Had the article referred to all soft drinks with high sugar content, never mind that "fruit juice" which ain't, and also includes a high amount of sugar, then I could have understood the viewpoint.
Similarly, had the article referred to all such ads which can be seen as aimed at wains then I could have understood the viewpoint.
But I have to confess that I'm totally p****d off that Irn Bru should be so unfairly singled out.
But then I'm becoming more and more disillusioned by Which? magazine, in terms of accuracy and focus on England.
In a recent edition (January?) an article on wills very clearly stated that any will without the signatures of two witnesses was invalid. Absolutely no mention of the fact that the situation was different in Scotland.
On correspondence the editor seemed to think that a very brief mention elsewhere in the article that the
probate process was different in Scotland and N Ireland was sufficient to lead readers to understand that there were different laws applying.
Only when it was suggested to the Chief Executive of Which? that the company was potentially liable to action from a Scot who followed their advice and disgarded a Scottish will on the basis that Which?'s advice was that the lack of signatures meant that it was invalid, was a correction printed in a subsequent edition, - but only in tiny letters on the inside back cover !
In the first place, the situation in Scots Law is that where a will is witnessed, then a single witness is sufficient.
Secondly, where a will is holograph or "adopted as holograph", then no witnesses at all are required. Since 1995 the equivalent term to holograph is "subscribed", - see
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm12047.htm for a very good explanation of the situation.
David