Co-OP and the tale of age verification

voiceofreason

Voice of what?

peachyprice

voiceofreason wrote: »

Voice of what?

Yeah, I was trying to work that out too, 9 letters, I wonder how many syllables?

:rotfl:

boobyd

No reasons

fluffnutter

I'm with the voice on this one. If you work in a place that sells age-restricted products why not hone your 'how old does this person look?' skill? I have job-related skills that have been acquired through experience of doing the same sorts of things continually. Working in a shop or a bar or anywhere that sells alcohol etc. needs a set of skills just like every other job does and being good at judging ages should be one of them.

All these think!whatever campaigns do is remove personal responsibility and lower the bar on expectations so much that we end up being completely content to have unthinking drones perform a series of unconsidered tasks.

Demand more, people!

voiceofreason

fluffnutter wrote: »

All these think!whatever campaigns do is remove personal responsibility and lower the bar on expectations so much that we end up being completely content to have unthinking drones perform a series of unconsidered tasks.

Demand more, people!

Damn straight! :T

mippy

UK2010 wrote: »

But then when you're 17 you'll do all sorts of things to prove you're 18! How many reading this thread didn't have fake ID when they were 17 if they're completely honest!

I've never had fake ID. I bought alcohol aged 16 (though this was a Christmas gift-set) without issue. I got IDed for the first time at 22 buying a newspaper (and wasn't allowed to buy it - I took it to a different till and purchased it there without issue), and last time was buying a bottle of wine, along with a week's shopping, at 25. Funnily enough I don't carry my passport with me each time I go out for some milk.

mippy

Enfieldian wrote: »

This would not have happened in my local Co-op.

1)The stock levels are so poor that they would not have had any to sell you.

2)Furthermore the staff probably didn't eat a lot of it in Bombay or Chenai so they would not know it contained any alcohol.

3)Then they would not have been able to make an age challenge as they don't speak English.

4)Finally they would have legged it if you produced a Warrant Card as ID because they are all illegal immigrants or working full time with student visas.

Casual racism. Brilliant.

PS: it's Mumbai, not Bombay.

Nukumai

RadoJo wrote: »

so surely the much talked about 'common sense' approach would be to carry an acceptable form of ID with you to avoid such situations...

...it seems that accepting the situation is the only way forward.

Personally, I would rather benefit from cheaper products than have to pay the inevitable increase in costs which stores would pass on to customers if they had to ensure that every member of their staff could identify any form of ID presented to them and had the knowledge and authorisation to over-ride the tills to avoid IDing someone inappropriately.

RadoJo - there are 2 primary issues I have with your view.

Firstly, the general ID/proof-of-age issue :

It is perfectly clear that the present Government would love nothing better than for the population to become even more sheep-like and carry ID.

Whilst they would doubtful legislate to this effect, I am sure that they would not be averse to any measures that would make the carrying on of our daily activities to be most difficult (if not impossible) without ID. Their preferred policies and practices in this regard are evidence of this.

However, in all fairness, I'm not totally convinced that any of the other major political parties actually have a markedly different attitude...despite their pre-election posturing.

As for the specific issue of supermarkets and ID (or, proof-of-age, which is ostensibly the same thing) :

In the case of Tesco, this moronic "policy" is almost certainly a knee-jerk response to the police looking to have the liquor licences of some branches - quite rightly - revoked where there were repeat instances of selling to underage drinkers.

Case in point...here is the summary from a Sussex Police (Crime Prevention) Officer of Tesco's historical attitude (and, probably, a reason for the ridiculous policies now in place) :

"My personal thoughts are that if Tesco put as much emphasis on training to prevent underage sales as they do on training on the Clubcard then we would be able to prevent underage sales."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...es/6232591.stm

But, rather than address the training of employees in this area in an appropriate and proportionate manner, Tesco adopts a blanket policy of overkill, which not only treats customers as potential criminals, but is also, in my opinion, suggestive of a measure of contempt that Tesco must hold for the intelligence and common-sense of its own customer-facing staff.
Finally, if you have an hour or so to spare, read through this article and the comments. The moronic behaviour of supermarkets is readily evident :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1955793/Tesco-ban-on-alcohol-sales-to-parents.html

Apologies to those who might find the above words familiar - I've basically plagiarised a post or two that I made in a thread on a similar topic last year.

Zazen999

mippy wrote: »

Casual racism. Brilliant.

PS: it's Mumbai, not Bombay.

I think he was being ironic.

voiceofreason

UK2010 wrote: »

the 2003 Licensing Act states the ID's needed!

Oh, right - do you have a link to this? Would like to learn more about it

UK2010 wrote: »

So do you suggest they poor loads of money in, increase the price of alcohol to cover the cost to stop the 1 in 100,000 30 year old getting asked for ID!!! Why????? I can't really see myself walking around a supermarket thinking "I love the fact the price of alcohol has gone up 20% just to stop 1 in every 100,000 30 yr old getting asked ID!!".

You're missing the point here, really you are. I never suggested the cost of alcohol be increased - I suggested that stores who're willing to take the profits from selling alcohol should also be willing to take the proper responsibility, adhering sensibly to Government legislation instead of imposing a unilateral "initiative" to pretend they're responsible alcohol retailers while simultaneously heavily promoting cheap, mass-market alcoholic drinks at the same time as de-skilling and removing any sort of real responsibility from their workforce. Your thoughts?

And anyway, where does the "1 in every 100,000 30 yr old" BS come from?

Seriously - why don't you sit down on your backside and talk using your mouth for a change?

You're just embarrassing yourself right now.