A slice of ham in the school lunch box, is like sending them to school with 5 fags

older by the day

Heard this on radio one today, where in the **** is the head of board bia and our icbf head or teagasc or our farmers unions, is there any one to explain how irish farming. What are we paying our subs for

henryporter

Maybe you would be better reading up on the facts rather than a knee jerk denial - it's well know for years that the chemicals used in ham processing are carcinogenic - ergo yes, ham is the equivalent of cigarettes. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/01/bacon-cancer-processed-meats-nitrates-nitrites-sausages

What exactly would you like Bord Bia or the IFA to say in defense of the indefensible?

Fann Linn

older by the day wrote: »

Heard this on radio one today, where in the **** is the head of board bia and our icbf head or teagasc or our farmers unions, is there any one to explain how irish farming. What are we paying our subs for

The IFA lad was on both tv and radio during the week on a number of occasions. However the agenda coming from on high appears to be '4 legs bad', and it is the hot topic on all stations, public and private now.

Kinda reminds me of the public sector/ private sector debates over 10 years ago. What started off as a small kernal suddenly snowballed.

I'll hazard a guess and say that the Sindo and the other rags will be cover to cover with so called 'experts' denigrating meat and espousing the value of 'legumes'. Heard that one a few times today.

Agenda being pushed now for increased carbon taxes and for the farmers to be taken on.

LeinsterDub

henryporter wrote: »

Maybe you would be better reading up on the facts rather than a knee jerk denial - it's well know for years that the chemicals used in ham processing are carcinogenic - ergo yes, ham is the equivalent of cigarettes. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/01/bacon-cancer-processed-meats-nitrates-nitrites-sausages

What exactly would you like Bord Bia or the IFA to say in defense of the indefensible?

That's a false equivalence. Nuts have cyanide in them but you wouldn't call them poison

coolshannagh28

Fann Linn wrote: »

The IFA lad was on both tv and radio during the week on a number of occasions. However the agenda coming from on high appears to be '4 legs bad', and it is the hot topic on all stations, public and private now.

Kinda reminds me of the public sector/ private sector debates over 10 years ago. What started off as a small kernal suddenly snowballed.

I'll hazard a guess and say that the Sindo and the other rags will be cover to cover with so called 'experts' denigrating meat and espousing the value of 'legumes'. Heard that one a few times today.

Agenda being pushed now for increased carbon taxes and for the farmers to be taken on.

All as a result of a government which didn't bother its arse about the 2020 carbon targets till it was too late and is now planning to stick the agri sector with the bill .

judeboy101

henryporter wrote: »

Maybe you would be better reading up on the facts rather than a knee jerk denial - it's well know for years that the chemicals used in ham processing are carcinogenic - ergo yes, ham is the equivalent of cigarettes. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/01/bacon-cancer-processed-meats-nitrates-nitrites-sausages

What exactly would you like Bord Bia or the IFA to say in defense of the indefensible?

Maybe say that correlation does not equal causation?

Fann Linn

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

All as a result of a government which didn't bother its arse about the 2020 carbon targets till it was too late and is now planning to stick the agri sector with the bill .

Exactly. FG afraid to implement anything and now it's getting too late. Sooner or later they are going to have to grasp the nettle.

yosser hughes

Some background on this 'study'. The Lancet is not the publication it once was and this will ultimately damage its credibility. However this is a cause du jour amongst lefty media types.
It does need to be challenged more forcefully

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/globe-trotting-billionaire-behind-campaign-13872067?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Farmer

henryporter wrote: »

Maybe you would be better reading up on the facts rather than a knee jerk denial - it's well know for years that the chemicals used in ham processing are carcinogenic - ergo yes, ham is the equivalent of cigarettes. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/01/bacon-cancer-processed-meats-nitrates-nitrites-sausages

What exactly would you like Bord Bia or the IFA to say in defense of the indefensible?

But why blame either the hard pressed housewife/mother or the farmer. Make the processors/supermarkets sort it out. It's not us that are adding the nitrites

Say my name

yosser hughes wrote: »

Some background on this 'study'. The Lancet is not the publication it once was and this will ultimately damage its credibility. However this is a cause du jour amongst lefty media types.
It does need to be challenged more forcefully

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/globe-trotting-billionaire-behind-campaign-13872067?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

This was floating around last week from the European Food Agency.
https://www.efanews.eu/item/6053

It's a pity our esteemed Irish media never received this before Lancet dropped a newsdump on their desks.

Grueller

Say my name wrote: »

This was floating around last week from the European Food Agency.
https://www.efanews.eu/item/6053

It's a pity our esteemed Irish media never received this before Lancet dropped a newsdump on their desks.

The conclusion there contains the big issue for climate change. RAMPANT CONSUMERISM.

have2flushtwice

henryporter wrote: »

Maybe you would be better reading up on the facts rather than a knee jerk denial - it's well know for years that the chemicals used in ham processing are carcinogenic - ergo yes, ham is the equivalent of cigarettes. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/01/bacon-cancer-processed-meats-nitrates-nitrites-sausages

What exactly would you like Bord Bia or the IFA to say in defense of the indefensible?

So is farm to fork not worth anything? Where are the chemicals introduced?
We have one if the best tracing systems in the world with a quality approval system to match it.

If it is the equivalent of five fags i'd be I'd be dead a long time ago. I'm eating ham sambos since I'm five years old and I'm perfectly healthy according to my last nct.

Can't beat the ham sambos. If you were ever cutting hay and the missus arrives in the Ford Sierra with the tae and ham sambos you would ate them alive sitting on the wheel of the baler.

I remember going to the mart as a young lad and the highlight was going upstairs to the canteen and having the ould ham sambos. White bread, mistard and salt and vinegar crisps all packed into that sambo. Would keep ya going for the day. Them women knew how to lay on a feed and if ya wanted a few more bits she would throw them in, and no extra charge unlike today. There was some ****e on the walls of that place but nobody noticed cos the food and craic was pure mighty.

Cattlepen

Say my name wrote: »

This was floating around last week from the European Food Agency.
https://www.efanews.eu/item/6053

It's a pity our esteemed Irish media never received this before Lancet dropped a newsdump on their desks.

Well spotted sir. This whole lancet article is fueled by an agenda. The minute I saw world wildlife fund mentioned I just guffawed. The biggest bleedin’ heart organization since the sweepstakes.
Cheap ham is **** all the same. But so are cheap wines, cheap household solvents etc. I think there is an orchestrated plan to throw livestock farming under the bus and make it more uneconomical than it already is so that we cut down and the powers that be can cook the books and statistics with regard to emissions and green house gases. That will pacify the mob and leave bigger culprits like air travel and dirty industries off the hook for 10 years or so. The timing of it all suits. There is some power in the media

elperello

Fann Linn wrote: »

Exactly. FG afraid to implement anything and now it's getting too late. Sooner or later they are going to have to grasp the nettle.

They should grasp it and make soup.
Seriously it is delicious and very good for you.
Get planting now

https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/outdoors/gardening/treat-yourself-tosome-delicious-nettle-soup-393585.html

The Rabbi

A few days ago the EAT report was printed in the Lancet.It then became the EAT-Lancet report,now the RTE hacks are referring to it as the Lancet comission.Then the Taoiseach for fear of upsetting the voters inside the pale said he was cutting back on his meat intake.And there was me thinking he liked to get his hands on meat and two veg.

_Brian

Highly processed foods, including meats should be minimised or avoided.

We don’t buy sliced ham for lunches, we cook a small ham and slice it at home. The kids prefer it to sliced ham, it just takes a bit more effort.

Mostly we have hams from pigs we reared and slaughtered ourselves.

Same for sausages, we “try” to keep it to once a week.

vandriver

The Rabbi wrote: »

A few days ago the EAT report was printed in the Lancet.It then became the EAT-Lancet report,now the RTE hacks are referring to it as the Lancet comission.Then the Taoiseach for fear of upsetting the voters inside the pale said he was cutting back on his meat intake.And there was me thinking he liked to get his hands on meat and two veg.

Describe in your own words how snide homophobic digs advances your argument.

Flippyfloppy

The Rabbi wrote: »

Then the Taoiseach for fear of upsetting the voters inside the pale said he was cutting back on his meat intake.And there was me thinking he liked to get his hands on meat and two veg.

Is that how your mind works? Seriously?

Say my name

Since we have attracted a few vegans and townies who haven't a clue how soil or diet or anything works but always seem to be constantly outraged and gleefully telling us country bumpkins what to do.

Let me post a link to a truthful insight into the Lancet report on diet.


https://sustainabledish.com/20-ways-eat-lancets-global-diet-is-wrongfully-vilifying-meat/

Posters could also send on this link to various politicians and namely an Taoiseach.

Wanderer78

Say my name wrote:

Let me post a link to a truthful insight into the Lancet report on diet.

'Truth', does it actually exist, or are we just being bombarded with information from all sides, each with their own agendas attached?

Markcheese

In a way irish farming, and Bord bia Could probably jump on this... Low input beef and dairy... To be marketed at a premium...(although that's kind of the niche organics fills, and its already a trusted brand)
(We're not exactly a major tillage power, what's grown here is mainly for animal feed and booze..)
But ultimately, farmers will follow the money,
Most aren't ideologicaly attached to sucklers, or dairy or tillage, they want to work for a living...

cute geoge

_Brian wrote: »

Highly processed foods, including meats should be minimised or avoided.

We don’t buy sliced ham for lunches, we cook a small ham and slice it at home. The kids prefer it to sliced ham, it just takes a bit more effort.

Mostly we have hams from pigs we reared and slaughtered ourselves.

Same for sausages, we “try” to keep it to once a week.

Every one will agree processed foods should be avoided but not many working people have time for cooking hams,homemade bread or even healthy breakfast !!
For instance it takes me 20 minutes per day just to cook porridge for the family if you include washing up after .I just get up 20 minutes earlier in the morning but my day could easily be taking up preparing home cooked meals.Instead i end up buying sliced pans,packaged ham,3 for €10 packed meats on offer in supermarket .I am not a millonaire ,I do the best i can to eat healthy .I have seen plenty of people who ate nothing but wholesome organic foods,never drank or smoke still die of cancer so is all this over the top healthy eating really worth a damn at the end of the day

elperello

Just a few ideas, there is a lot more on line if you look.

Cheaper cuts.
Slow cooker.
Batch cooking.
Deep freeze.


Even if you are not doing it for health or environmental reasons home cooking is actually easier on the pocket.

Dinzee Conlee

cute geoge wrote: »

Every one will agree processed foods should be avoided but not many working people have time for cooking hams,homemade bread or even healthy breakfast !!
For instance it takes me 20 minutes per day just to cook porridge for the family if you include washing up after .I just get up 20 minutes earlier in the morning but my day could easily be taking up preparing home cooked meals.Instead i end up buying sliced pans,packaged ham,3 for €10 packed meats on offer in supermarket .I am not a millonaire ,I do the best i can to eat healthy .I have seen plenty of people who ate nothing but wholesome organic foods,never drank or smoke still die of cancer so is all this over the top healthy eating really worth a damn at the end of the day

I think you have to do the best you can - just cos you know someone who smoked and lived til 90, and someone who ran marathons who does at 40 shouldn’t make you less or more healthy...there will always be exceptions...

Whatever about healthy eating, one thing I know I don’t get enough of is sleep... I think decent sleep every night is as important as diet.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Wanderer78 wrote: »

'Truth', does it actually exist, or are we just being bombarded with information from all sides, each with their own agendas attached?

Nope, truth doesn't exist. I'm including a link to a nutrient analysis of the diet recommended by that body.
https://www.foodandfarmingfutures.co.uk/PrestoMobile#/details/ZWVhNzBlY2QtZWJjNi00YWZiLWE1MTAtNWExOTFiMjJjOWU1LjE4MzM3
You'd imagine after all that time and effort in producing a report on diet, the most basic aspect of diet, does it contain sufficient nutrients to feed those following it, would have been foremost in their mind?

Obviously not.

nagel

back in september they published this , good old butter and dairy,
They must have got a new veggie lover on board,
Linky https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-09/tl-tld091018.php

Farmer

Here's a link to a twitter conversation around some waffle printed in the Irish examiner yesterday. While editors allow this to happen, there is no hope

https://mobile.twitter.com/ShaneMcAuliffe1/status/1086672542163763201

Benny Biscotti

This is the #metoo movement vegan version.

Joe Daly

I be of an age when a bottle of tea was sent out the field to you and finger marks on the turnover you ate it because you were so hungry trying to get bailing done etc, I had tests done last week got the doctor report back all clear moderation of eating, drinking, etc means a lot if you are lucky enough to get away with a clean bill of health is a bonus when you hit middle age.

turfin

henryporter wrote: »

Maybe you would be better reading up on the facts rather than a knee jerk denial - it's well know for years that the chemicals used in ham processing are carcinogenic - ergo yes, ham is the equivalent of cigarettes. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/01/bacon-cancer-processed-meats-nitrates-nitrites-sausages

What exactly would you like Bord Bia or the IFA to say in defense of the indefensible?

That Guardian article relates to discredited “epidemiological“ studies which are based on bad data and show associations not causation. This association vs causation seems to be one of the most insurmountable cognitive challenges, some (maybe most) people just cannot see the difference. Vested interests such as processed food industry, vegans lobbyists and more use these nonsense studies to promote their own agenda.

_Brian

cute geoge wrote: »

Every one will agree processed foods should be avoided but not many working people have time for cooking hams,homemade bread or even healthy breakfast !!
For instance it takes me 20 minutes per day just to cook porridge for the family if you include washing up after .I just get up 20 minutes earlier in the morning but my day could easily be taking up preparing home cooked meals.Instead i end up buying sliced pans,packaged ham,3 for €10 packed meats on offer in supermarket .I am not a millonaire ,I do the best i can to eat healthy .I have seen plenty of people who ate nothing but wholesome organic foods,never drank or smoke still die of cancer so is all this over the top healthy eating really worth a damn at the end of the day

We both work and two school going kids.

Porridge two mornings min amd it takes maybe 5 minutes in microwave. Washing up, everything needs washing up, dishwasher does that.

Fresh bread every day, either bread maker or in the oven depending on what we want, done night before.

Ham into the slow cooker the evening before it’s needed and it’s cool ready to cut in the morning.

It’s very possible to eat well and be busy, it just takes planning and effort, people convince themselves it isn’t possible so they don’t have to try.

alps

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Nope, truth doesn't exist. I'm including a link to a nutrient analysis of the diet recommended by that body.
https://www.foodandfarmingfutures.co.uk/PrestoMobile#/details/ZWVhNzBlY2QtZWJjNi00YWZiLWE1MTAtNWExOTFiMjJjOWU1LjE4MzM3
You'd imagine after all that time and effort in producing a report on diet, the most basic aspect of diet, does it contain sufficient nutrients to feed those following it, would have been foremost in their mind?

Obviously not.

From my calculations current world milk production will not provide the required daily milk intake advised in this report...it advises 250g/day..

World production of milk equates to 78 litres per head of population but the above requirement equates to91litres..

We'll just have to produce more

Dakota Dan

Another link about the report being flawed.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201901/eat-lancets-plant-based-planet-10-things-you-need-know%3famp

coolshannagh28

I would like to see how the emissions from cows stack up against transport , energy production (peat fired) and big business, while there is no doubt that we need to amend and balance our diets this will be a slow journey taking decades. I am somewhat reminded ot the theories of Malthus who in the 1800s predicted that the world would not be able to food itself as population increased but was proven wrong by advances in agriculture.

Good loser

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

I would like to see how the emissions from cows stack up against transport , energy production (peat fired) and big business, while there is no doubt that we need to amend and balance our diets this will be a slow journey taking decades. I am somewhat reminded ot the theories of Malthus who in the 1800s predicted that the world would not be able to food itself as population increased but was proven wrong by advances in agriculture.

I believe the carbon in methane (CH4) only lasts 12 years in the atmosphere while the carbon from CO2 is more or less permanent.

coolshannagh28

Good loser wrote: »

I believe the carbon in methane (CH4) only lasts 12 years in the atmosphere while the carbon from CO2 is more or less permanent.

I haven't researched it but what are the volumes involved ? Is it something that can be addressed meaningfully before 2020 ,I doubt it and while the demand for meat may fall it will be a very slow process .
I also wonder at the logic of the Taoiseach at the behest of lobby groups challenging an industry which kept the wheels on the bike after the crash when we had few friends.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Good loser wrote: »

I believe the carbon in methane (CH4) only lasts 12 years in the atmosphere while the carbon from CO2 is more or less permanent.

Kind of. Methane is a non story, cattle numbers peaked in 1989 and are down 100m since then. And methane produced every year more or less replaces methane broken down so it remains constant in terms of cattle emissions.

The extra carbon in the CO2 comes from stored carbon, basically hydrocarbons being burned for energy production and transportation. Our high energy lifestyles and culture are the main causes of global climate change but cattle are an easy target.

Say my name

Good loser wrote: »

I believe the carbon in methane (CH4) only lasts 12 years in the atmosphere while the carbon from CO2 is more or less permanent.

Ah it's not permanent.
Plants on land absorb co2 while they're growing and use that carbon for their physical structure and grasses same thing only they pump carbon into the soil via their relationships with fungi and bacteria.
If the plant dies and rots it'll release that carbon back into the atmosphere along with methane.
However if that plant is cooked at high temperatures without oxygen to burn it (pyrolysis) the carbon in that plant is now secure from degradation/rotting for perhaps thousands of years.
During the northern hemisphere summer and into autumn the world's co2 concentration in the atmosphere reduces slightly as the plants in the northern hemisphere take in that co2. It doesn't work as well the other way round as mostly the southern hemisphere is ocean.

Enchanced weathering is another manmade way of taking co2 out of the atmosphere. That is crushing basalt rock into a dust and applying that on land. The dust takes co2 and it turns into a bicarbonate and it then leaches into the soil.

The sea and algae and bacteria also take co2 from the atmosphere and one form of marine life, phytoplankton lives on the sea surface and works through photosynthesis and absorbs co2 and then when it dies it falls to the bottom of the sea turning into limestone trapping that carbon.

All life forms on earth are made of carbon and we either get it through photosynthesis or eat another life form that got it through photosynthesis or we eat that life form that ate that lifeform that got it through photosynthesis.

alps

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Kind of. Methane is a non story, cattle numbers peaked in 1989 and are down 100m since then. And methane produced every year more or less replaces methane broken down so it remains constant in terms of cattle emissions.

The extra carbon in the CO2 comes from stored carbon, basically hydrocarbons being burned for energy production and transportation. Our high energy lifestyles and culture are the main causes of global climate change but cattle are an easy target.

Every farmer should repeat this 100 times until learned off by heart. It is up to each and every individual farmer to have this detail both to rubut the lies, and to educate ..

Thanks Buford

gozunda

alps wrote: »

Every farmer should repeat this 100 times until learned off by heart. It is up to each and every individual farmer to have this detail both to rubut the lies, and to educate .
Thanks Buford

Don't forget that rice farming has only begun to be put under the spotlight in terms of methane production

"Rice farming twice as bad for climate as thought: Study"

http://zeenews.india.com/science/rice-farming-twice-as-bad-for-climate-as-thought-study-2140198.html

moneyheer

I also wonder at the logic of the Taoiseach at the behest of lobby groups challenging an industry which kept the wheels on the bike after the crash when we had few friends .

. It was always said that eaten bread is soon forgotten!

CJhaughey

I'm not a fan of the Redtop tabloids but the Mirror had a piece about the politics/money involved in this scam.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/globe-trotting-billionaire-behind-campaign-13872067

And there is a very interesting piece I read that debunks a lot of the pseudo science used in that report.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201901/eat-lancets-plant-based-planet-10-things-you-need-know

I really think the Lancet has taken a major downhill step with the publication of this stuff, as said before its not the publication it used to be and people have to learn to read between the lines to see the real picture.

_Brian

CJhaughey wrote: »

I'm not a fan of the Redtop tabloids but the Mirror had a piece about the politics/money involved in this scam.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/globe-trotting-billionaire-behind-campaign-13872067

And there is a very interesting piece I read that debunks a lot of the pseudo science used in that report.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201901/eat-lancets-plant-based-planet-10-things-you-need-know

I really think the Lancet has taken a major downhill step with the publication of this stuff, as said before its not the publication it used to be and people have to learn to read between the lines to see the real picture.

People are now only capable of reading g the 144 characters that exist in a click bait headline now. The between the lines truth is lost on rhem, they’ve read and believed the headline and moved onto the Kardashian’s next exploit already. All the after the fact debunking of these stories is only read and understood by a minority who probably didn’t really beleive the stupid headline anyway.

Humans as a species have become inherently stupid and conditioned to be drop fed articles that commercial enterprises want. In a way many are like battery chickens stacked 10 high in cages. All the technology to access a wealth of information has just made the masses stupider

gctest50

He has a point though, some of that sliced ham looking stuff in plastic trays isn't good for you

Long way away from pig you cook yourself ( that isn't full of whatever industrial waste they can get away with)

Some manage with a bit of effort :


http://www.finnebrogue.com/naked/

CJhaughey

So I should really have said:

EAT/ Lancet is a load of old rubbish, funded by a hypocritical billionairess that wants to promote her lifestyle and take away your choice to live yours.
Lancet underfunded and EAT promised a load of cash if they went along with this study that contradicts itself.

Have a look at this blog, there is some funny videos showing exactly what they recommend in terms of meat quantities.
https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/

Say my name

This Lancet report was really a blessing in disguise.

Now we know from Twitter/facebook the lie of the land and what people really think they know. There's a few top environmentalists in this country have alienated themselves by jumping on the bandwagon. Even their former buddies in organic and regenerate grazing mixed species type have gotten browned off by them.
All's good.

older by the day

Heard this argument to day by a yank on a radio clip. He said one animal dies to make meat, while spray a field with round up, plough, disk harrow, spray numerous times for every disease, kill any slugs, snails, rabbits, wild animals that come near, harvest. Fly it a thousand miles, What is the carbon foot print of some vegetables? How many animals got killed, if a vegan thinks a cows life is the same as a human's, is a snail's life or a rabbit the same as a cow ?

Dakota Dan

84% of vegetarians/vegans go back to eating meat, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/most-vegetarians-lapse-after-only-year-180953565/

Farmer

older by the day wrote: »

Heard this argument to day by a yank on a radio clip. He said one animal dies to make meat, while spray a field with round up, plough, disk harrow, spray numerous times for every disease, kill any slugs, snails, rabbits, wild animals that come near, harvest. Fly it a thousand miles, What is the carbon foot print of some vegetables? How many animals got killed, if a vegan thinks a cows life is the same as a human's, is a snail's life or a rabbit the same as a cow ?

The thing that we are being forced to do wrong is to feed that 'vegetable', in the form of grain, to fatten cattle fast and young enough for the factories and supermarket's demand, rather than allowing them to mature a little more slowly on truly 'green' grass which leaves the rabbits and also carbon in the soil intact

So, back to the meat processors again

_Brian

Farmer wrote: »

The thing that we are being forced to do wrong is to feed that 'vegetable', in the form of grain, to fatten cattle fast and young enough for the factories and supermarket's demand, rather than allowing them to mature a little more slowly on truly 'green' grass which leaves the rabbits and also carbon in the soil intact

So, back to the meat processors again

We can’t fight capitalism, simple as.

It’s pockets are too deep and it’s influence reaches too far into all the decision making areanas.

Capatalism isn’t interested in good food, wildlife or the countryside. Profits are their primary comclcern and they will stomp on anyone or anything that restricts profits.

gozunda

_Brian wrote: »

We can’t fight capitalism, simple as.

It’s pockets are too deep and it’s influence reaches too far into all the decision making areanas. Capatalism isn’t interested in good food, wildlife or the countryside. Profits are their primary comclcern and they will stomp on anyone or anything that restricts profits.

We can definitly fight the bull**** though

We shall fight on our island, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our diaspora beyond the seas, armed and guarded by their might, will carry on the struggle, until, in good time, those of the land, with all their power and right, will step forth to the rescue and the liberation of the world!

.

Ahem I'll get my coat