Petition for control of unsafe electrical items

[bernardgreen]

Well worth considering putting your name on this petition

https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.o...rous-electrical-goods-on-online-marketplaces/

 

[ETAF]

signed

 

[ericmark]

I have a couple of adaptors, only one is fused, but I use them in an extension lead, so there is a fuse in my case. And they do what I want.

This is far better as it hold the wallmart firmly, to charge my FT50 radio, but this home made version is even better as the transformer is not hanging out of the wall.

There are clearly dangerous items, which can be plugged into a 13 amp socket but are not to BS1363, but since not an electrical item, it is after all just a lump of plastic, we can say not to BS1363 so should not be plugged into a BS1363 socket (13A) but we can't ban the sale of lumps of plastic.

As to if this is any better, no so sure, does stop splashes, but a 1362 fuse produces heat, so should be in free air, same also applies here and here we hope limited to 10 amp the latter is OK, but at the end of the day the user should be given the option, and there is a danger that people will take the attitude it must safe or it would not be allowed.

What we do need is truthful advertising, if the advert says once fitted we can turn lights on and off by clapping hands, that is what should happen. We have Mars bars who had to change advert when they said it helps you work, rest and play, and the beer which looks good, tastes good and by golly does you good, which were no where near as bad as the smart meter advert.

Seems government can lie but no one else.

 

[chivers67]

Cheers Bernard, signed

 

[JohnW2]

Well worth considering putting your name on this petition
https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.o...rous-electrical-goods-on-online-marketplaces/

I certainly sympathise with the motives/spirit of the petition, and will (with some nervousness - see below) sign it, but ....

As I understand it, we already have plenty of relevant laws, the problem being that we do not have anything like adequate resources to police/implement them, and the magnitude of task is so great that it would require an enormous and ongoing financial investment to address that resource situation.

In particular, the petition seems to focus on the need to apply the same laws to 'online marketplaces' as to 'traditional retailers'. However, my understanding is that, if they were adequately policed, existing laws would prevent dangerous goods entering the UK at the point of import. If we are accepting that that will never (even with much increased resources) be 100% effective, such that we are proposing considerably enhanced policing of laws (old or new) at the level of the sellers who manage to get their hands on illegal imports, then even more large increases in resources would be needed.

Given that we live in a society with finite public resources, we're essentially back to the issue of comparative risk-benefit judgements and we have to remember that, in terms of deaths (useful statistics on 'electrical injuries' are essentially non-existent), there are only a couple of dozen or so in the UK each year, far from all of which have anything to do with 'illegal dangerous goods'.

Hence, those (including myself, once I've signed it) who are effectively proposing a considerable increase in public spending in order to police the relevant laws really should be prepared to suggest what budgets that money should be diverted from (NHS?, social care?, welfare benefits?, road safety? ... or whatever) - and I, for one, don't really have a rational answer to that question.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

What we do need is truthful advertising,

Yes that would be an improvement. But the problem is the items that are designed, manufactured and sold without any compliance with or consideration of the regulations for the construction of an item that is safe to use.

 

[plugwash]

If you treat marketplace sites like retailers from a responsibility/liability point of view you will effectively force them to operate like retailers. Yes it will likely freeze out the worst of the tat, but it will also likely freeze out the legitimate small buisinesses.

It may also cause the rise of marketplace sites that are based in jurisdictions that don't give a **** about our laws.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

It may also cause the rise of marketplace sites that are based in jurisdictions that don't give a **** about our laws.

Which is what we already do have, however signed with not much hope of improvement.

 

[JohnW2]

... What we do need is truthful advertising ...

Yes that would be an improvement.

Indeed - but, again, we already have laws which require "truthful advertising", the issue being that vast additional resources (at the cost of what other claims on public money?) would be required to police them effectively.

Kind Regards, John

 

[opps]

I certainly sympathise with the motives/spirit of the petition, and will (with some nervousness - see below) sign it, but ....

As I understand it, we already have plenty of relevant laws, the problem being that we do not have anything like adequate resources to police/implement them, and the magnitude of task is so great that it would require an enormous and ongoing financial investment to address that resource situation.

In particular, the petition seems to focus on the need to apply the same laws to 'online marketplaces' as to 'traditional retailers'. However, my understanding is that, if they were adequately policed, existing laws would prevent dangerous goods entering the UK at the point of import. If we are accepting that that will never (even with much increased resources) be 100% effective, such that we are proposing considerably enhanced policing of laws (old or new) at the level of the sellers who manage to get their hands on illegal imports, then even more large increases in resources would be needed.

Given that we live in a society with finite public resources, we're essentially back to the issue of comparative risk-benefit judgements and we have to remember that, in terms of deaths (useful statistics on 'electrical injuries' are essentially non-existent), there are only a couple of dozen or so in the UK each year, far from all of which have anything to do with 'illegal dangerous goods'.

Hence, those (including myself, once I've signed it) who are effectively proposing a considerable increase in public spending in order to police the relevant laws really should be prepared to suggest what budgets that money should be diverted from (NHS?, social care?, welfare benefits?, road safety? ... or whatever) - and I, for one, don't really have a rational answer to that question.

Kind Regards, John

I really struggle to rationalise your hesitancy. I have first hand experience of telling market places such as Amazon and Ebay that certain items are prohibited in the UK. In most cases they ignore me even when I hyperlink to rulings from the likes of Trading Standards or DEFRA. It is only when Trading Standards (et al), weeks or months later, fire a warning shot that they pay attention.

Both companies KNOWINGLY allow firms to sell illegal products via their respective platforms. It would be trivial for them to use algorithms to prevent certain products. Why would they though unless there was a risk of retrospective punitive financial punishments?

If company X uses either platform to sell something that is fake and dangerous, then in the absence of evidence, sure cut Amazon and Ebay some slack BUT when they sell things such as saw blades and list them as being suitable for use in angle grinders- which is absolutely illegal- then hold the market place provider as being equally culpable. As soon as that happens the dodgy company in China (or wherever) will lose the opportunity to peddle their deadly wares to the biggest audiences.

 

[JohnD]

If you treat marketplace sites like retailers from a responsibility/liability point of view you will effectively force them to operate like retailers.

If I buy a product from a person operating as a retailer, why should he not conform to the standards required of retailers?

 

[JohnW2]

I really struggle to rationalise your hesitancy.

As I said, my only 'hesitancy' relates to uncertainty about what other aspects of public spending would have to be 'cut' if we were to direct large amounts of money to resources for properly policing and enforcing the laws which already exist in relation to these issues.

I have first hand experience of telling market places such as Amazon and Ebay that certain items are prohibited in the UK. In most cases they ignore me even when I hyperlink to rulings from the likes of Trading Standards or DEFRA. It is only when Trading Standards (et al), weeks or months later, fire a warning shot that they pay attention. .... Both companies KNOWINGLY allow firms to sell illegal products via their respective platforms. It would be trivial for them to use algorithms to prevent certain products. Why would they though unless there was a risk of retrospective punitive financial punishments? ... If company X uses either platform to sell something that is fake and dangerous, then in the absence of evidence, sure cut Amazon and Ebay some slack BUT when they sell things such as saw blades and list them as being suitable for use in angle grinders- which is absolutely illegal- then hold the market place provider as being equally culpable. As soon as that happens the dodgy company in China (or wherever) will lose the opportunity to peddle their deadly wares to the biggest audiences.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

However, as I've said, what the petition is asking for is further legislation, which would achieve nothing in the absence of very considerable expenditure in relation to resources for policing/enforcement (at whatever cost to other calls on public spending).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If I buy a product from a person operating as a retailer, why should he not conform to the standards required of retailers?

If I understand correctly, the proposal is that (per BAS's wish to imprison for life all the directors of eBay and Amazon!) more responsibility should be put on the 'middle man' who facilitates the sale, rather than on the true 'sellers' themselves.

How reasonable that is, and how far it could/should be taken, I don't know. If we are going to say that anyone who 'facilitates' the sale/purchase has the same responsibilities as the actual seller, then that could presumably be taken to extend to any medium (paper, electronic or whatever) that advertises the goods, and even the courier (or even Royal Mail) who delivers them.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

we have different controls on, say, newspaper publishers to prevent them posting adverts that don't meet standards.

(nothing to prevent them printing politicians' lies, though)

Amazon, facebook and other oligarchs are complicit when they use surveillance on their users and choose which adverts to send them.

 

[ericmark]

In particular, the petition seems to focus on the need to apply the same laws to 'online marketplaces' as to 'traditional retailers'.

So we want protection from online retailers, but would like to still be able to buy items tax free!