AGENTS-PROVOCATEURS Sue,—In the House of Commons on Friday last a
question was asked regarding the methods employed by the enforcement officers of the Board of Trade and in replies to supplementary questions doubt was thr6wn upon the authenticity of two cases which I had mentioned in an article in The Spectator of August 21st. My first story related to a case in Devonshire and I was careful in my article to state that I could not believe this story and to give the reasons why. The second story was brought to my attention by a solicitor in my own constituency, and I was ab:e to verify the facts. The incident occurred on March 4th last. A man entered the shop, asked for a pair of child's slippers, put them in his attaché case and tendered a detached card of coupons in return. The manageress informed him that she could not accept these coupons as they were "loose coupons." At that he uttered an exclama- tion of exasperation, and the manageress relented. She said, "Oh, very well, as it is only one coupon, I can let you have them." The manageress was thereupon prosecuted and fined £5.
In fairness to the Board of Trade, and to other Government Depart- ments who are also obliged to employ inspectors to see that their regula- tions are observed, it is right to state that strict instructions are issued to enforcement officers not to " encourage " the breach of regulations and not to profit by the ignorance or confusion of inexperienced employees. I am satisfied that in the vast majority of cases these injunctions are strictly observed and that magistrates would dismiss any case in which it appeared to them that the confidence of the salesman had been unfairly abused. But the principle (and it is an important principle) remains. It is this: "Is it fitting that officers of a Government Department should enter shops purporting to be ordinary customers and invite salesmen to commit a breach of law? "
I feel that all reasonable people will agree that it is not fitting.—Yours
Previous page
