Innocent Smoothies have lost their innocence - weights and measures trickery ...

redped

2sides2everystory wrote: »

redped, I think you have unfortunately not read the sentences you commented correctly. There is an either / or condition and it doesn't matter if there is factually correct labeling. It is the existence of likely deceit by the "presentation" of the product which counts.

I did read the sentences correctly - at the end it says "if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct"

As a reply, I said "assuming I'm an average person, I don't believe I'd be deceived".

How is this me mis-reading the sentences? I don't believe the packaging is deceiving, ergo there is no problem. Simple as that.

I think you're the one who mis-read my reply.

MamaMoo_2

MamaMoo - did you also work at Stamford Street before the move? Nope, I worked at Holborn for around 6 months in 2009/10 Did you actually work in the buying departments? Yes I accept that at one end of the scale even a single large supermarket like Sainsburys won't have much sway on say the size of a pack of Heinz beans, but with juices which are almost all sold in 1 litre packs there is the practice issue that I am arguing in this thread. Sainsburys are obliged to self-regulate just as Innocent themselves are.

now that's just silly. "most juices are 1L so I shall assume that this smoothie next to it, which is noticeably smaller in size, must be 1L too to conform!"
No. Just no. Sainsbury's also do 1.75L cartons of juice (used to be 2L, but pack size was reduced.)
No-one looked at the big 1.75L one, saw the smaller 1L one next to it and assumed that they were the same.
Uniformity in the industry is not a requirement. Eg most cans of pop are 330ml but Red Bull is sold in 250ml and 355ml cans. Common sense tells us that the smaller can size will hold a smaller volume.
Ignorance and idiocy in a buyer are not valid arguments to prove misrepresentation

browneyedbazzi

MamaMoo wrote: »

Ignorance and idiocy in a buyer are not valid arguments to prove misrepresentation

Exactly...that's why the law talks about actions which deceive the average consumer.

There are levels of stupidity and ignorance that it would be unreasonable to expect manufacturers/traders to cater for...to do so would be unduly cumbersome, expensive and detrimental to other consumers in the long run.

2sides2everystory

The law doesn't distinguish between discerning buyers and buyers who are idiots or ignorant MamaMoo any more than it discerns between buying department employees who do some kind of job there for six months and think they know it all and local authority workers who think they are the law on all matters ranging from stupidity and ignorance to CPRs.

I seem to have forgotten to press send on an earlier post where I apologised to redped because I had misunderstood his response. Sorry about that, we are watching Gordon Gekko ride again in Wall Street 2 and I got distracted. I think redped was arguing that he is average and he wasn't deceived and QED its legal or something like that?

Anyway, I am back for a few moments and find numbers of you all over my thread like a rash ... even some Vermint character who misquoted me and gets three thanks votes for it ... Is everybody out there nuts ?

MamaMoo_2

2sides2everystory wrote: »

The law doesn't distinguish between discerning buyers and buyers who are idiots or ignorant MamaMoo any more than it discerns between buying department employees who do some kind of job there for six months and think they know it all and local authority workers who think they are the law on all matters ranging from stupidity and ignorance to CPRs.

:rolleyes:
So, because there are people here who have done the jobs & can tell you how stuff works, but it doesn't conform to what *you* want to believe, you can be an a*shole to them.
Yeah, I did it for six months, so I know enough. Enough to tell you how it works. If you don't like that, then that's not my issue.
Just out of curiosity, how long have you worked for a large supermarket in the purchase section?

browneyedbazzi

You carry on believing whatever you want to believe...however unreasonable and irrational it may be.

I won't be wasting any more of my time or energy trying to reason with someone like you.

Finefoot

oh dear.


Anyway, I do not like the sneak practice of replacing an item with a smaller one. If I am working from a recipe and someone picks up the items for me - its not the right amount, and is very frustrating. I mean eggs still come in 6 packs, right?

2sides2everystory

Oh no ... you mentioned eggs ... I promised myself that I wasn#t going to mention the Eggs in Aisle 18 ... thieving rotten b#stards :mad:

The eggs they put in boxes marked 'Large' are smaller than the eggs they put in boxes marked 'Small' 5 years ago or maybe even 5 months ago / does anyone keep track? Clearly with people like BEB occupying Trading Standards roles we may not see an improvement anytime soon. Currently there is no standard and even that fine English idiom "As Sure As Eggs Is Eggs" has lost its meaning.

Thanks everyone - wonderful job ... meet you all at the bottom?

redped

2sides2everystory wrote: »

I seem to have forgotten to press send on an earlier post where I apologised to redped because I had misunderstood his response. Sorry about that, we are watching Gordon Gekko ride again in Wall Street 2 and I got distracted. I think redped was arguing that he is average and he wasn't deceived and QED its legal or something like that?

Thanks. I was going through each part of the legislation, and pointing out that I (as an average consumer) didn't feel it was deceiving, hence the product and the manufacturer haven't breached any legislation.

Altarf

2sides2everystory wrote: »

I always thought of Innocent the smoothies company as an ok company because it had some connection with Virgin originally.

Innocent Smoothies was bought by Coca Cola in 2010, but people still think they are a 'nice' company. Same as -

- Green & Blacks, now owned by Kraft Foods
- Ben & Jerry's, now owned by Unilever
- Pret a Manger, now owned by the private equity firm, Bridgepoint Capital
- Body Shop, now owned by L'Oreal

to name a few.