Home » Search results for 'fine scottish restaurant'

Search Results for: fine scottish restaurant

The Fine Scottish Restaurant

I  have previously mentioned my fondness for the “Fine Scottish Restaurant“and I have had to wear a fair bit of ribbing (some of it not so friendly) but having worked in the industry I know that the problem with any fast food is eating it more than occasionally, not the food its self.

In today’s OZ an interesting feature looks at a Swedish experiment that revisits the famous Morgan Spurlock scenario that he documented in “Super Size Me” It is most interesting that the results of this experiment do not show the same dire consequences that  Spurlock demonstrated in his film.
I wonder what would have happened if instead of eating to excess participants merely ate normal quantities and a normal number of meals for the month? Hmm :roll:

In his high-profile film, Spurlock quickly became fat, unhappy and unhealthy on his McDonald’s-only diet, causing a near-crisis for the fast food chain. The wave of bad publicity generated by Spurlock’s experience was one of the main factors that pushed McDonald’s to adopt healthier menus across the world, with an emphasis on salads and lower-fat fare. But the results of the Swedish experiment, which will be submitted to a medical journal this week, have raised serious doubts about some of Spurlock’s findings.

Although the subjects participating in the study gained weight from doubling their calorie intake and reducing their exercise, as one would expect, they did not suffer the moodiness and depression that Spurlock described, and some saw an improvement in their cholesterol profiles.

(source)

Latte laughs

I have long been of the habit of referring to the inner city lefty trendies as “latte sippers”  its a somewhat sneering description that suggests that such individuals are dilettantes, posers and, well silvertail socialists, who actually despise the ordinary people their likes and aspirations and who have the arrogance of thinking that if only the poor would, see the truth of the world the way that they do then the poor would magically have all disadvantage lifted from their backs and the world would be a far better place. Such a belief is really the stuff of nonsense that reveals the shallowness of the thinking from that class of lefty thinkers but it is a rich source of well deserved mockery. Thus when I read of a scheme to help the poor enjoy the benefits of  “good coffee” and “cafe′ society” I could not help but think that it must be an idea from the mind of a satirist but no its a dinkum scheme from the Darebin Council:

click for source

click for source

Like most people I enjoy a good coffee and its becoming ever more easy to get one at a decent price, heck even the Fine Scottish restaurant does reasonable coffee these days and its  sold at a rather modest price as well. Sorry but I cant see this as anything other than a very stupid and indulgent waste of ratepayer’s money that is worthy of the most strident disdain. Is it any wonder that our politicians are held in such contempt by the public when they invent silly schemes like this one?

Anyway with that thought its time for my second morning coffee…

Cheers Comrades

rrrr2

Fast or Slow

Too Much fine Dining has its own reward, even for brother Number One.

Too much fine dining has its own reward, even for Brother Number One.

This picture published in today’s Oz seems to suggest that Brother Number One is living too much of the “High life” since moving into the lodge, and his motorcade has not been spotted in the drive-through of the “Fine Scottish Restaurant” at any time since last November, he must have been having too much of that dreaded “slow food”.
Cheers Comrades
;)

Do the right thing for the environment

I quote below from a most amusing piece by Craig Emerson published today in The OZ I suggest that it should be compulsory reading for all Latte Sippers because he enunciates very clearly the problem of following the Green Religion if you want to actually do the right thing for the environment.

Recycling, we are told, is a good way to do our bit saving the environment. Anyone questioning the environmental benefits of recycling is branded a heretic. In some cities, up to 80 per cent of glass collected for recycling actually ends up in landfill because the cost of separating the different colours of glass is too high. But we feel good.

As director-general of the Queensland environment department in the early ’90s I inquired into the life-cycle benefits of container deposit legislation.

Glass bottles destined for reuse need to be many times the thickness of those that are melted down or disposed of in landfill. We discovered that by the time account was taken of the energy and water costs of collecting, transporting and washing the bottles, reuse of bottles was bad for the environment. We dared not release the results of the study for fear of being howled down as environmental vandals.

Recycling of some materials makes good environmental sense but of others it does not. Recycling proposals should be evaluated on the basis of good scientific evidence and not pursued simply because they make us feel good.

Consumer magazines such as Choice have begun to expose as greenwash the claims companies make about their products in an attempt to cash in on environmental ignorance.

A bottle of air freshener is claimed to be biodegradable, but only the cardboard packet is. Products are promoted as being CFC-free, a true but irrelevant claim since all CFCs were banned in the late ’90s. Some items are said to be made from renewable forest products, as if some species of trees are non-renewable.

Free-range chickens and organic fruit are good. But watch out for the next innovation: free-range fruit. Can you imagine the advertisement featuring dancing fruit trees all singing in harmony: “give me land, lots of land ‘neath the starry skies above, don’t fence me in.”

And remember, when you’re told a product is 90 per cent fat-free, they’re really telling you it’s 10 per cent pure fat.

Despite suggestions to the contrary I do care very much about our environment, I do practical things like reuse and refurbish many of the accoutrements of our modern life, I refuse excess packaging when I visit the fine Scottish restaurant, heck I even read most of the papers online to save the trees that would be used to make the paper.( the fact that they won’t deliver here is incidental, Honest ;) ) However lets all be real about what is actually good for the environment and what is just pretence.

Treading lightly on the planet Comrades
Cheers!
;)

And another thing…

I  note that The Fine Scottish Restaurant has earned the heart foundation tick.  

:razz:

WITH McDonald’s increasingly off the hook for its alleged crimes against good taste and humanity, the health police will have to find something new to complain about.First the Heart Foundation gave Maccas their coveted tick.* Now a study by Swedish doctor Fredrik Nystrom appears to have disproved the thesis of Morgan Spurlock’s Super Size Me. Applying the scientific method to Spurlock’s screed Dr Nystrom found that while some gained serious weight on a fast food diet, the metabolism of many others quickly adjusted to cope. And not one reported the depression or high cholesterol spikes Spurlock claimed to suffer in his film – indeed many saw their cholesterol improve. Further proof McDonalds’s critics need a supersized lesson in the virtues of moderation.*(source)

 *emphasis added

“Mori charges could be laid after trial”

I came across this little piece when I was reading the hard copy of the OZ over breakfast at the fine Scottish Restaurant yesterday and It struck a cord with me because I have for some time considered that Major Mori’s Grandstanding and trying to argue his client’s case in the court of public opinion somewhat in excess of his remit as Hicks’ military lawyer.

 As far as I can see it his role should be to prepare and present what ever defence or plea that Hicks may make to the not inconsequential charge that has now been laid.
 His whinge that ” the material support charge has never existed in the laws of war” is just a load of bollocks that does not recognise that the laws of war paradigm has been playing catch up ever since 9-11 and that the law has existed since the first attempt to blow up the WTC in 1993.
I am, however, prepared to give Mori credit for his dogged determination but as a military man he should heed Colonel Moe Davis’ advice and “come back home and represent his client”. I for one am rather sick and tired of seeing his mush on the TV whining on and on.

Apologies for having to put up a scan of the piece but I could not find an on-line version any where on the OZ website :mad:

Hicks: redux at year five

Yesterday was my day to do the grocery shopping and I usually take the opportunity to actually read the OZ in hard copy (rather than online which is more usual for me)over a breakfast at the fine Scottish restaurant and I was immediately struck by this letter from Neil James who is making the same argument that I have used in the past; David hicks is a captured combatant and should expect detention for the duration of hostilities.

LEIGH Sales (“Why our Gitmo inmate matters”, Opinion, 11/12) omits a key reason why the complex issue of David Hicks does not resonate in middle Australia. Emotions aside, the problem with most arguments about Hicks, on both sides, is that they centre on false assumptions and profound ignorance of the international law applying.

Whether Hicks can or should be tried or not, by anyone, is a completely separate issue from the undoubted legitimacy of his detention as a captured combatant under that part of International Humanitarian Law known as the Laws of Armed Conflict (based on the Geneva and Hague Conventions).

However unfortunate for him, Hicks can continue to be legitimately detained until the relevant war ends or he is released earlier on captured combatant parole (like most Italian prisoners of war from 1943 onwards). Such a parole would involve him promising to take no further action as a belligerent, and this being guaranteed and enforced by some recognised international authority. Any violation or renunciation of the parole would mean renewed detention*.

Resolving Hicks’s situation really centres on three issues. First, we need to convince the US not to try him under US or international law. This is as much a political and strategic matter as it is a legal one.

Second, since the US is our ally in the same war, under the Third Geneva Convention we could then negotiate with the US as the detaining power, and the International Committee of the Red Cross as the protecting power, to detain Hicks as a captured combatant in Australia. Whether he can or cannot be tried for terrorism offences under Australian law would not affect this.

Third, we could negotiate with the US and ICRC about how any subsequent release on parole would be accepted and enforced. Hicks’s Australian lawyers have apparently declared he would accept and abide by such a parole.

Consistent application of the law, not emotion or politics, must govern resolution of this complex issue. But, should the war continue, releasing Hicks on captured combatant parole also offers a political and strategic resolution, as well as a legal one.
Neil James
Executive director
Australia Defence Association
Canberra, ACT

*Emphasis added

In response to this letter there are many “Free Hicks” letters but the most significant thing about the Pro Hicks movement is the way most sensible Australians are utterly indifferent; when a city the size of Brisbane can only raise a crowd of (at the most generous estimate) 400 to a protest rally . It is clear that only the lentil left and socialist alliance conspiracy theorists are running this issue with any vigor at all these days.

By his own admission Hicks was training with and offering his services to banned terrorist organisations. Here in Australia we do not make even the most heinous acts a crime with retrospective legislation.However that does not mean that someone,like Hicks,who acts in a manner that we would now see as criminal should be seen as some poor victim of circumstance and an Innocent because of a legal technicality.Further he has only his the various legal moves to blame for the delays in having his day in court not some wicked conspiracy to deny him justice.

Portions of any work that are quoted are reproduced on the basis of the “fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review” section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968.

Identity theft


I did my shopping yesterday and all was going very nicely. We enjoyed a very leisurely breakfast at the fine Scottish restaurant. After which my little mate had some play time in the playground while his dad finished his coffee and read the paper .We did the shopping and while we were about to go into the vege shop my cell phone rang . It was the receptionist from our dentist who was enquiring about my wife .I was told that she had just been there for a filling that morning. Now this did not seem right to me as I had our car and last time I saw my beautiful wife was at my daughter’s bus stop where she planned to start a walk home with our dogs.
I asked for more details and the receptionist told me that a woman had come in that morning claiming to be my wife and after quoting our postal address (a post office box) she received some expensive dental treatment.
I did not want to leave it at that so I went around to the dental surgery . It turns out that after treatment the fraudster convinced the dental staff that her “husband” had her Eftpos card and that she would be back in twenty minutes and after a couple of hours they rang me on the number they had on file.
Well The upshot of this little drama is that I had to take time out of my day to visit the dentist where the photo I carry in my wallet convinced the receptionist that my wife had not been there that morning. I insisted that I wanted a report made to the police but I suspect that their embarrassment will mean that no report will actually be made.
So on this occasion the dentist will have to wear the cost of this fraud as I have made it clear that it was not my wife. But the lesson is clear that when someone can get several hundreds of dollars worth of dental work based on just knowing my wife’s name and our postal address then we users of the web had better be more prudent about revealing our personal details in our blogs, particularly major identifiers like our dates of birth. Which leaves me rather torn ethically over my previous post “Happy Birthday Scott” where I draw attention to the fact that Scott Bridge has rather foolishly made his date of birth publicly available at his own website. Should I amend my post to hide the details even though he is more than happy* for them to remain?

*He has said so on at least four separate occasions here and at his own blog.

Portions of any work that are quoted are reproduced on the basis of the “fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review” section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 262 other followers

%d bloggers like this: