A social media storm has led to Clintons withdrawing an “offensive” card claiming Father Christmas lives on a council estate – but should the retailer have done this?

The £2 card listed ‘10 reasons why Santa Claus must live on a council estate’, including: "He has a serial record for breaking and entering!" and "He only works once a year".

Among the other reasons on the card's list were: "He's never actually been seen doing any work in his whole life" and "He drinks alcohol during working hours".

The product description on the Clintons website said: "This funny card is great for sending at Christmas time."

Twitter users labelled the card "seriously vile", "beyond offensive" and "stigmatising the poor for corporate gain".

Customers on the greetings card chain’s Facebook page did not see any humour in the card either.

Belle Sebastian wrote: "Disgraceful! I live on a council estate - never have I been in trouble with the police, I don't drink, I worked full time for the council until I became very sick this year so I attend university whilst I recover. I cannot believe that your company has allowed this vile prejudice - I'm sure a number of your employees live on estates since you only pay minimum wage..."

Clintons has withdrawn the card from sale and issued an apology which says: “A card in our range has been withdrawn immediately. It is in no way reflective of our views and we apologise without reservation.

"We are investigating how this offensive card got through our quality control procedures, which we will review and tighten as a result of this incident. This was a mistake and we deeply regret the upset that this has clearly caused."

Do you think Clintons should have caved to the pressure and apologised or should it have stood by the product? Given the often risqué nature of greeting cards, was this one really that offensive? Were you upset by the card being sold or would you have been if you’d seen it? Where is the boundary between humour and offence? Add your comments below.

: