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?