peterms

If you call peaceful protest anarchic behaviour, then I respectfully suggest you widen the horizons of your capacity for describing political action. And if you think the people employed as healthy eating advisors (how many? 20? 100? In the entire UK?) are the problem, rather than the millions of old people who can't be supported by the shrinking tax base (set to shrink further under Osborne's proposals), then you need to read a bit wider. Obviously they have no mandate, not having stood on this platform. Did you read their manifestoes? Did they mention coalition? No. It's not "bleating", it's a simple factual description of the situation. Do you disagree? If so, why? If you don't, why try to impugn it with such terms? So cold blooded murder registers less with you than legitimate political protest? Interesting set of values.

I've just read about this and was a bit puzzled too. Hasn't happened since 1949 or something like that and it would suggest that maybe they have some controversial legislation in the pipeline. I think calling it corruption is wrong because it's obviously not but the reasoning needs to be explained clearly. On another note it will be interesting to see how the coalition deals with the anarchy that Bob Crow and company seem intent on bringing to the streets in the near future. It really doesn't matter whether there's a Queens Speech or not. Me, I'd rather there wasn't another one, ever. So whether Lord Snooty and his chums play fast and loose with the British Constitution in this particular respect is really of no concern. Though I'm sure some of their further plans for constitutional improvisation will exercise me more. And Bob Crow and allies protesting against the current plans of this hotchpotch government, which didn't stand for election as a coalition and has no manifesto or mandate to act as such, is really very far removed from anarchy. It's a traditional and legal protest which is much less deserving of the description of "anarchy" than the MPs' expenses scandal, Coulson et al being buggers, or squaddies kicking people to death in a helicopter, for example.

It's a grey area, legally. The arrangement tends to be that people make a suggested contribution rather than pay a fee, and they are often BYOB. That probably deals with the food premises and alcohol licensing issues, and the stuff about public liability (what if someone swallows a knife or chokes on a courgette) probably doesn't get thought about. Will be going to one soon, and will also be doing it in the next few months.

And if you want some suggestions for what to do with those cucumbers, I have a couple. Thai pickles: Boil 750ml white vinegar with 1-2 tablespoons of sugar and 2 tsp salt and blanch veg for 1 minute. Use cucumber, carrot, cauliflower, maybe broccoli, red pepper, cabbage (add these softer veg a little after the carrots etc). Remove from heat. Blend 4 cloves garlic, 1 onion, 6 chillies (food processor or hand blender), stir-fry in large pan or wok with 250ml oil (peanut, sunflower - something plain). Add veg and syrup, stir-fry gently for 1 min (don't mash them up). Store in sterlised jar, making sure there is liquid covering all the veg. Will keep for a couple of weeks. To sterlise jars, place clean jars in oven at max 180c for 20 mins, allow to cool before using. Cucumber and poppy seed salad: Slice cucumber into 1cm thick, 3cm long chunks, thinly slice mild red chillies, mix in a bowl with chopped coriander, white wine vinegar and sunflower oil in 1:2 ratio, caster sugar, salt and pepper, and poppy seeds. Serve immediately.

Also called underground restaurants or pop-up restaurants. A restaurant which operates maybe one night a week or a month, run from someone's house, advertised only via word of mouth or Facebook, sometimes the location only given out the day before you go. It's a big thing in parts of Latin America (paladares) where they are recognised and encouraged, but increasingly in the UK, north America, Australia, Europe as a more informal, unregistered affair...

Yes, that's what I'll be doing. But good luck to the bloke.

I find the fur gets caught in my teeth. Well, the spelling indicates jokes along the lines of "by any courses necessary" or " a journey of a hundred courses starts with a single amuese-bouche", but I suppose we can't have everything. So, anyone been to one, or more impressively, run one?

Anyone here into guerrilla restauranting?

Gerald is a mouse. He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.

Roger Moore is the most pathetic apology for an actor. He can't play any role properly. His one nod towards acting is to be able to raise one eyebrow while keeping the other one still. Well, pass the Oscar. Given that his entire cinema "personality" seems to revolve around standing upright in a dj looking like a would-be lounge lizard, and trying to make bedroom eyes at any nearby female, I can see how he might possibly have passed muster on one small part of the Bond persona, accounting for about 5% of the whole. As for the rest, no chance. He's about as far removed from Bond as you can get without passing out. He was only ever selected because in that era, they were doing Bond films which were not serious. The producers would possibly call them self-referential post-ironic tributes to the genre, in a contemporary style. Fact is, they were shite. Daniel Craig is the only challenger to Connery. Moore is the Bond you would choose if you were making films for nursery schools.

The one on the left looks like he should have a string of onions around his neck and a beret.

Who he? Sounds like a made up name to me.

Some good points from Caroline Lucas once she was allowed to speak.

Agreed. Pompous is his middle name. A wanabee Tory Bigwig, and is willing to grovel to his "betters" to get there. Lickspittle politician of the worst kind. Don't know him, but is he worse than the toad Woolas? By a distance.

Milner wanted to join us. Ireland didn't. Maybe it makes no difference. But we'll see.

That was so good I read it twice. Excellent piece. Thank you.

No, but I will be cooking for 25 paying customers this Fri and Sat at the top-rated restaurant in a small provincial town...not on my own, with a proper chef to chivvy me along and bark instructions if I fall behind... :winkold:

If the gas won't go low enough, may be worth getting a heat diffuser. My gas will go low enough, but a diffuser is useful for cooking in an earthenware tagine, which I wouldn't want to have on a naked flame.

It's a lot of ingredients, but the actual work involved isn't as great as the length of the recipe would make you think. You do need to make sure you have airtight jars to store what's left over by way of spices, though. Agree with CVB's comment about liquidising garlic and ginger. You can do that in bulk, freeze in ice cube trays, then store loose in a plastic bag in the freezer. Saves lots of time next time round. One possibly lengthy thing which isn't mentioned is preparing the lamb. It says "pure lamb shoulder muscle". When I buy lamb shoulder, it can be pretty fatty, and you want to cut off the excess, and any skin, but leave enough fat to moisten the dish and add flavour (which is why a fatty joint like shoulder is better for this sort of dish than leg). I get it on the bone as well, and deboning can take a few minutes. But if you're happy to pay a butcher to do all that for you, that saves time. Half an hour is too short a time to cook this, even with the effect of having marinaded it. I do it for about an hour and a half, and it's so tender you don't need a knife to cut it. I don't do it in the oven, but on the stove. You do need to make sure it's barely simmering, though. One or two tiny bubbles every few seconds - more than that, and you need to stand over it and stir. If it's just quivering, that's perfect. Not sure about the potatoes, though. Nor the "sweat green pepper". :winkold: I would do a veggie side dish. Use up whatever's around and needs using.

That combination of reduced social housing stock and giving those who had the good fortune to get in when there were openings means that the provision doesn't go to the most needy: there are surely some number of people who got places in social housing who now have enough money (hitting a lottery/football pool, if you accept that it's impossible for people's incomes to rise) to not be living in social housing and their continued presence in social housing prevents those who are more in need from receiving the benefits. There are two possible solutions to that situation: * increase the stock of social housing * means test participation in social housing You make an important point about giving publicly-funded benefits to some people on a lottery basis. The big example of this is selling subsidised housing stock at massively subsidised prices to the occupants (right to buy). There have been a few outcomes. One is that much of the better stock is removed from public ownership (the better stuff tended to be sold first, as it was more desirable). That reduces the average quality of what's left, and over time, has increased the perception of social housing as being undesirable, where after the war it was seen as something to aspire to. That's part of the process of residualisation, driving our social housing towards a poverty/welfare model, instead of the "stable communities" quoted in the rhetoric. The social profile of social housing used to be predominantly employed people, and is now predominantly unemployed, with significant problems of illegal sub-letting, use as drug dens and so on; which further reduces its attractiveness and drives negative perceptions. A second problem has been that where the justification for right to buy was that the owners would stay there, invest in the property and lift the area through their visible civic pride, in fact they have frequently sold to people who operate private letting schemes at high rents. So the same property is housing renters, but on less secure tenancies, with less landlord attention to maintenance and management (including management of antisocial behaviour), and of course more subsidy from the public purse because of higher rents. More subsidy for less quality, with that subsidy going as unearned profit. The gains from all this have not been reinvested in public housing (RTB receipts are reinvested, but that barely covers the outstanding debt on the property - the real gains are the subsidised selling price and the high subsequent rents). The gainers have been the individuals lucky enough to have been living in a good quality, well-located house built with public subsidy, and the individuals and firms who acquire the properties to let at high rents. The losers are the rest of us.

It will be too late for some. The Labour Party accepted the Blair years, and the ideological shift they produced. They have sacrificed the values which led people to vote for them out of loyalty. As a result, many people have lost what allegiance they had to the party, and will look elsewhere for vehicles of social change. That's not necessarily a bad thing. These values are not Labour values, but social values. They are not eroded when the leader of a particular political party decides he wants to have a holiday at the villa of the most corrupt political leader in western European post-war memory, or worship at the shrine of the not-quite-dead blessed Margaret. The party is weakened, possibly irretrievably, but time will tell. The values remain.

Well, maybe there's the slight problem that we created the problem in the first place. Still, that was some time ago, probably beyond the memory of most readers on this messageboard, so no need to bother about that, eh? Any resulting political problems are the sole and total responsibility of the people living there. We're long gone.

Redknapp did a great job last season, but let's not kid ourselves Spurs had a much better squad than us last season and have been operating on a different financial basis for a while. We're not on a level with Spurs and Man City financially. That's a cold, hard fact unfortunately. That's not anybody's fault, but neither should it be used as a stick to beat O'Neill with. We're more comparable with Everton. It's a realistic comparison and one that paints us favourably, but one that doesn't suit because we want to be competing higher than Everton. This is all terribly subjective and does not constitute a good reason to sack the manager. First things last... He's a good manager and he's performing as a good manager should. An excellent manager may be able to take us from where we are into the top four within a few seasons, however, how many truly excellent managers are out there at the moment, and how many of them would be interested in being Villa manager? Essentially you're saying MON is not massively exceeding expectation at Villa, and therefore should be sacked. You're then making a huge gamble in expecting someone of a similar, if not higher calibre to come in and work miracles and get us into the top 4. What if they don't succeed in 3 seasons...? A thoughtful and intelligent post. Best delete it from this thread, then.