jd2007 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Tescos are silly with it, if you go in and have anyone under 25 with you that hasn't got ID, they won't serve you under no circumstances, even if you see them in the shop and talk to them or go in with them, they won't serve anyone who knows eachother it seems, it's the same in all of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Star Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 But a lot of people DON'T educate their children on the damages of drinking. And I definitely never drank alchopops when I was younger and out with friends, so banning them wouldn't do much. You buy cheap strong alcohol, like cider! Alchopops are way to expensive for them. Very true! Never understood the idea that kids bought expensive drink like alchopops... It'll always be cider and super strength lager, as they are cheap and get you drunk the fastest... For me in my teens it was single malt, but then I didn't want to look like a kid in a bar, and I didn't want to get blind drunk either, as saw myself as a classier sort of underage drinker! I was the only one in Notts like me though - everyone else was on the thunderbird or white lightening knock off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchcoll Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 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. if you are serving a 50 year old with whisky and they have a ten year old with them, then yes it would be ridiculous. i have never seen anyone in any of my shops refuse a parent who is buying wine on the school run because thay have a toddler with them. the instance people complain about is when two people who both look like they have just left college are together, then the difficulties start. 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. the licencing board do it because the stores in question have previously failed to prevent underage sales being made. if they have to ask everybody for id regardless then it takes away the 'risk' posed by allowing store staff to use their own judgement and getting it wrong again. essentially they are saying that they do not trust the shops own preventative procedures to work so they have imposed stricter ones to ensure it doesnt happen again. the only step available if they fail another test purchase after this is to prosecute and revoke the licence. that is the reason why most stores appear heavy handed, too much to lose if they get it wrong. 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. what change to the law would you suggest? there are only two options. come down hard on the people who sell it or come down hard on the people who buy it. the former is easier for the authorities. the only further two solutions are to remove the age restriction altogether or prohibition, neither of which will happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 You'd prefer to stick with a system that is clearly ineffective and annoys the law abiding, rather than do something that might be a not more difficult them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me1234 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 The coop ask me all the time, and i have provided ID before whilst with my step daughter , and been refused alchol incase i was buying it for her. i am asked every time i go in. i have also whitnessed a girl being sold alchol cigarets and paracetamol, but refused her nailpolish removed because she was 20 not 21........... however although it is frustrating and highly embarasing to be asked repetativly by people who see you every day, i guess if i was a mother of a child served alcohol under aged that then ended up in a bad situation i would feel very differently. at least the coop can not be acused of serving underage kids,hell they dont serve adults 1/2 the time lol, so really they are helping curb binge drinking and antisocial behaviour asociated with underage drinking and intern helping our communities ,can only be a good thing really if you think about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheffieldbee Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Im 51. I wish someone would ask me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveyt2 Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 Sheffieldbee have you any ID to post that? Can somebody ask me please? I'm 60. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrypond Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 you break the law if you sell alcohol to: anyone underage anyone who is drunk anyone who is buying on behalf of someone underage anyone who is buying on behalf of someone who is drunk a police officer in uniform Evidence for the 3 and 5? (Hint: it should be somewhere in here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/17/part/7) (My interpretation: (3) The person purchasing the alcohol commits the offence, not the seller and (5) is old law, now superseded) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrypond Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 that law has already been stated, as have all the others. i'll state them again: it is illegal to serve an age restricted product to: anyone who is underage anyone who is buying on behalf of someone who is underage anyone who is drunk anyone who is buying on behalf of someone who is drunk a police officer in uniform ergo, if they are all in a group when the alcohol is bought it is reasonable to assume that they may all be drinking it (one person paying for it on behalf of everyone else to be able to drink it). therefore it is reasonable to assume that they all need to be asked for id if they all appear to be under 25. whether they are all actually going to drink it is irrelevent, the possibility is there so the precaution has to be taken. if that law didnt exist then there would be no need to id everyone in the group. if you think its nonsense and wish for it to be challanged then you would need to lobby your MP about it. See my other reply - I don't see the evidence that this is the law, rather you (re)stating what others have said. If you can find ALL of these in the 2003 act, then fine, you have my full and unreserved apologies, but otherwise it just looks like "well, everyone knows, don't they?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henrypond Posted November 10, 2010 Share Posted November 10, 2010 The law says that if the alcohol ends up being drunk by someone under age, the retailer is guilty of a criminal offence. Ergo, if there's any possibility whatsoever that this may happen, the retailer is the one who has to rule it out. Which law - citation please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.