AIBU to think this Supermarket is judging my parenting?

[Doingmybestmum]

AIBU? Standing in a queue in Tesco with (home from uni) DD chatting to me. I was clutching a much anticipated bottle of Pimms, with accompanying lemonade, strawberries, mint etc... goodies going through when charmless checkoutee asks for age of said 21 year old DD and ID for her or she would not be able to sell me the Pimms. I calmly explained that I (substantially over 21) am buying said alcoholic beverage with my money and a) DD is only standing next to me b) its my money c) DD is over 21 and d) what on earth... the manager was called and I was allowed to purchase. AIBU to think that this is ridiculous - I understand that adults must not buy alcohol for underage children, but if you were - would it be Pimms, and would you have the "child" standing next to you?

To the pp who said she'd empty the bags in the till areas, I've had that done to me and it did nothing bar make me annoyed at the person who had left. Have some kindness for checkout staff, their job isn't easy and they dont need extra hassle

It's a ridiculous practice - a group of young people I could understand (not that I wish to tar them all with the same brush) but not a parent and child.

It is perfectly legal for children over five to drink alcohol at home under parental supervision (not everyone may agree but that's up to the parent) and anyone irresponsible enough to give alcohol to a baby/toddler, let their kids get drunk or drink unsupervised is probably also irresponsible enough to leave the DC alone outside the shop.

I think blaming her is a bit ridiculous, tbh. She was probably stuck at work, saw you come through with just some stuff for Pimm's and though 'Hm, I fancy that. Lucky buggers they're gonna go sit in the sun and drink'

And because she had that thought she's going to have to ID her, isn't she? That's the obvious conclusion since she looks drinking age, but could be younger.

It's not a judgement on parenting just covering her own back.

Oh, to amend: She could have thought you was going to drink together, but it could also be that either one of you could have gone off and drank with your own friends. It was probably the train of thought and since she's potentially underage she needs to be on the safe side.

It can be annoying though - I had a stand off with customer services in Marks and Spencer's. I was only being quick, and only had a £10 note so planned to get the non-alcoholic drink with the £10 meal (I quite often get IDed, especially if I have no make up on. I would say I'm very obviously over 18, but I suppose they have to think 25). They'd sold out so the manager told me I would have to have the wine or beer. Then I was IDed at the till.

I pointed out that I didn't want alcohol in the first place but the manager had more or less told me I had to... so they obviously thought I was old enough to buy it! They put it through in the end.

I think if it's with a mum and teenager, a bottle of wine in a weekly shop should be ok, but some people are stricter than others.

It's a ridiculous practice - a group of young people I could understand (not that I wish to tar them all with the same brush) but not a parent and child

a "parent" amd child is exactly the kind of set up that external testers or undercover police would use.

hth

But that's the issue!!
The person at the till is making an assumption that the teenager with the adult might go and get drunk wo the knowledge of the parent, even though said parent has just bought it for themselves.

As there is no way that it is possible to know if said teenager is going to do that or not, then by default, everyone who is buying alcohol with a teenager/someone who looks under 25yo should be Id.
As it is clearly not the case, then the system is unfair and will lead to plenty of abuse and annoyed people.

And Ritchy it does because the teenager can actually BE underage and that means any parent buying alcohol for themselves but are accompanied by their teenager can be told they can't buy said alcohol.

If you really want to tighten things up, then you say that no teenager is allowed to drink alcohol and you fine any parent that has a teenager who is drunk/has been caught drinking. Because clearly the teenager can't have bought it themselves so it's the parent who has.
And this is a very common thing too. Just look at the number of teenagers getting drunk at parties etc (with no supervision from the parents)... Where did you think that the teenagers got the alcohol from???

But then if they say "is that alcohol for the teenager" surely the testers would have to say "yes"?

I do understand that it's the type of pair they could use, but surely if it's so strictly applied a parent can never go shopping with a teenager of say 15+ and buy alcohol?

as far alcohol foes the "who is it for" is irrelevant.

you are either going to ID people or your not.

someone answer for which there is no possible proof is not enough to be able to authorise a sale.

if the tester is over 18 but under 21 you have still failed.

which cab result in a fine and loss of your job. regardless of any technicality that the law regarding underage sales hasn't been broken

It is weird how its applied. In Tesco a few yrs back (I was 30) niece with me at the till was 15, I was buying just a bottle of wine. I was id fine as I had my passport, then niece was asked, I explained she was underage and I was very shocked they could think I was spending £10 on a bottle of wine for a kid and they let me buy it. We've had similar in other shops too.

But then if they say "is that alcohol for the teenager" surely the testers would have to say "yes"?

At which point they've committed an offence: attempting to purchase alcohol for a minor. And any subsequent prosecution would fail on the grounds of entrapment, and the career prospects of the test purchasers would be extremely poor. Neither trading standards nor the police have any general power to commit offences in pursuit of other offences (even, for example, the police power to exceed the speed limit is hedged around with very clear limits).

if the tester is over 18 but under 21 you have still failed.

Under what legislation?

I do understand that it's the type of pair they could use, but surely if it's so strictly applied a parent can never go shopping with a teenager of say 15+ and buy alcohol?

Quite. If that's the case, "we will not sell alcohol to an adult in the company of a child", then let the shop say that. Otherwise they're just making it up as they go along.

I don't serve alcohol but I do work in an.industy that operates a think 21 q policy.

we ate tested by internal.amd external testers. if I fail to ID I still face loosing my job even though they are.over 18.

the testers test if you are sticking to shop policy.

granted it's easier where I work though cos kids aren't allowed in. not babies. not teens amd not even 18 yr olds of they fail to.produce valid I'D.

it's not just the police who check.

breaking the law and breaking policies are often different things.

both can be seen as gross misconduct by the employer.

But Giles, you're presumably working either in the sexshop or gambling industries. Then it's open and shut: the person stood in front of you needs to be 18 and to prove it. No-one is particularly objecting to that: it has its moments of idiocy, but the basic premise is OK.

What's absurd is the situation over alcohol, and seemingly only alcohol (although I guess tobacco might have the same issue if anyone on MN smoked anymore) in which the mere presence of a child within your radius of vision, who may or may not be your child, disqualifies you from purchasing alcohol NO MATTER WHAT ID YOU PRESENT. That's a Kafkaesqe situation: there is nothing you can do, no document you can present, which apparently satisfies them. However, the shops which claim this is "the law" (a) don't enforce it consistently and (b) are not willing to clearly state "if you have a child with you, no alcohol". So they have not-policy based on very little, which they don't believe in enough to either enforce consistently or to state as policy.

Oh I've worked In pubs too

had to refuse service to many people.

children were only allowed in at certain times.

I've also had instances where lots of young peope were present and we operated a one person one drink.policy in order to ensure underagers weren't given alcohol by their friends.

I've also had to refuse service to an adult as they had someone with them.who didn't have id and it was outside the times where they would have been allowed in.

But it is as a PP said.

every premesis has the right to refuse any part of any sale without a reason.

I let my DS (14) have a glass of Pimms and lemonade yesterday. Judge away!

Well Giles, that's all very admirable.

Would you say that the pub trade was financially successful these days, or would you say that pubs are closing on a daily basis and those that remain in business are on financial life support? Over-elaborating the law so you can have the fun of refusing service: would you say it's working well for the landlords?

All the pubs around where I work bar one have closed, and that last one is ghostly quiet. So the staff can get on with refusing service on spurious grounds as long as their jobs last, which at a rough guess (based on how long the others survived) will be about six months.

Perhaps had the licensed trade actually thought about the implications of these practices things might be different, but they didn't. How much money do you think pubs make out of refusing to serve people? Doesn't pay the rent, does it? And do people (a) put up with this because of the unique experience pubs provide or (b) piss off elsewhere where it's less hassle? The huge number of boarded up pubs, and Indian/Chinese buffets in former pubs, says (b).

I've never been asked for ID in a restaurant when ordering drinks, including when with children. Sounds like I'm not missing much apart from hassle by keeping out of pubs.

I expect most supermarkets have the same policies.

I think that between high staff turn overs and maybe transfers from.students back home in the holidays, those who generally don't give a shit and poor training from the offset it is just Inconsistently applied.

which is why constant testing is performed.

result of that is though that the genuinely hot ones get even more stressed/pressured/paranoid that they I'D bear enough anyone and are so worried they will get caught out that they become so rigid there no room.for sense, common. or otherwise.

and those who don't care will continue to not care.

which ultimately makes life very difficult for those who stick to the rules

I expect most supermarkets have the same policies.

So why not a big sign on the entrance: "do not attempt to purchase alcohol unless everyone in your party is over 18 and can prove it". What do you think the commercial implications of that might be on a Saturday morning? It's a policy, right? Why so coy? It would make everyone's lives easier.

I have seen a few signs in the local shops.

I do my shopping online mostly (which it does state the fact that you could be ID'd in the T&c)

I shall look fir one next time.i go to tesco and sainsbury.

sainsbury have think 25 things on the til amd staff wear badges. not looked fir a sign stating purchase of alcohol whilst with kids but I shall next time.