A £1 foot long sausage roll?
WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE!!! This is the future! I've tasted it!!!
Hungry punters fed up with over-priced, under-sized artisan sausage rolls will be pleased to hear a foot-long (30.48cm) meat feast has now arrived costing, um, £1. Even poncey Southerns will be able to get their hands on the snack. Everybody who enjoys eating like they have a death wish can head to their nearest Morrisons as …
"*may contain: buttholes, eyelids, feet, other shit we found on the floor
Pay for decent food - America is a lesson to us all"
This annoys me.
You think that because less appetitising parts of the animal are used that it's an inferior product? You're completely wrong. If anything, it's a superior product. Why? You're using the whole animal, rather than the nice looking fleshy bits.
Surely it's an insult to the animal to kill it just for a few pork joins and some bacon and then discard the rest of the animal? It's far more respectful to use every last part of the body in anyway we can.
That worry me. I was brought up not to waste food. It's the other stuff. Now, I know these days you can't get away with slipping a few handfuls of sawdust into the mixture but based on taste I suspect that someone has found a way of turning old furniture into "food grade texture supplement".
It's not just me, then.
I was starting to think I had a genetic deformity, because while all those hugely expensive Cumberland-style sausages did nothing for me, despite being hand-crafted by blind Tibetan monks using only the finest Bohemian wild boars and magically enchanted caramelised onions, I have a compunction worthy of Desperate Dan to eat vast platefuls of cheap bangers and mash.
With lots of gravy. Never forget the gravy!
Actually the conventional wisdom on what exactly constitutes the "less appetising parts" is generally wrong. In meat, most of the flavour is locked into hydrophobic molecules that absolutely require fat to dissolve and thus release their flavour. So "trimming the fat" is literally the worst thing you could possibly do to your meat, unless you're the sort of person who thoroughly enjoys the taste of cardboard.
As for what's "bad for you", scientific research has proven that death continues to be the nation's number one killer, and that sadly there is still no cure for mortality. So you might as well just suck it up, and don't forget all that tasty fat!
As for what's "bad for you", scientific research has proven that death continues to be the nation's number one killer, and that sadly there is still no cure for mortality. So you might as well just suck it up, and don't forget all that tasty fat!
Exactly! I went to see my doctor yesterday, and he explained that as time passes, my body becomes older, and more worn and lived in, so it's not surprising if bits stop functioning like they used to.
His advice could revolutionize medical science - "stop getting older."
""stop getting older."There is an alternative way:Unfortunately, I can only think of one way of doing that. I'll stick to the alternative and just slowly get older disgracefully, one day at a time."
The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar
But that's pretty gruesome, too.
"So "trimming the fat" is literally the worst thing you could possibly do to your meat, unless you're the sort of person who thoroughly enjoys the taste of cardboard."
+1 A well marbled beef joint has a lot more taste than lean beef. Sadly, many people think the lean meat is best because "healthy" and, of course, the lean meat is priced to reflect that. For the rest of us who know better, that means the better meat with some fat still on it is cheaper.
"For the rest of us who know better, that means the better meat with some fat still on it is cheaper."And the cognoscenti also know that only a little over half of that fat is saturated. Nearly half is unsaturated. I'd rather get my unsaturated fat from meat than safflower oil thankyou very much.
"Surely it's an insult to the animal to kill it just for a few pork joins and some bacon and then discard the rest of the animal?"
It might be, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean I personally have to actually eat all of it. There are other ways of using a dead animal. Oh, and I dare say that any veggies reading this will point out that it was an insult to the animal to even bring it into this world just to fatten it up and kill it, no matter how much of it you used afterwards.
Horses for courses I suppose.
" Oh, and I dare say that any veggies reading this will point out that it was an insult to the animal to even bring it into this world just to fatten it up and kill it, no matter how much of it you used afterwards."
They can say that all they like. But if humans were meant to eat vegetables exclusively and not eat meat, then we'd have our eyes on the side of our head and teeth that were primarily used for munching grass.
Remember: Veganism is cow genocide.
This post has been deleted by its author
"may contain: buttholes, eyelids, feet, other shit we found on the floor"
America ain't the lesson here. In the Land of the Free we aren't even allowed to eat anything Truly Offal. It's for our protection, you know.
We are allowed to eat something like 3000 food additives that have been banned in the smarter parts of the world, however.
""may contain: buttholes, eyelids, feet, other shit we found on the floor"
America ain't the lesson here. In the Land of the Free we aren't even allowed to eat anything Truly Offal. It's for our protection, you know.
We are allowed to eat something like 3000 food additives that have been banned in the smarter parts of the world, however."
So America doesn't have chitlins as its national dish then
(For the uninitiated chitlins are deep fried crispy intestines. Think pork scratchings with an earthy flavour)
Having spent a good deal of my life on both sides of the pond, I'd have to say that both the British and the American Great Unwashed are about on an equal footing on 'orribleness of diet. Thankfully there are pockets of gastronomic wonderfulness to be had all over both countries.
Education is also a cross-pond draw.
Healthcare may be nearly free in Blighty, but you get what you pay for. Draw again.
Our governments and religions are equally fucked, too.
And of course stupidity is common across the entire human population.
So basically, we're all a sad bunch over all. Depressing, isn't it? I'm certain Samuel Langhorne Clemens had something pithy to say about that, but I can't be arsed to look it up.
On the bright side, beer.
No, you just have people like my grandfather, who paid into the NHS all his life, then when he needed an oncologist, had a 7 month wait between first GP visit and the specialist during which time the tumo[u]r had become inoperable.
Neither system is perfect, my fiance here will be paying off medical bills for the rest of her life for a procedure she had 5 years ago that is the reason she's still here. And she had insurance at the time, too. But at least she's still breathing.
@Jake "On the bright side, beer."
I bet it's hard to get a decent pint of that over there, if they call that tasteless, watery gnat's piss Budweiser the King of Beers.
I wouldn't know, never been there and no desire to, Washington State or New England maybe. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Americans in general, just their Government, Politicians and businesses.
"And, in America, if you can't afford to pay, you die."A bit of a myth I'm told. There are charity hospitals in the USA that treat those unable to pay for free. Most, but not all, are financed by the Roman Catholic Church. The Economist estimated in 2010 that the Church spends about $US171,600,000,000 a year and that 57% of this goes on health-care networks. That makes the Church the largest health-care provider in the world. In 2015 The Atlantic claimed $US57 billion annually in uncompensated health care in the USA.
When I commented here a few weeks ago on the amount of money the Church spends on health care, one commentard said he thought the Church should be prevented from being involved in health care. Go figure...