co-op ID rant

Isn't this in breach of the DPA?

Absolutely. A clear breach of Section 55.

Data Protection Act said:
55 Unlawful obtaining etc. of personal data

(1) A person must not knowingly or recklessly, without the consent of the data controller—

(a) obtain or disclose personal data or the information contained in personal data, or

(b) procure the disclosure to another person of the information contained in personal data.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who shows—

(a) that the obtaining, disclosing or procuring—

(i) was necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, or

(ii) was required or authorised by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court,

(b) that he acted in the reasonable belief that he had in law the right to obtain or disclose the data or information or, as the case may be, to procure the disclosure of the information to the other person,

(c) that he acted in the reasonable belief that he would have had the consent of the data controller if the data controller had known of the obtaining, disclosing or procuring and the circumstances of it, or

(d) that in the particular circumstances the obtaining, disclosing or procuring was justified as being in the public interest.

(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

(4) A person who sells personal data is guilty of an offence if he has obtained the data in contravention of subsection (1).

(5) A person who offers to sell personal data is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he has obtained the data in contravention of subsection (1), or

(b) he subsequently obtains the data in contravention of that subsection.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), an advertisement indicating that personal data are or may be for sale is an offer to sell the data.

(7) Section 1(2) does not apply for the purposes of this section; and for the purposes of subsections (4) to (6), “personal data” includes information extracted from personal data.

(8) References in this section to personal data do not include references to personal data which by virtue of section 28 are exempt from this section.
 
In Sainsburys you need to look 25+ in order to buy a screwdriver without I.D, that's right, a screwdriver. I have no idea how old you actually have to be to buy it though.

You need to look over 25 to buy anything 18 age restricted in a lot of places.
And a screwdriver could be used as a weapon, would you really feel comfortable selling a screwdriver to a young chav?
 
You need to look over 25 to buy anything 18 age restricted in a lot of places.
And a screwdriver could be used as a weapon, would you really feel comfortable selling a screwdriver to a young chav?

I hardly think a vodka and orange is a weapon.....
 
I have to say I'd be very interested to hear how many people who look 21-25 turn out to under 18. I bet it's not even a tenth of the number of the people who are refused because they are not carrying I.D.

I don't think the current government policy of being ridiculously strict with the sale of alcohol while diverting resources from front line policing is helpful. How many people think they're encountering less drunken 14 year old then they did 5 years ago? It'll be a very small number.

Minors will always manage to get there hand on drink either by getting others to buy it for them or by buying from people who make a trade from selling drink to minors. The current policy of sniping at the easy targets while ignoring the tricky ones is typical of the lazy attitude that has developed in our target drive authorities.

As for recording details, I'd be very concerned. Retail has a high staff turn over which gives a high risk of rotten apples. You have to consider that you might also be handing over your credit/debit card to the person taking your address. Keeping details in a book behind a shop counter can not be considered secure.

Next the I.D. issues. There's no law saying you must carry or even own photo I.D. Many places will only accept a driving license or passport. Some people are prohibited from owning a driving license, so they would have to buy a passport. Passports now cost over £70 and you have to travel to a passport office to be interviewed. That's a bit of pain if you're 21, unemployed and can't drive.

I don't think these measures help the problem they're targeting and inconvenience people who aren't breaking the rules.

If you want to sort this problem out, get more bobbies on the beat, restrict sales of low cost alcohol, stop the big pub companies ruining small pubs, deal with the small minority or parents who will take no responsibility for their offspring. Make sure that communities are able to provide activities for children without having to jump through hoops and amuse everything within 50 yards is either a paedophile or a health and safety risk.

Oh and except that people under 18 drinking in the right context is helpful. If you're first experience of drink is a bottle of white lightening in a bus stop and you celebrate by ****ing in a doorway you're having a negative effect on society. If you with your dad in a quiet pub and you treat it as a privilege which you know could be withdrawn at any minute if you don't behave like a grown up I can't see how you're having a negative effect on society.
 
Last edited:
this thread is quite interesting (not read it all :p ) but my mrs (who's 28) is now boycotting the co-op near us because they constantly ID her, she doesn't look young! it has recently just started happening (last couple of months) for both fags and beer.
 
this thread is quite interesting (not read it all :p ) but my mrs (who's 28) is now boycotting the co-op near us because they constantly ID her, she doesn't look young! it has recently just started happening (last couple of months) for both fags and beer.

Its "Challenge 25" anyone who LOOKS under 25 has to be ID'd, if they don't, they can and will be fined and sacked from there job.

They cant just ID you once and that's it, its every single time, because Mr Average jobsworth who doesn't visit the shop or area often, could see you serve someone who you know is over 18 but doesn't look it and report you to the police.

Just have a little respect, they are not doing it out of choice, they have to do it.
 
because Mr Average jobsworth who doesn't visit the shop or area often, could see you serve someone who you know is over 18 but doesn't look it and report you to the police.

Mr Average can report you to police all he wants, you aren't breaking the law by not ID'ing someone, so nothing would happen.
 
Its "Challenge 25" anyone who LOOKS under 25 has to be ID'd, if they don't, they can and will be fined and sacked from there job.
They cant just ID you once and that's it, its every single time, because Mr Average jobsworth who doesn't visit the shop or area often, could see you serve someone who you know is over 18 but doesn't look it and report you to the police.
Just have a little respect, they are not doing it out of choice, they have to do it.

No they don't have to do it ... I have a £10 note here for whoever points me to the LAW that states a shop has to ID people who look under 25.
Hell, I'll even give a £20 note.

The law does not state you have to ID people under 25, it states you must not sell to under 18s.
 
plastic spoons
prit stick
alcohol free beer.

all things that by government definition we had to ID for, you know it sucks, we know it sucks, but tbh i dont want to lose my job over it, so we have to ID.
And last month (or may?) the scheme changed from 'think 21' to 'think 25' and as 25 is a pretty hard age to estimate, a lot more people get ID'd, so i see nothing to be gained by boycotting the store or kicking off about it.
and on the topic of buying for someone else, law states that if the cashier/supervisor suspects the alcohol is being bought on behalf of someone who's under age (which you are considered to be if you cant provide suitable ID) then its against the law, and you can be fined. (which in 90% of cases would cause the cashier to lose their job)
 
plastic spoons
prit stick
alcohol free beer.

all things that by government definition we had to ID for, you know it sucks, we know it sucks, but tbh i dont want to lose my job over it, so we have to ID.
And last month (or may?) the scheme changed from 'think 21' to 'think 25' and as 25 is a pretty hard age to estimate, a lot more people get ID'd, so i see nothing to be gained by boycotting the store or kicking off about it.

See point above .. it is not the law that you have to "think 25", it is the store following the government suggested policy
Which means the store is under no legal obligation to do that and is doing so out of their own free will.
 
Mr Average can report you to police all he wants, you aren't breaking the law by not ID'ing someone, so nothing would happen.

No, there not reporting you for not ID'ing, there reporting you for the potential under age sale.

Sorry i wasn't clear.

No they don't have to do it ... I have a £10 note here for whoever points me to the LAW that states a shop has to ID people who look under 25.
Hell, I'll even give a £20 note.

The law does not state you have to ID people under 25, it states you must not sell to under 18s.

See above
 
And if the person is over 18 you have nothing to worry about ...

No you don't, but you get a disciplinary from your boss for not following policy, you get a caution from the police and if the under age item ends up in the hands of someone younger then the legal age, you can be fined and have your stores license revoked in regards to beer/wine and you have to reapply to the head council (i.e. Nottinghamshire) and then its twice as hard.

It happened at my store when i worked for them.
 
Back
Top Bottom