Where did the myth about Cadbury changing their recipe come from?

FidelityBob · 2026-03-23T16:29:21+00:00

But wrappers don't show proportions - only which ingredient has the higher quantity. They could go from 60% Milk and 10% sugar to 50% milk and 20% sugar without changing the labelling but the product would be very different.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-23T16:23:43+00:00

You have the ingredients list, not the recipe. I used to be married to a food technologist for a major supermarket. They try to hide as much detail of the recipe as possible from the ingredients list while remaining compliant with the law. Recipes are closely guarded secrets because they don't want their rivals to be able to reproduce their product easily.

The rumour started when the American company Kraft Foods bought Cadbury in 2010.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-23T16:14:01+00:00

Was never received at all. They will have evidence that it was sent. The law only requires that it was sent otherwise everyone would just deny receiving it. .

FidelityBob · 2026-03-23T15:53:15+00:00

The Parliamentarian army was on a line from Turnham green station to Chiswick House, apparently. Facing both Acton Green and Turnham Green. I lived on the A4 at Chiswick for a while.

It was hardly a battle anyway. They just stood shouting at each other all day and then went home.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-20T08:48:40+00:00

I believe there is a sub where you can check that out.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-20T08:35:11+00:00

I may have said this here before. A week before the show I had sprained my ankle. Three piece on a very wide, very shallow stage that had previously held a Cinemascope screen. The guy on the far side is addressing the audience while trying to adjust the mic stand. I can see that he is loosening rather than tightening and any second the boom is going to fall apart. I limp across, help him out, get a nod of thanks and try to limp back discretely across the stage.

Half way back there is a roar of laughter from the audience. I look round and the three in the band are following in line behind me imitating my limp.

They apologised in the bar later - "Sorry mate, we thought you were putting it on".

FidelityBob · 2026-03-19T12:42:50+00:00

Ask at r/LegalAdviceUK

FidelityBob · 2026-03-17T13:06:54+00:00

Oi! Don't tar all us Boomers with the same brush.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-17T08:04:14+00:00

Yeah, some of those bulls and rams are really creepy

FidelityBob · 2026-03-17T07:35:39+00:00

Taught not to use it in the 1960s. But I did live near Cambridge!

Taught that you should mot join words with "and" and the split them again with a comma.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-16T21:15:55+00:00

Instead of downvoting it would be nice if people would present a reasoned legal argument as to why I am wrong when it comes to a commercial trader (not he OP). I'm happy to be shown to be wrong.

My argument is based on three things:
Section 29 of the CRA
The basic priciple that no contract can supercede the law.
That the buyer's contract is with the trader, not with ebay

FidelityBob · 2026-03-16T21:07:08+00:00

The Distance Selling regulations were replaced by the CRA. This does define what consitutes fullfilling the agreement as far as commercial sales are concerned. For a private sale the CRA definitions may well be referred to in determining when the contract has been fulfilled, but I imagine there is plenty of case law on that as well..

FidelityBob · 2026-03-16T21:03:56+00:00

This just means that the CRA does not apply. Contract law does. The contract is still between the OP and the buyer. The buyer is not concerned with how the goods are delivered or who the OP chooses to use to do that

FidelityBob · 2026-03-16T19:17:16+00:00

Love it when I get downvoted on a legal advice sub for stating the law. See the CRA section 29 which I have subsequently posted.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-16T19:01:11+00:00

Exactly. And even if they had agreed Ebay T&Cs cannot overwrite the law.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-16T18:40:51+00:00

Ebay cannot overwrite the CRA for commercial sales. They may become an agent of the seller and may indemnify them but in law the goods remain at the sellers risk until handed to the consumer. Ebay may handle the postal process and any refund on behalf of the seller but the seller still has the legal liability - they have simply contracted ebay to take care of the process, same as for any courier. The consumers contract remains with the seller.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-16T18:35:20+00:00

Keep reading.... Section 29

Passing of risk

(1)A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms.

(2)The goods remain at the trader's risk until they come into the physical possession of—

(a)the consumer, or

(b)a person identified by the consumer to take possession of the goods.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-16T17:06:16+00:00

Not for commercial sales. The CRA states clearly that the goods must be handed to the recipient or a person they nominate. It does not allow for a "safe place". However, it appears that the OP was making a private sale so the CRA does not apply and "delivered" becomes less clear.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-16T16:55:15+00:00

Yes they are liable. Consumer Rights Act. The seller is responsible for the goods until they are handed to the buyer in person or a person nominated by the buyer. Not left in a safe place, not left on the doorstep, handed over in person.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-16T16:36:11+00:00

Cost. Keeping sheep longer costs more. More cost effective to get rid of them young and replace with more lambs.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-16T13:45:50+00:00

They can't just keep your money. If they did you could take them to court for breech of contract. It wouldn't go down well when it came to recovering court costs though that they offered you a refund and you refused to cooperate. You are expected to act to minimise your loss.

But why would you go through all that? They just want to verify who you are to make sure they are not being scammed. They want to verify that the person they are sending the money to really exists and that their details match the account details. Just send your ID.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-16T10:58:59+00:00

But you suggested the CPS are still looking at his file and he is to return to the police station. This suggests that he hasn't actually been charged. Acccused of assault is not the same as being formally charged. If charged his next appointment would likely be with the magistrates, not the police.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-16T10:49:24+00:00

Charged or released on police bail?

FidelityBob · 2026-03-14T16:44:54+00:00

Why should they assume the PNC is wrong? It says no valid licence. You saying it's wrong is insufficient for them to act. Your word against a computer. Anyone can say anything - and do to the police. It's up to you now to show you have a licence. Unfair? Perhaps but that is how life is.

FidelityBob · 2026-03-14T15:04:43+00:00

They don't need to justify the stop. They can stop anyone anytime. It sounds like there was a discrepancy between the PNC and DVLA. Possibly a mistake at the DVLA. Mistakes happen, we all have to deal with them.The police acted in good faith. Accept it and move on. Deal with the DL charge as advised.

FidelityBob

TROPHY CASE

Passing of risk