Amazon selling dangerous lighting

[JohnW2]

Your argument seems to be that we have to let supposedly trustworthy companies make their money from acting just like the retailers of dangerous products but not have any responsibilities regarding product safety because if we don't then the real businesses responsible for the products will sell them directly.

Not so much "have to let" as "might as well let". Unless the authorities prevent the import of illegal/dangerous products, suppliers will find a way of getting them into the hands of buyers, no matter what you do about the companies who are currently 'facilitating' their selling of these products.

As I've said, the appropriate authorities should utilise the existing laws and regulations to 'prevent', to the best of their ability, the import into the UK of illegal or dangerous products. Even given vast resources, they obviously would not detect and intercept 100% such imports (they've tried hard enough with illegal drugs, without all that much success), but they would at least be in a far better position so to do than any retailer, or any 'facilitator of retail sales'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

(other souces of Class A drugs are available)

Got a price list?

 

[PBC_1966]

Blaming eBay/Amazon is like saying, if market trader x is selling goods y & z that are dangerous/counterfeit etc then the person who rents the market stall to market trader x is to blame.

That would be a problem, would it?

Let's say you owned a shop and decided to rent it out to somebody. He gave every impression of being decent, he paid his rent on time, and for months you had no reason to suspect he wasn't behaving entirely legally and morally. It later emerges that, unbeknown to you, he's been selling illicit drugs and smuggled firearms from the shop as a sideline.

You rented him the shop from which he's been carrying out his illicit business, therefore you helped facilitate that illegal activity, and thus despite acting in good faith and having no idea about what was going on until the police raid, you're held responsible and end up in jail.

That wouldn't be a problem, would it?

You should be ashamed to be using arguments like that, and the fact that you are not says a great deal about your moral standards, none of it good.

The fact that you seem to be happy for an innocent party acting in good faith to be held criminally responsible for the actions of another says something about your moral standards, and none of it good.

I assume you are aware of the old maxim about it being better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man unjustly. You seem to be turning that around by saying that it doesn't matter if we convict ten innocent men unjustly just so long as we get the one guilty man at any cost.

 

[JohnW2]

You seem to be turning that around by saying that it doesn't matter if we convict ten innocent men unjustly just so long as we get the one guilty man at any cost.

I don't actually think anyone would get convicted under BAS's proposal, since it would result in the 'facilitator' services in question going away. What he doesn't seem to want to admit (although he surely must realise it) is that there is no way that the likes of eBay and Amazon could possibly cope with the logistical and cost consequences of being required to satisfy themselves about the legality, safeness, authenticity etc. of every single one of the millions of items that are sold through listings on their websites. If his legislative dream were to come true, they would simply have to stop providing that service - at which point, as I said, the suppliers would undoubtedly find other ways to get its products into the hands of buyers.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

If his legislative dream were to come true, they would simply have to stop providing that service - at which point, as I said, the suppliers would undoubtedly find other ways to get its products into the hands of buyers.

Certainly in practical terms I agree with all that you said. In fact that "other way" could even mean the likes of eBay and Amazon simply withdrawing from having a direct U.K. presence and operating from some other country completely outside its jurisdiction.

 

[JohnW2]

Certainly in practical terms I agree with all that you said. In fact that "other way" could even mean the likes of eBay and Amazon simply withdrawing from having a direct U.K. presence and operating from some other country completely outside its jurisdiction.

Quite so. Indeed, it's not just a question of "no direct UK presence" - the likes of eBay and Amazon Marketplace have no reason for needing any sort of "UK presence".

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Not so much "have to let" as "might as well let".

Even worse.

Unless the authorities prevent the import of illegal/dangerous products, suppliers will find a way of getting them into the hands of buyers, no matter what you do about the companies who are currently 'facilitating' their selling of these products.

But it would be harder. On the whole people would, I am sure, be more reluctant to deal directly with a company in Guangdong which they had never heard of than they would Amazon.

And that's the point - you are failing to recognise, so much so that it seems almost deliberate, the veneer of trustworthiness provided by amazon.co.uk. PBC said "you're not going into Amazon or eBay's premises and buying something drectly from them", but you are to such a large extent, (certainly with Amazon) that the "directly" part is easy for people to fail to grasp. You are going to Amazon's website. You are using Amazon's search facilities and category structures to find what you want. You are using your Amazon ID to log on and buy something. You use the payment details held for you by Amazon to pay for it. You have it shipped to the address held for you by Amazon. And in this case it is fulfilled by Amazon. Yes, in theory people could look more closely at who is really selling the item, but even if they do they won't always get that right. Look at the light that was the subject of the OP - the seller appears to be "Buyee (UK local delivery)", but "(UK local delivery)" is just part of the name of the seller - it's not a description, it's an attempt to deceive

Look at this recent topic - //www.diynot.com/diy/threads/why-no-e27-pendant-fittings-in-uk.444721/ - when it was pointed out to him that it wasn't really a US seller, nigelad insisted it was.

People do not realise, just like they way they could turn over the pack and actually read the ingredients, the fact is that they don't, which is why we have the "traffic light" labelling. And it's why we have a whole host of consumer protection laws to prevent the lazy, the careless, and the not-so-bright from being taken advantage of. To what extent, and at what cost in lives and misery, would you like to see a laissez-faire, caveat emptor, philosophy prevail?

Whilst neither of us could produce any evidence for or against, knowing what you do of human nature and the range of people's perceptive abilities, do you really want to claim that not one person assumes that what is sold through Amazon must be as good as what is sold by them? Do you want to claim that not one person doesn't even realise there's a difference?

As I've said, the appropriate authorities should utilise the existing laws and regulations to 'prevent', to the best of their ability, the import into the UK of illegal or dangerous products.

So who do they prosecute, and punish if guilty, when somebody buys from a seller in China? You've mocked the idea of holding the shipping company, or the ISP, or the mail providers, or the phone companies etc responsible, so who is left? When Joe Bloggs is injured or suffers a loss when his flaky phone charger goes bang, are you going to prosecute him for importing it?

Shrugging your shoulders and saying yes it's a terrible shame but there's nobody we can hold to account is unacceptable.

There is a real problem, and it needs a real solution to it. Amazon have been very clever in finding legal ways to avoid paying their taxes, so it could be that we need to remove those legal ways, and make them pay. Ditto with the way that they do every single thing that a retailer would do except take title of the goods.

Even given vast resources, they obviously would not detect and intercept 100% such imports (they've tried hard enough with illegal drugs, without all that much success),

Not a useful analogy - the profit drivers, the willingness in the supply chain to use extreme violence and corruption, and the level of desire in their customers are all too-many-to-count magnitudes greater than where people just want cheap lights.

but they would at least be in a far better position so to do than any retailer, or any 'facilitator of retail sales'.

So who do they go after?

 

[JohnW2]

So who do they go after?

I don't really share your desire to find people to 'go after', blame or 'make accountable'. All that matters to me is that the authorities charged with the task should intercept, and prevent the import of, goods which the law does not permit to be imported, and I don't really care who it was that was attempting to import them.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Quite so. Indeed, it's not just a question of "no direct UK presence" - the likes of eBay and Amazon Marketplace have no reason for needing any sort of "UK presence".

Certainly. So if Amazon decided to move all its operations to, say, some Pacific island which is completely outside of U.K. jurisdiction, how would any law in the U.K. affect things? They'd continue to provide services just as now, and it would still be the person buying the goods from the Chinese supplier who, legally, would be importing them. You'd have exactly the same problem as already exists.

And that's the point - you are failing to recognise, so much so that it seems almost deliberate, the veneer of trustworthiness provided by amazon.co.uk. PBC said "you're not going into Amazon or eBay's premises and buying something drectly from them", but you are to such a large extent, (certainly with Amazon) that the "directly" part is easy for people to fail to grasp.

Is it Amazon's fault if people can't be bothered to read what's in front of them and which indicates quite clearly that a certain order is to be fulfilled by the Acme Export Co. instead of by Amazon itself? You often talk about people being responsible enough to learn how to carry out a certain wiring job properly and safely before just tearing into it and getting stuck. Is it too much to ask to expect people actually to look at Amazon's site enough to understand that in many cases Amazon is just the middleman?

I acknowledge that some people do seem incapable of reading what's in front of them. For example, I've seen reviews of DVD sets on Amazon U.K. in which somebody is complaining about having to return a set because they were "disappointed that all the notes on the box are in Dutch" even though it's quite clearly stated that the item in question is a Dutch import. Or they ask questions about a product which are already clearlt answered in the description. But that doesn't make Amazon's model of acting as a middleman for other sellers wrong.

Look at the light that was the subject of the OP - the seller appears to be "Buyee (UK local delivery)", but "(UK local delivery)" is just part of the name of the seller - it's not a description, it's an attempt to deceive

If we're talking about deceptive practices by the seller, then we're on slightly different grounds and yes, I would like to see eBay, Amazon et al actually clamp down on such things - Sellers on eBay who give a product location as London, for example, but who in fact are in China and shipping directly from China.

To what extent, and at what cost in lives and misery, would you like to see a laissez-faire, caveat emptor, philosophy prevail?

If deception is involved, such as claiming to be shipping within the U.K. when it's coming from China, claiming that a product is compliant with some standard when it is not, or selling counterfeit goods, then no, there needs to be something done.

But on the other hand, just how far do you want "consumer protection" legislation to go in guarding against some people being unable to read what's in front of them, or simply not bothering to read it?

So who do they prosecute, and punish if guilty, when somebody buys from a seller in China? You've mocked the idea of holding the shipping company, or the ISP, or the mail providers, or the phone companies etc responsible, so who is left? When Joe Bloggs is injured or suffers a loss when his flaky phone charger goes bang, are you going to prosecute him for importing it?

Shrugging your shoulders and saying yes it's a terrible shame but there's nobody we can hold to account is unacceptable.

How about holding H.M. Customs responsible for allowing the dangerous and illegal item into the country? Isn't it their job to stop such things from being imported?

 

[ericmark]

How about holding H.M. Customs responsible for allowing the dangerous and illegal item into the country? Isn't it their job to stop such things from being imported?

Every time H. M. Customs look at an import the buyer gets a bill often way above the cost of the item. The bill comes from the carrier who add their bit to it so even when there is no import duty, the buyer ends up with a £10 ~ £30 bill just because it was looked at.

It is people like BAS who make is so the rest of us have more of these bills.

'Caveat Emptor'

 

[stillp]

Why is it BAS' fault Eric?
What about the individuals who try to evade UK VAT and other taxes by buying goods from outside the UK? Do you think it unfair that Customs levy a charge on them?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Let's say you owned a shop and decided to rent it out to somebody.

Let's say you do, in full knowledge of the fact that the law requires you to make regular checks that he is not selling illicit drugs and smuggled firearms.

He gave every impression of being decent, he paid his rent on time, and for months you had no reason to suspect he wasn't behaving entirely legally and morally. It later emerges that, unbeknown to you, he's been selling illicit drugs and smuggled firearms from the shop as a sideline.

Let's say he has, and let's say that even a cursory glance from a non-expert would have revealed that it was perfectly possible that the items which were clearly drugs and firearms were illegal incarnations of those. And that you know that the business address of the renter, and the source of the goods which he sells, are both strongly associated with the trade in illegal drugs and smuggled firearms.

You rented him the shop from which he's been carrying out his illicit business, therefore you helped facilitate that illegal activity, and thus despite acting in good faith and having no idea about what was going on until the police raid, you're held responsible and end up in jail.

That wouldn't be a problem, would it?

Under the circumstances above? Where you knew you were supposed to check, where you knew there were strong indications of unlawful behaviour, where it was obvious that what he was selling could easily be illegal, and all you did was to "act in good faith"?

No, not really.

The fact that you seem to be happy for an innocent party acting in good faith to be held criminally responsible for the actions of another says something about your moral standards, and none of it good.

Want another fact? One which you are totally ignoring? Amazon seem to be perfectly able to prevent the sales of illegal drugs, firearms, explosives, pornography, sexual services etc.

They do that because the law makes them.

Have the law make them do something else and they will find they can do that too.

I assume you are aware of the old maxim about it being better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man unjustly. You seem to be turning that around by saying that it doesn't matter if we convict ten innocent men unjustly just so long as we get the one guilty man at any cost.

Nowhere have I suggested that innocent people should be convicted of anything.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So who do they go after?

I don't really share your desire to find people to 'go after', blame or 'make accountable'. All that matters to me is that the authorities charged with the task should intercept, and prevent the import of, goods which the law does not permit to be imported, and I don't really care who it was that was attempting to import them.

There was recently a topic here about a flaky (IIRC) phone charger, and in it we saw what the price was for 10,000 of them. Even at the low retail price the profit was very large. Confiscation of the odd container load will be no deterrent at all - they'll just factor a loss of X% into their prices and carry on.

Let us see them try to factor in the total loss of every single penny they have, and the loss of several years liberty.

The problem is that there is no "them" when Joe Bloggs pays someone in China to send him something.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I honestly cannot see what is wrong with this general principle.

If it should not be on sale in the UK|USA|France|Germany|etc then it should not be offered for sale on a .uk|.com|.fr|.de website.

 

[JohnW2]

There was recently a topic here about a flaky (IIRC) phone charger, and in it we saw what the price was for 10,000 of them. Even at the low retail price the profit was very large. Confiscation of the odd container load will be no deterrent at all - they'll just factor a loss of X% into their prices and carry on.

Indeed - which is why the appropriate authorities should do what they are meant to do and confiscate most (I won't be unrealistic and say 'all') of the container loads of illegal imports. To expect someone else to be held responsible because the authorities are not doing their job adequately is, IMO, not appropriate

Let us see them try to factor in the total loss of every single penny they have, and the loss of several years liberty.

I thought that we were talking about direct shipments of individual items from China to individual buyers in the UK (rather than 'container loads'). If so, the importer, who would be 'the criminal', would presumably be the individual buyer. Do you really want individual buyers to face "total loss of every single penny they have, and the loss of several years liberty" just because they bought a phone charger on-line?

Kind Regards, John