Amazon selling dangerous lighting

[ban-all-sheds]

Well, they don't enforce that do they!

Why would they?

They profit from people who break those rules.

They know that they are profiting from people who break those rules.

They DGAS, and never will until compelled to by law, and compelled in a way which they won't be able to write off as just another business overhead.

 

[stillp]

No, but you might remember I posted a few pages ago that I think Amazon et al should be made to post a warning to purchasers, that by importing an item they are responsible for the legality of that product, including any taxes due.

Well that would be utterly pointless if they knew that they would not face prosecution for "importing" something dodgy. Far better to recognise the reality, and not the fiction, which is that Amazon are so close to being the seller of the item that it makes no practical difference - they are responsible for Lucky Boy Electrics being able to sell the exploding phone charger to Joe Bloggs.

It might encourage purchasers to think a little about what they intend to buy. Some might then choose to buy from a more reputable source. If enough buyers made that choice then Amazon (and again, I don't know why they are the only example being castigated) might start to take an interest in the legality of products offered on their website.

 

[JohnW2]

If enough buyers made that choice then Amazon (and again, I don't know why they are the only example being castigated) might start to take an interest in the legality of products offered on their website.

Maybe (although, as I've said, I doubt that all than many people would read, 'take in', or base any choices on such a warning). However, assuming you were right, I still don't think it would be remotely realistic to expect eBay, Amazon etc. to do more than 'demand assurances' (about legality etc.) from sellers (which they may already do). I don't know about Amazon, but eBay is said to process around 5 million transactions per day, a fair proportion of that probably being for one-off items. No matter what BAS may think and hope for, how much investigation/testing/whatever could they reasonably, or sensibly be expected to undertake individual 'verification' on that number of items? (and that is essentially a rhetorical question!)

It's a bit like illicit drugs, weapons etc. If the relevant authorities opened and inspected in meticulous detail every item of the contents of every package/container/whatever arriving at a UK port/airport/postal service etc., and meticulously examined every item of luggage of those crossing borders into the UK (and similarly examined every single passenger, including scans or X-rays), these illegal imports would probably be almost eliminated. So why don't they do it? ... obviously because it would be totally unrealistic and impracticable, and unreasonable/unrealistic to expect them so to do.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Amazon already demand that sellers comply with relevant laws - see Iggifer's post on p7.
I agree that many people would take no notice of a warning, but since as you say it would be impractical for them to check every product offered on their site, at least a warning might have some slight effect. Doing nothing clearly doesn't work.

I bet every package entering North Korea is meticulously examined, but personally I don't want to live in a totalitarian state.

 

[JohnW2]

Amazon already demand that sellers comply with relevant laws - see Iggifer's post on p7.

Yes, but that's just a statement by Amazon, to which sellers presumably 'agree' by checking some on-line box. I was thinking of a somewhat more formal and explicit (i.e. 'written') 'assurance' about legality etc. Having said that, most of those who are knowingly dealing in 'illegal' products would presumably be quite happy to produce such a written reassurance!

I agree that many people would take no notice of a warning, but since as you say it would be impractical for them to check every product offered on their site, at least a warning might have some slight effect. Doing nothing clearly doesn't work.

Agreed - but I frankly doubt that it would 'scare off' a significant proportion of buyers.

I bet every package entering North Korea is meticulously examined ...

I would frankly doubt even that. The scale of the exercises we are talking about is almost unthinkable. Just look at a container ship and try to imagine how many 'packages' could easily be in each container!

Kind Regards, John

 

[empip]

CE - 'Chinese Export'. Innit ?

http://www.icomuk.co.uk/News_Article/3794/17103/
-0-

 

[stillp]

CE - 'Chinese Export'. Innit ?

http://www.icomuk.co.uk/News_Article/3794/17103/
-0-

That claim for a 'Chinese Export' mark has been shown to be false. The mark shown in that article has also been used by some well-known companies in Europe and the USA, since it takes a little less space than the 'proper' one.

 

[stillp]

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=P-2007-5938&language=EN

 

[PBC_1966]

In the case of stuff coming out of China, "CE" could certainly mean caveat emptor.

 

[stillp]

In the early days of the single marking, we used to joke that CE stood for Confusion Everywhere. When the EMC Directive was published that became Even More Confusion!