Refused booze in tesco again

Pont

qw3rt7 wrote: »

To all the posters who have had problems whilst with their 10 - 17yr olds, i agree its frustrating, but unfortunately there are many parents who will happily assist their youngster to get plastered in the park!QUOTE]

But the current policy isn't adressing these type of parents (who are probably savy enough not to take their kids to the supermarket when they're buying the booze). It ends up impacting on all of the 'sensible' parents who are quite innocently buying a bottle of wine or a couple of cans of beer along with their weekly shop. If there was any evidence that current supermarket policy would prevent kids getting 'plastered in the park' then maybe so, but quite frankly there isn't. Unfortunately, as all too often, we are all made to pay because of the idiot minority.

Amistoso_2

So instead of taking the kids whith you when you go, in order to get a bottle of wine or some beers in your weekly shop, just leave them at home and have your local friendly social services person waiting on your doorstep when you get back!! It's ridiculous that you can't buy alcohol if you have your kids with you, do they assume that all parents are completely without morals?
I have an 18 month old, would they presume if I bought some booze that I'd be giving it to him?! (I know that's probably a bit dramatic but it gets my goat)

sarahs999

What utter, bloody nonsense. Tesco should stick it up their collective backside.

Talk about inconveniencing the mass majority to make a stupid point that isn't going to protect anyone. I really do despair of this country sometimes, everyone seems to have lost any semblance of common sense.

Very glad that I don't ever shop there; this is yet another reason to add to my growing list.

Barny1979

icequeen1969 wrote: »

wow im confused, so many people broke, skint and looking to save cash..but so many buying alcohol and ciggies1 whats all this about. booze is and has been for ages the last thing on my shopping list in this credit crunch.
amazed.com!

Self-righteous.com!

Amistoso_2

icequeen1969 wrote: »

wow im confused, so many people broke, skint and looking to save cash..but so many buying alcohol and ciggies1 whats all this about. booze is and has been for ages the last thing on my shopping list in this credit crunch.
amazed.com!

Yet you find the cash to pay for that essential service called Broadband?!
I don't think anyone has said that they buy booze they can't afford or indeed buy it at the detriment of their kids needs etc.
And just because your skint please don't think that everyone on this site is the same. Some people just like a bargain or saving a few quid where they can

spugzbunny

Read this thread withgreat interest! Same as many people here, my firends was IDd for my booze in Tesco the other day. We asked why she was being IDd when it was me buying the booze and was told that it was policy to ID all teh people who are together at the checkout. We both had ID but the silly thing was that I was actually buying it for my OH who was at home ... I told the checkout lady this too - shouldn't sh ehave refused to serve me because she couldnt ID him?

At the cig counter (Yes .. sorry .. my bad) the supervisor made such a point of telling the teenager at the til to ask for ID that I was laughing so hard by thetime he agreed I was definately old enough.

Ten years ago I was getting legless every weekend without bother! Has the enw crackdown really made such a difference to teenage drinking??

It is absolute madness that someone should be refused alcohol because they were with a child - I would be offended and I would walk out.

On the other hand - I am all for the Think 25 policy as long as it is used with some common sense. I am 27 and I always carry both my passport and my driving licence. My house mate who is 23 has had his out of date passport refused before. This annoys him greately whereas I feel although the person refusing it is clearly a jobs worth, he should just take his valid passport next time (as this has happenned a n umber of times). He always gets annoyed when he is IDd even though he is 4 years younger than me!

mrcow

pulliptears wrote: »

I pass it to DD saying "just hold me that for a sec". Cashier then says unless I take it from DD now she will refuse to sell to me. Moot point really as I have already paid for it!
But come on! The woman can see I'm struggling and creates a fuss over an 11 year old HOLDING a lottery ticket?!

I give up.

Did you tell her that she was being ridiculous?

qw3rt7

Ok, i didnt expect to gain any friends from my earlier post, i was simply playing devils advocate, to offer both sides to the argument.

I except that this policy is incredibly inconvenient to alot of innocent people, and i do not have access to any data that could determine if it has had any positive effect at all.
However, i would imagine most people here can recognize the fact that this policy will not increase revenue for Tesco in any way, and like it or not such companies do not make nationwide policies with the sole aim of p1ss1ng off their customers!

The policy will undoubtably be in response to pressure from the media and parts of the government, as teenage drinking is currently (as it periodically is) a high profile cause.

This has always been a problem for governements as both alchohol and tabacco are both highly damaging to health, yet hugely 'profitable' to the treasury. The current governments 'genius' answer to this problem is large rises in duty, giving the impression they want to deal with the problem, whilst continuing to rake in the taxes.

This fails to acheive anything for various reasons, but in the (loose) context of this thread, dealing with supermarkets, the reason is simple.
A lot of the alcohol sold in supermarkets is sold at a LOSS, to encourage people to the store - tesco where recently selling carling larger at less than the rate of duty owed!
One supermarket will not drop this trend whilst others continue, for obvious financial reasons, and coming to an agreement between the major operators is technically illegal price fixing!

So the fact remains that all retailers have a duty to show they have taken reasonable precautions to stop alcohol being sold for the consumption of minors, and being one of the largest, the spotlight will remain on tesco.

Can anyone here think of a logical, legal way this could be achieved that would be less of an inconvenience to the general, law abiding public? I would be generally interested to here your ideas.

adouglasmhor

qw3rt7 wrote: »

Ok, i didnt expect to gain any friends from my earlier post, i was simply playing devils advocate, to offer both sides to the argument.

I except that this policy is incredibly inconvenient to alot of innocent people, and i do not have access to any data that could determine if it has had any positive effect at all.
However, i would imagine most people here can recognize the fact that this policy will not increase revenue for Tesco in any way, and like it or not such companies do not make nationwide policies with the sole aim of p1ss1ng off their customers!

The policy will undoubtably be in response to pressure from the media and parts of the government, as teenage drinking is currently (as it periodically is) a high profile cause.

This has always been a problem for governements as both alchohol and tabacco are both highly damaging to health, yet hugely 'profitable' to the treasury. The current governments 'genius' answer to this problem is large rises in duty, giving the impression they want to deal with the problem, whilst continuing to rake in the taxes.

This fails to acheive anything for various reasons, but in the (loose) context of this thread, dealing with supermarkets, the reason is simple.
A lot of the alcohol sold in supermarkets is sold at a LOSS, to encourage people to the store - tesco where recently selling carling larger at less than the rate of duty owed!
One supermarket will not drop this trend whilst others continue, for obvious financial reasons, and coming to an agreement between the major operators is technically illegal price fixing!

So the fact remains that all retailers have a duty to show they have taken reasonable precautions to stop alcohol being sold for the consumption of minors, and being one of the largest, the spotlight will remain on tesco.

Can anyone here think of a logical, legal way this could be achieved that would be less of an inconvenience to the general, law abiding public? I would be generally interested to here your ideas.

If you had read the thread you would have seen it is not the Tesco policy that is at fault but the thick beyond belief application of it by the troglodytes who inhabit the tills of Mr T's and their inability to understand the rules - ie. think 25 does not mean everyone under 25 can't buy drink, it means if someone looks under 25 ID them to ensure they are over 21 (to give a bit of protection from selling to under age). Instead they get it arse about face and plough on p'ing people off.

qw3rt7

qw3rt7 wrote: »

think 25 - this is a very simple, soon to be universal (amongst large retailers anyway) idea. It is about adding a margin of error to the process, as believe it or not, some check out staff are not the most perceptive of people!
.....
The major issue is and always will be a combination of training and staff aptitude. The amount of times ive had store policy misquoted as 'THE LAW' is huge, and very annoying. But then again, how many multinational companies who employe at around minimum wage do you know who dont get complaints about their staff? When you have 10,000 odd (figure completely made up btw) posts to fill at £6ph you will not always get the best of the best!!

I do understand that fact, though i would not go as far to say that ALL tesco staff are incompetent. This was a follow up post, more specifically aimed at the issue of adults with accompanying minors, which seems to be the major issue here.