Indeed. Reprinted at the back end of 2012.:)

Ah, I didn’t realise it had been reprinted recently – the last time I looked it was harder to find in second-hand lists etc.

I would definitely recommend it to anyone with any interest in historic types then, my copy has been read and re-read many many times…. not only was he an excellent pilot, but he could write about his experiences in such a manner was to make them very “readable” too.

Paul F

—- not a mention of why people would want to buy these overpriced foreign show dogs/ status symbols 🙂

And no suggestion that people who buy such overpriced fashion statements and then choose to spend even more of their hard-earned (presumably ;)) money on sending them to a place that sticks them in a doggie hair-dryer, rather than wash/dry the dog at home themselves, have more money than sense neither…. 😀

A fool (left-wing or right wing) and their money are soon parted etc….:diablo:

Maybe anyone using the services of such a facility should accept that it is their own responsibility to first ensure (to their own satisfaction) that the owners and their staff (of whatever nationaility) all have suitable training and/or experience in the area of doggie hair-do’s and associated equipment before they leave their beloved pooch (of any species or political leaning) there?

Or does everyone believe the State (left- or right-wing governed) should now be responsible for everything that has an unexpected/undesirable outcome, even when it is an area of relative minority interest such as regulation of dog-grooming salons.

Surely personal responsibility (on the part of the dog owner) and negiligence (on the part of the groomer) are apolitical topics….:D

Mystere/Super Mysteres of Patrouille de France, or Fiat G91s of Frecce Tricolore I suspect?

As for quality and Brand Names, well Findus wasn’t exactly a premium brand, but I wouldn’t call it a cheap one either, suprised me that their foods are farmed out to other companies where they appear to have a lack of control over the product… I know the likes of M&S are paranoid about their quality as I know someone that used to be involved, and I suppose their price reflects that.

TonyT, as I said in my earlier posts:

1. We must expect to get what we pay for (as in most things in life)

and

2. Any company’s quality and traceability system is only as good as the data it contains. If the paperwork says it’s beef then the paperwork trail will say it’s beef, and if the paperwork was wrong (by accident or by design) then a paperwork trail alone will never identify the problem. Identity testing (DNA speciation) at some point in the supply chain (ideally as late as possible so that there is little room for adulteration later) is the only way of checking, but that costs money – see 1. :D.

Paul F

Thanks Charlie – I tried to keep it as easy to comprehend as I could.

Yep, keeping the supply chain as short as possible – that’s the key.

The more moves/transactions a piece of meat undergoes between slaughter and going into the packet as a finished pre-processed dish, the more chances there are for (less scrupulous) people to adulterate it.

And, theoretically at least, a shorter supply chain might mean fewer people trying to make a profit on the same chunk of animal too – so the costs of sourcing meat in UK may not be as high as some people might want you to beleive… Yes, a UK farmer might expect a few more £ for a carcass than say a Romanian farmer (or should that read Romanian groom ? ;)), but if the meat from Romania then passes through intermediaries in France, Luxembourg, France again etc before ending up in a UK branded product ona UK suermarket shelf, then all that movement will result in added freight costs er kg of meat, plus profit margins for each ‘pair of hands’ it has been sold on through….

If you believe the Waitrose and Morrisons statements then maybe they are “clean”…

Then again, I have dealt with companies where there was a complete lack of understanding of the food and food chain with which they were dealing…I once heard a (University-graduated) buyer from head office of a large UK supermarket (neither Waitrose nor Morrisons I hasten to add) asking why “Cod Liver Oil” had to be labelled as “derived from Fish”, “but its oil from cod though, not from fish ?” she said…..!!!!

Ignorance may be bliss at times… though it is not a defence in a Court of Law if UK Food Standards Agency choose to prosecute for mis-labeling offences. I imagine there may be a few very nervous technical/quality managers in the processed- meat product industry at the moment, and one or two supermarkets undertaking a thorough review of their supplier audit procedures…:D…though maybe it’s all closing the stable door after the horse has…..(I’ll get me coat)

Traceability and risk assessment – a fine balance

Having seen first-hand (during a career spent in technical or quality roles in the wider food industry) the depth that some of the major UK supermarkets go to in order to have traceability right back to point of harvest/farming in their own-label food products etc, this whole issue shows the potential flaw in their systems. Any system is only as good as the accuracy and reliability of the info it is supplied with :(.

With so many steps along the way from ‘farm to fork’, at every stage the supplier or merchant/trader has to provide evidence, usually in the form of documentation that shows where he/she obtained the ingredients she is using or trading onwards, so that at every stage ingredients can be traced back or forth along the oft-convoluted supply chain via the paper-trail.

Suppliers and manufacturers are required, under EU/UK Food Legislation, to show “due diligence” in terms of verifying that ingredients they purchase and use are what they say they are. They then have to pass some form of simialr evidence on to whoever next handles the ingredient.

In an ideal world (i.e. the rareified atmosphere in which the idealistic EU Beauracrats exist) organisations would see “due diligence” as a need to test and verify every delivery they receive is actually what they expect it to be.

However, in the real world, where major supermarkets wish to preserve their indecent profit margins, they often impose (and I mean impose) the price they are willing to pay onto their suppliers, who may then decide to find ways to save costs, in order to try to make some small profit from each pie/lasagne they supply to the major chains. So, the intermediaries will naturally look to find cheaper (or cheapest) sources of ingredients, and they may choose to accept inspection of a “certificate of analysis” or “certificate of conformity” as adequate “diligence” and confirmation of the quality of the ingredient their supplier has delivered.

Yes, they could (and in an ideal world should) send a sample of every batch of every ingredient for some form of positive identification test, but this costs money, and may add a time delay, hence they may choose to take the view that checking their suppliers’ documentation alone is sufficient “due diligence”.

The more responsible manufacturers will assess their ingredient suppliers thoroughly, and decide what risk there is of a failure in their suppliers’ quality control/assessment systems, but they will also then be dependent on those same suppliers properly assessing the risks inherent in their own suppliers, and so on right back down the supply chain. At any point, there may be a weaker link in the chain that is not properly checked, or where someone decides to turn a blind-eye to a less than ideal process or system.

So, of course, accepting paperwork evidence alone every time a material changes hands is fine, assuming you know and can trust your suppliers (and that tey have properly vetted their suppliers…), but if and when you unknowingly get an unscrupulous operator involved in the supply chain (whereupon adulteration or substitution might occur, but may not be recorded properly – whether by accident or by design ;)) the whole system falls apart.

Unfortunately, the multiple steps in the typical processed food supply chain mean that once the mislabelled material is in the system, it may soon be accepted and documented as a legitimate, correctly labelled, correctly identified ingredient by innocent parties further up the supply chain. And, if those further up the chain choose not to test the materal themsleves, then the adulteration may go unnoticed.

So, who is at fault in the current fiasco? Without doubt this will be whomever first adulterated the beef with horsemeat, or substituted it completely for horsemeat.

But, as to whom is responsible? I would argue that anyone who has handled that meat thereafter, but done nothing to verify it’s nature is as described, must share responsibility.

I would also argue that the EU Food Beaurocrats must also share responsibiity, for building a legislative system that can be “operated” so that it relies solely on the honesty of people at every stage. If the EU legislation stated that ingredients MUST be identity-tested at every stage they change hands, rather than write legislation that suggests they “should” or “might” be tested, then there would be far less chance of mislabelled ingredients reaching the consumer.

However, such repeat testing would add costs (possibly considerable costs) to the food as it processed along the food supply chain, and someone somewhere would have to pay for the added testing. The supermarkets will either pass the costs on to the consumer, or they will “lean on” their suppliers to absorb the costs themselves…thus further forcing those suppliers to look for ways to shave a few pence of the overall product cost.

My personal view on this, as with everything, is that you get what you pay for – anyone buying “value” processed foods should sit down and try to work out how you can possibly pay so little for each burger/lasagne/pie/portion or whatever. If a price seems too good to be true, then it may well be….

Unfortunately, many of us cannot perhaps afford to buy the premium brands, which may offer less risk of adulteration – though those brands too will only have to comply with same EU food legislation, and so far as I am aware, few of the UK-based supermarket chains own/manage their own food processing plants, and so will subcontract production of their “own-brand” lines out to third parties. So who is to say that even the supermarkets’ “finer” own-brands are not also at risk if someone somewhere slips a few chunks of Shergar in with Daisy prior to mincing/chipping/freezing, and then passes it of as prime beef…….:diablo:

As the saying goes, in processed food, “Caveat emptor”

Personally I’m off to buy shares in companies that offer or manufacture DNA-tests, as I suspect there will be a hike in demand for their products or services dev2: (though probably only until the next “food scare” comes along and media focus moves elsewhere… anyone else remember the UK salmonella in eggs, listeria in salads, BSE/TSE scares :rolleyes:)

Paul F

Beautiful photos, Martin

Martin,

Like Tangmere1940 I too am fortunate enough to live in this part of the country (we moved down to E. Sussex from a boringly flat part of NW Surrey some 25 years ago), and I never tire of seeing it through the eyes/cameras of others.

Images like yours always remind me that I should never become blase about the beauty of this area. Add in a flaming sunset reflected off the cliffs, and I know why we have no plans to move on again either…

Stunning images!

Paul F

Convincing your loyal customers to replace their high-end unit with an upgraded (and ever more expensive) model every two years is fine until 1. Money is tight globally, and/or 2. Your competitors start to offer similar products at lower costs.

Personally I never bought into the whole “Apple” spin and hype, my mobile phone is a tool, not a fashion accessory, so long as it makes and receives a call that’s enough for me, and working in a science/techhy background, IBM clone PC’s do the job at a fraction of the costs of a Mac (even with the need to reboot windows frequently :rolleyes: ) .

If Apple’s bubble bursts, some may think it’s not before time, some saw Jobs as an inspirational demi-god, others saw him as nothign more than a clever marketeer…..:diablo:

No doubt if Aple does slip up, then many will feel it’s all down to the loss of Job’s ‘visionary’ style. I’d see it as inevitable ‘maturing’ of their market in a tough economic climate.