Labour hit the ground running, more Reform drama, and criminalising waiters | Podcast #78
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июл 2024
- The election is over, but we are so back.
We're breaking down Labour's moves since getting into the big house on Friday, and what we can expect in their first few weeks in power.
Then, we get into some of the big stories from the election, including a brand new scandal involving some candidates.
We also find out about Ava's plan to crackdown on waiters.
Subscribe to our new podcast now, or you're a silly goose:
linktr.ee/pubcast
As an ex criminal lawyer I can confirm that if you told someone, who you were told had a nut allergy, that there were no nuts in something which you either knew had nuts in it, or weren't sure if it had nuts in it (ie you knew there was a risk of nuts and you went on to take the risk and lie), you would probably be guilty of manslaughter and could go to prison (whether you did or not, probably depends on culpability -eg you did it for a laugh to see what would happen - but I haven't checked the sentencing guidance on it). If it was a genuine mistake then probably not manslaughter (unless it amounted to gross negligence manslaughter on the facts of the case), it would largely depend on the evidence of a reckless intention
I liked how Ed was envisioning a waiter making a mistake whereas Ava was imagining a moustache twirling Prett employee laughing maniacally as they sprinkle nuts into a poke bowl
Ava wants to enact the police state that the telegraph think starmer will
The worlds gone made, Cant Ed enjoy a nice succulent Chinese meal in peace?
massive argument about manslaughter via allergies
Surely it should be:
I work as a Food Safety Officer, and whilst the Pret case that resulted in Natasha’s Law dealt with a large corporation, I see countless small businesses that are unaware of how allergens affect people. Often times this is lack of training, which is addressed. However, sometimes it is sheer negligence and there tends to be a degree of disbelief surrounding the severity allergens can pose which fosters a lack of care. Due to the regulations and requirements involved in food law, it is an offence when food is placed on the market that is unsafe. The legal definition of unsafe food is classed as being injurious to health and unfit for human consumption (Retained EU Regulation 178/2002, Article 14, Para. 1, 2, 2(a), 2(b)). Supporting this, it is also an offence to provide food for consumption to the purchaser which is not of the nature, substance or quality requested by the purchaser (The Food Safety Act 1990, Article 14, Para. 1). Now the onus lies with the food business operator, aka the owner of the business. Before Natasha’s Law was introduced, it was difficult to prosecute business owners, large and small, as legislation lied mainly around food that was being prepared for a customer, rather than pre-packed foods such as the sandwich Natasha ate with an undeclared allergen, resulting in her death. Thanks to Natasha’s Law and the high profile nature of the case, it is now much clearer and there are greater powers to ensure that businesses providing any type of food to the general public are able to be held accountable when they have dropped the ball. Now, does this mean I agree with Ava that failing these aspects of Food Safety Law should result in imprisonment? If someone has died, yes, absolutely. Thankfully to Sean’s point, waiting staff and others in the industry likely to be on minimum wage barely supporting themselves or family, cannot be prosecuted under this legislation as they would not be registered as the Food Business Operator. So waiting staff and general coffee shop employees can relax, Ava cannot send you to prison.
you are both right, if its an accident and you didnt know they had an allergy no you shouldnt go to prison, if you did it knowing they did yes you should because its a form of assault knowingly causeing harm to some one.
Ava: you should go to jail for giving people nuts
I do think Ava is massively conflating negligence and intent with the allergy stuff. It's one thing to accidentally lapse on a safety check (bad, shouldn't be criminal), purposefully ignoring it is totally different
In Ava's Britain you would go to prison for being bad at your job haha
Ava, you're wrong about your Pret. waiter point - the entire reason for the issue was the packaging, which was not labelled correctly - how on earth can a waiter be responsible for that? If anyone should be punished for that mistake, it's the people responsible for labelling/manufacturing, not the waiters (who have a pretty rough gig in the hospitality industry anyway).
as someone who'd worked as a chef and a waiter for 3 years each at a chain restaurant I'd suggest Ava overestimates how organised companies are re: allergies! we only sometimes knew where our allergen list was located... good case for restaurant owners/CEOs (I guess managers too but they may make the same argument) whatever going to jail for not prioritising things like that, but I'd think that's pretty harsh on the chefs and waiters who are incompetent purely because their owners have no organisation whatsoever lmao
I'm anaphylactic to milk.. if I ask someone to make me a drink with soya milk and they can't be bothered to get it and just use regular milk, and I die. They should go to prison for manslaughter. Because they were told and disregarded the danger then they killed me. Eds take is reason I cannot eat out, because people like ed are everywhere not taking allergies seriously. Thanks Eva for speaking some sense.
8:13
There's a reason the law differentiates between negligence and intent, and why criminal law includes the necessity to establish mens rea. If it's wholly deliberate, Ava's point make sense. If it anything less than that it's bordering on bonkers.
Ed going to prison for not letting Ava smoke? This will not stand. The uprising begins now.
What's the average body count for a dinner party at Eds?
We want the nut poll.
Agree with Ava, but she has explained it shockingly 😅. There’s a difference between an accident and negligence, in a position of responsibility (preparing and serving food to people with no way to verify the information they are given) they bear responsibility IMO.