View previous topic | View next topic

Denmark

Page 3 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

suze
822524.  Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:56 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
If that story about Carlsberg is true then it's really sad, though I find hard to believe it's really true because there could be some legal problems there over contracts (for the pub chains at least).


We are talking about a very small number of establishments here; I am reliably informed that the figure is more than five and less than ten. For the reason suggested, they are likely to be non-chain pubs run by their owners along free house lines.

No, Carlsberg UK Ltd isn't losing any sleep over it. Yet ...


bobwilson wrote:
Marmite is not now, and never was, banned in Denmark.


I suppose that you are technically right here - it's not banned, it just isn't allowed. But the fine distinction is lost when a guy goes into a store in Copenhagen and is unable to buy the stuff.

 
bobwilson
822739.  Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:30 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Oh FFS bob, you do go over the top with your rants sometimes, and you're worse than the journalists you're ranting against.


I don't think so.

You're quite right that I selectively quoted from the BBC article. As did the other "news sources" who picked up this story.

Call me a kipper and give me a tie - but if you honestly believe that the BBC didn't intend that story to be misrepresented then I have some timeshares in the middle of the Pacific I'd like to sell.

On what basis exactly do you believe that the BBC started their article with the eminently quotable

Quote:
British savoury spread Marmite could be illegal in Denmark


and when coupled with the false statement

Quote:
Denmark has previously banned several popular items, including the drink Ovaltine and some breakfast cereals.


did you think they were innocent dupes of unscrupulous practice by renegade journalists?

Then there's the small matter of

Quote:
A shop in Copenhagen was recently asked to remove its supplies of Marmite following a phone call from Danish authorities, the owner says.


Any chance the BBC could identify the shop? Or even the date on which this supposedly occurred? No? Thought not.

The BBC "journalists" deliberately (and with malice aforethought) planted this story, worded it in a provocative manner, invented some details - all to produce exactly the effect it did produce.

True - I didn't quote the story in full. Since that was the effect intended by the BBC I have merely acceded to their wishes.

If the BBC is going to deliberately plant false stories (or present stories in a manner which it knows will be misrepresented) then I'm more than happy to point out their idiocy.

If (on the other hand) the BBC had ran the more sensible story that Denmark had in place a regime requiring all foodstuffs which were fortified with vitamin supplements to be regulated (without mentioning the headline grabbing trademark name of Marmite) - I'd have some respect for them.

 
bobwilson
822740.  Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:34 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
CB27 wrote:
If that story about Carlsberg is true then it's really sad, though I find hard to believe it's really true because there could be some legal problems there over contracts (for the pub chains at least).


We are talking about a very small number of establishments here; I am reliably informed that the figure is more than five and less than ten. For the reason suggested, they are likely to be non-chain pubs run by their owners along free house lines.

No, Carlsberg UK Ltd isn't losing any sleep over it. Yet ...


bobwilson wrote:
Marmite is not now, and never was, banned in Denmark.


I suppose that you are technically right here - it's not banned, it just isn't allowed. But the fine distinction is lost when a guy goes into a store in Copenhagen and is unable to buy the stuff.


Quote:
I am reliably informed that the figure is more than five and less than ten.


Don't be coy suze - name some names? I think you'll find the number is less than 1 actually.

Quote:
I suppose that you are technically right here - it's not banned, it just isn't allowed.


Nope - still wrong. And you can go into a store in Copenhagen and buy it (not many, admittedly - it doesn't have a great demand).

 
CB27
822780.  Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:43 am Reply with quote

Sorry bob, but all you've shown with your reply is your own conspiracy theory regarding the BBC. The sad thing is you might have had a couple of relevant points to make, but they're buried in the rest.

"Marmite could be illegal in Denmark", this is a true statement. Go to the DVFA site (the Danish version of Ministry of Food, etc), and it clearly states that no application has been received to market Marmite, and that it needed approval to be marketed. you can lend your own interpretation of a headline, but the article is quite clear.

With regards to previous bans of Ovaltine, cereals, etc, this is true as well because before they can be marketed in Denmark they need approval, and as such were banned until they received it.

If you're that worried about the story about the shop in Copenhagen, why not contact the journalist and ask for details? For what purpose, apart frmo your conspiracy theory, does that article need to create such a lie? If you don't believe it, that's your prerogative, but if you can't prove it's a lie then you can't expect everyone else to share your view.

Your choice of words to describe the journalists' actions as "deliberate", "with malice", "provocative" and "invented" are simply manifestations of your conspiracy theory, with nothing to back them up.

This all leads me to wonder if Denmark allows the sale of tin foil hats?

 
Zebra57
822793.  Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:17 am Reply with quote

When Iceland declared independence during WWII afterwards was there any opposition from the Danes?

 
PDR
822809.  Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:24 am Reply with quote

Zebra57 wrote:
When Iceland declared independence during WWII afterwards was there any opposition from the Danes?


They never noticed the name change - presumably there is still an MP in the danish legislature representing the island of Bejams.

PDR

 
PDR
822811.  Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:28 am Reply with quote

My duaghters have never been banned from driving, but as they have not received the requisite approvals after being subjected to the mandated safety tests it would be illegal for them to do so (the fact that my eldest is 13 may have som baring on the matter as well).

Bob is, of course, dilberately misrepresenting journalists with malice using intentionally provocative languiage and invented scenarios.

No change there then.

PDR

 
suze
822838.  Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:25 am Reply with quote

Zebra57 wrote:
When Iceland declared independence during WWII afterwards was there any opposition from the Danes?


No. In fact, Iceland became independent in 1918. It shared a King with Denmark (as do, for instance, the UK and Canada - and there is no suggestion that Canada is a "colony"), and it outsourced foreign policy to Denmark.

What happened in 1944 was that Iceland decided that it no longer wished to have that shared King or to outsource foreign policy. So after a referendum, the country was declared a republic. Although the outsourcing arrangement too was terminated, in practice Iceland allowed the USA to take responsibility for its defence until 1946.

Some more traditionally minded people in Denmark might have been a bit upset at Iceland no longer wishing to share their King - just as some in Britain would be if Australia took that step - but there was no political opposition from Copenhagen.

 
CB27
822862.  Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:32 am Reply with quote

I think the Iceland vote of independence was an interesting one because of it's timing.

The Act of Unity to Denmark was set to finish in 1943, it wasn't open ended, so it would have required a vote to re-establish it.

Considering Denmark was occupied by Germany, and Iceland was occupied by England, and then the US, it would have been hard for anyone to feel they wanted to continue being part of Denmark, so it's not suprising the vote was 97% for not renewing the unity.

 
Zebra57
863163.  Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:00 am Reply with quote

QI is the recent win in the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? The final question asked for the big money was about the the colonial history of Denmark in the Nicobar Islands.

Wiki quote "The history of organized European colonization on the islands began with the Danish East India Company in 1754/56 when they were administrated under the name of Frederiksøerne from Tranquebar (in continental Danish India); missionaries from the Moravian Church Brethren's settlement in Tranquebar attempted a settlement on Nancowry and died in great numbers from disease; the islands were repeatedly abandoned due to outbreaks of malaria: 1784 - 1807/09, 1830–1834 and finally from 1848 gradually for good. Between 1778 and 1783, Austria attempted to establish a colony on the islands on the mistaken assumption that Denmark had abandoned its claims to the islands. Danish involvement ended formally on 16 October 1868 when the Danish rights to the Nicobar Islands were sold to Britain, which made them part of British India by 1869 when the British took possession."

Tranquebor was founded by the Danish East India Company in 1620 and became the centre for Danish colonial interests in the sub-continent including Serampore and the Nicobar Islands. Denmark eventually sold these interests in the area to Britain.

 
suze
863276.  Wed Nov 09, 2011 12:19 pm Reply with quote

It would be interesting to know what the transfer fee was.

When Denmark sold the Dansk Vestindien (now known as the US Virgin Islands) to the USA in 1917, the US paid $25 million for them. This price was higher than it need have been - Denmark wasn't that bothered about them and had offered them to the US for $7.5 million fifty years earlier, but Senate decided against.

 
Zebra57
863354.  Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:13 pm Reply with quote

The reason that the USA paid the money was that Denmark was seriously considering selling the Danish West Indies to Germany.

These link are QI.

http://www.stjohnhistoricalsociety.org/index.1.htm

http://www.cphpost.dk/about/where-to-buy/52414.html?task=view

 
Zebra57
863359.  Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:43 pm Reply with quote

An insight into the reasoning behind buying out Danish interests in West Africa - The Danish Gold Coast can be gleaned from the link to an extract from Hansard 19th July 1850.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1850/jul/19/supply-western-coast-of-africa-and#S3V0113P0_18500719_HOC_73

 
Zebra57
863360.  Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:21 pm Reply with quote

The sale of Danish Interests in 1845 was a negotiation between the Danish Government (The Danish East India Company having gone bankrupt) and the British East India Company. The British Government only took control when the Raj was established. The sale price was recorded as Rs.12.50 lakh.

Source: http://holyindia.org/temple/tranquebar/tranquebar_masilamani_nathar_temple

 
Phlyphf
875741.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:45 am Reply with quote

Did you know that danish pastry's is actually an old Austrian reciepe, brought to Denmark in the 1700 by Austrian bakers, because alot of the Danish baker students went on a strike. Since then Danish pastry's is much more a Danish traditional than an Austrian, but it is still known as "weinerbrød" (Bread of Vienna) in Denmark.

 

Page 3 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group