This is the producers’ side of the argument for why that’s ok. I can see why this might be troubling to a vegetarian but not to a meat eater. What’s the argument against beyond “you kill them sooner” which is the flip side of the efficiency gains posted here?
I can seem some discussion about one hormone being linked to cancer, and I’d want to see the numbers on that. But currently, I can’t find a killer argument against.
I don't give a shit about evidence, anything that can even have the chance to have been stuffed with growth hormones they can stick up their jacksies.
No, no it doesn’t get shoved up there, it’s an implant in the neck.
The Truss's leadership prospects are surely in tatters. The Tories would never risk her - an absolutely vilified character within Britain's rural communities. Truss the Farmer's Cuss she'll be known as.
Dunno about that. The Tory members in the SE couldn’t give a damn about the farmers.
Everyone knows that the "countryside" is to stop plebs building houses, not for things like "farming". Don't be ridiculous.
I'm beginning to think some people don't know what "food security" means.
How does banning perfectly safe, perfectly scientific, well tested hormone supplements aid our food security?
Especially considering that the hormone supplement ban was protectionist unscientific bullshit that the EU imposed on us, as UK farmers were using hormone supplements until the EU instituted its ban that the UK opposed at the time in the Council of Ministers?
Maybe the UK farmer should just go back to doing what they were before the EU started meddling, and thus improve our food security?
Is that middle carrier really tiny or just far away?
Also, I suppose the one on the right is one of the British ones for which we could afford the carrier, but not the aircraft?
It's the two British carriers (QE and Kuznetsov) with the French CdG in the middle. The CdG has been shopped to look much smaller than it really is for reasons of dank memes.
The Truss's leadership prospects are surely in tatters. The Tories would never risk her - an absolutely vilified character within Britain's rural communities. Truss the Farmer's Cuss she'll be known as.
Truss is going from strength to strength. Would make a second brilliant female Tory Prime Minister.
The Truss's leadership prospects are surely in tatters. The Tories would never risk her - an absolutely vilified character within Britain's rural communities. Truss the Farmer's Cuss she'll be known as.
Dunno about that. The Tory members in the SE couldn’t give a damn about the farmers.
Everyone knows that the "countryside" is to stop plebs building houses, not for things like "farming". Don't be ridiculous.
I'm beginning to think some people don't know what "food security" means.
How does banning perfectly safe, perfectly scientific, well tested hormone supplements aid our food security?
Especially considering that the hormone supplement ban was protectionist unscientific bullshit that the EU imposed on us, as UK farmers were using hormone supplements until the EU instituted its ban that the UK opposed at the time in the Council of Ministers?
Maybe the UK farmer should just go back to doing what they were before the EU started meddling, and thus improve our food security?
Nah, you want labelling and for British beef to have the reputation of being more “natural” and higher quality. Steal the high welfare end of the market in Oz.
Is that middle carrier really tiny or just far away?
Also, I suppose the one on the right is one of the British ones for which we could afford the carrier, but not the aircraft?
Just published a follow up tweet. A joke, that image. Not that the Marine, never mind M. Macron. will agree.
Heh, I knew I should have put in a smiley... But now I see the small/far away joke had already been done in reply, too.
(With my limited knowledge of the Brit and French ships, I did think UKDJ was dissing (one of) the Brit one, not the French)
Incidentally, is the 'P' for Prince of Wales and the 'Q' for Queen Elizabeth? I was going to make a lame joke about the parking zone on the one on the right, but I hadn't noticed the Q on the one of the left (which I'd assumed was de Gaulle anyway).
So. Looks like brexit means brexit means a race to the bottom in standards and the screwing over of our own producers.
The Waitrose brexiteers got played.
Gove is an idiot.
Gove is now regarded as a filthy Remainer: 'If you're prepared to destroy British farming in return for imported frozen emu burgers you're not one of us.'
Is that a joke or is it reality? I can't work it out any more ...
What is it they say about revolutions and their children?
Still, if the alternative thing to devour is Australian beef...
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
One of the lies told was that he was spying on his mother. I imagine he feels this very personally. I thought it was a very dignified statement. Note his very firm demand that the interview never be shown again.
Effectively, he's saying "stop tormenting us for your own entertainment" a point I make in my header.
And it seems to me in line with what the RF has been saying lately - that personal family disputes are matters which should be resolved in private. Without wishing to do exactly what I criticise others for, this seemed to me to be a message to more than just the BBC.
I am aghast really at how poor all these internal investigations are. I shouldn't be I suppose. But they are really shockingly bad.
You'll have far more experience than I do and my perception is that internal investigations have an innate conflict of interest - it priorities avoiding embarrassment and a quiet life above anything else.
In my (searingly personal) experience internal investigations sometimes have a predetermined outcome in the form of who is to be scapegoated for something that went wrong in a large organization. Said person being senior enough for it to not look risible but not of a level that would raise "issues" for the blowers of noses into silk handkerchiefs (aka the board).
I have been involved in multiple internal investigations in the NHS, both as a staff-side representative and as agent of the Medical Director. The biggest reason that the investigations wind up inconclusive is that the level of proof required is such that an unfair dismissal case or suspension is not secure.
These going against the Trust can go on for years, and cost millions. Hence there tends to a slap on the wrist, no real resolution and often a toxic atmosphere in the department for years, before one party leaves, often "due to ill health" , and frequently the bullied or whistle-blower.
I think it is the same in police and other large organisations, public and private. We need a better, less confrontational way of resolution.
An investigation - a good one - should find out what went wrong. Whether or not someone gets disciplined or sacked should be a secondary consideration. And a good investigation should - if there are reasons for sacking someone, be good enough to provide that evidence. Obviously that depends in part in internal policies and evidence of medical malpractice is very different to the sort of stuff I was dealing with so I defer to you on that.
Some of the problems you describe can arise because there is a lack of focus on what the investigation is for. And poor management in dealing with the issues arising as a result of an investigation happening. That too is something which investigators need to help manage.
I believe that an investigation should be there primarily to understand what happened, put matters right and learn lessons to stop the same thing happening again. Discipline is an important part of that. But an investigation should not be primarily an employment issue.
In all the ones I did which led to disciplinaries or sackings, not one was challenged or overturned on appeal. Nor was an employment case ever lost.
But the NHS has I think even more complexity and I suspect that sometimes doctors and nurses are scapegoated for failings of management.
A lot of the problems are to do with the nature of the work. So, if there is an electronic record of fraud or embezzlement it is fairly clear cut. I did once investigate a case where a doctor was doing locums for another Trust while on paid admin time for my own. There really is little defence possible for that.
More frequently it is dealing with cases of workplace personnel issues. Bullying, harassment, victimisation, poor performance, time keeping, poor productivity, sexual harassment etc. These issues tend to be less cut and dried, and witnesses rare and often inconsistent. Is this a whistle-blower over bullying and poor clinical performance? or a subordinate trying to cover their own poor performance? for example.
The Truss's leadership prospects are surely in tatters. The Tories would never risk her - an absolutely vilified character within Britain's rural communities. Truss the Farmer's Cuss she'll be known as.
Dunno about that. The Tory members in the SE couldn’t give a damn about the farmers.
£3bn a year in subsidies and more in protectionism says somebody cares.
The Truss's leadership prospects are surely in tatters. The Tories would never risk her - an absolutely vilified character within Britain's rural communities. Truss the Farmer's Cuss she'll be known as.
Dunno about that. The Tory members in the SE couldn’t give a damn about the farmers.
Everyone knows that the "countryside" is to stop plebs building houses, not for things like "farming". Don't be ridiculous.
I'm beginning to think some people don't know what "food security" means.
How does banning perfectly safe, perfectly scientific, well tested hormone supplements aid our food security?
Especially considering that the hormone supplement ban was protectionist unscientific bullshit that the EU imposed on us, as UK farmers were using hormone supplements until the EU instituted its ban that the UK opposed at the time in the Council of Ministers?
Maybe the UK farmer should just go back to doing what they were before the EU started meddling, and thus improve our food security?
You really do button up the back, can I sell you a used bridge
Comments
Especially considering that the hormone supplement ban was protectionist unscientific bullshit that the EU imposed on us, as UK farmers were using hormone supplements until the EU instituted its ban that the UK opposed at the time in the Council of Ministers?
Maybe the UK farmer should just go back to doing what they were before the EU started meddling, and thus improve our food security?
(With my limited knowledge of the Brit and French ships, I did think UKDJ was dissing (one of) the Brit one, not the French)
Incidentally, is the 'P' for Prince of Wales and the 'Q' for Queen Elizabeth? I was going to make a lame joke about the parking zone on the one on the right, but I hadn't noticed the Q on the one of the left (which I'd assumed was de Gaulle anyway).
Still, if the alternative thing to devour is Australian beef...
More frequently it is dealing with cases of workplace personnel issues. Bullying, harassment, victimisation, poor performance, time keeping, poor productivity, sexual harassment etc. These issues tend to be less cut and dried, and witnesses rare and often inconsistent. Is this a whistle-blower over bullying and poor clinical performance? or a subordinate trying to cover their own poor performance? for example.