Toby Foster and Harrow Halal meat

[1ofTheseDays]

With immigration being as it is, its no wonder that schools in certern areas of the country are having to provide meals in accordance with the cultural demands of the majority of their pupils.

 

The cultural take-over is limited at present to certern areas of the country, but it will spread. Unless we start voting correctly, it will happen in YOUR childs school. This must stop. Keep Britain British.

[Phanerothyme]

So choose the pork, that's unlikely to be halal or kosher. Anyone for a bacon buttie, that great trophy of British cooking?

 

Maybe just ban all meat apart from pork?

 

Banning kosher and halal meat is fine, so long as live animal transports, battery farming, veal crates, and all the other animal hating practices in the meat industry are banned at the same time.

 

If people's concerns are truly for the welfare of animals, they should be vegans.

 

Eating animals is generally considered bad for their welfare even if it is good for ours.

[1ofTheseDays]

So choose the pork, that's unlikely to be halal or kosher. Anyone for a bacon buttie, that great trophy of British cooking?

 

Banning kosher and halal meat is fine, so long as live animal transports, battery farming, veal crates, and all the other animal hating practices in the meat industry are banned at the same time.

 

If people's concerns are truly for the welfare of animals, they should be vegans.

 

Eating animals is generally considered bad for their welfare even if it is good for ours.

 

Most anti immigration people dont realy have serious concerns about welfare of the animals ; im not saying that they aprove of cruelty, but the real issue is about culture, its not about race, its about newcomers changing the British way of life, or rather, its the mainly white leftists that lobby hard for them to be here for their sick communist agenda that are changing the British way of life...Halal, veils, Mosques ect ect are not British.

[Cozmo]

Do what my dad did when we kept chickens sixty years ago. Wring it's neck. I think cutting it's throat and hanging it up to bleed to death is cruel.

 

Do you at least understand the debate, at least my side of it. It was not about religion I was using it as a vehicle. It was about human rights and the rights of the individual, in this case a cow. The Muslims were only thinking selfishly about what they wanted for themselves. They were imposing their views on the Christians and the cruellest group were getting all the support. Boyfriday in my opinion was wrong. Very wrong to support the cruellest method of slaughter.

 

 

 

Yes I do understand the debate and can also understand your side of it, that was never an issue since I first came accross the thread. Where I was confused is the post you used to respond to one of mine where you said "So says he. He he" I still have no idea what that meant or referred to, that was why I kept saying I cant understand you or what it meant. Truth be told, Im still unsure as you havent really responded to that?

[English]

Do what my dad did when we kept chickens sixty years ago. Wring it's neck. I think cutting it's throat and hanging it up to bleed to death is cruel.

 

Do you at least understand the debate, at least my side of it. It was not about religion I was using it as a vehicle. It was about human rights and the rights of the individual, in this case a cow. The Muslims were only thinking selfishly about what they wanted for themselves. They were imposing their views on the Christians and the cruellest group were getting all the support.

 

 

But you must not consume the blood. You must pour it out on the ground like water.

 

But never consume the blood, for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the lifeblood with the meat.

[boyfriday]

Do what my dad did when we kept chickens sixty years ago. Wring it's neck. I think cutting it's throat and hanging it up to bleed to death is cruel.

 

Do you at least understand the debate, at least my side of it. It was not about religion I was using it as a vehicle. It was about human rights and the rights of the individual, in this case a cow. The Muslims were only thinking selfishly about what they wanted for themselves. They were imposing their views on the Christians and the cruellest group were getting all the support. Boyfriday in my opinion was wrong. Very wrong to support the cruellest method of slaughter.

 

 

Commercially produced chickens dont have their necks wrung by some ruddy cheeked farmer-theyre hung upside down and stunned in an electrified water bath, their throats are then slit til they bleed to death-this from the RSPCA website. Pre-stunned Halal chickens get the same treatment, although ironically the Halal Food Authority recommend that birds to the slaughter dont witness the other birds being killed to save their distress.

 

Pre-stunned Halal chicken is just chicken tikka masala-without the tikka and without the masala.

[icon76]

But you must not consume the blood. You must pour it out on the ground like water.

 

But never consume the blood, for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the lifeblood with the meat.

 

But black pudding has loads of blood in it and it tastes lovely. Where are you getting your info from mate?

[boyfriday]

But you must not consume the blood. You must pour it out on the ground like water.

 

But never consume the blood, for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the lifeblood with the meat.

 

Aside from that, all livestock is hung and bled because otherwise it affects the quality of the meat and hinders clean butchery.

[boyfriday]

But black pudding has loads of blood in it and it tastes lovely. Where are you getting your info from mate?

 

No its true some orthodox Christians still believe its wrong to consume the blood. Jehovahs Witnessess are one example.

[hard2miss]

So am I right in believing that your sole objection is because a group of people are deriving a benefit from something you could do anyway-ie eat halal meat?

 

It reminds me of a time I travelled to Rome on my own, I had a window seat on the plane next to a bloke who was travelling with his son. They had been separated in the booking and he asked the person sitting next to his son, if they'd mind swapping with him so they could be together, he refused. I offered my place and swapped with the son, it was no loss to me, but it was of great benefit to them.

 

The halal meat argument is the same, it isn't about forcing people to do something they wouldn't do otherwise, we can all eat halal meat, save for Jewish folks I think, and anyone who has sincere objections should be catered for and offered a suitable alternative.

 

It's a much more cost/logistically effective alternative than providing halal meat only to halal eaters.

 

Ps..no multi-quotes h2m, you'll be pleased to see

No I don't get what point you think I agree with here. the point I make is it is forced on English folk whether they object to the practice or not but yet the reverse of this is that they will at extra cost go out of their way to make sure Muslims get hal hal.

 

What part did you think I agreed with you ?

 

We can all eat hal hal ? ok, but we cant all eat meat killed humanly as shown by my school paying extra for hal hal so whats the comparison ? can you not see the conflict in this ?

 

Im not sure what the point is other than this all stinks.

 

Thanks for not doing my head in with multie's BF