Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Another question regarding age related products?

2»

Comments

  • #52
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,492 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    The Continental Op wrote: »
    So why is a parent going to allow their child to do unpaid work and then have the hassle of appearing as a witness in court?

    I know in one case, it was the teenage child of the relevant health board official (few years back) that did the test purchases.


  • #53
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,721 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    You're suggesting that the shopkeeper's decision to give tobacco to the teenager was uninfluenced by the fact that the teenager asked for tobacco? Sorry, but that's absurd. This offence was committed because the HSE intentionally set about getting the tobacconist to commit it. But for the actions of the HSE, the supply to the teenager would never have happened.

    For the HSE to be guilt of Entrapment, it would required some pressure or persuasion by them to get the retailer to do something they would not normally do.

    Yes, the HSE sent an under aged person to purchase tobacco, but if different under aged person was there instead, would the retailer had sold the ciggies?


  • #54
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,712 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    GerardKeating wrote: »
    For the HSE to be guilt of Entrapment, it would required some pressure or persuasion by them to get the retailer to do something they would not normally do.

    Yes, the HSE sent an under aged person to purchase tobacco, but if different under aged person was there instead, would the retailer had sold the ciggies?
    But you can't prosecute somebody for an offence that (you think) they would have committed; only for the offence that they actually did commit. And the offence that they actually did commit is an offence incited by the prosecutor itself. Which raises the question; can the state legitimately ask you to commit an offence, and then prosecute you for committing the offence that it asked you to commit - the offence that it itself is complicit in?


Advertisement