Syd Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 What do we think about the news item in yesterdays Daily Mail regarding everyone should have at least a months supply of food in the house now because of the pending financial meltdown etc etc. I think we probably have that much stored in here anyway but think we might increase it substantially, say up to three months. Water is mentioned in the article
postnote Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Lucky you, wish I could afford a months supply of food :D
Guest pelmetman Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Their not trying to spread any panic then *-)
Mr Mrs Batty Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Hi Syd we would advise not to 'panic' buy and stock up on anything. These scare stories tend to pop up in papers when they have nothing more to print that day. Also both at home and in 'the van' we do keep basics that last for vertually ever. Things like tins of beans, soups, vegtables along with packet rice and dried food. Its is amazing if you put your mind to it what a nice meal you can make out of bits that you have tucked away. With regard to water - this surley shows that this is purley a silly storey may be designed to boost Christmas trade ?? Hope Mrs Batty gets me a lovley bottle of water this year ! I think the storey will go disappear as soon as another famous footballer drink drives, takes drugs or is found in bed with the managers wife. B-)
Syd Posted December 18, 2011 Author Posted December 18, 2011 Personally I did not pick up that the article was particularly a scare story but if you watch the TV coverage of ever type of disaster that happens in the world today what always are the after effects STARVATION so doesnt it make some sense to hold a reasonable stock of non perishable food and water. Why not plan to harvest your rainwater Why not plan for your electricity and gas to be cut off In our case we have a special need for power and warmth and of course food so I think we are going to look further into this
Guest Tracker Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Like many others we have a good supply of tins, frozen food and packet food to hand in case we get a few days of snow and the country grinds to a halt and I sure am not going to worry about media scaremongering over owt else! We get a supply of Tesco Value bottled water every winter in case of frozen or failed water supply and then not having needed it we use in the van the following summer! For many years now we have had a two ring Calor gas burner for indoor or outdoor use as well as a portable Calor gas heater - again all never yet used in anger - and if all else fails we can always live in the van!
BGD Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 This is all such blinkered thinking. You don't need to spend tens of thousands of pounds on tons of food. The only thing you need to stock up on is an AK47 semi-automatic, plus a lot of ammo. Then, come the collapse, it's all the other peoples stocks that you live on................simples.
Brian Kirby Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Syd - 2011-12-18 2:04 PM What do we think about the news item in yesterdays Daily Mail regarding everyone should have at least a months supply of food in the house now because of the pending financial meltdown etc etc. I think we probably have that much stored in here anyway but think we might increase it substantially, say up to three months. Water is mentioned in the article I think, as I always think, that people should stop reading the Daily Mail! :-)
Guest pelmetman Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 We're all doomed 8-)..........................doomed I say 8-).....................head for the hills!.........................Oooop's we live in Lincolnshire :D (lol) (lol)
Mel B Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-12-18 5:05 PM Syd - 2011-12-18 2:04 PM What do we think about the news item in yesterdays Daily Mail regarding everyone should have at least a months supply of food in the house now because of the pending financial meltdown etc etc. I think we probably have that much stored in here anyway but think we might increase it substantially, say up to three months. Water is mentioned in the article I think, as I always think, that people should stop reading the Daily Mail! :-) Not being a Daily Mail purchaser ... I thought it only had pictures in, not words!!! :D
nightrider Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-12-18 5:05 PM Syd - 2011-12-18 2:04 PM What do we think about the news item in yesterdays Daily Mail regarding everyone should have at least a months supply of food in the house now because of the pending financial meltdown etc etc. I think we probably have that much stored in here anyway but think we might increase it substantially, say up to three months. Water is mentioned in the article I think, as I always think, that people should stop reading the Daily Mail! :-) Why? whats wrong with the Daily Mail.
Brian Kirby Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 knight of the road - 2011-12-18 5:25 PM Brian Kirby - 2011-12-18 5:05 PM Syd - 2011-12-18 2:04 PM What do we think about the news item in yesterdays Daily Mail regarding everyone should have at least a months supply of food in the house now because of the pending financial meltdown etc etc. I think we probably have that much stored in here anyway but think we might increase it substantially, say up to three months. Water is mentioned in the article I think, as I always think, that people should stop reading the Daily Mail! :-) Why? whats wrong with the Daily Mail. Er, sorry Malcolm, but only a Daily Mail reader would ask, but in any case wouldn't understand the answer! :-D
nightrider Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-12-18 5:52 PM knight of the road - 2011-12-18 5:25 PM Brian Kirby - 2011-12-18 5:05 PM Syd - 2011-12-18 2:04 PM What do we think about the news item in yesterdays Daily Mail regarding everyone should have at least a months supply of food in the house now because of the pending financial meltdown etc etc. I think we probably have that much stored in here anyway but think we might increase it substantially, say up to three months. Water is mentioned in the article I think, as I always think, that people should stop reading the Daily Mail! :-) Why? whats wrong with the Daily Mail. Er, sorry Malcolm, but only a Daily Mail reader would ask, but in any case wouldn't understand the answer! :-D Brian, I asked you a simple question, what in your opinion is wrong with the Daily Mail, i didn't ask for waffle, so seeing as you appear to know everything and what you dont know is not worth knowing, you are not behind the door in coming out with your snide remarks are you?
Brian Kirby Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 knight of the road - 2011-12-18 6:06 PM..........................I asked you a simple question, what in your opinion is wrong with the Daily Mail, i didn't ask for waffle, so seeing as you appear to know everything and what you dont know is not worth knowing, you are not behind the door in coming out with your snide remarks are you? Wasn't waffle (too short) or snide (wasn't personal, but general about Daily Mail readers), Malcolm, but was intended in humour. Apologies if the humour missed the mark. I'm flattered that you think so highly of my knowledge, but assure you that in reality, you greatly overstate it. However, I'll now give you the waffly answer to your question you seem to crave, but apparently don't want. It is a thoroughly nasty, partial, spinning, unbalanced, little rag, that leaves aside any facts that get in the way of its editorial prejudices, and so distorts news for a mainly unthinking, politically biased, readership. Apart from that, it is an excellent journal! :-) Well, you did ask, but of course that is only the opinion of one person, albeit one you seem to consider appears "to know everything" and also that what I don't know "is not worth knowing". So, on that basis, quite an authoritative opinion, no? :-D And yes, I am joking - here and there! ;-)
Gwendolyn Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Or, an alternative view of the Press: Jim Hacker: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: - The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; - The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; - The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; - The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; - The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; - The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; - And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is." Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?" Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big ****." -- Yes Prime Minister, Season 2, Episode 4, "A Conflict Of Interest"
Robinhood Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 I think I may have posted this before, but it may amuse (or not it would seem :-)) those who haven't yet seen it. The Daily Mail Song: :-)
Brian Kirby Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Damn. I thought I was a minority of one! :-D
Gwendolyn Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Robinhood - 2011-12-18 6:56 PM I think I may have posted this before, but it may amuse (or not it would seem :-)) those who haven't yet seen it. The Daily Mail Song: :-) Thanks! A friend sent it to me some time ago... and I'd forgotten about it. Good to be reminded.
Lord Braykewynde Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-12-18 6:31 PM It is a thoroughly nasty, partial, spinning, unbalanced, little rag, that leaves aside any facts that get in the way of its editorial prejudices, and so distorts news for a mainly unthinking, politically biased, readership. Apart from that, it is an excellent journal! :-) QUOTE] I don't read the Mail, although I've read some online articles in the past, I'd like to know if you could please inform us lower mortals which is a good newspaper to read to get the truth because I'd love to always be right with the facts :-)
Lord Braykewynde Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Gwendolyn - 2011-12-18 6:50 PM Or, an alternative view of the Press: Jim Hacker: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: - The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; - The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; - The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; - The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; - The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; - The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; - And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is." Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?" Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big ****." -- Yes Prime Minister, Season 2, Episode 4, "A Conflict Of Interest" As an Express reader I now feel quite upset at being left out :'(
nightrider Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-12-18 6:31 PM knight of the road - 2011-12-18 6:06 PM..........................I asked you a simple question, what in your opinion is wrong with the Daily Mail, i didn't ask for waffle, so seeing as you appear to know everything and what you dont know is not worth knowing, you are not behind the door in coming out with your snide remarks are you? Wasn't waffle (too short) or snide (wasn't personal, but general about Daily Mail readers), Malcolm, but was intended in humour. Apologies if the humour missed the mark. I'm flattered that you think so highly of my knowledge, but assure you that in reality, you greatly overstate it. However, I'll now give you the waffly answer to your question you seem to crave, but apparently don't want. It is a thoroughly nasty, partial, spinning, unbalanced, little rag, that leaves aside any facts that get in the way of its editorial prejudices, and so distorts news for a mainly unthinking, politically biased, readership. Apart from that, it is an excellent journal! :-) Well, you did ask, but of course that is only the opinion of one person, albeit one you seem to consider appears "to know everything" and also that what I don't know "is not worth knowing". So, on that basis, quite an authoritative opinion, no? :-D And yes, I am joking - here and there! ;-) I dont particularly crave your answer and as for newspapers in general they all cater for their own clique, newspapers are there to make money, there is a diverse population to cater for and thats what they do and of course there is alway a little tweaking of the truth. Newspapers are not my be all and end all, they pass a little time when I have 5 spare minutes, I am beholden to no one but myself and what I read in the papers is taken with a pinch of salt.
Gwendolyn Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 knight of the road - 2011-12-18 7:55 PM Brian Kirby - 2011-12-18 6:31 PM knight of the road - 2011-12-18 6:06 PM..........................I asked you a simple question, what in your opinion is wrong with the Daily Mail, i didn't ask for waffle, so seeing as you appear to know everything and what you dont know is not worth knowing, you are not behind the door in coming out with your snide remarks are you? Wasn't waffle (too short) or snide (wasn't personal, but general about Daily Mail readers), Malcolm, but was intended in humour. Apologies if the humour missed the mark. I'm flattered that you think so highly of my knowledge, but assure you that in reality, you greatly overstate it. However, I'll now give you the waffly answer to your question you seem to crave, but apparently don't want. It is a thoroughly nasty, partial, spinning, unbalanced, little rag, that leaves aside any facts that get in the way of its editorial prejudices, and so distorts news for a mainly unthinking, politically biased, readership. Apart from that, it is an excellent journal! :-) Well, you did ask, but of course that is only the opinion of one person, albeit one you seem to consider appears "to know everything" and also that what I don't know "is not worth knowing". So, on that basis, quite an authoritative opinion, no? :-D And yes, I am joking - here and there! ;-) I dont particularly crave your answer and as for newspapers in general they all cater for their own clique, newspapers are there to make money, there is a diverse population to cater for and thats what they do and of course there is alway a little tweaking of the truth. Newspapers are not my be all and end all, they pass a little time when I have 5 spare minutes, I am beholden to no one but myself and what I read in the papers is taken with a pinch of salt. What? So you don't read The Guardian each morning so that you know what to think?
Robinhood Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Lord Braykewynde - 2011-12-18 7:45 PM As an Express reader I now feel quite upset at being left out :'( ......don't worry old chap, the Express is "The World's Greatest Newspaper". (a self-proclaimed statement, and as factual as most of the content - though, of course, that could be interpreted either way, depending on your point of view). :-S
teflon2 Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 A quote from my father that I cherish " belive nothing in a newspaper exept the date and check that the've got that right". John B-)
Brian Kirby Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Lord Braykewynde - 2011-12-18 7:42 PM Brian Kirby - 2011-12-18 6:31 PM It is a thoroughly nasty, partial, spinning, unbalanced, little rag, that leaves aside any facts that get in the way of its editorial prejudices, and so distorts news for a mainly unthinking, politically biased, readership. Apart from that, it is an excellent journal! :-) I don't read the Mail, although I've read some online articles in the past, I'd like to know if you could please inform us lower mortals which is a good newspaper to read to get the truth because I'd love to always be right with the facts :-) I am surprised by Your Lordship's lack of familiarity with the British press. However, I feel I could do worse than pass on the recommendation of an ex work colleague of mine. He always read the Guardian and the Telegraph. Both biased, so both economical with the politically embarrassing facts. However, it was his view that where the one omitted, the other revelled, so one got both sides so to speak. It has a couple of drawbacks (three, actually), as an approach. First the Braykewynde legacy may be put at risk, as it is not the cheapest route to knowledge. Second, and this is the good news, it is time consuming, so ideally suited to those of substance with much time on their hands, such as Your Lordship. Finally, it requires great perseverance and wit to seek out the flaws on each side, and substitute the information from the other, suitably leavened with salt, into the gaps. I do appreciate that this last, as a fan of what His Royal Highness the Prince Philip once memorably described as a "bloody awful newspaper", may unduly tax Your Lordship's reserves! :-D
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.