I wondered that, but the section I posted a page or so ago doesn't say that. It's fairly gnarly to read, but it is legislation after all...
Sainsbury's wouldn't sell me a beer...
- Thread starter sammo62
- Start date
I wondered that, but the section I posted a page or so ago doesn't say that. It's fairly gnarly to read, but it is legislation after all...
I read the following
as
If he allows someone else to deliver the alcohol he just sold to a minor that is on the premises of the shop
because that is the only way you can read it really
If you read it as
If he allows someone to deliver the alcohol sold by the shop to a minor, period
then there is no way to enforce that, as parents are legally allowed to give kids some alcohol at home ... yet this conflicts with the shop having to prevent a minor ever getting their hands on this alcohol, period.
Just a small point, C21 isn't a law - it's a due dilligence check. And the licensing objective you are referring to is 'the protection of children from harn'.
It was 3 years ago that I took my PLH exam, I don't remember it word for word ok
Pathetic response, managers constantly check that those serving on the tills are checking for I.D. You may even have noticed the LARGE signs around the stores that inform customers about the policy of anyone that may look 21 or younger. Infact I have seen some stores that are now operating a policy that if you look 25 or younger, expect to asked for I.D.
Checkout staff are also reminded constantly that they face a fine and a criminal charge for selling alcohol to those under age, they also face losing their job. So get a grip and bring some I.D.
How about stores stop going beyond what the law requires them to do instead...
No, it's "sold on relevant premises". If it was what what you were saying it would make it clear that both the sale and the delivery must take place on the relevant premises, but it doesn't.
In which case surely the shop has committed a crime if they sold alcohol to a parent who then goes home and gives it to their kid,w hich is why the "sold on relevant premises" cannot possibly work.
I agree the store policy is OTT, how is that the fault of the poor guy or girl working on the tills?
Well, that's how it's written, so that's what it says. If the "on relevant premises" thing meant the transfer has to occur on the premises, then the "sold" would need a comma after it and the clause would be left hanging at "alcohol sold" which would be an incredibly clunky way of writing legislation, even allowing for the usual ineptitude one expects of the draftsmen.
As I've said previously, it does present a contradiction with the law that you can give a 5+ year old alcohol at home.
Although it is possible that one law supersedes another.
Liqueur chocolates are specifically mentioned in the law, which does admittedly seem a bit excessive. The chocolate would make you sick before the alcohol!
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,303
- Location
- Sheffield
Got ID'd buying a red bull in poundland in Bolton once; apparently you had to be 16 to buy it (was 27 at the time btw)
ID'd buying rizla once - which sort of makes sense, as it is smoking paraphernalia - but it is nothing more than paper really.
I used to work in Currys a few years ago, and the till would prompt you to ask for the customer's age if the product had an age restriction.
My favourite was when it popped up and asked if the customer was aged 3 years or older - can you imagine a 2 year old buying a game? Need to see some ID please!
(was 27 at the time btw)ID'd buying rizla once - which sort of makes sense, as it is smoking paraphernalia - but it is nothing more than paper really.
I used to work in Currys a few years ago, and the till would prompt you to ask for the customer's age if the product had an age restriction.
My favourite was when it popped up and asked if the customer was aged 3 years or older - can you imagine a 2 year old buying a game? Need to see some ID please!
Last edited:
Just remember though on most checkouts as soon as they scan a age restricted item they get prompt asking them to check your age to which they have to say yes so there is no excuse for them. Obviously, things like alcohol and cigarettes and knives etc but, if you wonder why they ask for items that you wouldn't really consider age limited then its because the till is asking them to check
They don't deserve anything. What is moaning at them going to actually achieve? They're not going to feed it back to their managers or to head office, they're going to moan about you and call you names to their colleagues 5 seconds after you've gone, and then you'll be forgotten about until the next idiot with an attitude problem appears.
The entire reason for these policies is to ensure compliance with the law in the first place! Age is difficult to judge, so they've made it 21 (or now 25) to ensure that anyone who is under 18 is asked for ID.
As I've said before, a lot of company policies are far tougher than the laws in the first place, especially around aspects of food safety and hygiene. I'm fairly sure you'd rather they didn't stop going beyond the law in that regard.
NO ITS NOT
http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/8435407.Proxy_sales_of_alcohol_on_the_up/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7329930.stm
The offence is committed by the individual who buys for a minor.
The shoo commits no offence by selling to person over the age of 18, regardless of what they do with it
In that link above, by their own admission there is nothing the police can do about it, other than go undercover and catch the person handing over the alcohol to the kids.
*edit* have another one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-566340/Tesco-bans-parents-buying-alcohol-OWN-children.html
that much we know, shops selling to minors are committing an offence
There is no legal reason for them to refuse sale just because a minor is present, the article confirms it with a statement from tesco themselves
ITS COMPANY POLICY. NOT LAW !
And before we start with the "its daily mail telling lies" bit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1955793/Tesco-ban-on-alcohol-sales-to-parents.html
Same story in the telegraph.
Last edited:
extreme cheddar 'for adults only' was the best ID situation i seen
Neither of your links contradicts what I have said, but I can find pages backing up what I've said, not least the actual legislation.
The proxy buyer commits an offence by buying the alcohol. The shop commits an offence if they know the buyer is proxy buying, but not otherwise. That's the sketchy bit of it, because of course whether the shop can be said to know is difficult to judge.
The proxy buyer commits an offence by buying the alcohol. The shop commits an offence if they know the buyer is proxy buying, but not otherwise. That's the sketchy bit of it, because of course whether the shop can be said to know is difficult to judge.
no they dont !!
how many articles do i have to post before you conceed ?
The article above even has a statement from tesco saying they introduced it as company policy ffs !
