Do you have ID?
Yeah but it's a newspaper at the end of the day. Oh and as my other half has just pointed out, they also come up for Red Bull and oddly Coke!
Is that not in part to do with the age restrictions on papers that include a free DVD?steddenm wrote:The one which makes me laugh is in ASDA. If they scan a newspaper, such as The Sun or Star, then the screen comes up - Is customer over 18? with a date of birth to look out for!
How rude!
"He has to be larger than bacon"
-
Andrew Wood
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 23.24
- Location: Location: Location
- Contact:
I'll quote it again - it is a legal requirementadamcobb55 wrote:... and as part of the training we are also told we cannot sell if we believe the alcohol will be supplied to a person under the age of 18 (I'm not sure if this is a legal requirement or just another example of the supermarket being 'community focused').
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/lice ... onsumption
Completely understand the fear that clerks must have of being prosecuted. Although, I must point out that it would not affect your travel to the United States, as a fixed penalty notice would not be construed (sp?) as a crime of 'moral turpitude'. Believe me a trip to the supermarket now requires more documentation than US immnigration.
Also, the law may state that it is illegal to purchase alcohol when under 18, but it also states that a child can consume it from the age of 5.
So next time I want to buy alcohol for my kids I will just leave them in the car. The youngest one gets really cranky if he doesn't get a whisky before nap time.
Also, the law may state that it is illegal to purchase alcohol when under 18, but it also states that a child can consume it from the age of 5.
So next time I want to buy alcohol for my kids I will just leave them in the car. The youngest one gets really cranky if he doesn't get a whisky before nap time.
Tesco now use a "Think 25" policy - if they think you look under 25 they have to ask for proof of age.
If they don't and the purchaser turns out to be underage / buying it for someone under age the checkout operator can and will be fined.
In America you HAVE to have proof of age no matter what so I don't see why it should be any different here.
As for the parent/child situation - it is down to discretion, but is an increasing problem that face supermarkets/off licences.
If they don't and the purchaser turns out to be underage / buying it for someone under age the checkout operator can and will be fined.
In America you HAVE to have proof of age no matter what so I don't see why it should be any different here.
As for the parent/child situation - it is down to discretion, but is an increasing problem that face supermarkets/off licences.
Twitter: @jasonbetts
In my view, the IDing policies now in general force are ridiculous.
I could see the argument behind 'think 21' but an almost universal adoption of 'think 25' with some supermarkets even having a 'think 30' is beyond a joke.
The problem of course is that it's not the fault of the people at grass roots level.
It's not the fault of the cashier that they are doing ridiculous things like IDing pensioners or refusing to sell a bottle of wine to parents with children, because if they get it wrong they face a severe fine. Frankly, I'd be just the same.
It's not the fault of retailers for moving from 'think 21' to 'think 25' and encourage their staff to use ridiculous levels of over-caution because they too face severe penalties which could ultimately result in the withdrawl of their alcohol licence.
It's not the fault of the police for sending 'plants' into shops - the police do not make the law, they only enforce it, and they will make issues and examples out of whatever the powers that be consider worthy of making issues and examples out of.
And ultimately, I can't see it as a problem with the actual law itself. Most of the fundamental legislation regarding alcohol sales comes from The Licensing Act 1964. It has stood for the better part of almost half a century making it illegal for someone under 18 to buy alcohol or someone over 18 to buy it on behalf someone under 18.
Yet for most of that time has managed to do it without ruining a barman's life for selling a pint to a 17 year old, without requiring a cashier in Tescos feeling the need to demand ID from anyone without wrinkles and a walking stick in case they get a huge fine, or without parents with children worrying about whether or not they will be allowed to buy a bottle of wine for their evening meal because they are with someone under 18.
The problem lies with the nanny state society we live in dispatching the law with it's usual ineptitude and lack of common sense.
Firstly, it doesn't really care about personal liability, it just cares about what it can get out of crime. It doesn't want to make underage drinking the fault of the underage chav who bought the drink, who was of the age of criminal responsibility and who was fully aware that he was comitting a criminal offence in doing so, it instead wants to make it the fault of the shopkeeper who sold it to him - because taking action against the chav will take time and money and ultimately bring nothing in whilst the checkout girl in Tescos will take the fine lying down, cost next to nothing to process and will put some money in the government coffers.
Secondly, it doesn't want to deal with the real issues which is turning a growing proportion of this country's young people into ferral scum, it instead just wants a nice visible issue which it can blame for everything and hold up it's 'tackling' of it as an example of how seriously it takes it's responsibilities (and as I said above, whilst making a pretty penny out of it along the way). Thus trying to justify the ridiculous situation we've gotten into regarding alcohol sales as being necessary because underage drinking is apparently the root cause of all youth crime and general social disorder.
I could see the argument behind 'think 21' but an almost universal adoption of 'think 25' with some supermarkets even having a 'think 30' is beyond a joke.
The problem of course is that it's not the fault of the people at grass roots level.
It's not the fault of the cashier that they are doing ridiculous things like IDing pensioners or refusing to sell a bottle of wine to parents with children, because if they get it wrong they face a severe fine. Frankly, I'd be just the same.
It's not the fault of retailers for moving from 'think 21' to 'think 25' and encourage their staff to use ridiculous levels of over-caution because they too face severe penalties which could ultimately result in the withdrawl of their alcohol licence.
It's not the fault of the police for sending 'plants' into shops - the police do not make the law, they only enforce it, and they will make issues and examples out of whatever the powers that be consider worthy of making issues and examples out of.
And ultimately, I can't see it as a problem with the actual law itself. Most of the fundamental legislation regarding alcohol sales comes from The Licensing Act 1964. It has stood for the better part of almost half a century making it illegal for someone under 18 to buy alcohol or someone over 18 to buy it on behalf someone under 18.
Yet for most of that time has managed to do it without ruining a barman's life for selling a pint to a 17 year old, without requiring a cashier in Tescos feeling the need to demand ID from anyone without wrinkles and a walking stick in case they get a huge fine, or without parents with children worrying about whether or not they will be allowed to buy a bottle of wine for their evening meal because they are with someone under 18.
The problem lies with the nanny state society we live in dispatching the law with it's usual ineptitude and lack of common sense.
Firstly, it doesn't really care about personal liability, it just cares about what it can get out of crime. It doesn't want to make underage drinking the fault of the underage chav who bought the drink, who was of the age of criminal responsibility and who was fully aware that he was comitting a criminal offence in doing so, it instead wants to make it the fault of the shopkeeper who sold it to him - because taking action against the chav will take time and money and ultimately bring nothing in whilst the checkout girl in Tescos will take the fine lying down, cost next to nothing to process and will put some money in the government coffers.
Secondly, it doesn't want to deal with the real issues which is turning a growing proportion of this country's young people into ferral scum, it instead just wants a nice visible issue which it can blame for everything and hold up it's 'tackling' of it as an example of how seriously it takes it's responsibilities (and as I said above, whilst making a pretty penny out of it along the way). Thus trying to justify the ridiculous situation we've gotten into regarding alcohol sales as being necessary because underage drinking is apparently the root cause of all youth crime and general social disorder.
-
all new Phil
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Sun 13 Feb, 2005 00.04
- Location: Next door to Hell
Yeah. What he said.
+1all new Phil wrote:Yeah. What he said.
OH I hate when people wheel out this "more and more kids are feral scum" crap and I don't believe it for a second. What I DO Believe is that fucking moronic tabloids are getting better at finding the bad kids and demonising their entire generation, all in pursuit of money from miserable sods who'd rather whinge about "things today" from the sidelines than do anything useful.
Knight knight
-
Nick Harvey
- God
- Posts: 4148
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 22.26
- Location: Deepest Wiltshire
- Contact:
Mmmmmm, perhaps I should buy a newspaper.Sput wrote:miserable sods who'd rather whinge about "things today" from the sidelines than do anything useful.