The apparent banning of Marmite from Denmark’s supermarket shelves was a golden opportunity for marketing chiefs.

I’m pretty certain the reverberations of losing a few Krone will be more than offset by the presence of the Marmite brand in every news outlet for the last couple of days.

Start a Google search with ‘Denmark’ and Marmite is the second option down: apparently more people are interested in this innocuous story than, say, the weather in Copenhagen or how to fly to Legoland.

Even I’m falling for it here, having mentioned the Marmite name three times already. There, I just did it again.

Those marketing bods will be rubbing their hands in glee (once they’ve put down their Marmite-based snack presumably) as this is exactly what defines the product: love and hate.

Now for the record, I can’t stand the stuff, preferring a dollop of jam on my toast (my favourite is the Tiptree variety in case anyone from their marketing team is listening: Law Society, Chancery Lane is the address).

But put me in a room with a fan of the stuff and we’d disagree.

No middle ground, no compromise. I’m right, he’s wrong. I won’t listen to what he has to say, he’ll argue I’m an idiot. He may well be right.

You’ll find similarly polarised debate between the insurance lobby and the personal injury campaigners.

In the last two weeks I’ve felt like a floating voter in a marginal constituency, bombarded with material from both sides in a bid to win the propoganda war.

Both camps have eminently sensible arguments, at least until the counter-offer from their opponent.

Rising costs to the insurance industry cost us all dearly, whether it’s through steep car premiums or the burden on the NHS from clinical negligence claims.

The Medical Defence Union claims Conditional Fee Arrangements, the bête noire of the insurance brigade, have encouraged patients to chase a quick buck in recession-hit times.

The likes of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Access to Justice Action Group are a million miles away in viewpoint, saying they fight for justice for those who have suffered through no fault of their own.

They suggest that to cut the cost of litigation and compensation, the NHS needs to worry about reducing negligence before it appeals for changes to the law.

Lord Justice Jackson was the man required to wade into this sticky debate, a bit like asking a mediator to find common ground between the Thundercats and Mumm-ra.

His proposals included increasing the general damages and scrapping the referral fees, plus expecting claimants to pay towards legal fees.

But even that ruling ran into difficulty this week, with three costs judges revealed to have objected to large elements of his report.

And so the dispute rumbles on.

So what was the point in this largely incoherent rambling? Very little, to be honest, save for a shameless plea for free jam.

But I can say with completed certainty that the fight is not over, despite the coalition government accepting most of Jackson’s proposals.

The claimants’ lobby shows no signs of being silenced, whilst the insurers are in no mood to see reform watered down.

It promises to be a summer where the running battles continue and debate is as heated as ever. And that’s one thing we can all agree on.