Drinking with a meal at age 16

unholyangel

Kathymel wrote: »

Regardless of whether it would be a petty complaint or not, I am interested in the legal position.

If a publican were to say to a customer, 'The law says black people may drink in my bar, but I disagree, so I'm not going to serve you.', the case would be cut and dried.

How might this be different? The cafe owner stated that, regardless of his rights within the law, she didn't want to serve him. That smacks of discrimination to me.

He has no right to buy alcohol and indeed it would still be against the law to allow him to buy it. It simply is not illegal for an accompanying adult to buy wine, beer or cider for a 16 or 17 year old.

Like the "challenge 25" thing, not all discriminatory actions amount to discrimination - especially in relation to an age-restricted product.

Kathymel

unholyangel wrote: »

He has no right to buy alcohol and indeed it would still be against the law to allow him to buy it. It simply is not illegal for an accompanying adult to buy wine, beer or cider for a 16 or 17 year old.

Like the "challenge 25" thing, not all discriminatory actions amount to discrimination - especially in relation to an age-restricted product.

It is legal for a child of 16 or 17 to consume alcohol with a sit down meal if accompanied by an adult. This is stated in the Licensing Act 2003.

cardinalbiggles

Kathymel wrote: »

It is legal for a child of 16 or 17 to consume alcohol with a sit down meal if accompanied by an adult. This is stated in the Licensing Act 2003.

Not any alcohol however, doesn't include spirits.

unholyangel

Kathymel wrote: »

It is legal for a child of 16 or 17 to consume alcohol with a sit down meal if accompanied by an adult. This is stated in the Licensing Act 2003.

But it is still illegal for them to buy it/to sell it to them.

Something not being illegal doesn't mean you have a right to do it.

It could be they have a blanket ban on under 18's being sold as they've had trouble in the past - this would be a justified reason. Tbh when it comes to minors and alcohol, you don't need much reason. The courts are not going to look unfavourably on a licensed premises trying to trade responsibly.

They didnt refuse to serve him altogether - they only refused to serve him an age-restricted product.

Kathymel

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

Not any alcohol however, doesn't include spirits.

Quite right. Just beer, cider and wine.

Kathymel

unholyangel wrote: »

But it is still illegal for them to buy it/to sell it to them.

He wasn't buying it, we were = not illegal.

ThumbRemote

If there is no question of legality, it does appear to be a case of discrimination based purely on age.

unholyangel

Kathymel wrote: »

He wasn't buying it, we were = not illegal.

So did you ask for it? Or did he? Your previous posts you just said they refused to serve your son cider - which could have been either way. Did he have suitable ID on him also?

However I did allow for the possibility you asked for it on his behalf - which is why I went on to say that not all discriminatory actions amount to discrimination and then (in 2nd post) explained about justified discrimination.

If they'd refused to serve him cola because of his age, that would be discrimination because it is not an age restricted product, but alcohol is. Pubs and bars are usually heavily regulated. They need to actively show they've been complying with the law and trading responsibly. As I said, a court is not going to look unfavourably on them when it comes to minors and alcohol.

Kathymel

unholyangel wrote: »

So did you ask for it? Or did he? Your previous posts you just said they refused to serve your son cider - which could have been either way. Did he have suitable ID on him also?

However I did allow for the possibility you asked for it on his behalf - which is why I went on to say that not all discriminatory actions amount to discrimination and then (in 2nd post) explained about justified discrimination.

If they'd refused to serve him cola because of his age, that would be discrimination because it is not an age restricted product, but alcohol is. Pubs and bars are usually heavily regulated. They need to actively show they've been complying with the law and trading responsibly. As I said, a court is not going to look unfavourably on them when it comes to minors and alcohol.

Actually, I said they had served my son, not that they had refused. I also said he had ID.

Anyway, you are missing the point that, in these circumstances, a 16 yo child is within the age restrictions. Therefore, any refusal to serve comes down to personal opinion. You can't justify discrimination based on personal opinion.

arcon5

I was once told by a pub manager (she was my OHs boss at the time) that their license has special conditions attached, it restricts the sale of alcohol to ANYBODY under the age of 18. So although the law may permit it, the local authority have restricted it further by placing extra conditions.

How true it is I don't know.

But I don't think you would get far with a discrimination case in this instance.