Rogue Traders Will 'fleece The Streets' As Trading Standards Are Cut

[Kurt Barlow]

Isn't that the point? There's good stuff and waste so cutting gives a chance to remove the latter whilst keeping the former.

I seem to recall and perhaps Mr. Myagi can confirm, but much of the fake designer work TSO's do is actually part funded by manufacturers. I know the drinks industry provided a lot of support for detection of fake vodka - partly for trade but also health and safety reasons.

[Traktion]

programs such as watchdog are probably more relevant than trading standards.

people will have to learn to seek reputations before they trade, have a contract, get it in writing and if they break it or give you sub standard work, then don't pay them.

I love the "somalia is a free market" argument - because it is a wonderful display of ignorance.

free markets need a government to make them work.

Not to prevent fraud because competition does that much better, but to enforce and arbitrate contracts.

You don't even need governments to do that - bonds of trust are built up between buyer and supplier, which work both ways. There are also many, many ways to pay in instalments and so forth. Many small businesses don't rely on the government laws, as it would be too expensive to test them. Instead, they take steps to cover their own backs.

IMO, the Internet has the power to build trust networks over large communities, in the way that word of mouth did for small communities.

[Traktion]

I seem to recall and perhaps Mr. Myagi can confirm, but much of the fake designer work TSO's do is actually part funded by manufacturers. I know the drinks industry provided a lot of support for detection of fake vodka - partly for trade but also health and safety reasons.

That's an interesting point - it is in the interest of companies to do this. I'm quite surprised that more companies haven't been marking their goods digitally. IIRC, some expensive wine is given the digital signature treatment, but I would have thought that similar technology could be used to identify the genuine articles.

They could even something like putting 2 hash codes (ie. unique numbers) on a bottle/label. Both would relate through some secret algorithm, so that the 2 numbers were related in a secret way. Sure, it wouldn't stop fraud, but it would be a good way for shops/individuals to scan for fakes (even with a mobile smart phone)... whether the buyer would care is another thing, of course*!

* Probably less so with clothes, DVDs etc, but stuff you eat/drink etc may be of more concern to consumers.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Traktion

[Kurt Barlow]

That's an interesting point - it is in the interest of companies to do this. I'm quite surprised that more companies haven't been marking their goods digitally. IIRC, some expensive wine is given the digital signature treatment, but I would have thought that similar technology could be used to identify the genuine articles.

They could even something like putting 2 hash codes (ie. unique numbers) on a bottle/label. Both would relate through some secret algorithm, so that the 2 numbers were related in a secret way. Sure, it wouldn't stop fraud, but it would be a good way for shops/individuals to scan for fakes (even with a mobile smart phone)... whether the buyer would care is another thing, of course*!

* Probably less so with clothes, DVDs etc, but stuff you eat/drink etc may be of more concern to consumers.

I know for a fact Diageo supplied numerous TSO departments with kits to help detect fake vodka and other spirits.

[robo1968]

TS saves the UK consumer around £347 million at the cost of less than a pack of fags per taxpayer per year

estimated annual consumer detriment from unfair trading is £6.6 billion

£6 to £1 ratio of benefit to cost from Trading Standards Services fair trading work

£3.5 billion cost to the consumer from misleading or deceptive business practices

Intellectual property crime which is the sale of counterfeited goods, usually to fund organised crime that will be at a cost to the UK economy of £1.3 billion

Cut to TS would mean the loss would be even greater

The cost to the UK taxpayer is £247 million per year, for that we enforce law in the following areas

underage sales

weights and measures

food standards

product safety

unfair business practices

Intellectual property

doorstep crime/rogue trading

fair trading which would include car clocking property misdescriptions etc

consumer credit

proceeds of crime

animal health

free business advice

civil advice to consumers

consumer education

It's not an exhaustive list we do far more

Thanks for that, that explains things very well.

Tell me, when you say Trading standards costs 247 million a year and saves the consumer 347 million a year does this mean that we save 100 million by having them/you and then the rest is just loss to the consumer/gov't/uk?

How is the 347 million calculated?

[Mr Jib Fingers]

underage sales

weights and measures

food standards

product safety

unfair business practices

Intellectual property

doorstep crime/rogue trading

fair trading which would include car clocking property misdescriptions etc

consumer credit

proceeds of crime

animal health

free business advice

civil advice to consumers

consumer education

It's not an exhaustive list we do far more

Sure there's some stuff that's good. But people are getting sick of the oppressive weight of the government telling you what you can and can't do in the most minute detail. I was reading an article the other day about how in China you're allowed to be poor. You can just get a tin drum, get a fire going and roast some spare ribs and sell them on the street. Can you imagine trying to do that here? You'd probably be breaking about 20 different laws for just trying to make a living.

The other day in the town centre two blokes were busking and because they were pretty good a large crowd gathered. Cue a couple of coppers turning up and demanding to see their license and then moving them on to the boos of the crowd. People are getting sick of this sort of nannying crap. If some of the cuts stop this sort of thing and we also lose some good stuff as well then I'll be more than happy with the overall result (plus is will cost less too).

[Kurt Barlow]

Sure there's some stuff that's good. But people are getting sick of the oppressive weight of the government telling you what you can and can't do in the most minute detail. I was reading an article the other day about how in China you're allowed to be poor. You can just get a tin drum, get a fire going and roast some spare ribs and sell them on the street. Can you imagine trying to do that here? You'd probably be breaking about 20 different laws for just trying to make a living.

The other day in the town centre two blokes were busking and because they were pretty good a large crowd gathered. Cue a couple of coppers turning up and demanding to see their license and then moving them on to the boos of the crowd. People are getting sick of this sort of nannying crap. If some of the cuts stop this sort of thing and we also lose some good stuff as well then I'll be more than happy with the overall result (plus is will cost less too).

Yes but after you had eaten those spare ribs, contracted ecoli o157 and developed HUS you would probably expect society to pay for your dialysis until a spare kidney came along.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

Yes but after you had eaten those spare ribs, contracted ecoli o157 and developed HUS you would probably expect society to pay for your dialysis until a spare kidney came along.

Oh good grief this is the sort of thing that I'm talking about. You're not any more likely to get E. coli from buying a barbequed spare rib that you are if you barbeque it in your back garden. For some reason the one that might make you some money requires you to get a license. All for our own good of course.

[Mr. Miyagi]

I seem to recall and perhaps Mr. Myagi can confirm, but much of the fake designer work TSO's do is actually part funded by manufacturers. I know the drinks industry provided a lot of support for detection of fake vodka - partly for trade but also health and safety reasons.

We get support, but as a public service we cannot take donations from the private sector. POCA helps us a lot now in getting back enforcement costs from IP crime.

[Traktion]

Yes but after you had eaten those spare ribs, contracted ecoli o157 and developed HUS you would probably expect society to pay for your dialysis until a spare kidney came along.

There is nothing from stopping the street trader from obtaining a certificate from a private body though, nor the customer from checking it. Obviously at the very low end of the market, you take your chances, but they could build a good reputation still.

However, you do highlight the need to nanny to keep us healthy, when the nanny also pays for the treatment too.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Thanks for that, that explains things very well.

Tell me, when you say Trading standards costs 247 million a year and saves the consumer 347 million a year does this mean that we save 100 million by having them/you and then the rest is just loss to the consumer/gov't/uk?

How is the 347 million calculated?

That is the quantifiable saving that existing performance indicators give, the saving is probably more. Taking the logical arithmetic yes the saving to the UK as a result of TS enforcement action is 100 million. There are however things like education, preventative measures and business advice that are not included in the figure, again so the figure is probably higher.

The £347 million is the total budget for TS from both national and local funding. Ts costs you and every taxpayer around £5 per year a small price to pay I think.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Mr. Miyagi

[hankdd]

I know this is probably a wate of time but rogue traders in vans are the tip of the iceberg.

I had a market stall in the late 80's and can not begin to tell you the sort of gobshites that are out there.

They would sell leaking tea cups to frail pensioners and weird dangerous toys to children.

Jake the snake was a pipe cleaner with fluff on it and the fly pitching villain threatened to have my legs broken when I challenged him about selling it to toddlers; I know loads of people here will think all parents shopping on a market are probably chavs so wont care 1 a child is a child and 2 loads of middle people shop at markets.

I worked briefly in trading standards and I found the criminal gobshites exsisted in all classes, total sociapaths.

In pubs, we used to leave half pints at the bar with a tracer in and then test pints a day or two later, "best in the bitter rest in the mild" was the saying.

Times have changed and far more sophisicated criminal gangs now operate in the Uk.. Everything from fake clothes to fake heart medicines have ended up in the legitimate supply chain.

We take it for granted that childrens toys and food and our medicines are genuine and safe but it has been a hard fight and cutting trading standards will be a golden age for the dark side of capatilism.

[Kurt Barlow]

There is nothing from stopping the street trader from obtaining a certificate from a private body though, nor the customer from checking it. Obviously at the very low end of the market, you take your chances, but they could build a good reputation still.

However, you do highlight the need to nanny to keep us healthy, when the nanny also pays for the treatment too.

Whilst auditing my companies suppliers I have a variety of food hygiene training certficates and 'HACCP' documentation shown to me. Most the time it has no bearing on what is actually happening in the business nor is it a reflection of how the business is run now

I

[Traktion]

Whilst auditing my companies suppliers I have a variety of food hygiene training certficates and 'HACCP' documentation shown to me. Most the time it has no bearing on what is actually happening in the business nor is it a reflection of how the business is run now

I

It sounds like the current certification is insufficient to please you as the buyer then. Not all certification is useless though, especially if it has a good reputation for the quality control of the registered suppliers.

[robo1968]

That is the quantifiable saving that existing performance indicators give, the saving is probably more. Taking the logical arithmetic yes the saving to the UK as a result of TS enforcement action is 100 million.

Is that a technical way of saying it is made up?

Thanks for the information, my experience has always been of the rip off pikeys getting on my nerves and conning people.

My first action would not be to make cut backs but give you the power to lock these people up and throw away the key

Then I'd look for sharpening company law making honour and trust bound by other means like obtaining accounts and technology etc

Still I feel educated for what it's worth

[Mr Jib Fingers]

I seem to recall and perhaps Mr. Myagi can confirm, but much of the fake designer work TSO's do is actually part funded by manufacturers. I know the drinks industry provided a lot of support for detection of fake vodka - partly for trade but also health and safety reasons.

So big business bribes trading standards for their own benefit? Hardly surprising.

[Mr. Miyagi]

So big business bribes trading standards for their own benefit? Hardly surprising.

No, we don't accept any funding from any private companies. Kurt was referring to technologies implemented by the drinks industry and given to TS for enforcement. The technology has more benefits to consumers than the drinks industry.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Mr. Miyagi

[Kurt Barlow]

So big business bribes trading standards for their own benefit? Hardly surprising.

Im sure there wasnt any personal benefit for the TSO's. The Drinks company helped get fake vodka off the shelves by supplying test kits which often was contaminated with methanol and other adulterants .

Everyone a winner except the criminals - Whats your problem with that?

Edited June 19, 2011 by Kurt Barlow

[Mr. Miyagi]

Im sure there wasnt any personal benefit for the TSO's. The Drinks company helped get fake vodka off the shelves by supplying test kits which often was contaminated with methanol and other adulterants .

Everyone a winner except the criminals - Whats your problem with that?

He likes to trollied on fake vodka down the local park; clearly.

[Kurt Barlow]

It sounds like the current certification is insufficient to please you as the buyer then. Not all certification is useless though, especially if it has a good reputation for the quality control of the registered suppliers.

In the Uk 3rd party verifications work ok in most cases with large businesses. Indeed I used to manage a contract for food safety, licensing, health and safety, and trading standards compliance for a large pub co. Even so I faced constant pressure to water down / compromise standards from other parts of the business.

For small businesses, especially the tin pot fly by nights it is pointless

[Si1]

Lets hope your elderly parents don't get a knock on the door from a friendly trader with an Irish accent.

socialism often boils down to nasty threats heh

[Si1]

I did a joint prosecution with TSO's years ago. A gang of Geordies buying stinky fish at Grimsby docks, double wrapping it and hard selling it to old people - often taking over a £100 per old dear.

Of course in future those old dears would just be able to pursue a private prosecution / civil damages claim

this is an old left wing rationalisation - that just because you are against a big expensive state intervention to support commercial honesty, means you are implicitly against maintaining commercial honesty, and by rejecting the statist solution you want grannies to be poisened, deceived etc

[Kurt Barlow]

Oh good grief this is the sort of thing that I'm talking about. You're not any more likely to get E. coli from buying a barbequed spare rib that you are if you barbeque it in your back garden. For some reason the one that might make you some money requires you to get a license. All for our own good of course.

Its very easy to be complacent about food safety enforcement.

Then you get events like these

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/desperate-bid-to-shift-ecoli-meat-1162134.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Outbreak_of_E._coli_O157_in_South_Wales

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_oil_syndrome

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/content/articles/2007/08/20/east_midlands_11_maggot_pete_feature.shtml

And lots of people, press, politicians start jumping up and down demanding why more wasnt done!

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Been to trading standards twice and got nowhere because they were clearly too thick to figure out what I was on about.

Rather they were all chopped.

[Kurt Barlow]

this is an old left wing rationalisation - that just because you are against a big expensive state intervention to support commercial honesty, means you are implicitly against maintaining commercial honesty, and by rejecting the statist solution you want grannies to be poisened, deceived etc

Im not implying that at all. I am simply relying some personal experience about the type of operators out there and questioning what will happen if you remove whats left of the enforcing authorities that deal with these issues.

You talk about commercial honesty - do you think these people are anything other than crooks?