Amaranthus Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Yes you are If there are two people stood at a till, and they both discuss drinking the alcohol that is being put through, you have to ID them both! Only one of them is purchasing your goods with their money. What do you not understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharp87 Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 It's not a pathetic policy... It's the pathetic people who sue everyone that have caused this, and actually not just them it is actually for the health of people too. If it wasn't done, and a 17 year old got served alcohol, and went on a massive rampage, everyone would have something to complain about then. It's not fair to expect the cashier to automatically know peoples date of birth, and if it cannot be proved, then they should not be served. it is a pathetic policy - pathetic in that it shouldn't be needed as the responsibility and penalties should fall to those making the purchases, not those that are selling. think 21 was fine; if you believe a 24 year old isn't 18, then i would suggest that you aren't fit to do your job i'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaranthus Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 If they did that for every 18 year old that came in with a 16 year old by their side and they went outside and dealed it out to their friend the cashier is responsible for not having I.D'd both and is looking for a disciplinary if the manager sees it and thinks he/she isn't doing the job right.They are just trying to do their job how do you not get this? As I said; you are not breaking any laws. Maybe a daft store policy though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom19890305 Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 No, you're changing the subject. There is no technicalities with the law; either one exists or it does not. If an over 18 HAS GOT ID, you are not breaking the law by serving them, regardless of who they are or are not with. You may or may not be breaking some messed up store policy, of that I do not know. you could be, could be buying it for the underage friend with I.D your telling me you'd risk it? lose your job, be fined and get a crinimal record? it could ruin your life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nataliie Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 No, you're changing the subject. There is no technicalities with the law; either one exists or it does not. If an over 18 HAS GOT ID, you are not breaking the law by serving them, regardless of who they are or are not with. You may or may not be breaking some messed up store policy, of that I do not know. How is it a messed up store policy? Okay, so when some drunken 17 year old who wasn't ID'd decides he wants to cause havoc, and trashes your home and maybe beats you up, you wont complain that it was 'the damn shops fault for selling to a teenager'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nataliie Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 it is a pathetic policy - pathetic in that it shouldn't be needed as the responsibility and penalties should fall to those making the purchases, not those that are selling. think 21 was fine; if you believe a 24 year old isn't 18, then i would suggest that you aren't fit to do your job i'm afraid. :hihi::hihi: I know people who are in their 30's and look about 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharp87 Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Its not the stores fault one looks under age and clumsily forgot something they knew they would set out to need to gain alcohol.Its the customers own fault.and you might think the policy is stupid but you wouldn't be saying that if they sold willy nilly to 15,16 and 17 year olds who hang around in gangs, get drunk then beat up innocent passer bys though I'm sure they're capable and have the low mentality to do that anyway. if the shop assistants are so stupid that they cannot differentiate between a parent buying alcohol for their own personal consumption while with their child, and a youth buying WKD for his mates sniggering outside, they should be relieved of their duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharp87 Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 :hihi::hihi: I know people who are in their 30's and look about 10. yeah of course you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nataliie Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Only one of them is purchasing your goods with their money. What do you not understand? How do you not understand that it doesn't change what it is? You could still be giving the alcohol to someone underage, which is against the law. So you're knowingly allowing someone to break the law... if you want to go further with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchcoll Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 and someone who is pregnant:hihi: that shoud be a law!! (and the obligatory 'someone buying on behalf os someone who is pregnant') Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.