Jump to content

Recommended Posts

PohSuan Wrote:

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

> There's always the new huge Iceland warehouse on

> the Old Kent Road where the Mothercare was.They

> sell frozen snails and crocodile alongside

> classics like Findus crispy pancakes...



Which is why I refused to use Iceland again ( not that I ever went there very often) as soon as the leaflet came through my door advertising their new range of exotic animals.

Just saw that Iceland do an "I'm a celebrity get me out of here" selection pack of exotic meat burgers. Aside from the fact that they are specifically aiming these products at a demographic hooked on junk television and ignorant about food.. surely very lean meats such as ostrich, crocodile, etc are totally unsuitable for burgers?


Anyway... I appreciate that the food is cheap and therefore people are going to miss it, but from a purely selfish perspective, I think it's pretty grim and never use it. If I want cheap food I'll head to Lidl on Bellenden Rd.

Yes Jeremy, I am opposed to all meat but a new range just means more animals are being killed just to make money & satisfy an unecessary desire to try something different.


Kangaroo, ostrich, crocodiles, buffalo to name a few that Iceland think is OK.


What next?


The leaflet turned my stomach, went straight in the bin and so did Iceland. Never again.

I'm a meat eater (not a Big meat eater ) and think it is unnecessary to include exotic animals in any range.


Kangaroo, Ostrich can already be bought in many supermarkets as can snails.

Though I have no desire to try them.


Crocodile ? Snake ? No thank you.


I was Vegetarian at one time (2-3years 1978ish ) and many of my circle of friends at the time were Vegan.

With a little bit of effort I probably could revert back and have thought about it.


It does take a lot of commitment to take that step and I do admire those that stick with it.


Foxy

aquarius moon Wrote:

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

> If there's no limit to what can be killed for

> meat, more will be killed. And I'm hardly going to

> approve of that am I?


You're making the (IMO incorrect) assumption that more species being farmed equates to more meat being eaten overall. People don't consume more meat because more varieties are available.


Cats and dogs? Why is the life of a dog worth more than the life of a lamb? It's just cultural norms..

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

    • Disclaimer, some of the later  SMB stuff is insipid but I like this.  I
    • I'm pleased to have gone onto a meter as it has saved us money.  When first fitted we found there was a leak and TW replaced the old lead pipe with plastic (we had to pay the last few metres into the house but some geezer did this at a fair price). No doubt others have positive experiences too.   Otherwise I'm no fan of the private utilities but that shouldn't colour our opinions.  
    • I recall that when the meter was installed it it was not set at zero. Presumably it had come from elsewhere or was a recon one.    Same here. I phoned TW today to ask if there was a meter at our property (even though I knew there was) and I was told quite categorically that there was not and that our bill was calculated on RV value When I asked why we used to get our meter readings shown online in our account, It they could not provide an explanation. Our RV value according to TW is 547 which equated to a 4-5 bedroom property with a large garden. With just two of us living here then our consumption must be well below the expected volume. Given the facts, I am totally convinced no that TW have an algorithm that hides the actual meter readings when the actual consumption is below the RV based consumption suggesting they are a bunch of shameless rogues!!  
    • Let me get this straight . The OP  was hit from behind by a small person out of control on a bike whose father was not only not watching him but could not watch him, because he was not in a position to see him. Are you disputing that "side of the story"? Why would someone who rarely posts on here come on here to post that? Then the OP remonstrated with the father. What would you have done in that situation?  You seem absolutely determined to put the OP in the wrong.  What exactly is your motive in doing that? Do you always assume that someone is lying when you haven't heard "both sides of the story"? Do you always disbelieve anything you are told because there are so "many possibilities"? The father in question is hardly likely to come on here to defend his lack of care of his child, is he?  And btw there were no "casual onlookers". The people who laughed were apparently the child's father and those with him. Who did not witness  "someone being smacked into by a 4 year old on a bike" because the child was out of their line of sight. It seems that you can't even get right something which is posted on a forum and there in writing for all to see. Let's hope you are never called as a witness in a court case.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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