|
flamebait resume advice (pg. 85)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ChemEnhanced |
 |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
You are dense. It´s already been posted that there is another Forwells at King and University.
Also, you´ve conveniently ignored my posting of the Tobacco Control Act law that proves you are wrong. Although there´s no big surprise there. |
As I stated it wasn't at a forwells. It was the 7-11 on king st. and the act you stated only is in regard to signage, and doesn't relate. You are the one who isn't getting it. |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
and the act you stated only is in regard to signage, and doesn't relate. You are the one who isn't getting it. |
No it's not. How is it in regard to signage? Show me where it says that. |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
Ok Will. From the Tobacco Control Act, 1994 (that means, before the 2005 amendments vis a vis the "Smoke-Free Ontario Act")
PROVISION OF TOBACCO TO PERSONS UNDER 19
Selling or supplying to persons under 19
3. (1) No person shall sell or supply tobacco to a person who is less than 19 years old. 1994, c. 10, s. 3 (1).
Defence
(3) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that the defendant believed the person receiving the tobacco to be at least 19 years old because the person produced a prescribed form of identification showing his or her age and there was no apparent reason to doubt the authenticity of the document or that it was issued to the person producing it. 1994, c. 10, s. 3 (3).
Note that point 3 is very clear. No person shall sell or supply tobacco to a person who is less than 19 years old. Period.
It doesn´t provide any exception to the sale of anyone who simply APPEARS to be 19 or older, except in the case where, well would you look at that, ID IS PROVIDED!
you´re stupid. |
What you don't get is that they wern't charged for sale to a minor. You are trying to connect dots that don't connect.
The only law here is requirements of sale. There was no requirement for ID. While if cigarettes
http://www.canlii.org/en/nu/laws/st...-2003-c-13.html
1.
(1) A retailer of tobacco shall have written policies, practices and procedures that
are integrated into the day to day operations of the retailer to discourage and prevent the
selling and supplying of tobacco to persons who are less than 19 years old.
raining and education
(2) A retailer of tobacco shall provide to employees the training and education
that are appropriate in the circumstances so that
(a) the employees understand this Act and the regulations;
(b) the employees understand policies, practices and procedures of the
retailer; and
(c) the employees understand and are capable of carrying out their
duties according to this Act, the regulations and the established
policies, practices, and procedures of the retailer.
Monitoring
(3) A retailer of tobacco shall establish a monitoring mechanism that is
appropriate in the circumstances
(a) to enable the retailer to determine whether the employees are complying with this Act, the regulations and the practices, policies, and procedures of the retailer as required under this section; and (b) to identify circumstances that may affect the employee's ability to comply with the requirements of this Act, the regulations or the policies, practices and procedures of the retailer.
Records of steps taken
(4) A retailer shall keep records of all steps taken under subsections (2)and (3).
a prohibition against employees handling tobacco products until
they are fully trained and educated by experienced personnel as
required in this section;
(b) training of employees to
(i) request prescribed forms of identification from anyone who
appears to be less than 19 years old,
Try the 2003 to 2006 version of the act.
Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age.
Also notice how my case didn't include video evidence even though everything was recorded.
Your defence against a posible charge that contradict another act has nothing to do with this. A defence is only subject in an instance where a breach of the law goes. This was not the case.
7-11 established specific policies that the store clerk did not follow . She was the up.
While this is not the exact law as it is in regard to nunuvut the law that is applicable is essentially identical. Once I find it I will post it. |
|
|
| lacksesepsotygh |
| this thread should be published |
|
|
| w_ashley |
Selling or supplying to persons under 19
3. (1) No person shall sell or supply tobacco to a person who is less than 19 years old. 1994, c. 10, s. 3 (1).
Apparent age
(2) No person shall sell or supply tobacco to a person who appears to be less than 25 years old unless he or she has required the person to provide identification and is satisfied that the person is at least 19 years old. 2005, c. 18, s. 4 (1).
As I stated the provision of 25 years of age was added after the case
FACT IS IT ONLY APPLIED FOR UNDER 19... a defence has nothing to do with sale requirements. However their practices cannot violate my other rights. You can't commit violations of peoples rights to prevent a potential error in judgment.
In this instance my rights were violated, when there was no reasoanble belief of a contravention of the law.
While 2005 when the changes came it would be fully acceptable for what occured, in 2004 it wasn't. |
|
|
| jupiterone |
| this thread is still active? jesus |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age. Note I appeared to be 23 years of age, my actual age.
|
What is it with you and this refrain? You are consistently bringing it up as if it hasn't been dealt with, already. It doesn't matter since, in order to fully indemnify itself from prosecution, a clerk must have proof - a word for which appearance falls quite short of. There are 16 year olds who look like 25 year-olds. The fact that they appear to be 25 is negated by the fact that they are 16.
Stop being so ing thick on this issue. It's been shot down so many times there's nothing left but bird-shot for its carcass. You are one of the most obdurate people I have ever, ever encountered. You really are. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
7-11 |
Why the hell didn't you tell me when I assumed it was Forwells a million years ago that it wasn't!? It's not like you can easily confuse 7-11 with Forwells.
WTF!?!
Anyway, although you didn't correct me and I had valid reason to believe that it was in fact Forwells, I apologize for assuming incorrectly. It is a very odd coincidence though. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Anyway, although you didn't correct me and I had valid reason to believe that it was in fact Forwells, I apologize for assuming incorrectly. It is a very odd coincidence though. |
Personally, I think it was Forwells - he's been supplying little bits of plausibility to throw off the scent of Forwells, like stating that it's a 24 hour store, probably while knowing full-well that Forwells was never open that late.
There's a few things about alibis that are almost always indicators that they're false - and one of them is if they're based upon information supplied during an interrogation. Ashley took forever to come up with his alabi, even after you had repeatedly, in rather largely bolded script, asked him where it had happened - and that's another indicator, right there. |
|
|
| boris_the_bear |
CTRL + ALT + DEL
 |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
5 bucks says that the things he likely said that you didnt hear was "Sir, you are under arrest"
just sayin'............... |
The officer didn't indicate as such in court. |
|
|
|
|
