BBC News wrote:The Archbishop of York said calling the event the Cadbury Egg Hunt was like "spitting on the grave" of the firm's Christian founder, John Cadbury.
But a descendant of John Cadbury has pointed out that "as a Quaker, he didn't celebrate Easter".
Hexx wrote:No - from her answer she didn't understand the issue was it was called "The Egg Hunt" rather than "The Easter Egg Hunt" - and instead thought all references to Easter had been removed from all material/posters etc
Ah I see, well either way she's a fool and her priorities are all out of whack.
Blue Eyes wrote:What the strawberry float is going on with this National Trust Easter Egg Hunt controversy which Theresa May has condemned? She said it's out of order that the word Easter is not featured on the poster when it actually is. Twice for strawberry float's sake. And this is the same woman who refused to condemn the words of Michael Howard about going to war with Spain or the Mail for its sexist front page the other week. She's such a stupid strawberry floating arsehole.
I could not give a flying strawberry float about this, and feel like she shouldn't even be weighing in on this. She has more important things to do.
I don't really understand this issue. Livingstone said Hitler initially wanted a zionist state, presumably so he could expel the Jews rather than genocide, which from what I have seen is technically initially correct (?), although his motive wasn't exactly honourable to say the least. Then, once he had complete power he/the Nazi party began the holocaust.
Was the issue surrounding the context of why it was discussed in the first place (during the anti-Semite scandal)? Genuine question.
Edit: I feel I should elaborate here that it's been about 20 years since I did any serious research on the third reich since probably back when I was a student. I tend to be more interested in the military campaigns of WW2 these days.
Blue Eyes wrote:What the strawberry float is going on with this National Trust Easter Egg Hunt controversy which Theresa May has condemned? She said it's out of order that the word Easter is not featured on the poster when it actually is. Twice for strawberry float's sake. And this is the same woman who refused to condemn the words of Michael Howard about going to war with Spain or the Mail for its sexist front page the other week. She's such a stupid strawberry floating arsehole.
Shr's incredibly badly informed (IIRC correctly the name doesn't have Easter in it, even though Easter is featured throughout) and she's lept onto the "poor persecuted Christians/white people" angle
Oh so she wants Easter to be in the name of the hunt?! Hahaha! What a childish strawberry floating moron.
It's all just a distraction. The same day she's selling guns and bombs to Saudi Arabia the news is instead reporting on her opinion of Easter.
This is the third or fourth year Cadbury's has had controversy over Easter, the 2nd consecutive one about "Easter" on their packaging/marketing. Last time it was because they had the audacity to remove Easter from the front of the box and move it to the other 3 sides.
There's enough to bash Cadbury's over without this nonsense, such as how the government of the day allowed them to be sold off and renege on their promises in the first place.
Man, the exasperation from Stig Abell (formerly of The Sun but now editor of the Times literary supplement) on Sky News' press preview tonight debating with Carole Malone of The Express. Poor bloke losing his mind over this silliness with the Easter eggs and our dubious relationship with the Saudi's.
I don't really understand this issue. Livingstone said Hitler initially wanted a zionist state, presumably so he could expel the Jews rather than genocide, which from what I have seen is technically initially correct (?), although his motive wasn't exactly honourable to say the least. Then, once he had complete power he/the Nazi party began the holocaust.
Was the issue surrounding the context of why it was discussed in the first place (during the anti-Semite scandal)? Genuine question.
Edit: I feel I should elaborate here that it's been about 20 years since I did any serious research on the third reich since probably back when I was a student. I tend to be more interested in the military campaigns of WW2 these days.
I've not paid much attention to his most recent ramblings - but his last round could be described as "truth adjacent" (he made some factual errors about years and names though) - but expressed in an extremely cack handed and belligerent manner that is certainly designed to provoke, if not to deliberately offend. (They can still offend without being designed to). He tended to just double down on in an arrogant manner when pushed on this as well (the idea of him being wrong or less than perfect is seemingly a foreign concept)
This is a "made up" simple example exchange to illustrate kind of language
"Nazis and Jews worked together" vs "Nazis deported Jews due to anti-semetic hatred, some Jewish people worked within the system to try and get it to work as smoothly as possible in the circumstances"
You point out to him the former is at best insensitive and at worst offensive "It's historical fact you can't be anti semetic when talking about facts"
A better person would have the self awareness to correct themself. Ken's enough of a banana split to not give a strawberry float.
He basically has a history of using inflamatory and antagonistic language around Jewish people (and repeats when this is pointed out to him so ignorance isn't the cause) [Edit - Should say "appearing to use"...it's not clear whether he's doing it deliberately to cause offense or not - he's certainly stubbornly doing it deliberately when he's been asked not to)
This is personal speculation - but I'd say his distaste of Israel bleeds through (subconsciously?). He makes a distinct lack of care of language and tone around Jewish issues that he wouldn't seem to with any other minority.
You also have to remember he volunteered these types of comparisons when trying to defend someone else. He's not been entraped etc.
Last edited by Hexx on Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
I don't really understand this issue. Livingstone said Hitler initially wanted a zionist state, presumably so he could expel the Jews rather than genocide, which from what I have seen is technically initially correct (?), although his motive wasn't exactly honourable to say the least. Then, once he had complete power he/the Nazi party began the holocaust.
Was the issue surrounding the context of why it was discussed in the first place (during the anti-Semite scandal)? Genuine question.
Edit: I feel I should elaborate here that it's been about 20 years since I did any serious research on the third reich since probably back when I was a student. I tend to be more interested in the military campaigns of WW2 these days.
I've not paid much attention to his most recent ramblings - but his last round could be described as "truth adjacent" (he made some factual errors about years and names though) - but expressed in an extremely cack handed and belligerent manner that is certainly designed to provoke, if not to deliberately offend. (They can still offend without being designed to). He tended to just double down on in an arrogant manner when pushed on this as well (the idea of him being wrong or less than perfect is seemingly a foreign concept)
This is a "made up" simple example exchange to illustrate kind of language
"Nazis and Jews worked together" vs "Nazis deported Jews due to anti-semetic hatred, some Jewish people worked within the system to try and get it to work as smoothly as possible in the circumstances"
You point out to him the former is at best insensitive and at worst offensive "It's historical fact you can't be anti semetic when talking about facts"
A better person would have the self awareness to correct themself. Ken's enough of a banana split to not give a strawberry float.
He basically has a history of using inflamatory and antagonistic language around Jewish people (and repeats when this is pointed out to him so ignorance isn't the cause)
This is personal speculation - but I'd say his distaste of Israel bleeds through (subconsciously?). He makes a distinct lack of care of language and tone around Jewish issues that he wouldn't seem to with any other minority.
You also have to remember he volunteered these types of comparisons when trying to defend someone else. He's not been entraped etc.
Cheers Hexx, that was how I understood it so that makes sense.
Liam Fox is now sucking up to Rodrigo Duterte, talking of "shared values" with a murderous president who encourages civilians to kill drug addicts. We're going to Hell in a strawberry floating handcart.
