Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Tuesday December 06 2016, @03:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the money-is-murder dept.

The Rainbow Vegetarian Café in Cambridge, England, has announced that it will not accept the new £5 polymer notes, introduced by the Bank of England in September. Last week the British vegan community discovered that the notes contain trace amounts of beef tallow, which is animal fat, and are therefore unacceptable by their cruelty-free standards. A heated online controversy has resulted, including a petition asking the Bank to remove tallow from the polymer.

The Rainbow Café's owner, Sharon Meijland, told The Telegraph that her stance was announced last Wednesday, at the end of a BBC radio interview on the unrelated topic of Christmas food.

"We sponsor the Vegan Fair and announced on Wednesday we would not be accepting the £5 notes because they are dubious ethically. We have been providing food for vegans for 30 years and have tried to be as ethical as we possibly can...This is not just a restaurant, it's a restaurant where tiny details like this are really important."

Is any of our money cruelty-free?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:43PM (#437822)

    > Well, this is a clause I never agreed was part of the argument.

    Well, if you ignore the entire point of my post, you can dispute anything!

    See the subject line "ideologically consistent" - you shouldn't have continued to use the same subject line if you were talking about some wholly unrelated concept.

    Next time argue in good faith or don't argue at all.

  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:47PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:47PM (#437826)

    Because changing the subject line in a reply definitely isn't ambushing us :P

    Next time argue in good faith or don't argue at all.

    I could say the same thing about you getting an actual damn username.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @04:53PM (#437833)

      > Because changing the subject line in a reply definitely isn't ambushing us

      I changed it because the new subject line was descriptive of the point being made.
      In fact, its a direct-cut-and-paste from the text that I wrote in the post too.
      There was no ambush. Unless you are admitting to being a puppet account of janrinok.

      Stop trying to save face, you went all red herring and have been called on your bullshit.
      Admit your error and move on. Or just stop replying, either is identical.

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @06:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @06:22PM (#437916)

      Next time argue in good faith or don't argue at all.

      I could say the same thing about you getting an actual damn username.

      Straight to ad hominems, eh? Talk about arguing in bad faith.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:56PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday December 06 2016, @07:56PM (#437987)

        You can't ad hominem someone who refuses to name themself. The entire meaning of ad hominem relies on you already knowing who they are.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06 2016, @08:10PM (#437996)

          > You can't ad hominem someone who refuses to name themself.

          Apparently you don't know what word means.

          "You are wrong because you suck" is an ad hominem.
          It doesn't matter who you are, just as long the unrelated "you suck" is the basis for judging the validity of the argument.

          You said he's not arguing in good faith because he doesn't have a username, the two are completely unrelated. The argument stands on its own regardless of who makes it.

          And you might as well face it, nobody know who the fuck tangomargarine is either.