To hate "think 25" guidance

[FairiesAlwaysWearBlue]

Im 28 and look my age! I'm ten years over the legal drinking age and Waitrose wouldn't let me buy a bottle of cider!

Yes I know I should have had ID but I don't drive so no license and I don't often have my passport with me.

I was looking forward to my bottle of cider as a treat for working hard in the library earlier today.

Yes you should protect underage children from buying alcohol but IABU to be annoyed with "think 25" now means everyone needs to show ID?

If to believe Daily Fail, people have been stopped from buying cheese or icecream, because you know... rum and raisin

Sorry, Beerwench, did I make it look like my entire post was to you? I meant to just agree with your sensible post in my first paragraph but aren't trying to hold you accountable for being IDd for calpol, if it came across that way!

Training is important and obviously people can misunderstand policy if you do it badly. I don't mind being asked for ID personally, because I just assume I will be (although that must be coming to an end soon) and I don't go to the pub on a whim, as I've got an 18 month old, so remembering ID is the easiest part! But I do think it's insulting to accuse someone of buying alcohol for a child, so I can understand why people aren't jolly about that.

But the point is that an adult doing a normal shop with their child present isn't giving any reason to suspect that alcohol is being bought on behalf of the child.
But a parent is allowed to buy alcohol for their child

It doesn't matter what ID you have with you if is isn't one of the "accepted forms of ID" you won't get served.
It doesn't matter what age you think you look, or if you have a child with you.
I don't know any colleague that would serve someone because they have no ID and start getting all angry, loud etc.so don't bother going down that route.
No one is allowed to override the decision made by the colleague as the company "empower" us to make the call ourselves.

This is unlikely to change because people don't like it or don't carry ID and i never understand why people think these store policies should be ignored because they think it shouldn't apply to them as they have a child, some grey hair, a credit card etc.

it is the law that all parties in a group buying alcohol have to look over 25

It absolutely, unequivocally, is not the law. The law states that the minimum age to purchase alcohol is 18. The 'Challenge' schemes are arbitrary in the ages specified (21, 25 etc - one local shop here operates a Challenge 30 scheme) and are run by supermarket chains, local councils, individual shops and so on. Looking 25 is not a legal requirement when purchasing alcohol. Being 18 is.

There is also absolutely no law preventing people of any age buying otc medication, despite most supermarkets asking for proof that you're over a certain age. Some stores ask that you prove you're over 16, some 18, some lump it in with their 'Challenge' scheme. None of which is a legal requirement - it's simply shop policy and a bloody stupid one. It's perfectly legal for 14 year olds to buy - and take - paracetamol, ffs.

Basket - no I didn't think that I was just replying in general to the bit you put about the OOC medicine, and agreeing that it's a bit over the top, but as a 'beerwench' I also see the person who is servings side and added that in too.

"If to believe Daily Fail, people have been stopped from buying cheese or icecream, because you know... rum and raisin confused"

Some people aren't aware that something has to contain over a % of alcohol, to be classified as alcohol legally, therefore under that % it is perfectly legal to sell it to someone under 18. Or that because something contains the flavour of a generally alcohol product it doesn't make the product automatically alcoholic, most products that have enough alcohol content to be under the law usually have something on packaging to identity that. I would think instances though a few and far between.... But I don't read the DM.

"But a parent is allowed to buy alcohol for their child"

How does this work though when its illegal to buy or attempt to buy alcohol for someone under 18? If the person serving has good reason to believe you're going to give what you buy to a minor, it's an offence for them to sell it to you. So in a beer garden with an obviously underage child and buying them a pint - and the person serving knows it's for the child - illegal. Stopping an adult buying alcohol because they have a child just with them, and with no reason to believe it's for the child - poor judgment and interpretation of the law by the person serving.

"it is the law that all parties in a group buying alcohol have to look over 25"

"It absolutely, unequivocally, is not the law. The law states that the minimum age to purchase alcohol is 18. The 'Challenge' schemes are arbitrary in the ages specified (21, 25 etc - one local shop here operates a Challenge 30 scheme) and are run by supermarket chains, local councils, individual shops and so on. Looking 25 is not a legal requirement when purchasing alcohol. Being 18 is."

As a condition of a licence, the premises must have a challenge scheme in place and all staff must be trained in it.
So in theory if the person selling the alcohol knows it is for others they believe to be under 18 or not fit their prescribed policy, they should refuse the sale unless it is proven that everyone in the group the alcohol is intended for is over 18. To not refuse could leave them open to prosecution, as potentially they have sold alcohol to someone intending to give it to someone under age knowingly.
However it's a bit of a strange one because prosecution could only occur if the alcohol is given to an under 18, not someone who doesn't look 25 but is actually 18 (and can prove it)
So while challenge schemes aren't in themselves legally binding, they are required by law to be in place. My personal opinion is it's a bit of ambiguous middle ground, pleasing those who'd like to raise the age, whilst not angering those who don't. Whilst putting the person serving in a difficult position of refusing sale to someone who is over 18, because they don't look 25, but can't prove they're 18 - and the inevitable hassle this brings the server. Far better would have been to issue an ID card at 18, to everyone (with an opt out if you want) so that if you look under 25, you can prove you're old enough to drink.

I stopped buying alcohol from supermarkets because i couldn't be arsed with their think 25 policies so i usually go to my local co-op where they know me. It was getting more and more ridiculous each time when staff could just use a little common sense. Think 21 was perfectly ok where if the person looked under 21 they were asked ID. You don't get many under 18s looking over 21 (even with lots of make up.) You might have got the odd person over 21 miffed if they were asked for ID but they were usually only 22/24 etc.

Now you have people totally confused on who looks what age and it's ends up with people well in their 30s who get asked ID when they clearly don't look under 18 or even under 21 for that matter. It's ridiculous and gone totally over the top.

With this think 25 policy, i think people have forgotten that 18 is the actual age of which you are legally able to buy alcohol. So asking someone who is 34 but looks 27 yet might be under 18 is ludicrous!

My daughter (aged 29) and friend were refused an alcohol purchase by someone they had been to school with (same year) because they did not have ID! And yes, she did know them well

With this think 25 policy, i think people have forgotten that 18 is the actual age of which you are legally able to buy alcohol. So asking someone who is 34 but looks 27 yet might be under 18 is ludicrous!
This.
Think25 should be a prompt to stop and consider if that person looks 18. If they are clearly over 18 by miles then don't waste everyone's time.

Not alcohol but I was stopped from buying a lottery ticket in a shop as I didn't have ID to prove I was over 25.

I am nearly 60
And look it
The whole shop was in fits of laughter

- Not expired
No reason why an expired passport or driver's licence can't be used for ID. A person doesn't stop suddenly being that person because of an expired document.

Yeh, but that's the rules that were in place where I worked. We've established that these are not laws, but they are the policies in most shops

The key word in the rule is THINK as in THINK 25.

To use the rule well you have to THINK. How hard can it be to say "hmm there's a wife here who has proven she is 29. Her husband has no ID with him. Do I THINK he is going to be over the legal age to buy alcohol. Hmm..."
And then realise maybe, just maybe he is.

Some people seem to not get the THINK part of it and can't tell the difference between a 21 year old and a 30 year old.

I have no issue with being asked for ID but do think some of the situations where I've been refused a sale due to having people with me have been stupid because once the manager/supervisor comes over they hit the "doesn't need idenitfication" button, which could have been done anyway had the person just thought.

Even more bizarre is when supermarkets refuse to sell you alcohol free cider with no id as has happened to me in the past.

If someone could explain how that's just a cashier doing their job I'd be most grateful

Yanbu op

YANBU. At 27 I was ID'd the other week for paracetamol and ibuprofen. Not only are they not age restricted products (I know some shops around here won't sell them together to under 16s as policy) but I clearly look my age. Especially at 10am on a Saturday morning after a long night in A&E. I just wanted my painkillers and bed!

I used to buy petrol and never ever got asked for ID. ( I looked under 16, and to some people I still do)

Now I don't know if there is a legal age for buying petrol but in the UK you have to be 17 to legally drive a car, and it would be ridiculous if 17 YOs were allowed to drive but not put petrol in their own cars, so it would be reasonable to assume that anyone who drives to a petrol station to buy petrol is old enough to do so, so no need to ID.

turbohamster
I bought a sparking non alcoholic fruit punch and was asked for ID.I politely refused and said im not buyinh alcohol and the cashier was totally obnoxious saying 'don't blame.me for doing my job'.
It's not your job.
It's not alcoholic.
Which means it is NOT pinging up on your screen.
Which means you saw the bottle and straight away had a face on you like a smacked arse.
If you were friendlier I'd have just humoured you and shown you my licence but as you were rude to me, let's get a 2nd opinion.
Supervisor came over. Agreed with me.

But you as a cashier can't assume that me buying alcohol in the presence of my (hypothetical) child is a proxy sale.
Goes both ways.
funny enough, but genuine proxy transactions go out of sight (the street), not at the till, like "Hey auntie, could you buy me some White Ace?"

I'm 42, I wish I would get asked for ID :(

maisy actually some places non alcholic items for some reason for come up.

i never understand why people think these store policies should be ignored

Because
They fly in the face of common sense
We are not a gang of "computer says no" automatons (yet)
Some stupid store policy isn't the same as the law
We are 99% of the time legitimate customers trying to make a legal purchase - not some kind of dangerous subversive enemy

and computers can cock up too. i once had 'age restricted item' over... bread

IDing 30 somethings is stupid. As for carrying ID, you have to be 18 to have a credit or debit card, and the PIN proves its your card.