This post made me smile

Everybody who sees things differently to you is not necessarily idiotic.

My guess is that most people instinctively would not give a product with skull on it to a newborn as a baby gift. It's not that we would think it's poisonous. Many people would just find that inappropriate. For some mums like me, those items will never be ok for their kids, even when they're much older. Icky.

What I don't understand, is why it wasn't pointed out that Carribbean food IS fusion food anyway!

It has influences from several cultures, including Thai.



The idea wasn't risky, it was just wrong, Carribbean food is already a fusion. The chicken and noodle combination could have worked well if they did it right.



Jerk is simply a seasoning, and they didn't even make jerk chicken anyway!


What?

If course Thai and Caribbean compliment each other!

There are plenty of Asian influences in Carribbean food, and I think people are just assuming they know about Carribbean cooking because they've had Levi Roots sauce...


I take it you've never had a Thai sweet chilli noodle dish then?



I honestly thought deadly dinners were a great idea, and I don't understand the problem with the skull. That being said, surely, the people pitching could have said, we'll get rid of the skulls on the packaging?

The skulls were not integral to the concept.

They could have done, and if Alex and Jordan had listened to the adults in the focus group, and not just the children who were telling them exactly what they wanted to hear, they might have confronted the issue head on during the pitch, just as the other team did with their spice-free spicy food.

DD was a better product, just needed a few tweaks like a witchs face isntead of a skull and maybe dastardly dinners instead of deadly

they made some silly mistakes but the idea was a very good one.

I think I'd look on the packet and see what they actually contained, then there's no need to feel disinclined.

Pus Burgers could catch on though. No need to use mustard or mayonnaise.


Francesca's food was basically tasteless and bland. You wouldn't buy that kind of product again. It doesn't have to be a high quality food experience but it must at least taste something like what's offered on the box. So it's important that the food is pleasant and meets expectations. Just churning out any old mush and putting it in an attractive package isn't going to work for very long.

What are you on about? The chemical symbol for poison is a skull. That's the hazard warning on all toxic products! Bleaches, paints, acids, oven cleaner - they all have a skull on them to show that they're poisonous! It's part of the UK's Health & Safety Law!

How the hell were they idiots? Why on earth would parents want to pay for something like this. Even children' Halloween gifts don't quite do that!

Ahem...did you mean to be so rude? I'm a parent and consider myself fairly sensible.

Well, no, I don't think everyone with a different opinion is idiotic, but I just couldn't understand the objection. I understand the fear of some people that it would confuse the message of a skull as an indicator of poison, but that didn't seem to be what the parents on the programme were complaining about.

Well, there you go. I've never noticed a skull on them.

I've given you my objection. It's not about confusion with poisons for me. I just prefer not to give kids items with symbols of dead human remains on them given that I have plenty other options. Does that make me an idiot too? We all have personal preferences, values, perspectives etc

So you don't let your kids have like pirate-y things? Most would have a skull and crossbones. Also, do you stop them going to the pirate section at Alton Towers which has skulls?

I'm asking out of curiosity, rather than to have a go.

They've never been particularly interested in pirates rather than a deliberate avoidance on my part; pirate cove attractions are fine with me.

However there has been a huge trend in recent years for boys' clothing etc covered with skulls, big ones, small ones and what have you. Those I avoid like the plague. I seriously dislike them. Several times something has caught my eye, I pick it up, see the skull(s) and put them back. I'm not dressing my kid like that and certainly wouldn't give them anything to eat like that.

I'm currently wearing a T-shirt with a skull on it. It doesn't look like a 'beware of poison' skull though, as it has a mobile phone and a flower between its teeth.

What would be the problem if they wore a t-shirt with a skull on?

Sorry I'm just trying to understand.

There is a difference between a T-shirt and a product that comes in packaging though. If a packet of something has a skull on it, that is the symbol that means poison, so to have one on a food product implies that that item is poisonous. Obviously if you actually looked at it it would become obvious that it wasn't, but it's not very wise to put a recognised sign for poison on a food product.

I think Myles idea, had it been say a vampire or monster on the packagine, rather than a skull, would have walked it.

The market they were aimed at, wanted it (the kids), the product was good (getting children to eat potentially new things over standard ready meals like shepherds pie), it was just that stupid bloody skull and the darkness of the packaging. It surprised me the online retailer took it, because who goes online food shopping with their kid? In a supermarket I could imagine a child wanting it and and persuading their parents to buy it, whereas the whole online split between aiming at children and then the serious stuff for adults made no sense to me. I doubt there has ever been the sentence uttered by a child "i was browsing Ocado today and I want Deadly dinners, can you buy it for me"

The other teams food was ghastly, it didn't even look good.

Even the skull would have worked if it had been a different kind of skull. They had a small white skull on top of a large black one as background. If they'd just had the large black skull, it wouldn't have looked at all like the poison warning.

With respect, Christmas Cake, if you truly want to understand then read my posts on this thread. They are neither cryptic or very long.

If you want me to justify my personal preferences to you, that's not necessary and it's not going to happen.

Your posts state nothing except that you dislike them. I was trying to find out the reason why.

You're just saying you don't like them because you don't like them, which leaves little room for discussion.

Well, fine, you have a personal position. But it just seems a bit irrational, to be honest.