peterms

Forced by what or whom? Forced by social pressure? Forced by rental prices? Forced by greed? Something else? In some areas, people who might prefer to rent find there's nothing available of an acceptable standard at the right price. While they might want to own in the longer-term, in the short term it might not be the best option. They can however find themselves first pushed out of the area where they would rather live, and second then also facing little realistic choice but to stretch themselves further than they are comfortable with in order to buy something that's not really what they wanted in the first place. This is a feature of highly pressured areas like central London, Edinburgh and others. It leads to many people becoming marginal home owners, at risk if interest rates go up, travelling further than they want to get to work. It adds to congestion, it's environmentally unsound, it's a pain for the people in question, and it adds to the amount of social and economic disruption if the economy falters. If there had been a wider choice of buying or renting, many of these people might have decided to postpone buying until they could more easily afford it in the place they want or need to live.

Real Fast Food, Nigel Slater. Quick, practical, good.

While we wait for him to show up, here's a side dish: Take some aubergines - the small, thin ones from Indian or Chinese shops, not the big fat supermarket ones. Three per person should be about right. Leaving the stem attached, cut lengthways into quarters from the end opposite the stem, leaving about a cm or so holding it together. Rub salt into aubergines, and let them stand and drain for an hour or so before washing and squeezing dry. Dry-fry some cumin seeds, coriander seeds, dried chillies, sesame seeds and dessicated coconut in a small, heavy frying pan until they smell good, but don't burn them. Set aside to cool, then whizz in a coffee grinder, or crush in a mortar and pestle. Fry chopped onions (1/2 per person) and garlic in veg oil on medium heat until slightly brown at the edges. Take off heat, add some turmeric, tamarind, salt and sugar. Return to a low heat and stir for a couple of minutes, adding a little water to let it down into a moist paste. Add the aubergines, working the paste into the cuts, adding a little more water if necessary to give it the right consistency. What's the right consistency? What you would expect to see in a restaurant dish. Put a tight-fitting lid on the pan, turn heat down as low as you can get it, and cook for an hour. Check now and again, and stir or add a little water if it looks like it might stick.

Chorizo goes really well with fish. Try chorizo lentils as a base for steamed/grilled white fish: Gently fry finely chopped onion, garlic, carrot, celery and chorizo in a little oil (not much, the chorizo will give off oil). Add Puy lentils (or black or geen ones, make sure they are ones which won't disintegrate in cooking) and turn in the oil for a few seconds Add chicken stock and bay leaf, simmer for 20 mins or so (depends on which lentils) Add salt at end, or else it makes the lentils hard and interferes with water absorption Steam/grill white fish for 4-5 mins (John Dory, monkfish, halibut, haddock are all good for this) Serve fish on bed of lentils

Tesco do a hand blender for £3.89 :shock:

It's really worth while (and easy) learning how to make your own stock. You'll have the base for so many different soups, stews, gravies and sauces. Stock cubes are just not the same. There's loads of recipes on the web. A couple of tips: Get a big deep pan with a heavy base. Boil stock very gently. Once it's made, you can take out all the bones and veg and boil it fast to reduce it down to the volume you want. Chicken is the most useful and vesatile stock. If you make fish stock, don't use oily fish bones like mackerel, herring, salmon - you want white fish heads/bones only - and wash away any blood and don't use things like the liver. Blood and liver are great for beef or lamb stocks, but not at all for fish. And don't cook the fish bones for longer than 20 minutes, because something chemical which I don't understand happens after that point, which spoils it. Don't put salt in stock - if you reduce it down later, it will concentrate the saltiness. You can add salt in later, in whatever recipe you're using the stock in. If you have a freezer, always make more than you need, and freeze the rest in poly bags, so you can just boil it up when you need it.

I thought it was rather good. Not being what you were expecting doesn't make it bad. And maybe you missed the heads-up in the first sentence. There's any number of tedious blow-by-blow factual accounts on the web, but you won't find too many thoughtful pieces like this.

The commas are good; but we could do with more semi-colons.

Great report. And I liked the commas. I expect you know that Network Rail is an anagram of "In work later".

Get off! You're always on here!

How should we react? Well, I think we were all pretty fed up at losing in that manner - everyone accepts we will lose some, but it was pretty uninspiring and clueless. Yes, it was the best away run in ten years (I'm told), but it could have ended better than that. Beyond that, the big difference I see is between the people who are really frustrated by the lack of action in the window and think we've sacrificed a golden opportunity, and those who were unhappy with the window, but think that if MON wants to play a longer game about bringing in only the right players, then he's earned the right to do that. Even if that means passing up opportunities to sign people who can do a job short-term but who aren't the long-term plan, or who might be good players but who could upset things. I think both groups share the same reaction to the defeat itself, and share the same long-term ambitions. It's the degree of acceptance of the means by which we get there that seems to differ. Unfortunately, the way in which these differences are expressed can be pretty off-putting right now. I've seen many debates conducted on this site in a far better way than some of the threads you can find at the moment. Maybe we'll all kiss and make up. Mmmmmwah!

You know, I heard Glenn Hoddle on the radio today saying he'd turned down the Southampton job because he was working on "a major project". You don't think... :shock:

Sounds like Clint Eastwood at the end of Unforgiven.

I've missed this thread until now, because I thought it was about a tv programme, and I don't watch tv. Having read it all tonight, I'd like to say thanks to everyone for the entertainment. I appreciated the approach of the strongcity crew in giving prompt, frank answers to what must often have seemed like disrespectful and baiting questions. I liked their assessment of the political situation, which seemed a lot more informed and realistic than that of many people who post on here. I also liked the engagement with adversaries. Someone (Clarry?) asked if it was a concerted effort. Clearly so, but a lot more honest and direct than eg the Labour Party or the Zionists, in that they engage directly with questioners rather than using threatening phone calls or internet intimidation. Maybe they just don't have that option, being but 48 souls, but I'm taking the charitable interpretation here. I loved the soap opera in the last few pages, and the hints of all sorts of backstories we can only guess at. As Snowy mentioned, there was a darker side starting to come out just lately. It's been a great glimpse into another world.

Much better, I thought. Less florid, more atmospheric.

Great write-up, and better quality writing than most of the professional journos who've been paid for their pieces today.

I agree the behaviour of the clearing in the woods drawing the numbers appears suspicious, like someone who's made a cock-up and knows it. But if he's so dim as to do it in the first place, how come he's also bright enough to correct it in front of cameras and millions of viewers by a) remembering exactly what he'd done wrong and exactly what he would have to do to cover it up, managing to draw another ball and conceal just enough of it to allow some doubt without making it clear that he was concealing the number, and c) doing all this in front of live tv cameras. It looks to me like the process could have been better handled. As for the conspiracy theories - don't think so. Me, I love a good conspiracy theory. Emphasise "good". What's being said here is utter bollocks. In whose interest is it to force another AV-MU game? Really, what difference will it make to viewing figures or anything else? If there was heavy betting on the outcome, that would be different. Is there evidence of this? Does it matter to us? Not at all. Personally, I think we'll stuff them. If we lose, well, we'd have to beat someone like them to win the cup anyway, so if we can't do it, better go out now than play 4 games, get 3 players injured, then go out. I really don't care about this draw. It's just a team we have to beat to go through. We had 1 chance in 92 of playing them in this round, and having played them before doesn't change this very simple fact. And not being superstitious, I really don't care about past records and results. Every game is a standing start, and we need to do well.

So, does means we'll lose 7-6 to Man Utd in the 3rd round this year, with Gabby bagging a double hat-trick? :winkold: Not them again. 6 in the cup would mean Wembley, I should think...

Great report - like the way you don't just describe the match. Sounds a good day out - wish I could have made it.

Anyone seen the Jane Bown exhibition? Decades of amazing portaits. I'm hoping to see it tomorrow. http://arts.guardian.co.uk/flash/page/0,,2176315,00.html

I don't get it?? It was this thread.

Or possibly your organs. Especially if you're still using them.

One man, one vote. Uncle Rupert, he that man.

I've been pondering that few a good few minutes since you asked the question. I definitely prefer the composition of the landscape shot but lean towards the portrait shot for the exposure, especially of the couple. What he said :nod: Exactly. If there is a correct answer then that is it Give em choice. Well, to go against the flow here, I prefer the landscape shot both for composition and exposure. I think the exposure does a lot more for the background, and makes it deeper, earthier, more mysterious. It makes the picture more interesting, taken as a whole. The portrait says "couple standing in a driveway". The landscape places them in a context where they are somehow less important in what's going on. I think that's because there's more contrast in the tones of the driveway, the hedges, so they are made more prominent. I can see that the wedding couple would prefer the picture which emphasises them rather than the setting, but just as a picture, I would go for the landscape every time. If you didn't know the couple and you were going to hang one of these on your wall, which would it be?

Contrast this with the threatening approach of Tottenham's chair, with his undermining and destructive ultimatums. Who would you rather work for? Maybe it's the long summer and the relative lack of activity that's led to this, but the absurd degree of textual analysis of every utterance coming out of VP is beyond a joke. It's like Life of Brian, but without the wit. If people can't say anything without every word being quoted back to them hundreds of times, they will increasingly become reluctant to say anything. That's in no-one's interest.