotland independence following a successful referendum. Should they respect the referendum results as a whole or their own constituents opinions only?
Jesus, the combination of textures there doesn't bear thinking about.
Elizabeth David described this as the world's worst recipe (from, I think, a Womens Institute cookery book)
"Italian salad 1 pint cold cooked macaroni ½ pint cooked or tinned pears ½ pint grated raw carrot French dressing to moisten 2 heaped tablespoons minced onion ½ pint cooked or minced string beans
Mix the chopped macaroni and vegetables; moisten with French dressing, flavouring with garlic if liked. Serve on a dish lined with lettuce leaves. Decorate with mayonnaise and minced pimento or chives."
(One theory is that "pears" is a typo for "peas").
Theresa runs it pretty close.
Sounds like a pretty good theory, that combo moves into deliberate trolling otherwise. 'Moisten' adds a whole new layer of yuck also.
If he wants to respect the will of English & Wesh voters over Scottish ones (including the ones whose votes that he by default received on the Central Scotland list), that's fine. I look forward to him making the case for that.
It wasn't a Scottish referendum it was a UK one. Either he believes in the UK or not and if he does he should look at the UK total.
It would take English MPs to grant Scotland independence following a successful referendum. Should they respect the referendum results as a whole or their own constituents opinions only?
Hey, I said I'm fine with it. It's not me who he has to square it with. Can't really be arsed arguing over the plaintive cry that it was a UK referendum. If you think that's the definitive & final decision made by constituent countries that largely prioritise their English/Scottish/Welsh identity (not sure about NI) over their UK one, carry on.
Organisers estimated there were between 10,000 and 15,000 people at the start of the march, adding that numbers rose to about 50,000 at its height as people joined along the way.
The police did not provide any estimates and the BBC is unable to verify these figures.
"I’m more and more of the view that the Conservatives are going to take the bullet for Brexit, opening the door to the most populist left wing government Britain has ever seen."
"I’m more and more of the view that the Conservatives are going to take the bullet for Brexit, opening the door to the most populist left wing government Britain has ever seen."
She's probably planning to woo Merkel with a meal of prawn cocktail, steak and black forest gateau.
A meal associated with European immigrants.
Perhaps something from recent European immigrants would be more appropriate - boiled sausage, pickled vegetables, black bread, vodka.
Its interesting that whereas previous immigrant communities have been associated with restaurants and new sorts of food - most obviously Indian, Chinese and Italian but fish and chip shops seem to have had a connection with Jewish immigrants - the Eastern European immigrants are not.
She's probably planning to woo Merkel with a meal of prawn cocktail, steak and black forest gateau.
A meal associated with European immigrants.
Perhaps something from recent European immigrants would be more appropriate - boiled sausage, pickled vegetables, black bread, vodka.
Its interesting that whereas previous immigrant communities have been associated with restaurants and new sorts of food - most obviously Indian, Chinese and Italian but fish and chip shops seem to have had a connection with Jewish immigrants - the Eastern European immigrants are not.
Is Europe east of the Elbe a culinary wasteland ?
Not at all. Goulash, smoked pig's trotters, smoked goose, venison, roasted suckling pig, sauerkraut, peas in cream, iced vodka, veal are all delicious. I've had some of my best meals in Prague and Riga.
"I’m more and more of the view that the Conservatives are going to take the bullet for Brexit, opening the door to the most populist left wing government Britain has ever seen."
"I’m more and more of the view that the Conservatives are going to take the bullet for Brexit, opening the door to the most populist left wing government Britain has ever seen."
She's probably planning to woo Merkel with a meal of prawn cocktail, steak and black forest gateau.
A meal associated with European immigrants.
Perhaps something from recent European immigrants would be more appropriate - boiled sausage, pickled vegetables, black bread, vodka.
Its interesting that whereas previous immigrant communities have been associated with restaurants and new sorts of food - most obviously Indian, Chinese and Italian but fish and chip shops seem to have had a connection with Jewish immigrants - the Eastern European immigrants are not.
Is Europe east of the Elbe a culinary wasteland ?
For many years there has been a Polish-Mexican ( yes you read that right) restaurant in Shepherd's Market in Mayfair.
She's probably planning to woo Merkel with a meal of prawn cocktail, steak and black forest gateau.
A meal associated with European immigrants.
Perhaps something from recent European immigrants would be more appropriate - boiled sausage, pickled vegetables, black bread, vodka.
Its interesting that whereas previous immigrant communities have been associated with restaurants and new sorts of food - most obviously Indian, Chinese and Italian but fish and chip shops seem to have had a connection with Jewish immigrants - the Eastern European immigrants are not.
Is Europe east of the Elbe a culinary wasteland ?
Not at all. Goulash, smoked pig's trotters, smoked goose, venison, roasted suckling pig, sauerkraut, peas in cream, iced vodka, veal are all delicious. I've had some of my best meals in Prague and Riga.
Aside from the pickled vegetables you don't see much of those in the Polish sections of the supermarkets.
From what I've been told Eastern Europeans like fresh fish as well with carp being the traditional Christmas meal.
I would say that the standard adoption of foreign food starts with cheap fast food, followed by higher quality restaurants and then into shops to be cooked at home.
But I've never seen any Eastern European fast food outlets and only occasionally higher quality restaurants (which have never lasted long).
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
And lets just put its record on colluding in the rape and murder of children to one side ...
We don't know if any of them were murdered. But the indifference to human life is far away from any Christian principles that it borders on bewildering.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
And lets just put its record on colluding in the rape and murder of children to one side ...
We don't know if any of them were murdered. But the indifference to human life is far away from any Christian principles that it borders on bewildering.
The investigation should certainly seek to ascertain whether all 400 died of natural causes.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
She's probably planning to woo Merkel with a meal of prawn cocktail, steak and black forest gateau.
A meal associated with European immigrants.
Perhaps something from recent European immigrants would be more appropriate - boiled sausage, pickled vegetables, black bread, vodka.
Its interesting that whereas previous immigrant communities have been associated with restaurants and new sorts of food - most obviously Indian, Chinese and Italian but fish and chip shops seem to have had a connection with Jewish immigrants - the Eastern European immigrants are not.
Is Europe east of the Elbe a culinary wasteland ?
Not at all. Goulash, smoked pig's trotters, smoked goose, venison, roasted suckling pig, sauerkraut, peas in cream, iced vodka, veal are all delicious. I've had some of my best meals in Prague and Riga.
Aside from the pickled vegetables you don't see much of those in the Polish sections of the supermarkets.
From what I've been told Eastern Europeans like fresh fish as well with carp being the traditional Christmas meal.
I would say that the standard adoption of foreign food starts with cheap fast food, followed by higher quality restaurants and then into shops to be cooked at home.
But I've never seen any Eastern European fast food outlets and only occasionally higher quality restaurants (which have never lasted long).
Big Polish sausage (matron!) and cured meat section in our local Tescos.
I guess it may depend on the skills that the first wave of immigrants bring with them, and the Italians did have a highly developed cuisine to start with. It's quite interesting in Glasgow to see the number of Italian cafe/restaurant dynasties that are still thriving from the 1920/30s, and of course lots of them became distinguished in other fields.
She's probably planning to woo Merkel with a meal of prawn cocktail, steak and black forest gateau.
A meal associated with European immigrants.
Perhaps something from recent European immigrants would be more appropriate - boiled sausage, pickled vegetables, black bread, vodka.
Its interesting that whereas previous immigrant communities have been associated with restaurants and new sorts of food - most obviously Indian, Chinese and Italian but fish and chip shops seem to have had a connection with Jewish immigrants - the Eastern European immigrants are not.
Is Europe east of the Elbe a culinary wasteland ?
For many years there has been a Polish-Mexican ( yes you read that right) restaurant in Shepherd's Market in Mayfair.
At last! One is no longer forced to choose between bad breath and diarrhea.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
And lets just put its record on colluding in the rape and murder of children to one side ...
We don't know if any of them were murdered. But the indifference to human life is far away from any Christian principles that it borders on bewildering.
The investigation should certainly seek to ascertain whether all 400 died of natural causes.
I think even Sue Black will find that pretty hard to determine after all this time.
Farage's new friends in the AfD are such nice people... Their lead candidate seems to have written an email in 2013 in which she says Germany's leaders are 'pigs' who are 'puppets of the winning powers in WW2 who want to keep the German people down'.
The referendum has set Nigel free. He no longer has to pretend to be something that he is not.
Reading "All Out War" its clear Nige was both an asset (got his troops motivated) and a liability (turned off everyone else) - he drove up support for UKIP but down support for BREXIT...
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
And lets just put its record on colluding in the rape and murder of children to one side ...
We don't know if any of them were murdered. But the indifference to human life is far away from any Christian principles that it borders on bewildering.
The investigation should certainly seek to ascertain whether all 400 died of natural causes.
I think even Sue Black will find that pretty hard to determine after all this time.
Guess so, but the complacency and formulaic apologies from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that so routinely and predictably follow such appalling revelations absolutely infuriates me.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
She's probably planning to woo Merkel with a meal of prawn cocktail, steak and black forest gateau.
A meal associated with European immigrants.
Perhaps something from recent European immigrants would be more appropriate - boiled sausage, pickled vegetables, black bread, vodka.
Its interesting that whereas previous immigrant communities have been associated with restaurants and new sorts of food - most obviously Indian, Chinese and Italian but fish and chip shops seem to have had a connection with Jewish immigrants - the Eastern European immigrants are not.
Is Europe east of the Elbe a culinary wasteland ?
Hungarian cusine is particularly good, but East Europe does have quite interesting foods elsewhere, albeit fairly pork heavy. There are plenty of good Polish delis and specialist shops in Leicester too The restaurants are a little more unusual, though I rather like this Slovakian one. The service is slow, but partly because the food cooks at that speed.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
I think even then there were many who had rather more forgiving (and dare I say it 'Christian' attitudes) to such matters.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
And lets just put its record on colluding in the rape and murder of children to one side ...
We don't know if any of them were murdered. But the indifference to human life is far away from any Christian principles that it borders on bewildering.
The investigation should certainly seek to ascertain whether all 400 died of natural causes.
I think even Sue Black will find that pretty hard to determine after all this time.
Guess so, but the complacency and formulaic apologies from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that so routinely and predictably follow such appalling revelations absolutely infuriates me.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
I think even then there were many who had rather more forgiving (and dare I say it 'Christian' attitudes) to such matters.
She's probably planning to woo Merkel with a meal of prawn cocktail, steak and black forest gateau.
A meal associated with European immigrants.
Perhaps something from recent European immigrants would be more appropriate - boiled sausage, pickled vegetables, black bread, vodka.
Its interesting that whereas previous immigrant communities have been associated with restaurants and new sorts of food - most obviously Indian, Chinese and Italian but fish and chip shops seem to have had a connection with Jewish immigrants - the Eastern European immigrants are not.
Is Europe east of the Elbe a culinary wasteland ?
Hungarian cusine is particularly good, but East Europe does have quite interesting foods elsewhere, albeit fairly pork heavy. There are plenty of good Polish delis and specialist shops in Leicester too The restaurants are a little more unusual, though I rather like this Slovakian one. The service is slow, but partly because the food cooks at that speed.
Eastern European shopping aisles are common in supermarkets in my necks of the woods (London, Nottingham, Guildford) but they don't have so much of a tradition of fast food to import - you don't see many street food sellers in Moscow or Warsaw, and the ones you do see tend to have Western-style stuff like burgers for the hip teenagers. I'm no cook, but I suspect the things they excel at (mentioned by others on the thread) don't lend themselves well to keep-on-the-bubble fast food outlets.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
Child mortality rates and "baby farming" are both pretty appalling British history, this one possibly as prolific as Harold Shipman:
More frequently it was just overcrowding, neglect and disease that did for these orphans, many of whom had parents, but without the means to support the children. I have an uncle by marriage who was born out of wedlock to an Irish maid, who had to come to England to keep the child. He had a tough start in life, but at school became great friends with my father in law and married his younger sister. It was quite a stigma in England too, but less than in Ireland.
Jesus, the combination of textures there doesn't bear thinking about.
Elizabeth David described this as the world's worst recipe (from, I think, a Womens Institute cookery book)
"Italian salad 1 pint cold cooked macaroni ½ pint cooked or tinned pears ½ pint grated raw carrot French dressing to moisten 2 heaped tablespoons minced onion ½ pint cooked or minced string beans
Mix the chopped macaroni and vegetables; moisten with French dressing, flavouring with garlic if liked. Serve on a dish lined with lettuce leaves. Decorate with mayonnaise and minced pimento or chives."
(One theory is that "pears" is a typo for "peas").
Theresa runs it pretty close.
Sounds like a pretty good theory, that combo moves into deliberate trolling otherwise. 'Moisten' adds a whole new layer of yuck also.
I have friends who are creative, terrible cooks - every meal with them is an adventure, with the hostess saying things like, "I don't think I've known anyone try sardines baked on chicken before, it's interesting, isn't it?" Fortunately they don't read PB...
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
"Most of" the children
The lack of care of children in Catholic care homes (and to be fair, many others) should shame them for eternity. This callous disposal of their bodies just worsens the crimes.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
I think even then there were many who had rather more forgiving (and dare I say it 'Christian' attitudes) to such matters.
A minority at that time
A fish rots from its head, and the morals of people led and influenced by sick and callous religious figures will likewise rot. The children did not matter to these nuns; all that mattered to them was their religious dogma.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
Child mortality rates and "baby farming" are both pretty appalling British history, this one possibly as prolific as Harold Shipman:
More frequently it was just overcrowding, neglect and disease that did for these orphans, many of whom had parents, but without the means to support the children. I have an uncle by marriage who was born out of wedlock to an Irish maid, who had to come to England to keep the child. He had a tough start in life, but at school became great friends with my father in law and married his younger sister. It was quite a stigma in England too, but less than in Ireland.
So even if they weren't orphans they would still have suffered from 'overcrowding, neglect and disease'
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
"Most of" the children
The lack of care of children in Catholic care homes (and to be fair, many others) should shame them for eternity. This callous disposal of their bodies just worsens the crimes.
Most of the children in those homes survived and most of them would have been homeless without those care homes
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
I think even then there were many who had rather more forgiving (and dare I say it 'Christian' attitudes) to such matters.
A minority at that time
A fish rots from its head, and the morals of people led and influenced by sick and callous religious figures will likewise rot. The children did not matter to these nuns; all that mattered to them was their religious dogma.
She's probably planning to woo Merkel with a meal of prawn cocktail, steak and black forest gateau.
A meal associated with European immigrants.
Perhaps something from recent European immigrants would be more appropriate - boiled sausage, pickled vegetables, black bread, vodka.
Its interesting that whereas previous immigrant communities have been associated with restaurants and new sorts of food - most obviously Indian, Chinese and Italian but fish and chip shops seem to have had a connection with Jewish immigrants - the Eastern European immigrants are not.
Is Europe east of the Elbe a culinary wasteland ?
Not at all. Goulash, smoked pig's trotters, smoked goose, venison, roasted suckling pig, sauerkraut, peas in cream, iced vodka, veal are all delicious. I've had some of my best meals in Prague and Riga.
Aside from the pickled vegetables you don't see much of those in the Polish sections of the supermarkets.
From what I've been told Eastern Europeans like fresh fish as well with carp being the traditional Christmas meal.
I would say that the standard adoption of foreign food starts with cheap fast food, followed by higher quality restaurants and then into shops to be cooked at home.
But I've never seen any Eastern European fast food outlets and only occasionally higher quality restaurants (which have never lasted long).
Big Polish sausage (matron!) and cured meat section in our local Tescos.
I guess it may depend on the skills that the first wave of immigrants bring with them, and the Italians did have a highly developed cuisine to start with. It's quite interesting in Glasgow to see the number of Italian cafe/restaurant dynasties that are still thriving from the 1920/30s, and of course lots of them became distinguished in other fields.
I tried some of that supermarket Polish sausage once.
Once was enough - it was more expensive and not as good as the German, Italian or Spanish types.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
I think even then there were many who had rather more forgiving (and dare I say it 'Christian' attitudes) to such matters.
A minority at that time
A fish rots from its head, and the morals of people led and influenced by sick and callous religious figures will likewise rot. The children did not matter to these nuns; all that mattered to them was their religious dogma.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
I think even then there were many who had rather more forgiving (and dare I say it 'Christian' attitudes) to such matters.
A minority at that time
A fish rots from its head, and the morals of people led and influenced by sick and callous religious figures will likewise rot. The children did not matter to these nuns; all that mattered to them was their religious dogma.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
"Most of" the children
The lack of care of children in Catholic care homes (and to be fair, many others) should shame them for eternity. This callous disposal of their bodies just worsens the crimes.
Most of the children in those homes survived and most of them would have been homeless without those care homes
... mostly because of religious stricture castigating unmarried mothers.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
I think even then there were many who had rather more forgiving (and dare I say it 'Christian' attitudes) to such matters.
A minority at that time
A fish rots from its head, and the morals of people led and influenced by sick and callous religious figures will likewise rot. The children did not matter to these nuns; all that mattered to them was their religious dogma.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
I think even then there were many who had rather more forgiving (and dare I say it 'Christian' attitudes) to such matters.
A minority at that time
A fish rots from its head, and the morals of people led and influenced by sick and callous religious figures will likewise rot. The children did not matter to these nuns; all that mattered to them was their religious dogma.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
"Most of" the children
The lack of care of children in Catholic care homes (and to be fair, many others) should shame them for eternity. This callous disposal of their bodies just worsens the crimes.
Most of the children in those homes survived and most of them would have been homeless without those care homes
... mostly because of religious stricture castigating unmarried mothers.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
I think even then there were many who had rather more forgiving (and dare I say it 'Christian' attitudes) to such matters.
A minority at that time
A fish rots from its head, and the morals of people led and influenced by sick and callous religious figures will likewise rot. The children did not matter to these nuns; all that mattered to them was their religious dogma.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
I think even then there were many who had rather more forgiving (and dare I say it 'Christian' attitudes) to such matters.
A minority at that time
A fish rots from its head, and the morals of people led and influenced by sick and callous religious figures will likewise rot. The children did not matter to these nuns; all that mattered to them was their religious dogma.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
I think even then there were many who had rather more forgiving (and dare I say it 'Christian' attitudes) to such matters.
A minority at that time
A fish rots from its head, and the morals of people led and influenced by sick and callous religious figures will likewise rot. The children did not matter to these nuns; all that mattered to them was their religious dogma.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
I think even then there were many who had rather more forgiving (and dare I say it 'Christian' attitudes) to such matters.
A minority at that time
A fish rots from its head, and the morals of people led and influenced by sick and callous religious figures will likewise rot. The children did not matter to these nuns; all that mattered to them was their religious dogma.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home -41200949
Does anything about ?
No, not necessarily, yes all
I suspect ?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
I think even then there were many who had rather more forgiving (and dare I say it 'Christian' attitudes) to such matters.
A minority at that time
A fish rots from its head, and the morals of people led and influenced by sick and callous religious figures will likewise rot. The children did not matter to these nuns; all that mattered to them was their religious dogma.
In the 19th century far more babies and children died than do now
Well, yes. But this went on well into the twentieth century; for example, one named individual died in 1961, so it's a rather poor excuse.
Even in 1961 there were still some slums about and even now some die before their time
Your ability to miss the point and excuse evil is sickening.
What is excusing evil? Do you have any evidence there was murder at this care home? No you are just assuming because it fits your agenda. I do not doubt that the Catholic Church has made mistakes in the past and the Victorian era was a tough time to live in but no mention or acknowledgement of the large numbers of orphans who were homed and fed at this care home from you anywhere.
One person was named in the reporting; that does not mean that there are not more. In fact, it seems rather likely given the other reporting around this and other cases. Unless you think they buried that one boy in a grave that had been closed for decades?
Besides, one person obviously doesn't count, does it? How many before it matters in your mind? Two? Five? Ten? Fifty?
The defence of what went on into modern times would be hilarious if it was not so sickening. Religion can be a great force for good, and many peoples' lives are enhanced by it. But that does not mean that the religious should be excused when they perform evil. Religion should not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card.
How the Catholic Church can claim to have the moral authority to speak on any ethical matter is really beyond me ...
Well, yes. But it's alright because, well, just because Christianity is good, y'know.
This care home opened in 1864 and closed in 1981
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
Does anything about the fact that the graves were clandestine and unmarked raise your suspicion?
No, not necessarily, yes they could have had better recordkeeping but these children were orphans or from broken homes without any close family beyond the care home and without the care home most of them would not have had any home at all
I suspect many of them were forcibly taken from unmarried mothers - or perhaps you think that Philomena, for example, is a work of total fiction?
No but that was a time when homosexuality and abortion were illegal and having children outside of marriage was very much frowned upon. It does not change the work the homes provided for genuine orphans
I think even then there were many who had rather more forgiving (and dare I say it 'Christian' attitudes) to such matters.
A minority at that time
A fish rots from its head, and the morals of people led and influenced by sick and callous religious figures will likewise rot. The children did not matter to these nuns; all that mattered to them was their religious dogma.
One person was named in the reporting; that does not mean that there are not more. In fact, it seems rather likely given the other reporting around this and other cases. Unless you think they buried that one boy in a grave that had been closed for decades?
Besides, one person obviously doesn't count, does it? How many before it matters in your mind? Two? Five? Ten? Fifty?
The defence of what went on into modern times would be hilarious if it was not so sickening. Religion can be a great force for good, and many peoples' lives are enhanced by it. But that does not mean that the religious should be excused when they perform evil. Religion should not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Given there were thousands of orphans housed at this care home over the years 1 person dying in 1961 does not prove much.
As I have said most of these deaths were recorded of dying of death and disease, it is you who have assumed mass murder went on with no evidence to support it
What is excusing evil? Do you have any evidence there was murder at this care home? No you are just assuming because it fits your agenda. I do not doubt that the Catholic Church has made mistakes in the past and the Victorian era was a tough time to live in but no mention or acknowledgement of the large numbers of orphans who were homed and fed at this care home from you anywhere.
The 'care' that was given the children, and the callous way they were buried, was evil in my mind, especially from a religious institution that should have known better. Do you disagree?
I might suggest you read up on what went on, and perhaps even listen to the testimony of victims - and it wasn't just a Catholic problem.
What is excusing evil? Do you have any evidence there was murder at this care home? No you are just assuming because it fits your agenda. I do not doubt that the Catholic Church has made mistakes in the past and the Victorian era was a tough time to live in but no mention or acknowledgement of the large numbers of orphans who were homed and fed at this care home from you anywhere.
The 'care' that was given the children, and the callous way they were buried, was evil in my mind, especially from a religious institution that should have known better. Do you disagree?
I might suggest you read up on what went on, and perhaps even listen to the testimony of victims - and it wasn't just a Catholic problem.
I don't disagree they could have been buried more respectfully no. However the point remains most of these children would not have had a home at all if it were not for this care home.
I also don't dispute that some abuse went on in the past, as has also occurred in non Catholic care homes from time to time and I do not excuse that either, however in this care home the issue was the unmarked graves, there has as far as I can see been no clear evidence of abuse from these nuns
One person was named in the reporting; that does not mean that there are not more. In fact, it seems rather likely given the other reporting around this and other cases. Unless you think they buried that one boy in a grave that had been closed for decades?
Besides, one person obviously doesn't count, does it? How many before it matters in your mind? Two? Five? Ten? Fifty?
The defence of what went on into modern times would be hilarious if it was not so sickening. Religion can be a great force for good, and many peoples' lives are enhanced by it. But that does not mean that the religious should be excused when they perform evil. Religion should not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card.
No, it shouldn't. If the evidence shows that the nuns were abusing the children, then the Order in question should be castigated.
However, even in modern times, society was far poorer, and thus, far harsher to the poor, than it is today. Workhouses existed up to 1948. Unmarried mothers were condemned because ratepayers didn't want to support them. Living conditions that were normal, mid 20th century, would be considered awful today.
Comments
If Scotland were to vote to become independent then it would take an Act of Parliament to make it so. Should those who had campaigned against independence vote against such an enabling act? Or should.they accept the will of the voters?
It seems to me to show a more obvious pick up from1995 to 2004 although not as much since. Possibly el nino effects?
What I think is undeniable is that the casual and lazy linking of the current situation to global warming by the media has no credible basis whatsoever.
A truly pathetic turnout when compared to say the CA march.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropical-cyclones/201513
The first graph shows the 1950-215 index.
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article168480470/Diese-Schweine-sind-nichts-anderes-als-Marionetten-der-Siegermaechte.html
I make an exception for Iain Gray of course.
If only Nige had gone ahead with his 100,000 people march against the Article 50 delay, he could have proved that statement wrong.
PS: both candidates are truly awful but I would expect the lefties will get Leonard in and we will just have a corbyn carbon copy up here.
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/906829151532961792
That does not mean the SNP is now a 'busted flush' of course but I am far less bothered about whether the centre left SNP or the hard left Corbyn Labour party is the largest party in Scotland than I am about independence, especially now the Scottish Tories have also got comfortably over a quarter of the votes in Scotland.
Elizabeth David described this as the world's worst recipe (from, I think, a Womens Institute cookery book)
"Italian salad
1 pint cold cooked macaroni
½ pint cooked or tinned pears
½ pint grated raw carrot
French dressing to moisten
2 heaped tablespoons minced onion
½ pint cooked or minced string beans
Mix the chopped macaroni and vegetables; moisten with French dressing, flavouring with garlic if liked. Serve on a dish lined with lettuce leaves. Decorate with mayonnaise and minced pimento or chives."
(One theory is that "pears" is a typo for "peas").
Theresa runs it pretty close.
It would take English MPs to grant Scotland independence following a successful referendum. Should they respect the referendum results as a whole or their own constituents opinions only?
Can't really be arsed arguing over the plaintive cry that it was a UK referendum. If you think that's the definitive & final decision made by constituent countries that largely prioritise their English/Scottish/Welsh identity (not sure about NI) over their UK one, carry on.
https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/906469194618871808
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/09/biggest-worry-sterling-not-brexit-jeremy-corbyn/
Perhaps something from recent European immigrants would be more appropriate - boiled sausage, pickled vegetables, black bread, vodka.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/4164138
Is Europe east of the Elbe a culinary wasteland ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
I don't know though if that realisation will be the consequence or the cause of a hard left government.
From what I've been told Eastern Europeans like fresh fish as well with carp being the traditional Christmas meal.
I would say that the standard adoption of foreign food starts with cheap fast food, followed by higher quality restaurants and then into shops to be cooked at home.
But I've never seen any Eastern European fast food outlets and only occasionally higher quality restaurants (which have never lasted long).
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/906847903154688000
#trulypatheticturnout
'The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41200949
I guess it may depend on the skills that the first wave of immigrants bring with them, and the Italians did have a highly developed cuisine to start with. It's quite interesting in Glasgow to see the number of Italian cafe/restaurant dynasties that are still thriving from the 1920/30s, and of course lots of them became distinguished in other fields.
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g186334-d6998961-Reviews-Tatra_Eastern_Corner-Leicester_Leicestershire_England.html
NEW THREAD
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_Dyer
More frequently it was just overcrowding, neglect and disease that did for these orphans, many of whom had parents, but without the means to support the children. I have an uncle by marriage who was born out of wedlock to an Irish maid, who had to come to England to keep the child. He had a tough start in life, but at school became great friends with my father in law and married his younger sister. It was quite a stigma in England too, but less than in Ireland.
The lack of care of children in Catholic care homes (and to be fair, many others) should shame them for eternity. This callous disposal of their bodies just worsens the crimes.
And here's another one:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/03/mass-grave-of-babies-and-children-found-at-tuam-orphanage-in-ireland
And this shows the mindset at the time:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8059826.stm
Once was enough - it was more expensive and not as good as the German, Italian or Spanish types.
Perhaps its better at Eastern European shops.
Besides, one person obviously doesn't count, does it? How many before it matters in your mind? Two? Five? Ten? Fifty?
The defence of what went on into modern times would be hilarious if it was not so sickening. Religion can be a great force for good, and many peoples' lives are enhanced by it. But that does not mean that the religious should be excused when they perform evil. Religion should not give you a get-out-of-jail-free card.
As I have said most of these deaths were recorded of dying of death and disease, it is you who have assumed mass murder went on with no evidence to support it
I might suggest you read up on what went on, and perhaps even listen to the testimony of victims - and it wasn't just a Catholic problem.
For instance this, between the 1930s and 1970s:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/20/irish-catholic-schools-child-abuse-claims
I also don't dispute that some abuse went on in the past, as has also occurred in non Catholic care homes from time to time and I do not excuse that either, however in this care home the issue was the unmarked graves, there has as far as I can see been no clear evidence of abuse from these nuns
However, even in modern times, society was far poorer, and thus, far harsher to the poor, than it is today. Workhouses existed up to 1948. Unmarried mothers were condemned because ratepayers didn't want to support them. Living conditions that were normal, mid 20th century, would be considered awful today.