On 14/06/2020 14:34:48, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 14/06/2020 14:33, Bernie wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 14:32:13 +0100
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote:

On 14/06/2020 14:21, Bernie wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 12:38:01 +0100
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote:
On 14/06/2020 12:14, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2020 11:42:34, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 14/06/2020 11:33, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2020 11:15:50, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
On 14/06/2020 10:14, Spike wrote:
On 13/06/2020 17:17, Rambo wrote:
Â* Â* Stephen Cole wrote:
97% of tested chlorinated chicken was found to be caked in
faecal matter
Well I know you have a fetish about that sort of
thing......

97 percent of smartphones tested are found to be caked in
faecal matter.

speshly if cole inserts it analy ....

Is that your experience, or a long lived fantasy?
No...just an observation on how his would be covered in
****e .....

Some of us don't care, we don't have infatuations with other
people's dicks.
It's involantary when I see an outed poofter on TV I picture oral
sex.....rylandÂ* etc

Grindr angle?

six inch or nine inch ? ...hear nine inch are now banned .....


Is it cos they're black?


no the vibration... asked over on diy ...they know everything ...

First I heard they were banned in the UK. Normally vibration exposure is
limited by time. You can also get low vibration 9" angle grinders.

On Saturday, 13 June 2020 11:00:03 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rambo wrote:
The Americans wont allow anything to be added to labels that will allow
consumers to identify that it is chlorine-drenched US of A meat. The US
trade deal negotiators have already told the British this. They have also
said that this is a red line; no foul chlorine-drenched chicken, no trade
deal.

" there is no proof that eating chlorinated chicken would put health
at risk. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has said that
chemical substances in poultry meat are unlikely to pose an immediate
or acute health risk for consumers; in a 2005 study, the EFSA found
that treating poultry carcasses with the four most-commonly used
antimicrobial substances (agents that kill microorganisms) €œwould be
of no safety concern.€�

Do you sprinkle chlorine over your UK chicken before eating it, then?

It's apparent you have no clue what chlorine is or any of its properties.
Thick as usual.

On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:59:30 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Saturday, 13 June 2020 11:00:03 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rambo wrote:
The Americans won’t allow anything to be added to labels that will allow
consumers to identify that it is chlorine-drenched US of A meat. The US
trade deal negotiators have already told the British this. They have also
said that this is a red line; no foul chlorine-drenched chicken, no trade
deal.

" there is no proof that eating chlorinated chicken would put health
at risk. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has said that
chemical substances in poultry meat are unlikely to pose an immediate
or acute health risk for consumers; in a 2005 study, the EFSA found
that treating poultry carcasses with the four most-commonly used
antimicrobial substances (agents that kill microorganisms) “would be
of no safety concern.”

Do you sprinkle chlorine over your UK chicken before eating it, then?

It's apparent you have no clue what chlorine is or any of its properties.
Thick as usual.

People have been using "Vim" for decades.

I would think it only natural that a Brexit fan would keenly sprinkle
the stuff on chicken, assuming of course that he had any left after
following Trumps advice on covid.

Sorry about the BLM thing BTW, have you adjusted your medication to
compensate?


AB
From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq

On 13/06/2020 18:17, Rambo wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 17:06:52 -0000 (UTC), Stephen Cole
wrote:

97% of tested chlorinated chicken was found to be caked in faecal matter

Well I know you have a fetish about that sort of thing......


Myth Busters found that 100% of tooth brushes kept in bathrooms, and
other nearby rooms, had traces of faecal matter.

Consider also that in many countries the people picking your fruit and
vegetables are actually living in insanitary conditions and there are no
plumbed toilets in fields. I wonder how much human faecal matter ends up
in the fruit/veg section of your local supermarket?

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

On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:05:47 +0100, alan_m
wrote:

On 13/06/2020 18:17, Rambo wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 17:06:52 -0000 (UTC), Stephen Cole
wrote:

97% of tested chlorinated chicken was found to be caked in faecal matter

Well I know you have a fetish about that sort of thing......


Myth Busters found that 100% of tooth brushes kept in bathrooms, and
other nearby rooms, had traces of faecal matter.

Consider also that in many countries the people picking your fruit and
vegetables are actually living in insanitary conditions and there are no
plumbed toilets in fields. I wonder how much human faecal matter ends up
in the fruit/veg section of your local supermarket?

Sorry to tinkle on the jolly old bonfire, but the faecal matter on
toothbrushes and in food is more rooted in the form of greeting the
forelock tuggers of Britain engage in :-)

AB
From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq

In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
writes
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:59:30 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Saturday, 13 June 2020 11:00:03 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rambo wrote:
The Americans wont allow anything to be added to labels that will allow
consumers to identify that it is chlorine-drenched US of A meat. The US
trade deal negotiators have already told the British this. They have also
said that this is a red line; no foul chlorine-drenched chicken, no trade
deal.

" there is no proof that eating chlorinated chicken would put health
at risk. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has said that
chemical substances in poultry meat are unlikely to pose an immediate
or acute health risk for consumers; in a 2005 study, the EFSA found
that treating poultry carcasses with the four most-commonly used
antimicrobial substances (agents that kill microorganisms) €œwould be
of no safety concern.€�

Do you sprinkle chlorine over your UK chicken before eating it, then?

It's apparent you have no clue what chlorine is or any of its properties.
Thick as usual.

People have been using "Vim" for decades.

I would think it only natural that a Brexit fan would keenly sprinkle
the stuff on chicken, assuming of course that he had any left after
following Trumps advice on covid.

Sorry about the BLM thing BTW, have you adjusted your medication to
compensate?


AB
From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
Meanwhile you drink chlorinated tap water, complete with bromide in our
case.
--
bert

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:24:16 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
writes
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:59:30 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Saturday, 13 June 2020 11:00:03 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rambo wrote:
The Americans won’t allow anything to be added to labels that will allow
consumers to identify that it is chlorine-drenched US of A meat. The US
trade deal negotiators have already told the British this. They have also
said that this is a red line; no foul chlorine-drenched chicken, no trade
deal.

" there is no proof that eating chlorinated chicken would put health
at risk. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has said that
chemical substances in poultry meat are unlikely to pose an immediate
or acute health risk for consumers; in a 2005 study, the EFSA found
that treating poultry carcasses with the four most-commonly used
antimicrobial substances (agents that kill microorganisms) “would be
of no safety concern.”

Do you sprinkle chlorine over your UK chicken before eating it, then?

It's apparent you have no clue what chlorine is or any of its properties.
Thick as usual.

People have been using "Vim" for decades.

I would think it only natural that a Brexit fan would keenly sprinkle
the stuff on chicken, assuming of course that he had any left after
following Trumps advice on covid.

Sorry about the BLM thing BTW, have you adjusted your medication to
compensate?


AB
From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
Meanwhile you drink chlorinated tap water, complete with bromide in our
case.

Well? is there some significance to the fact that water needs
disinfecting?

I can assure you that of all the concoctions I have put into drinking
water, bromide isn't one of them.

AB
From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq

In article ,
bert wrote:
Do you sprinkle chlorine over your UK chicken before eating it, then?

It's apparent you have no clue what chlorine is or any of its properties.
Thick as usual.

People have been using "Vim" for decades.

I would think it only natural that a Brexit fan would keenly sprinkle
the stuff on chicken, assuming of course that he had any left after
following Trumps advice on covid.

Sorry about the BLM thing BTW, have you adjusted your medication to
compensate?


AB
From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
Meanwhile you drink chlorinated tap water, complete with bromide in our
case.

I'll give you a little homework, bert. Check up on the number of reported
salmonella poisoning cases in the US last year versus the UK.

--
*Strip mining prevents forest fires.

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

On 17 Jun 2020 14:43:31 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 17 Jun 2020 at 13:24:16 BST, bert wrote:

In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
writes
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:59:30 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Saturday, 13 June 2020 11:00:03 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rambo wrote:
The Americans won’t allow anything to be added to labels that will allow
consumers to identify that it is chlorine-drenched US of A meat. The US
trade deal negotiators have already told the British this. They have also
said that this is a red line; no foul chlorine-drenched chicken, no trade
deal.

" there is no proof that eating chlorinated chicken would put health
at risk. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has said that
chemical substances in poultry meat are unlikely to pose an immediate
or acute health risk for consumers; in a 2005 study, the EFSA found
that treating poultry carcasses with the four most-commonly used
antimicrobial substances (agents that kill microorganisms) “would be
of no safety concern.”

Do you sprinkle chlorine over your UK chicken before eating it, then?

It's apparent you have no clue what chlorine is or any of its properties.
Thick as usual.

People have been using "Vim" for decades.

I would think it only natural that a Brexit fan would keenly sprinkle
the stuff on chicken, assuming of course that he had any left after
following Trumps advice on covid.

Sorry about the BLM thing BTW, have you adjusted your medication to
compensate?

From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
Meanwhile you drink chlorinated tap water, complete with bromide in our
case.

So Tarquin thinks that Vim is chlorine and that chlorine is Vim.

I did not say that, if you are going to argue at least try to
understand what the words mean.

He is perhaps
also unaware of the "chlorine-washed" vegetables we import from the EU.

Perfectly well aware. I have happily dosed chlorine into the drinking
water that most UK authorities supply. I have done the same for power
stations and indeed pulled it back with bisulphite when it was in
danger of upsetting the fishes.

About the same level of comprehension as that youngish Labour woman the other
day, who when asked about Churchill's statue said: "Well, I haven't actually
met him myself, so I don't know ...".

Now that makes sense. Imagine your first introduction to UK politics
was Johnson. Logic would suggest that as he was elected by the people
and his lies were so prolific, then Johnson and any other UK prime
minister would have to be interviewed or fed pentathol before you
knoew what they stood for.

The lady was young I expect and must have assumed lying is normal for
a PM.

Her logic is correct incidentally, so what's the problem?

AB
From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq

On 17 Jun 2020 18:05:13 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 17 Jun 2020 at 18:36:02 BST, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
wrote:

On 17 Jun 2020 14:43:31 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 17 Jun 2020 at 13:24:16 BST, bert wrote:

In article , Archibald
Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
writes
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:59:30 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Saturday, 13 June 2020 11:00:03 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rambo wrote:
The Americans won?t allow anything to be added to labels that will allow
consumers to identify that it is chlorine-drenched US of A meat. The US
trade deal negotiators have already told the British this. They have also
said that this is a red line; no foul chlorine-drenched chicken, no trade
deal.

" there is no proof that eating chlorinated chicken would put health
at risk. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has said that
chemical substances in poultry meat are unlikely to pose an immediate
or acute health risk for consumers; in a 2005 study, the EFSA found
that treating poultry carcasses with the four most-commonly used
antimicrobial substances (agents that kill microorganisms) ?would be
of no safety concern.?

Do you sprinkle chlorine over your UK chicken before eating it, then?

It's apparent you have no clue what chlorine is or any of its properties.
Thick as usual.

People have been using "Vim" for decades.

I would think it only natural that a Brexit fan would keenly sprinkle
the stuff on chicken, assuming of course that he had any left after
following Trumps advice on covid.

Sorry about the BLM thing BTW, have you adjusted your medication to
compensate?

From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
Meanwhile you drink chlorinated tap water, complete with bromide in our
case.

So Tarquin thinks that Vim is chlorine and that chlorine is Vim.

I did not say that, if you are going to argue at least try to
understand what the words mean.

Youu certainly seem to think it. You talk about sprinkling chlorine on
chicken, then doing the same with Vim. Why would this be, then?


Oooh! that's bloody difficult isn't it. READ THE POST!

at no time did I suggest sprinkling chlorine on chicken. It would be
beyond the ability of a normal person to sprinkle chlorine on any
foodstuff so a Brexit voter would have no chance and would have to
make do with Vim. Understand?

He is perhaps
also unaware of the "chlorine-washed" vegetables we import from the EU.

Perfectly well aware. I have happily dosed chlorine into the drinking
water that most UK authorities supply. I have done the same for power
stations and indeed pulled it back with bisulphite when it was in
danger of upsetting the fishes.

In which case why are you wetting your panties about "clorine-washed" chicken,
given that, as any skoolboy knows, it's not chlorine these items are washed
in, but a dilute solution of it.

THM's Poor hygene standards.

About the same level of comprehension as that youngish Labour woman the other
day, who when asked about Churchill's statue said: "Well, I haven't actually
met him myself, so I don't know ...".

Now that makes sense. Imagine your first introduction to UK politics
was Johnson. Logic would suggest that as he was elected by the people
and his lies were so prolific, then Johnson and any other UK prime
minister would have to be interviewed or fed pentathol before you
knoew what they stood for.

The lady was young I expect and must have assumed lying is normal for
a PM.

Nice wriggle. Our Dave would be proud of you. What we are actually talking
about here is your ignorance, on a par with hers, which is so vast that she
was unaware that Churchill died some long time before she was born.


Er, well what's your problem? did she state that she didn't know if he
was dead? Not that it makes any difference, even if you ignore the
desire to meet up in order to ensure the integrity of the received
information, then her statement that she had not met him herself is a
simple statement of fact and fair play to the lady she said "I don't
know". So instead of going off on a monologue saying whatever she felt
appropriate, she stated the truth.

Once again a logical standpoint.

AB
From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
Do you sprinkle chlorine over your UK chicken before eating it, then?

It's apparent you have no clue what chlorine is or any of its properties.
Thick as usual.

People have been using "Vim" for decades.

I would think it only natural that a Brexit fan would keenly sprinkle
the stuff on chicken, assuming of course that he had any left after
following Trumps advice on covid.

Sorry about the BLM thing BTW, have you adjusted your medication to
compensate?


AB
From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
Meanwhile you drink chlorinated tap water, complete with bromide in our
case.

I'll give you a little homework, bert. Check up on the number of reported
salmonella poisoning cases in the US last year versus the UK.

And count the gallons of hypochlorite used in dairy farming together
with the Milton for your babies bottle sterilising.

Chlorine is not the issue but rather that it may allow lower standards
of animal welfare/husbandry (leading to lower production costs) than is
permitted here or in the EU.


--
Tim Lamb

On 17 Jun 2020 19:36:02 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:


Sorry about the BLM thing BTW, have you adjusted your medication to
compensate?

From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
Meanwhile you drink chlorinated tap water, complete with bromide in our
case.

So Tarquin thinks that Vim is chlorine and that chlorine is Vim.

I did not say that, if you are going to argue at least try to
understand what the words mean.

Youu certainly seem to think it. You talk about sprinkling chlorine on
chicken, then doing the same with Vim. Why would this be, then?


Oooh! that's bloody difficult isn't it. READ THE POST!

at no time did I suggest sprinkling chlorine on chicken. It would be
beyond the ability of a normal person to sprinkle chlorine on any
foodstuff so a Brexit voter would have no chance and would have to
make do with Vim. Understand?

From upthread: "Do you sprinkle chlorine over your UK chicken before eating
it, then?" And why would anyone spread a floor-cleaning product on their
food?

Normal people wouldn't.

Trump has pushed for the ingestion of cleaning products and Brexit/
Trump followers have the same mindset.



f it.

THM's Poor hygene standards.

Ah, so it's nothing to do with the food-decontamination mechanism, rather the
food prepartion or welfare standards issue. Well, we knew that. So don't try
your frankenfoods ******** on me sunshine, because it won't work.

Er, you seem to have lost the plot someplace. Chlorine is used for
decontamination, nothing else!

It has been used successfully in the UK for some time.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/...minal-11188230

Those that use it have a lack of care for their consumers.

knoew what they stood for.

The lady was young I expect and must have assumed lying is normal for
a PM.

Nice wriggle. Our Dave would be proud of you. What we are actually talking
about here is your ignorance, on a par with hers, which is so vast that she
was unaware that Churchill died some long time before she was born.

Er, well what's your problem? did she state that she didn't know if he
was dead? Not that it makes any difference, even if you ignore the
desire to meet up in order to ensure the integrity of the received
information, then her statement that she had not met him herself is a
simple statement of fact and fair play to the lady she said "I don't
know". So instead of going off on a monologue saying whatever she felt
appropriate, she stated the truth.

No, it was clear from how she said it that she had little or no idea who or
what CHurchill was, and assumed he was still alive.

Dont attempt to confuse things with trivia. He wasn't available :
Correct!

She couldn't refer to him for an opinion: Correct!


Whether she thought he was dead, pot holing in Derbyshire or hiding in
a fridge like his successor is immaterial. She was correct.

AB
From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq

On 11/06/2020 8:05, alan_m wrote:
On 10/06/2020 22:12, RayL12 wrote:

Yes, I have been taking that route a while. I live among an Asian
community and consider myself lucky to be in touch with good foods.
That's my hope, anyway. I struggle to know who produces their food as
natural as possible these days.

Isn't the problem about not knowing where you food is sourced is things
like pesticide residues which may be of the type banned in the western
world because of their dangers to health.




Absolutely right, yes. However, I feel the West lead the way in
contamination. What is thought to be good is not. Anything that kills a
germ elsewhere, on plants etc, also kills our own gut germs.

On 11/06/2020 10:30, tim... wrote:


"RayL12" wrote in message
...
On 10/06/2020 20:49, Stephen Cole wrote:
RayL12 wrote:
On 10/06/2020 19:33, Stephen Cole wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...inated-chicken


Thisll be how Brexiteers will be remembered; as the bigoted fools
that
voted to inject filth into our food chain. Scumbags.


I don't follow politics as such. All sanctimonious ****s with good
intentions.

I think I remember a time when USA was trying to engage in a
'tri-trading state'(I cant be arsed looking for the name) with UK and
EU? And, the EU rejected USA while UK murmured support?

Did we leave EU to edge our way back to USA? After all, we needed the
USA the previous time we took on the EU?

How much of a foot-in does USA have in EU? I bet USA took the rejection
badly if this was the case.

I dread the thought of the foods we are going to get now.


Best thing to do is to stop eating meat and to convince everybody you
love
to do likewise.

Yes, I have been taking that route a while. I live among an Asian
community and consider myself lucky to be in touch with good foods.

I think that you are sampling the end results

how can living in a different community (type) provide better raw
materials (unless everything is sourced from own allotments - something
that doesn't scale above 0.1% of the population)

tim


Maybe it doesn't. Maybe they buy from the same reseller all other
grocers in the UK do? I do know that some of the smaller grocers buy
alongside the bigger importers in the area who do source the Asias.

Why Asian? The range of selection of fruits and veg. Along with herbs &
spices and dried pulses, these foods are pure medicine. Pure? Little to
no chance of harming you if taken as a solution to an illness, or disease.

As I have said before, conditions within the body, or anywhere for that
matter, will determine the type of life that can live there. These foods
go a long way to maintaining good conditions for growth and protection.

Do I know what I'm buying? I can't, really, can I? Neither do I eat as
well as it may be suggested in this post. It's just a view.

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 06:36:51 +0100, RayL12
wrote:

On 11/06/2020 8:05, alan_m wrote:
On 10/06/2020 22:12, RayL12 wrote:

Yes, I have been taking that route a while. I live among an Asian
community and consider myself lucky to be in touch with good foods.
That's my hope, anyway. I struggle to know who produces their food as
natural as possible these days.

Isn't the problem about not knowing where you food is sourced is things
like pesticide residues which may be of the type banned in the western
world because of their dangers to health.




Absolutely right, yes. However, I feel the West lead the way in
contamination. What is thought to be good is not. Anything that kills a
germ elsewhere, on plants etc, also kills our own gut germs.

A bit of a blanket statement, but yes. the West lead the way in
contamination, so it's logical that they recognise the problem and the
more astute that are not governed by the personal greed driving big
business are putting it right.

AB

From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq

On 10/06/2020 21:52, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 20:16:51 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...inated-chicken

This’ll be how Brexiteers will be remembered; as the bigoted fools that
voted to inject filth into our food chain. Scumbags.

I doubt *anyone* explicitly voted for Chicken a la Chlorine - it was an
unexpected, unforeseen (to the public) consequence. So it is wrong to say
that it is the public's fault for voting for Brexit. It is a shame that
Boris can't insist on banning imports of chlorinated chicken, but that would
probably scupper the UK-US trade deal.

I presume our food-labelling rules will at least show the country of origin
as USA, which allows the public to choose whether they want to buy it - even
if that means that unchlorinated chicken gets left on the shelves because
the public can't (aren't allowed to) tell the difference from chlorinated.

The US want to end the practice of labelling the origin of food. How
strange!

The chlorinated chicken scenario was predicted numerous times, as was
the NHS sell off.

Boris does not give a damn about chlorinated chicken. he will never
have to eat the stuff. The garbage will hit the shelves and British
producers will have to drop their animal welfare and food safety
spending, or go out of business.

These are the problems the voter ends up with when all the politicians
are looking after number 1.


The inroad into the UK is worth plenty to America. Health, medicine
and food will all be brought down to US standards. If Europe don't
watch out there will be a continued attack on what is a major US
competitor.

At least Britain will have no problem showing the US a thing or two
about unhealthy dangerous food. The nation that brought the world BSE
because it was so much cheaper to feed dead animals to ruminants, has
little to learn from the US.

AB

From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq



And, we are as close to the EU as USA would wish to be.

On 18 Jun 2020 07:44:47 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 18 Jun 2020 at 05:34:23 BST, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
wrote:

On 17 Jun 2020 19:36:02 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

From upthread: "Do you sprinkle chlorine over your UK chicken before eating
it, then?" And why would anyone spread a floor-cleaning product on their
food?

Normal people wouldn't.

Trump has pushed for the ingestion of cleaning products and Brexit/
Trump followers have the same mindset.

You mean people with a different opinion to you. And since you have no
argument you descend to so-typical ad-homs.

Ah, so it's nothing to do with the food-decontamination mechanism, rather the
food prepartion or welfare standards issue. Well, we knew that. So don't try
your frankenfoods ******** on me sunshine, because it won't work.

Er, you seem to have lost the plot someplace. Chlorine is used for
decontamination, nothing else!

It has been used successfully in the UK for some time.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/...minal-11188230

Those that use it have a lack of care for their consumers.

I've said before that in a trade deal, an importing country can insist that
the exporting country adhere to certain standards for the goods in question,
and that it is not untypical that the importer has inspectors located
permanently in the exporting country to police that. This is SOP and has been
happening for years.


That I think you will find if you cast your mind back is what the
thread is all about. The UK will have no choice about what it imports.
This is why there is concern about quality, chlorinated chicken etc.

And no, before you come out with the drivel, the consumer will not
have a choice. Cheap shoddy rubbish will rule and it rules easily in
the UK, which is why we ended up with VHS to point out an obvious
example of mass stupidity.


No, it was clear from how she said it that she had little or no idea who or
what CHurchill was, and assumed he was still alive.

Dont attempt to confuse things with trivia. He wasn't available :
Correct!

She didn't know this.

Deep shock and amasement. I thought we had already established this
fact?

Please try to stay with the program!!!



She couldn't refer to him for an opinion: Correct!

Not relevant to the point at issue, which was her profound state of
ignorance.


So if she were more astute, better clued up, he would be available for
comment?

I suspect not!

Whether she thought he was dead, pot holing in Derbyshire or hiding in
a fridge like his successor is immaterial. She was correct.

D'ye mean Atlee or Eden? And she didn't think he was dead, she obviously
thought he was alive.

Perhaps Shrodinger had the wrong subject in mind when he dreamed up
his piece of nastiness to pussies, he should have locked Winston in
the safe, or maybe a fridge instead of a safe?

Either way, believe me Winston or indeed Shrodingers pussy would not
be available for consultation.

A lot of the population are not aware that Archbishop Makarios has
snuffed it, are you suggesting there is something contemptible about
them because of that?

Again, I'm afraid you are totally incorrect in just about all of your
assumptions.

AB

From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq

Tim Streater wrote:

On 18 Jun 2020 at 10:01:35 BST, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
wrote:

On 18 Jun 2020 07:44:47 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

I've said before that in a trade deal, an importing country can insist
that the exporting country adhere to certain standards for the goods in
question, and that it is not untypical that the importer has inspectors
located permanently in the exporting country to police that. This is
SOP and has been happening for years.

That I think you will find if you cast your mind back is what the
thread is all about. The UK will have no choice about what it imports.
This is why there is concern about quality, chlorinated chicken etc.

And no, before you come out with the drivel, the consumer will not
have a choice. Cheap shoddy rubbish will rule and it rules easily in
the UK, which is why we ended up with VHS to point out an obvious
example of mass stupidity.

What this thread is about is assertions from twerps like you that we will
all be somehow "forced" to eat US "chlorinated" chicken. You come out with
this cock because you're sulking that brexit is happening, and so you're
talking up hoped-for failure. Imports are not imported by governments,
they are imported by private companies (generally) who then want to sell
the product on. That means someone has to want to buy it, and then be able
to sell it to the public. Meaning, as it's food, it's gonna have to meet
the same health standards as any other comparable food in the shops. If
not, then it won't be legal to sell it, so the retailers won't buy it.
I.e, NO MARKET. Just because something *can* be imported, doesn't mean it
*will* be.

You'd do better to be directly attacking the production (i.e., welfare)
standards. Then you'd get rather more respect instead of being considered
a nutter.

We have certain food standards. Part of any trade deal will be to
change these standards so we can import food that doesn't meet them.
There are not separate standards for importation and retail sale.
(There are clearly technical exceptions for e.g. animal feed, but it is
true as a general proposition.) Secondly, shops don't have to admit
the original country of production of food providing it is packed in
this country (an example of EU regs being insufficiently rigorous in my
opinion) so itt will not be possible to tell where food came from.
Without necessarily being too distressed about American chicken (I am
less sanguine about hormones in beef) your view is over-optimistic about
the ability of consumers to avoid these foods.






She didn't know this.

Deep shock and amasement. I thought we had already established this
fact?

Well I had. Have you only just caught up?

So if she were more astute, better clued up, he would be available for
comment?

No, she simply wouldn't have made a fool of herself.

A lot of the population are not aware that Archbishop Makarios has
snuffed it, are you suggesting there is something contemptible about
them because of that?

Foolish, not contemptible, if they make public pronouncements on the basis of
their ignorance.


--

Roger Hayter

On 18/06/2020 12:01, Roger Hayter wrote:
We have certain food standards. Part of any trade deal will be to
change these standards so we can import food that doesn't meet them.
No, not necessarily.

In general it is up to the exporter to meet local standards if he wishes
to export - Chinese goods comply with electrical safety etc.

If US imported food does not meet our standards it cannot be legally sold.

We may change that, but there is no requirement that we do.


There are not separate standards for importation and retail sale.

That I think is probably true.

(There are clearly technical exceptions for e.g. animal feed, but it is
true as a general proposition.) Secondly, shops don't have to admit
the original country of production of food providing it is packed in
this country (an example of EU regs being insufficiently rigorous in my
opinion) so it will not be possible to tell where food came from.

Well that is down to us imposing local standards that DO give original
country of origin, if that is what is felt to be important

Without necessarily being too distressed about American chicken (I am
less sanguine about hormones in beef) your view is over-optimistic about
the ability of consumers to avoid these foods.

We used to import Argentinian beef OK


--
Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 18 Jun 2020 10:35:39 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 18 Jun 2020 at 10:01:35 BST, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
wrote:

On 18 Jun 2020 07:44:47 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

I've said before that in a trade deal, an importing country can insist that
the exporting country adhere to certain standards for the goods in question,
and that it is not untypical that the importer has inspectors located
permanently in the exporting country to police that. This is SOP and has been
happening for years.

That I think you will find if you cast your mind back is what the
thread is all about. The UK will have no choice about what it imports.
This is why there is concern about quality, chlorinated chicken etc.

And no, before you come out with the drivel, the consumer will not
have a choice. Cheap shoddy rubbish will rule and it rules easily in
the UK, which is why we ended up with VHS to point out an obvious
example of mass stupidity.

What this thread is about is assertions from twerps like you that we will all
be somehow "forced" to eat US "chlorinated" chicken.

No, I'm afraid the header does not mention chicken although it does
relate to food in general terms. There is no suggestion that twerps
are involved though.

"Subject: Take Back Control (by fouling our food)"

You come out with this
cock because you're sulking that brexit is happening, and so you're talking up
hoped-for failure.

I am afraid you are totally clueless. I really don't give a damn about
Brexit. I do not want problems for the UK, but the people went into
Brexit with open eyes, they were all old enough to vote and indeed
seem to be in line to "get what it said on the box".

Fortunately I personally have a choice, and currently I'm sticking
firmly with the EU. It means as much to me as switching from Aldi to
Asda, so in the extremely unlikely event that things improve in the
UK, I may be back. I will not return to some bargain basement economy
where any garbage is deemed acceptable though.

Imports are not imported by governments, they are imported
by private companies (generally) who then want to sell the product on. That
means someone has to want to buy it, and then be able to sell it to the
public. Meaning, as it's food, it's gonna have to meet the same health
standards as any other comparable food in the shops. If not, then it won't be
legal to sell it, so the retailers won't buy it. I.e, NO MARKET. Just because
something *can* be imported, doesn't mean it *will* be.

Wow, I bet that took some working out. I trust you took a rest
afterwards?

Unless tarrifs are applied, then people will opt for the cheapest. The
grand US plan of removing labels will aid this. Americans are not
totally stupid you know and are fully aware that even Brexit voters
will avoid rubbish.

If there are no tarrifs and the stuff is freely imported, which it
will be because Trump will cry foul if we dont buy the rubbish, then
British farmers will have to drop standards to compete, or go bust.

You'd do better to be directly attacking the production (i.e., welfare)
standards. Then you'd get rather more respect instead of being considered a
nutter.

It has already been done. I am happy with the standards. Glyphosphate
might be a problem after my 5L has gone, but picking weeds manually
isn't too bad.


She didn't know this.

Deep shock and amasement. I thought we had already established this
fact?

Well I had. Have you only just caught up?

So if she were more astute, better clued up, he would be available for
comment?

No, she simply wouldn't have made a fool of herself.



A lot of the population are not aware that Archbishop Makarios has
snuffed it, are you suggesting there is something contemptible about
them because of that?

Foolish, not contemptible, if they make public pronouncements on the basis of
their ignorance.

It was an announcement regarding her personal opinion was it not?

I could well imagine myself coming out with such a statement.

Something logically correct indicating contempt of a stupid question
wasn't beyond my ability, it also gave the gullible morons a bit of a
laugh before the truth dawned.

My most successful was at a H&S lecture with a hundred or so present,
for Costains [You might have been there].

The lot were in stitches at one of my responses, it is a glorious
feeling when you provide people with the evidence that they are thick
with just a few words of enlightenment.

It is not foolish to fail to detail a triviality when the fact that
Churchill could not be consulted was made clear.

Simple logic. Churchill can be consulted if he is willing to be
consulted AND within practical communicating distance AND able to be
consulted AND NOT dead.

I suppose being pedantic, it could be argued that the lady in question
should have stated an aversion to ouija boards if death was nominated
as the reason, but it wasn't and she didn't, so on the whole I would
suggest her powers of logic and rreason well in advance of anything a
Brexit voter could comprehend.

I trust this clarifies the position?

AB


From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
What this thread is about is assertions from twerps like you that we
will all be somehow "forced" to eat US "chlorinated" chicken.

How would you know if it is bought in a restaurant, etc?

--
*Life is hard; then you nap

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
That's just an assumption/assertion on your part. I've already posted that it
doesn't have to be done that way.

You think a Tory government, hell bent on brexit at any cost, are going to
worry about the welfare of chickens? Horses and dogs, possibly.

--
*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 Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:02:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
That's just an assumption/assertion on your part. I've already posted that it
doesn't have to be done that way.

You think a Tory government, hell bent on brexit at any cost, are going to
worry about the welfare of chickens? Horses and dogs, possibly.

But they promised........................... :-)

Trump & Brexit! Iis it really possible to trust elections, or maybe
Covid affected the higher brain functions in the years before it
mutated to become a respiratary problem.

AB
From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:

On 18 Jun 2020 at 10:01:35 BST, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
wrote:

On 18 Jun 2020 07:44:47 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

I've said before that in a trade deal, an importing country can insist
that the exporting country adhere to certain standards for the goods
in
question, and that it is not untypical that the importer has
inspectors
located permanently in the exporting country to police that. This is
SOP and has been happening for years.

That I think you will find if you cast your mind back is what the
thread is all about. The UK will have no choice about what it imports.
This is why there is concern about quality, chlorinated chicken etc.

And no, before you come out with the drivel, the consumer will not
have a choice. Cheap shoddy rubbish will rule and it rules easily in
the UK, which is why we ended up with VHS to point out an obvious
example of mass stupidity.

What this thread is about is assertions from twerps like you that we will
all be somehow "forced" to eat US "chlorinated" chicken. You come out
with
this cock because you're sulking that brexit is happening, and so you're
talking up hoped-for failure. Imports are not imported by governments,
they are imported by private companies (generally) who then want to sell
the product on. That means someone has to want to buy it, and then be
able
to sell it to the public. Meaning, as it's food, it's gonna have to meet
the same health standards as any other comparable food in the shops. If
not, then it won't be legal to sell it, so the retailers won't buy it.
I.e, NO MARKET. Just because something *can* be imported, doesn't mean it
*will* be.

You'd do better to be directly attacking the production (i.e., welfare)
standards. Then you'd get rather more respect instead of being considered
a nutter.

We have certain food standards.

Yes.

Part of any trade deal will be to change these standards
so we can import food that doesn't meet them.

That doesn’t happen with most trade deals.

There are not separate standards for importation and retail sale.
(There are clearly technical exceptions for e.g. animal feed, but it is
true as a general proposition.) Secondly, shops don't have to admit
the original country of production of food providing it is packed in
this country (an example of EU regs being insufficiently rigorous in my
opinion) so itt will not be possible to tell where food came from.
Without necessarily being too distressed about American chicken (I am
less sanguine about hormones in beef) your view is over-optimistic about
the ability of consumers to avoid these foods.

But consumers are free to only buy foods that
do list the country of origin of the ingredients.

She didn't know this.

Deep shock and amasement. I thought we had already established this
fact?

Well I had. Have you only just caught up?

So if she were more astute, better clued up, he would be available for
comment?

No, she simply wouldn't have made a fool of herself.

A lot of the population are not aware that Archbishop Makarios has
snuffed it, are you suggesting there is something contemptible about
them because of that?

Foolish, not contemptible, if they make public pronouncements on the
basis of
their ignorance.


--

Roger Hayter

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 07:12:56 +1000, "Jake56" wrote:



"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:

On 18 Jun 2020 at 10:01:35 BST, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq
wrote:

On 18 Jun 2020 07:44:47 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

I've said before that in a trade deal, an importing country can insist
that the exporting country adhere to certain standards for the goods
in
question, and that it is not untypical that the importer has
inspectors
located permanently in the exporting country to police that. This is
SOP and has been happening for years.

That I think you will find if you cast your mind back is what the
thread is all about. The UK will have no choice about what it imports.
This is why there is concern about quality, chlorinated chicken etc.

And no, before you come out with the drivel, the consumer will not
have a choice. Cheap shoddy rubbish will rule and it rules easily in
the UK, which is why we ended up with VHS to point out an obvious
example of mass stupidity.

What this thread is about is assertions from twerps like you that we will
all be somehow "forced" to eat US "chlorinated" chicken. You come out
with
this cock because you're sulking that brexit is happening, and so you're
talking up hoped-for failure. Imports are not imported by governments,
they are imported by private companies (generally) who then want to sell
the product on. That means someone has to want to buy it, and then be
able
to sell it to the public. Meaning, as it's food, it's gonna have to meet
the same health standards as any other comparable food in the shops. If
not, then it won't be legal to sell it, so the retailers won't buy it.
I.e, NO MARKET. Just because something *can* be imported, doesn't mean it
*will* be.

You'd do better to be directly attacking the production (i.e., welfare)
standards. Then you'd get rather more respect instead of being considered
a nutter.

We have certain food standards.

Yes.

Part of any trade deal will be to change these standards
so we can import food that doesn't meet them.

That doesn’t happen with most trade deals.

Well it did with the Japanese. The UK could never get into Japan. In
one case even lemon sherberts were rejected as not meeting spec
because of the colour.

Presumably you were not around in the seventies. Trade was like a game
of chess.

Mullard, one of our flagship industries went down. Their TV tuners
were rejected by Panasonic. The reason.. Drift at minus forty degrees
centigrade.

Trade needs skill and acumen, I suppose it didn't matter when the
colonies were pushing everything they had to us. They stopped and
Britain became "the sick man of europe"



There are not separate standards for importation and retail sale.
(There are clearly technical exceptions for e.g. animal feed, but it is
true as a general proposition.) Secondly, shops don't have to admit
the original country of production of food providing it is packed in
this country (an example of EU regs being insufficiently rigorous in my
opinion) so itt will not be possible to tell where food came from.
Without necessarily being too distressed about American chicken (I am
less sanguine about hormones in beef) your view is over-optimistic about
the ability of consumers to avoid these foods.

But consumers are free to only buy foods that
do list the country of origin of the ingredients.

Who seriously looks, a few care strongly the others happily accept the
crud until quality gets too bad an they complain, but by then the
quality producers will have long gone.

It happened with beer, there was no choice in the UK but to drink keg
rubbish, it was cheap to produce and needed no skill.

It took decades to get proper beer back after things went too far and
the deflavoured fizzy crud started to be rejected.

AB
From the well pummelled keyboard of Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp Esq

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 07:12:56 +1000, Jake56, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rodent:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID: