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
@@RichardTongemanCorrect, we should probably up the wages in the service industry and stop treating jobs directly related to nutrition and wellbeing as the sort of jobs you only have of you've got nothing else going on. But that would decimate an industry and/or require legitimate reflection on what we deem equitable pay for labour.
Yeah, I figured the situation Ed was outlining was a genuine mistake (a procedural one, sounds like, if it wasn’t on the list to be aware of) but Ava was outlining something very different and deliberately malicious.
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
Lesser outcomes in other industries might still fall under criminal negligence. Obviously not in all cases, but there are absolutely instances within the hospitality sphere that should could be similarly categorised. 🤷♂️ I get where Ava is coming from.
Her views are total nonsense. Criminalising employees for making a mistake? All this will achieve is to make all food outlets claim that all of their products may contain nuts, to avoid liability. Allergic people won't be able to eat out anywhere. It would be a different matter if say a husband knowingly fed his wife something containing nuts and hid her EpiPen...
both have valid points but fail to realise the absurdity of wanting to send people to prison instead of helping rehabilitate someone traumatised by killing someone ESPECIALLY if it was accidental, if was intentional they just need to be informed about the consequences of their actions, not punished or deterred though potential punishment lol Ava, the state prisons leave people in is too horrid to validate sending people there, especially if the crime (even manslaughter) happens via something like giving someone with nut allergies a nut *lenny face* not that nut
I'm with Ed. Sending some minimum wage teenager to jail because they didn't label an allergen seems a bit unhelpful. I agree massive corporate fines, that will push the companies to push strong policies and practices from the top down to avoid them paying out. So in the long run less people will be harmed. Sending the incompetent min wage employee to jail just fucks up there life for good (based on current our outcomes from our prison system) adds a burden to our economy and probably won't fix the problem going forward.
Surely it should be: Company didn't list an allergen, someone dies - not the waiters fault, big company fine, criminal charges for someone in corporate who is responsible for the allergen info Waiter didn't bother to check the allergen info - waiters fault, treated in the same way as driving while looking at your phone and knocking someone down.
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.
This is the way more informative and thorough version of what I would've commented 😊 Thank you! Allergen training is too often treated as a tick box requirement rather than as something important with potentially terrible consequences, and that approach and attitude comes from management. The ultimate responsibility to ensure that the law is being followed should never fall on an employee on minimum wage
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.
But also, if they told you and you still messed up, even not deliberately (but due to carelessness or not taking it seriously enough) you are also committing a crime and would go to prison for it (rightly, in my opinion, since your carelessness is clearly a danger to the public)
@@jameshowarth4801 But where do you draw the line? Carelessness is hard to prove and people can make mistakes even when they are giving something their whole concentration.
@@Kerygmachela The legal answer would be that you draw the line where a "reasonable person" would draw the line (in the end, a Jury). The CPS decides to charge if they, in their own judgement, think it's in the public interest to prosecute and that there's a decent chance a reasonable person would agree.
Be it the serving staff who said "No, it's fine", the restaurant for not clearly marking allergens on the menu or the kitchen staff who forgot to declare it, someone needs to be held accountable.
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
Yes, it seems like a significant fine (which if not paid would lead to prison time) is more appropriate for negligence. At its core, prison is about separating people from society if they are deemed to be a continued danger. Edit: I mean specifically for waiters and people who directly handle food. If your company is found to be mislabelling allergens then it should be prison + fine + everything else under the sun.
@@thisismetoday Ava's specific murder example was if someone tells you they have a nut allergy and you deliberately give them a nut and they die. That is, unambiguously, murder. If they live, it's GBH.
That's already how it works, when being bad at your job means people die (or receive serious injury). Certain jobs, like those in food, come have significant responsibility towards the safety of those you serve. In the two scenarios Ava describes, you would usually currently be sentenced to prison time for manslaughter via gross negligence, or murder (in the second scenario), under the current law and precedent. Granted, her scenarios are fairly extreme, but possible.
You do risk going to prison for being criminally negligent at your job, especially if it results in death or injury, but even if there is a breach of HSE guidelines that could have resulted in such you are criminally exposed.
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).
If the person asks the waiter for food that is not labelled about allergens and the waiter doesn’t bother to check and gives out wrong information, how would it be the restaurant’s fault!?!?
@@thisismetoday I was referring specifically to the pret a manger query that was cited in the pod. This was back in 2016, before the push to put full ingredients on all packaging. More importantly, it's worth noting that this was a prepackaged item, in a shop, where the shopkeeper was not aware of the customer's allergy. You wouldn't expect a supermarket assistant to ask if a person had allergies at checkout - that might be a better analogy in this instance.
@@thisismetoday just on the more general query, if the customer asks about allergies now let's say in a standard restaurant, yes there is an obligation for the waiter to get it right. If they make the accident and give the item to them, I would argue that that falls under the negligence/incompetence/manslaughter against the employee. That said, the restaurant holds some culpability as the employer, who has a responsibility to ensure that the waiters are proficient enough to do their jobs without making those kinds of mistakes. But it shouldn't be understated that in the example that sparked the debate, that is not on the waiter. The labelling should all be correct. If it is not, it's not on the Frontline staff to make up for those issues, but the managers/higher ups that need to answer for poor overall workplace standards.
@@jimmyc3030 In the Pret case though it only moves it up the chain of command, it's not the shopmanger's fault in the Pret case because it's perfectly reasonable for the shopmanger to trust the packaging information of a prepackaged product, as such the fault is with those behind the packaging's labelling. The reason it didn't end up with prison time for anyone is that the packaging company wasn't (at the time) legally required to list full ingredients on the packaging, and so hadn't broken any law by doing so. However if the same were to happen now after the changes to the law, then the packaging company would be held at fault for negligence in breach of the law, and someone responsible very well could receive prison time (or the company itself, depending on its size and the spread of responsibility, would receive a significant fine in lieu of being unable to hold a single person responsible for such an act of negligence). It doesn't change anything about the two waiter scenarios Ava describes, which would usually result in a prison sentence under current law and precedent (her second scenario would simply be murder 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
Nailed it. I've worked as a chef in restaurants where the owner, not the chef, does the stock ordering and menu organising that labels the allergens. If the menu is mislabeled then that's the owner's fault. I also worked in a restaurant where the head chef has full control of the menu and specials so the waiter has to ask about allergens. Quite possibly the most complicated niche subject Joe has talked about :D
Since the girl lost her life there needs to be an allergen menu available in the restaurant for people to ask for (there are a few other measures too but I can’t remember rn!) but I know it’s been a huge piece of work to ensure compliance
If you don't know if it has the allergen in it then say that! If you just chance it and lie then you're responsible... Whether or not the restaurant is organised or not
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 You have this wrong. The Tories were the ones that stopped sentencing prisoners to help with the overcrowding. It never made any headlines. Starmer just mentioned this at his first speech as PM, and how outrageous he thought it was.
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.
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.
They are responsible, but is prison going to help anything? We need to reduce the numbers we have in prison, and these don't sound like good candidates for imprisonment.
Even if they're negilgent why send them to prison? Other than to be punitive? some kind of community service and education seems like it would be more than sufficient. If the family of the deceased are amicable to it then some kind of recompense on that side could be good. Someone died so someone has to go to prison seems pretty bad.
I believe that makes it a civil case unless it can be proven to be malious. Any law will likely have the opposite effect and we would start getting into discrimination laws as the vast majority of places would just refuse to serve anyone with an allergy
@@Aristoskia the argument for custodial sentences is always a combination of being in the public interest (i.e. keeping people safe), and providing a deterrent so that (in Ava's example) people take food allergies more seriously than Ed apparently does. It has been shown to work well in medical fields, arguably too well (doctors in some countries refuse to operate on high risk patients for this exact reason)
@@MrCallumDennis manslaughter is rarely malicious (if it is, then it is classified as 1st or 2nd degree murder). Manslaughter is usually high degrees of negligence or carelessness that would be beyond what a reasonable person would call acceptable
GF has coeliac disease. Sadly it can be linked to cancer and other diseases if it is not managed properly. A lot of restaurants are pretty good about it now, but we have to be very considerate about it. On the positive side, Mexican food is generally gluten free.
My best mates wife is coeliac. It’s a real shame people don’t understand the permanent damage that can be done, even from just a trace of cross contamination. Yes you might get a bad stomach for a day… put the real problem is the long term damage. You can also have silent coeliacs who don’t suffer as visibly, but the damage done to their gut is VERY real
I'm with Ava. Everyone in the industry knows how dangerous allergies are and if it goes wrong it's either down to negligence or it's deliberate. We absolutely do send people to jail for that. This is Ed's worst take ever.
@@Kerygmachela It is their job to pay sufficient attention and read the card properly, it is their duty of care to do so, failing to do so is criminal negligence. If your job puts people's lives on the line and you, when specifically asked to check, are wilfully negligent enough not to sufficiently check, then you will be held liable in a court of law. That's the way it currently is and is the legal precedent, people have received prison sentences for this sort of thing several times before.
@@treeaboo If you're trusting some spotty 17 year old working at Pret with your life, I might suggest maybe making a pack lunch with ingredients you know for a fact won't kill you.
The peanut discussion was really irritating - Eva and Ed were talking cross-purposes. Eva was *clearly* describing both murder (knowing and intending someone to die from an anaphylactic reaction) and gross negligence manslaughter (lying about dangerous allergens). Ed thought she was talking about mistakes and blithe ignorance.
"rather than successive cabinets of incompetent, gaslighting liars." Sorry, why do you think Starmer and his crowd of bankers and corporate stooges are any different?
No one should go to prison for a mistake, though a line needs to be drawn between mistakes and negligence. If a waiter or chef accidently mixes up two dishes and gives the allergic person the one with nuts in, I don't think they should go to prison, mistakes happen and at the end of the day they are not paid enough to deal with that level of risk are they? A restaurant owner who knowingly bends the rules or doesn't have correct procedure in place is a different story though, there could be a case for them going to prison.
@@vinikamatv2309 I mean it depends on the situation, if the driver is following the law, and the child comes out of nowhere then no. However, if it is the driver is drunk and hits them then absolutely, with there being some grey area where it is harder to decide.
@Stupid_Rabbit there are regulations on allergens in hospitality too. In this situation, you are told of an allergy, ignorance is not an excuse if you kill someone with something they are allergic to. Theres is legal requirement to list and know all allergens in every dish
@@vinikamatv2309 I am quite aware that food is a highly regulated industry. However, you have created a situation to suit your answer, this is different from the situation posited in the original comment, and in the video, both parties seemed to have different views on how the mistake/"murder" occurred.
The horrendous delays in the justice system are for a number of reasons. 1/ police delays bringing the charges to the CPS 2/massive court backlogs because the Tories closed down courts and sold them off It's not to do with no space in prisons - although that's a separate issue.
It’s negligence. When you forget to label something or don’t inform a customer about an allergen that could decide someone’s life or dth, that should be mnslghtr. I’m with Ava! 💯 per cent!
@@jameshowarth4801 theres 2 differences of it though Voluntary and involuntary. If the person waiter just straight up doesnt tell the chef, or is purposly ignoring thats voluntary manslaughter sure, but it isnt if its some kid that doesnt know better or been worked to the bone and is exhausted or something. Plus theres lots of reasons they take into account, public interest and likelihood of conviction are the main ones with this, lots of manslaughters are ignored unless its a sever case that the CPS thinks is in the publics interest and has a likelihood of conviction, in this case no matter if its criminal neglect, it probably wont go to far because why focus on an accident when their are literally unsolved rapes, murders, domestic assault, child abuse. Like why would an accident matter compared to viciouse criminals. That is 100% punishment not rehab, rehabilitation should be the main goal of prisons, with no criminal intent theres nothing to rehabalitate, just put them on community service to learn better and does some punishment
@@nether2227 well obviously there is always nuance but if someone dies through a failure to deal with their food allergy correctly then its criminal negligence and manslaughter regardless of the circumstances, the circumstances will only affect how they are actually sentenced.
This debate did my nut in! There's a difference between wilful negligence and a mistake made by badly trained staff/poorly organised workplace. Ava and Ed didn't seem to want to make the distinction!
Actually insane that the Tories thought it was cost effective to send £0.5B to Rwanda in a measure of performative cruelty, that didn't work, to attempt to reduce illegal immigration... I thought it was less than that. Imagine what could have been done with that money instead... Small government my arse
This is where the benefit of age comes in. Back in the mid seventies it was standard for regular sessions, of effective tooth brushing technique, to be scheduled at primary school level (in primary schools). We even had local dentists, visiting, fetching freebies and talking about the latest advances in and theories about dental hygiene. We often had to practice brushing our teeth as a whole class. It was a bit of an ordeal, actually, but I think it worked at inculcating in us a desire to do it properly at home. That this is no longer standard might have more to do with spending cuts than dentists. Also, some parents fully knacker themselves trying to get their kids to care about their own teeth. Teaching dental hygiene, in schools, needs to be reinstated as the long term effects are so dire - I mean, it's not just the teeth any more but actual heart disease and sometimes death.
I used to be a baker who specialised in allergy friendly deserts and cakes. I put a full list of ingredients on the back of display cards and had symbols on the front with a sign explaining the symbols. Different sections for different allergies and a sign that said to please tell us if you have severe allergies and I would go to the cold storage and supply them with ones that had been contained in a sealed and completely separate box. I was incredibly careful. However, my colleagues did not seem to be as bothered and would often mix up serving tongs etc. Despite signs and colour coding. I put so many things in place to make it as safe for the customer and easy for my colleagues, and they still messed it up and didn't take it seriously. I really stressed to them how dangerous allergies could be and they still fucked up on a regular bases. I think if someone tells you they have a severe allergy in the kinda system I set up and you should be held personally responsible if anything happens to that customer.
I have an allergy, I went to a restaurant with my friends. I asked the person taking my order if the stake and ale pie had tomato in it. He left the table came back and stated he had checked and that the pie was safe for me. Approximately 7 mins after my first fork full my lips and thoat stareto swell. It was clear to all that I was going in to anaphylaxis, the manager ran to the table when my friends told him to call an ambulance because I was having an allergy reaction he demanded to know why I hadn't asked if the meal contained tomato. In a chorus of voices he was told "but she did" the waiter had not even bothered to ask the kitchen. At 18 mins I was being resuscitated in the back of an ambulance. Tell me again how that was not criminal?
Because murder (going off what Ava said) implies intent, what happened to you is unfortunate. But can we at least acknowledge the fact that having an allergy is not common, and if you have an allergy, eating any food that isn't prepared by you specifically carries a degree of risk and that you should be prepared for. And let's be honest here the hospitality industry sucks, waiters are deemed a low skilled job and training is lackluster, during a busy rush period there will be mistakes because the workload is high, I mean it's not that uncommon to have orders mixed up. We do have systems in place that could prevent this of course, look at hospitals where multiple nurses double and triple check your name, DOB before giving you any medication. I'd agree that its criminal if the restaurant industry adopted a proper food safety/allergy training for all waiters, we a cap on waiter to restaurant patron ratios and all food orders are checked by at least two people, what you're doing is putting the blame of an entire industry on one person.
@@johnwright9372 let us follow your logic. I was injured by an act of criminal negligence. During my recovery I must now engage a solicitor (they dont come free) bere the cost of expenses for gathering evidence, Doctors reports and witness statements pay all fees before and you think thats a matter for county court? Sue his employer as vicariously liable? Or how about the no win no fee right? Only thing that happens that way is the case drags on for 5+ years the solicitor do a deal on the steps of the court the night of the case, the no win no fee insurance places the whole liability on you if you dont take the settlement all cost are taken after the solicitor takes his cut. You get to be at very high risk for the rest of your life and the negligence goes unchecked. (Note with each reaction the time to onset of anaphylaxis is drastically reduced) If it had been a negligent discharge that left me in need of such high levels of medical care would you say the same?
@@binaryhelix101 no thats not how food safety works here. We have rules and prescribed codes of practice to mitigate the risk, if you willfully neglect them thats negligence.
@@binaryhelix101 It doesn't need to be murder to be criminal, or result in a prison sentence. The described scenario is criminal negligence, and had someone died would have resulted in a prison sentence, as is the precedent (such cases have occurred, and did result in, albeit relatively short, prison sentences of 2-3 years). When you are part of a business serving people food it is in your duty of care to not kill your customers due to negligence, when specifically requested to check whether a food contains an allergen deciding not to bother checking is wilfully negligent and will lead to prosecution in court. This is precisely what health and safety laws are in place for.
the nut thing is basically death by gross negligence, they had no intent to kill anyone but did through carelessness. Seems to me to be the same as killing pedestrian while texting and driving. No intent but careless behaviour. Your responsible for your dangerous vehicle, your responsible for feeding someone whose asked you if it has a deadly ingredient.
In the 80s, we had people come in to school to show us good dental hygiene, every year or two. And of course we had free dentistry for kids back then too.
During a time where prisons are in crisis due to being over-filled and under-staffed, I think automatically throwing waiters in there for negligence would cause more problems than it solves. Of course they should be punished, but not automatic prison time without proving intent
Prisons are a place for rehabilitation, argued in this episode alone, not just punishment, you cant rehabilitate an incompitent waiter, just teach them better, give them like 300 hours community service and they have a criminal record for the rest of thier lifes, so will struggle to get any other job anyway. Cant belive Avas just 100% focused on punishment after suporting Timpson, makes zero sense. #Teamed
You go to do a bungee jump, and ask the operator who is up there with you if the rope is attached to the crane. In scenario A, the operator checks and sees that the rope isn’t attached, before knowingly telling you it’s attached when it isn’t. In scenario B, the operator appears to check but doesn’t do so properly, then tells you it’s attached without actually knowing whether it is or isn’t. In both scenarios you believe the operator and fall to a potential death. Should they be criminally charged in scenario A, B, both or none? If you only chose one scenario, how would we prove which one happened?
In an old job, several of my clients were government departments, and I witnessed the transition from teas, coffees and biscuits at every client meeting, to literally only being offered tap water. We had to bring our own Hob Nobs! And the clients were so grateful for them! To be fair they were very apologetic about the lack of refreshments - it obviously wasn't the decision of the civil servants and they couldn't comprehend it. And this was all in the name of 'efficiency savings', as if cutting spend on refreshments was suddenly going to transform Whitehall into a lean, mean fighting machine.
I used to work in a pub and the allergy thing was a nightmare, a significant chunk of people would struggle to explain their allergy, I've even had people tell me their allergic to something, I've told them they can't have it, and they were like nah it'll be fine. What's worse is the company wanted 0 accountability so our instructions were to hand the guests a folder/tablet with some generic allergens and under no circumstances help them choose what they were able to have
People have gone to prison for negligence for unlawfully killing someone with a peanut allergy. Megan Lee died in 2017, the takeaway owners went to prison for 2/3 years. 'Mrs Justice Yip told the workers that Lee was responsible enough to highlight her allergies when placing the order, but “sadly the same responsibility was not at your end”.'
Difference between a simple mistake and criminal negligence. When your job entails not killing your customers (who, by the nature of your job, have placed their lives and health in your hands), criminal negligence leading to their deaths will result in a prison sentence under the current law, as is the precedent (it's happened many times before). A mistake and negligence are different things according to the law.
If you have such a bad allaergy that if you touch something let alone eat it and you might die you shouldn't be eating anything that you didn't prepare yourself. Its unfortunate that the young girl died and also unfortunate that her parents did not prepare a meal for her for the travel plans they had. We have the labels now that say "by the way this might contain something that'll kill you" No one should be going to prison for further incidents like this. NOW... If I didn't like the person sitting beside me on the bus and they had an allergy. If I then rubbed a peanut into their eye and chucked one down their gob then obviously I should be arrested for their death. These are two different things and I totally agree with Ed's reaction lol.
I'm allergic to nuts, someone gave me an m&m with nuts in it, I spat it out before swallowing when I realised it didn't taste right and sat ready with my epi-pen. The last thought on my mind was punishing the person for giving me a chocolate. Insane
The issue with court cases is also because of Covid, the courts closed for a while during lockdown, and those pesky criminals didnt stop commiting crime, so there is a huge backlog of cases to get through in crown court, and the crown court was behind anyway. When I worked near the court system I think it was 2.5 years worth of cases the court was behind on, so it isnt just prison spaces.
I've never been so Team Ava. I once told the waiter at an indian restaurant that I had a nut allergy, and therefore that I didn't want my butter chicken to have nuts as garnish that was standard there for butter chicken. It came out with nuts on top so I sent it back. The waiter took it away and came straight back, and they had literally just stirred the nuts in. It was so obvious I knew without eating any, but required me to complain to a manager, and they had to go and make a fresh one, because yes that's exactly what the waiter had done. So many people without allergies are so unconcerned about it. I also ended up sitting in the cockpit of an international flight as a teenager in the 90's because it turned out the meal choice on the plane was Satay chicken and there was no real process for coordinating passenger needs with on board food at the time. It was basically communicate with the cabin crew! Seems completely unbelievable now but times were different.
I would be interested in Ed's take on a very real scenario I had. So I have a milk allergy, straight to life threatening. Once i ate at a 100% vegan cafe, still made sure to check for allergens and speak to the waitress Turns out the cafe was knowingly using cows milk in their soup. They were literally adding milk in the kitchen. The chef and owner were both aware but decided to not inform customers and intentionally withhold the information from the allergen charts In that scenario - I struggle to see how it could be anything other than manslaughter if I died. There is clear negligence. I fail to see how that is any different to any other form of manslaughter. I think Ed overestimates how often these things are genuine mistakes, and how often they are through a lack of shits to give. A genuine accident shouldn't be a criminal offence. Intentionally misleading negligence should be a criminal offence. Seems to me the line is quite clear
as soon as the chef and owner knowingly used cows milk whilst advertising the opposite then intent is established. however, fault can only be attributed to a staff member (waiter/cashier/line cook…) if it can be proven that they were aware that cow milk was being used and therefore explicitly deceived you (worsened by the fact that you made sure to verbally check with staff). if the staff were unsure it can be defined as criminal negligence but this label would be hard to prove if the staff (other than chef and owner) had no reason to believe that the menu was not correct (especially as the restaurant is supposed to be 100% vegan). most likely you could have taken the the chef and owner to court seeing as their intent is established. don’t know if will to commit irreparable prejudice can be established however false advertising certainly could. genuinely depends on how good the defence attorney/solicitor is. :)
Coeliac disease is an auto-immune disorder. Depending on the severity the sufferer can become very ill after eating something that is just contaminated with gluten, let alone something that is made with gluten. Coeliac is not just glorified IBS. Whilst I don't think there has to be a minister for the disease, places should take the dietary requirements of their patrons seriously. If they say it is gluten free, vegan or dairy free it should be the case.
If the waiter knows exactly what they are doing when they are serving a nut to someone that has an allergy, then that is murder. Since that is not the scenario that is being discussed, then it isn't murder! And if we are placing such huge amounts of pressure in a waiter to be risking their freedom when serving a subway then they should be paid more money!
i think that government ministers should be responcable for deaths caused by policy. like the 200k directly linked to austerity. like the 200k covid deaths thanks to "herd immunity"!
Allergen labelling should be the responsibility of managers in hospitality similar to the laws around alcohol and serving people underage. "Whilst we make every effort to avoid cross contamination we cannot guarantee allergens are not present" is the line every business uses to abscond themselves of any legal responsibility whilst also excluding people with any of the 14 major allergies that hospo businesses need to be aware of. Coeliac disease is a seriously depressing illness. 80% of food products contain gluten and you have to spend all your time second guessing every piece of food offered to you by friends and family because so few people understand how serious the illness is. I remember when i was diagnosed the idea of losing a limb felt preferable to having to deal with the disease every single day
This probably happens in medicine. Patient has allergy documented somewhere in notes. Gets given that medication. I don’t think those clinicians generally go to jail but there are, obviously professional consequences
Ava's opinion on sending hospitality workers to jail for mistakes is such a batshit take. Maliciously and knowingly serving an allergen is another instance, has she ever worked in food?
The first scenario she describes would be criminal negligence under current law and precedent, and people have gone to prison for such types of cases. The latter scenario, wherein they are asked whether it has nuts, know it has nuts, and decide to lie and say that it doesn't, knowing full well the consequences (leading to the customer's death), would simply be murder.
Ed is right, Ava's desire to jail minimum wage workers if they make a mistake and her assumption they are all gleeful mum murderers is her worst take yet 😂😂😂
Ava appears to be talking about a Deliberate Violation, which is already covered by elements of H&S law. Onus is on the employee who violated the rules. If the same sesame query checking was simply them not bothering to look it up, because no one does as it takes too long to keep doing so, then that would be a Routine Violation- also covered by H&S. Onus is on the managers who failed to enforce the rules and/or made them hard to follow. I think what should really be examined is when something like the Pret situation turns up, if it was because someone at head office specifically stopped the sandwich being labelled- eg by failing to list allergens due to wanting to save money on sending out new packaging/ allergen lists until the next order of packaging is made/ list hits a review date- then that manager should be hit with potential jail time as they deliberately prioritised profit over life. Managers making cost savings when being warned of the potential impacts on safety by specialists in the field is a constant issue in many industries, and despite tragedies like The Herald of Free Enterprise (aptly named in terms of the root cause of the issue) still continues to occur. Why spend a million a year on safety when the bonus for saving that money is greater than the fine if something does happen to go wrong? This, along with simple education on H&S law, is one of the two prime reasons for why an awfully large proportion of preventable 'accidents' occur.
I do get Ava's point about levels of skill re: doctors and how we consider this, and that direct comparisons are not always that helpful. That being said, as a doctor myself, I can't help but feel like there is some truth in the comparison being made with baristas - for £14 an hour, our most junior colleagues are the ones manning hospitals overnight and being called to cardiac arrests etc. The skill set and level of responsibility over human lives just doesn't compare to our salary and that's the point being made.
Coeliac disease can be pretty serious. It gives you an autoimmune reaction to gluten, which can be really disruptive for some people. It can even cause nerve damage
There already is criminisation for incompetance in work. A train driver who doesnt follow procedure, which then derails a train and kills lots of people can be sent to jail
35:30 jesus, thank god they're not involved in law, you're meant to prove they did have that intent not that they didn't. But this still falls under negligence topic wise afaik? So good neither are in law 😅
I am an allergy suffering individual. If people went to prison giving me one of my (albeit, many) allergies, both my parents, my in-laws and my spouse would all be locked up right now. Accidents happen. Thankfully mine aren’t fatal and I can tell very quickly if I’m having a reaction. I think another problem with this is the gradation of allergy severity.
As a coeliac sufferer I would be extremely cross if I had asked about the contents of a dish and was given false information. However you can't rule out cross contamination in the kitchen if they also handle the allergen. If I ate gluten i would be in intense pain within 3 hours and have an upset tummy for days.
The problem with the tooth brushing in school thing was there was an expectation that teachers would basically have to do the brushing there not just teach how it. All the teachers I know haaaaated this idea, they have enough on their plates already without any support staff or funding
I'd be so interested to know Ava's view on drug errors in the NHS. Happens every single day... To the degree it can't actually be helped, no amount of technology, policy or controls would stop it.
As someone who has a mild nut allergy if I asked if something has nuts in, and my server said no, then i had a reaction because it did, I'd be fucking furious. I wouldn't even die but it'd ruin my day with gasping and wheezing. If I've gone to the effort to check, then a server couldn't be arsed to check, that's outrageous, it's poisoning at the least, Ed's take is fucking insane
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
Definitely a lawyer. Look at that word count per sentence 😂
That’s a huge responsibility for someone making minimum wage
@@RichardTongemanCorrect, we should probably up the wages in the service industry and stop treating jobs directly related to nutrition and wellbeing as the sort of jobs you only have of you've got nothing else going on.
But that would decimate an industry and/or require legitimate reflection on what we deem equitable pay for labour.
I’m guessing I think it’s impossible to prove intention in 98% of cases so it would in gross negligence
Yeah, I figured the situation Ed was outlining was a genuine mistake (a procedural one, sounds like, if it wasn’t on the list to be aware of) but Ava was outlining something very different and deliberately malicious.
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
spot on haha
Tort of negligence vs murder via peanut.
Lesser outcomes in other industries might still fall under criminal negligence. Obviously not in all cases, but there are absolutely instances within the hospitality sphere that should could be similarly categorised. 🤷♂️
I get where Ava is coming from.
Ed has never heard of manslaughter. Plus he's very naive and ignorant. Ava won.
Ava wants to enact the police state that the telegraph think starmer will
Will be a pretty cool looking gulag though
Her views are total nonsense. Criminalising employees for making a mistake? All this will achieve is to make all food outlets claim that all of their products may contain nuts, to avoid liability. Allergic people won't be able to eat out anywhere. It would be a different matter if say a husband knowingly fed his wife something containing nuts and hid her EpiPen...
Ava is arguing for the law which is already in place
Ed has never heard of manslaughter. Plus he's very naive and ignorant. Ava won.
The worlds gone made, Cant Ed enjoy a nice succulent Chinese meal in peace?
Democracy manifest
I see that you know your judo well
Ed has never heard of manslaughter. Plus he's very naive and ignorant. Ava won.
massive argument about manslaughter via allergies
we are so back #teamed
Ed is absolutely and categorically wrong in that debate.
@@hodor6159 are you mental?
Beat me to it!
both have valid points but fail to realise the absurdity of wanting to send people to prison instead of helping rehabilitate someone traumatised by killing someone ESPECIALLY if it was accidental, if was intentional they just need to be informed about the consequences of their actions, not punished or deterred though potential punishment lol
Ava, the state prisons leave people in is too horrid to validate sending people there, especially if the crime (even manslaughter) happens via something like giving someone with nut allergies a nut *lenny face* not that nut
I'm with Ed. Sending some minimum wage teenager to jail because they didn't label an allergen seems a bit unhelpful. I agree massive corporate fines, that will push the companies to push strong policies and practices from the top down to avoid them paying out. So in the long run less people will be harmed.
Sending the incompetent min wage employee to jail just fucks up there life for good (based on current our outcomes from our prison system) adds a burden to our economy and probably won't fix the problem going forward.
Surely it should be:
Company didn't list an allergen, someone dies - not the waiters fault, big company fine, criminal charges for someone in corporate who is responsible for the allergen info
Waiter didn't bother to check the allergen info - waiters fault, treated in the same way as driving while looking at your phone and knocking someone down.
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.
good comment fr
This is the way more informative and thorough version of what I would've commented 😊 Thank you!
Allergen training is too often treated as a tick box requirement rather than as something important with potentially terrible consequences, and that approach and attitude comes from management. The ultimate responsibility to ensure that the law is being followed should never fall on an employee on minimum wage
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.
But also, if they told you and you still messed up, even not deliberately (but due to carelessness or not taking it seriously enough) you are also committing a crime and would go to prison for it (rightly, in my opinion, since your carelessness is clearly a danger to the public)
@@jameshowarth4801 But where do you draw the line? Carelessness is hard to prove and people can make mistakes even when they are giving something their whole concentration.
@@Kerygmachela The legal answer would be that you draw the line where a "reasonable person" would draw the line (in the end, a Jury). The CPS decides to charge if they, in their own judgement, think it's in the public interest to prosecute and that there's a decent chance a reasonable person would agree.
Simple - intention is part of the justice system dunno why they arguing
Be it the serving staff who said "No, it's fine", the restaurant for not clearly marking allergens on the menu or the kitchen staff who forgot to declare it, someone needs to be held accountable.
Ava: you should go to jail for giving people nuts
Also Ava: *routinely poisons self using 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
she said manslaughter many times, which doesn't require intent. Just negligence or incompetence
No, Ed is!
Yes, it seems like a significant fine (which if not paid would lead to prison time) is more appropriate for negligence.
At its core, prison is about separating people from society if they are deemed to be a continued danger.
Edit: I mean specifically for waiters and people who directly handle food. If your company is found to be mislabelling allergens then it should be prison + fine + everything else under the sun.
Only if it amounts to gross negligence@@jameshowarth4801
@@thisismetoday Ava's specific murder example was if someone tells you they have a nut allergy and you deliberately give them a nut and they die. That is, unambiguously, murder. If they live, it's GBH.
In Ava's Britain you would go to prison for being bad at your job haha
That's already how it works, when being bad at your job means people die (or receive serious injury). Certain jobs, like those in food, come have significant responsibility towards the safety of those you serve.
In the two scenarios Ava describes, you would usually currently be sentenced to prison time for manslaughter via gross negligence, or murder (in the second scenario), under the current law and precedent. Granted, her scenarios are fairly extreme, but possible.
You do risk going to prison for being criminally negligent at your job, especially if it results in death or injury, but even if there is a breach of HSE guidelines that could have resulted in such you are criminally exposed.
But as a waiter though
@@GeoffreyHellington So you're advocating amnesty for waiters who plunge forks into customers necks?
@@_Stroda justice for Sweeny Todd! Free up my barber
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).
If the person asks the waiter for food that is not labelled about allergens and the waiter doesn’t bother to check and gives out wrong information, how would it be the restaurant’s fault!?!?
@@thisismetoday I was referring specifically to the pret a manger query that was cited in the pod. This was back in 2016, before the push to put full ingredients on all packaging. More importantly, it's worth noting that this was a prepackaged item, in a shop, where the shopkeeper was not aware of the customer's allergy. You wouldn't expect a supermarket assistant to ask if a person had allergies at checkout - that might be a better analogy in this instance.
@@thisismetoday just on the more general query, if the customer asks about allergies now let's say in a standard restaurant, yes there is an obligation for the waiter to get it right. If they make the accident and give the item to them, I would argue that that falls under the negligence/incompetence/manslaughter against the employee. That said, the restaurant holds some culpability as the employer, who has a responsibility to ensure that the waiters are proficient enough to do their jobs without making those kinds of mistakes.
But it shouldn't be understated that in the example that sparked the debate, that is not on the waiter. The labelling should all be correct. If it is not, it's not on the Frontline staff to make up for those issues, but the managers/higher ups that need to answer for poor overall workplace standards.
@@jimmyc3030 In the Pret case though it only moves it up the chain of command, it's not the shopmanger's fault in the Pret case because it's perfectly reasonable for the shopmanger to trust the packaging information of a prepackaged product, as such the fault is with those behind the packaging's labelling.
The reason it didn't end up with prison time for anyone is that the packaging company wasn't (at the time) legally required to list full ingredients on the packaging, and so hadn't broken any law by doing so. However if the same were to happen now after the changes to the law, then the packaging company would be held at fault for negligence in breach of the law, and someone responsible very well could receive prison time (or the company itself, depending on its size and the spread of responsibility, would receive a significant fine in lieu of being unable to hold a single person responsible for such an act of negligence).
It doesn't change anything about the two waiter scenarios Ava describes, which would usually result in a prison sentence under current law and precedent (her second scenario would simply be murder anyway).
At pret they make everything in-house on the day so I think it's probably the employees who box the sandwiches?
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
Nailed it. I've worked as a chef in restaurants where the owner, not the chef, does the stock ordering and menu organising that labels the allergens. If the menu is mislabeled then that's the owner's fault. I also worked in a restaurant where the head chef has full control of the menu and specials so the waiter has to ask about allergens. Quite possibly the most complicated niche subject Joe has talked about :D
Since the girl lost her life there needs to be an allergen menu available in the restaurant for people to ask for (there are a few other measures too but I can’t remember rn!) but I know it’s been a huge piece of work to ensure compliance
If you don't know if it has the allergen in it then say that! If you just chance it and lie then you're responsible... Whether or not the restaurant is organised or not
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.
Exactly, it's criminal negligence, and is legally distinct from an accident.
If they know you're anaphylactic, yes. If not, no.
Agreed
@@TheLeonPriorif you say you have an allergy they have to assume it could kill you
8:13 You have this wrong. The Tories were the ones that stopped sentencing prisoners to help with the overcrowding. It never made any headlines. Starmer just mentioned this at his first speech as PM, and how outrageous he thought it was.
I agree on the broad strokes, but I think Labour are actually coming clean with the numbers / making it structured and official.
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. #TeamEd
What's the average body count for a dinner party at Eds?
Depends on whether they've been for a run or not...
Oh, not that kind of body count?
We want the nut poll. #teamEd
Special Nut Debate 2024 podcast
with ed on this. and if we're saying the waiting staff hold people's lives in their hands, they need a 60% pay rise minimum.
Yeah I'm a restaurant manager and my team and I are very vigilant. Firing yes prison no.
@@fracturedlife1393 I mean I think it probably meets the criteria for criminal negligence...
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.
They are responsible, but is prison going to help anything? We need to reduce the numbers we have in prison, and these don't sound like good candidates for imprisonment.
Even if they're negilgent why send them to prison? Other than to be punitive? some kind of community service and education seems like it would be more than sufficient. If the family of the deceased are amicable to it then some kind of recompense on that side could be good.
Someone died so someone has to go to prison seems pretty bad.
I believe that makes it a civil case unless it can be proven to be malious. Any law will likely have the opposite effect and we would start getting into discrimination laws as the vast majority of places would just refuse to serve anyone with an allergy
@@Aristoskia the argument for custodial sentences is always a combination of being in the public interest (i.e. keeping people safe), and providing a deterrent so that (in Ava's example) people take food allergies more seriously than Ed apparently does. It has been shown to work well in medical fields, arguably too well (doctors in some countries refuse to operate on high risk patients for this exact reason)
@@MrCallumDennis manslaughter is rarely malicious (if it is, then it is classified as 1st or 2nd degree murder). Manslaughter is usually high degrees of negligence or carelessness that would be beyond what a reasonable person would call acceptable
GF has coeliac disease. Sadly it can be linked to cancer and other diseases if it is not managed properly. A lot of restaurants are pretty good about it now, but we have to be very considerate about it.
On the positive side, Mexican food is generally gluten free.
My best mates wife is coeliac. It’s a real shame people don’t understand the permanent damage that can be done, even from just a trace of cross contamination. Yes you might get a bad stomach for a day… put the real problem is the long term damage. You can also have silent coeliacs who don’t suffer as visibly, but the damage done to their gut is VERY real
I'm with Ava. Everyone in the industry knows how dangerous allergies are and if it goes wrong it's either down to negligence or it's deliberate. We absolutely do send people to jail for that.
This is Ed's worst take ever.
I'm with Ava on this. My wife has a nut allergy. Sorry Ed it's criminal negligence if they don't check on being ask or lie.
What if they do check it carefully but still misread the card though?
@@Kerygmachela It is their job to pay sufficient attention and read the card properly, it is their duty of care to do so, failing to do so is criminal negligence.
If your job puts people's lives on the line and you, when specifically asked to check, are wilfully negligent enough not to sufficiently check, then you will be held liable in a court of law. That's the way it currently is and is the legal precedent, people have received prison sentences for this sort of thing several times before.
I ask for the allergen file before ordering
@@treeaboo If you're trusting some spotty 17 year old working at Pret with your life, I might suggest maybe making a pack lunch with ingredients you know for a fact won't kill you.
Viewing hospitality staff as kgb level assassins feels like such an upper middle class take.
The peanut discussion was really irritating - Eva and Ed were talking cross-purposes. Eva was *clearly* describing both murder (knowing and intending someone to die from an anaphylactic reaction) and gross negligence manslaughter (lying about dangerous allergens). Ed thought she was talking about mistakes and blithe ignorance.
How refreshing to see the grownups in charge, rather than successive cabinets of incompetent, gaslighting liars.
"rather than successive cabinets of incompetent, gaslighting liars." Sorry, why do you think Starmer and his crowd of bankers and corporate stooges are any different?
Oh dear. You really believe that. You’ve got a lot to learn🤣
Just watch & see how bad it is going to get.
2 expenses fiddlers in his cabinet 😂
💯
No one should go to prison for a mistake, though a line needs to be drawn between mistakes and negligence. If a waiter or chef accidently mixes up two dishes and gives the allergic person the one with nuts in, I don't think they should go to prison, mistakes happen and at the end of the day they are not paid enough to deal with that level of risk are they?
A restaurant owner who knowingly bends the rules or doesn't have correct procedure in place is a different story though, there could be a case for them going to prison.
So nobody who accidentally runs over a child in their car should go to jail?
@@vinikamatv2309 I mean it depends on the situation, if the driver is following the law, and the child comes out of nowhere then no. However, if it is the driver is drunk and hits them then absolutely, with there being some grey area where it is harder to decide.
@Stupid_Rabbit there are regulations on allergens in hospitality too.
In this situation, you are told of an allergy, ignorance is not an excuse if you kill someone with something they are allergic to. Theres is legal requirement to list and know all allergens in every dish
@@vinikamatv2309 I am quite aware that food is a highly regulated industry.
However, you have created a situation to suit your answer, this is different from the situation posited in the original comment, and in the video, both parties seemed to have different views on how the mistake/"murder" occurred.
On nuts: vocalized sentence "lets see if they are really allergic"
That's not the current law
Of course the restaurant should be responsible for the food they serve.
The managing director of pret should have gone to jail for corprate manslaghter. Thewaiter is not responcible for the labeling.
The horrendous delays in the justice system are for a number of reasons.
1/ police delays bringing the charges to the CPS
2/massive court backlogs
because the Tories closed down courts and sold them off
It's not to do with no space in prisons - although that's a separate issue.
It’s negligence. When you forget to label something or don’t inform a customer about an allergen that could decide someone’s life or dth, that should be mnslghtr. I’m with Ava! 💯 per cent!
It's called criminal negligence and yes they should go to prison if they put nuts in food that are labelled not to have them.
Thank you! How are so many people confused about what criminal negligence and manslaughter is?!
@@jameshowarth4801 theres 2 differences of it though Voluntary and involuntary. If the person waiter just straight up doesnt tell the chef, or is purposly ignoring thats voluntary manslaughter sure, but it isnt if its some kid that doesnt know better or been worked to the bone and is exhausted or something.
Plus theres lots of reasons they take into account, public interest and likelihood of conviction are the main ones with this, lots of manslaughters are ignored unless its a sever case that the CPS thinks is in the publics interest and has a likelihood of conviction, in this case no matter if its criminal neglect, it probably wont go to far because why focus on an accident when their are literally unsolved rapes, murders, domestic assault, child abuse. Like why would an accident matter compared to viciouse criminals.
That is 100% punishment not rehab, rehabilitation should be the main goal of prisons, with no criminal intent theres nothing to rehabalitate, just put them on community service to learn better and does some punishment
@@nether2227 well obviously there is always nuance but if someone dies through a failure to deal with their food allergy correctly then its criminal negligence and manslaughter regardless of the circumstances, the circumstances will only affect how they are actually sentenced.
Ava's Nut Law would result in her sending herself to prison 😂
That is his worst take ever. Depraved negligence is a criminal offence.
The 'nut' debate was the electiom analysis I didn't know I needed!!
Ava will be flying people off to Rwanda next😂
peanut-gate is exactly the bollox i need after a crappy day, cheers Ed and Ava ❤
Oli still in hiding after his parties crushing defeat i see
This debate did my nut in! There's a difference between wilful negligence and a mistake made by badly trained staff/poorly organised workplace. Ava and Ed didn't seem to want to make the distinction!
As an allergy sufferer, the way people do not seem to give a fuck about poisoning me is absolutely terrifying. What is wrong with everyone.
Actually insane that the Tories thought it was cost effective to send £0.5B to Rwanda in a measure of performative cruelty, that didn't work, to attempt to reduce illegal immigration... I thought it was less than that. Imagine what could have been done with that money instead... Small government my arse
This is where the benefit of age comes in. Back in the mid seventies it was standard for regular sessions, of effective tooth brushing technique, to be scheduled at primary school level (in primary schools). We even had local dentists, visiting, fetching freebies and talking about the latest advances in and theories about dental hygiene. We often had to practice brushing our teeth as a whole class. It was a bit of an ordeal, actually, but I think it worked at inculcating in us a desire to do it properly at home.
That this is no longer standard might have more to do with spending cuts than dentists. Also, some parents fully knacker themselves trying to get their kids to care about their own teeth. Teaching dental hygiene, in schools, needs to be reinstated as the long term effects are so dire - I mean, it's not just the teeth any more but actual heart disease and sometimes death.
I used to be a baker who specialised in allergy friendly deserts and cakes. I put a full list of ingredients on the back of display cards and had symbols on the front with a sign explaining the symbols. Different sections for different allergies and a sign that said to please tell us if you have severe allergies and I would go to the cold storage and supply them with ones that had been contained in a sealed and completely separate box. I was incredibly careful. However, my colleagues did not seem to be as bothered and would often mix up serving tongs etc. Despite signs and colour coding. I put so many things in place to make it as safe for the customer and easy for my colleagues, and they still messed it up and didn't take it seriously. I really stressed to them how dangerous allergies could be and they still fucked up on a regular bases. I think if someone tells you they have a severe allergy in the kinda system I set up and you should be held personally responsible if anything happens to that customer.
I have an allergy, I went to a restaurant with my friends. I asked the person taking my order if the stake and ale pie had tomato in it. He left the table came back and stated he had checked and that the pie was safe for me. Approximately 7 mins after my first fork full my lips and thoat stareto swell. It was clear to all that I was going in to anaphylaxis, the manager ran to the table when my friends told him to call an ambulance because I was having an allergy reaction he demanded to know why I hadn't asked if the meal contained tomato. In a chorus of voices he was told "but she did" the waiter had not even bothered to ask the kitchen. At 18 mins I was being resuscitated in the back of an ambulance. Tell me again how that was not criminal?
It's actionable in civil law.
Because murder (going off what Ava said) implies intent, what happened to you is unfortunate. But can we at least acknowledge the fact that having an allergy is not common, and if you have an allergy, eating any food that isn't prepared by you specifically carries a degree of risk and that you should be prepared for. And let's be honest here the hospitality industry sucks, waiters are deemed a low skilled job and training is lackluster, during a busy rush period there will be mistakes because the workload is high, I mean it's not that uncommon to have orders mixed up.
We do have systems in place that could prevent this of course, look at hospitals where multiple nurses double and triple check your name, DOB before giving you any medication. I'd agree that its criminal if the restaurant industry adopted a proper food safety/allergy training for all waiters, we a cap on waiter to restaurant patron ratios and all food orders are checked by at least two people, what you're doing is putting the blame of an entire industry on one person.
@@johnwright9372 let us follow your logic. I was injured by an act of criminal negligence. During my recovery I must now engage a solicitor (they dont come free) bere the cost of expenses for gathering evidence, Doctors reports and witness statements pay all fees before and you think thats a matter for county court? Sue his employer as vicariously liable? Or how about the no win no fee right? Only thing that happens that way is the case drags on for 5+ years the solicitor do a deal on the steps of the court the night of the case, the no win no fee insurance places the whole liability on you if you dont take the settlement all cost are taken after the solicitor takes his cut. You get to be at very high risk for the rest of your life and the negligence goes unchecked. (Note with each reaction the time to onset of anaphylaxis is drastically reduced) If it had been a negligent discharge that left me in need of such high levels of medical care would you say the same?
@@binaryhelix101 no thats not how food safety works here. We have rules and prescribed codes of practice to mitigate the risk, if you willfully neglect them thats negligence.
@@binaryhelix101 It doesn't need to be murder to be criminal, or result in a prison sentence. The described scenario is criminal negligence, and had someone died would have resulted in a prison sentence, as is the precedent (such cases have occurred, and did result in, albeit relatively short, prison sentences of 2-3 years).
When you are part of a business serving people food it is in your duty of care to not kill your customers due to negligence, when specifically requested to check whether a food contains an allergen deciding not to bother checking is wilfully negligent and will lead to prosecution in court. This is precisely what health and safety laws are in place for.
It's quite fun imagining Ava in a jury and dominating all the other serious and scared looking jurors during deliberation
the nut thing is basically death by gross negligence, they had no intent to kill anyone but did through carelessness. Seems to me to be the same as killing pedestrian while texting and driving. No intent but careless behaviour. Your responsible for your dangerous vehicle, your responsible for feeding someone whose asked you if it has a deadly ingredient.
Ava should be writing the next Richard Osman crime novel with these ideas 😂
In the 80s, we had people come in to school to show us good dental hygiene, every year or two. And of course we had free dentistry for kids back then too.
As Tippson said, we have a love affair with putting people in prison.
During a time where prisons are in crisis due to being over-filled and under-staffed, I think automatically throwing waiters in there for negligence would cause more problems than it solves. Of course they should be punished, but not automatic prison time without proving intent
Prisons are a place for rehabilitation, argued in this episode alone, not just punishment, you cant rehabilitate an incompitent waiter, just teach them better, give them like 300 hours community service and they have a criminal record for the rest of thier lifes, so will struggle to get any other job anyway. Cant belive Avas just 100% focused on punishment after suporting Timpson, makes zero sense. #Teamed
You go to do a bungee jump, and ask the operator who is up there with you if the rope is attached to the crane.
In scenario A, the operator checks and sees that the rope isn’t attached, before knowingly telling you it’s attached when it isn’t.
In scenario B, the operator appears to check but doesn’t do so properly, then tells you it’s attached without actually knowing whether it is or isn’t.
In both scenarios you believe the operator and fall to a potential death. Should they be criminally charged in scenario A, B, both or none? If you only chose one scenario, how would we prove which one happened?
Both.
In an old job, several of my clients were government departments, and I witnessed the transition from teas, coffees and biscuits at every client meeting, to literally only being offered tap water. We had to bring our own Hob Nobs! And the clients were so grateful for them! To be fair they were very apologetic about the lack of refreshments - it obviously wasn't the decision of the civil servants and they couldn't comprehend it. And this was all in the name of 'efficiency savings', as if cutting spend on refreshments was suddenly going to transform Whitehall into a lean, mean fighting machine.
I used to work in a pub and the allergy thing was a nightmare, a significant chunk of people would struggle to explain their allergy, I've even had people tell me their allergic to something, I've told them they can't have it, and they were like nah it'll be fine. What's worse is the company wanted 0 accountability so our instructions were to hand the guests a folder/tablet with some generic allergens and under no circumstances help them choose what they were able to have
People have gone to prison for negligence for unlawfully killing someone with a peanut allergy.
Megan Lee died in 2017, the takeaway owners went to prison for 2/3 years.
'Mrs Justice Yip told the workers that Lee was responsible enough to highlight her allergies when placing the order, but “sadly the same responsibility was not at your end”.'
If someone makes a mistake they shouldn't go to prison.
Depends if you're negligent
Difference between a simple mistake and criminal negligence. When your job entails not killing your customers (who, by the nature of your job, have placed their lives and health in your hands), criminal negligence leading to their deaths will result in a prison sentence under the current law, as is the precedent (it's happened many times before).
A mistake and negligence are different things according to the law.
If you have such a bad allaergy that if you touch something let alone eat it and you might die you shouldn't be eating anything that you didn't prepare yourself.
Its unfortunate that the young girl died and also unfortunate that her parents did not prepare a meal for her for the travel plans they had.
We have the labels now that say "by the way this might contain something that'll kill you"
No one should be going to prison for further incidents like this.
NOW...
If I didn't like the person sitting beside me on the bus and they had an allergy. If I then rubbed a peanut into their eye and chucked one down their gob then obviously I should be arrested for their death. These are two different things and I totally agree with Ed's reaction lol.
I'm allergic to nuts, someone gave me an m&m with nuts in it, I spat it out before swallowing when I realised it didn't taste right and sat ready with my epi-pen. The last thought on my mind was punishing the person for giving me a chocolate. Insane
The issue with court cases is also because of Covid, the courts closed for a while during lockdown, and those pesky criminals didnt stop commiting crime, so there is a huge backlog of cases to get through in crown court, and the crown court was behind anyway. When I worked near the court system I think it was 2.5 years worth of cases the court was behind on, so it isnt just prison spaces.
I've never been so Team Ava. I once told the waiter at an indian restaurant that I had a nut allergy, and therefore that I didn't want my butter chicken to have nuts as garnish that was standard there for butter chicken. It came out with nuts on top so I sent it back. The waiter took it away and came straight back, and they had literally just stirred the nuts in. It was so obvious I knew without eating any, but required me to complain to a manager, and they had to go and make a fresh one, because yes that's exactly what the waiter had done.
So many people without allergies are so unconcerned about it.
I also ended up sitting in the cockpit of an international flight as a teenager in the 90's because it turned out the meal choice on the plane was Satay chicken and there was no real process for coordinating passenger needs with on board food at the time. It was basically communicate with the cabin crew! Seems completely unbelievable now but times were different.
criminal negligence is a thing.
I would be interested in Ed's take on a very real scenario I had. So I have a milk allergy, straight to life threatening.
Once i ate at a 100% vegan cafe, still made sure to check for allergens and speak to the waitress
Turns out the cafe was knowingly using cows milk in their soup. They were literally adding milk in the kitchen. The chef and owner were both aware but decided to not inform customers and intentionally withhold the information from the allergen charts
In that scenario - I struggle to see how it could be anything other than manslaughter if I died.
There is clear negligence.
I fail to see how that is any different to any other form of manslaughter.
I think Ed overestimates how often these things are genuine mistakes, and how often they are through a lack of shits to give.
A genuine accident shouldn't be a criminal offence. Intentionally misleading negligence should be a criminal offence.
Seems to me the line is quite clear
as soon as the chef and owner knowingly used cows milk whilst advertising the opposite then intent is established. however, fault can only be attributed to a staff member (waiter/cashier/line cook…) if it can be proven that they were aware that cow milk was being used and therefore explicitly deceived you (worsened by the fact that you made sure to verbally check with staff). if the staff were unsure it can be defined as criminal negligence but this label would be hard to prove if the staff (other than chef and owner) had no reason to believe that the menu was not correct (especially as the restaurant is supposed to be 100% vegan). most likely you could have taken the the chef and owner to court seeing as their intent is established. don’t know if will to commit irreparable prejudice can be established however false advertising certainly could. genuinely depends on how good the defence attorney/solicitor is. :)
8:47 this bit about releasing prisoners reminds me of that bit about the "horse draper" from Krod Mandoon. 😆
This manslaughter debate is... nuts.
100% with Ed (and Timpson) on the nuts... Ava's take is retributive, not at all pragmatic
As a former civil ssrvant I can indeed confirm there are no free coffee machines in Central Gov. At least in Nobel House, CO, or DOH.
Coeliac disease is an auto-immune disorder. Depending on the severity the sufferer can become very ill after eating something that is just contaminated with gluten, let alone something that is made with gluten. Coeliac is not just glorified IBS. Whilst I don't think there has to be a minister for the disease, places should take the dietary requirements of their patrons seriously. If they say it is gluten free, vegan or dairy free it should be the case.
If the waiter knows exactly what they are doing when they are serving a nut to someone that has an allergy, then that is murder. Since that is not the scenario that is being discussed, then it isn't murder! And if we are placing such huge amounts of pressure in a waiter to be risking their freedom when serving a subway then they should be paid more money!
i think that government ministers should be responcable for deaths caused by policy. like the 200k directly linked to austerity. like the 200k covid deaths thanks to "herd immunity"!
An unintentional act that results in harm is the literal definition of an accident.
Ava's the only one sounding like a serial nut'ter 😂😂😂
Ava hasn’t clearly never been overworked in a hospitality environment before.
Allergen labelling should be the responsibility of managers in hospitality similar to the laws around alcohol and serving people underage. "Whilst we make every effort to avoid cross contamination we cannot guarantee allergens are not present" is the line every business uses to abscond themselves of any legal responsibility whilst also excluding people with any of the 14 major allergies that hospo businesses need to be aware of. Coeliac disease is a seriously depressing illness. 80% of food products contain gluten and you have to spend all your time second guessing every piece of food offered to you by friends and family because so few people understand how serious the illness is. I remember when i was diagnosed the idea of losing a limb felt preferable to having to deal with the disease every single day
This probably happens in medicine.
Patient has allergy documented somewhere in notes.
Gets given that medication.
I don’t think those clinicians generally go to jail but there are, obviously professional consequences
19:29 "Okay let me ask you this..... Harold Shipman"
WHAAAAAT
Ava's opinion on sending hospitality workers to jail for mistakes is such a batshit take. Maliciously and knowingly serving an allergen is another instance, has she ever worked in food?
The first scenario she describes would be criminal negligence under current law and precedent, and people have gone to prison for such types of cases.
The latter scenario, wherein they are asked whether it has nuts, know it has nuts, and decide to lie and say that it doesn't, knowing full well the consequences (leading to the customer's death), would simply be murder.
Didn't she say there are too many in prison too? Logical thinking not her strong suit.
Ed is right, Ava's desire to jail minimum wage workers if they make a mistake and her assumption they are all gleeful mum murderers is her worst take yet 😂😂😂
I've not got to that part yet, but I presume Ava is just doing her job as Reform correspondent
It would be nice for 3 pods a week for the option
Ava appears to be talking about a Deliberate Violation, which is already covered by elements of H&S law. Onus is on the employee who violated the rules.
If the same sesame query checking was simply them not bothering to look it up, because no one does as it takes too long to keep doing so, then that would be a Routine Violation- also covered by H&S. Onus is on the managers who failed to enforce the rules and/or made them hard to follow.
I think what should really be examined is when something like the Pret situation turns up, if it was because someone at head office specifically stopped the sandwich being labelled- eg by failing to list allergens due to wanting to save money on sending out new packaging/ allergen lists until the next order of packaging is made/ list hits a review date- then that manager should be hit with potential jail time as they deliberately prioritised profit over life.
Managers making cost savings when being warned of the potential impacts on safety by specialists in the field is a constant issue in many industries, and despite tragedies like The Herald of Free Enterprise (aptly named in terms of the root cause of the issue) still continues to occur. Why spend a million a year on safety when the bonus for saving that money is greater than the fine if something does happen to go wrong?
This, along with simple education on H&S law, is one of the two prime reasons for why an awfully large proportion of preventable 'accidents' occur.
As someone who works in food, I believe Ava is correct!
politicejoe really went nuts with the allergies, this feels personal
"I've seen you in a camel, I'm sure."
Awkward...😊
Presumably a stepladder was involved?
No it was more of a star wars situation - he needed warmth and refuge
I reckon Ava might have to wait in line a bit longer that usual when she goes for coffee tomorrow lol
I do get Ava's point about levels of skill re: doctors and how we consider this, and that direct comparisons are not always that helpful. That being said, as a doctor myself, I can't help but feel like there is some truth in the comparison being made with baristas - for £14 an hour, our most junior colleagues are the ones manning hospitals overnight and being called to cardiac arrests etc. The skill set and level of responsibility over human lives just doesn't compare to our salary and that's the point being made.
I have a nut allergy and dont know what side i am on
Coeliac disease can be pretty serious. It gives you an autoimmune reaction to gluten, which can be really disruptive for some people. It can even cause nerve damage
when you work in the food industry you have a responsibility to not kill your customers, too many people are too unbothered about ingredients
There already is criminisation for incompetance in work. A train driver who doesnt follow procedure, which then derails a train and kills lots of people can be sent to jail
35:30 jesus, thank god they're not involved in law, you're meant to prove they did have that intent not that they didn't. But this still falls under negligence topic wise afaik? So good neither are in law 😅
08:47 oli leaves for a few weeks and this is what the pod devolves in too.......
+++
20 minutes in, and they're still on peanuts. I've never paid more attention to this podcast than today
Is putting up phantom candidates in a general election, as it seems Reform have done, illegal? And if so, is anyone taking action against them?
I am an allergy suffering individual. If people went to prison giving me one of my (albeit, many) allergies, both my parents, my in-laws and my spouse would all be locked up right now. Accidents happen. Thankfully mine aren’t fatal and I can tell very quickly if I’m having a reaction. I think another problem with this is the gradation of allergy severity.
Finally, Ava’s true Reform colours come through.
So so funny and so so good. Such uniquely British humour and dark comedy. Essential viewing for those who like things that are left field.
As a coeliac sufferer I would be extremely cross if I had asked about the contents of a dish and was given false information. However you can't rule out cross contamination in the kitchen if they also handle the allergen. If I ate gluten i would be in intense pain within 3 hours and have an upset tummy for days.
The problem with the tooth brushing in school thing was there was an expectation that teachers would basically have to do the brushing there not just teach how it. All the teachers I know haaaaated this idea, they have enough on their plates already without any support staff or funding
I'd be so interested to know Ava's view on drug errors in the NHS. Happens every single day... To the degree it can't actually be helped, no amount of technology, policy or controls would stop it.
That allergy debate was nuts.
As someone who has a mild nut allergy if I asked if something has nuts in, and my server said no, then i had a reaction because it did, I'd be fucking furious. I wouldn't even die but it'd ruin my day with gasping and wheezing. If I've gone to the effort to check, then a server couldn't be arsed to check, that's outrageous, it's poisoning at the least, Ed's take is fucking insane