Drinking with a meal at age 16

Nessun_Dorma

Kathymel wrote: »

But this is what I am talking about. If they have no legitimate reason, it is plausible they may end up explaining themselves in court.

On what charge?

Nessun_Dorma

Kathymel wrote: »

Both age and colour are protected characteristics within the law so the comparison is perfectly valid. I used the example of colour because it is so obviously discrimination.

Additionally, regardless of one's personal feelings about a 16 yo drinking, the law is clear that this is permitted in certain circumstances. If those circumstances are fulfilled, there is no lawful reason not to serve one with alcohol.

Explain how a sixteen year old, as regards being served alcohol, is a protected characteristic?

Nessun_Dorma

unholyangel wrote: »

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.

In fact, they didn't refuse to sell the child anything at all, it would have been the "responsible"* adult who was being refused service.



* I use the term "responsible" advisedly, as I see nothing responsible about encouraging a sixteen year old to drink alcohol in a pub and argue with a manager about their refusal to do so; hardly sends out a "responsible" message, does it?

InsideInsurance

To take the topic off course a little.... looking at https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/check-the-facts/alcohol-and-the-law/the-law-on-alcohol-and-under-18s it states two things:

It is against the law:

For an adult to buy or attempt to buy alcohol on behalf of someone under 18. (retailers can reserve the right to refuse the sale of alcohol to an adult if they’re accompanied by a child and think the alcohol is being bought for the child.)

For someone under 18 to buy alcohol, attempt to buy alcohol or to be sold alcohol.

It is not illegal:

For someone over 18 to buy a child over 16 beer, wine or cider if they are eating a table meal together in licensed premises.

For a child aged five to 16 to drink alcohol at home or on other private premises.

Ok, so if it is illegal to sell alcohol if its going to be for a child (other than the over 16 with a meal etc) then how is the 5 year old supposed to get the booze? Presumably its not just talking about home brew

Nessun_Dorma

InsideInsurance wrote: »

To take the topic off course a little.... looking at https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/check-the-facts/alcohol-and-the-law/the-law-on-alcohol-and-under-18s it states two things:





Ok, so if it is illegal to sell alcohol if its going to be for a child (other than the over 16 with a meal etc) then how is the 5 year old supposed to get the booze? Presumably its not just talking about home brew

From what I understand, "on behalf," refers to an adult purchasing the alcohol that has been paid for by the minor.

ellay864

Whenerver I've been out for meals with my sons (23 and 20) they've always been asked if they're over 18 and for ID

lucy03

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

Why not? There are numerous examples of businesses in the UK who select their customers based on age.

Many nightclubs only allow people over 21 to enter, there are plenty of insurance companies who won't provide cover for people below a certain age even though those people might be of a legal age to drive and SAGA holidays won't allow anyone under 50 to make a booking.

Are all of the examples above illegal? and if so, why haven't the companies been prosecuted?

The law is open to interpretation. It is potentially a breach of the Equality Act not to let older people in a night-club. The Equality Act guidance from the Government says:

"Direct discrimination is where someone is unfairly treated in
comparison with another, for example where an older person is refused admission to a gym or a nightclub simply because of their age, where a younger person would be admitted."

However services tailored for a particular age group, such as a SAGA holiday, are allowed. It is also legal to use age as a risk factor so insurance companies can charge more for insurance.

Then we have:

"So it could be proportionate for a holiday chalet owner to only let to people aged over 25, if his property has previously been damaged by younger occupants. Younger holiday makers would still have other options for arranging accommodation. But it may not be proportionate for a hotel next to the chalet to bar such younger people from staying, just because many guests are pensioners, since this would be a blanket policy to the detriment of younger customers."

So I would firstly say that pub owner should refuse to give a refuse for denying service, they don't have to. If a court asked them the question they could perhaps reply "we have a policy of not serving under 18s because of previous issues with their behaviour" to meet the requirements of the legislation. I wouldn't personally say that there has been discrimination but it would be for a court to decide based on quite a lot of different factors.

lucy03

Kathymel wrote: »

Both age and colour are protected characteristics within the law so the comparison is perfectly valid. I used the example of colour because it is so obviously discrimination.

Additionally, regardless of one's personal feelings about a 16 yo drinking, the law is clear that this is permitted in certain circumstances. If those circumstances are fulfilled, there is no lawful reason not to serve one with alcohol.

The difference between race and age is that a defence can be made why a certain age group are receiving different treatment and there are literally tens of exemptions in the guidance notes and I'm sure people could think of hundreds more. I can't imagine though that there are many possible exemptions as to why a black male would be refused service when a white male wouldn't be.

halibut2209

lucy03 wrote: »

I can't imagine though that there are many possible exemptions as to why a black male would be refused service when a white male wouldn't be.

Why does it have to be a male? Why can't females be discriminated against? You are clearly being sexist here.

JReacher1

halibut2209 wrote: »

Why does it have to be a male? Why can't females be discriminated against? You are clearly being sexist here.

Stop trolling.

The poster didn't say it had to be male. They just used "male" in their example. Trying to make out that anyone who uses gender specific examples is sexist is frankly ridiculous.

You should be ashamed of yourself.