Counterfeit and Illegal Plugs and Leads

[SimonH2]

No, partly because of hand-wringers like you.

Trust me - if the penalties for not doing so were so severe that the companies had to choose between not operating in the EU at all, or finding a way to clean up their act, they would find a way.

OK, how far would you take it ?
Would it apply to my local paper having a classified section in the back ? If not, why not ? After all it's pretty well the exact same model - taking a small fee from the seller to advertise his goods, and giving the potential buyer a way of knowing that it's for sale.

And would it apply to, for example, me chatting to a friend and mentioning that I have something for sale, then him mentioning it when he hears another friend expressing that he's looking for that thing ? Eg, some years ago I'd mentioned to a friend that I was looking for a V8 Discovery - he mentioned that someone at work had one for sale.
Only difference is that no money is changing hands - but the friend in the middle has still facilitated the buyer and seller getting together. So should he be liable if there are faults in the car ?

 

[SimonH2]

True - but I cannot believe that any sane legislator would have created that sort of law. Can you really say that you would have felt it reasonable for E&M to have been required by law to gain access to, and have expertly assessed (with testing or whatever), every item that featured in the countless thousands of small adds they published every week?

I agree - it wouldn't be a reasonable law and would virtually cripple second hand goods sales.

I assume BAS will disagree with that

 

[JohnW2]

True - but I cannot believe that any sane legislator would have created that sort of law. Can you really say that you would have felt it reasonable for E&M to have been required by law to gain access to, and have expertly assessed (with testing or whatever), every item that featured in the countless thousands of small adds they published every week?

I agree - it wouldn't be a reasonable law and would virtually cripple second hand goods sales.

... and not only second-hand sales.

I assume BAS will disagree with that

I think he ignores that side of the equation. He is obviously right that (although I don't believe that it would happen, because it would be considered 'unreasonable') it would be theoretically possible to enact draconian legislation which had draconian penalties. However, the cost to the intermediaries (hence sellers) of what they were then being forced to do would simply kill the whole concept of such means of selling things (particularly cheap items) - and I think it would be the consumers/general public who would be seriously up in arms about that!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I assume BAS will disagree with that

What would be the point?

If you are unable to understand the difference between one person in the UK selling one second-hand item to another person in the UK, and a business in another country selling new items by the container-load to people here then you won't be able to understand anything.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, the cost to the intermediaries (hence sellers) of what they were then being forced to do would simply kill the whole concept of such means of selling things (particularly cheap items) - and I think it would be the consumers/general public who would be seriously up in arms about that!

OK - fine - we continue to allow lives to be put at risk in order to protect the financial interests of the manufacturers of lethal items, and the ability of people to buy lethal items just because they want cheap things.

We all know that you are a fan of unfettered free-market capitalism, no matter what the cost in human suffering.

 

[JohnW2]

OK - fine - we continue to allow lives to be put at risk in order to protect the financial interests of the manufacturers of lethal items, and the ability of people to buy lethal items just because they want cheap things.

Not at all. Assuming that such is what 'we' (society) wants, we put vastly more resources into the policing of existing laws (presumably increasing taxation to pay for them) in order to prevent 'lethal items' crossing the border into the UK. To attempt to pass the buck from the authorities who should be undertaking this enforcement of the law to countless disseminated sellers and 'facilitators of sales' does not seem to make any sense.

Should we abandon the centralised regulation/licensing of medicines (by 'appropriate authorities') in the UK and, instead, make it the responsibility of every high street pharmacist to somehow satisfy him/herself that everything they dispense is safe and efficacious?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No - we extend the same duty of care held by physical retailers in this country to websites which facilitate the the sale of goods by foreign entities into this country, or businesses in this country.

If a dangerous and/or counterfeit item is sold by Wickes, then it is Wickes that faces prosecution.

I propose dispensing with the idea that a business customer of Amazon or eBay selling through them and paying money to them for the provision of a sales portal and a payment mechanism , is nothing to do with them, and that they should be held responsible for what is sold through them as part of their business in the same way that a High Street retailer is held responsible for what they sell.

 

[JohnW2]

No - we extend the same duty of care held by physical retailers in this country to websites which facilitate the the sale of goods by foreign entities into this country, or businesses in this country. ... If a dangerous and/or counterfeit item is sold by Wickes, then it is Wickes that faces prosecution.

My point is that prosecuting Wickes (and, even more so, much smaller retailers) is not an effective or efficient way of tackling the problem. With the best will in the world, most retailers, particularly small ones, do not have (and never will have) the expertise or facilities to identify many of the dangerous and/or counterfeit items, whereas the authorities, financed by however much taxpayers' money they need, could have.

As I said/implied, we do not attempt to prevent the import of dangerous or substandard medicines by placing the burden of identifying them on high street pharmacists.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

[If you are unable to understand the difference between one person in the UK selling one second-hand item to another person in the UK, and a business in another country selling new items by the container-load to people here then you won't be able to understand anything.

I fully understand the difference, and if that were in fact the differentiation you think needs to be made then you are the one with a comprehension problem.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I fully understand the difference

Yeah, right, of course you do.

True - but I cannot believe that any sane legislator would have created that sort of law. Can you really say that you would have felt it reasonable for E&M to have been required by law to gain access to, and have expertly assessed (with testing or whatever), every item that featured in the countless thousands of small adds they published every week?

I agree - it wouldn't be a reasonable law and would virtually cripple second hand goods sales.

 

[Johnmelad]