There’s a book?
UK has lots of great tunnels. They do however carry shit.
They might taste fine, but they look truly sad and that was kind of my point. Tbh, meat from the chin of the sheep head probably the best on that plate even though I don’t fancy eating sheep head since I just find it a bit indelicate. But when I was a kid, my grandfather sometimes conned me by cutting meat of the chin of a sheep head without me seeing it and that’s actually very tasty. Supposedly the best meat on the animal they say. But It looks…
This is more traditional Norwegian food using sheep meat, that I fancy 
1 Like
Does the fermented shark meat get a run in Scandinavia?
1 Like
No. We eat these when we get it in a net (sad day for the net, I can tell you and most fishermen hate these), but we fry them on a pan (some boil them), with white gravy and assorted vegtables and potatoes. Pigghå – Wikipedia
I see they are called Spiny Dogfish in English, My grandfather sometimes just threw them out into the sea from the net, since they ruin the knife when you fillet them, as the skin is really rugged. But they are actually very good food fish. Just rare to catch and no one fish after them specifically.
Fermenting fish is quite rare and was usually done to preserve it in poorer times (which then turned into tradtional recipies when we became richer). Gravlaks aka Grave Salmon, is a thing. But I have never tasted it. Then you have lutefisk, which is not something I eat myself since it is like…jelly almost in consistency.
But I am from the coast, grew up fishing, so fish dishes of actualy very high quality in high abundance. Usually haddock, cod, lyr fish (one of my favorites when fried and with a tasty gravy), pollock (not my favorite), mackrell, trout from freshwater or salmon. Then in between, there are many more rarer fish (like the spiny dogfish above) like catfish, halibut (ocean fish) and the more expensive bream and much more etc. All of these are common along the coast except for the deep water variants.
They exiled everyone who can eat the stuff to Iceland.
@Bekloppt will be happy there is no discussion of Canadian infrastructure here…
It would be remarkably ironic if Labour’s handling of the Rochdale situation were to result in Galloway winning the seat.
If the reported comments are all there is, then this particular case is yet another scenario of Labour running scared of everything, and anything remotely questioning the actions of the state of Israel being classed as anti-Semitism.
2 Likes
Ermmm… that’s a no for me thanks…
1 Like
Swedes are harder than Norwegians
And with good reason. The Anti-Semitism issue was weaponised to destroy Labour. It’s understandable that the issue is now a redline for Labour.
3 Likes
It’s not understandable when there’s a genocide happening in full view, children being killed in numbers unprecedented in recent decades. I don’t understand that at all.
1 Like
just a heads up mate, they arent potatoes…
Is it too difficult to differentiate between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israeli atrocity? For a lawyer?
1 Like
After what happened to Labour prior to Starmer getting the leadership - the issue of anti-semitism was weaponised and exaggerated to damage them politically - it is understandable that Labour will not go there.
This week it only took a candidate having had made a criticism of Israel’s policies for the right wing press and the Tories to jump on the ‘Labour haven’t changed’ bandwagon. Obviously Labour is still worried about this issue being toxic for them.
So the UK policy towards Palestine will remain same under a Starmer government too.
It’s worth noting that the Rochdale Labour candidate claimed that Israel deliberately allowed the deaths of over a thousand of their own citizens to create the pretext for the assault on Gaza. Perhaps Starmer’s fault here wasn’t that he booted the candidate - more that he didn’t boot him earlier.
The other candidate appears more proportionate. He seems to have said, at a private meeting…
“I’m sure when world leaders go home, like me, pardon my French they say ‘fucking Israel’ again.”
That, to my mind, is a criticism of Israel rather than an antisemitic statement. But in the context of where Labour finds itself, candidates should know that you just don’t go there.
Google search and there are various articles saying Israeli Intelligence and IDFF knew well in advance of the plan and had very specific details on the plan.
So if they did know and knew to the intricat levels that these articles are claiming, then there is justifiable reasoning for making the comments that Israel allowed the attacks to happen. And a decent lawyer should be capable of arguing for the right to that belief, rather than cave into pressure over the fear of being labelled anti-semetic.
To my mind, he has taken the easy option rather than the morally right option
3 Likes
Let me just stop you at ‘google search…’
Starmer can’t have prospective Labour candidates repeating antisemitic conspiracy theories they’ve found on the internet. Criticising Israel is one thing, stuff like this is quite another.
1 Like
The first 10 responses are
-
New York Times report says Israel knew about Hamas attack over a year ago | AP News
-
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/01/middleeast/israel-hamas-gaza-intelligence-intl/index.html
-
How Hamas built a force to attack Israel on 7 October - BBC News
-
Israeli intelligence leak details extent of warnings over Hamas attack | Israel | The Guardian
All western news outlets before you get to the first Al-Jazera article all providing very indepth accounts of Isael knowing about the Hamas plans, and even having named the documents 12 months prior to the attacks last October, But you ignore it because of ‘google search’ - nice work
3 Likes