Judged by Waitrose

[Prioryfodder]

Waitrose would not let me buy alcohol because I was accompanied by my 15-year-old daughter. To explain, just before Christmas, I had bought a basket of groceries and two bottles of Malibu (actually destined for her older brothers Christmas stockings to make long island iced teas, but that's irrelevant IMO). She had briefly handled the bottles to put on the conveyor belt for me. We then waited some time for the cashier to clear. We were clearly together and frankly we are clearly mother and daughter. The cashier (rather smugly) said she would need ID from both of us to sell me the alcohol. I said I was 56 and she 15, but the alcohol was for me. She - and later her manager - asserted that we both had to be over 18, and to prove it. I asked if they would sell it to me if she left the shop. No. Would they sell it to me if she were 6-year-old? Yes, and I was ''not to be so silly'', said the cashier. My daughter feels she was judged as being an underaged drinker, and I feel judged to be a 'bad mother'. Vote: Yes, you are AIBU, you should never shop with your teenage child, you fool. YANBU, FFS at 56 you should be allowed to buy alcohol.
I am expecting a few cracks about buying Malibu and shopping at Waitrose. Please don't disappoint

Gaaahhh! Have to do what What exactly?

ID everyone? No.
ID teens. Yes.
ID very young-looking adults? Yes.
ID a mum with two kids? Possibly 🤷‍♀️
ID a pensioner? No.
ID a 45 year old doing her weekly shop who happens to have her teen in tow? No.

There has to be some great area, of course, and if you are being hyper-meticulous you might ID the whole grey area. But the grey area has to meet a black or white area at some point and that’s where common sense kicks in. It must do, otherwise every alcohol sale would involve ID. It doesn’t. So there are cashiers up and down the country making these common sense decisions all day long.

I would actually get behind a well publicised, lots of notice given, alongside a roll out of cheap government IDs, "ID everyone" law. Because I hate the fucking moronic arguments.

Here's an example:

Young couple come to my till with booze. I think they're late teens or very early 20s.
I ID the man - he has ID that shows he is 23. I ID the woman, and she doesn't have ID. She says I should still serve her, because "You know he's 23, he's not going to be with a 17 year old, is he?" She is angry that her boyfriend isn't sufficient proof of age for her.

Other "non-ID IDs" customers try to use are - their babies, their tattoos, their piercings, the fact they are buying other groceries too etc.

@LuvSmallDogs
Your example is surely an instance where IDing both people is eminently sensible? I’m sure you get some absolute muppets trying it on, but I don’t think anyone on this thread is up for defending the girlfriend in that scenario?

@ExasperatedbyJanuary sorry, I'm saying that I would rather ID everyone at this point, with the law behind me, rather than having to decide what a 25 or 21 year old looks like.

Your previous post points out they don't have to ID everyone - I'm saying, let's ID everyone. If you can lose your job and be prosecuted for making the wrong call, you should be IDing everyone. Let's either not sell to anyone accompanied by any under 18, or remove all onus to pick up on proxy sales from the seller.

Yes. Well, that would make it a lot easier and remove the grey areas. I actually think I agree with you; once people got used to carrying their ID it would be fine. I always have my photo driving licence on me anyway.

what is this rule? This is nuts!

Tesco cashier told me off the other day for letting my 5yo scan my shopping through, because he'd scanned the box of ibuprofen and was under 16 🤦🏻‍♀️

I've already posted this, but, this question was asked in my licencing course and the answer was that if a licencing officer decides that 'any reasonable person' would believe the person looked under 25, and therefore in line with the conditions of the licence (using a challenge policy) by not asking them for ID you have broken a mandatory condition of the alcohol licence - so they can tell you you're wrong, and further more, tell the DPS that they can no longer authorise you to sell alcohol on their behalf because you're not fulfilling the conditions of the alcohol licence.

You're absolutely right that it's complete bollocks and it's massively unfair because as you rightly say, it's based on someone's opinion, but the opinion of the licencing/police officer overrides mine. So yes, they can tell me I got it wrong. It's not a legal process with a hearing, I don't have a right to a defence, if the DPS wants to keep the licence then they do as they're told.
So no, it's not breaking the law, I won't go to prison, but the licence can be affected and cause the DPS a headache as well as possibly not be allowed to serve alcohol any more - not really conducive to keeping a job is it? Causing that?

Another example would be serving someone who's drunk, my version of drunk may differ to yours, and if you're a police officer and decide the person I've just served more alcohol to is drunk, even though I don't, your opinion overrides mine, because you're a police officer and I'm supposed to sell alcohol responsibly and serving someone who's drunk isn't doing that.

You don't even have to break the actual conditions of an alcohol licence to have one removed either (again, posted this upthread so apologies for repeating myself!) But a few years ago a DPS fairly local to me posted memes and jokes that were derogatory towards women and around domestic violence, a complaint was made and the licence team removed his alcohol licence - because he wasn't deemed as a fit or responsible person to sell alcohol.

*A DPS (designated premises supervisor) is overall, responsible for the alcohol licence, they then authorise the sale of alcohol by named people to the public - and they must ensure that the named people are sticking to the terms of the licence (which obviously includes the law around it).

It's never happened to me but I've been reading about it for at least 10 years. So much so that if I have booze to buy, I send the teenagers somewhere away from me & the tills when I go to purchase.

Ok - I hold my hands up. You have explained it comprehensively. Thank you for being so patient too - I know I’ve been most tenacious with this argument. I just really, really don’t like things that don’t make sense! But at least I know now that the ‘wrong’ is difference of opinion with the powers that be. I am shocked that you don’t get to put your side though?! That’s even more awful 😞

What is the reasoning behind this anyway? Is it public health concern or a licensing issue?

Perhaps the powers that be would be better placed trying to ensure that under 18s don't get their hands on drugs!

I was ID'd in a supermarket years ago when I was buying cider as a 21 year old student. The only time ever.

Tbh most people just aren't interested in the actual facts around it, people know that 18 is the legal age and base everything around that, and have no knowledge of licencing or licence conditions, nor do they care to understand because they've got a perfect scapegoat in the person in front of them who happens to be the one saying no.
A fair amount changed in the 2003 licencing act and things were tightened up and a lot more responsibility put on the people selling it, but, I grew up when it was all fairly liberal and I could get served when I was 15, both in shops and pubs, I guess that's what the new act was all about, stopping that happening by putting the onus on the people selling it and with the licence, my personal opinion is that it's lip service to the issues around teen drinking and anti social behaviour around alcohol - "Look! We're doing something about it!" And sometimes people who are responsible when drinking are caught up in it.

I'm just going to be that person that actually agrees with you and say yes you were kind of being judged. The cashier was assuming that as she handled it and its the kind of thing a 15 year old might drink you bought it for her. I think they're supposed to use their judgement in these situations so it's not personal, in theory. But I'm not going to claim you're being over dramatic like some have because there are indeed "smug" types out there that love to exercise power and tell others off. I've seen it in my colleagues in retail before regarding other matters.

Part of the problem is that people look at a 32 year old and think they could conceivably be 25 (not under 18) They forget that that’s not why think 25 exists.

I’m all for mandatory ID for all alcohol purchases. It would make it far easier.
It’s the current illogical mess that drives me potty.

I was happy to prove my age (56). Did not lie about my daughter's age. They kept repeating that we both had to prove our age, despite me saying she was not 18. And btw, I was not rude to the cashier. We were by definition 'judged' because it was at the cashier's discretion to decide if I was buying for my young daughter. I was paying. That is being judged.

Loved the story of a 19-year-old not being able to buy for his mother due to lack of proof. Hilarious.

Yes, that was my first thought too 🤣

OP, I had no idea this was a thing. I've bought wine with my 15 year old present loads of times - from Sainsburys, Co-op, Asda, Tesco, Aldi, Lidl, Tesco and Morrisons. We don't have a Waitrose (poor Northern town). Never been asked for ID for either of us. Well except once in Asda, and I said "are you being serious?" and the cheeky twat laughed and said no, I can see clearly you're over 18...

Well which fuckwit dreamt up the rules? Completely daft as they have no control over what happens to the alcohol once it leaves the shop and it’s not their place to be assuming what the buying adult is going to do with it.

And this is where it gets ridiculous.

If she believes there’s the tiniest possibility she has to check. She was right to.

Two of my most depressing things: never needing to be asked my age to buy booze and my phone not recognising my face when I pay for the booze with contactless.

The police don't care about your company's licensing policy.

Do you mean the council may send out people to check if your company is complying with the terms of its licence from the council?

This happened to me and my sister. She was buying a big bottle of smirnoff ice 🤮 for her 18 year old son who was at home. She had ID and I didn't. Wouldn't mind but we were both in our 30s and sad to say looked our age 🤣

Also just so you know, if you behave like a Karen about it, you will be mocked as soon as you leave the store

I don't really care about the opinion of people who use the lazy, ageist and sexist expression "Karen".

Thinking about it, I used to do my weekly shop in Sainsburys, always bought wine, had obviously under 18 son with me. Never once asked for ID. So maybe Sainsburys does a better job of training its staff.

They’re just doing it to cover themselves but it is absurd.

I don't think they ask for I.d
if a child is just with you but if the child put the bottles on the counter themselves, type thing