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

F...ing HSE inspectors

Options
  • 09-11-2015 4:07pm
    #1
    overcharged
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 46 ✭


    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.


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


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


  • Options
    #3
    Kristopherus
    Registered Users Posts: 11,907 ✭✭✭✭Kristopherus


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


  • Options
    #4
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


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


  • Options
    #5
    Kimbot
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,576 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kimbot


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


  • Options
    #6
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,933 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Butt, butt, butt ...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Deathwish4
    Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #8
    gramar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,045 ✭✭✭✭gramar


    That must sting OP.

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


  • Options
    #9
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


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


  • Options
    #10
    Kimbot
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,576 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #11
    Duiske
    Registered Users Posts: 3,087 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    catbear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭catbear


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


  • Options
    #13
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #14
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #15
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #16
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,711 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #17
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


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


  • Options
    #18
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #19
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #20
    kidneyfan
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #21
    gramar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,045 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #23
    Tommy Kelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 416 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #24
    Kimbot
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,576 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kimbot


    gramar wrote: »
    She was f***ing TALL.

    So all minors are small then?


  • Options
    #25
    Kirk Van Houten
    Registered Users Posts: 780 ✭✭✭Kirk Van Houten


    jonny24ie wrote:
    So all minors are small then?


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


  • Options
    #26
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,711 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #27
    gramar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,045 ✭✭✭✭gramar


    Kirk Van Houten wrote: »
    Those minors are small....those minors are far away.

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


  • Options
    #28
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭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".


  • Options
    #29
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,711 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #30
    gramar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,045 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Kirk Van Houten
    Registered Users Posts: 780 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement