Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To think checkout lady was being OTT about alcohol and child?

445 replies

Potkettlexx · 20/02/2020 15:02

In supermarket yesterday with DD 7. DD struggles at school so I let her help with shopping to get her used to the concept.

Bought some bread and small gift pack bottle baileys £5 for in-laws bday.

Got DD to scan the gift box and the bread and press the correct buttons etc... (dd Aldo has some sensory and coordination difficulties so again it helps this doing practical things)

DD wanted to pay with my card so I told her what buttons to press and gave her the card to tap on card reader. Dd didn’t really understand so I just gently took it from her and tapped my card myself.

Before I took over, dd was trying and the woman supervising the self service tills piled up ‘ohh you’ll have to be the one that pats with the card’ or something to that affect.

I was thinking.... for real?!

I get that they need to be very careful when selling alcohol....

I get that a 15 year old can look 18....

I get that an 18 year old could be potentially buying it for younger friends....

I get that they could be disciplined if they were willingly selling alcohol to under 18’s....

But for goodness sake, surely common sense would say she really didn’t need to say that under the circumstances.

After all, the reason the sale of alcohol is forbidden to under 18’s is incase they drink it and quite right.

That’s not the same as the this situation. It was clearly evident I was the one ‘buying it’ and giving my consent. Does she honestly think I was planning on giving it to my 7 year old?! 🙄

OP posts:
2019bride · 20/02/2020 21:25

YABU, she could have got into a lot of trouble if she had let your daughter pay even though it was obviously for you.

When I worked in retail it was made very clear to us that age restricted goods had to be paid for by someone of the right age, even coming down to handing the money over. Ultimately the person handing over the money - cash or card - is the person paying and therefore buying the product. This woman wasn't being difficult, she was just following rules.

heartonastring · 20/02/2020 21:26

Warning! We have an OP who thrives on drama. Don't feed the troll, people.

Original poster
Potkettlexx · 20/02/2020 21:32

I’m not blaming the woman. She felt she had to do it and that’s fair enough, I respect that.

The law appears to be black and white. I still think the circumstances surrounding this particle event are OTT.

I think it’s absurd that someone that’s been to their cousins 21st bday party still needs to ask them for ID if they want a bottle of wine. I don’t believe that’s the law. There’s also a fee people on here given their OTT experiences.

If we’re to go buy the rational the dd ‘bought it’, would it then be appropriate to go dine the fraud route as it wasn’t me technically using the card.

The fact who looks over 18/25 is subjective anyway.

For those going to a shop with their teenage child and being unable to buy alcohol because it’s assumed it’s for the teenager and not the mam? I mean what’s that about?

Same way as only being able to buy 2 packets of paracetamol. It’s obviously to protect the store but it’s still OTT

OP posts:
Original poster
Potkettlexx · 20/02/2020 21:33

@heartsonastring

Give over and move to a different thread instead of commenting then 👍

OP posts:
WalkingDeadTrainee · 20/02/2020 21:38

She felt she had to do it and that’s fair enough, I respect that.

I don't know how many times will people have to explain she didn't fucking feel she had to say it, she had to say it.

You are just being deliberately painfully thick now, because this can't be real.

Iminaglasscaseofemotion · 20/02/2020 21:47

Well at 24 years old, while in doing a weekly shop with my partner and 2 kids, I tried to buy butter knifes and was told without ID I wasn't allowed. DP who was 26 at the time didn't have his ID either. I could buy forks but not the knifes 😂.

Willow2017 · 20/02/2020 21:54

She felt she had to do it and that’s fair enough, I respect that.

For the umpteenth time.. she didnt FEEL like anything she HAD to do it. There is a huge difference and by using the word 'feel' you are still putting the onus on her not on the store policy.

Own your own mistakes. You shouldnt have let your DD attempt to do it.

I still think the circumstances surrounding this particle event are OTT.
Its not OTT when your job is at risk. You are not above the law no matter how much you would like to think you are.

For those going to a shop with their teenage child and being unable to buy alcohol because it’s assumed it’s for the teenager and not the mam? I mean what’s that about?
Most of the time this doesnt happen, its very rare cases (unless the parent or child has commented on the alcohol being for the child) I would turn down so many sales in a day I would be pulled up for it if I refused alcohol to every parent in store with a child in tow. We use our common sense, not everybody has it, even some cashiers, just the same as in every other walk of life. Nobody is perfect.
Funnily enough most parents do not allow their kids to touch the alcohol bottles nor attempt to pay for alcohol in my experience, they know the store rules and when I hand them the bottles they dont fuss about it either.

Original poster
Potkettlexx · 20/02/2020 21:55

@WalkingDeadTrainee

Dear me and you’re trying to insinuate I’m dense?!

It means the same thing you clown. Felt she had to because she would lose her job (apparently) if she didn’t....

2-3’s and a 6

No wonder your called walking dead trainee....

OP posts:
BiscuitBean · 20/02/2020 21:57

I got asked for ID buying dressmakers scissors at JL at 32 years of age. I don’t look THAT young, but because I didn’t have ID on me, I couldn’t buy them. And that’s fair enough, I completely understand and didn’t think were BU at all...they don’t make the rules.

OP you need to get over your insistence that the cashier felt she had to say it because, as many others have pointed out. She didn’t feel like she had to do it, she actually had to. It’s got nothing to do with your particular situation, and everything to do with the law!

Original poster
Potkettlexx · 20/02/2020 22:00

@Willow2017

If you’re going to try and go for the kill about semantics, I thunk you’ll find I didn’t try and met my dd buy it. How could she? She doesn’t have a card.... she’s 7. It’s my card. She tapped the card on a monitor.

If a thief steals a bank card and buys a scratch card does he own the winnings??? No because technically he didn’t but it!

Same difference by your logic. So if you insist on bagging on about semantics then get yours right.

OP posts:
Quartz2208 · 20/02/2020 22:05

If we’re to go buy the rational the dd ‘bought it’, would it then be appropriate to go dine the fraud route as it wasn’t me technically using the card.

Nope there are posters on here (who are solicitors) who have told you that it wouldnt be fraud because she was paying with your consent. If there was no alcohol (or other age restricted goods) it would not have been a problem.

Neither do I think she believed your daughter was going to drink it.

But the law is incredibly black and white on this matter there is no wriggle room your daughter using the card would have been paying/buying alcohol.

If spotted she could have lost her job (not apparently) had a written warning and if a Licensing Officer was there fined. Do you honestly think in her mind letting your 7 year old pay was worth any of that in her mind. Do you honestly think that she should sacrifice that for your daughter

WalkingDeadTrainee · 20/02/2020 22:12

It's not the same thing.
Felt she had to say it and had to say it are two different things. When you say someone "felt they had to say it" you are very much insinuating it's their decision based on their feelings not a must do based on work policies. Hence they could be unreasonable. I am not the only one who pointed it out.

I wasn't even trying to insinuate anything. I said it fair and square.

lyralalala · 20/02/2020 22:18

What an absolute waste of time. Sending an over 18 to test purchase, they are never going to catch anyone selling to an under 18 are they confused

It’s all about how old the tester looks. Generally trading standards don’t want to be giving out fines, they want the system to be working.

Going by how young she looks I think one of DD will be able to do testing until her early 20s at the very least. There’s not a chance she should be sold anything without an ID check

Over 18s can also work more hours and with less restrictions than minors

MNHQ
ClaraMumsnet · 20/02/2020 22:19

Hello, we're getting quite a few reports about this thread. Please can we remind people to stick to our Talk Guidelines please?

Original poster
Potkettlexx · 20/02/2020 22:20

@Quartz2208

Again even when an OP says yes ok I may have been a bit OTT and said they understand it from the cashiers point etc...

People still want to pick out the boys to cause more arguments?

From my last post saying I don’t blame her etc why do people still feel the need to try and twist it? Clearly I don’t think she should sacrifice it for my dd 🙄🙄

Honesty like....

OP posts:
KarmaStar · 20/02/2020 22:27

Why on why do the op's start an aibu and then defend themselves insisting their actions were clearly sensible and others were in the wrong?
OP,you abu,you are not above the law .stop with the excuses.

FlamingoAndJohn · 20/02/2020 22:43

I think it’s absurd that someone that’s been to their cousins 21st bday party still needs to ask them for ID if they want a bottle of wine. I don’t believe that’s the law.

No, it’s not. But it most likely is store policy which would cause them to lose their job if they broke it.

recordbox · 20/02/2020 22:45

It’s all about how old the tester looks

No it is not. It's about how old the tester IS. Because that's where the line of the law is drawn.

Nobody is going to get into trouble for not asking an 18 year old for ID, they are 18. No law broken.

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · 20/02/2020 22:52

I don’t think that it is just semantics, @Potkettlexx - I think there is a real difference in meaning between ‘she felt she had to’ and ‘she had to’.

The first implies that she mad a choice, based on her feelings - an emotional, rather than a logical decision, whereas the second implies that she had no choice in the matter - which is the truth of the matter.

That is why people are objecting to your use of the first phrase - they think that you still feel she had some choice in the matter, and could have made a different decision, or exercised her discretion - and she simply didn’t.

BuggerOffAndGoodDayToYou · 20/02/2020 22:55

Yes but that doesn't mean that you need to ID people even if you know without of shred of doubt that they are over 18. They aren't going to remove the license because someone didn't ID their own husband or the person with the alcohol licence.

It is usually a requirement of the licence to check ID. It would be entirely possible that someone from trading standards, the licensing authority or the brewery could be in the pub and witness someone selling alcohol to someone under 25 without checking ID. Saying it’s alright he’s my husband isn’t going to cut it anymore than someone swearing blind they are over 18. A year or so after the pub I used to work in got a new landlady I went in with my husband...by this time I was actually well over 25. The barman (who I had worked with) went to serve me but the new landlady stopped the sale as she didn’t believe I was over the new 21 age limit of the pub. He told her I was older than him and had worked there a few years before but she wanted ID. Even one of the regulars said they knew I was overage but she said she couldn’t risk it (I didn’t have any ID as I don’t carry my passport so we left).

Cherry4weans · 20/02/2020 22:58

They are told to be very strict with rules. I was id'd for a can of red bull at age 34...i don't look young unfortunately

lyralalala · 20/02/2020 23:00

No it is not. It's about how old the tester IS. Because that's where the line of the law is drawn.

Nobody is going to get into trouble for not asking an 18 year old for ID, they are 18. No law broken.

No-one is going to get prosecuted for it, but it does happen. It’s a good test of places to see if they are following correct protocols and gives a good idea of places to target with underage testers

It’s also good for stores because they can know where their policies are not being followed without the risk of fines

Sonichu · 20/02/2020 23:00

"No it is not. It's about how old the tester IS. Because that's where the line of the law is drawn.

Nobody is going to get into trouble for not asking an 18 year old for ID, they are 18. No law broken"

These threads always bring out people who have clearly never worked in retail. Of course the tester is over 18, because if not then they are breaking the law in purchasing alcohol!

lyralalala · 20/02/2020 23:03

Of course the tester is over 18, because if not then they are breaking the law in purchasing alcohol!

Trading standards do use underage testers

Two of mine started at 14. DD will continue on as she still looks much younger than age

recordbox · 20/02/2020 23:07

These threads always bring out people who have clearly never worked in retail. Of course the tester is over 18, because if not then they are breaking the law in purchasing alcohol!

You think?

The whole point of testing is that under 18's are used, to ensure people are not breaking the law by selling to them

Swipe left for the next trending thread