Co-OP and the tale of age verification

suited-aces

Zazen999 wrote: »

Is it?

Which law is this then?

It is also an offence for another to try and buy, or have alcohol supplied to him, on behalf of a child. This is so whether it is for consumption off the premises (eg. shop
or supermarket), or whether it is for consumption on the premises.

http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/law.pdf

I'm not suggesting that the poster who couldn't get her son to carry the bag was trying to "supply him", but just that it falls under that law. I don't like it either tbh, but it's what we gotta do.

CWCDiver

puppet1984 wrote: »

"I have a credit card": Wow does it included your picture and date of birth.

Yes mine does.

suited-aces

Sounds like a useful credit card, link?

CWCDiver

It's a Bank of America Platinum Plus I have no link though.

sarahg1969

suited-aces wrote: »

http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/law.pdf

I'm not suggesting that the poster who couldn't get her son to carry the bag was trying to "supply him", but just that it falls under that law. I don't like it either tbh, but it's what we gotta do.

You are talking utter balls (I'm pretty sure you cannot provide any evidence that carrying shopping falls under any alcohol-related legislation), but in any event, the poster who said that they were told their son could not carry the shopping had already paid. It was none of the SA's business what she did with that bag of shopping once she had made the decision to sell it to her and the sale was concluded. It is not what you "gotta do".

You have no idea what you are talking about - you are just saying what you think you have been told by your employers.

sarahg1969

Zazen999 wrote: »

Do any of you employees ever ask the question 'which law exactly'?

You've read the posts by them - you think they'd have the gumption?

Zazen999

suited-aces wrote: »

http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/law.pdf

I'm not suggesting that the poster who couldn't get her son to carry the bag was trying to "supply him", but just that it falls under that law. I don't like it either tbh, but it's what we gotta do.

It's NOT what you've got to do.

What makes a supermarket assistant more qualified to parent a child than their actual parent?

sarahg1969

Zazen999 wrote: »

It's NOT what you've got to do.

What makes a supermarket assistant more qualified to parent a child than their actual parent?

It's the law, don't you know. The law that says that a sales assistant may not sell alcohol to someone they suspect will give it to a child also covers a parent, post-purchase, handing the bag of shopping to the child to carry to the car. It's the law. Suited-aces says so.

puppet1984

oldone wrote: »

I would rather be inconvenienced and go elsewhere than encourage the slow drift towards national I.D. cards.
At first they will be voluntary, then compulsory, and then a criminal offence to not carry them at all times.
Come back to this thread in ten years time and prove me wrong.
Ten years ago it was unthinkable that we would have more surveilance cameras than the whole of Europe put together. Now government is starting on I.D cards.

lets remove id. lets get rid of all the cctv that have solved so many crimes and prevent many more.
The world unfortunately is not full of honest law abiding people who believe in peace.
I wish i could say to someone " excuse me are you over 18?" and that would suffice.
This may be a weird thought but people can lie.
You walk down a street you will probably be on camera somewhere oh no oh my god what an outrage.
lets go back hundreds of years and it was unthinkable the world was round.
Times change,

so if your law abiding and have nothing to hide why would you be afraid of ID cards?

puppet1984

do any of you people posting on this thread know how heavy handed local councils are in test purchasing etc. Any place that has a premises licence is going to take steps to protect themselves even if it upsets a few people who don't carry a form of ID.