How does Gordon Ramsay get away with it?

Cab · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens
Pigeon breasts are a bit variable in size depending on how well it's been eating, but these rook breasts were minute.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Even a big fat pigeon still only has a little bit of meat on it, relative to the apparent size of the bird.

As for the rooks, yes, I'm sure the breasts are small as its only rooklings that are taken for the pot. But why does the amount of meat make a difference to whether or not the bird can reasonably be taken for the pot?

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

Cab · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Uncle Mort
My grandma used to make rook pie. I distinctly remember her using the legs and thighs as well as the breast meat. It's like making game pie with older pheasants and grouse. You cook the jointed bird gently with herbs and veg so the meat gets tender. You strip the meat off for the pie and you have stock as well. But that was the traditional way, not Ramsay's way...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Interesting, thank you!

My dad related once how his mum used to cook rookling. Strip off the breasts, soak in milk overnight, then fry the breasts the next day. That, apparently, was the traditional way in Northumberland.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cab

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens
Pigeon breasts are a bit variable in size depending on how well it's been eating, but these rook breasts were minute.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Even a big fat pigeon still only has a little bit of meat on it, relative to the apparent size of the bird.

As for the rooks, yes, I'm sure the breasts are small as its only rooklings that are taken for the pot. But why does the amount of meat make a difference to whether or not the bird can reasonably be taken for the pot?

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Eating meat isn't a moral no for me, but some things are acceptable and others not. Eating pheasant that has be been bred for the purpose - no problem. Eating endangered Ortolan Buntings - definitely not. Rooks are somewhere in between. I don't regard them as pests and feel a bit uncomfortable at the idea that they are killed but provide very little meat.

Smeggers · June 2007

So we're back to the Korean Dogs and French Horse argument?

Hickory Dickory Dock,
A baby elephant ran up the clock,
The clock is being repaired

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Smeggers

So we're back to the Korean Dogs and French Horse argument?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And the Tanzanian monkeys. [:(]

Smeggers · June 2007

I didnt know our antipodean friends were partial to a spot of primate on their barbecues?!

Hickory Dickory Dock,
A baby elephant ran up the clock,
The clock is being repaired

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

Eating meat isn't a moral no for me, but some things are acceptable and others not. Eating pheasant that has be been bred for the purpose - no problem. Eating endangered Ortolan Buntings - definitely not. Rooks are somewhere in between. I don't regard them as pests and feel a bit uncomfortable at the idea that they are killed but provide very little meat.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Derrick Jensen (the would-be dambuster) takes the view that it is OK to kill and eat sentient creatures as long as you acknowledge the duty to protect and care for their environment which is imposed on you by your consumption of their flesh.

Seems like a morally acceptable approach to me.

But then I have no problem with the idea of eating human flesh (knowing as I do plenty of people who would be more valuable as protein than they are as sentient beings), so I'm probably unusual.

So you voted, and now you've got a government. I just hope YOU like it.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by NickM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

Eating meat isn't a moral no for me, but some things are acceptable and others not. Eating pheasant that has be been bred for the purpose - no problem. Eating endangered Ortolan Buntings - definitely not. Rooks are somewhere in between. I don't regard them as pests and feel a bit uncomfortable at the idea that they are killed but provide very little meat.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Derrick Jensen (the would-be dambuster) takes the view that it is OK to kill and eat sentient creatures as long as you acknowledge the duty to protect and care for their environment which is imposed on you by your consumption of their flesh.

Seems like a morally acceptable approach to me.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Fine by me too. Can you translate some more of what he's written? [;)]

How does Gordon Ramsay get away with it?

Comments

Categories