Co-OP and the tale of age verification

UK2010

The point being made in the post you quoted was around till prompts. A till may well give a prompt for alcohol because it may have been assumed to contain some alcohol regardless of whether the alcohol has boiled off or not. They are often just flagged by head office and yes sometimes may be incorrect.

Yes the till shouldn't have contained a prompt but it may well have done.

Zazen999 wrote: »

Do they - all of them? I've never seen anyone checked for cooking sauces before.

Zazen who I was originally quoting in the post you quote read it that way I have explained here (tll prompt issue) as well.

marleyboy wrote: »

Unfortunately, people are not so desperate they feel the need to "smudge" your post's, indeed, they don't need to

So why did you feel the need to make your post then? Given it is quite clear from Zaren's response the context of my post in that part of the thread.

marleyboy

UK2010 wrote: »

So why did you feel the need to make your post then? Given it is quite clear from Zaren's response the context of my post in that part of the thread.

Because of this;

Originally Posted by UK2010
And like I said you know exactly what I mean, alcohol that you consume!!!!!! Or have I got to point out the blinding obvious to you!

AND this;

Quote:
Originally Posted by UK2010
Doesn't make any difference. Products containing alcohol whether cooked or not will have prompts at the till to check ID.

The point is if you get checked for ID (even if infrequently) surely it's easier to know of the possibility rather than having to throw your toys out of your pram everytime you get asked for ID!

None of which I have felt the need to edit or alter, but to point out the blindingly obvious to you.

UK2010

marleyboy wrote: »

Because of this;


AND this;



None of which I have felt the need to edit or alter, but to point out the blindingly obvious to you.

If this is of the "alcohol" / "alcohol that you consume" issue where it seems saying "alcohol" wasn't good enough I needed to add "alcohol that you consume" can you tell me.... In the licensing act 2003 why doesn't it say alcohol (but excluding Stick Deodorants, Wet wipes, Spectacle cleaning pads & Bread) everytime the word alcohol is used?

Your second quote was about the possibility of till prompts and products that could cause flags rather than alcohol itself. I did explain that above, you see both posts are about different things!

One post was number 39 the other 254. I think thats quite far enough away from each other (215 posts infact seperating them) not to be then quoted as if they followed one from each other and were on exactly the same subject. I'm going to have to start explaining twice again aren't I!

marleyboy

I think it still boils down to (excuse the pun), A Chicken in White Wine Sauce contains NO alcohol whatsoever, so I cannot imagine such a product being included in the 2003 Licensing Act.

However I may be wrong, it might actually be in there, I don't feel the need to look at a licensing act to know what contains alcohol, its something I learned at school.

However FEEL FREE to post this licensing act or a link, that shows that such a product as Chicken in White Wine Sauce or Wine Gum's or even a Shandy is included within this act.

There is a stark difference between "alcohol you can consume" and "products containing alcohol" , of which both are YOUR own words. Chicken in White Wine Sauce (the butt of this very thread) falls into neither of these categories.

ID is therefore irrelevant to ANY product that does not contain alcohol (excluding tobacco), either consumable or productive.

ID is more relevant to things that can be abused like Alcohol or Tobacco, even Glue and aerosols can fall into that category or Petrol, neither of which contain alcohol.

First you say any products that contain alcohol, then you say excluding Wet Wipes, Spectacle Cleaners, Mouth Wash ALL of which contain alcohol, then you say you meant alcohol you consume, assume you mean Lager, Beer, Vodka or ultimately Wine. None of which (to quote your original post) - exist in a Chicken in White Wine Sauce - cooked or uncooked.

How you can be so confused is truly baffling,.

UK2010

marleyboy wrote: »

I think it still boils down to (excuse the pun), A Chicken in White Wine Sauce contains NO alcohol whatsoever, so I cannot imagine such a product being included in the 2003 Licensing Act.

Correct

However I may be wrong, it might actually be in there, I don't feel the need to look at a licensing act to know what contains alcohol, its something I learned at school.

Correct

However FEEL FREE to post this licensing act or a link, that shows that such a product as Chicken in White Wine Sauce or Wine Gum's or even a Shandy is included within this act.

No need surely seeing I never said it has. I've said it may get incorrectly prompted at the till which is why staff may ask.

There is a stark difference between "alcohol you can consume" and "products containing alcohol" , of which both are YOUR own words. Chicken in White Wine Sauce (the butt of this very thread) falls into neither of these categories.

Correct

ID is therefore irrelevant to ANY product that does not contain alcohol (excluding tobacco), either consumable or productive.

Correct

ID is more relevant to things that can be abused like Alcohol or Tobacco, even Glue and aerosols can fall into that category or Petrol, neither of which contain alcohol.

Correct

First you say any products that contain alcohol, then you say excluding Wet Wipes, Spectacle Cleaners, Mouth Wash ALL of which contain alcohol, then you say you meant alcohol you consume, assume you mean Lager, Beer, Vodka or ultimately Wine. None of which (to quote your original post) - exist in a Chicken in White Wine Sauce - cooked or uncooked.

You've lost me there as you've combined so many of my posts into one. If the point you're making there isn't alcohol in the sauce then yes that is correct.

How you can be so confused is truly baffling,.

No, I'm not confused!!!!

Storck

I think this argument is going round and round in circles.

I don't think anyone on here thinks Chicken in white wine sauce contains alcohol and should be IDed for, but if the till asked for it an inexperienced or worried operator may follow any thing that comes on screen.

There have been a couple of conversations going on this thread at the same time so it would be easy to get things confused between them all.

I will leave by saying three forms of ID are generally accept under rules set by trading standards across England and by law in Scotland, those been current passport, full driving license and an ID card with the PASS logo.

As for shandy not been included in the licensing act it depends on the brand and mix as some have alcohol in them over the limit to be classed as an alcohol beverage, above 0.5% ABV.

UK2010

Storck wrote: »

I don't think anyone on here thinks Chicken in white wine sauce contains alcohol and should be IDed for, but if the till asked for it an inexperienced or worried operator may follow any thing that comes on screen.

I will leave by saying three forms of ID are generally accept under rules set by trading standards across England and by law in Scotland, those been current passport, full driving license and an ID card with the PASS logo.

This is exactly what my point has been and also you've confirmed my posts about ID.

biscit

peachyprice wrote: »

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.

I think we try and normalise and excuse lack of knowledge these days.

I can see the reasoning that may have led the assistant to make the decision they did- however the fact it is an understandable error does not mean it is an excusable error that should not be apologised.

I find the apologists for this behaviour to be most rude.

Wildside

peachyprice wrote: »

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.

biscit wrote: »

I think we try and normalise and excuse lack of knowledge these days.

I can see the reasoning that may have led the assistant to make the decision they did- however the fact it is an understandable error does not mean it is an excusable error that should not be apologised.

I find the apologists for this behaviour to be most rude.

It could quite easily have been the word Wine in the name of the product that triggered the till to alert the member of staff regarding the ID check however if that was/is the case it must happen a lot (lot's of things in wine sauce, wine gums etc) and staff should be aware of & trained how to handle this.
What ever the reason for the ID trigger, staff should be trained how to deal with customers in difficult situations, be able to either over ride it or if they can not call a supervisor who can. If the store they work in does insist on an ID check for a food item they or their supervisor should be able to explain the reason for this.
If the store still refused to sell the product to me without ID or some one under 18 and could not give me a valid reason I would write to their head office & unless the product was their own brand I would send a copy of that letter to the head office for the brand as well (they would could be losing sales as a result).
Finally if no valid reason or apology from the head office of the store or they inform me that ID is still required for this product I speak to the local media and offer to supply them with copies of all the correspondence.

marleyboy

I think all it would take when such an item pings up ID is a little bit of common sense.