Sent Down For A Peanut?

Mohammed Zaman, aged 52, is today starting a 6 year prison sentence after he was found guilty of the manslaughter of Paul Wilson.

Zaman owned six fast food restaurants, one of which served Mr Wilson with a takeaway containing peanuts in January 2014, despite Mr Wilson making it clear he was allergic to peanuts.

Now, I don't want to defend Mr Zaman, he sounds like your typical fast food owner tosspot, but is his "crime" really worthy of a 6 year sentence?

Firstly, he didn't personally serve Mr Wilson the peanuts, and it wasn't him that ignored the customers request. If I was poisoned by a BWFC burger would Ken Anderson or Dean Holdsworth go down for the "crime"? Would they fook. If I was poisoned by a can of Pepsi would the head of Pepsiso be sent to prison? Of course not.

So is this a fair outcome, or should the person or persons who directly ignored the request to remove peanuts be the ones sat in prison?

Natasha Whittam wrote:Mohammed Zaman, aged 52, is today starting a 6 year prison sentence after he was found guilty of the manslaughter of Paul Wilson.

Zaman owned six fast food restaurants, one of which served Mr Wilson with a takeaway containing peanuts in January 2014, despite Mr Wilson making it clear he was allergic to peanuts.

Now, I don't want to defend Mr Zaman, he sounds like your typical fast food owner tosspot, but is his "crime" really worthy of a 6 year sentence?

Firstly, he didn't personally serve Mr Wilson the peanuts, and it wasn't him that ignored the customers request. If I was poisoned by a BWFC burger would Ken Anderson or Dean Holdsworth go down for the "crime"? Would they fook. If I was poisoned by a can of Pepsi would the head of Pepsiso be sent to prison? Of course not.

So is this a fair outcome, or should the person or persons who directly ignored the request to remove peanuts be the ones sat in prison?

There's more to the story than that. He's guilty, ignored previous warnings, substituted nut-free ingredients with cheap alternatives and it could be construed as murder so he's lucky to get away with 6 years IMO.

Maybe the f****r will take allergies a bit more seriously after a stretch at HM's. He may even learn to regret killing an innocent person.

I'm lead to believe he didn't claim his products were nut free.

As wanderlust has stated, the man isn't as innocent as you claim, Nat.

Boggersbelief wrote:As wanderlust has stated, the man isn't as innocent as you claim, Nat.

Not saying he's innocent, but rapists and peedos get less time in prison.

Why do people bite when it starts threads like this one which are obviously designed just to get a reaction?

Breadman wrote:Why do people bite when it starts threads like this one which are obviously designed just to get a reaction?

Is Mrs Breadman off with her lover again?

It's a simple question, is it fair for the guy at the top of the chain to take full responsibility for things happening on the shop floor?

Like I say, would Ken Anderson go down if BWFC sold me a killer burger?

I don't think you understand the legal definition of murder.

Deserved life the utter utter Tugboat.

Somebody I know lost his only child in exactly the same way. She was home alone one evening and ordered a take away curry and stressed that she had a nut allergy and the curry musn't contain any nut products. She was assured her curry would be nut free and when it arrived she took it up to her room to eat it while she was watching TV. After a few mouthfuls she realised she was in serious trouble and started to go into shock. She phoned 999 but by the time the paramedics arrived at her home she was dead. She was only eighteen and had a bright career ahead of her and her mother and father were absolutely devastated at the loss of their beloved daughter.

So no it isn't just about a fcuking peanut. It's about the devastation caused to innocent people by ignoring basic hygiene and food safety rules. The restaurant owner will be back on the streets in two years with good behaviour whereas the families loss will live with them for the rest of their lives.

Reebok Trotter wrote:Somebody I know lost his only child in exactly the same way. She was home alone one evening and ordered a take away curry and stressed that she had a nut allergy and the curry musn't contain any nut products. She was assured her curry would be nut free and when it arrived she took it up to her room to eat it while she was watching TV. After a few mouthfuls she realised she was in serious trouble and started to go into shock. She phoned 999 but by the time the paramedics arrived at her home she was dead. She was only eighteen and had a bright career ahead of her and her mother and father were absolutely devastated at the loss of their beloved daughter.

So no it isn't just about a fcuking peanut. It's about the devastation caused to innocent people by ignoring basic hygiene and food safety rules. The restaurant owner will be back on the streets in two years with good behaviour whereas the families loss will live with them for the rest of their lives.

Sad story, but no one is debating what happened is wrong. The point of this thread is to ask why the guy at the very top has been charged despite someone else actually serving the peanuts. Is UK law now suggesting that people on the shop floor are immune to prosecution?

It's called Corporate Responsibility and if you really were a senior figure within a successful business, as you claim (rather than a mobile phone salesman at a branch of Carphone Warehouse) you'd know how it works.

Breadman wrote:It's called Corporate Responsibility and if you really were a senior figure within a successful business, as you claim (rather than a mobile phone salesman at a branch of Carphone Warehouse) you'd know how it works.

It doesn't always work though, the police seem to pick and choose. I don't understand why the person who chose to ignore the peanut wishes face-to-face, got away with it.

Can't be arsed with providing you with your weird kicks on this one - a bloke's died, FFS.

Go and read the facts.

Breadman wrote:Can't be arsed with providing you with your weird kicks on this one - a bloke's died, FFS.

Go and read the facts.

It's like you're deliberately avoiding the question just to act all pissy. The thread is clearly about liability, not about this case at all.

If you went to the Macron (you'll have to imagine that bit) and bought a burger at half time and asked for it without ketchup, but once you bit into it you realised it had a bit of ketchup on it, would you be hacked off with Ken Anderson or the bellend behind the counter who ignored your wishes?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:Somebody I know lost his only child in exactly the same way. She was home alone one evening and ordered a take away curry and stressed that she had a nut allergy and the curry musn't contain any nut products. She was assured her curry would be nut free and when it arrived she took it up to her room to eat it while she was watching TV. After a few mouthfuls she realised she was in serious trouble and started to go into shock. She phoned 999 but by the time the paramedics arrived at her home she was dead. She was only eighteen and had a bright career ahead of her and her mother and father were absolutely devastated at the loss of their beloved daughter.

So no it isn't just about a fcuking peanut. It's about the devastation caused to innocent people by ignoring basic hygiene and food safety rules. The restaurant owner will be back on the streets in two years with good behaviour whereas the families loss will live with them for the rest of their lives.

Sad story, but no one is debating what happened is wrong. The point of this thread is to ask why the guy at the very top has been charged despite someone else actually serving the peanuts. Is UK law now suggesting that people on the shop floor are immune to prosecution?

I believe it's because he was responsible for the marketing materials, staff training, menu and the ordering (of nut products) amongst other things being the boss.

If he didn't know his staff were lying about the food to customers (in the unlikely event that was the case) he was a shit boss and being shit doesn't remove his overall responsibility.

The scumbag should get send down for life, it's almost as bad as drugging somebody, for the sake of a two quid curry, someone died.

I hope he gets ripped a new one in jail, on the first night.

Let's go nut free!




Welcome back.

Let's go champ, I was just trying to spread the word.