This entry was posted on October 30, 2008 at 3:44 pm and is filed under annoyances, Birmingham, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
[…] we in no way constituted a sustainable news gathering source. During the game Andy Mabbett blogged some news about Winterval which hit a nerve with those of fighting the idiots on this issue. It was mooted that we try and […]
@Jon Walker On the contrary, that’s very different to Dale’s claims, which include the lies “the council controversially rebranded Christmas as Winterval to avoid offending non-Christians” and that BCC “airbrush[ed] out the word Christmas from its official celebrations“. I wonder when any of your colleagues at The Birmingham Post will publicly acknowledge these falsehoods?
In any case, Winterval covered a three month period (that’s a quarter of a year). Since when was Christmas that long, or did it include bonfire night and Chinese New Year?
Actually saying it was branded Winterval to be inclusive and saying it was branded Winterval to avoid offending non-Christians is not very different, it’s very similar. One is just expressed in a far more positive manner.
Winterval may have been intended to encompass more than Christmas but Christmas is the main event at this time of year, as Mike Chubb acknowledges when he says it was at the heart of Winterval.
I don’t speak for Paul, but when you say you have a brochure advertising the Christmas events which is marketed as a “Winterval” brochure, that seems to me to back up what he said, not undermine it. Nobody’s claimed they tried to abolish Christmas, but they did try to market the city’s Christmas events as part of something called Winterval.
The whole debate is predicated on the idea that the council should say the festive season (if we can agree on that term todescribe what we are talking about) is *Christmas* (remember a Bishop kicked it off) rather than some made-up thing that includes a number of holidays, of which Christmas is just one.
The council deliberately tried to downplay the specifically Christian element of the period in their marketing, and one could argue they were right, but they did do it.
@Jonathan Walker Your opening paragraph is an assertion without foundation.
Your third paragraph mis-represents me: the brochure included Christmas, but also bonfire night, Chinese New Year, and other, non-Christian, non-Christmas, events. You say that “Nobody’s claimed they tried to abolish Christmas“; but nobody has claimed that anyone claimed that – however, Dale did say, falsely that BCC “airbrush[ed] out the word Christmas from its official celebrations“, which is not far off that.
Your closing paragraph is as false as anything said by Dale. Which part of “Christmas Carol Concert” did you not understand? I note that you still don’t acknowledge that the two Dale quotes in my previous reply were false.
The three month period from mid-October to mid-January is not “the festive season“; let alone “Christmas“; and the events included in Winterval were not all Christian. Not even to a bishop.
I don’t misrepresent you. You’ve confirmed again that the Winterval brochure included Christmas events.
I understand what a Christmas Carol Concert is. My understanding is that the concert was advertised as part of a season of events branded Winterval. Mike Chubb actually confirms that things like Christmas lights and the Christmas market were included in Winterval.
When I talk about the festive season, I mean more or less December. The council marketed the Christian events in December as part of Winterval, and actually said Christmas was the heart of Winterval, which you don’t seem to acknowledge.
You claim if is “false” to say branding these Christmas events Winterval downplays the Christian element. Surely Winterval is not a Christian festival? Trying to portray a carol concert as part of a series of events including Chinese New Year celebrations does downplay the Christian element.