The latest recipes

Supreme Tort

Supreme Tort


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

leaf :

Rub the yolks with powdered sugar until they become a frothy cream. Add ground walnuts, breadcrumbs and flour. Beat the egg whites with a pinch of salt and incorporate them with light movements in the above composition. Pour the composite in a form lined with baking paper and bake on medium heat for 30-40 minutes in the preheated oven.

White chocolate and hazelnut cream : Put the chocolate on the fire at Bain-Marie and 100 ml of liquid cream until the chocolate melts. Remove from the heat and add the gelatin sheet that I hydrated for 10 minutes in cold water. The remaining liquid cream is beat and mix with chocolate cream and ground hazelnuts.

syrup : Put the sugar in a metal bowl over low heat, stirring constantly until it melts. Add water and let it boil until the caramel dissolves. Care must be taken not to burn the sugar, otherwise the syrup becomes bitter. When it has cooled, add the 4 tablespoons of espresso. Cut the top in half and syrup the first sheet with half the amount of syrup. We assemble a cake ring, pour and level the hazelnut cream, leaving it to cool for 2-3 hours in the cold.

Cappuccino cream : Put the yolks together with the powdered sugar in Bain Marie and mix until it becomes a homogeneous cream. Add the white chocolate, stirring constantly until it is incorporated into the egg cream. Remove from the heat, leave to cool a bit and add hydrated gelatin and the 4 sachets of cappuccino dissolved in 100 ml of water. Beat the mascarpone cheese and add the chilled egg cream, then the whipped cream. Place the second sheet of cake on top of the hazelnut cream, which we syrup and pour over the cappuccino cream. Leave to cool for a few hours, until the creams have hardened and remove the cake ring. Garnish with chocolate triangles or, according to everyone's taste.


Meringue recipes: meringue

The well-made meringue, sweet, delicate, combines excellently with the taste. Biscuit cake with chocolate creamIn & bdquoCASTE WITH RECIPES & rdquo. I ended up making this cake because it has been a favorite for a long time, the recipe is from Tima and it is so good, the walnut meringue does everything. My pictures are not so successful, but me. For this chocolate cake, the meringue must be quite thick and crunchy, so it requires a long baking over low heat. Forgive me, Father, I have sinned in an orgy of sugar! What to do if children never do. We usually have the holidays. Number of servings: 8 Preparation: 1 hour Baking: 2 hours. This wonderful cake with meringue leaves, an old recipe that my mother used to make.

It was one of my favorites and I loved helping her. Pavlova cake, fine meringue recipe with fruit and cream. If you want to make something sweet and really special you can make a Pavlova cake with. Origin and recipe step by step for Pavlova cake.

What lasts the longest is the meringue top, which requires a slow drying to. Homemade meringue cake recipes - how to make meringue cake with walnuts and coffee cream.


New Private Law

Post by Sandra Sperino, Associate Dean of Faculty and Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law.

Three fairly recent Supreme Court cases illustrate a change in the way that tort law is invoked in discrimination cases: Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., Staub v. Proctor Hosp., and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. In these three cases, the use of tort law commands a majority of the Court. The use of tort law is also tied to textual claims, where certain words or concepts in discrimination law are directly interpreted through the lens of tort law.

Into the Gross, the Court held that the ADEA required the plaintiff to establish “but for” causation. In so holding, the Court rejected the idea that the ADEA should use the same causal standard as Title VII discrimination claims. After rejecting the Title VII causal standard, the Justices were faced with a choice. What should the ADEA’s causal standard be? For the majority, the answer was simple. The words “because of” mean “but for” cause. In support of this proposition, Justice Thomas cited two cases outside the employment discrimination context and a torts treatise. Importantly, the opinion ignores that tort common law provides more than one factual cause standard.

While Justice Thomas invoked what some would say is the “normal” causation model for torts, there are several problems with the analysis in the discrimination context. In a 1989 case, the Supreme Court rejected a “but for” cause analysis in Title VII discrimination cases. It did so for several reasons. First, the Court held that workers often will not be able to prove “but for” cause because the employer, not the employee, has the best information about what caused a particular employment decision. In many cases, the worker only has evidence that a protected trait was a motivating factor in the decision. In 1989, the Supreme Court thought it inappropriate that workers carry the entire causation burden, given the information asymmetry. Tort law also allows burdens to shift to the defendant when information asymmetries exist.

The Supreme Court also noted that tort notions of causation originally developed in the context of physical events, such as accidents. In discrimination cases, the cases often rely on determining the connection between a mental state or motive and an outcome. This affects how precise the causal inquiry can be and militates against the “but for” standard.

Importantly, given the default rules of at-will employment, some discrimination cases involve overdetermined events. For example, let’s say that multiple people are deciding whether to promote a woman. Some of the people think the woman is a jerk and that she should not be promoted. Others think she should not be promoted because she is likely to get pregnant in the future. The group members discuss these concerns and a consensus is reached to not promote the woman. In this situation, the woman might not be able to establish “but for” cause, even though a reasonable observer would say that her sex inappropriately infected the decision making process. Tort law allows a lower causation burden in cases involving overdetermined events.

The Supreme Court also invoked common law tort principles in Staub v. Proctor Hosp., in which the Court interpreted the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) as containing a proximate cause element, even though the statute does not use the term “proximate cause.” (Courts have not typically invoked the concept of “proximate cause” in the discrimination context, and it remains to be seen how this addition will impact discrimination claims). Into the Staub , the Court’s short analysis begins with the statement: “[W] e start from the premise that when Congress creates a federal tort it adopts the background of general tort law.”

Staub uses two common law ideas: intent and proximate cause. The Court noted that intent requires a person to intend the consequences of his actions or believe that consequences are substantially certain to occur. The Court also cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts or cases that relied on common law proximate cause arguments to define proximate cause in the USERRA context. Lower courts have applied and are likely to keep applying this reasoning in the Title VII context because in the Staub decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the similarities between USERRA and Title VII.

The Nassar case continues this trend. In that case, the Court determined whether a plaintiff proceeding on a Title VII retaliation claim is required to establish but for cause. As with Gross, the opinion partially relied on the complex relationship between past Supreme Court precedents and the 1991 amendments to Title VII. However, this does not detract from the importance of the role of torts in this case. Once the Court decided not to follow Price Waterhouse and the 1991 amendments to Title VII, it must make a choice regarding what the causation standard should be. The choice the Court makes - “but for” cause - is largely driven by the majority opinion’s narrow view of tort law and by Gross, which also relied on tort law.

Nassar invoked tort law from the beginning of the opinion, defining the case as one involving causation and then noting that causation inquiries most commonly arise in tort cases. The majority engages in a lengthy discussion of causation’s role in tort law, with numerous citations to the Restatement and a torts treatise. The Court indicated that “textbook tort law” requires “but for” cause.

Together Staub, Gross, and Nassar represent a shift in the way the Supreme Court uses tort law. A reliable majority of justices are comfortable using tort law without much additional argument about why tort law is appropriate. Tort law is no longer just persuasive authority that serves as one source of potential meaning in discrimination cases. Rather, the justices can use tort law to find a specific meaning to particular statutory words or ideas.


Justice Thomas Goes to Bat for West Point Rape Survivor: It’s Time to Overturn ‘Demonstrably Wrong’ Precedent

just Clarence Thomas was the sole member of the Supreme Court to speak out Monday, criticizing the Court & # 8217s refusal to hear the case of a West Point cadet who said she was raped by a fellow cadet. Thomas & # 8217 dissent from the Court & # 8217s order was a rare moment where the conservative justice sided with the ACLU, but it was also a chance for Thomas to remind the Court that there are certain precedents he & # 8217d be fine with abandoning altogether.

The case at hand, Jane Doe v. United States, is an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit over whether a service member is entitled to bring suit against the government. Under the prevailing case law, military personnel are prohibited from suing the federal government because the United States has sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”).

Doe & # 8217s case provides SCOTUS with an opportunity to overrule the 1950 case that foreclosed lawsuits like Doe & # 8217s against the military. Feres v. United States was a unanimous decision that created the widely criticized & # 8220Feres Doctrine, & # 8221 which protects the government from defending a wide range of tort lawsuits that otherwise might be waged by members of the military.

Doe filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that SCOTUS should take up her case, overrule Feres, and side with survivors of sexual violence at military academies. From Doe & # 8217s petition:

West Point and its leaders fostered a sexually aggressive and misogynistic environment, failed to punish rapists and other sexual assailants, and failed to implement mandatory DOD directives and instructions to protect victims. THX. Doe suffered the full consequences of West Point’s blatant disregard of DOD policies on May 8, 2010, when she was raped by a fellow cadet. THX. Doe was attacked in an academic building, after-hours, during the course of a recreational nighttime walk. She sought immediate medical care from West Point, which once again failed to comply with mandatory military directives or to provide appropriate medical and emotional support. Three months later, she resigned and left the school. THX. Doe’s departure was a bitter loss to a young woman who had dreamed of serving her country. It was also a tragic loss to the nation of a promising future soldier.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and multiple other organizations filed amicus briefs, supporting Doe & # 8217s case and arguing that it & # 8217s time for the Feres doctrine to go.

Without comment from the Court & # 8217s majority, the Supreme Court declined to hear Doe & # 8217s case. As is the usual practice in a denial of certiorari, the Court did not release information indicating the breakdown of votes. Justice Thomas, however, penned a three-page dissent from the Court & # 8217s order.

Thomas argued that Doe should have been allowed to bring her case against the federal government, calling attention to the illogic of a rule that allows government contractors to sue for tort when government employees cannot. Although Congress had not specifically prohibited lawsuits like Doe & # 8217s in the FTCA, & # 822070 years ago, this Court made the policy judgment that members of the military should not be able to sue for injuries incident to military service, & # 8221 pointed out the justice.

Calling a prohibition against lawsuits by military members an approach supported by & # 8220little justification, & # 8221 Thomas bluntly wrote, & # 8220Feres was wrongly decided and this case was wrongly decided as a result. & # 8221

In a pragmatic style of writing, Thomas provided multiple examples of how the Feres doctrine creates unfair results. & # 8220Under our precedent, & # 8221 he explained, & # 8220if two Pentagon employees— one civilian and one a servicemember — are hit by a bus in the Pentagon parking lot and sue, it may be that only the civilian would have a chance to litigate his claim. & # 8221 Thomas went on, saying the Feres doctrine is not only a bad rule, but also tends to be applied inconsistently.

Feres apparently forecloses a claim for a servicemember’s injury while waterskiing because the recreational boat belonged to the military, but not for an injury while attending a rugby event caused by a servicemember’s negligent operation of an Army van, & # 8221 Thomas wrote.

Justice Thomas also had words for a Court that he suggested is more concerned with stay decided than it should be. Criticizing a bench that may have chosen to avoid Doe & # 8217s case, & # 8220because it would require fiddling with a 70-year-old precedent that is demonstrably wrong, & # 8221 Thomas schooled his colleagues, & # 8220But if the Feres doctrine is so wrong that we cannot figure out how to rein it in, then the better answer is to bid it farewell. & # 8221 Remarking that & # 8220there is precedent & # 8221 for throwing out a wrong-footed precedent, Thomas listed numerous cases in which the Court has done just that, including Korematsu v. United States, Brown v. Board of Education, and Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins.


Weights and ingredients for the Snikers cake

Here are the ingredients you need for the famous Snikers cake:

Cocoa wheat:

  • 3 eggs
  • 120 g butter
  • 90 g flour
  • 25 g cocoa
  • 150 g sugar
  • 120 g of dark chocolate
  • a pinch of salt
  • 250 grams of mascarpone
  • 200 g peanut butter
  • 200 g cream cheese
  • 200 g sweetened condensed milk
  • 1 teaspoon vanilla essence

Chocolate glaze:

Snickers cake. The ultimate dessert with chocolate, sweet caramel and butter cream


Unbaked cake with apples, biscuits and vanilla pudding

Translate this page Striped cake with caramel sheets and sponge cake & # 8211 Cranberry Recipes. You can't help but like the striped cake with caramel and sponge cake sheets, it's so good. The baked countertops are allowed to cool without removing the paper. Prepare icing and cream for kinder pingui cake.

Meanwhile, prepare the icing 1. Baking Recipes, Unbaked Desserts, Recipes. Sweet appetite recipes. Polish Cake Unbaked Desserts, Dessert Recipes, Dessert Shots, Cake Bars. I came across this amazing "Kinder Milk Slice" recipe and I did. A cake recipe with Oreo cookies.

Try this raspberry tart recipe, without baking and you will definitely want to repeat it as much as possible. Cake with cocoa top and cherry cream Desserts Without Baking, Desserts. Prepare the icing at least 2 hours before serving the cake, as follows: heat the sweet cream for whipped cream and add.

A really delicious and festive cake!


The croissant, the ultimate morning treat. 10 things to know about this French delicacy

It is the symbol of French breakfast, but the croissant has a much more complex history. What are the secrets behind this dish, where in Paris you must try it and what is the traditional recipe, you can find below.

Here are other things you need to know about this preparation:

Austria
It is a symbol of French breakfast, but the croissant actually comes from 13th century Austria. The croissant is first mentioned in a French cookbook only in 1891.

Butter
The main ingredient, the one that makes the difference, is unsalted butter. It gives flavor, but also the consistency of the croissant.

National product
Together with the baguette, the croissant is a product that is never missing from the French tables. This is a national product since 1920.

Crescent
There are many explanations for the shape of the croissants, and one of them is as follows: in 1683, trying to attack Vienna, the Turks dug a tunnel under the city walls, in order to enter unseen. A pastry chef who was working late heard the noises and alerted the Austrian army. To celebrate the moment, the pastry chef created kipferl, a crescent-shaped pastry, the emblem of the Ottoman Empire, thus symbolizing the devouring of the Turks by the Austrians.

Jam
In France, the croissant is easy to buy and filled with jam at home. In some countries, however, such as Italy, they are sold in pre-filled stores. In Germany, Nutella is the most popular choice.

Kipferl
The croissant is said to have appeared in France with Queen Marie Antoinette, who described to the royal pastry chefs one of her favorite desserts, kipferl, and ordered them to prepare it. The new recipe was a huge success in France and became part of French cuisine. However, this variant is rejected by some critics

Paris
The best croissants in Paris can be found at Pierre Herme, on Bonaparte Street, on the left bank of the Seine. But you can also find very good croissants at Laduree, the most famous teahouse in Paris, known especially for some exceptional macarons.

Maria Antoaneta
It is said that the queen of the French Revolution, known for the famous word "Let them eat cake" actually said "Let them eat croissant" when the French revolted that they did not even have bread on the tables.

Perfect flour
Croissants should always be made with unbleached flour, which allows it to have that specific cream color.

viennoiserie
The small, artisanal shops that sell pastries in France are called Viennoiserie and specialize in chocolate bread, muffins and other Austrian sweets that have become symbols of French cuisine.

Try a croissant recipe:

By activating and using the Comment Platform you agree that your personal data will be processed by PRO TV S.R.L. and Facebook Companies according to the PRO TV Privacy Policy, respectively the Facebook Data Use Policy.

Pressing the button below represents your agreement to the TERMS AND CONDITIONS of the COMMENTING PLATFORM.


They say

AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, PETITIONER v. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC.

On writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

Justice Stevens, dissenting.

Everyone agrees that respondent’s tortious interference claim would be barred by the filed-rate doctrine if it is “wholly derivative of the contract claim for additional and better services.” Ante, at 12 (majority opinion) ante, at 1 (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring). Moreover, it is true that when the Magistrate Judge ruled that respondent's case would not support a punitive damages award as a matter of state law, he characterized the tort claim as “stem [ming] from the alleged failure of AT & ampT to comply with its contractual relationship. ” Tr. 2207. In my opinion, however, the jury’s verdict on respondent’s tort claim is supported by evidence that went well beyond, and differed in nature from, the contract claim.

If petitioner, in an effort to appropriate respondent's customers, had included with each bill sent to a customer a statement expressly characterizing respondent as an unethical, profit-hungry middleman, I would think it clear that the filed-rate doctrine would not constitute a defense to such tortious conduct. The evidence in the record indicates that a similar result was obtained by mailing bills to the customers that disclosed the markup that respondents obtained on their calls.

Respondent’s tort claim was also premised in part on testimony that AT & ampT used a telemarketer to contact respondent’s customers and, without their authorization, convert them to AT & ampT’s own long-distance service. Id., at 557–558. In rejecting AT & ampT’s motion for a directed verdict on the tort claim, the Magistrate recognized that this practice of “slamming” customers could “easily be a case of intentional interference” that would not necessarily also constitute breach of contract. Id., at 2166–2167. Slamming was clearly a part of the case presented in the District Court. There was an allegation of slamming in respondent’s amended complaint 1 in the District Court, AT & ampT’s trial counsel took issue with respondent’s effort to make slamming “a big part of this case,” id., at 2170, and said in closing argument that slamming “is the basis for this intentional interference” claim, id., at 2921 and nothing in the jury instructions remotely suggested that the tort claim required proof of broken promises by AT & ampT to provide additional services. Respondent’s evidence easily fits within the definition of intentional interference set forth in the jury charge:

“COT asserts that AT & ampT intentionally interfered with its business relations and expectations of future business relations with its customers, the end users of its SDN service. In order to prevail on this claim, COT must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, one, that COT had business relations with the probability of future economic benefit. Two, that AT&T was aware of the relationships and expectation of future benefits. Three, that AT & ampT intentionally interfered with COT’s business relations. Four, that AT & ampT interfered for an improper motive or by using improper means. And, five, that COT suffered economic injury as a result of the interference. ” App. 71.

It may be the fact that the billing disclosures and slamming were the consequence of negligence rather than a deliberate plan to take over a network of customers that respondent had developed, but the jury concluded otherwise. It found that petitioner acted intentionally and willfully in interfering with respondent’s business relations. EEA ibid. 2 That finding is doubly significant.

First, as the Court acknowledges, ante, at 13, the jury’s finding precludes a defense based on the provisions of the tariff that purport to limit petitioner’s liability. Second, and of greater importance, it determines that the most egregious tortious conduct was not merely derivative of the contract violations. Enforcement of respondent's state-law right to be free from tortious interference with business relations does not somehow award respondent an unlawful preference that should have been specified in the tariff (presumably in return for an added fee or higher rate) it instead gives effect to a generally applicable right that petitioner is required, by state law, to respect in dealing with all others, customers and non-customers alike. Thus, at least some of the tortious interference occurred independently of the customer-carrier relationship and would have been actionable even if respondent had never entered into a contract with AT & ampT.

The Court correctly states that the filed-rate doctrine will pre-empt some tort claims, but we have never before applied that harsh doctrine to bar relief for tortious conduct with so little connection to, or effect upon, the relationship governed by the tariff. To the extent respondent’s tort claim is based on petitioner’s billing disclosures and slamming practices, it neither challenges the carrier’s filed rates, as did the antitrust claim in Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 260 U. S. 156 (1922), nor seeks a special service or privilege of the sort requested in cases such as Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. S. 155 (1912), and Davis v. Cornwell, 264 U.S. 560 (1924). More akin to this case is Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 426 U. S. 290, 300 (1976), in which we held that a common-law tort action for fraudulent misrepresentation against a federally-regulated air carrier could “coexist” with the Federal Aviation Act. To a limited degree it may be said that here, as in Nader, "Any impact on rates that may result from the imposition of tort liability or from practices adopted by a carrier to avoid such liability would be merely incidental." Ibid. If the Communications Act’s savings clause 3 means anything, it preserves state-law remedies against carriers on facts such as these.

The District Court and the Court of Appeals never considered whether respondent’s tort claim is wholly derivative of its contract claim for purposes of the filed-rate doctrine, because those courts mistakenly believed that even the contract claim was not covered by the doctrine. On my own reading of the record, I think it is clear that a portion of the tort claim is not pre-empted. The Court should therefore remand the case for a new trial rather than ordering judgment outright for AT & ampT. 4

Although the Court holds broadly that respondent’s tort claim is totally barred, it declines to consider whether a portion of the claim might survive on remand because this issue was not part of the question presented in the petition for certiorari and was not specifically raised by respondent. Ante, at 12, No. 2. The latter point is wholly irrelevant, precisely because of the scope of the question presented. The only question that we agreed to decide was whether the filed-rate doctrine pre-empts “state-law contract and tort claims based on a common carrier’s failure to honor an alleged side agreement to give its customer better service than called for by the carrier’s tariff. ” Pet. for Cert. The Court answers that legal question, and then decides an additional, factual one: whether respondent's tort claim is "based on" AT & ampT's "failure to honor an alleged side agreement," and thus is "wholly derivative" of the pre-empted contract claim. In resolving that issue, the Court cannot simply rely on AT & ampT's bald assertion, supported only by a statement of the Magistrate taken out of context, that the tort claim is “wholly derivative” we have an obligation either to study the record or at least to remand and allow the lower courts to consider the proper application of the legal rule to the facts of this case.

Notes

1 “[D] espite repeated requests by COT to AT & ampT, AT & ampT failed to rectify incidents of unauthorized changes made in the designated carriers (‘ slamming ’) of COT’s customers.” App. 28.

2 The jury’s $ 13 million damages award, reduced by the Magistrate Judge to $ 1,154 million, did not differentiate between the contract and tort claims.

3 “Nothing in this chapter contained shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this chapter are in addition to such remedies.” 47 U. S. C. §414.

4 Beyond the billing disclosures and slamming, respondent asserts that AT & ampT also misappropriated customer information from respondent’s confidential database. Brief for Respondent 4. That basis for a tort remedy, if supported by sufficient evidence, would also appear not to be pre-empted by the filed-rate doctrine.


Culinary competitions continue on TV Paprika in May, but now master chefs are also on the scene

The masterclasses & # 8222Dessert Championship - Masters in Action & # 8221, seasons 3 and 4, will be broadcast on TV Paprika this month, starting with May 4 and 21, respectively, from 9.15 pm. Also this month, the competitive gastronomic show & # 8222Dessert Championship & # 8221 continues with seasons 4 and 5, from May 7, respectively May 27, also from 9.15 pm, the television announces through a communiqué sent to hdsatelit.com.

After an entire season & # 8222The Great British Bake Off & # 8221 / & # 8222Dessert Championship & # 8221, in which the competitors gave all their science to make the most tasty and good-looking desserts, the jurors Mary Berry and Paul Hollywood put on their confectionery and enter the tent which is the location of the competition, to show the competitors how to face the technical challenges. Mary and Paul attack tarts, rum cakes, candies, pies and Paul's famous eight-braid baking. Going through each step of the five recipes in the & # 8222Dessert Championship & # 8221 series, they show exactly how to do some things where bakers usually go wrong.

In season 3 of the Masterclasses, Mary starts with a Madeira cake followed by a hazelnut cake. Paul makes Biscotti and shows us how to prepare the pretentious Arlette cakes. In the second part of the season, Paul is in his element as he shows us how to make baking soda bread in less than an hour and then bake the baguette, the best known of all French bakery products. Mary makes Cappuccino Creme Brulee and the classic Mering cake that put bakers in trouble in the 4th week. Then, Mary and Paul redo the baking in the second half of the series & # 8222Dessert Championship & # 8221, after which Mary gives up sugar for her own version of a sugar-free carrot cake before making an apricot frangipane tart. . Paul shows us the right way to make a Cypriot dessert, Flaounas, which can leave any guest speechless. In the third part of the Masterclasses, Mary makes a Tennis Cake inspired by a 19th century recipe that was a challenge from Victorian times. Paul makes two types of croissants with cream & # 8211 the first filled with a Mocha cream and the other with a Limoncello Tutti Frutti cream. Mary shows us what it's like to be delicate, precise and perfect with Mokatine cakes and Paul starts an epic construction in a Religieuse a l & # 8217Ancienne dessert.

In Season 4 of the Masterclasses & # 8222Masters in Action & # 8221, Mary and Paul share tips and tricks to get an orange cake, breakfast muffins, olive sticks, savarines, tarts and spanakopita at home. . Then Mary shares her family recipe for ginger blackberry, and Paul leads us through tea-flavored recipes. Later, Paul makes a rye bread and sweet pretzels, and Mary bakes a pudding like in Sussex, eclairs and makes her own version of the classic opera cake.

As for season 4 of the contest show & # 8222The Great British Bake Off & # 8221 / & # 8222Dessert Championship & # 8221, which starts on TV Paprika on May 7, at 9.15 pm, Mary Berry and Paul Hollywood return as members of the jury. 13,000 amateur confectioners competed to appear in the program. From these, 13 competitors were chosen, with the most unexpected occupations: children's clothing designer, English teacher, horticulturist, dentist, satellite designer. Concurenta designer de haine pentru copii a câștigat sezonul.

Prima ei carte publicată s-a numit Quinntessential Baking. Ea este adesea oaspete la emisiunile TV și radio din Anglia. A apărut în paginile revistei Vogue.

În finala sezonului – cei trei concurenți rămași trebuie să facă o plăcintă pentru picnic. Plăcinta trebuie să fie gustoasă, umplutura trebuie să fie creativă și suficient de groasă pentru a fi servită
direct din tavă. Ca provocare tehnică, cofetarilor li se dă să prepare 12 covrigei cu forma perfectă: șase dintre ei cu sare și șase dulci, aromați cu semințe de mac plus suc de portocale și glazură. Pentru challenge-ul finalei, cofetarilor amatori li se cere să coacă desertul suprem – un tort de nuntă cu trei etaje.

Sezonul 5 „The Great British Bake Off”/„Campionatul deserturilor” începe în data de 27 mai, de la ora 21.15. Mary Berry și Paul Hollywood se întorc ca jurați. Doisprezece concurenți au participat în concurs. O fostă administratoare la un cabinet medical a câștigat concursul. Bunica a opt copii, scrie acum pentru ziare naționale precum The Daily Telegraph, are propriul site web, și face demonstrații de gătit în Anglia.

Sezonul a căpătat câteva dintre cele mai mari ratinguri pe BBC Two. Conform datelor, ultimul episod a fost vizionat de către 9,1 milioane de spectatori, cu o medie de peste 8 milioane, mai mult decât dublul spectatorilor pe BBC One și ITV.


Despre TV Paprika

TV Paprika face parte din portofoliul AMC Networks International şi este singurul canal TV dedicat gastronomiei din regiune, care împărtăşeşte telespectatorilor bucuria de a găti, de a mânca şi de a trăi bine. Cei mai faimoşi bucătari din întreaga lume – Jamie Oliver, Gordon Ramsay şi Nigella Lawson – îşi demonstrează măiestria la TV Paprika. Prin intermediul acestor programe, telespectatorii prind gustul bucătăriei europene gourmet, a celei tradiţionale româneşti, dar şi a mâncărurilor exotice din întreaga lume.


Video: Robbie Williams - Supreme (June 2022).