Foreign object in dairy milk

scheming_gypsy

texranger wrote: »

but the OP would lose 99p as he was only given £10 for a problem with a 50p bar of chocolate and he wanted more.

ah but he gets 60 of them, so that's 8 for 99p which is a bargain!

pendulum wrote: »

But, but, the best before date is January 2012.
!

sssh you're not meant to see that.

texranger

pendulum wrote: »

But, but, the best before date is January 2012.
If he followed your advice he'd soon be eating out of date chocolate. He'd want compensation from you for that!

Best Before will not be out of date. it just means it is best quality before that date.

if it was Use By that whould be a different matter

texranger

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

ah but he gets 60 of them, so that's 8 for 99p which is a bargain!

true but he only got £10 and i dare say he wont want to spend any of his hard earned cash on chocolate bars that god forbid contained chocolate or he would want more compo

System

Its a well known fact on this forum that if you get conned out of a £3 P&P charge when you return under DSR everyone is up in arms and legal action is threatened against the offending company.

Complain as you've got something unpleasant in your food and you're treated like a leper. Frankly I hope some of the people who have posted on this thread tuck into a jar of Lloyd Grossmans tonight, and catch botulism. That would make me smile.

somethingcorporate

goater78 wrote: »

Its a well known fact on this forum that if you get conned out of a £3 P&P charge when you return under DSR everyone is up in arms and legal action is threatened against the offending company.

Complain as you've got something unpleasant in your food and you're treated like a leper. Frankly I hope some of the people who have posted on this thread tuck into a jar of Lloyd Grossmans tonight, and catch botulism. That would make me smile.

Forever the voice of reason Goater.

One is clearly against the law and causes quantifiable loss to an individual. The other is finding a slug on a bit of food grown in the ground. Hardly deserving of any financial compensation or do you disagree? Are you one of the ambulance chasing "oh no, won't someone think of the children" brigade?

That's the reason we're seeing schools budgets being drained all over the country for their kids falling over in the playground. People that think everything is someone else's fault and that they should be financially compensated as a result.

If you catch botulism from Grossman sauces I agree that some recompense should probably be due but to have a bit of hard ingredient in a bar of chocolate is not deserving of any financial enrichment. Nor is finding a slug on a lettuce grown in the ground.

The level of entitlement pervasive in this country's current culture for any and every tiny transgression is actually sickening.

NCISROCKS

goater78 wrote: »

Its a well known fact on this forum that if you get conned out of a £3 P&P charge when you return under DSR everyone is up in arms and legal action is threatened against the offending company.

Complain as you've got something unpleasant in your food and you're treated like a leper. Frankly I hope some of the people who have posted on this thread tuck into a jar of Lloyd Grossmans tonight, and catch botulism. That would make me smile.

Oh dear linking very occasionally finding what you make chocolate from in chocolate which does no harm and wishing botulism on people...I suppose you'd be really disappointed if they didn't die too.

mattyprice4004

FLENG wrote: »

alright mate no need to be an !!!! about it

Maybe if you weren't such a !!!! in the first place, there would have been no need for the reply at all?