On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:53:08 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 08/02/2018 10:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
The whole thrust of the Remain
campaign actually was "we are so thick, so stupid, we can't be
allowed to chose what sort of government to vote for, we must
have the EU telling us what to do." No wonder they lost.

No wonder the EU can do some things we don't like when we elect ******s
like Farage to its parliament.


I'll bet even the majority of those who voted for remain in the
referendum didn't bother to vote for any MEP. (UK turnout 36%).

Do you have any statistics to back this up?

--
insert witty sig here

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 22:06:17 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"RJH" wrote in message
news
On 07/02/2018 14:38, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7548156.html


That article doesn't reflect anything like your header - or indeed what
the government has said: 'The NHS will never be part of a trade deal'.

Quite why May is not ruling out US involvement in UK healthcare is
probably because it's already he

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/08/us-firms-look-to-capitalise-as-nhs-becomes-increasingly-privatised

Yep

I fail to see any reason why, if were are going to have an NHS that buys
in
services from private concerns, that these concern shouldn't be American
(based or owned). If they do an acceptable job at a lower price, what's
the
problem.

Because that wouldn't happen.

oh I agree it's unlikely

It's not entirely impossible though

Private companies, including those from
the USA want to make a profit and that doesn't equate to the best
service.

There are already some routine services run by private concerns that the HNS
buys in

Sister had to go to one of them recently. It was operated by ex-NHS staff
which had set up the clinic specifically to bid for the work


This headline appears to be an extrapolation from the real (but highly
unlikely) fear that the proposed clause in TTIP allowing US firms to sue
EU
governments if they pass laws that restrict their right to compete would
enable US firms to argue that the existence of a European style privatised
health system was in breach of that rule.

You think this is unlikely - I'm glad you are so optimistic.

I think it unlikely that TPTB would allow this to happen yes.

Think of the chaos it would create if it did happen

tim

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 16:40:59 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 22:06:17 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"RJH" wrote in message
news On 07/02/2018 14:38, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7548156.html


That article doesn't reflect anything like your header - or indeed what
the government has said: 'The NHS will never be part of a trade deal'.

Quite why May is not ruling out US involvement in UK healthcare is
probably because it's already he

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/08/us-firms-look-to-capitalise-as-nhs-becomes-increasingly-privatised

Yep

I fail to see any reason why, if were are going to have an NHS that buys
in
services from private concerns, that these concern shouldn't be American
(based or owned). If they do an acceptable job at a lower price, what's
the
problem.

Because that wouldn't happen.

oh I agree it's unlikely

So why do it?

Private companies, including those from
the USA want to make a profit and that doesn't equate to the best
service.

There are already some routine services run by private concerns that the HNS
buys in

Sister had to go to one of them recently. It was operated by ex-NHS staff
which had set up the clinic specifically to bid for the work

But it could have been run equally well, probably better, by the NHS
directly.


This headline appears to be an extrapolation from the real (but highly
unlikely) fear that the proposed clause in TTIP allowing US firms to sue
EU
governments if they pass laws that restrict their right to compete would
enable US firms to argue that the existence of a European style privatised
health system was in breach of that rule.

You think this is unlikely - I'm glad you are so optimistic.

I think it unlikely that TPTB would allow this to happen yes.

I hope so ... but when money gets in the way....

Think of the chaos it would create if it did happen

The government seems to embrace chaos ATM.

--
insert witty sig here

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 05:06:58 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 23:36:29 UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

Until McDonalds guarantee their products wont lead to a risk of me
becoming an American president, I'm not touching American processed
food. I think all the mad cow proteins somehow ended up in Washington
:-(

AB

There was a TV prog. where they interviewd americans in the UK and ask them to try McDs fries from the UK which I differtn here in the UK to those in the USA and apparently they taste quite differnt (don't ask me what as I haven't eaten then for 2 decades) The american students agreed that the USA fries tasted much better, then they were told why and they were given a list of added ingriedients (mostly chemical) added to US fries the students the pulled a face and said they wouldn't be eating them again.

Strange, I thought the chips were the one fairly natural thing. I'm
sure they were in trouble in some part of the world because of the use
of beef fat.

Probably not kosher or halal.

Not my problem, I dont eat the garbage.

AB

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 16:36:33 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:

snip

It's the same category as the UK "wanting our cake and eating it".

That's the Brexiters Mantra.

yes

and?

It indicates a low EQ and no understanding of 'us', only 'me'. ;-(

If you did understand 'us', you too would be pushing to ensure real
democracy prevails and that's *not* allowing 1/3rd of the electorate
determine what happens to the rest.

Cheers, T i m

On 08/02/2018 00:22, wrote:
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
Taking back control is a wonderful idea isn't it?

And with that control, you get to chose what government you want.
If you don't want a government that does X, Y, Z, then don't
****ing vote for them!

Oh no! The Toreez will do this thing I don't like!!!
So don't vote for them. Gee. Is democracy such a hard thing for
people in this country to grasp? The whole thrust of the Remain
campaign actually was "we are so thick, so stupid, we can't be
allowed to chose what sort of government to vote for, we must
have the EU telling us what to do." No wonder they lost.


Odd, a lot think its the brexiteers that were to stupid to realise they
were being lied to.
Even now they are stupid enough to believe the lies despite them being
shown to be lies.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 16:40:59 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 22:06:17 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"RJH" wrote in message
news On 07/02/2018 14:38, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7548156.html


That article doesn't reflect anything like your header - or indeed
what
the government has said: 'The NHS will never be part of a trade deal'.

Quite why May is not ruling out US involvement in UK healthcare is
probably because it's already he

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/08/us-firms-look-to-capitalise-as-nhs-becomes-increasingly-privatised

Yep

I fail to see any reason why, if were are going to have an NHS that buys
in
services from private concerns, that these concern shouldn't be American
(based or owned). If they do an acceptable job at a lower price, what's
the
problem.

Because that wouldn't happen.

oh I agree it's unlikely

So why do it?

because it might be a part of getting trade deal which gives us things that
we want

Private companies, including those from
the USA want to make a profit and that doesn't equate to the best
service.

There are already some routine services run by private concerns that the
HNS
buys in

Sister had to go to one of them recently. It was operated by ex-NHS staff
which had set up the clinic specifically to bid for the work

But it could have been run equally well, probably better, by the NHS
directly.

That's got nothing to do with whether, if we do do it, American companies
should be allowed to bid for the work.

This headline appears to be an extrapolation from the real (but highly
unlikely) fear that the proposed clause in TTIP allowing US firms to sue
EU
governments if they pass laws that restrict their right to compete would
enable US firms to argue that the existence of a European style
privatised
health system was in breach of that rule.

You think this is unlikely - I'm glad you are so optimistic.

I think it unlikely that TPTB would allow this to happen yes.

I hope so ... but when money gets in the way....

But it will costs money, lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of it.
Just to get to the starting point of the Americans being allowed to enter
the bidding to "take over".

No European government could afford to do it.

tim

On 08/02/2018 15:05, tim... wrote:


"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/2018 23:21, pamela wrote:

the taste of hormone treated beef in the US beats by a country
mile the taste of beef in the UK

Isn't the lack of taste more to do with being chilled to death
immediately after slaughter rather than letting it mature at a higher
temperature?

no idea

tim




There is a different taste to 28 day matured beef than the usual
supermarket stuff.
I prefer the cheaper not matured for 28 days.

If you like it rare you may differ.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 15:08 8 Feb 2018, tim... wrote:



"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 21:52 7 Feb 2018, tim... wrote:



"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 14:38 7 Feb 2018, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s/theresa-may-
donald-
trump-nhs-us-trade-deal-brexit-torture-a7548156.html

Neither will UK Citizens either.

Taking back control is a wonderfull idea isn't it?


Just go easy on the chlorinated chicken fillets, the oncology
wards have very large tills

Don't forget the probable requirement to get a trade deal with
India

no there isn't

Have you seen this news? Seems India is keen on it.

"UK government told to accept high immigration or forget trade
deal with India after Brexit"

yes of course they are keen on continuing to make that demand

why would you/anyone think otherwise

It's the same category as the UK "wanting our cake and eating it".

tim

The UK is the supplicant in this negotiation and we can fully expect
to concede to accepting more Indian immigrants than might like in
exchange for a trade deal.

No we wont

we will walk away

just the the EU did when they realised that what the Indians were demanding
was so one sided it wasn't worth bothering with.

India has been exporting more to the EU
than the UK and doesn't need this deal quite as much.

It doesn't need it at all

but the cost of give us access is just too great for us to even consider
agreeing the deal on those terms

Frankly we should say no but it will depend on how desperate we have
become after striking a deal with the EU.

We will not be that desperate

At the end of it all, I predict plenty of Indian immigrants.

I don't

tim

On 08/02/2018 15:08, tim... wrote:


"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 21:52Â* 7 Feb 2018, tim... wrote:



"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 14:38Â* 7 Feb 2018, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s/theresa-may-
donald-
trump-nhs-us-trade-deal-brexit-torture-a7548156.html

Neither will UK Citizens either.

Taking back control is a wonderfull idea isn't it?


Just go easy on the chlorinated chicken fillets, the oncology
wards have very large tills

Don't forget the probable requirement to get a trade deal with
India

no there isn't

Have you seen this news?Â* Seems India is keen on it.

Â* "UK government told to accept high immigration or forget trade
Â* deal with India after Brexit"

yes of course they are keen on continuing to make that demand

why would you/anyone think otherwise

It's the same category as the UK "wanting our cake and eating it".

tim





We appear to want to throw away the deals we have and start from scratch.

http://www.efta.int/free-trade/free-trade-agreements

In article , alan_m
writes
On 07/02/2018 14:38, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

Just go easy on the chlorinated chicken fillets, the oncology wards
have very large tills

How much water gets injected into much of the UK meat we eat? They will
be using chlorinated mains water and not some fancy expensive spring
water.


I recall an ad in a trade magazine some while ago
"Why sell meat when you can sell water". It was promoting equipment to
mechanically recover meat using high pressure water. The resultant
slurry was then converted to sausages.
--
bert

In article , Martin
writes
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 15:34:50 +0000, alan_m wrote:

On 07/02/2018 14:38, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

Just go easy on the chlorinated chicken fillets, the oncology wards
have very large tills

How much water gets injected into much of the UK meat we eat? They will
be using chlorinated mains water and not some fancy expensive spring water.

Salt solution and protein amongst other substances you don't want to know about
are injected and massaged into chicken and pork. The protein is to stop
the salt
solution running out of the meat. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267204
And hormones are injected into poultry and cattle on an industrial
scale, but some would make a fuss about a bit of chlorine on the outside
because it comes from the US.
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 21:54 7 Feb 2018, tim... wrote:



"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 15:34 7 Feb 2018, alan_m wrote:

On 07/02/2018 14:38, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

Just go easy on the chlorinated chicken fillets, the oncology
wards have very large tills

How much water gets injected into much of the UK meat we eat?
They will be using chlorinated mains water and not some fancy
expensive spring water.

Not only will we be getting chlorinated chicken but also higher
levels of hormones and antibiotics in meat

the taste of hormone treated beef in the US beats by a country
mile the taste of beef in the UK

and that's from quality restaurants (in the UK)

I look forward to the day that it can be served here

tim

I never knew hormones could be so tasty!

You don't eat British beef or chicken?
--
bert

In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp writes
On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 23:21:08 GMT, pamela wrote:

On 21:54 7 Feb 2018, tim... wrote:



"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 15:34 7 Feb 2018, alan_m wrote:

On 07/02/2018 14:38, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

Just go easy on the chlorinated chicken fillets, the oncology
wards have very large tills

How much water gets injected into much of the UK meat we eat?
They will be using chlorinated mains water and not some fancy
expensive spring water.

Not only will we be getting chlorinated chicken but also higher
levels of hormones and antibiotics in meat

the taste of hormone treated beef in the US beats by a country
mile the taste of beef in the UK

and that's from quality restaurants (in the UK)

I look forward to the day that it can be served here

tim

I never knew hormones could be so tasty!

It makes grovelling around in the undergrowth looking for something
natural and edible sound Heavenly.

Cows have evolved without trips to the chemist for hormone treatment.

You must be joking.
Up to the point where man thought he could improve and cheapen his
production methods by using feed totally unsuitable for ruminants they
didn't have BSE either.

Still do in France, but they don't call it mad cow disease.
Until McDonalds guarantee their products wont lead to a risk of me
becoming an American president, I'm not touching American processed
food. I think all the mad cow proteins somehow ended up in Washington
:-(

AB


--
bert

In article , Mark
writes
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 21:54:34 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 15:34 7 Feb 2018, alan_m wrote:

On 07/02/2018 14:38, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

Just go easy on the chlorinated chicken fillets, the oncology
wards have very large tills

How much water gets injected into much of the UK meat we eat? They
will be using chlorinated mains water and not some fancy expensive
spring water.

Not only will we be getting chlorinated chicken but also higher
levels of hormones and antibiotics in meat

the taste of hormone treated beef in the US beats by a country mile the
taste of beef in the UK

BS.

and that's from quality restaurants (in the UK)

I look forward to the day that it can be served here

You can eat it all then. I want my meat unadulerated by dangerous
chemicals.

Then don't eat UK beef either.
--
bert

In article , T i m
writes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 16:36:33 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:

snip

It's the same category as the UK "wanting our cake and eating it".

That's the Brexiters Mantra.

yes

and?

It indicates a low EQ and no understanding of 'us', only 'me'. ;-(

If you did understand 'us', you too would be pushing to ensure real
democracy prevails and that's *not* allowing 1/3rd of the electorate
determine what happens to the rest.

Cheers, T i m
I think we now all understand your version of democracy Tim so why don't
you STFU about it.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
In the days post war when EVERYONE had chickens scratching round their
back gardens, eating worms and actually tasting of something, we ALL got
salmonella infections

Really?

Chickens were kept for eggs.
Salmonella can be passed into he eggs.
Not to eat.
When they stopped laying.
Those that were eaten needed lots
of cooking to make tender.
Not excessively so
Killing any bugs nicely.

Well not many bugs survive c200C
--
bert

In article ,
writes
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
Taking back control is a wonderful idea isn't it?

And with that control, you get to chose what government you want.
If you don't want a government that does X, Y, Z, then don't
****ing vote for them!

Oh no! The Toreez will do this thing I don't like!!!
So don't vote for them. Gee. Is democracy such a hard thing for
people in this country to grasp? The whole thrust of the Remain
campaign actually was "we are so thick, so stupid, we can't be
allowed to chose what sort of government to vote for, we must
have the EU telling us what to do." No wonder they lost.
Which is little Timmies constant argument.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
wrote:
The whole thrust of the Remain
campaign actually was "we are so thick, so stupid, we can't be
allowed to chose what sort of government to vote for, we must
have the EU telling us what to do." No wonder they lost.

No wonder the EU can do some things we don't like when we elect ******s
like Farage to its parliament.

You still don't realise how impotent the EU parliament actually is.
--
bert

In article , alan_m
writes
On 08/02/2018 10:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
The whole thrust of the Remain
campaign actually was "we are so thick, so stupid, we can't be
allowed to chose what sort of government to vote for, we must
have the EU telling us what to do." No wonder they lost.
No wonder the EU can do some things we don't like when we elect
******s
like Farage to its parliament.


I'll bet even the majority of those who voted for remain in the
referendum didn't bother to vote for any MEP. (UK turnout 36%).

And no-one voted for Farrage - they voted for UKIP and Farage was top of
their party list.
--
bert

In article , Mark
writes
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:53:08 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 08/02/2018 10:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
The whole thrust of the Remain
campaign actually was "we are so thick, so stupid, we can't be
allowed to chose what sort of government to vote for, we must
have the EU telling us what to do." No wonder they lost.

No wonder the EU can do some things we don't like when we elect ******s
like Farage to its parliament.


I'll bet even the majority of those who voted for remain in the
referendum didn't bother to vote for any MEP. (UK turnout 36%).

Do you have any statistics to back this up?

The fact that UKIP did exceedingly well? I'll leave you to look up the
actual voting figures.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
tim... wrote:
No wonder the EU can do some things we don't like when we elect ******s
like Farage to its parliament.

that would be relevant if it was the EU Parliament that made the laws
the EU force upon us.

as they don't, it isn't

Exactly the same as in the UK. Unless you assume parliament votes on every
single regulation.

However the question is if the EU parliament could overturn an EU reg if
enough MEPs wanted to. Ie, exactly the same as in the UK.

Same old chestnut.
--
bert

In article ,
T i m wrote:
If you did understand 'us', you too would be pushing to ensure real
democracy prevails and that's *not* allowing 1/3rd of the electorate
determine what happens to the rest.

I wouldn't care if they'd made the right decision. ;-) Or if it was only
their own lives they will ruin.

--
*Toilet stolen from police station. Cops have nothing to go on.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim... wrote:
The UK is the supplicant in this negotiation and we can fully expect
to concede to accepting more Indian immigrants than might like in
exchange for a trade deal.

No we wont

we will walk away

Yup. And soon realise there are no countries left to walk away from.

--
*Why isn't there a special name for the back of your knee?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 09/02/2018 01:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I wouldn't care if they'd made the right decision.

They did.

A third of the electorate also exercised their democratic rights and
decided not to vote therefore leaving the decision making to all those
who could be bothered.

For all those complaining about the outcome of the referendum I wonder
how many actually put into power a MP who voted for the referendum bill
in Parliament. If they had voted for someone else the bill wouldn't have
been passed, the referendum wouldn't have taken place and we wouldn't be
discussing the outcome.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 09/02/18 07:40, alan_m wrote:
On 09/02/2018 01:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I wouldn't care if they'd made the right decision.

They did.

A third of the electorate also exercised their democratic rights and
decided not to vote therefore leaving the decision making to all those
who could be bothered.

For all those complaining about the outcome of the referendum I wonder
how many actually put into power a MP who voted for the referendum bill
in Parliament. If they had voted for someone else the bill wouldn't have
been passed, the referendum wouldn't have taken place and we wouldn't be
discussing the outcome.


That does not compute. I voted for UKIP, but they returned no MPs





--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 08/02/2018 19:26, tim... wrote:


"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 16:40:59 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 22:06:17 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"RJH" wrote in message
news On 07/02/2018 14:38, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7548156.html



That article doesn't reflect anything like your header - or indeed
what
the government has said: 'The NHS will never be part of a trade
deal'.

Quite why May is not ruling out US involvement in UK healthcare is
probably because it's already he

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/08/us-firms-look-to-capitalise-as-nhs-becomes-increasingly-privatised


Yep

I fail to see any reason why, if were are going to have an NHS that
buys
in
services from private concerns, that these concern shouldn't be
American
(based or owned).Â* If they do an acceptable job at a lower price,
what's
the
problem.

Because that wouldn't happen.


I unwittingly had a series of tests at a local private hospital - the GP
referred me under the NHS. No complaints about the service (although I
have no real idea what they did, the accuracy of the results or how they
were interpreted). The car park was, or course, stocked with row upon
row of £100k+ cars. Be assured, mine lowered the average ;-)

oh I agree it's unlikely

So why do it?


The private health provider, propped up by hedge funds, provide the
*capital* (equipment and buildings) that the NHS can't afford up front.
The revenue costs are difficult to track - they're generally tied to a
geared contract that includes 'benign' services - cleaning, maintenance
and admin - which is where real money is to be made later into the
contract. Once it's changed hands several times and nobody can track any
hint of goodwill.

The costs are now pretty much on record - factors of several what the
NHS would have paid, had it had access to capital. it obviously varies
by contract. Virtually all contracts involve a loss leader. Renal, say,
may show remarkable value - and that's the contract that'll be wheeled
out as an example, should anyone have the audacity to ask about costs
and benefits. The rest will be concealed under a 'commercially
sensitive' gagging order.

Near daily news reports on this from politicians and journalists on all
sides. And of course the academic literature.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 09/02/2018 08:58, RJH wrote:


The private health provider, propped up by hedge funds, provide the
*capital* (equipment and buildings) that the NHS can't afford up front.
The revenue costs are difficult to track - they're generally tied to a
geared contract that includes 'benign' services - cleaning, maintenance
and admin - which is where real money is to be made later into the
contract. Once it's changed hands several times and nobody can track any
hint of goodwill.

That would be why the private hospitals have proton therapy machines then?


The costs are now pretty much on record - factors of several what the
NHS would have paid, had it had access to capital. it obviously varies
by contract. Virtually all contracts involve a loss leader. Renal, say,
may show remarkable value - and that's the contract that'll be wheeled
out as an example, should anyone have the audacity to ask about costs
and benefits. The rest will be concealed under a 'commercially
sensitive' gagging order.

Near daily news reports on this from politicians and journalists onÂ* all
sides. And of course the academic literature.

On Thursday, 8 February 2018 17:23:53 UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2018 05:06:58 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 7 February 2018 23:36:29 UTC, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

Until McDonalds guarantee their products wont lead to a risk of me
becoming an American president, I'm not touching American processed
food. I think all the mad cow proteins somehow ended up in Washington
:-(

AB

There was a TV prog. where they interviewd americans in the UK and ask them to try McDs fries from the UK which I differtn here in the UK to those in the USA and apparently they taste quite differnt (don't ask me what as I haven't eaten then for 2 decades) The american students agreed that the USA fries tasted much better, then they were told why and they were given a list of added ingriedients (mostly chemical) added to US fries the students the pulled a face and said they wouldn't be eating them again.

Strange, I thought the chips were the one fairly natural thing.

chips aren't natural until you're allowed to add yuor own salyt and vinegar to taste.


I'm
sure they were in trouble in some part of the world because of the use
of beef fat.

Probably not kosher or halal.

In Belgium use horse fat.
my local chippie uses ground nut oil.


Not my problem, I dont eat the garbage.

But the presidetn of probbaly the most powerful nation in the world does and if you're not what you eat then what are you.
I haven't been in a McD since about 1994

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/02/18 07:40, alan_m wrote:
On 09/02/2018 01:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I wouldn't care if they'd made the right decision.

They did.

A third of the electorate also exercised their democratic rights and
decided not to vote therefore leaving the decision making to all those
who could be bothered.

For all those complaining about the outcome of the referendum I wonder
how many actually put into power a MP who voted for the referendum bill
in Parliament. If they had voted for someone else the bill wouldn't have
been passed, the referendum wouldn't have taken place and we wouldn't be
discussing the outcome.


That does not compute. I voted for UKIP, but they returned no MPs

At least that restores some confidence in the average UK voter. If only
UKIP hadn't been given so mush publicity for their lies, we'd probably not
be in this mess.




--
*Being healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
RJH wrote:
I unwittingly had a series of tests at a local private hospital - the GP
referred me under the NHS. No complaints about the service (although I
have no real idea what they did, the accuracy of the results or how they
were interpreted). The car park was, or course, stocked with row upon
row of £100k+ cars. Be assured, mine lowered the average ;-)

I had an MRI scan done recently on the NHS. Also by a private company. And
this in London. Where you'd think the large hospitals could make full use
of their own. Rather than paying for a private companies profits.

No car park though - it was in Waterloo. But just outside the station,
which was very convenient for me.

--
*After the game, the King and the pawn go into the same box.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 01:13 9 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
tim... wrote:
The UK is the supplicant in this negotiation and we can fully
expect to concede to accepting more Indian immigrants than
might like in exchange for a trade deal.

No we wont

we will walk away

Yup. And soon realise there are no countries left to walk away
from.

That was India. Last November Austrialia was highly critical of our
post Brexit trade plans.

If we can't strike a deal with friendly ex-Commonwealth countries
like India and Australia then we will find it even harder striking
good deals with other countries.

Big players like China and the US show all the signs of making it
hard for us.

What's left? Maybe we will strike a deal with South Africa. In
exchange for more of their immigrants, no doubt.

The whole point. We need trade deals to replace the EU. And despite the
optimists saying the world would be queueing up to do deals with the UK
post Brexit, absolutely no sign of that.

Especially the even wilder optimism that other countries would fall over
themselves to give a really good deal to the UK. Like we were somehow
entitled to one.

Of course all of them will be delighted to flood the UK with *their*
goods, once out of the EU.

--
*OK, so what's the speed of dark? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 9 February 2018 11:09:04 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
I unwittingly had a series of tests at a local private hospital - the GP
referred me under the NHS. No complaints about the service (although I
have no real idea what they did, the accuracy of the results or how they
were interpreted). The car park was, or course, stocked with row upon
row of £100k+ cars. Be assured, mine lowered the average ;-)

I had an MRI scan done recently on the NHS. Also by a private company. And
this in London. Where you'd think the large hospitals could make full use
of their own. Rather than paying for a private companies profits.

No car park though - it was in Waterloo. But just outside the station,
which was very convenient for me.

I've heard that in London when building flats or houses close to public transport (mainly train or tube stations) that space for parking a car doesn;t need to be provided. So if yuor work in areas such as plumbing and electraical work where you need a van don't buy a new property near a station.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 9 February 2018 11:09:04 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:
I unwittingly had a series of tests at a local private hospital - the
GP referred me under the NHS. No complaints about the service
(although I have no real idea what they did, the accuracy of the
results or how they were interpreted). The car park was, or course,
stocked with row upon row of £100k+ cars. Be assured, mine lowered
the average ;-)

I had an MRI scan done recently on the NHS. Also by a private company.
And this in London. Where you'd think the large hospitals could make
full use of their own. Rather than paying for a private companies
profits.

No car park though - it was in Waterloo. But just outside the station,
which was very convenient for me.

I've heard that in London when building flats or houses close to public
transport (mainly train or tube stations) that space for parking a car
doesn;t need to be provided. So if yuor work in areas such as plumbing
and electraical work where you need a van don't buy a new property near a
station.

It also works (or doesn't) the other way round. What happens when the owner
of one of these no parking homes needs a plumber?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:07:32 GMT, pamela wrote:

On 19:28 8 Feb 2018, dennis@home wrote:

On 08/02/2018 15:05, tim... wrote:


"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/2018 23:21, pamela wrote:

the taste of hormone treated beef in the US beats by a country
mile the taste of beef in the UK

Isn't the lack of taste more to do with being chilled to death
immediately after slaughter rather than letting it mature at a
higher temperature?

no idea

tim




There is a different taste to 28 day matured beef than the usual
supermarket stuff.
I prefer the cheaper not matured for 28 days.

If you like it rare you may differ.


Reminds me of a study where some schoolkids were asked if they
preferred freshly squeezed orange juice or an orange squash by
Robinsons. The kids preferred the "real thing" by which they meant
the Robinsons.

I'm guessing that they had never tried freshly squeezed orange juice.

--
insert witty sig here

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
No car park though - it was in Waterloo. But just outside the station,
which was very convenient for me.

I've heard that in London when building flats or houses close to public
transport (mainly train or tube stations) that space for parking a car
doesn;t need to be provided. So if yuor work in areas such as plumbing
and electraical work where you need a van don't buy a new property near
a station.

On a local development, the council insisted on restricted car parking
spaces to discourage people from owning cars. Didn't work. ;-) Even
although public transport here is excellent. People just want to own a
car, even when it makes no economic sense.

--
*Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:40:20 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 09/02/2018 01:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I wouldn't care if they'd made the right decision.

They did.

No.

A third of the electorate also exercised their democratic rights and
decided not to vote therefore leaving the decision making to all those
who could be bothered.

Why people who could vote and chose not to is purely a matter of
guesswork and there are many people who wanted to vote and could not.

For all those complaining about the outcome of the referendum I wonder
how many actually put into power a MP who voted for the referendum bill
in Parliament. If they had voted for someone else the bill wouldn't have
been passed, the referendum wouldn't have taken place and we wouldn't be
discussing the outcome.

Indeed. However most MPs vote as they are told to by their party
leadership - hardly democratic.

--
insert witty sig here

On Friday, 9 February 2018 12:28:34 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 9 February 2018 11:09:04 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:
I unwittingly had a series of tests at a local private hospital - the
GP referred me under the NHS. No complaints about the service
(although I have no real idea what they did, the accuracy of the
results or how they were interpreted). The car park was, or course,
stocked with row upon row of £100k+ cars. Be assured, mine lowered
the average ;-)

I had an MRI scan done recently on the NHS. Also by a private company..
And this in London. Where you'd think the large hospitals could make
full use of their own. Rather than paying for a private companies
profits.

No car park though - it was in Waterloo. But just outside the station,
which was very convenient for me.

I've heard that in London when building flats or houses close to public
transport (mainly train or tube stations) that space for parking a car
doesn;t need to be provided. So if yuor work in areas such as plumbing
and electraical work where you need a van don't buy a new property near a
station.

It also works (or doesn't) the other way round. What happens when the owner
of one of these no parking homes needs a plumber?

You learn DIY :-) Doh !

On Fri, 9 Feb 2018 07:40:20 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 09/02/2018 01:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I wouldn't care if they'd made the right decision.

They did.

A third of the electorate also exercised their democratic rights and
decided not to vote therefore leaving the decision making to all those
who could be bothered.

Alan, you try to come across as having a reasonable grasp on all this
but in some areas you really don't seem to have a clue.

Could you try to take your 'fanatic Brexiteer' hat off for a second
and try to imagine what the whole Brexit mess looks like to someone
who isn't particularly politically motivated or on some crusade?

Turn on the radio or TV or open any newspaper and you will see the two
sides still at loggerheads re all this. If it was so obvious what the
right decision was, why isn't everyone behind it by now?

So, let's pretend you don't actually have a crystal ball or good
clairvoyance skills and admit you really have no better idea *now*
what you voted for *then* and that you really don't *know* what the
outcome will actually be and how it might impact us in the future?

If you were honest, if you admitted you just have a hunch, you
*believe* that us leaving the EU will be better for most people
(assuming you care about 'most people' of course) then at least you
would gain some credibility for that alone (the honesty).

I have never stated that I know Leaving or Staying would be the best
for us because I'm not arrogant enough to think I have a clue ... and
any clues I might have would be based on seeing what is stated in the
final exit package.

On the vote itself, again try and look at it from a realist POV. Fact,
only 1/3 of the electorate voted to change from the status quo (and to
the complete unknown). Another 1/3rd actually voted to retain the
status quo so didn't actually vote for anything (new) but to retain
what they already had. The remaining 1/3rd of the electorate didn't
vote at all (I'm included in that) and for many of them that will be
because they didn't feel they were *able* to vote (a massive
difference to 'couldn't be bothered') because they had no idea what
they were actually voting for. Therefore, it was those people (who
could have easily made the difference) who you are completely
discounting for reasons you don't seem willing or able to understand?

Yes, Leave 'won', but it doesn't represent the 'will of the people'
and yet will affect all the people, for good or bad. Only someone on a
crusade, with an axe to grind or with low EQ would continue to push
for Leave under those circumstances.

To prove the validity of my final point I have challenged any of the
fanatical Brexiteers to lay out those points they voted for and what
likelihood they will happen and what percentage of each they expect to
happen. None have yet been able to do so suggesting they admit they
cannot answer that and so confirming my point that they actually voted
completely blind.

That's not the sort of decision making process I'd expect to be
considered acceptable for something this important.

Cheers, T i m

On Friday, 9 February 2018 12:35:30 UTC, Mark wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 10:07:32 GMT, pamela wrote:

On 19:28 8 Feb 2018, dennis@home wrote:

On 08/02/2018 15:05, tim... wrote:


"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 07/02/2018 23:21, pamela wrote:

the taste of hormone treated beef in the US beats by a country
mile the taste of beef in the UK

Isn't the lack of taste more to do with being chilled to death
immediately after slaughter rather than letting it mature at a
higher temperature?

no idea

tim




There is a different taste to 28 day matured beef than the usual
supermarket stuff.
I prefer the cheaper not matured for 28 days.

If you like it rare you may differ.


Reminds me of a study where some schoolkids were asked if they
preferred freshly squeezed orange juice or an orange squash by
Robinsons. The kids preferred the "real thing" by which they meant
the Robinsons.

I'm guessing that they had never tried freshly squeezed orange juice.

I freshly squeeze mine out of the carton container I buy it int
Making my orange jiuce always freshly squeezed.



--
insert witty sig here