Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So Huganit doesn't bother to 'jump through hoops' when he/she has dinner guests. Most of us try a little harder to cook well and use nice ingredients. I think I may have seen Hangonit on That C4 Dinner Party program was he the one with the rusty tins and frozen food?

Ain't serving fish or ain't serving them fish? It's an important subtlety.


Having grown up suffering vegetarian xmas imposed on the meat eaters (I was seventeen before I was finally able to substitute nut roast for some good old fashioned goose), I'll happily prepare a veggie some alternative, but never let them dictate what everyone else can eat.

I was only having a bit of fun :)


Although somewhere in this there is a point about there being a big difference between good manners to cater for your guest, and vegetarians having a sense of entitlement that you must cater to their whims.


As for the point about looking for the slightest infraction, I was actually remembering when I had guests who refused to eat food cooked in pots that had once had meat in them.


When referring to combing through the ingredient list, I was recalling guests who would go through the fine print on condiments to find ingredients that may possibly at some extreme stage removed may have been sniffed by a chicken.

No harm, no foul - I know Hughie would never suggest that I'm in any way spineless, out of the highest respect in which he holds me (or the fear of my kicking his poncey ass all over Singapore).


To be fair, these veggies have requested nothing of the kind, and they're certainly not evangelical. As far as I understand. First meeting you see - just trying to be nice. And while being nice, want to make something that I might actually want to eat!

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was only having a bit of fun :)

>

> Although somewhere in this there is a point about

> there being a big difference between good manners

> to cater for your guest, and vegetarians having a

> sense of entitlement that you must cater to their

> whims.

>

> As for the point about looking for the slightest

> infraction, I was actually remembering when I had

> guests who refused to eat food cooked in pots that

> had once had meat in them.

>

Thats crazy - do they object to water out of the public water supply since it might have been recycled after boiling a lobster !

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Enforcement costs money which I doubt the fines actually pay for. Presumably it hasn't been a priority. 
    • Details here: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/2025/dulwich-library-closing-refurbishment
    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...