Britain - The Official Thread

[homeforsummer]

This just appeared on my facebook timeline.

I read it last year when it was published and found myself agreeing. I'm not anti-rich - it's hypocritical to be against something you wouldn't mind being yourself - and I generally believe that people should be free to spend money on whatever they like.

But I do agree that London is losing its cool. Its history, both recent and much older, makes it an inherently cool place, but that vibe can't survive in a place where money has pushed out the kind of people that made it what it was back in say, the 60s. It's not cool when you have to take a 45 minute tube journey to get from the dull suburb you're living in to the places you actually want to go to. It's not cool when even those dull suburbs cost twice what living in the very heart of a city like Newcastle or Leeds costs.

I like living in cities. I quite like the idea of living in London, with its history and its diverse cultures (and countercultures). But if I can't live in the heart of the city, what's the point? Give me a city like the aforementioned northern ones where you can get an apartment right in the centre for a hundred grand and pretty much fall out of your doorstep into a pub or restaurant.

Would be interested to hear the opinions of people in other countries too. Particularly the U.S. - I get the impression cities like San Francisco and New York have undergone similar cultural shifts. My old editor bought an apartment in Manhattan 30-odd years ago in his twenties - what's the likelihood of someone doing that today if they didn't work in a big finance job, for example?

 

[KSaiyu]

God yes, central is the equivalent of Stepford - replicated no doubt across the world in identikit first world cities. I just came from a night out with a twenty quid entrance fee and couldn't have had a worse time if you tried.

Thinking further even Ealing isn't safe. The Irish pub got redeveloped into a mock Alice House establishment completely killing the vibe leaving nowhere interesting to go to watch sports.

 

[Joel]

Wrong, wrong wrong. There is ALWAYS a halal option - the schools have just decided that ALL kids will have to eat this "option". Fundamental misunderstanding here.

Is this a problem? There's nothing about halal meat that makes it unsuited to non muslims. It's probably just easier and cheaper to source all of their beef and chicken from halal sources instead of going through different distributors.

Would be interested to hear the opinions of people in other countries too. Particularly the U.S. - I get the impression cities like San Franciso and New York have undergone similar cultural shifts. My old editor bought an apartment in Manhattan 30-odd years ago in his twenties - what's the likelihood of someone doing that today if they didn't work in a big finance job, for example?

In Canada it's mostly the same thing, downtown Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver are far too expensive for young people to live (especially Vancouver, the real estate market there is insanity). It's really bad in Halifax where I go to school because the bus system there is a farce. You either have to pay crazy rent to live in the city, or live in a suburb that's reasonably priced but have to pay to run a car.

And yeah, there's no way a 20 something is able to afford a Manhattan apartment without a big time finance job.

 

[Dotini]

Would be interested to hear the opinions of people in other countries too. Particularly the U.S. - I get the impression cities like San Franciso and New York have undergone similar cultural shifts. My old editor bought an apartment in Manhattan 30-odd years ago in his twenties - what's the likelihood of someone doing that today if they didn't work in a big finance job, for example?

The City of Seattle has recently undergone a rapid population growth and cultural transformation. Of the recent population increase of 150,000, only 5% had incomes between $30,000 and $130,000. I.e., the middle class is disappearing. I bought my home in '86 for $64k with a mere $3,000 down payment. Today in my Ballard neighborhood, charmless new narrow-lot homes half the size of mine are selling for $780k to Amazon people so they can live minutes from their headquarters.

 

[homeforsummer]

It's a shame. To play devil's advocate, you could say that there's a fair chance the level of crime has gone down in places like Soho and Notting Hill as they become fashionable for high-income earners and others are forced to move out. Probably cleaner too*.

But I'm sure there's a happy medium. I can't say I have first-hand experience of living in London, but I know I can't afford to live there, even though there's no benefit in terms of standard of living compared to most other cities.

It's a reason why Newcastle remains one of my favourite cities in the UK. Even when I lived at my farthest point from the centre, it was still only a 25-odd minute walk. When I lived at my closest point, it was five minutes. The nearest supermarket was about five minutes away on foot too, I had museums and historically significant bits of architecture within that distance, and about three Metro stops all within ten minutes. I never needed to get a taxi home from nights out, because I could walk. And I was living in a fairly modern two-bedroom apartment with secure parking. For probably a quarter (or less) the price a similar place in London would cost me.



* Aside from the levels of pollution considerably over European recommended figures. All other things being equal I can't imagine spending a lifetime in London is great for your lifespan.

 

[KSaiyu]

Is this a problem? There's nothing about halal meat that makes it unsuited to non muslims. It's probably just easier and cheaper to source all of their beef and chicken from halal sources instead of going through different distributors.

It is, purely on the principle that you have restricted choice. If you have concerns on eating halal, say due to ethical considerations you may want to steer clear or have your child steer clear or eating halal. Well boo hoo, you no longer have that choice because everyone is taking the easy option instead of the right option of giving a choice of both..

Result? You create community tension. All because of the short sighted opinion of "it's only a different method of slaughter".

 

[ExigeEvan]

It is, purely on the principle that you have restricted choice. If you have concerns on eating halal, say due to ethical considerations you may want to steer clear or have your child steer clear or eating halal. Well boo hoo, you no longer have that choice because everyone is taking the easy option instead of the right option of giving a choice of both..

Result? You create community tension. All because of the short sighted opinion of "it's only a different method of slaughter".

Similar to my previous post on this matter, if you're against Halal slaughter for ethical reasons, then you can always have the vegetarian option.

 

[KSaiyu]

Similar to my previous post on this matter, if you're against Halal slaughter for ethical reasons, then you can always have the vegetarian option.

Why should they?

Similarly: "If you are against the slaughter this country has been doing for centuries, find your own source of your preferentially slaughtered food".

Imagine the outcry, the protests, etc.

Instead you create a divide, and all quite pointlessly. Ignore the majority at your peril...

Here's a little back-story to my opinions. It's from 20 years ago, when the influx was really starting:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/fear-and-loathing-in-southall-1585187.html

The real problem materialises when you realise the bad, maladjusted sikhs ceiling is gang and underworld violence. The maladjusted muslims is global terrorism

 

[ExigeEvan]

Why should they?

Similarly: "If you are against the slaughter this country has been doing for centuries, find your own source of your preferentially slaughtered food".

Imagine the outcry, the protests, etc.

Instead you create a divide, and all quite pointlessly. Ignore the majority at your peril...

Here's a little back-story to my opinions. It's from 20 years ago, when the influx was really starting:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/fear-and-loathing-in-southall-1585187.html

The real problem materialises when you realise the bad, maladjusted sikhs ceiling is gang and underworld violence. The maladjusted muslims is global terrorism

Because it's not a perfect world, and one side of the extremes needs to compromise, because neither makes much sense.

One side only eats meat that's been killed in a less-than-ideal method of slaughter, because religion tells them too.

The other doesn't like eat meat that's taken 2 minutes longer to die than ideal slaughter methods, but overlooks a lifetime of poor living conditions in battery cages and factory farms.

Lentils for all.

 

[KSaiyu]

The option of "put up or shut up" is making it less like a perfect world.

My last tutee, I had no interaction at all with the parent. Presumably she thought I would be overcome by her beauty and wish to ravage her so she hid upstairs whilst I taught GCSE level science. What possible hope of integration will she ever have.

If we feed segregation, don't cry at the results and don't even try to blame it "on a few extremists". This is our own making unfortunately.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Similar to my previous post on this matter, if you're against Halal slaughter for ethical reasons, then you can always have the vegetarian option.

To me, this reads as;

When Muslims complain about food being non-halal, we should change the food to halal. When non Muslims complain about food being halal, they should just go and have vegetarian instead.

 

[Joel]

To me, this reads as;

When Muslims complain about food being non-halal, we should change the food to halal. When non Muslims complain about food being halal, they should just go and have vegetarian instead.

Well yeah, the point being that there's nothing about halal meat which makes it a problem for non Muslims. I also find it pretty dubious that someone could have honest ethical issues with halal food but not "normal" factory farmed food.

 

[KSaiyu]

Well yeah, the point being that there's nothing about halal meat which makes it a problem for non Muslims. I also find it pretty dubious that someone could have honest ethical issues with halal food but not "normal" factory farmed food.

Ooooh I like this line of thought:

"There's nothing harmful about having no music lessons in class - let's scrap that for everyone"
"There's nothing bad about mixed sex PE, let's get rid of that"
"There's nought wrong with segregated classes for all, let's remove that next"
"What's the harm in not teaching about Remembrance Day any more and Christmas"

Congratulations! Welcome to your ghetto in 10-20 years time.

"Oh, we never saw that coming..."

 

[ExigeEvan]

To me, this reads as;

When Muslims complain about food being non-halal, we should change the food to halal. When non Muslims complain about food being halal, they should just go and have vegetarian instead.

I'm happy for the logic to be applied both ways. Neither pro-halal or anti-halal have a valid argument in my opinion.

As I said, see my previous post:
Britain - The Official Thread

 

[KSaiyu]

I'm reminded of the altercation I had after refusing to hand someone my phone so he could call his solicitor (I offered to send only a text):

"You're afraid. Islam is taking over!"

I didn't reply because the station was pretty packed (no-one berating him of course) but I should have said: "You're not wrong mate"

 

[Spurgy 777]

Well yeah, the point being that there's nothing about halal meat which makes it a problem for non Muslims. I also find it pretty dubious that someone could have honest ethical issues with halal food but not "normal" factory farmed food.

I have a problem with the main reasoning behind a method of slaughter being religious, especially considering they don't necessarily even have to be stunned, assuming I'm reading this article correctly;

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...out-religious-slaughter-answered-9331519.html

Or this one;

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27324224

Also, why can you not have ethical issues with both halal meat and factory farmed food? It seems like you're making the ridiculous assumption that all non halal meat is factory farmed and no halal meat is.

 

[Joel]

"There's nothing harmful about having no music lessons in class - let's scrap that for everyone"
"There's nothing bad about mixed sex PE, let's get rid of that"
"There's nought wrong with segregated classes for all, let's remove that next"
"What's the harm in not teaching about Remembrance Day any more and Christmas"

Is this happening in the UK? When I was in school I had music class in elementary school and in high school I had to take an arts course and then it was optional. There's nothing wrong with mixed sex PE, is the UK removing that? Because that's not happening in Canada. Public schools should teach about religious holidays, but should be secular. I had Remembrance Day stuff at school every year. Have they stopped covering it in the UK? You seem to be talking about this stuff as if it's inherent to living peacefully with muslims when that's not been my experience in life at all. Canadian public schools don't celebrate Christmas, or any other religious holiday, they're secular.

I object to you saying that's my line of reasoning. I said non muslims shouldn't really have a problem with eating Halal meat if they're ok with conventional factory farming and then you went off on this bizarre tangent that Halal meat leads to segregated classrooms and ghettos and I'd be complicit with that. It's ridiculous.

I have a problem with the main reasoning behind a method of slaughter being religious, especially considering they don't necessarily even have to be stunned, assuming I'm reading this article correctly;

Why does it matter if the main reasoning behind a method of slaughter is religious?

And when it comes to stunning I think this part is relevant:

UK Food Standards Agency figures from 2011 suggest 84% of cattle, 81% of sheep and 88% of chickens slaughtered for halal meat were stunned before they died.

The main difference is the extra step, conventional meat producers stun the animals to kill them, while halal producers kill the animal by cutting their throat and bless the meat. Conventional slaughterhouses using stun guns isn't because of a tradition, it's just because it's the cheapest and most efficient humane method for a large industrial slaughterhouse.

Similarly: "If you are against the slaughter this country has been doing for centuries, find your own source of your preferentially slaughtered food".

In the past any English farmer would have essentially used the halal method (cutting the animal's throat) save for blessing the meat, it's not as if western factory slaughterhouses are a Christian tradition that's being supplanted by Halal, it's just a practice that mostly arose out of efficiency. And we certainly haven't been using stun guns to slaughter factory farmed meat for centuries.

Also, why can you not have ethical issues with both halal meat and factory farmed food? It seems like you're making the ridiculous assumption that all non halal meat is factory farmed and no halal meat is.

No, that's not the assumption I'm making. This discussion is about school cafeterias, right? Places where efficiency, low cost, and purchasing in bulk are the norm. School cafeterias aren't serving free range, grass fed beef. I'm making the practical assumption that a school which stops serving halal meat will be serving conventional factory farmed meat. Ethical concerns about halal meat seems like a pretty silly hangup to me when the alternative is meat that's raised in the exact same way but is slaughtered in a slightly different manner (and usually raised and slaughtered in the same facilities), and nearly all animals slaughtered for halal beef are stunned before being slaughtered.

We can talk about getting that 81-88% stunned animals to 100% and I would support that (and apparently that's the law in Denmark), but that's kinda tangential to the main discussion here. I just have a hard time seeing ethical concerns with halal meat as a reasonable justification to be against serving it when the practical alternative is meat that comes from the same place but gets killed with a slightly stronger stun gun. That's perhaps a bit of a false dichotomy, but practically speaking schools can't really afford free range or more ethically raised meat.

 

[KSaiyu]

Is this happening in the UK? When I was in school I had music class in elementary school and in high school I had to take an arts course and then it was optional. There's nothing wrong with mixed sex PE, is the UK removing that? Because that's not happening in Canada. Public schools should teach about religious holidays, but should be secular. I had Remembrance Day stuff at school every year. Have they stopped covering it in the UK? You seem to be talking about this stuff as if it's inherent to living peacefully with muslims when that's not been my experience in life at all. Canadian public schools don't celebrate Christmas, or any other religious holiday, they're secular.

Schools in the UK, yes. We had quite a few in Birmingham, I've brought it up here before.

In the past any English farmer would have essentially used the halal method (cutting the animal's throat) save for blessing the meat, it's not as if western factory slaughterhouses are a Christian tradition that's being supplanted by Halal, it's just a practice that mostly arose out of efficiency. And we certainly haven't been using stun guns to slaughter factory farmed meat for centuries.

Yes.

In the past.

 

[Joel]

Schools in the UK, yes. We had quite a few in Birmingham, I've brought it up here before.

Schools in the UK doing what?

Yes.

In the past.

Well you just talked about conventional farming as the method we've used "for centuries". The irony being that the halal method of slaughtering is more in line with what has been done traditionally since...agriculture. Do you believe that modern factory farming and killing with a stun gun arose out of tradition? It's the cheapest way to humanely slaughter lots of animals at a time, it's not some cultural tradition of western society. If we come up with a more efficient method that's what we'll use.

I grew up in a rural part of Canada and I had lots of white, protestant friends of German or English descent who lived on farms. How do you think they would slaughter their chickens? How do you think the local butcher (a white protestant guy) slaughters the cattle he brings in? I can tell you it certainly isn't with a stun gun.

 

[KSaiyu]

Schools in the UK doing what?

Look up Operation Trojan Horse.

Well you just talked about conventional farming as the method we've used "for centuries". The irony being that the halal method of slaughtering is more in line with what has been done traditionally since...agriculture. Do you believe that modern factory farming and killing with a stun gun arose out of tradition? It's the cheapest way to humanely slaughter lots of animals at a time, it's not some cultural tradition of western society. If we come up with a more efficient method that's what we'll use.

Except the English moved on from the traditional way, believing that, as you yourself said it was more humane to stun the animals. This is where English civilisation was comfortable - we haven't yet had a collective drive to improve global animal standards whilst they're alive but that doesn't discount the fact that we arrived at a point where the majority wanted their animals stunned at slaughter.

This is still ignoring the fact that everyone's meat at schools or butchers in certain areas is being blessed by the religion that is being warped by militants in the middle east and Africa, and you assume everyone should just be comfortable with that because "what's the big problem".

I don't care if my meat is halal or not, but you're sounding awfully restrictive by denying people a choice in the first place.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Why does it matter if the main reasoning behind a method of slaughter is religious?

Because I would rather the main reasoning behind the method of slaughter be that it minimises the suffering of the animal, than pleasing some sky fairy.

And when it comes to stunning I think this part is relevant:

​

The main difference is the extra step, conventional meat producers stun the animals to kill them, while halal producers kill the animal by cutting their throat and bless the meat. Conventional slaughterhouses using stun guns isn't because of a tradition, it's just because it's the cheapest and most efficient humane method for a large industrial slaughterhouse.

Erm, ok? I don't know how stating the obvious is relevant, as I haven't said anything contrary to everything in the above quote.

In the past any English farmer would have essentially used the halal method save for blessing the meat, it's not as if western factory slaughterhouses are a Christian tradition that's being supplanted by Halal.

Again, why does this have any relevance to anything I'm saying? And what makes you think I care about Christian tradition?

No, that's not the assumption I'm making. This discussion is about school cafeterias, right? Places where efficiency, low cost, and purchasing in bulk are the norm. School cafeterias aren't serving free range, grass fed beef. Practically speaking this is about mass produced conventional meat compared to mass produced halal meat. Ethical concerns about halal meat seems like a pretty silly hangup to me when the alternative is meat that's raised in the exact same way but is slaughtered in a slightly different manner (and usually raised and slaughtered in the same facilities), and nearly all animals slaughtered for halal beef are stunned before being slaughtered.

Again, why can't you have ethical issues with both? You seem to think that anyone with ethical issues with halal is incapable of having ethical issues with factory farming.

We can talk about getting that 81-88% stunned animals to 100% and I would support that (and apparently that's the law in Denmark), but that's kinda tangential to the main discussion here. I just have a hard time seeing ethical concerns with halal meat as a reasonable justification to be against serving it when the practical alternative is meat that comes from the same place but gets killed with a slightly stronger stun gun. That's perhaps a bit of a false dichotomy, but practically speaking schools can't really afford free range or more ethically raised meat.

So because there's bigger issues then why bother complaining? Quite ridiculous reasoning, especially when you take a step back and realise you're fine with people complaining for religious reasons, but not for ethical reasons!

 

[MatskiMonk]

If they showed kids how their meat is killed, in either case, I'm pretty sure less kids would want to eat it.

 

[Lizard]

Because I would rather

Exactly. Because it doesn't fit your view.
Just because someone has different beliefs doesn't mean they should be ignored.

 

[Famine]

Exactly. Because it doesn't fit your view.
Just because someone has different beliefs doesn't mean they should be ignored.

Beliefs should always be ignored for any kind of policy or law decision outside of those that govern institutions founded on belief.

 

[DK]

Would be interested to hear the opinions of people in other countries too. Particularly the U.S. - I get the impression cities like San Francisco and New York have undergone similar cultural shifts. My old editor bought an apartment in Manhattan 30-odd years ago in his twenties - what's the likelihood of someone doing that today if they didn't work in a big finance job, for example?

My Dad spent a couple of years working as a mechanic (specialising in panel repair) in London lately, and £70 a week was only enough to pay for lodgings in a 85-year-old Kerry woman's apartment. In Birmingham on the other hand, £300 a month is enough for his own apartment.

I was looking for work placements on Gradcracker and they had some positions paying ~£18-21k in London - I have a bad feeling half of that would need to cover rent.

 

[Lizard]

Beliefs should always be ignored for any kind of policy or law decision outside of those that govern institutions founded on belief.

Oh look at that. The liberals are starting to accept that you sometimes need to restrict freedoms because freedoms conflict.

 

[Famine]

Oh look at that. The liberals are starting to accept that you sometimes need to restrict freedoms because freedoms conflict.

I'm not a liberal and I didn't say that freedoms need to be restricted nor that they conflict - in fact I said exactly the opposite of that.


As soon as you make laws or policy based on belief, you restrict freedoms - the freedoms of people who don't believe what you do.

 

[Joel]

Except the English moved on from the traditional way, believing that, as you yourself said it was more humane to stun the animals.

Owners of factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses did, believing that, as I said myself, it was more efficient and better for the bottom line. I didn't say that it was more humane to stun the animals, I said stunning is currently the most efficient way to slaughter animals humanely. And again, animals killed by the halal method are 81-88% of the time stunned before being slaughtered, and 100% of the time in Denmark. It's not like we're letting people side step animal cruelty laws and subject animals to excruciating pain.

This is still ignoring the fact that everyone's meat at schools or butchers in certain areas is being blessed by the religion that is being warped by militants in the middle east and Africa, and you assume everyone should just be comfortable with that because "what's the big problem".

I don't care if my meat is halal or not, but you're sounding awfully restrictive by denying people a choice in the first place.

I guess I'm a bad libertarian. I just don't think it's worth bothering to have minimum wage cafeteria employees deal with two different types of beef/chicken and go through all the trouble when it's completely reasonable for non muslims to just eat halal meat.

I don't agree with public schools in the first place so ideally this wouldn't be an issue because you could choose whatever school that served whatever variety of food you wanted. I just don't get the outcry about halal meat.

Because I would rather the main reasoning behind the method of slaughter be that it minimises the suffering of the animal, than pleasing some sky fairy.

They're not mutually exclusive. If you're willing to call a god a sky fairy I'd assume that religion doesn't really matter too much to you, so I'd ask why you care whether or not it's blessed to a sky fairy. We've already established that meat being blessed and humanely slaughtered isn't mutually exclusive.

Erm, ok? I don't know how stating the obvious is relevant, as I haven't said anything contrary to everything in the above quote.

Sorry, must have got some of your posts mixed up. I don't know if it's really stating the obvious though, people seem to believe that there's a "British/western" way of slaughtering animals that we've thrown out for Halal which just isn't true. It matters because people are framing it as "yet another" case where we're throwing our culture away for Islam.

Again, why can't you have ethical issues with both? You seem to think that anyone with ethical issues with halal is incapable of having ethical issues with factory farming. So because there's bigger issues then why bother complaining? Quite ridiculous reasoning,

I never said you can't have issues with both. Complaining about specifically the ethical issues of halal meat is at best misguided. Complain about whatever the hell you want but I don't really think it's reasonable. We're talking about a very low percentage of animals that aren't stunned before being slaughtered, it's not as if there's a flagrant disregard for the laws to pander to Islam.

especially when you take a step back and realise you're fine with people complaining for religious reasons, but not for ethical reasons!

I'm fine with people asking to have meat available that's in accordance with the core of their religious beliefs. I know we're all atheists on GTP but I don't think it's really a big deal to serve halal meat to respect an aspect of religious belief. I'm fine with people having ethical issues with farming/slaughtering practices (or whatever, complain about whatever you want). I don't think it's reasonable to have a problem with the ethics of specifically halal meat, and when we're talking about school cafeterias they've gone from serving conventionally produced meat to conventionally produced halal meat. The reason I'm comparing the two is because the change over to halal meat is what's being complained about, not the ethics of factory farmed meat.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Exactly. Because it doesn't fit your view.
Just because someone has different beliefs doesn't mean they should be ignored.

I was responding to Noob after he said that non-Muslims shouldn't have a problem with halal meat, I was explaining why they might using my own opinion as an example. I wasn't saying that halal meat should be banned from schools because I disagree with it, those are two completely different things, and I'm not sure how you can confuse the two.

 

[squadops]

Where are the atheists on this? I know there isn't exactly separation of church and state in the U.K. but I frequently see complaints here about god being crammed down one's throat, and now, it literally is being crammed down your children's throat.

If a supplier's majority of meat is halal slaughtered can they label a percentage of it 'halal' and the rest simply meat? I'm guessing many don't know they are consuming it and probably don't really care.

Some numbers and such http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/may/08/why-does-supply-halal-meat-outstrip-demand