Discussion in 'Beginners Corner' started by DougKenline, May 4, 2018.
The answer is Lancashire, it makes him put you on ignore.
If Cornwall/Lancashire/Yorkshire was so great they would've put Stonehenge there
They have henges in Cornwall! I used to parachute over Stonehenge ( and ride a horse around it) in the days when you could just wander up to it and it was free to look at. Used to be stationed up the road at RAF Upavon, spent 3 great years there. Wiltshire is one of the places we couldn't afford to move to.
Been a few years since it was called RAF Upavon
Drove past it on Monday between jobs as it happens...
And yes, it's not a cheap place for housing around here - apparently it's because we're ideally situated in the commuter belt for London (yeah, if you don't mind a 3+ hour each way commute...)
Well you need to stop sitting on the fence and state a firm position so I can tell why your wrong( again)
Certainly has, an awful shame because the army ruins everything. it's Trenchard Lines now but at least the Trenchard bit gives it an RAF memory.
Seeing as we are well off topic I might as well go a little further lol. RAF Upavon was a First World War airfield started in 1912, the first military flying school. In 1917 it was a air fighting school' a new concept then. It was also where they invented bomb sights. It is a place of ghosts, not ones who died there but of history. Likewise Larkhill, now a big army camp but before Upavon was built was the first military airfield and where much of the pioneering work was done to set up military aviation. Two hangars from 1910 still exist there as well as memorials to pilots killed in flying accidents and in war.
Yes I'm an RAF enthusiast! RAF Upavon is rightly thought of as the birthplace of the RAF which of course is 100 years old this year.
Now if anyone wants to know more please pm lol, taken up enough room here but it's more interesting that the OP who resorted to insults on the last thread he did about starving himself.
Your strawmen are the problem. I never said it was entirely genetic, nor that genetics weren't a factor. No fence-sitting needed - just a basic understanding of facts.
First, the disclaimer. I'm not a nutritionist or a scientist. I have to trust what seem to be credible sources for information, and I asked my daughter who is studying bio-chemistry and knows some stuff (but is also not an expert).
Dimethylpolysiloxane is not good for you. I'm pretty well convinced. According to drugs.com, (Dimethylpolysiloxane (Inactive Ingredient) - Drugs.com), "is a silicon-based polymer used as a lubricant and conditioning agent. It functions as an anti-foaming agent, skin conditioning agent, occlusive and skin protectant. It is found in many cosmetic and hygiene products like nail polish, conditioners, make-up, contact lens solutions, sunscreens, deodorants, and shampoo. Examples of products that contain dimethicone include Aveeno Moisturizing Lotion and Johnson's Baby Cream."
According to several sources, it breaks down into formaldehyde, which is a known carcinogen.
TBHQ: tert-Butylhydroquinone (TBHQ, tertiary butylhydroquinone) is an aromatic organic compound which is a type of phenol. It is a derivative of hydroquinone, substituted with a tert-butyl group. There is evidence that TBHQ causes cancer, and some folks seem to think it can exacerbate ADHD symptoms. Jury seems to be out on this one. This is an interesting discussion: TBHQ (Mixed feelings)
Hydrogenated soybean oil - so, it appears that this is bad for you, but not as bad as partially hydrogenated oils. I invite you to go down the google rabbit hole, if you want. But the conclusion I came to is that this is essentially linked to high LDL cholestoral, obesity and heart problems, but not as bad as when they used transfats.
For what it's worth, I think there is shared blame. While we all know that some foods are bad for us, it's not always clear HOW bad things are. For example, I was BLOWN AWAY when I read the nutritional information for some Starbucks drinks. Also, foods are often marketed as being healthy alternatives, but are really as bad, or sometimes even worse, for your health.
In the USA, there are also clear links between income and diet. Here is one example. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/123315/2/liu - current.pdf
Just kidding. I wish we had universal health care, and it's stupid that we don't.
Well income effects diet, I haven't had lobster th Theodore for ages.
But it's a slightly more complex issue than , not enough money, in the uk at least, is considerably cheaper to buy and consume fresh wholesome foods than it is to live of processed food, I mean massively so, organic food is more expensive, but still considerably Less expensive than living off take aways, which is what a lot of " poor" people do.
So there has to be a faR bigger issue than disposable income.
As I said above I can easily live of 2 pounds a day and eat fresh meat, vegs,and bread. Cerial and lots of miOk , milk is ridiculous cheap,
Perhaps the issue is One of education and motivation, a lack of which is quite possibly as major factor in them being poor in the first place, it's almost as if a whole generation forgot how to prepare and cook meals?, if they can't Bang it in the microwave for 5 mins they don't eat it
You’re contrasting fresh foods with take-away. That’s not the issue. No, most poor people aren’t living off take-away. They don’t have the money for that.
In fact it's considerably cheaper to feed my dog on fresh chicken And brown rice, than dog food, I can buy 6kg of Chicken for 10 Quid and enough rice o last last 6 months for 2quid
Well yes they are here, poor people with kids Arntt poor by any normal use of the word, with social security And tax credits,.The bill for a MacDonald for a family of four , would feed the same family for a week,,,, if you are fat enough they will give you a free car
But anyway, that comparison was between organic food and takexaways, fresh food is much cheaper than processed packages food And that's an indisputable fact
Even buying decent dog food, that’s not the case here. A 30-lb bag of decent dog food is about $1 a lb. and feeds longer than $30 of chicken and rice.
Yep let's blame the poor shall we. A very Tory opinion.
Our government is pushing austerity and austerity is what we are getting, cuts in everything.
"3. The problems of the poor
Poverty is not a problem of the behaviour of poor people – although poor people do act differently because they are poor. It is not because poor people have too many children. It is not the result of racial differences.
The government believes there is a large hard core of persistently poor people, that poverty is long term and that it is passed from generation to generation. This is not consistent with the evidence. People move through dependency, and most poverty is temporary. Poor people do not stay in poverty indefinitely" https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/catalystaugust2002.pdf
"The majority of those struggling and living in poverty are in work; they are not avoiding healthy food because they prefer junk; they are not avoiding broccoli because they’re too stupid to cook it. This problem has very little to do with a fabled “working-class mentality”. Poor people are not obese because they are lazy, or simply because they eat too much (although some do), rather because the price of good wholesome food is beyond their financial reach.
Weekly, I have to feed six to seven people three meals a day. I do it on about £50 a week, sometimes £65, sometimes less than £30. It all depends what I have left in the bank after I have paid everything I need to pay."
" Our meals are simple, often plain, but they fill us up. They are, in the main, healthy, but I can’t pretend vegetables don’t cost more to put on the plate. There are many times they get left off entirely; they are an addition – a luxury item – we have to forgo if we are going to eat at all."
"The only thing stopping me from cooking wonderful meals packed full of vegetables and healthy things is cost. I can cook, so can all of my children. I can’t afford to cook as I wish to do. It’s a big difference, and one we need to address, rather than assuming the “poor” occupy another planet. We live in the same world and we don’t think in a different gear, but we do face an unsettling reality of not having a spare 60p to buy a cabbage – an addition to a plate which, while good for us, will not fill a stomach like potatoes or rice.
Value brands are the order of the day – not fast food (have you seen the price of a pizza or a kebab? I can’t afford that!) – but things that cost little in energy usage, and can be cooked in an oven in 25 minutes. Stuff I know will be eaten. Risk-free food I know won’t end up in the bin. When I have just £2 in my pocket, it’s not the time to experiment and find out whether my 13-year-old would appreciate a quinoa-and-aubergine bake."
I can’t afford to take risks with food, because there is literally nothing else to offer if the new food is disliked. Children in poverty aren’t fighting obesity because of a lack of willpower (although it can be a factor, just as it is with those who are middle class), but because the only foods their families can afford are often filled with bad things.
Good food, and being able to afford to cook it, is the domain of the wealthy. To say families should cook chickpea stews or slow-cook over a long period, which will cost more, is patronising in the extreme. It discounts the very real factors that prevent healthy diets. From energy costs to a lack of cooking facilities, from education to simple risks that cannot be taken, there’s more at play than the poor not having the same logic as the perceived middle class.
It’s not a class problem. It’s a financial problem. We all want the best for our children. We just need to be able to afford to put the building blocks in place.
Jamie Oliver is right, for poor people putting food on the table trumps diet | Kathleen Kerridge
"Perhaps one of the reasons the British public is willing to ignore such dizzying poverty in the UK is the widespread belief that the poor are doing just fine. There’s the Shameless impression of people on benefits as having massive families, smoking, drinking and doing nothing to find work. It’s an image fed by TV programmes such as On Benefits, Benefits Street and Breadline Brummies."
A study published last year by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation showed that more than 1.2m people, including 312,000 children, could have been considered destitute in the previous year.
The organisation defined such destitution as being unable to afford the essentials such as buying food, staying warm and dry, and keeping clean. "
Benefit sanctions are increasing hunger and depression
Exposing benefit ‘myths’ | Poverty and Social Exclusion
However a poster who goes in a miff because I suggested somewhere in Lancashire would suit him better than somewhere in Yorkshire ( he lives in Lancashire) and puts me on ignore telling me I'm a horrible person, isn't going to be persuaded by facts.
Cheap beef is cheaper than good beef, and generally much fattier. Start from that. Not all fresh food is the same. You WANT it all to be about bad choices. You can’t just ignore fact to make that true. I mean, you will, but it still won’t be true.
Bollocks, typical Tory talk.
Tax credits have been cut, most poor people aren't on benefits and no one gives you a free car. Stop believing the Daily Mail and Piers Morgan and Niggle Farage, it's just plain lies.
Separate names with a comma.