 | Forum
Reply | Enjoy your chlorinated chicken!
at 15:07 27 May 2020
The problem is that chlorinated chicken is only necessary due to poor food standards and it itself not all that great, not that chlorine is just outright bad. |
| Forum
Reply | Enjoy your chlorinated chicken!
at 09:37 27 May 2020
Struggling to find the exact quote but the gist of it is that it will be part of other converted EU laws.
But environment minister Victoria Prentis insisted all EU import standards will be converted into domestic law by the end of the December 2020 transition period.
She told the Commons: "This will include a ban on using artificial growth hormones in beef. Nothing apart from potable water may be used to clean chicken carcasses, and any changes to these standards would have to come before this Parliament.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/05/bid-maintain-uk-food-standards-future-tra
Whether you believe this or not is an entirely different matter of course. |
| Forum
Reply | Enjoy your chlorinated chicken!
at 08:20 27 May 2020
The likely response will be the same as what the Government said previously, that the food protections are part of another bill. |
| Forum
Reply | I'm in love
at 15:27 26 May 2020
There are some sites on the internet dedicated to fixing this issue.
Good luck. |
| Forum
Reply | Is there anything they tell the truth about?
at 09:21 26 May 2020
I find this particularly funny.
Just for people not in the loop, people have dug through the website after he made the claim about writing about Coronaviruses "last year" but it turned out he only added the part about Coronaviruses after his little trip to Durham.
Even then, the bit he added was just an addition to a really large quote block in this report (page 69):
https://www.cbrne-terrorism-newsletter.com/resources/MAR_2019%20Part_A.pdf
You can see specifically what was added:
But the main question for me, why on earth would you lie about this? Absolutely bizarre. |
| Forum
Reply | We're all in it together pt2736
at 12:06 23 May 2020
I can see both sides of this. I think generally you and lowhouse are not wrong per se, if taken without context she is offering up what her source was telling her. There's isn't much harm in that.
What I disagree with, however, is that this is part of a regular trend now.
As noted by some other journalists, the Government was offered a chance of a rebuttal as part of the story and chose not to. Then after the story was released, suddenly a Government source appears to feed quotes out through Kuenssberg through unnamed sources. The whole unnamed sources thing, in general, rubs me the wrong way, as it just means that nobody is held accountable to what they say.
I know a few people on here are just passing this off as a lefty dog pile, but there are other people who aren't part of the "sphere" who are being critical of this. |
| | DanTheMan
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 2784 | | Comment Votes: | 7 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 2791 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
