Co-OP and the tale of age verification

marleyboy

UK2010 wrote: »

I already said this twice now. Thats not what I think but what he might have thought. How many more times am I going to have to write this?

Ok so he might have thought "Maybe this guy is going to make Chicken in Wine", just one tiny flaw in this, he does not have a bottle of wine with him. Meaning whatever he thought is as irrelevant as thinking "maybe he bought this bottle of Coke to mix with Vodka when he gets home", either case he does NOT have any alcoholic beverages AT ALL in his basket, whatever the tiller "thought", meaning he does not have to produce evidence or ID to purchase them, whether or not he intends adding alcohol to them when he gets home. How this cannot sink into your head logically I find completely baffling.

Wildside

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Stick Deodorants? Wet wipes, spectacle cleaning pads?

Not to mention most (not all) brands of Mouthwash and quite a lot of cleaning products

UK2010

marleyboy wrote: »

Ok so he might have thought "Maybe this guy is going to make Chicken in Wine", just one tiny flaw in this, he does not have a bottle of wine with him. Meaning whatever he thought is as irrelevant as thinking "maybe he bought this bottle of Coke to mix with Vodka when he gets home", either case he does NOT have any alcoholic beverages AT ALL in his basket, whatever the tiller "thought", meaning he does not have to produce evidence or ID to purchase them, whether or not he intends adding alcohol to them when he gets home. How this cannot sink into your head logically I find completely baffling.

No not that he's going to add wine to the sauce himself but he might have thought the sauce in it had not been boiled.

UK2010

Wildside wrote: »

Not to mention most (not all) brands of Mouthwash and quite a lot of products

I've already covered his rather spectacular twisting of my post! He just seemed to add stuff I hadn't written to try and make himself right. Seen that quite a few times in this thread now!

Storck

voiceofreason wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification, Storck; appreciate you taking the time to explain the difference and the reasoning here in a reasonable, mature way - very helpful.

:T

Thank you for that. It is drilled into your training for the NCPLH certificate that you need to get a personal licence about what ID is acceptable to give a defence of Due diligence. It is from there that the general idea that it is covered by the Licensing Act comes from. As I have previously quoted Scotland have since passed a law stating it to be law whereas England leave it to the councils to put the restriction on the license. Plus there is the example already quoted about something pass on Isle of Man.

I no longer have my NCPLH handbook so I can not quote directly from it but I'll keep looking. :beer:

Wildside

Sorry but getting back to the point of original poster, I really think they should go to the media with this, local paper would most likely take it up but even the nationals pick up on stories like this sometimes. It may not be a case of life & death but the media do report on lighter news as well.
Also think the boy not being able to buy a wine waiter for his dad. Did they think his dad would put wine in it & give the boy some wine....no it doesn’t matter what they think anyway.
Then there all the other examples of not being served because you have a child or even a granny with out ID with you.
I might want to by a few beers or a bottle of wine but I am not going to leave a small child alone out side the store while I buy it....I am also not going to give any of it to the child to drink.
Then more & more people are carrying ID so it becomes the norm, eventually you can not do anything with out ID..............A very sneaky way of bringing the ID card in :cool:

marleyboy

UK2010 wrote: »

No not that he's going to add wine to the sauce himself but he might have thought the sauce in it had not been boiled.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Maybe he shouldn't be working there

peachyprice

UK2010 wrote: »

No not that he's going to add wine to the sauce himself but he might have thought the sauce in it had not been boiled.

In which case all he, and his manager, had to do is turn the jar over and read the label and see that there was NO, ZERO, ZILCH, NIENTE, NADA, alcohol content, like any sensible person would.

adouglasmhor

UK2010 wrote: »

Come on, you know exactly what I meant! Which is infact completely true and can be found here http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030017_en_10#pt7-pb4



I think distorting what I was saying in the way you just did more qualifies you for that rather than me!

No it specifically mentions liquor chocolates and nowhere mentions "all products containing alcohol" did you even read it?

Like I said talking mince.
Bread is a product containing alcohol as this page from the Canadian Medial Association Journal shows. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1709087/?page=1

Unreliable mince talkers like you should try sticking to the facts really.

adouglasmhor

UK2010 wrote: »

The sale of all products containing alcohol will be restricted by all main retailers. The even includes as I've said chocolates. The staff won't want to get into trouble. This sort of thing is also checked by mystery shoppers. The staff are going to want to protect themselves and their jobs.

As I said judging age is a matter of perception. Your view of how old you look is unique to you, someone else might think something completely different.

You said it The sale of all products containing alcohol so what did you mean, let's all see you telling us that meant something different?