50,000 strong march in London

Conrad

N1AK wrote: »

, I've seen plenty of imagined justifications for premium food in general and little if any evidence that it influences health, taste or welfare in the vast majority of cases.

We mainly use Waitrose for meat because we're as sure as we can be the animals have had a reasonable and healthy life and that the farmers they use will in general tend to be all round better environmental custodians. Taste is not what my ethics are about.


As to health I do not wish to consume growth promoters, hormones, anti biotics and the rest of the nasty's used in intensive farming. No wonder we're getting so allergic these days, our immune systems are in chaos.


I cannot abide people scrimping on meat unless they really are hard up. We eat far too much of the stuff anyway. When money saving gets into this sort of territory, the saver has ley money become their God, their sense of proportion as to what living a good life is all about has become warped by amassing money tickets.


I wont eat certain fish / sea food unless sustainable and morally intact.
Why would I want to eat a beautiful 5 -7 y/o Lobster? It's gone through all those struggles of life just to give me a momentary taste sensation. Appalling ethics.

zagubov

Conrad wrote: »

An awful lot of these protestors seem to be made up of comfy middle class white people. They enjoy a safe society, fee education and healthcare, reliable electricity and water, a state pension, decent roads, a legal system able to convict the powerful, a pleasant land and climate, full bellies and free speech.


Most of them to me come across as incredibly spoilt naval gazers that demand we the special British have a birth right to live hugely beyond that we produce.

A very good post (including the fee education bit;)). We all know what we need rather than what we merely want. This economy supplies a lot of it but it needs pragmatic tweaking, not revolutionary change.

Still it cheers me up to see people realising something needs to change, wheras the bulk of the population are so apathetic their chants would be
What do we want? Gradual change!
When do we want it? In due course!

Moby

Conrad wrote: »

We mainly use Waitrose for meat because we're as sure as we can be the animals have had a reasonable and healthy life and that the farmers they use will in general tend to be all round better environmental custodians. Taste is not what my ethics are about.


As to health I do not wish to consume growth promoters, hormones, anti biotics and the rest of the nasty's used in intensive farming. No wonder we're getting so allergic these days, our immune systems are in chaos.


I cannot abide people scrimping on meat unless they really are hard up. We eat far too much of the stuff anyway. When money saving gets into this sort of territory, the saver has ley money become their God, their sense of proportion as to what living a good life is all about has become warped by amassing money tickets.


I wont eat certain fish / sea food unless sustainable and morally intact.
Why would I want to eat a beautiful 5 -7 y/o Lobster? It's gone through all those struggles of life just to give me a momentary taste sensation. Appalling ethics.

Wow...! a post from you I totally agree with in every way.

JamesSmith2000

this is the sort of thing borris bought the water cannons for.

More of 2011 riots to come if housing costs stay up here for much longer.

N1AK

Conrad wrote: »

We mainly use Waitrose for meat because we're as sure as we can be the animals have had a reasonable and healthy life and that the farmers they use will in general tend to be all round better environmental custodians. Taste is not what my ethics are about.

As to health I do not wish to consume growth promoters, hormones, anti biotics and the rest of the nasty's used in intensive farming. No wonder we're getting so allergic these days, our immune systems are in chaos.

As I said, I've seen a lot of imagined justifications and little evidence. It's my industry (meat sourced from the whole range of farming standards) which is why I don't want to go into too much detail.

When you've been on organic farms where animals are suffering unnecessarily because of restrictions on how they can be medicated you become a lot more cynical about the welfare 'benefits'

If you had any understanding of how anti-biotics etc are managed within the UK meat industry then you'd know just how ridiculous the idea it has any influence on human health is.

BillJones

N1AK wrote: »

If you had any understanding of how anti-biotics etc are managed within the UK meat industry then you'd know just how ridiculous the idea it has any influence on human health is.

As for the idea that "hormones" will survive the cooking and digestion process to then produce measurable health outcomes (only the "unnatiral ones, of course, normal cow hormones are seemingly fine)...

The naturalistic fallacy is a strange one, yet even apparently intelligent and educated people fall for it.

adouglasmhor

BillJones wrote: »

As for the idea that "hormones" will survive the cooking and digestion process to then produce measurable health outcomes (only the "unnatiral ones, of course, normal cow hormones are seemingly fine)...

The naturalistic fallacy is a strange one, yet even apparently intelligent and educated people fall for it.

Yet this is the very argument many anti soya people use about phyto-oestogens.

BillJones

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Yet this is the very argument many anti soya people use about phyto-oestogens.

Humanity seems to be prone to any manner of strange beliefs, from the idea that vaccines are a conspiracy that cause autism, through the belief that 50's pesticides are the only ones that we should use, to believing that dead people float around in non-coporeal form and come back to visit us.

The naturalistic falllacy / anti GMO, herbalist hippy set seem about the strangest to me, though.

Actually, no, it's people who think that a £20,000 power lead for their stereo makes a noticeable difference. Audiophiles are the strangest folks of all.

Intoodeep

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It seems people are, they are just conviniently ignored. BBC don't bother evening mentioning it anywhere? 50,000 is quite a number to get out there on a lovely day and march through London.

http://rt.com/news/167532-uk-anti-austerity-march/

Top 7 Average Home Attendances in the Premier League

1 Manchester United 75.207
2 Arsenal FC 60.013
3 Newcastle United FC 50.395
4 Manchester City FC 47.075
5 Liverpool FC 44.671
6 Chelsea FC 41.482
7 Sunderland AFC 41.090

50,000 (allegedly) on a March in Sunny London..........
.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: so bloody what:T

BillJones

So it was about 2/3 of the average footfall in Westfield, then.

Why do these people insist on marching in my city, by the way? It's busy here, it can be hard to get around on the roads, why not demonstrate somewhere else.

You can be pretty sure, if you cared enough to organise your march at the top of Snowden that you'd get an awful lot more publicity for it too.