andyrich666

Its going to be the most boring 2 weeks ever on Sky News with the Pistorias court case, does not interest me one bit, he is a nobody to me, never had heard of him and for now I am going to flick back to Cuatro !

me me

I am interested.

It is a new twist, usually it is a 'did he do it'.

This is a 'he did do it' but was it intentional case.

andyrich666

It was certainly a strange build up to such a case after it happened, the bail hearing was enough for me to believe that you can not have much faith in the Justice system there.

Dick Dasterdly

Exactly, but how on earth can they figure that out for sure ?

Apparently he's known to have a short fuse and there was said to be problems with his Mrs at the time, but is that enough to prove it was intentional ?

I'm guessing it will run along the lines of some of these US celeb trials and he'll walk away.

andyrich666

It's the victim and her family I feel for, they are not really seen in this, that's the worst part about it the way I see it, Oscar will come out of it with a Oscar

amideislas

Well, it would only apply in the EU.

In the US for example, you can buy "California Champagne", which would be an absolute no-no in Europe, subject to lawsuits and fines and god knows what else.

Labeling requirement in the US is simply that is created from, and manufactured consistent with what the product is claimed to be. Unlike EU law, US law does not aspire to subjectively define what is "better" product solely for the benefit and protection of a handful of producers. The yanks see competition as a good thing, whereas, the EU frowns on it.

Just like Yorkshire pud, which need not be from Yorkshire to be designated as "Yorkshire pud". But under EU law, that may eventually change.

No doubt some will argue that there's no possibility that something from California could possibly compare to something "French", but that's not the point - that is a subjective argument, rather than an objective argument. Still, I'd bet in a blind taste test, precious few average people would be able to definitively tell which is "French" or which is "California".

In reality, Champagne is Champagne, and like all products, some are better than others, but being "French" alone does not make that distinction. The "French-only" distinction is for the sole purpose of protection from competition.

In typical EU fashion, it's the LAW that defines what a product is, not the product itself, to protect us from "unfair" competition.

Fredbargate

I think to some extent that is a bad move. Having a destination mentioned even in the most abstract connection has to help tourism etc.

jimenato

You misunderstand. Champagne comes from Champagne which is a geographical area of France. You cannot call something Champagne that does not come from Champagne. It has nothing whatever to do with quality.

andyrich666

I wonder if they did not have one, how they would verify the translation is correct ?

Have they said how long the trial is expected to last ?

amideislas

OK then using same logic, it should also be illegal to sell Yorkshire pudding if it's made in Essex?

Chardonnay? Irish cream? Curaçao? Gouda? Roquefort? Gorgonzola?

How about Peking duck?

Thai curry?

Wienerschnitzel? (Vienna for those who don't know) Genovese salami? Cumberland sausage? Welsh rarebit?

Using that same logic, then these names should be protected because they can only be "authentic" if they come from producers in the regions they are named for? There's also the inference that they can't possibly be as "good" if they come from elsewhere.

And as you point out, it has nothing to do with quality. The quality can be crap, but it's the only way you can get "champagne", simply because the law says so. (apparently you haven't tried the €4/btl "champagne" sold at Lidl, have you?).

So tell me, if not to assure quality, what is the point of protecting it? Lemme think...

jimenato

Some things have protected names and some don't. Wines typically do. I expect the same is true in America. Would you be allowed to sell a wine as napa valley if it came from elsewhere?

Info; chardonnay is a grape.

amideislas

Misrepresentation of a product is certainly unethical, if not illegal in much, if not most of the civilised world.

If anyone claims their wine comes from "napa valley", when it comes from France, or claiming your "champagne" comes from France, but it's produced in South Africa, then that's clearly misrepresentation, just as it would be if you were claiming your yorkie pud is made in Yorkshire when it's really made in Essex.

But that's not the point. In reality (and in practice) Champagne is just as much a type of wine as it is a region of France. Just as "Yorkshire pudding" is a type of well, bread, really.

Outside the EU, many varieties of "champagne" are produced and sold as "champagne", although nobody claims it is from France. Only within the EU is Champagne produced Champagne region of France allowed to be labeled as "Champagne", which obviously was legislated for the sole purpose of protecting French champagne producers from having to suffer any competition. Presumably, they've employed some very effective lobbyists to ensure that.

And yes, Chadonnay is a grape, which originated in France, but is now produced all over the world. I reckon that gives french wine producers a clear ticket to sue the rest of the world for their "fake" grapes and the resulting fake "chardonnay" wine.

me me

I have just seen an ad one itv for a gastric band.

I don't know if it has been running for some time or not.

Also 74 children have been taken into care due to being obese.

Bad news.

ononno

Oh of course you can. I just unintentionally produced a bottle from my scrappy little vines. Went down a treat at grandson's birthday. Riserva Chateau La Spina 2011. :-)
bye bye dicette l'inglese

jackytoo

I vote the most boring news today ......the Oscars...same ole pat on the back crap. At least Judi Dench was missing this year.