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

    • I think it's connected with the totem pole renovation celebrations They have passed now, but the notice has been there since then (at least that's when I first saw it - I passed it on the 484 and also took a photo!)
    • Labour was damned, no matter what it did, when it came to the budget. It loves go on about the black hole, but if Labour had had its way, we'd have been in lockdown for longer and the black hole would be even bigger.  Am I only the one who thinks it's time the NHS became revenue-generating? Not private, but charging small fees for GP appts, x-rays etc? People who don't turn up for GP and out-patient appointments should definitely be charged a cancellation fee. When I lived in Norway I got incredible medical treatment, including follow up appointments, drugs, x-rays, all for £200. I was more than happy to pay it and could afford to. For fairness, make it somehow means-tested.  I am sure there's a model in there somewhere that would be fair to everyone. It's time we stopped fetishising something that no longer works for patient or doctor.  As for major growth, it's a thing of the past, no matter where in the world you live, unless it's China. Or unless you want a Truss-style, totally de-regulated economy and love capitalism with a large C. 
    • If you read my post I expect a compromise with the raising of the cap on agricultural property so that far less 'ordinary' farmers do not get caught  Clarkson is simply a high profile land owner who is not in the business as a conventional farmer.  Here's a nice article that seems to explain things well  https://www.sustainweb.org/blogs/nov24-farming-budget-inheritance-tax-apr/ It's too early to speculate on 2029.  I expect that most of us who were pleased that Labour got in were not expecting anything radical. Whilst floating the idea of hitting those looking to minimise inheritance tax, including gifting, like fuel duty they also chickened put. I'm surprised that anyone could start touting for the Tories after 14 years of financial mismanagement and general incompetence. Surly not.  A very low bar for Labour but they must be well aware that there doesn't need to be much of a swing form Reform to overturn Labour's artificially large majority.  But even with a generally rabid right wing press, now was the opportunity to be much braver.
    • And I worry this Labour government with all of it's own goals and the tax increases is playing into Farage's hands. With Trump winning in the US, his BFF Farage is likely to benefit from strained relations between the US administration and the UK one. As Alastair Campbell said on a recent episode of The Rest is Politics who would not have wanted to be a fly on the wall of the first call between Angela Rayner and JD Vance....those two really are oil and water. Scary, scary times right now and there seems to be a lack of leadership and political nous within the government at a time when we really need it - there aren't many in the cabinet who you think will play well on the global stage.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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