Is there any excuse for a Government Agency to illegally harass businesses?
"The new head of a Government agency has warned that food businesses which refuse to conform to a voluntary scheme on hygiene ratings will be closed down by repeated visits from health inspectors.
In candid comments to The Independent, Lord Rooker, chairman of the Food Standards Agency, said any pub, café, hotel, restaurant and takeaway not openly displaying its rating under the "scores on the doors" system faced weekly official visits.
Rebel firms would have to pay for environmental health inspections themselves, the former Labour minister added, warning they would "go out of business pretty damn quick".
Independant.
So now we have a Government agency openly threatening to illegally harass businesses who do not comply with a VOLUNTARY scheme.
Just where will this end? Will HMRC start using the same tactics? Are ALL your cliernts in this voluntary scheme, or are they at risk of being hounded out of business?
Would you advise your clients to give in to this BLACKMAIL? Or would you file proceedings under the Protection from Harassment Act and seek damages from the Food Standards Agency ?
Thanks for the update..........
but I think what this does show is the utter contempt that this government has for businesses.
The two statements ...
... need not be entirely inconsistent, if they judge that someone who does not participate in the scheme is a high risk.
With kind regards
Clint Westwood
Right of silence
That has a basic logic to it for sure but there would seem to be a parallel with the right to silence. One would tend to assume it's being exercised to cover guilt and I would guess CD would know of many instances where that was not the case.tooltip();
Posted by Peter Bonetti on Fri, 19/03/2010 - 08:42
I just see the comments by "Lord" Rooker as a perfect example of this governments overbearing attitude. The scheme is voluntary so no one should be penalised or threatened for not participating. Where's the difference between what Rooker said, and gangs of veterans roaming the streets attacking anyone not wearing a poppy on remembrance day?
We have a givernment, and a civil service as we see with HMRC, which seems to think it can ride roughshod over people and twist the rules to suit itself.
Until people stand up and say "no" these politicians and their civil serpant lackies will go further and further because they have nothing but contempt for us, the serfs.
As for the "right of silence" in general terms - it often has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. The police are just like HMRC - they often embark on "fishing expeditions" based on the flimsiest suspicions. Now upon starting an interview the caution states that inferences can be drawn by a court from your silence, however, the truth is that unless they get you to answer their questions they will never get near a court, they need contradictory answers to build their case. The answer - sit back and listen and simply refuse to comment no matter what they say.
The same applies to HMRC. More than once we have simply told HMRC that our client is under no legal obligation to answer any questions and if they think they have a case then go ahead, we will discuss it in court. Why let them know in advance your clients defence and give them time to look for ways to discredit it.
Before someone asks, yes you have to disclose before trial the documents you intend to rely on in court, however, you do not have to tell them how or why you are relying on them, and, if you have any sense, you always bury the documents you intend to rely on in the middle of lots of other documents that you "could" produce in court but actually have no intention of using.
As with interviews, some people (whether defendants in criminal proceedings or clients in tax cases) make awful witnesses and can be easily confused, badgered, and conned into agreeing that black is indeed white. It really is safer not to allow the other side to have a go at them.
NEVER forget, if accused by HMRC or the police you have to prove nothing. It is for them to prove their case, and until they do you have nothing to prove.
Hidden slander
Slander!
Clint
Please note that I never suggested you were a tooltip, it has been mischeviously added to my quote in CD's post!! :-)
tooltip();
Posted by Peter Bonetti on Fri, 19/03/2010 - 10:48
Well since its a copy of your posting you clearly must have called him a tooltip. It was merely cunningly hidden in your original post but the copy/paste process uncovered you devious ploy.
FSA (hasty) update
"Following media coverage about inspection of food premises and cost recovery, it was clarified that a national voluntary scheme for ‘scores on the doors’ is a key part of the FSA’s food hygiene strategy but policy on this has not changed since the Board decision in December 2008.
Food businesses will continue to be inspected by local authorities based upon risk, regardless of their scores on the doors rating and whether or not they choose to display their rating. Local authorities do not charge retailers and caterers for statutory planned food hygiene inspections. However, under the national scores on the doors scheme, the possibility for local authorities to charge for any re-inspections or re-visits requested by a food business operator with a view to being re-scored is being considered."
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2010/mar/sotdupdate
Red face for Lord Rooker, I think