Another reason to boycott LIDL

[beardy]

I am required by law to hold my bank account statements for five years for inspection by HMRC that doesnt mean that I can only show them to HMRC!

I wonder where all this stops (not the point by point Edwards V Tony) but this responsibility chain.
Do I have to audit Lidl before I shop there, demanding to see their paperwork before I purchase there?


Or can we just go about life with the pragmatic assumption that people are above board until at least charged otherwise. The problem is that I can not find ANY supplier that satisfies my moral code but I still have to eat.

[TonyR]

It doesn't require a law to give access to the tacho data

u be able to produce records to enforcement officers for 12 months;

Are Lidl enforcement officers?

?????????!!!

There are lots of things we are required to produce by law such as driving licenses, passports, train tickets, car insurance, TV licenses......... Are you telling me that we only show those to the people the law requires us too? I cannot submit my train ticket to my employer in an expenses claim because they are not the train operating company? Bizarre!

[TonyR]

I am required by law to hold my bank account statements for five years for inspection by HMRC that doesnt mean that I can only show them to HMRC!

I wonder where all this stops (not the point by point Edwards V Tony) but this responsibility chain.
Do I have to audit Lidl before I shop there, demanding to see their paperwork before I purchase there?


Or can we just go about life with the pragmatic assumption that people are above board until at least charged otherwise. The problem is that I can not find ANY supplier that satisfies my moral code but I still have to eat.

I think the answer is "it depends" on the individual and the company. There are some companies you can spot a mile off and avoid and if ethical or environmental or vegan issues are important to you you might want to check into which companies you use - many people do.

But I think we have outside of that reason to be pragmatic as individuals and rely on the company or accreditations to ensure that things are done properly but with the threat to the business if things are not done properly and they are found out.

So for example I have not eaten at Loch Fynne since it hit the press that they use tips to make staff wages up to the legal minimum rather than making them additional. That displays ethics in the company that I can't support. I'll forgive the CofE for their oversight on their Wonga investment because they were transparent on it when it emerged. But if I find later they haven't divested it then I won't find that acceptable. I condemn Frys for breaching the regulations that are designed to protect the public, a breach which led to two good men dying. I condemn them further for letting the driver back on the road to do it again. I was disappointed that Lidl clearly hadn't done their checks on the company before engaging them but incensed that they are still using them after all the evidence about them became public. YMMV and Edwards definitely does.

[Edwards]

I wonder where all this stops (not the point by point Edwards V Tony) but this responsibility chain.

Now I am not going.

[Psamathe]

I am required by law to hold my bank account statements for five years for inspection by HMRC that doesnt mean that I can only show them to HMRC!

I am also required to keep my pay slips for some years. That does not make it legal for my employer to show them to a company they are working for. Analogy is not relevant. Different data has different constraints.

Any audit Lidl may (or may not) chose to carry out would be infrequent and a random sample. If they had to inspect every drivers tacho every few days then they would be in effect running the transport operation and there would be no benefit to sub-contract.

And a random occasional audit would be unlikely to highlight an individual showing signs of fatigue. In this case the driver was working for the transport company. But had he been e.g. building his brother-in-laws's extension, or whatever, the tacho audit would show nothing. Similarly, people can get to suffer from fatigue quickly; a couple of days e.g. redecorating your house whilst working full time delivery driving and you could quickly become dangerous. Which is maybe why such monitoring is left to the sub-contractor as they only illustrate compliance with driving hours and breaks and would not detect somebody suffering fatigue because e.g. their baby was waking them every 30 mins whilst teething.

And in practice I suspect (without evidence) that even the sub-contractor might find it difficult to always detect fatigue. Driver might arrive for work looking really fresh after 1 hr sleep. The company might ask "Are you in a suitable state to drive ?" and he/she would probably say "Yes". So what does the company do with no reason to suspect fatigue, driver confirms they are fine ...

Yet some want to blame the company the transport company is contracted by (Lidl), despite there being little chance of even the transport company (Fry) detecting the problem, let alone the company they are working for (Lidl).

Ian

[TonyR]

Yet some want to blame the company the transport company is contracted by (Lidl), despite there being little chance of even the transport company (Fry) detecting the problem, let alone the company they are working for (Lidl).

You seem to be forgetting that he was driving a night shift for Frys and then working a day shift for Frys in their yard. It shouldn't be too difficult for Frys to detect that. And if they couldn't detect that they could have detected their driver had been arrested for causing two deaths by dangerous driving and taken him off driving duties until they were sure it was safe for him to resume. What you say about a single rogue individual is broadly correct but when the company is complicit in it its much easier to detect by audit. My experience is that if they are sloppy in one area there is systemic sloppiness. Most of my audit non-compliances have been picked up from finding something minor amiss in an unrelated area. Tugging at that loose end often tends to unravel a whole nest of problems.

Again Lidl may have audited them and missed it all but they too could not have missed the fatalities and arrest and asked questions including why was the driver still being allowed to drive pending the outcome of the investigations. Or they could even read the press and Court reports to find out there was a problem with Frys, not just the driver, and then suspended using them until they were sure they were being properly run. So it shouldn't have been to hard for Lidl to have noticed and done something. But like Frys it seems they chose not to. And with my comments above about sloppiness you begin to wonder how concerned they are about supplier compliance in other areas of their business. And that worries me when food safety is involved.

[Mick F]

I condemn Frys for breaching the regulations that are designed to protect the public, a breach which led to two good men dying. I condemn them further for letting the driver back on the road to do it again. I was disappointed that Lidl clearly hadn't done their checks on the company before engaging them but incensed that they are still using them after all the evidence about them became public.

I ask again .......
....... should Fry's be put out of business?
Should the whole firm be closed down?
Should Lidl's be put out of business too?

[Psamathe]

Yet some want to blame the company the transport company is contracted by (Lidl), despite there being little chance of even the transport company (Fry) detecting the problem, let alone the company they are working for (Lidl).

You seem to be forgetting that he was driving a night shift for Frys and then working a day shift for Frys in their yard. It shouldn't be too difficult for Frys to detect that.

Maybe easy for Frys to detect. Maybe Frys did detect. So why blame a different company (Lidl).

Yet some want to blame the company the transport company is contracted by (Lidl), despite there being little chance of even the transport company (Fry) detecting the problem, let alone the company they are working for (Lidl).

And if they couldn't detect that they could have detected their driver had been arrested for causing two deaths by dangerous driving and taken him off driving duties until they were sure it was safe for him to resume.

Maybe Lidl did and were satisfied (based on the evidence Frys presented to them). Without detailed knowledge of the various goings on between the two companies we cannot know - and thus if we blame Lidl it would be without evidence. And is there a report that says the specific driver continued to drive deliveries after that accident with the cyclist fatalities ? (the accident that happened prior to the fatal accident, whilst nasty, "leaving him [the other driver] with minor injuries"

Yet some want to blame the company the transport company is contracted by (Lidl), despite there being little chance of even the transport company (Fry) detecting the problem, let alone the company they are working for (Lidl).

What you say about a single rogue individual is broadly correct but when the company is complicit in it its much easier to detect by audit.

But we don't know what hours he was working during the day (e.g. a long 12 hour day or a short 3 or 4 hour shift. If it was just for a single day or just for short hours then there would be no reason to assume it would cause fatigue. Might prompt some extra questions, which maybe they asked and maybe they got good answers. Again without being there we don't have the evidence to assign blame.

Yet some want to blame the company the transport company is contracted by (Lidl), despite there being little chance of even the transport company (Fry) detecting the problem, let alone the company they are working for (Lidl).

Again Lidl may have audited them and missed it all but they too could not have missed the fatalities and arrest and asked questions including why was the driver still being allowed to drive pending the outcome of the investigations.

Maybe any investigations were complete and Lidl were satisfied. Again, without knowing the internal detail we have no evidence to assign blame.

Yet some want to blame the company the transport company is contracted by (Lidl), despite there being little chance of even the transport company (Fry) detecting the problem, let alone the company they are working for (Lidl).

Or they could even read the press and Court reports to find out there was a problem with Frys, not just the driver, and then suspended using them until they were sure they were being properly run.

I don't remember anything in the press report showing a there was a problem at Frys. I seem to recollect (maybe incorrectly) that the press report just said that he had been working during the day as well as driving. Does not say "employed" just working. And that was the only mention of his employer - which to me is very far from identifying "there was a problem with Frys". And I've not seen the court reports so cannot comment on them identifying problems anywhere.

For me there is far too much assumption about what might have happened. But without evidence we cannot blame those some wish to. It is possible that Frys were lied to by their employee; maybe or maybe not. It is possible that Lidl were lied to by Frys; maybe or maybe not. Maybe both the companies involved asked appropriate questions; maybe or maybe not.

So show me the evidence that Frys was not being properly run; show the evidence that Lidl were not auditing tachos; show evidence that Lidl did not investigate the accident; evidence that the driver was also employed during that day (rather than just informally e.g. helping out or covering for a mate); etc.; etc. And we need actual evidence rather than "If they were being run properly x, y and z would have happened ...".

But is assign blame on a public forum, to claim reports show show a company was not being properly run is probably defamation.

Ian

[TonyR]

I condemn Frys for breaching the regulations that are designed to protect the public, a breach which led to two good men dying. I condemn them further for letting the driver back on the road to do it again. I was disappointed that Lidl clearly hadn't done their checks on the company before engaging them but incensed that they are still using them after all the evidence about them became public.

I ask again .......
....... should Fry's be put out of business?
Should the whole firm be closed down?
Should Lidl's be put out of business too?

It looks like Frys could be. There is currently a police investigation into the company.

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2014/9/ ... sts/53601/

[beardy]

So show me the evidence that Frys was not being properly run; show the evidence that Lidl were not auditing tachos; show evidence that Lidl did not investigate the accident; evidence that the driver was also employed during that day (rather than just informally e.g. helping out or covering for a mate); etc.; etc. And we need actual evidence rather than "If they were being run properly x, y and z would have happened ...".

We dont need evidence of anything, we can shop (or not) where we like, on any whim that we choose.
It is one power that we actually think that we have and can make our own decisions about in which ever way we choose and not, as is normally the case, by somebody else's rules.

I will still be doing some shopping at Lidl because it is cheap and convenient and I dont think there is much moral difference between any supermarkets.

[TonyR]

Maybe Lidl did and were satisfied (based on the evidence Frys presented to them). Without detailed knowledge of the various goings on between the two companies we cannot know - and thus if we blame Lidl it would be without evidence. And is there a report that says the specific driver continued to drive deliveries after that accident with the cyclist fatalities ? (the accident that happened prior to the fatal accident, whilst nasty, "leaving him [the other driver] with minor injuries"

You really should read up on the reports before you make a fool of yourself. The other accident happened 11 weeks after the accident that killed the cyclists, not before. He was on bail for causing death by dangerous driving at the time. He had the second accident because again he was still driving dog tired and fell asleep at the wheel - again! But the fact that by luck he only injured another driver rather than killed more cyclists the second time seems to make it all right for you. Do you not think Frys should have taken him off driving duties or at the very least made sure he was not dog tired taking the truck out after the first accident?

I don't remember anything in the press report showing a there was a problem at Frys. I seem to recollect (maybe incorrectly) that the press report just said that he had been working during the day as well as driving. Does not say "employed" just working. And that was the only mention of his employer - which to me is very far from identifying "there was a problem with Frys". And I've not seen the court reports so cannot comment on them identifying problems anywhere.

Perhaps you should read the press. Its in most of the articles published about it:

" The prosecution said Palmer worked for long hours, driving in the evenings and then carrying out mechanical work for the Launceston-based company during the day.

However, after the crash, which occurred at 8.30am on July 2, 2013, Palmer told police that having finished an identical shift the previous day, he had gone home and slept until 6.30pm.

Investigations revealed he had, in fact, been working on maintenance at the Frys Logistics depot until 3pm before returning home for a few hours’ sleep."
http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2014/9/ ... sts/53601/

"This defendant was habitually working a day shift in the yard and night time driving shifts."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3HCS3k6JY

For me there is far too much assumption about what might have happened. But without evidence we cannot blame those some wish to. It is possible that Frys were lied to by their employee; maybe or maybe not. It is possible that Lidl were lied to by Frys; maybe or maybe not. Maybe both the companies involved asked appropriate questions; maybe or maybe not.

No assumption about it. You just need to read the press reports. And whatever happened before the accident neither Frys nor Lidl could not have known about it after the accident but rather than taking a driver off driving duties they allowed him to continue driving under extreme tiredness until he fell asleep at the wheel again and fortunately this time hit another truck not some cyclists. But hey, if Lidl have horsemeat in their beefburgers or clothes made by exploited workers in Bangladesh or use delivery firms that employ drivers that kill cyclists, its not their problem. They are entirely innocent and its their suppliers who are at fault.

So show me the evidence that Frys was not being properly run; show the evidence that Lidl were not auditing tachos; show evidence that Lidl did not investigate the accident; evidence that the driver was also employed during that day (rather than just informally e.g. helping out or covering for a mate); etc.; etc. And we need actual evidence rather than "If they were being run properly x, y and z would have happened ...".

Well we could start with the fact that Frys is under a police investigation following the conviction of the driver and Lidl are still using them nevertheless.

But is assign blame on a public forum, to claim reports show show a company was not being properly run is probably defamation.

Everything I have said can be verified by independent sources. Its only defamation if its not true.

What I want to know though is why you are so desperate to defend a company that was complicit in allowing an overtired overworked driver out onto the road where he killed two cyclists and injured another driver in two accidents where he fell asleep at the wheel?


By the way, what do you think of Dennis Putz's employer? They employed him despite his having 20 disqualifications as well as three convictions for drink driving and three convictions for reckless driving. He killed cyclist Catriona Patel while drunk driving his tipper truck on the phone. Do you think they have any responsibility?

How about Joao Correia-Lopes's employers. He drove with bad eyesight and killed cyclist Eilidh Cairns. A year later he was still employed by the same company, still driving his HGV with bad eyesight when he killed pedestrian Nora Gutman

[TonyR]

Another article from the industry asking questions about Frys:

http://theukfleetforum.co.uk/forum/?view=disc&disc=386

Frys Logistics, or rather the people in charge, are at serious risk of facing personal charges for manslaughter

[Psamathe]

So show me the evidence that Frys was not being properly run; show the evidence that Lidl were not auditing tachos; show evidence that Lidl did not investigate the accident; evidence that the driver was also employed during that day (rather than just informally e.g. helping out or covering for a mate); etc.; etc. And we need actual evidence rather than "If they were being run properly x, y and z would have happened ...".

We dont need evidence of anything, we can shop (or not) where we like, on any whim that we choose.

You and anybody can shop where you want. But what is happening here is people are blaming Lidl for the accident. It is that blame I have a problem with.

Ian

[Psamathe]

Maybe Lidl did and were satisfied (based on the evidence Frys presented to them). Without detailed knowledge of the various goings on between the two companies we cannot know - and thus if we blame Lidl it would be without evidence. And is there a report that says the specific driver continued to drive deliveries after that accident with the cyclist fatalities ? (the accident that happened prior to the fatal accident, whilst nasty, "leaving him [the other driver] with minor injuries"

You really should read up on the reports before you make a fool of yourself. The other accident happened 11 weeks after the accident that killed the cyclists, not before. He was on bail for causing death by dangerous driving at the time.

Sorry you are right. The article copied here does say that an I misread it. But starting the "make a fool of yourself" is just insulting. If that is you attitude to these discussions then I am discussing no more in this thread. You have made what was a civilised discussion personal - just not on.

I have answers to the points you raise but am not going to bother to type them out when you descend to making it personal rather than a sensible discussion.

Bye Bye

Ian

[TonyR]

Sorry you are right. The article copied here does say that an I misread it. But starting the "make a fool of yourself" is just insulting. If that is you attitude to these discussions then I am discussing no more in this thread. You have made what was a civilised discussion personal - just not on.

And calling me "hard work" and accusing me of defamation was not personal nor insulting and is acceptable? Glass houses and all that. Think on it