M&S - Stating the obvious!

[Fifi]

I have just taken the labels off a new child's jersey from Marks and Spencer and was amused to find this one attached: "In the interest of safety, it is advisable to keep your child away from fire and flames" :eek:

I would think that this would be blindingly obvious even to someone of limited intelligence, so what do they hope to gain from this statement?! Are they genuinely trying to give you a safety warning for no particular reason? Or are they implying that their clothing may combust within 3 feet of a candle flame but, hey as they gave you fair warning. don't bother to try and claim if it does? [lol]

Can anyone else see the point of this label?!

[Rheghead]

I think there is no point for the label either but there are some parents who are just so stupid.

It reminds me that there is a Safety Datasheet and a COSHH assessment for the safe handling of water. Wherein it warns that contact with copious amounts will lead to a risk of asphyxiation.

But that is not all, on other Safety datasheets and COSHH assessments the advice for accidental contact with other chemicals is to wash with copious amounts of water. [lol]

Well you're gonna die one way or the other I suppose... :confused

[DrSzin]

I have one of those labels right here -- I've been meaning to post something about it for ages.

It says "MARKS & SPENCER" at the top; below that, in capital letters, is what Fifi reported; then, at the bottom, it says "© Marks & Spencer plc". Finally, there's an ad for their website. And that's it!

Are they trying to cover their backsides or to copyright common sense? It's bizarre...

[Donnie]

I have just taken the labels off a new child's jersey from Marks and Spencer and was amused to find this one attached: "In the interest of safety, it is advisable to keep your child away from fire and flames" :eek:

I would think that this would be blindingly obvious even to someone of limited intelligence, so what do they hope to gain from this statement?! Are they genuinely trying to give you a safety warning for no particular reason? Or are they implying that their clothing may combust within 3 feet of a candle flame but, hey as they gave you fair warning. don't bother to try and claim if it does? [lol]

Can anyone else see the point of this label?!

I think it may just be a case of standardised warnings and requirement to include them. It's like the common one on a bag of nuts - May contain traces of nuts.

[lassieinfife]

I work for the nhs as a cook and we have to stick notices up everywhere........"microwave might burn food.. if wrong time keyed in".... doh!
Bain marie for keeping meals hot ?....... "Take care hot surface"... that one had to go up because members of nursing staff complained that they hadnt realised surface would be hot ........... its bliddy stainless steel for gods sake what did they expect....? :p

[Karen M26a]

Some of the warnings you get on things really are idiot-proof, especially if you have a peanut allergy. Once I came across a bag of peanuts which had written on the bag "Warning, this product contains nuts"! Doh!

[hereboy]

just when you think warnings are idiot-proof - they build a better idiot... one thats actually evolved into a chancer.

Some chancers make a lot of money that way - like the woman in the US who sued MacDonalds when she spilled "hot" coffee on herself. Notice the styrofoam cups now say, "warning hot contents" or some other such nonsense.

Seems like all these warnings are not to protect idiots - they are to protect the manufacturers for being sued by chancers.

Perhaps these labels should be called chancer-proof.

[George Brims]

I have risen to the defence of this poor woman before. Here are the facts

1) The Macdonalds in question had had a number of complaints before about the coffee being too hot and people burning themselves. There is no need to keep coffee at 95+ degrees Centigrade. (Not only is it dngerous, it ruins the coffee).

2) The lid popped off and the cup collapsed in the woman's hand so she dropped it in her lap.

3) The coffee was so hot the woman suffered third degree burns, which required a lengthy hospital stay and skin grafts.

Now there are a lot of chancers about (and insurance fraud is pretty common), but this lady wasn't one of them.

[Rheghead]

Just curious but who won the court's decision, the woman or macdonalds?

[George Brims]

The court found Macdonald's liable to the tune of about 2.9 million dollars. In US courts juries can award punitive damages in addition to straight liability such as hospital expenses or lost wages resulting from an injury. The majority of the money was in punitive damages. These were reduced by a judge on appeal.

The full story is here. I had it wrong about the lid popping off; the lady had removed the lid to put in cream and sugar when she lost grip on the cup.

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

The interesting part was that the jury thought the whole thing a waste of time when the case started.

[hereboy]

So George, who would she have sued has she done this at home making a cup of instant?

The coffee manufacturer, the kettle manufacturer? The local water authority?

She dropped the cup. Thats her negligence, not MacDonalds. Sure its a shame the woman got burned - but that is what happens when you are not careful with hot stuff. Maybe she was more idiot than chancer after all.

All I am saying is, the US culture of "someone must be to blame" and the resulting frivolous court cases which on occasion turn out spectacularly unbelievable settlements lead to three scenarios.

1. Tremendous waste of money. Both in prosecuting and liability insurance.
2. Warning tags on products that are bigger than the products themselves. Which people still sue against because the details or grammar were not clear enough.
3. Doctors and such unwilling to make decisons on diagnosis etc in case they get it wrong and get sued, so what do they do, send people for tests they don't need - ching money making machine.

Insurance companes are bampots. and are misrepresentating what they sell.

True Health Insurance should mean mean I pay a premium and they keep me healthy. Not I pay a premium and they pay for part of my treatment when I am sick...

Life insurance is the same - I pay all that money so someone else can benefit when I die. Its called life insurance not death insurance. If I pay that money, some mousy git in a cheap suit better make sure I stay alive!

Ok, I'll have a wee lie down now.

PS. here is another chancer, the heating oil tech who tripped on tree root in Paul McCartmeys garden in the UK when filling his tank and hurt his knee. He sued him for a pot of money, do you think he would have done the same if he had tripped in George Brims Garden?
Aye, right.... chancer!! He should have sued his optician., not the erstwhile Beatle.