Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"he wants to force you to fit in with him" could be said of a number of posters on this thread from both ends of the spectrum. Having met Tom I reckon I could confidently say he has the courage of his convictions and believes in his "cause". That doesn't mean he is intolerant of others who don't share his views. Could that be said of most of the people who have posted on this thread?

Alec - you are confusing having strong disagreement (which is what people on here are doing) with removing people's choice (which is what Tom has done in contacting the restaurants and having them remove it from the menu)


His actions are essentially no different than those of the people who stand outside abortion clinics and try and stop people entering - ie beyond mere disagreement. It takes an emotive (if arguable) subject and bypasses the argument

No, Moore, it can't.


No-one else on this thread has gone to retailers trying to prevent them selling things to customers that he doesn't approve of.


If Mickelwright had come on here offering his views on Foie Gras I would admire the 'courage of his convictions'.


He didn't do that - he tried to prevent people buying things he didn't approve of by restricting their access.


That's intolerance and manipulation. That's 'force'-ing people to fit in with him.

Alec John Moore Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "he wants to force you to fit in with him" could

> be said of a number of posters on this thread from

> both ends of the spectrum. Having met Tom I reckon

> I could confidently say he has the courage of his

> convictions and believes in his "cause". That

> doesn't mean he is intolerant of others who don't

> share his views. Could that be said of most of the

> people who have posted on this thread?


I don't necessarily agree with Tom's methods on this particular issue (eg directly lobbying local restaurants to stop serving something) but at least, as others have said, as he has felt strongly about an issue, he has at least got up off his arse to attempt to address it. As opposed to those who post on here who are seemingly very much intolerant - and distinctly unpleasant - of others that do not share their views (or rather their misguided idea of what others' views are).


Fair enough, Tom could have perhaps been better off having targeted a campaign towards battery chickens but so could others who suggested it.


I don't doubt that Tom welcomes all - whether vegetarian or not - to attend local meetings to discuss and put forward their views and opinions in person. I also think he has come across rather well (and very polite) in his manner and behaviour online in response to this understandably emotive topic/thread.


Edited to add: sorry, long-winded way of saying that I agree with you here Alec.

I don't know the details of Tom's method, or the method of the group of which he is a member - I don't think Tom acts alone - but I reckon he used his powers of persuasion rather than coercion or force on the proprietors of the businesses concerned. So, if Tom and his cohorts have restricted choice or access a bit in the local area this is a small victory given the ubiquity of most things via the interweb. He has raised debate and discussion about the issue as a result of his "forcing people to fit in with him" and generated lots of vitriolic response to his actions. But then, that's what one finds oneself wondering about after reading the EDF, to refer to another thread on here.

Ridgley ? that?s the question that cuts to the heart of the debate


Does it harm the animal? Well inflating it?s liver so prematurely means it dies early - so that?s clearly not A Good Thing. But you?re already breeding it to kill it so that counter balances the argument a bit. Depending on the farm in question, the animal is quite happy to be overfed (waddling over to the farmer when he comes to feed them etc) and lives it?s rather strange life in better circumstances than battery chickens. But it?s entirely possible for it to be basically kept in grim conditions on other farms


As with any food, if you are bothered, check the source as much as possible

That's a big assumption, SJ, to adduce happiness with responses to the offer of food in an animal that is bred to be stuffed. It would be interesting to explore the question of animal welfare a bit more on the forum but I'm not sure this thread is the place for it. However, I had a look at the Compassion in World Farming website just now (there's a clue in the title of their organisation in case you hadn't noticed) and it seems that in 1997 "animals were legally recognised as sentient beings (capable of feeling pain and discomfort) by the EU." Also from CiWF website: "In 1999, against all the odds, the EU agreed to ban barren battery cages for laying hens from 2012. . . . . In 2007, the UK government stated the ban would be enforced in the UK despite continued opposition from many in the egg industry and many EU member states." That puts the comparisons between treatment of ducks and geese for foie gras production and the treatment of battery chickens for egg production into a wider context.

I have no objection to the substance of Mickelwright's complaint about Foie Gras. However, this is a red herring. Also a red herring is the question about battery chickens. I don't like that much either, but it's irrelevant.


The question is whether the ends justify his means.


It's quite easy to see that if this applied to any other situation it would be unaccceptable behaviour. I don't like privtae car ownership - is it okay for me to coerce retailers to prevent petrol being sold in ED? Clearly not.


Hunt SABs? No. ALF? No. Anti-abortionists? No.


Mickelwright? No.


The irony is that all your 'context' is scoially responsible and democratic. I'm absolutely fine with it. Coercing restarauters is not.

You used the word "coercing". As far as I can tell, the restaurateurs could have told him to sod off and their businesses won't suffer. In what way is that coercion? If someone wants foie gras back on the menu, they can go and ask them to do so.


If Tom believes he is right, then let him talk to others and try to persuade them of his view. Any problem with that?

Huguenot- the restaurants aren't obliged to take foie gras off the menu, if someone asks them to. Surely they would do what they thought was best for the business.


If they did decide to take it off the menu, for moral or business reasons- you have the freedom of choice to eat elsewhere.


It's not Tom Micklewright's choice to remove it from the menu, it's the restaurants.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...