Demonstrably false. Walking into any supermarket and seeing aisle decorations emblazoned with the word "Easter" is evidence enough that the idea that we can't use the term "Easter" because it "offends other religions" is entirely fabricated by people seeking divisions that don't exist.

Im from the one of the 'other' religions, if big banners with easter written on are around every supermarket an no one bats an eyelid i doubt easter written on easter eggs will offend anyone. Whether its written or not we all know they are easter eggs thats why they are only around at easter.

How about we stop the blame game?

I can't believe it was £8.99 for 285g

I have a Cadbury flake egg here and on the back of the box quite clearly it says happy easter in big letters, and then it says your easter egg is made from......

I have looked back at pics of old easter eggs from years ago and they do not say easter on the front of all of them either, they mostly say chocolate egg, which is what it says now. All I am trying to point out is that this is not a new thing, it is just the newspapers trying to stir up some hatred, which is clearly working as so many people are so quick to instantly believe anything they have read in the newspaper without looking into the facts.

What home bargains was this?

I can't believe it was £8.99 for 285g

Not aloud to call it an "Easter" egg now as it offends other religions apparently :confused: FFS

hence why that word doesn't appear anywhere on the box.

Shayno that story is not true. It has been proven that the newspapers have made this up to wind people up. You only hav to look at the boxes to see the word easter on them.

Demonstrably false. Walking into any supermarket and seeing aisle decorations emblazoned with the word "Easter" is evidence enough that the idea that we can't use the term "Easter" because it "offends other religions" is entirely fabricated by people seeking divisions that don't exist.

It's very easily demonstrated by the amount of products that do not have Easter on the box!
What a lousy argument suggesting that just because a shop has Easter banners means it's not true.
It's very easy to demonstrate that a massive amount of companies that actually make these products have stopped calling them Easter eggs on the boxes. Including the one posted here!

Im from the one of the 'other' religions, if big banners with easter written on are around every supermarket an no one bats an eyelid i doubt easter written on easter eggs will offend anyone. Whether its written or not we all know they are easter eggs thats why they are only around at easter.

How about we stop the blame game?

Can you please tell me about these people who are offended by easter?
Where exactly are these people? Have these people just landed in this country?

Maybe you can ask that question to all the chocolate egg producers. And at the same time you can ask them why they have stopped putting the word on the box then. Maybe just saving ink?

Pointing out that all major supermarkets use the word "Easter" in vast swathes of their marketing material and in very prominent displays within their stores is not a lousy argument against the idea that we are no longer allowed to use the word "Easter" because it offends people. It is an argument that quite clearly demonstrates that the initial statement was false - because if the statement were true, supermarkets would not be allowed to plaster the word "Easter" all over their shops.

Chocolate eggs are synonymous with Easter. Marketing teams do not bend to the whims of imagined and invented offence; they bend to the whims of the market. I think it's far more likely that any companies deciding not to use the word "Easter" on the boxes of their chocolate eggs do so because everyone knows that they are Easter eggs and so it would be a waste of already limited design space on the packaging, rather than because people are offended.

I'm sure these were £4 in Tesco a couple of weeks ago, I know that's more than this, but the RRP is artificially and unrealistically high.

Maybe I can answer the sarcastic question with an actual answer.
Maybe the person who murdered a shop keeper a couple of days ago because he wished customers happy Easter?
Any more ill thought out sarcastic questions trying to be clever?

Surely in the interest of transparency you should make it clear that the victim was a Muslim? It seems relevant when our discussion is based around what "other religions" do or don't find offensive, and how that allegedly affects what we're allowed to do. Investigations are ongoing - but even if it is found that the attack was motivated by ideological extremism, it seems pretty disrespectful to the victim to ignore the message for universal tolerance that preceded his death and instead use him as fuel for your misguided argument that there's a widespread and commercial war on Easter.

I have a Cadbury flake egg here and on the back of the box quite clearly it says happy easter in big letters, and then it says your easter egg is made from......

I have looked back at pics of old easter eggs from years ago and they do not say easter on the front of all of them either, they mostly say chocolate egg, which is what it says now. All I am trying to point out is that this is not a new thing, it is just the newspapers trying to stir up some hatred, which is clearly working as so many people are so quick to instantly believe anything they have read in the newspaper without looking into the facts.

This comment puts an end to this debate I think and I totally agree with what you are saying.

Well done, people need to stop believing everything they read, step back and make up their own mind about certain things. Common sense really.

This post is about an Easter egg which is potentially a hot deal not a debate about whether the word Easter is listed on boxes of chocolate eggs? Sounds silly doesn't it.

So what difference does it make that the victim was a Muslim?
You say that like it changes the story.
A man was killed because he put religion aside. He was killed by a person that was offended at his willingness to do so in what the police have already said was a religiously motivated attack.
The response was to someone who sarcastically asked if he could be pointed to anyone who was offended by the promotion of Easter.
So in short a man was killed because he was offended by Easter being promoted based on religious beliefs.
I would imagine you will try and argue that too even given that it's 100% fact.
It's also very common to use events good and bad to make points about those events. It holds no disrespect at all. Or when you talk about 911, Paris and Brussels do you also have mention all the universal tolerance preceeding those events to be respectful to the victims? I'll answer it for you. No.