Asking for proof of age

[Shazbat]

I think the CoOp are well-known/notorious for being keen. I've never been asked in Morrisons, but then I'm usually with my husband who as well as being nearly 50 is also a couple of pounds over his ideal weight and maybe looks threatening

[watchcoll]

Which really makes no sense at all, since a parent can legally give a child alcohol (over 5) at home.

Which also makes no sense, surely that isn't the wording of the law, it must be that if the retailer suspects (and I guess the test in court would be whether a 'reasonable' person should have suspected) that it will be drunk illegally.

 

if you are unfortunate enough to end up in court because someone you served ended up supplying that alcohol to someone underage whom they were standing at the checkout with whilst being served, then a court will simply argue the point of why you did not ask that person for id when you clearly had the chance and could have prevented the sale - you simply failed to show due diligence. if someone wishes to feed alcohol to a five year old in their home, thats up to them and nothing you could have reasonably prevented so you wouldnt be in court in the first place.

 

Did I say who should apply the common sense? Perhaps the government should apply it when they pass laws and think about what requirements they are placing and on whom...

 

Then a cashier could legally use common sense and discretion and everyone's a winner.

 

When was the last time you saw a 17 year old that could pass for 50 by the way? Because we are talking about pensioners sometimes being asked for ID, not just people who are 24...

 

as a condition of being allowed to hold a license some places have to ask for id for every sale. whether the customer is 50 and looks it is irrelevant - if its a sale of alcohol, id has to be provided regardless.

same with stores that implement a think 30 policy. even if you think the customer looks about 25 you have to ask them for id, because you have agreed with the licensing board that you will id anyone that looks under 30. if you flout this agreement you stand the risk of losing your license (primarily because the reason you have been allowed to keep your license is because you agreed to do that). usually its only places that are close to losing their license that have to do that.

 

It's a fair point to make that the current situation is not a solution either.

It inconveniences people without actually achieving it's stated aim at all. So the government should find the solution and in the mean time repeal something that clearly can't ever work.

 

the government have made clear the punishment for getting it wrong. the businesses have pretty much been left to protect themselves from that punishment. the easiest solution would be for the police to pursue and prosecute the underage people and their accomplices and leave the shopkeepers and genuine customers to get on with their lives. but that would be too expensive and time consuming, so we are left with the current situation.

 

the most sensible solution would be a blanket 'no ID-no sale' approach for everyone, even the grannies. takes the responsibility off the cashier and drums home to the customers that they will need to produce it.

[scargill]

Common sense and discretion.

If you have to ask someone who's 50 for ID to confirm that they are over 18 you should probably go and stay in a padded cell until you're cured of being an idiot.

 

I see nothing wrong with challenge 25, but cashiers who can't tell the difference between an 18 year old and someone in their 30's have just switched off their brain.

 

What if they are over 50, but with a person that looks under age? I really wish you could be in a position to make that decision, it aint as easy as you think, i have seen the people used to test these cashiers, I have seen a 6foot2 male with good beard growth, served, only to be brought back in the police and tell the cashier they have failed a test as the person was only 17, I have seen a well built young woman with a baby that appeared to be hers, buy a quite expensive wine, again a 17 year old test purchaser. in both cases the cashier was fined, the store threatened with its license and all the crap that goes with it.

You have to witness the abuse that cashiers on minimum wage take on a daily basis for trying to uphold the law and I am sure you would understand. After all an £80 spot fine could be a weeks wage, I am sure you would air on the side of caution if making an error of judgment could you loose you a weeks wage, or a weeks benifit.

[garrence]

The law says that if the alcohol ends up being drunk by someone under age, the retailer is guilty of a criminal offence.

 

No, the law is not nearly so all-encompassing.

 

Ergo, if there's any possibility whatsoever that this may happen, the retailer is the one who has to rule it out.

 

The test is not that strict. It is down to reasonableness, not "any possibility whatsoever".

 

Per the Licensing Act 2003 146(4)(b)(i), it is a defence that "nobody could reasonably have suspected from the individual’s appearance that he was aged under 18."

 

This Manifesto Club report is an interesting read:

 

28 3/4: How constant age checks are infantilising adults.

[Lozzylozenge]

I am asked for ID all the time for both alcohol and cigarettes. I carry my passport around with me all the time because of this. I am 27 years old. I used to find it a pain, but to be honest I now consider it a compliment.

Although I think it is ridiculous to say, as one poster did, that if you serve alcohol to someone with ID who is over 18, and then someone who is underage drinks it, the cashier would be accountable. So what if a parent bought a bottle of whisky from tesco with their weekly shopping one day and several hours later, their 14 year old son/daughter steals it and goes to the local park and gets bladdered? Does the cashier who served the adult earlier that day get prosecuted or fined for this? I think not!! Any cashier who can anticipate such happening is in the wrong job if so.

I also think the rules need to be re thought somewhat. Two years ago, at the age of 25, I was asked to provide ID at the checkout in Morrisons for teaspoons. I was doing my weekly shop and poppped in a packet of cheap teaspoons for work as we were running low. It was pretty obvious I was an adult, as I had a whole weeks worth of food shopping in my trolley. The stupidest thing about it is that I have absolutely know idea why you would need ID for a pack of 6 teaspoons? What do they think under 18 year olds will do with them? Or anyone for that reason??

[scargill]

No, the law is not nearly so all-encompassing.

 

 

 

The test is not that strict. It is down to reasonableness, not "any possibility whatsoever".

 

Per the Licensing Act 2003 146(4)(b)(i), it is a defence that "nobody could reasonably have suspected from the individual’s appearance that he was aged under 18."

 

This Manifesto Club report is an interesting read:

 

28 3/4: How constant age checks are infantilising adults.

 

Yes very interesting, but hardly impartial, with an agenda like this they are hardly going to find the Supermarket policies a good idea.

 

'The Manifesto Club campaigns against

the hyper-regulation of everyday life. We

support free movement across borders,

free expression and free association.

We challenge booze bans, photo bans,

vetting and speech codes – all new ways

in which the state regulates everyday life

on the streets, in workplaces and in our

private lives.'

 

Supermarkets have these policies becuse of the pressure brought to bare by the police, not out of choice. I am aware of one store that was the subject of 6 test purchases in 5 months, with such high stakes as a lost license, no one can take a chance.

If anyone has a solution that takes the fact that the cashier can only use his/her perception to judge age and uphold the law, then please share it.

 

It is very easy to criticise as 10 pages of posts testify, but very hard to find a workable and fool proof solution, that would take the pressure off the supermarket and put the responsibility for upholding the law, back with the police where it belongs..

[veronica0]

The think 25 is for workers to be vigilant when serving customers ,it dont mean they wont be served as long as they are over 18 and can prove it.If your over eighteen and you know you look younger whats the big deal about carrying your I.D, Theres a new intake of students going to university they look about 12 ,I work in a bookies ( Where we have a lot of them come in to play the machines) and dont intend losing my job and getting fined just because someone cant be bothered with the law.Its illegal to serve people under 18 most people dont mind if they know they have got nothing to worry about,I dont intend being caught out allowing underage people to gamble,

[Cyclone]

if you are unfortunate enough to end up in court because someone you served ended up supplying that alcohol to someone underage whom they were standing at the checkout with whilst being served, then a court will simply argue the point of why you did not ask that person for id when you clearly had the chance and could have prevented the sale - you simply failed to show due diligence. if someone wishes to feed alcohol to a five year old in their home, thats up to them and nothing you could have reasonably prevented so you wouldnt be in court in the first place.

You may be right, but you entirely missed my point.

There is no (should be) no need to ask the minor for ID, unless you already have a reasonable suspicion that the alcohol will be given to them.

So the 50 year grand parent with their young grand child should still be served. To not serve them is clearly ridiculous and means that the law is badly drafted and needs fixing.

Nothing a checkout person can do can reasonably prevent any minor being given alcohol, if they aren't served at one checkout, they'll send the kid out, walk to another checkout and be served.

 

 

as a condition of being allowed to hold a license some places have to ask for id for every sale. whether the customer is 50 and looks it is irrelevant - if its a sale of alcohol, id has to be provided regardless.

same with stores that implement a think 30 policy. even if you think the customer looks about 25 you have to ask them for id, because you have agreed with the licensing board that you will id anyone that looks under 30.

If this is correct, then fair enough. Why the licening board would impose such a policy should be the question. Asking people that are clearly old enough for ID is a waste of everyones time and annoying for law abiding people who can't buy a drink.

if you flout this agreement you stand the risk of losing your license (primarily because the reason you have been allowed to keep your license is because you agreed to do that). usually its only places that are close to losing their license that have to do that.

 

 

 

the government have made clear the punishment for getting it wrong. the businesses have pretty much been left to protect themselves from that punishment. the easiest solution would be for the police to pursue and prosecute the underage people and their accomplices and leave the shopkeepers and genuine customers to get on with their lives. but that would be too expensive and time consuming, so we are left with the current situation.

 

the most sensible solution would be a blanket 'no ID-no sale' approach for everyone, even the grannies. takes the responsibility off the cashier and drums home to the customers that they will need to produce it.

Easiest does not mean right.

The law is the problem, it's broken, introducing more onerous requirements on the public to prove their age is not the solution.

[cherylbee]

i'd love to be asked for id......

[missflirtuk]

I am 4ft 11ins, have a baby face, get ID'ed and get dirty looks when I am out with my daughter.