"It is bureaucracy gone mad".

[BoredBloke]

"I believe it is the law. Once challenged, the person must produce ID prooving they are 18+, or by the law, the sale cannot proceed. The manager was following the law."

Well the law is an ass then.

[DimPrawn]

"I believe it is the law. Once challenged, the person must produce ID prooving they are 18+, or by the law, the sale cannot proceed. The manager was following the law."

Well the law is an ass then.

Won't argue about that. Most of these laws have been written or amended by New Labour. So no real surprise they have no common sense or benefit to the majority.

[Chugnut]

*Anyone* who can't see that a guy of 71 is clearly over the legal age to buy alchohol is a turd. No argument.

The law is obviously stupid for not having a common sense clause, but if I was the manager I would have served the guy. And anyone who says "but that's breaking the law" I bet you did the last time you drove your car.

[r0bly0ns]

I believe it is the law. Once challenged, the person must produce ID prooving they are 18+, or by the law, the sale cannot proceed. The manager was following the law.

Even if the person is 200 yrs old, once challenged, they must produce ID, the store or the staff could be prosecuted if they say "on 2nd thoughts, it's okay".

They did not ask him to prove his age with ID.
They asked him to confirm he was over 18 with a simple "Yes" or "No", which he refused to do.

Morrisons have admitted that he was clearly over 18, so they didn't ask him for ID, but a new policy meant that they still asked him to confirm it.


Sounds fricken crazy to me.....

[Mailman]

I believe it is the law. Once challenged, the person must produce ID prooving they are 18+, or by the law, the sale cannot proceed. The manager was following the law.

Even if the person is 200 yrs old, once challenged, they must produce ID, the store or the staff could be prosecuted if they say "on 2nd thoughts, it's okay".

I believe the law was being applied to that Gurka geeza when they turned him down, after a lifetime of service to the crown, when he asked if he could move here to live out his final years in comfort and peace.

The law was also applied to the intepreters in Basra when they were all told to jump in line and wait their turn to have their applications for asylum approved.

And it was also the law when some numpty told some saffa geezer that he couldnt stay in England because he had spent more than 3 months of his 4 year stay out of the country...never mind the fact the fukka had just spent the last year fighting for Queen and Country in eye-rak!

Yes...its just the law!

The fact is, the law does not stop people from applying common sense!

Mailman

[r0bly0ns]

*Anyone* who can't see that a guy of 71 is clearly over the legal age to buy alchohol is a turd. No argument.

The law is obviously stupid for not having a common sense clause, but if I was the manager I would have served the guy. And anyone who says "but that's breaking the law" I bet you did the last time you drove your car.

It was nothing to do with any 'law' being broken, it was a store policy.

[Chugnut]

It was nothing to do with any 'law' being broken, it was a store policy.

Whatever, it's Friday.

I still agree with the old man; it's moronic beyond belief to ask for confirmation of age or to produce ID when dealing with a coffin dodger.

[r0bly0ns]

Absolutely.

[xoggoth]

Not quite as old as him but I have this problem all the time because I look so youthful. What with that and having to bat off the all the women in the checkout who want to take me home because I am so handsome and athletic, going to the supermarket is a chore.

[Board Game Geek]

I think some people are still missing the point.

The edict being that, without fail, the checkout person is to ask each person if they are of legal age to purchase the items in question.

If they do not, they face prosecution and/or a fine.

Therefore, it doesn't matter WHO is coming down the checkout, from Arthur Stubbs, 71 from Acacia Gardens in Frinton or Her Royal Highness or the Good Lord Almighty Himself.

No exceptions, no special priviledges, no dispensations.

He correctly applied store policy.

It was the old guy who decided not to comply, and thus cause a scene.

Whether the policy makes commonsense or not is a moot point. At the time of the transgression, the policy was effective.

If it would have been me serving, and the old guy got bolshy on me, saying "FFS Serve me and scr3w your policy", I'd have said "That demand implicates me in an intended act of coercion to willfully break the law and I refuse to be an accomplice" then called security to have Citizen Smith carted away.