ForumGarden

spot;1375298 wrote: Anyone calling himself randy69er666 is better off out of circulation. What a gimboid. Agreed.

oscar;1375297 wrote: Cobblers old boy.

Consuming or throwing away an already killed beast Is still creating a demand simply because someone somewhere knows that animal has been used, albiet by a variety of reasons. If there Is usage, this tells the farmer and the supermarket that there Is usage and warrants the need to produce more.Keep going - in what way have I caused "usage" where otherwise there would have been no "usage"? What have I done that has led any farmer to change his herd count if you multiply the effect by your million? I agree that the purchase of the meat stimulated future breeding, but nothing I did or didn't do affected any meat purchase.

spot;1375301 wrote: Keep going - in what way have I caused "usage" where otherwise there would have been no "usage"? What have I done that has led any farmer to change his herd count if you multiply the effect by your million? I agree that the purchase of the meat stimulated future breeding, but nothing I did or didn't do affected any meat purchase.


You are taking your modest consumption to be meaningless within the grand scale of breeding livestock for human consumption. You are totally wrong In assuming that because the animal has already been killed, It Is Inconsequential.

If the producer of the animal that has already been killed knew that not one single member of the population would eat It or throw It away or use It as a By product, there would be little sense In breeding that animal In the first place.

oscar;1375302 wrote: You are taking your modest consumption to be meaningless within the grand scale of breeding livestock for human consumption. You are totally wrong In assuming that because the animal has already been killed, It Is Inconsequential.

If the producer of the animal that has already been killed knew that not one single member of the population would eat It or throw It away or use It as a By product, there would be little sense In breeding that animal In the first place.
I've often noticed you're incapable of reading what's been written. There's little point going any further.

spot;1375303 wrote: I've often noticed you're incapable of reading what's been written. There's little point going any further. I quite agree Spotty.

If you can not grasp the very basics of supply and demand, there Is no point continuing.

Oh dear another of them meandering off topic bitching type threads.......that make me uncomfortable.........can't believe I am the only one either.

Anyway........... while I am here......and taking up the "I will eat it if it's put in front of me, but I won't buy it" offshoot of the main topic from Spot.....may I ask Spot a few questions ?

Would you happily eat wild animals, and be willing to hunt and butcher them ?

Are you a vegetarian or not ?

Or is your reluctance to eat meat, based on domesticated breeding of animals ?

Is your stance not like someone who receives stolen goods, but frowns on the stealing process ?

Bruv;1375360 wrote: Oh dear another of them meandering off topic bitching type threads.......that make me uncomfortable.........can't believe I am the only one either.

Anyway........... while I am here......and taking up the "I will eat it if it's put in front of me, but I won't buy it" offshoot of the main topic from Spot.....may I ask Spot a few questions ?

Would you happily eat wild animals, and be willing to hunt and butcher them ?One needs to decide where to draw a line, and the drawn line is invariably arbitrary. Some people would eat people were it legal. Some would say lord no, eating people is wrong, and eat chimpanzees instead or maybe gorillas. Some would exclude primates and happily eat zebra or pig. Some might exclude mammals but eat hens or the component bits of larks. My own line, arbitrarily drawn, is that I'd not cause the death of any multicellular organism. I'll happily cause the death of vat-created yeasts by the million or plankton if they're factory-grown but I'm as ethically conflicted at eating a carrot as I would be to eat prime beef.

Now, that leaves me with a problem because so far the yeast and plankton industries are incapable of keeping me alive for years on end, which bring other ethical concerns into play like staying alive and healthy. So I compromise. I distinguish between animal and vegetable and shun the former but not the latter. And, as I say, I opportunistically eat commonplace domesticated meats when doing so doesn't provoke additional commercial farming.

As for wild animals, you're presumably chiefly talking about wild mammals and birds. I think I wrote earlier in the thread that I'd applaud a recognition of their individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I most certainly wouldn't eat one any more than I'd eat a dolphin, a lemur or a week-old harp seal cub fresh from the breeding grounds.

Are you a vegetarian or not ?No, I just have ethical objections to harming wildlife. Commercial farming harms wildlife.

Or is your reluctance to eat meat, based on domesticated breeding of animals ?The breeding of domesticated animals harms the interests of wildlife. Show me a wild cow[1] that has no domesticated genetic component, for instance. Estimate for me the remaining number of genetically untainted wildcats in the world. Beyond genetic pollution there's the rather more vital lack of wilderness in which wildlife might live happy lives. Show me a world where 90% of currently commercially exploited land[2] has been redesignated for the use of wildlife and I'll be moderately content.

Is your stance not like someone who receives stolen goods, but frowns on the stealing process ?No, it's more like that of a scavenger. The fact that oscar can't read accurately doesn't mean nobody else is able to - go back and check.





[1] For clarity, I have no objection to this word "cow" being interpreted here as either the genus Bos or the subfamily Bovinae. What I do not mean by it is simply "domesticated cattle".

[2] As for the seas, commercial exploitation is completely out of the question. Trawling, harpooning, dynamiting, it's all equally prohibited in my book. The collection of shellfish and crustaceans in hand-wove wicker baskets, that's fine by me, but stop killing fish. If anyone can think of a way to eat a cast-ashore jellyfish they can have that too if they fancy it. Fish, on the other hand, should be unequivocally protected and off the menu. Submarines and noisy-propelled surface craft are banned too, while I'm at it.

I am terribly conflicted about consuming meat, you've added some clarity for me. My problem is that being carbohydrate sensitive, the only way I have to hold that in check is to eat a certain amount of protein, otherwise I begin to crave sweets and carbohydrates like you wouldn't believe. Tofu is about the only non-meat that has a descent amount of protein , but it's loaded with other ingredients that negate the benefits of the protein. Chicken and eggs are the best sources for protein. Any suggestions?

This is very much the beginning of a transitional period in recognizing animal rights. I'd have thought, while all this commercial production's going on, and while the state of alternatives is in its early stages, that choosing to eat meat to counter medical conditions like that would be reasonable.

Sorry for dis-railing this thread but.......



Mixing several threads right now in my mind and seeing some gaping paradoxes in Spots over engineered over analysed position.

My summation would be, that people can be far far too clever.

I wish I was clever enough to draw these paradoxical statements from several threads together, or even clever enough to describe adequately the paradoxes in this very thread.........not convinced paradox is the correct word.......glad I am not too clever though, saves a lot of angst.......if angst is the right word.

Bruv;1375396 wrote: not convinced paradox is the correct word.......I'm not convinced either. I think you're trying to say I've expressed an internal inconsistency along the lines of "both A is true and B is true" but they can't both be because A can only be true if B is false.

What two statements have I made across all these mixed several threads you're thinking about that can't both be true at the same time? That would be a good start.

spot;1375395 wrote: This is very much the beginning of a transitional period in recognizing animal rights. I'd have thought, while all this commercial production's going on, and while the state of alternatives is in its early stages, that choosing to eat meat to counter medical conditions like that would be reasonable.That's what i keep telling myself. I wish I didn't have to choose between my own comfort and survival and my ethics in the 21st century.

Ahso!;1375393 wrote: I am terribly conflicted about consuming meat, you've added some clarity for me. My problem is that being carbohydrate sensitive, the only way I have to hold that in check is to eat a certain amount of protein, otherwise I begin to crave sweets and carbohydrates like you wouldn't believe. Tofu is about the only non-meat that has a descent amount of protein , but it's loaded with other ingredients that negate the benefits of the protein. Chicken and eggs are the best sources for protein. Any suggestions?Worms...

oscar;1375212 wrote: Hunt for yob seen on CCTV swinging cat around by its tail in street - mirror.co.uk

There are two reasons I have posted this story.

1) There Is a hunt for this yob and I hope they find him.

This Is the very reason I would not dream of leaving my cat out In the street even In the evenings. I don't even let my cat out of our garden and due to good fencing, he can't get over It to get Into the road.

As my cat Is pedigree, I also have a device on my gate that lets me know If anyone attempts to open It to get to him.... That's If they get past the dogs first.

I also have cctv camera's on the outside of my home.

A lot of precautions you may think but I would rather that than have my cat fall Into the hands of some arssewipe as In the article.

2) I recently posted a thread about animal abuse and Spot seemed to think that It was obscene that priority seemed to go to animals over humans.

As gmc rightly said In that thread, many animal abusers go on to abuse humans and what are the chances this piece of crap does the same?


If I caught this guy (or knew who he was), I would of grabbed him by his nuts and swung him around. See how he would of liked it!

But anyway my 4 cats (Stewie, Dumpling, Polly and Sybil) do NOT (no Never) leave the house. They are strictly indoor cats.

We bought a fairly large house last year (also for them) and bought 2 Giant Cat trees (biggest we could find). They seem very happy as indoor cats.

Where ever I am (at work or at the shops) I know my baby's are safe at home.

spot;1375398 wrote: I'm not convinced either. I think you're trying to say I've expressed an internal inconsistency along the lines of "both A is true and B is true" but they can't both be because A can only be true if B is false.

What two statements have I made across all these mixed several threads you're thinking about that can't both be true at the same time? That would be a good start.
Paradox's aside, It beats me why you can not answer Bruv's question of which he put a reasonable analogy to you.

Would you receive stolen goods on the basis that It was Inconsequential due to the fact that they were already stolen? This Is In line with your statement that you eat domesticated animals If the animal was already. dead.

If It is such that your morals would not allow to receive stolen goods, then this smacks of hypocrisy.

For an example, I eat meat and domesticate livestock however, I do not, never have and never will eat any animal domesticated or wild animal that has been subject of a hunt because I am anti-hunt. If I am a guest at a house where a pheseant from the spoils of the hunt was put In front of me,

I would not think, 'oh well, It's already dead, so I'll eat It now It's here'.

With the courage of my beliefs, I would stand true to those beliefs and refuse the pheseant and settle for a plate of vegetables If nothing else was on offer.

There-fore Spot, If you were a man of your word and true to your beliefs, you would refuse the meat offered to you based on your beliefs. Stating you would only eat It because It was out In front of you, Is a cop out.

You either believe In the eradication of domestic livestock for human consumption or you don't.

oscar;1375423 wrote: Paradox's aside, It beats me why you can not answer Bruv's question of which he put a reasonable analogy to you.I refer the honourable member to the reply I gave a short while ago.

Regarding "You either believe In the eradication of domestic livestock for human consumption or you don't", you're mistaken. I have no beliefs at all.

With reference to "Paradox's aside", both Bruv and I suspect there is no paradox to be found in my posts. Have you detected one?

This is why amy (my last alias) Left last year. So now back on Topic:

Chloe_88;1375437 wrote: This is why amy (my last alias) Left last year.Perhaps you could expand on that? I'm not sure who you're criticizing, for one thing. I'd find it very useful to be told, together with why, if it was me.

spot;1375442 wrote: Perhaps you could expand on that? I'm not sure who you're criticizing, for one thing. I'd find it very useful to be told, together with why, if it was me.


It doesn't mind who or what. I like to stay on topic, and this thread seems to me, not to be.

Chloe_88;1375443 wrote: It doesn't mind who or what. I like to stay on topic, and this thread seems to me, not to be.


The stuff on animal rights, domesticated animals and farming relates directly to the original post, as does my defence of my position. This is the relevant quote:2) I recently posted a thread about animal abuse and Spot seemed to think that It was obscene that priority seemed to go to animals over humans.You may feel I should have left it unanswered. As I say, being told will help me choose what and how I post in future. A little advice will go a long way.

spot;1375398 wrote: I'm not convinced either. I think you're trying to say I've expressed an internal inconsistency along the lines of "both A is true and B is true" but they can't both be because A can only be true if B is false.

What two statements have I made across all these mixed several threads you're thinking about that can't both be true at the same time? That would be a good start.


I have come up with the bits that have confused me about your replies.

In the thread 'Perceptions of Criminality', you appear to regard domestication of animals as bad, major bad.

When I asked.....

"So Spot........................how do you stand on genes that modern science allow to multiply and pollute the human gene pool ?"

You fudged the answer, or you misunderstood the question by answering.....

"I'm not convinced the medics are as competent as you suggest. What gene would prevent a person from breeding (maybe by dying before puberty, for example), which medical intervention has disempowered?"

So I shall try again to explain the paradox, as I see it.

You advise Ahso to eat domesticated animals to combat his condition, which is a condition that mans intervention allows to continue in the gene pool, otherwise natural selection would take over. There are many hereditary diseases that are controlled by man, which could be considered to be the same as mans control of domestication of animals, resulting in pollution of our gene pool.

You talk of 'proper dogs' and 'genetic pollution' due to 'human-modified pet genes', when all that is occurring is man managing the breeding of wild animals, accelerated evolution, nothing more or less. The paradox as I see it is that man is holding back that evolution by intervening medically and by so doing polluting the human gene pool.

Man managing mankind's gene pool= Good ?

Man managing animal gene pool = Bad ?

Interesting post, Bruv. I don't want to interfere in this between you and Spot, but there are a few things I'd like to address once the two of you have completed your exchanges (if I still remember by then).

Bruv;1375454 wrote: You advise Ahso to eat domesticated animals to combat his condition, which is a condition that mans intervention allows to continue in the gene pool, otherwise natural selection would take over. There are many hereditary diseases that are controlled by man, which could be considered to be the same as mans control of domestication of animals, resulting in pollution of our gene pool.You need to reconsider natural selection. If Ahso dies tonight he's already done all the contributing to the gene pool that he's likely to, he's won that game. I wrote "What gene would prevent a person from breeding (maybe by dying before puberty, for example), which medical intervention has disempowered?" because I don't know of any such manipulation. If a child reaches puberty he can start adding to the gene pool. If he dies beforehand, or fails to make out with a mate, or if he's gay, then he's not contributing genetically to the next generation (other than perhaps altruistically by promoting the interests of his siblings' children).

So, medical intervention keeps people alive until they breed, yes. But none of that medical intervention is, as far as I know, genetic manipulation. You could say that genes which would have killed a child no longer do, so those genes now get passed on which otherwise wouldn't have, but honestly I reckon it's a trivial proportion of births that you're talking about. That's why I asked you to give some examples so we could explore their consequences. Your "many hereditary diseases that are controlled by man" seems unlikely, if you're suggesting that without medical intervention they'd prevent a person breeding but that with the intervention they don't. Which ones are you thinking of?

If someone currently needs to eat meat for medical reasons I can't see a gross moral objection, and my reason is that the food products required to keep him healthy without meat haven't yet been developed. Once they're readily available that's a different matter.

The notion that, say, domestic cow breeding is accelerated evolution is a play on words. Yes it is is accelerated evolution but the cow in the wild couldn't possibly have gone down the route man has taken. Modern cows die if abandoned back into the wild, they need farms in order to survive and breed a new generation. Remove man today and no domesticated cow would exist in a couple of decades, they're unviable without a farmer to work for them. The domesticated dog and cat and horse and so on similarly couldn't possibly have gone down the route man has taken. They might revert to a wild form without man, they're not as specialized as the domesticated cow, but until then they're still aberrant monsters.

Note to thread participants: Would anyone like the thread splitting? The OP was so scatter-gun that the various on-topic responses appear to be difficult to navigate for some users.

Out of Interest Spot, could you show some documented evidence of wild cow In England?

Firstly........Yes split the thread before the bitching gets too much......again.

(They might pick on me)



You need to reconsider natural selection.
It may be possible I have it wrong, but my take on 'natural selection' is that the strong survive, the best adaptation results in breeding throughout the species concerned. Any weaknesses,whatever that might be, get bred out.

Let me take a 'for instance', relatively common in man, but has nothing comparable in animals, unless man's intervention gives it a helping hand.

Dwarfism, left to it's own devices would cease without mans medical and higher social intervention.

I see any level of man's intervention as genetic manipulation.

As I said there are many such diseases, that 'natural selection' would sort out.

The notion that, say, domestic cow breeding is accelerated evolution is a play on words. Yes it is is accelerated evolution but the cow in the wild couldn't possibly have gone down the route man has taken.


And I say that mankind himself wouldn't have gone down the route we are on now either, with natural selection being the only factor involved. By the simple advance in lowering birthing death rates, man is 'guilty' of genetically manipulating the species.

Man being the dominant species controls much of what happens these days, we are 700 billion because many would not have survived had man not intervened in both medically 'saving' conditions that otherwise would have resulted in early death, or intervened by manipulating domesticated animals to feed and serve man's needs.

oscar;1375492 wrote: Out of Interest Spot, could you show some documented evidence of wild cow In England?


The last ancestral wild cow in Europe was eaten in Poland around 1700, if you mean the Auroch. If you include the European Bison, they're in Poland too thanks to the environmental protection measures taken by Hermann Goering - he cleared a lot of Poles from around Bialystok to make space for them if I recall correctly. Or maybe it was nearer the Czech border.

Bruv;1375493 wrote: Dwarfism, left to it's own devices would cease without mans medical and higher social intervention.Does dwarfism affect fertility, or decrease the prospect of an individual passing puberty?

Bruv;1375493 wrote: we are 700 billion because many would not have survived had man not intervenedI'm trying to picture it. High-rise Hong Kong from Shannon to Vladivostok. Though if it were that dense I'd allow you an extra zero.

spot;1375498 wrote: Does dwarfism affect fertility, or decrease the prospect of an individual passing puberty?
No Spot it doesn't, *sigh*

We are talking about man intervening in natures work ?

Man manipulating genes, by intervening, bypassing natural selection ?

Would dwarfs survive in your world of nature ?

If so, show me a naturally occurring dwarf in any species other than man.

spot;1375499 wrote: I'm trying to picture it. High-rise Hong Kong from Shannon to Vladivostok. Though if it were that dense I'd allow you an extra zero.


A typographical error.......please forgive me.

"Man being the dominant species controls much of what happens these days, we are 7 billion because many would not have survived had man not intervened in both medically 'saving' conditions that otherwise would have resulted in early death, or intervened by manipulating domesticated animals to feed and serve man's needs."


Where am I wrong in my premise ?

spot;1375497 wrote: The last ancestral wild cow in Europe was eaten in Poland around 1700, if you mean the Auroch. If you include the European Bison, they're in Poland too thanks to the environmental protection measures taken by Hermann Goering - he cleared a lot of Poles from around Bialystok to make space for them if I recall correctly. Or maybe it was nearer the Czech border.


You are wrong. The Auroch was not a wild cow but a sub species and an ancestor of domestic cattle. It's extinction by the way was due to hunting and not that of domesticated cow thinning out the gene pool.

Can you show me any documented evidence of wild cow In England, not other European countries as I aksed?

oscar;1375522 wrote: You are wrong. The Auroch was not a wild cow but a sub species and an ancestor of domestic cattle. It's extinction by the way was due to hunting and not that of domesticated cow thinning out the gene pool.

Can you show me any documented evidence of wild cow In England, not other European countries as I aksed?Oh my! Do fools ever tire of themselves?

Bruv;1375510 wrote: No Spot it doesn't, *sigh*

We are talking about man intervening in natures work ?

Man manipulating genes, by intervening, bypassing natural selection ?

Would dwarfs survive in your world of nature ?

If so, show me a naturally occurring dwarf in any species other than man.


Might I suggest that the African pygmy tribes - I'm sure there's a modern term for them but I've no idea what it might be - were there long before Western medicine hit the rainforests.

Dwarfism is commonplace among a large range of species. The last groups of Mammoths off the coast of Siberia were the size of Shetland ponies.

If a genetic condition - and I reckon height in humans pretty much follows a bell curve, there's not a sub-species unless you want to put pygmies into one - doesn't affect fertility or decrease the prospect of an individual passing puberty then it has no effect on this survival of the strongest you talk about. In the case of pygmies they're best suited to their forest environment so they predominate there. Many things you regard as genetic errors become survival traits if conditions change. Consider sickle cell anaemia and malarial areas where it protects against malarial infection.

Ahso!;1375527 wrote: Oh my! Do fools ever tire of themselves? .....

Attached files

oscar;1375522 wrote: You are wrong. The Auroch was not a wild cow but a sub species and an ancestor of domestic cattle. It's extinction by the way was due to hunting and not that of domesticated cow thinning out the gene pool.

Can you show me any documented evidence of wild cow In England, not other European countries as I aksed?


You know, I carefully wrote into the thread:For clarity, I have no objection to this word "cow" being interpreted here as either the genus Bos or the subfamily Bovinae. What I do not mean by it is simply "domesticated cattle".I've no idea why you're asking but European Bison Biogeography claims bison were still native to the UK when the Romans landed. I have my doubts, but there's cave paintings in Cheddar from 11000BC depicting them.

Now you are confused, Pygmies are a local adaptation naturally occurring that incidentally agrees with my assessment.

Pygmies are of a slight build due to their environment, better able to survive, and not a genetic condition.

I suspect with outside intervention, better food, change of lifestyle, greater access to other partners for reproduction, there are less pygmies now than before........could be wrong.

I don't see pygmies as genetic errors, I see it as natural selection at work.

Add outside intervention as they become 'civilised' and the natural slightness that helped them survive will disappear.

spot;1375535 wrote: You know, I carefully wrote into the thread:For clarity, I have no objection to this word "cow" being interpreted here as either the genus Bos or the subfamily Bovinae. What I do not mean by it is simply "domesticated cattle".I've no idea why you're asking but European Bison Biogeography claims bison were still native to the UK when the Romans landed. I have my doubts, but there's cave paintings in Cheddar from 11000BC depicting them.


And again, they were driven to near extinction due to hunting not domesticated Bison thinning out the gene pool.

I'll ask again shall I? Do you have any documented evidence of a wild cow In England? Not the Auroch as you wrongly stated as this was a sub species from domesticated cattle. Not Bison either... a wild English cow.

oscar;1375538 wrote: And again, they were driven to near extinction due to hunting not domesticated Bison thinning out the gene pool.

I'll ask again shall I? Do you have any documented evidence of a wild cow In England? Not the Auroch as you wrongly stated as this was a sub species from domesticated cattle. Not Bison either... a wild English cow.I don't think there ever was such a thing. There were no mammals in England at the height of the last ice age as far as I'm aware. When the country was repopulated over the land bridge from Europe the only cows, within your restricted definition, that came here were the domesticated ones of the neolithic farmers and that was quite a while after the hunter-gatherers had re-established their presence.

spot;1375540 wrote: I don't think there ever was such a thing. There were no mammals in England at the height of the last ice age as far as I'm aware. When the country was repopulated over the land bridge from Europe the only cows, within your restricted definition, that came here were the domesticated ones of the neolithic farmers and that was quite a while after the hunter-gatherers had re-established their presence.


You see Spotty, we got there In the end.

No record of a true wild cow In England equates no domesticated livestock thinning out the gene pool as you have stated,

oscar;1375492 wrote: Out of Interest Spot, could you show some documented evidence of wild cow In England?


My lips are sealed.

oscar;1375542 wrote: You see Spotty, we got there In the end.

No record of a true wild cow In England equates no domesticated livestock thinning out the gene pool as you have stated,


I suggest you have a look at the genetic pollution of Bison by domestic cattle. I doubt whether any pure-blood Bison exist any longer, anywhere on the planet. Nor any other pure-blood wild cow variant either.

spot;1375548 wrote: I suggest you have a look at the genetic pollution of Bison by domestic cattle. I doubt whether any pure-blood Bison exist any longer, anywhere on the planet. Nor any other wild cow variant either. I asked you about wild cow based on your Idea that domesticated livestock thins out the gene pool of the a wild species.

We have finally managed to get you to accept that England does not an Indigenous species of cow thus making your notion nonsensical, wildly Inaccurate and wishful thinking.

No one has asked you about Bison for they are not cows nor Indigenous to the British Isles. To try to divert the point I have made away from the point In hand which is your Insistence that domesticated breeds thin out the gene pool of the wild species Is a shameless attempt to cover your arsse.

What did you expect?

I'm intrigued by the "accelerated evolution", isn't 'genetic engineering' more accurate? maybe controlled breeding.

Why can we not domesticate deer anyway? We can even freeze some deer sperm and eggs for future generations...

Venison is great...

K.Snyder;1375646 wrote: Why can we not domesticate deer anyway? We can even freeze some deer sperm and eggs for future generations...

Venison is great...


Pound for pound it's cheaper to produce meat on cattle. The typical cow is much bigger than it was two centuries ago not to mention milk yield is fat greater.

Brutal reality is if we did not eat cows they would be extinct in the wild since wild cattle are dangerous. Those idiots that think re-introducing wild boar is a good idea should be out in a open with a couple

Wild venison is great - farmed is not so good.

Ahso!;1375641 wrote: What did you expect?


Many times bite my tongue when asked my opinion........I shall this time too

Ahso!;1375643 wrote: I'm intrigued by the "accelerated evolution", isn't 'genetic engineering' more accurate? maybe controlled breeding.


It's just wording, animals will change, man controlling that change, directs it the way he wants, it is genetic manipulation or controlled breeding.

Well today, my flabber has never been so ghasted.

I do pop Into Lidl from time to time because I do like their packs of extra lean frozen lamb mince for Shepherd's Pie's. Tonight I popped In and could not see any of the mince In the usual cabinets and so asked a young, spotty Individual as to their whereabouts. We stopped selling It, he said. Why, I enquired politely. Because we got a new range In, he said and we had to make room for that. Oh wonderful I thought, I'll have a look.

So what has Lidl replaced my lovely extra lean lamb mince with ? MOOSE FFS !!!! Can you believe It?..... Bloody Moose and Hare.

If you don't believe me, go to Lidl and ask where the Moose legs are. If you don't fancy the Moose, what about Reindeer and fries? Yeah really !!!!

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/847238-fury ... -christmas