Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Irish_Tom, 1 Jan 2021.
Is foie gras even any good?
Not my bag, I generally don't like fatty foods and its about 50% fat by weight
I suppose its tasty(ish), but its not like there aren't loads of other tasty foods that don't involve significant animal cruelty
A good smooth light pate for example would be far more preferable to fois gras to me
Yeah not sure if I could do that, I go as far as a nice bit of fat on a steak but only with an accompanying bit of meat (not by itself).
Notice how the fastest vaccine rollout sound bites are still on holiday? Like the rates of death, I am sure it's now inappropriate to do comparisons.
It's extremely delicate and smooth. The fat isn't like that on a steak at all. It (the liver) has a texture like soft butter, and the flavour is .. well.. liver. Like a lot of french cuisine the accompanying sauce/jus is where most of the flavour is and the main component (the foie gras) is there for texture and subtlety.
There is "ethical" foie gras available (the ducks and geese feed naturally on food that is very calorific compared to their usual feed) even in the UK but the lovers of the force fed will turn purple with anger trying to convince you it isn't the same.
e2: also just to add that foie gras is a product of "gavage feeding" - literally force fed. That's not just over-fed. The ducks and geese have food literally forced down their throats (usually a hose with liquified food) until their stomachs are near bursting, for at least 12 days before slaughter.
It really kinda is
It isn't the same. It is, however, perfectly nice and a decent enough substitute.
It's also still debatable if it is actually ethical to have fowl living with livers 4x their normal size
The U.K. and other places have been feeding livestock with hormone and chemically enhancing foods for years. There are breeds of beef stock that have problems.
I like it’s but also understand the ethical point of view.
No they haven't. All countries in the EU banned hormone fed/treated livestock in 1989, and the UK is yet to repeal that.
Oh the irony of Kermit entering this thread with his head so far up where the sun doesn't shine, ready to drop his bomb of an accusation about Remainers always attributing the bad to brexit and the good to not-brexit, only to completely miss the 2 or 3 pages of posts immediately before his post where there's nothing but remainers discussing the one single (al be it absolutely tiny) positive to come out of brexit to date.
I hear cocaine is really cheap. Is that a dividend?
I see that we've announced a defence agreement between the UK, US and Australia, the biggest part of which seems to be the sharing of nuclear technology to allow them (Australia) access to nuclear powered attack submarines.
I suspect this will only really benefit the US, we can barely build our own subs let alone anyone else's, plenty of dockyards in the US to build them.
I'm honestly a little puzzled why we're so keen to stick our oar in over in the Pacific, we've just been humiliated by a group of lads with camels and kalashnikovs, can you imagine what China would do?
High time we started focusing on the security of the European continent instead of the ridiculous grand stabdienf that we're somehow still relevant globally
If only there was some sort of official European Union that we could join...
But you only have security if any conflict is half a world away.
If there's fighting in europe itself you're a bit ****ed.
A lot of all the "grand stratagey" stuff is just making sure that no one can push too far, or can actually use violence. Military assets aren't there for fighting in this case they're to keep everyone at the table talking
Surely the remaining 26 can deal with securing their borders without us?
Yes, it's been a disaster for both parties. What's your point?
America getting pawns in place in case it turns into a shooting match. UK still thinks it is a global power. You are right in that it will benefit America mainly. I suspect any research we are doing will be shared with the Americans instead of developing it ourselves and benefitting from it. Never mind when the Americans develop it they will sell it to us.
I can't remember who it was that reported it (guardian, beeb, sky, or someone else entirely) but they were a bit more direct with the point: the pact with Aus and US is a direct effort to "deal with China."
Whatever that means, there was little else to it.
Just checking in how it's going with the new Global Britain
I swear I only saw a video yesterday on YT where Archie Norman was blaming 'out of date customs procedures' for issues in France, and doing his best to avoid the B word.
Edit - yeah....
We chose to become a third country.
Separate names with a comma.