This wasn't just a meal deal. This was a Marks & Spencer meal deal - without alcohol.Who could blame them?
Yet when the High Street giant trialled the new version of its hugely popular Dine In For Two for £10 offer with better quality food, but without the usual bottle of wine thrown in, it seems customers were just not interested.
Instead of snapping up the deals as usual, the normally loyal shoppers took their business elsewhere, and some even spoke up about their outrage.Oh noes! Not only are they refusing to obey, they are speaking out!
Now the trial has come to an end, and Marks and Spencer has no plans to repeat it - promising that the 'Dine In' offer will continue, but with a bottle of wine option included as standard.And why did they trial such a bonkers idea in the first place?
The experiment, which was carried out in a handful of stores over the New Year, came after a series of attacks on shops for encouraging heavy drinking by offering cheap alcohol.Or, to put it another way, middle class Britons have shown they are sick and tired of the hectoring, nannying claptrap that issues from the mouths of single-issue fanatics who claim to be ‘experts’ yet pull their ‘evidence’ straight out of their fundaments…
But middle class Britons have evidently shown that they remain a pushover for bargain booze, in spite of the warnings of experts.
But Julia, you cry, why should teetotalers not be catered for? Why should alternatives not be available? What about freedom of choice?
Oh. Well, you always had that. You didn't have to have the wine!
Leaving people to make their own decisions? What sort of campaigner ever does that?
Although customers are offered a soft drink as an alternative to the wine, campaigners against alcohol abuse raised questions…Well, of course they did.
Leaving people to make their own decisions? What sort of campaigner ever does that?
… and over the New Year, the trial alternative without any alcohol was tested.Went down a storm, didn't it? Heh!
According to the industry magazine The Grocer, feedback on the re-jigged deal on the internet consumer forum Money Saving Expert was overwhelmingly negative.Ouch!
Are they downhearted? Do they see this as proof they were wrong?
Last October the British Liver Trust claimed such deals should carry health warnings, as they encouraged heavy drinking among middle-aged professionals - yet were promoted in sections of stores away from the alcohol department.Hmmm, the Liver Trust. It's not a fakecharity - over 90% of its income is marked as 'voluntary'.
That doesn't stop it being a hectoring busybody, though:
British Liver Trust spokeswoman Sarah Matthews said: 'These meal deals are prominently advertised and make regular drinking at that level seem like a perfectly acceptable everyday habit. They are totally wrong.'According to you...
'If a couple share a bottle of wine every night, the woman would be more than double her limit by the end of the week and the man would also be way over.'And since those limits are based on nothing, IT DOESN’T MATTER ANYWAY.
But the final delicious irony came when I looked up their website. They are running a competition for feedback on their newsletter.
And look at what you get if you win:
/facepalm
10 comments:
Up here in Jockland the nannying is even worse. Our draconian licensiing laws forbid any retailer to display anything other than mixer drinks along with the demon booze within licensed areas of shops.
Even corkscrews are verbotten next to the wine.
Of course it has nothing to do with drink. It's the usual putritan/authoritarian thing.
"I don't like it much so you should not be allowed to enjoy it either".
The Left is trying to convince everyone that the nations's drink problem is about middle-class adults sipping a glass of merlot with lamb in mint sauce.
But all those binge-drinking
yobs/slags vomiting over ambulance staff every Saturday night? Hey, that's fine - it's da yoof do, innit.
Drinking alcohol is a u-shaped curve. Teetotalers die earlier and have worse health than moderate drinkers. These people should be encouraging most of us to drink rather than focusing on those who are two standard deviations from the mean.
Idiots.
In my experience many professionals did not need a meal deal as encouragement to drink heavily.
In any event, weren't the M&S food + drink deals available on weekends only? If so, it seems unfair to M&S to criticise their deals, when the problem drinkers would have been buying half a case of wine each week anyway.
JuliaM
Apropos the income of the British Liver Trust (accounts for year to 31 March 2010 here 18% (£120,000) of total income (£657,000) in 2009/2010 was taxpayer funded. However, as you noted, £614,000 of that total income is described as "voluntary" on the BLT page of the Charity Commission website.
As a description of income "voluntary" in the context of charities means (I believe and I stand to be corrected) that such income is handed over voluntarily ie there is no contract or covenant with the donating person or organisation. Accordingly there's no reason why moneys compulsorily seized from taxpayers would not be labelled "voluntary" if the politicians being generous with our money are not legally obliged to hand over the moolah.
I don't know what the definition now is of a "fake charity" so I can't say if (assuming the above is correct) the BLT is fake or not. However, don't be fooled into equating "voluntary income" with "non-taxpayer-funded income".
It's called the "Liver Trust" and it talks like that? Of course it's a fakecharity!
My guess is they've got wise to us. "Voluntary contributions" = contributions from government, but filtered through, for instance, another fakecharity. Guido or the Devil can't say a thing. Or can they?
"Our draconian licensiing laws forbid any retailer to display anything other than mixer drinks along with the demon booze within licensed areas of shops."
Oh, good grief!
"It's the usual putritan/authoritarian thing.
"I don't like it much so you should not be allowed to enjoy it either"."
Spot on!
"The Left is trying to convince everyone that the nations's drink problem is about middle-class adults sipping a glass of merlot with lamb in mint sauce. "
Because that's the audience most likely to be stupid enough to listen to them!
"These people should be encouraging most of us to drink rather than focusing on those who are two standard deviations from the mean. "
Advice more of us would take!
"In any event, weren't the M&S food + drink deals available on weekends only?"
Indeed they were.
"As a description of income "voluntary" in the context of charities means (I believe and I stand to be corrected) that such income is handed over voluntarily ie there is no contract or covenant with the donating person or organisation."
Really? Then those graphs are quite misleading, aren't they?
I (and I suspect, most others would do this) took it to mean donations from the public or organisations...
" Guido or the Devil can't say a thing. Or can they?"
Oh, I think they can. The Devil wants to expand the fakecharity site, but doesn't have the time, and was looking for volunteers just last week.
I view the 'limits' are as a target which is to be exceeded with monotonous regularity.
Post a Comment