chipdawg

I've never been. Would you recommend it for a family trip? Kids are 5 and 7

I don't have kids so can't comment, but there's a beach and a theme park on underground routes. It's prob a little high culture/bar culture for young kids for an extended trip, but you could fill a few days for sure

_{Most modern factory farming methods are disgusting. I don't like halal, I don't like kosher, I don't like battery farming either.}

_{I think it is a positive thing that people are starting to reject the dominance of halal meat. Liberal left types should be calling for a total ban on non-stunned animal slaughter - not pandering to some backward religion.}

But can you gaurantee that all the meat you eat is slaughtered in the most humane way possible, halal or not? I can't so I try not to criticise

One thing that has struck me though is that the "85% of halal is stunned" figure seems to be a badge of pride, when it still means that thousands of animals every year are being needlessly put through a painful death. I'd apply the same logic to any cruel slaughter, I just don't have the stats!

This arguement that if you don't want halal then you are racist is nonsense.

If you think all animals deserve the same humane treatment then you will logically come to the conclusion that halal is unacceptable.

But the vast majority of halal meat in this country is killed in pretty much exactly the same way as normal meat. Unless you can say, hand on heart, that you know exactly how every scrap of meat you eat (halal or not) is slaughtered, you can't criticise the halal process as it is in modern Britain. I don't go into Burger King and demand to know that the cows were treated with the utmost respect

Where this thread actually started was in regard of Subway pulling pork products from 12% of their shops. I don't disagree with them using halal products, but I do believe that making pork products in unavailable is divisive and contrary to the idea of multiculturism. It would also really piss me off if I went to a store and they put turkey in my Italian BMT

Better than Bristol ?

Well we do have our very own 'FC Barcelona of The Conference', but as their Camp Nou is moving to South Glos and the beach at Weston is a bit further out the city than Barcalonetta, I'd say the Catalans win by a nose

Spent the weekend in bars, clubs and on the beach so couldn't tell you about the city! Stag do is not for sightseeing!

The bars and the beach are two of the reasons it's the best city in Europe! Go back during La Merce in September- best piss up I've ever been to!

Barcelona.

Love Barcelona, best city in Europe

Vincent Vega tells a different story.

Love that film. But a) same burger, different name and b) two different countries. Can you imagine the carnage if McDonalds sold beer over here?!

It's the taking off the menu of pork products that people object to. Why should non-Muslims (and non-observant muslims) have their menu shrunk because they happen to live in an area where there is a high Pakistani origin population.

I'm sure there's no rule that means muslims can't just select the non-pork products from a full menu - so why restrict the choice for the rest ?

There's nothing to stop Subway franchisees doing that, but equally there's nothing to stop the rest of us going 'F you Subway, you're not getting my custom any more'.

My assumption would be that because franchises buy in bulk from Subway, the pork products were hanging around too long and going off. As I've said though, the whole point of fast food chains like Subway is that their menu is homogenous and you should be able to go into any Subway and order the same product so I'm sure there could be a way around it rather than turning 10% of their stores 'pork free'

Maybe, maybe not.

How many 'Pakistani Restaurants" do you see?

For some reason, 'Indian Restaurant' just seems to be more acceptable to most people. That's not ignorant (like the way you still try to slip one in Chippy), just a reasonable perception.

Or would you disagree, and that infact, most people actually say, jeez, fancy a good Pakistani tonight?

No, most still say 'Indian'.

So wrong perhaps, but I don't think you were being an arrogant patronising buffoon. - Hey, this 'slip in an insult game' is pretty easy!

You were being 'ignorant' in the sense that you were wrong, like when you said "Indians aren't Muslims". I even qualified it by prefixing it with 'perhaps' and it wasn't me that brought the word to the thread but you still need to start an argument

Do you really think that individuals of Pakistani origin who start restaurant businesses call them Indian Restaurants so they can secretly feed you halal meat in the hope you might catch Muslim, or is just that 'Indian Restaurant' is the social convention for such establishments, with a justifiable history and it's a commercial decision to stick with it?

I'm aware of that Chip - but thankyou for a level headed response.

Indian people who run restaurants have no need, or inclination to serve Halal food - period.

That's why I have no idea why our resident UAF **** is throwing the race card about.

Well, I do, as that's what UAF ***** do - throw the race card about.

Apparently though, RedDerve lives next an upper middle class Indian Muslim! What luck!

In RedDaves defence, I think the point he is trying to make is that India has the third largest Muslim population in the world so to say that because someone is Indian they are by definition not a Muslim is slightly disingenuous. Similarly your description of the term 'Indian Restaurant' somehow being utilised to cover up the proprietors religion is just plain wrong and sounds a bit conspiracy theoryish. So ignorant perhaps, but I don't think you were being racist

Why is a curry 'obviously halal'?

Indians aren't Muslims. They have no reason to serve halal meat.

Pakistani, Bangladeshi etc yes.

Indian owned and operated no. Some may not serve beef if they are hindu, but actual "Indian Restaurants" have no need to be Islamified.

Why do you think most Pakistanis call their curry houses Indian? So halal can be slipped in

If there ain't no pork - it's an allah-lovers place.

Actually, the history of 'The Indian Restaurant' is more interesting and less sinister than that. The first Indian Restaurants spring up in the East End in the years immediately following the Second World War by men who'd been operating as cooks on cargo and military ships heading over from the subcontinent. These were mainly men from what is now called Bangladesh but then was just part of India. Bangladesh, as we know, is a predominantly Muslim area but as 1940s Britain was not known for its geopolitical accuracy, they merely became 'Indian Restaurants'. I think the first establishment to label itself as an 'Indian Restaurant' was in Birmingham in the early 50s, set up by Bangladeshi Muslims. So whenever you eat 'Indian' food over here, you're generally eating bastardised versions of food first brought over here by Muslims (there are many notable exemptions, for example Butter Chicken) or dishes that have been wholly dreamt up on these shores. It should be noted that most of these dishes were not 'Muslim' or 'Hindu' but specific to a given area. Obviously there are hundreds of restaurants run by Hindu or Christian or even Buddhist Indians, but the curry culture in this country can be traced back to those ships cooks from Bangladesh/East Pakistan (as it used to be known)

And also, Pork not generally found (though certainly not excluded from) in Hindu curry either; it's mainly a Goan Christian thing and even then it was due to the influence of Portuguese colonialism rather than local custom

Don't the franchises have to buy the ingredients from the same place? Therefore surely it will be banned in all?

Yeah, I imagine they do but the article doesn't claim they all have, it specifically states that a certain number of them have, which is making me puzzled about what's gone on. It's still ridiculous that I can't enter any Subway in the UK and order the same sandwich; that's kind of the point, isn't it?!

Looks like it's not down to individual branches though. Well from what I can tell from reading the reports.

Well I know as much about this 'meat-ban' as is in that Daily Mail article, but I do know that most if not all of the Subways in the UK are franchises, which is probably why only a certain fraction of them have made this change. I have no idea how much control Subway PLC has over their policies toward halal meat, I shall enquire in my local Subway post- haste! (And probably grab an Italian BMT while I'm there)

Almost 200 branches of Subway have stopped serving ham, bacon etc and are serving halal meat only.

As many of you know I'm fine about Halal meat and happy for it too be on the menu, but removing non-halal meat, especially bacon and ham is too far. Muslims make up 3% of the population of Britain and some how the rest of the population cannot have a meat they want from a SANDWICH shop because Subway want to please 3%. Ridiculous.

I shall never go to one of the branches again, mainly because I always have bacon or ham with my sub, but also out of sheer disgust.

And before someone makes this anti-Islam, I have no problem with their belief's but the problem is with Subway for becoming a Muslim shop and forgetting most of their consumers.

Rant over.

Subway is, I believe, a franchise-based business so I guess it's down to individual branches/outlets whether they do this

It does seem slightly ridiculous that any branch would do this though as you could quite easily stick the halal meats alongside the non-halal meats and please everyone. Unless, I suppose, the vast majority of your customer are Muslims and the non-halal stuff was going off and being wasted

Careful of what?

I made mention to actual 'gassing' - I have no idea of how many Jewish people were murdered by the Nazi's. I have no idea how many actually met their terrible end in the camps.

If you wish to quip about Jewish slaughter to score a point - you win. I probably should have used another example - but there really isn't one.

Kamikaze ? - have you forgotten the Twin Towers?

I can only assume that:

A) you are taking your trolling to a new depth

B) You have had one too many Merlot

Either way - Goodnight.

I was indeed making a quip and it was probably inappropriate. I was merely pointing out that underestimating the number of people killed in the holocaust is classed as holocaust denial in a number of countries. Inappropriate, but unintentionally so. Apologies

On the kamikaze point, I was pointing out that the use of planes as weapons dates from at least the Second World War

I would have said, 2 years ago, that 2 elected PM's couldn't have been removed without a trace.

70 years ago I wouldn't believe that 3,000,000+ people would be gassed to death because they were Jewish.

20 years ago I wouldn't believe planes would be used as human weapons.

Absolute power and fanaticism is capable of anything.

Please don't think I am comparing the EU with Hitler and Terrorism, because I am not. But an EU army - why is that so far-fetched?

Soldiers are soldiers. It's the "Generals" who are the worry - and who, exactly, would the "generals" be, in the EU Armed Forces?

Well they weren't 'removed' in the way you imply, they were voted out by MPs in favour of the terms of a bail out package; one if which was to install an economist in charge. Still, I won't argue that it's a troubling precedent

Careful with that 3,000,000 figure SX225; that classes as Holocaust denial in much of the EU and extradition is at present very easy! Genocide had already long been part of the human condition, but I still find it hard to comprehend what went on during that time

20 years? kamikaze pilots in WW2?

I do take your point in that it's something that has been publicly mentioned, I just think that we're so far away from it that it's a rather hypothetical stick to be beating the EU with at the present time and in the current political climate even the Lib Dems would probably seek a referendum on a constitutional change that significant

I did point out in my post that the Greek government created its sovereign debt crisis through decades of socialist overspending, corruption, and failure to collect taxes. A bail out from the IMF has, in the past, always been accompanied by a demand for devaluation. This of course Greece was unable to do as it doesn't have its own currency but is tied to what is, for Greece, a hugely overvalued and inappropriate currency.

As you are obviously aware if a country can't devalue externally then it has to attempt to devalue internally which it is now doing at huge social cost and the rise of Golden Dawn. It is embarked upon a course of despair and social destruction. I speak having worked out there, having friends out there, and having visited recently.

Devaluation of the currency can't of course solve things on its own but what it does do is to give an economy breathing space to restore its competitive position whilst other reforms are put into place. This is why devaluation is always demanded by the IMF as part of the package. Devaluation certainly worked for the UK when we exited the EMR in '92.

So do I think they should leave the euro? Certainly. The reasons they don't are their own foolish pride and the prospect of free, easy money.

I don't think Greece staying in the Euro is a product of their pride, more the French and German desire to protect the project. At the root of it though, is endemic corruption, incompetence and waste entrenched within Greek society. A more pertinent question in their case might have been why they were admitted in the first place

And that's a great reason to leave - to ensure it never does.

Outside of war - when was the last time 2, yes 2, democratically elected PM's of countries were removed without dissent by unelected faceless officials from a nameless group.

Any organisation that has the power to install 'their man' at the helm of democratic nations upon a whim, is quite capable of passing such legislation.

RG goes a little over the top sometimes with the Nazi comparison, but really, the sinister undertones are there.

The irony is that this time, the Far-Right is gaining sway to fight AGAINST the EU!

Do you not think that's a touch paranoid? The point is that it couldn't happen without a lot of song and dance, almost certainly a referendum in the current climate (I think all the major parties have at least promised a referendum in the event of a major treaty change) and therefore ample opportunity to debate the pros and cons. I think (and as someone who is 'pro-Europe') that there are better arguments against continued participation in the EU than a European army that couldn't happen under current laws/rules/treaties

Well I think that if the EU moves towards ever closer political union then an EU army is inevitable. It's well worth googling EU Army/Military Force and looking at the support for this that already exists.

Alienation eh, a terrible thing. Just make sure you don't go out and do something you might regret.

I did google it and there does indeed seem to be support. But it would require a whole new treaty- probably on a greater scale than Maastricht and the I can't see that happening in the near future

Something I regret?! What, like voting for UKIP? I might be desperate but even a desperate man has his limits!!!

Doesn't 'currently'. 'Embryonic army'. I said 'ten years time'. It was a hypothetical example to highlight the contradictions inherent in the concept raised by Nibor of 'good' and 'bad' law...which in the example given is a matter of opinion. I won't be alive in 30 years' time, you probably will be. If the totalitarian European superstate is at permanent war with Eastasia as in Orwell's nightmare vision in 1984 don't say you weren't warned.

Small is beautiful.

I guess whether I'm alive or not will depend on whether I'm conscripted to fight the Russians in 10 years time! I appreciate you were simply postulating a scenario, I was just trying to demonstrate that a hell of a lot would have to happen (including treaty changes and probable referendums in various EU countries) before an EU military could even be considered. Despite my support of EU membership, if I was asked whether we should stay in the EU if it meant signing up to an EU Military force, I'd probably (reluctantly in the wider picture) vote No

One other thing I do agree with Nibor on is that it doesn't really matter to me at the minute who makes the laws, I feel no more connected to Westminster than I do Brussels. Perhaps if someone or something can make me feel part of the social and political machinations of this country again, I may feel differently about EU legislation

'Sandy vaginas'...I had to look that one up. I have to say that I disagree completely and fundamentally with your post.

Just to give a hypothetical example. Imagine that the current crisis in the Ukraine blows over but the pro-Russia group in the east keeps up the pressure to such an extent that in ten years time Russia decides to act. By this time the embryonic EU army is much bigger and an EU law is passed ordering EU-wide national conscription to fight the Russian peril (who knows which unelected totalitarian monster might be heading up the EU by this time). Now there are some who would consider this to be 'good law', you might be amongst them. There might be others like myself who owe no allegiance to the EU flag who might think this to be thoroughly 'bad law'. Good and bad in this instance is largely a matter of opinion. Of course if we were a self-governing democracy then 'bad law' can easily be overturned by the next elected government if the electorate so wishes. I simply cannot understand why so many people are prepared to see the ability to make our own law handed over to a foreign power.

But the EU doesn't currently have the power to conscript and, perhaps more importantly, doesn't have its own army. There isn't even a binding agreement for an EU military policy, as demonstrated in differing attitudes to Syria and Libya across the big players in the EU. So unless there's significant change in the current EU make up, your hypothetical example is impossible

Why not let them fall like dominos.

They could have given every household the money back from quantitiative easing and we would have put it all back into the economy ourselves.

I reckon that's a bit extreme, but with the Power of Hindsight it probably would have been better to let the first couple of organisations (Northern Rock and B&B was it?) fall as a warning to the rest. The government could have underwritten the value of savings for customers. It probably would have modified the behaviour of the others and might have made a difference. Certainly wouldn't have made things worse

David Cameron has already been told in no uncertain terms by the de facto Fuhrer of the EU 4th Reich herself - Angela Merkel - that there will be no EU reform. This is the reason why a Conservative or Labour vote is a wasted vote - unless you want Britain further under the tyrannical beauracratic and technocratic EU jackboot that is.

Apart from when she said there could be EU reform?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26362034

French don't seem keen though