Grilled squid and bacon with Alexander salsa
Near me, Alexanders grow in abundance – they have a fragrant, celery-like flavour, similar to lovage – and every part of the plant, from the leaves to the bulbs, is edible. Historically, they were used for medicinal purposes, though not so much these days.
If you're not into foraging, regular celery makes a great substitute. But if you do want to give it a go, be aware that Alexanders bear a slight resemblance to hemlock water dropwort – a highly poisonous plant. The two have distinct differences, but if you're unsure, it's best to take someone knowledgeable with you.
Ingredients
For the salsa
2 sticks of celery or 2 Alexander bulbs, finely chopped
1 shallot, finely chopped
1 green chilli, trimmed and finely chopped, seeds and all
2 tbsp chopped coriander
50ml extra-virgin olive oil
zest of 1 lime, finely grated and juice of half
For the squid
4 medium-sized squid, weighing about 400g each
vegetable oil, to brush
8 thin rashers smoked streaky bacon
couple of handfuls of rocket
Method
Step
To make the salsa, bring a small pan of salted water to the boil, blanch 2 sticks of celery or 2 Alexander bulbs, finely chopped, for about 10 seconds then drain and refresh under cold water and drain again.
Step
In a bowl, mix together the celery with 1 finely chopped shallot, 1 trimmed and finely chopped green chilli, 2 tbsp chopped coriander, 50ml extra-virgin olive oil and both the zest and juice of 1 lime. Season well then set aside.
Step
Make a cut down the centre of each of the 4 medium-sized squid and open them out flat. Season the squid and lightly brush with vegetable oil.
Step
Carefully heat a griddle or cast-iron frying pan (or barbecue if you prefer) until smoking hot. To save time and if you have space you can use a second pan to cook the bacon. If you are barbecuing they should all fit on one.
Step
Cook 8 thin rashers smoked streaky bacon for 2-3 minutes on each side until crispy. As soon as the bacon is on, add the squid to the other pan or griddle. Or fry the squid once the bacon is done. Fry the squid for 1-2 minutes on each side, they will curl as they hit the heat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
4 days ago
- NBC News
NBA Finals guide: Pacers vs. Thunder odds, how to watch, time, channel
The 2025 NBA Finals are finally here as the top-seeded team in the West, the Oklahoma City Thunder, square off with the red-hot Indiana Pacers. Game 1 tips off at 8:30 p.m. ET on Thursday from the Paycom Center. Thunder star Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, who took home MVP honors this year after he led the league in scoring, has been the catalyst all postseason. He averaged 29.8 points, 6.9 assists and 5.7 rebounds as the Thunder cruised to the Finals with wins against the Memphis Grizzlies, the Denver Nuggets and the Minnesota Timberwolves. Jalen Williams (20.4 points per game) and Chet Holmgren (8.6 rebounds per contest) have also come up big. Oklahoma City has just four losses in the playoffs so far. The No. 4-seed Pacers, meanwhile, weren't exactly expected to get to this point. But thanks to huge performances from their superstar, Tyrese Haliburton (18.8 points, 5.7 rebounds and 5.7 assists per game), they eliminated the Milwaukee Bucks, the Cleveland Cavaliers and the New York Knicks in impressive fashion. Balance has been the key for Indiana, a team with six players averaging double-digit scoring this postseason. Who will come out on top? Stay with NBC News all series for the latest from Oklahoma City and Indianapolis. NBA Finals Game 1: Pacers at Thunder Date: Thursday, June 5 When: 8:30 p.m. ET Location: Paycom Center, Oklahoma City, Okla. How to watch: ABC or streamed on Fubo How to bet Game 1 (via BetMGM) Over/Under: 230.5 total
Powys County Times
22-05-2025
- Powys County Times
Public has the right to wild camp on Dartmoor, Supreme Court rules
The public does have the right to wild camp on Dartmoor, the Supreme Court has ruled. Five justices unanimously ruled on Wednesday that the term 'recreation' in the law governing the use of the national park in Devon is used 'without qualification as to the form which it should take'. Two landowners, Alexander and Diana Darwall, had challenged a Court of Appeal ruling at the UK's highest court, which said the law allows the public to camp on the Dartmoor Commons, provided bylaws are followed. Mr and Mrs Darwall keep cattle on Stall Moor, which forms part of their more than 3,450-acre estate in the southern part of the national park. The case concerned the interpretation of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, which says 'the public shall have the right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation' on the commons. Their lawyers told the Supreme Court last October that some campers cause problems to livestock and the environment, and that the law only gives the public access on foot and horseback, 'which naturally means walking and riding'. The Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA) opposed the challenge, with its lawyers labelling the suggestion that erecting a tent could damage land and vegetation 'absurd'. In their judgment, Lords Sales and Stephens said the law would make 'no sense' if the right of recreation given to the public was 'limited in the manner contended for' by the Darwalls, and that the concept of 'open-air recreation' was 'wide'. They said in a ruling backed by Lord Reed, Lady Rose and Lady Simler: 'The word 'recreation' is used here without qualification as to the form which it should take. 'It is not confined to recreation taken by means of walking or riding.' Dartmoor National Park, designated in 1951, covers a 368-square-mile area which features 'commons' – areas of unenclosed, privately-owned moorland where locals can put livestock. In January 2023, High Court judge Sir Julian Flaux ruled that the 1985 Act did not allow people to pitch tents overnight on the Dartmoor commons without landowners' permission. But campaigners argued the decision 'went too far' and was a 'huge step backward', and could affect bird-watching, fishing and other activities. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision in July that year after a challenge by the DNPA, with three senior judges ruling that the law 'confers on members of the public the right to rest or sleep on the Dartmoor commons, whether by day or night and whether in a tent or otherwise'. Sir Geoffrey Vos said in the judgment that the 'critical question' was whether wild camping could be considered a form of 'open-air recreation', finding it was. In written submissions for the Supreme Court hearing last year, Timothy Morshead KC, for the Darwalls, said the couple are 'not motivated by a desire to stop camping on Dartmoor'. But he said: 'Concerns arise from their responsibilities as stewards of the land in their ownership and over which they have commoners' rights: concerns about the damage that wild camping can cause and, in particular, about the significant risk of fire associated with it.' But barristers for the DNPA said the phrase 'on foot' means 'the access to the commons should be pedestrian and not vehicular'. In written submissions, Richard Honey KC said: 'The suggestion that merely erecting a tent for backpack or wild camping damages the land and vegetation is absurd.' Lord Sales and Lord Stephens said in their ruling that the term 'open-air recreation' should be read widely, because otherwise it would 'create an unjustified and unrealistic limit on the park authority's power to repair damage on the commons'. They continued: 'Whilst there are restrictions on the landowners' property rights, there is in return DNPA's power to prevent, and enforce against, problematic camping by virtue of its ability to make and enforce bylaws and to publish notices. 'Accordingly, the legislation puts in place the means for public regulation of use of the commons which is in practice likely to be more effective in protecting the land than attempts by private persons to challenge such use through themselves having to confront people on their land and then bring a claim in private law.'
Leader Live
22-05-2025
- Leader Live
Public has the right to wild camp on Dartmoor, Supreme Court rules
Five justices unanimously ruled on Wednesday that the term 'recreation' in the law governing the use of the national park in Devon is used 'without qualification as to the form which it should take'. Two landowners, Alexander and Diana Darwall, had challenged a Court of Appeal ruling at the UK's highest court, which said the law allows the public to camp on the Dartmoor Commons, provided bylaws are followed. Mr and Mrs Darwall keep cattle on Stall Moor, which forms part of their more than 3,450-acre estate in the southern part of the national park. The case concerned the interpretation of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, which says 'the public shall have the right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation' on the commons. Their lawyers told the Supreme Court last October that some campers cause problems to livestock and the environment, and that the law only gives the public access on foot and horseback, 'which naturally means walking and riding'. The Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA) opposed the challenge, with its lawyers labelling the suggestion that erecting a tent could damage land and vegetation 'absurd'. In their judgment, Lords Sales and Stephens said the law would make 'no sense' if the right of recreation given to the public was 'limited in the manner contended for' by the Darwalls, and that the concept of 'open-air recreation' was 'wide'. They said in a ruling backed by Lord Reed, Lady Rose and Lady Simler: 'The word 'recreation' is used here without qualification as to the form which it should take. 'It is not confined to recreation taken by means of walking or riding.' Dartmoor National Park, designated in 1951, covers a 368-square-mile area which features 'commons' – areas of unenclosed, privately-owned moorland where locals can put livestock. In January 2023, High Court judge Sir Julian Flaux ruled that the 1985 Act did not allow people to pitch tents overnight on the Dartmoor commons without landowners' permission. But campaigners argued the decision 'went too far' and was a 'huge step backward', and could affect bird-watching, fishing and other activities. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision in July that year after a challenge by the DNPA, with three senior judges ruling that the law 'confers on members of the public the right to rest or sleep on the Dartmoor commons, whether by day or night and whether in a tent or otherwise'. Sir Geoffrey Vos said in the judgment that the 'critical question' was whether wild camping could be considered a form of 'open-air recreation', finding it was. In written submissions for the Supreme Court hearing last year, Timothy Morshead KC, for the Darwalls, said the couple are 'not motivated by a desire to stop camping on Dartmoor'. But he said: 'Concerns arise from their responsibilities as stewards of the land in their ownership and over which they have commoners' rights: concerns about the damage that wild camping can cause and, in particular, about the significant risk of fire associated with it.' But barristers for the DNPA said the phrase 'on foot' means 'the access to the commons should be pedestrian and not vehicular'. In written submissions, Richard Honey KC said: 'The suggestion that merely erecting a tent for backpack or wild camping damages the land and vegetation is absurd.' Lord Sales and Lord Stephens said in their ruling that the term 'open-air recreation' should be read widely, because otherwise it would 'create an unjustified and unrealistic limit on the park authority's power to repair damage on the commons'. They continued: 'Whilst there are restrictions on the landowners' property rights, there is in return DNPA's power to prevent, and enforce against, problematic camping by virtue of its ability to make and enforce bylaws and to publish notices. 'Accordingly, the legislation puts in place the means for public regulation of use of the commons which is in practice likely to be more effective in protecting the land than attempts by private persons to challenge such use through themselves having to confront people on their land and then bring a claim in private law.'
