F...ing HSE inspectors

overcharged

There are b...dy HSC inspectors controlling shops with cigarettes.
They drive red 08kk something car
and send TALL girl under 18 to buy fags.

F...ing gobs..ts. Just lost my job.

By the way there would be no problem if someone
over 18 bought 66 packs of cigarettes?
F....ing ridiculous.

efb

Sorry to hear you lost your job - you can appeal to EAT- someone successfully appealed recently

Kristopherus

You sold cigarettes to an underage person. You broke the law. I hope they throw the book at you.

Kev W

Nobody made you sell cigarettes to an underage girl. Own your mistakes.

Kimbot

Well thats what you get for not asking for ID :P

tayto lover

Butt, butt, butt ...

Deathwish4

Can understand your frustration, but under-18s do come in various shapes and sizes so not sure her being tall is much of an excuse.

Really can't take any chances with this type of thing. Good to see inspections being carried out actively.

gramar

That must sting OP.

Would it be illegal for them to encourage a minor to buy cigarettes?

efb

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/3k-for-man-who-sold-girl-10-cigarettes-30650502.html

Kimbot

gramar wrote: »

That must sting OP.

Would it be illegal for them to encourage a minor to buy cigarettes?

I doubt that would be illegal. Its only illegal to sell cigs to a minor, not to buy them.

Duiske

Kristopherus wrote: »

You sold cigarettes to an underage person. You broke the law. I hope they throw the book at you.

They can't throw the book at him/her. Its the business owners who are open to prosecution, not the staff.

catbear

Gone are the days when you could buy ciggys one at a time in your school uniform from a pub!

Kev W

efb wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/3k-for-man-who-sold-girl-10-cigarettes-30650502.html

Well that's a very different situation. That guy shouldn't have been sacked.

efb

Kev W wrote: »

Well that's a very different situation. That guy shouldn't have been sacked.

He sold them to a minor too

Kev W

efb wrote: »

He sold them to a minor too

The man's supervisor wrote in her statement that she told Mr Keogh he should not have sold the cigarettes "even though we both knew they were for her mother sitting in the car".
The firm's area manager said that had the sale been the result of another sting operation both Mr Keogh and the company could have ended up in court as result. He therefore believed no other sanction apart from dismissal was appropriate.
The EAT found that the sanction of dismissal was disproportionate, taking into account the mitigating circumstances of this particular case

Completely different circumstances. Now that said, the arrangement to sell cigarettes to the mother via the child should not have happened but the proper response would (IMO) be to shut down that arrangement, not to fire the man in question.

It's a completely different situation.

Penn

Kev W wrote: »

Well that's a very different situation. That guy shouldn't have been sacked.

Yes he should. Just because he knew the cigarettes weren't for the 10 year old girl, it's still illegal to sell them to a 10 year old girl. An "arrangement" between the shop and the mother doesn't excuse the employees of the shop from breaking the law.

OP, sorry you lost your job. Just unlucky that you didn't check her for ID, but could happen to any of us.

efb

But proves that selling cigarettes to a minor isn't a straight forward sacking offence

Kev W

Penn wrote: »

Yes he should. Just because he knew the cigarettes weren't for the 10 year old girl, it's still illegal to sell them to a 10 year old girl. An "arrangement" between the shop and the mother doesn't excuse the employees of the shop from breaking the law.

OP, sorry you lost your job. Just unlucky that you didn't check her for ID, but could happen to any of us.

So the guy in the linked story who knew the cigarettes were for an adult gets no sympathy but the OP who couldn't be bothered checking ID does? Because "luck" doesn't come into it as far as ID checking goes, so it certainly wasn't "just unlucky" that they didn't check.

Kev W

efb wrote: »

But proves that selling cigarettes to a minor isn't a straight forward sacking offence

It was considered an unfair dismissal due to the mitigating circumstances. What were the OP's mitigating circumstances?

kidneyfan

Kev W wrote: »

It was considered an unfair dismissal due to the mitigating circumstances. What were the OP's mitigating circumstances?

Was the OP trained in how to recognise people under 18 and is there a record of this training? If not the response is grossly disproportionate.

OP you should take a case and say that you were told NOT to check ID.

gramar

Kev W wrote: »

It was considered an unfair dismissal due to the mitigating circumstances. What were the OP's mitigating circumstances?

She was f***ing TALL.

Kev W

kidneyfan wrote: »

Was the OP trained in how to recognise people under 18 and is there a record of this training? If not the response is grossly disproportionate.

I believe the standard procedure is to ask for ID if someone doesn't look obviously over 25.

kidneyfan wrote: »

OP you should take a case and say that you were told NOT to check ID.

Where are you getting that from? Or are you suggesting the OP lie?

Tommy Kelly

Kev W wrote: »

It was considered an unfair dismissal due to the mitigating circumstances. What were the OP's mitigating circumstances?

Going by the OP I'd say, the 'a few sandwiches short of a picnic' one could be used in their defence. Worth a shot anyways.

Kimbot

gramar wrote: »

She was f***ing TALL.

So all minors are small then?

Kirk Van Houten

jonny24ie wrote:

So all minors are small then?

Those minors are small....those minors are far away.

Penn

Kev W wrote: »

So the guy in the linked story who knew the cigarettes were for an adult gets no sympathy but the OP who couldn't be bothered checking ID does? Because "luck" doesn't come into it as far as ID checking goes, so it certainly wasn't "just unlucky" that they didn't check.

Where did OP say he couldn't be bothered? He thought the girl looked over 18, and so presumed it was okay to sell to her. Yes, he should have checked regardless, but it was just unlucky that a) he was wrong, and b) she was sent in by an inspector.

The guy in the linked story sold directly and knowingly to a 10 year old girl.

gramar

Kirk Van Houten wrote: »

Those minors are small....those minors are far away.

Unfortunately for the OP she wasn't far enough away.

Kev W

Penn wrote: »

Where did OP say he couldn't be bothered? He thought the girl looked over 18, and so presumed it was okay to sell to her. Yes, he should have checked regardless, but it was just unlucky that a) he was wrong, and b) she was sent in by an inspector.

The guy in the linked story sold directly and knowingly to a 10 year old girl.

In other words, "didn't bother".

Penn

Kev W wrote: »

In other words, "didn't bother".

No, "didn't bother" would indicate that he didn't care if she was over 18 or not. "Presuming" implies he made a judgement call.

Again, he was wrong both in doing so and in his judgement call, but I absolutely fail to see why you're treating him more harshly than someone who knowingly sold cigarettes to a 10 year old.

gramar

When I was in primary school I bought cigarettes in two of the local shops and occasionally in one of the pubs farily regularly. I was about 11. I might have gotten the odd disapproving look and asked who were they for but that was it. Rarely if ever did
I come away without them.

It's not nice to be set up like the OP was who may well have sold the cigarettes in good faith thinking she was over 18. It is a good thing though that laws are tighter and are enforced because I'd by dismayed by the thought of an 11 year being able to buy cigarettes at will.

Kirk Van Houten

The initial reaction is to feel sorry for someone who has just lost their job and especially due to a sting operation - but then you see the reaction of the OP and that initial reaction tends to turn quite quickly. It appears to be everyone's fault but theirs - the gall of that young girl to be so tall, those "gobshoites" doing required checks to make sure people are complying with the law etc.

Some jobs require you to be diligent and do extra checks and controls. The OP for whatever reason didnt do those checks and paid the price. I dont have a problem with it personally as I would prefer people who knowingly or unknowingly sell cigarettes to minors didnt have the chance to do so again.

Kev W

Penn wrote: »

No, "didn't bother" would indicate that he didn't care if she was over 18 or not. "Presuming" implies he made a judgement call.

Again, he was wrong both in doing so and in his judgement call, but I absolutely fail to see why you're treating him more harshly than someone who knowingly sold cigarettes to a 10 year old.

Because the person who sold the cigarettes to a 10 year old had confirmed that they would be consumed by an adult. The OP'S did not.

Also, as has been pointed out by others, referring to the people as "gob****es" when they did their job and the OP failed to do his is hardly conducive to sympathy.

Did the OP think we would all pile on the inspectors for successfully doing their jobs?

overcharged

Mr glorious gobs....te <snip> was the inspector on that terrible day.
Now it's my turn to see if he obeys the law.
Gonna follow him up in every detail.
Road tax, insurance, tv licence etc
I will be good citizen

By the way I have no sympathy for
smokers the sooner they die the better
for the rest of society.

Deathwish4

All sympathy for the OP out the window now..

kidneyfan

overcharged wrote: »

Mr glorious gobs....te <SNIP>was the inspector on that terrible day.
Now it's my turn to see if he obeys the law.
Gonna follow him up in every detail.
Road tax, insurance, tv licence etc
I will be good citizen

By the way I have no sympathy for
smokers the sooner they die the better
for the rest of society.

Why are you angry with the inspector instead of the boss who scapegoated you?

overcharged

Because he was initially the person who envisioned
the whole successful situation.

Kirk Van Houten

overcharged wrote:

Mr glorious gobs....te <snip> was the inspector on that terrible day. Now it's my turn to see if he obeys the law. Gonna follow him up in every detail. Road tax, insurance, tv licence etc I will be good citizen

Really showing everyone who the gobshoite is alright.

If it was me I'd be more worried about getting a new job than seeking some sort of vengeance or revenge on someone who did their job properly in the first place - unlike yourself.

Kimbot

overcharged wrote: »

Mr glorious gobs....te <SNIP>was the inspector on that terrible day.
Now it's my turn to see if he obeys the law.
Gonna follow him up in every detail.
Road tax, insurance, tv licence etc
I will be good citizen

By the way I have no sympathy for
smokers the sooner they die the better
for the rest of society.

So you would like me to Die eh?

Penn

Kev W wrote: »

Because the person who sold the cigarettes to a 10 year old had confirmed that they would be consumed by an adult. The OP'S did not.

http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/1/environ/Tobacco_Control.html

It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18 years, even if they are for someone else.

Kimbot

Penn wrote: »

http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/1/environ/Tobacco_Control.html

It is illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 18 years, even if they are for someone else.

Yes but re-read what what in the article:

The man's supervisor wrote in her statement that she told Mr Keogh he should not have sold the cigarettes "even though we both knew they were for her mother sitting in the car".

So the supervisor admitted he knew the cigs were for someone else. Its up to the shop to sack the employee not the HSE.

overcharged

I'm not looking for the job now, not for today anyway.
His job was to control of tabacco sales.
My volunteer job would be to find any
detail in misconduct
from this.

JohnC.

Duiske wrote: »

They can't throw the book at him/her. Its the business owners who are open to prosecution, not the staff.

This is untrue. Both the owners and the individual who sold it can be prosecuted.

L1011

overcharged wrote: »

I'm not looking for the job now, not for today anyway.
His job was to control of tabacco sales.
My volunteer job would be to find any
detail in misconduct
from this.

He did his job, properly
You screwed up your job, hugely

Go get another job and get over it

Cabaal

Good to see this being enforced, sucks for OP but then he/she didn't do their job when they sold the product to somebody under age.

Penn

jonny24ie wrote: »

Yes but re-read what what in the article:

The man's supervisor wrote in her statement that she told Mr Keogh he should not have sold the cigarettes "even though we both knew they were for her mother sitting in the car".

So the supervisor admitted he knew the cigs were for someone else. Its up to the shop to sack the employee not the HSE.

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that in both cases, the employees sold to someone who was underage. In OP's case (even though he's now lost all sympathy from me with his latest posts), he thought the customer was over 18 and took the chance instead of asking for ID. In the case linked to with Mr.Keogh, the customer was 10 years old.

efb

My sympathy with the op has wained somewhat

overcharged

Moreover I think that idiots like chain smokers
damage themselves and die directly from
results of smoking related illnesses.

Cabaal

overcharged wrote: »

By the way there would be no problem if someone
over 18 bought 66 packs of cigarettes?
F....ing ridiculous.

Course there wouldn't be....because the person over 18 is an adult and it is legal.

You don't see an issue with selling drink or cigs to somebody who isn't an adult, what the heck is wrong with you?

kidneyfan

overcharged wrote: »

Moreover I think that idiots like chain smokers
damage themselves and die directly from
results of smoking related illnesses.

So what? Just get another job and move on. The only person you should feel angry towards is your employer and that's only because you could get 10 grand out of this.

Kimbot

overcharged wrote: »

Moreover I think that idiots like chain smokers
damage themselves and die directly from
results of smoking related illnesses.

I have an idea for you, why dont you chain smoke

wardides

Is the Op the same Dutch lad who wanted to raise a family in a Porsche, on here last week? Striking similarities.


Anyway, you're fault. Nobody else.