To get really frustrated by the Think 25 rule

[Cloeycat]

Not so much having to be ID'd but the fact that if I am with my partner and don't have my wallet (I'm over 25 and also obviously pregnant) that he is not able to purchase alcohol for himself unless I hide or pretend not to be with him.

I don't always carry my ID with me, especially if we are just popping to our local supermarket for something for dinner and he is paying but it is so frustrating that I then have to wait outside the door in the cold like a naughty 16yr old so that he can buy himself a beer or bottle of wine.

Does this rule apply to parents buying alcohol if they are accompanied by children who are under 18? Or is it just when it is two adults trying to legally buy alcohol that a problem arises?

Surely the point is that it's ridiculous that shop workers should be held accountable for who consumes the alcohol after it leaves the shop?

If the person purchasing has appropriate ID then that should be the end of it. I don't understand why shop workers aren't complaining about this as well?

patti I have never refused to serve an entire family out buying age restricted goods! They obviously have misinterpreted think 21

That's not in the guidelines from TS

Someone is being a jobsworth

We would sell nothing if we refused a sale because the entire group didn't have ID.

I know exactly what our company policy is regarding age restricted items, and that is what we have to adhere to, the till flags up all items that are age restricted and the individual must make the decision whether to id or not at that moment.
So Basicbrown regardless of whether its the law or shop policy it is part of our job.
Still not happy?
CARRY ID

Yes, the police do send in 17 year old.

Selling to 17 year olds is illegal.

The police don't send in 24 year olds. Selling to 24 year olds is not illegal.

One of the perks of being obviously old. I live in a different world to the rest of you, never been asked for proof of age in my life.

They don't even look at my face now when approving purchases on self services tills, I must have an aura of oldness about me.

Aw faffalotty that's a shame!

For what it's worth I have very rarely had any customer upset or offended if I've had to either ask for ID or refuse a sale due to lack of it

People are very understanding and quite jokey about the whole thing

so Basicbrown regardless of whether its the law or shop policy it is part of our job.

I am aware of that, and stated it higher up. I am saying that the full implications of policy need to be considered not that people on the tills shouldn't ask for ID as their role requires.

It's the company policy. Just because its not illegal to sell age restricted products to someone 18-25 doesn't mean it's not against company policy to sell to them without ID.

Where I used to work as a student it was check 25. While it's not illegal to serve a 23 year old alcohol without ID it was against our company policy and if I did that I'd have got fired. I'd much rather ID someone who I think looks under 25 and have them annoyed at me than loose my job.

I'm now over 25 but always carry my ID (which has been a passport until recently) as I know I look a bit young. There's no point in having a go at cashier or bar tender. They're doing their job.

A lot of places in USA especially Vegas just blanket ID everyone. Then no one can complain they're being picked on for looking young.

I had a thought: why aren't delivery drivers required to ID people? I mean, they are delivering alcohol too.
Once my 11 yo DS accepted the food delivery which had bleach, beer and paracetamol in it, because I was in the bedroom breastfeeding my DD to sleep. Logically thinking they shouldn't have given it to him, but they did.
Can someone explain me what's the difference?

They are absolutely bound by the same rules. Your delivery driver broke the law, leaving him open to the same punishments as staff working on tills.

Do police really send in an undercover U18 to trick the employee into selling them alcohol?

They really do. Or cigarettes. Or a lottery ticket. An adult official will them come back in with a form stating who served, what was purchased (or attempted to purchase) and whether or not the test was failed. I've not personally been checked (not often on till myself) but colleagues have been. So far all have passed!

I had a friend at college who's mum worked for trading standards who used to send my 16yr old friend in as a test. Even when she was of age (cigarettes) they'd be in trouble for not asking for ID.

This was over a decade ago so the undercover young people thing isn't new by a long shot.

I worked in a supermarket up until recently. I'm 23. A lot of girls look SO much older than they are. But we were only required to ID the person buying it UNLESS we were unsure about the person/people with them - but that was our choice.

I ID'd a guy once who was buying a crate of beer, he was 18. I'd been watching them and he was with a friend too but the friend hung back so I sneakily asked another member of staff and she agreed I should ID them both. So I did, his friend was 17.

I get ID'd all the time, even when I have my 4 and 3 year old with me. i know I don't look 25 so I'm happy to ablidge! It's their job on the line if I was testing them.

Am male, late 30s and frequently get asked for ID.

It's nonsense isn't it.

That is until your 17 yr old ends up in hospital with alcohol poisoning and you wanna know who the hell sold a group of teens that much alcohol. I mean it's obvious the one 24 yr old older brother they were with could you possibly have wanted all that alcohol fir himself....

I wonder how many people moaning about it would in fact be banging at the door demanding to speak to the manager about their irresponsible staff

If these things didn't happen. Of people weren't hurt or killed or put into difficult situations involving solvents or alcohol or knives or whatever, they'd be no need for these "extreme " policies.

Of course shops want to ensure every sale is within the law and to keep their licenses and to fulfill their social responsibility.

Gileswothachainsaw Surely it's a massive stretch to blame the shop worker who sells a 24yr old alcohol for the alcohol poisoning of a seperate 17yr old who later obtains it.

This is what I think is the bigger problem and don't understand why shop workers are accepting that they take the blame for this instead of using their unions to lobby against it?

Hmm Giles indeed.... you are so right

But we apparently lack 'common sense' if we question it!

I love getting asked. I'm 31 and very happy to pass for under 25!!

This is what I think is the bigger problem and don't understand why shop workers are accepting that they take the blame for this instead of using their unions to lobby against it?

They are using the union to lobby against it, see ifailed's link earlier. The result of this will probably be no ID no sale, no matter what age the customer is, like in the US. It is a nice and easy rule and no shop worker can be blamed at all.

Everyone wants someone to blame these days.

Every second advert is fir some kind of Injury lawyer fir heavens sake. Everyone is so adamant that they aren't buying it fir someone else and just because they have their teenage kid with them doesn't mean it is fir them blah blah blah...

If someone is burgled they change the locks and fit more locks.

Yet despite the fact that drinking and solvent abuse etc is getting out of hand it still seems to surprise people that the law and store policies will reflect the fact the problem is getting worse and try and combat it. Usually by making the guidelines re the sales of dangerous products stricter and harder to abuse.

We all did it as kids remember. Send in the one who looked the oldest to buy it or rope in an older friend.

So yes now, groups of people will be challenged. Especially when there is alot being bought which is clearly far too much fir the one person with ID to consume.

This is what I think is the bigger problem and don't understand why shop workers are accepting that they take the blame for this instead of using their unions to lobby against it?

If you check up thread, I posted a link to a USDAW document doing just that.

Until you've worked in retail, you have no idea how much management dump responsibility on the lowest paid staff, then constantly badger them to follow their policies. The problem is, retail is one of the few fields now offering family-friendly shifts so they usually have a waiting list of people looking for work, so they can bully you at will.

That's why some other posters on here are getting a bit pissed-off being described as checkout gestapo and muppet jobsworths when they are under pressure to scan stuff through at a certain rate, ensure no one steals, and try and judge people's ages. Sure mistakes are made. I admit some particularly obnoxious customers may well get asked for ID unnecessarily as well. Judging by some of the attitudes exhibited here, I guess some posters have been a victim of this.

Giles are you willing to accept blame for the alcohol poisoning of a teenager that you haven't sold alcohol to?

Well I feel like there's definitely a high proportion of sensible customers who would be happy to stand with shop workers when it comes to the issue of them taking the blame for underagers they haven't sold to obtaining alcohol but maybe I'm wrong

The fact is its against the law to purchase alcohol fir someone who is under age or to serve someone knowing they will likely to be giving it to someone who is underage.

So if a group come in and buy a shed load of booze then yes they are likely to be refuse service should one or more of the group be underage regardless of who is holding the money.

Doesn't matter about whether or not a person is willing to accept the blame. Fact is people do have a go at staff for it. And the store will likely fire somebody fi authorising a sale of alcohol or whatever.

I don't work in pubs any more. I do still work in a shop selling age restricted products.

Believe me "I'm not buying anything/it's not fir me" excuses are still very common place.

End of day we have to make a call. We aren't always right however we have to make the call. It's on us.

But we apparently lack 'common sense' if we question it!

No, Giles's posts are perfectly sensible. A group of 17 year olds with a 24 year old no one should be served. They were not the scenarios we were talking about upthread but instead a pregnant woman with her husband who had ID not being allowed to buy white spirit. And an idea that if a group of 18 year olds go into homebase to tool themselves up for a robbery/ valndalism then the retailer has no responsibility.