Not shopped, but does this kind of thing really wind anyone else up?
'Contains fish' - I mean how fucking thick do they actually reckon we are?
(grey kidis breakdancing to save a community centre,
Sat 13 Aug 2005, 15:43,
archived)
it's not that they think we're thick
it's that they can cover themselves from being sued if some dumbfuck is allergic and says "there's no allergy advice on the can!"
(urbane legendi have known the inexorable sadness of pencils,
Sat 13 Aug 2005, 15:44,
archived)
Erm, yes - of course, I realise this, Mr Sainsbury. ;)
But would a fish allergy sufferer REALLY have a case if they collapsed foaming at the mouth after 'naively' gobbling down a can of whole fucking fish?
(grey kidis breakdancing to save a community centre,
Sat 13 Aug 2005, 15:46,
archived)
not if it kills him
/hopes
(mediocreha ha ha, you're reading this,
Sat 13 Aug 2005, 16:07,
archived)
I've often wondered
If we got rid of this stupid culture of passing the buck of responsibility, would all the lawyers starve and die meaning that the legal system broke down and people were simply forced to be nice to eachother and generally honest making the world a better place in which Chavs are fed into mincers to feed the third world?
(GuineapiggyFuzzeh!,
Sat 13 Aug 2005, 15:47,
archived)
Yes.
(grey kidis breakdancing to save a community centre,
Sat 13 Aug 2005, 15:48,
archived)
*sigh*
It's a beautiful dream...
(laminasniisn't.,
Sat 13 Aug 2005, 15:48,
archived)
well
stuff like that is just a legal requirement. And at least it's clear, rather than the shitty 'may contain traces of nuts' ones. Why not put 'may or may not, take the risk. We don't know what crap our factory workers chuck in our food.'?
(OnionTerroris a bag full of sick,
Sat 13 Aug 2005, 15:45,
archived)