Opinions - Man, 72, refused alcohol over age

[Abrad]

bbc.co.uk



Supermarket staff refused to sell alcohol to a white-haired 72-year-old man - because he would not confirm he was over 21.

Check-out staff at Morrisons in West Kirby, Wirral, demanded Tony Ralls prove he was old enough to buy his two bottles of Cabernet Sauvignon.

Mr Ralls asked to see the manager who put the wine back on the shelf.

The grandfather-of-three said he had refused to confirm he was over 21 as it was a "stupid question."

Mr Ralls, a retired insurance firm regional manager, said he expected the store manager to resolve the situation but he was disappointed.

"I felt like saying 'What do I look like? Are you a fool?'

"He picks up the wine and, in the manner of a child taking home his ball, says 'Well, we won't serve you'."

The pensioner abandoned his shopping on the conveyor belt and left the store - but not before demanding a complaints form and phone number for Morrisons' headquarters.

Mr Ralls said: "It is bureaucracy gone mad. If the check-out lady, who was about 40, had asked me with a twinkle in her eye perhaps I would not have been so tetchy.

"But she asked me the question with a perfectly straight face and I said I wouldn't dignify the question with an answer.

"And if the manager had explained that all the staff had to ask everyone because they had previously been fined, but said I was clearly over 21, it would have been fine - but he showed no sense of humour."

Mr Ralls added that he felt embarrassed to return to the supermarket and wanted an apology for "the stupid and unnecessary confrontation."

He added: "I applaud any efforts to stop kids being served and standing on street corners getting drunk. But this was just totally stupid."

A Morrisons spokesman said: "We take our responsibility with regard to selling alcohol very seriously and all our stores operate the Task 21 scheme, which addresses the difficulties our staff face in being able to determine if a customer is legally old enough to buy alcohol.

"To further limit any element of doubt staff at the West Kirby store are required to ask anyone buying alcohol to confirm that they are over 21."

[Nacumen]

When SWIM was still under the age of 21, he had already bought hundreds of dollars worth of alcohol a couple times from the supermarket, but had never been asked for ID.

Some businesses just have far stricter policies than others. To the management at Morrisons' defense, one could spend a heck of a lot of time (and would need a heck of a lot of good help and materials) to make oneself uncannily represent a very old man (ever seen Jackass 2?), so I believe that from a safety perspective, their defensive persistence is warranted. However obvious it may be that this man is over the legal age to purchase alcohol, they are erring on the side of caution, which is something that I personally have learned to respect and can understand.

Reputation Comments on this post:

yep m2

[hoodabudda]

if i was the manager i would have fired the dumass for bringing my name into a conversation that moronic.

[Swimster]

this cracks swim up. i mean, what is the advantage of finally being definately old, when one is being carded!

older people deserve a break.

...but then again, it is responsible to check for ID for alchohol.

[radiometer]

What a jerk. Was his Viagra script short that month? Bitch about the rules all you want, but no need to humiliate a sales clerk trying to do their job, that's just plain rude. There is no law against failing to have a certain twinkle in one's eye so as to convey irony, as far as I am aware. I'm very pleased to hear that the manager backed up his employee rather than cowtow to a bully.

I've seen this happen in a sports stadium to some old ladies many years ago. The were absolutely THRILLED at being carded.

In short, whatever.

[jonny68]

Originally Posted by radiometer

What a jerk. Was his Viagra script short that month? Bitch about the rules all you want, but no need to humiliate a sales clerk trying to do their job, that's just plain rude. There is no law against failing to have a certain twinkle in one's eye so as to convey irony, as far as I am aware. I'm very pleased to hear that the manager backed up his employee rather than cowtow to a bully.

I've seen this happen in a sports stadium to some old ladies many years ago. The were absolutely THRILLED at being carded.

In short, whatever.

are you for real the man is 71 years of age FFS for that shop assistant to embarrass him by asking him his age she should've been sacked on the spot, id boycott a shop like that,absolute madness of the highest order.

Reputation Comments on this post:

easy with the attitude

[jonny68]

correction 72 years of age (like it matters)

[FuBai]

It depends where you go to buy your alcohol. I know people who have been served in pubs and bars scince they were 16 and have never had to bother getting a fake ID, even though they are readily available for anyone with a passport photo and a fiver. I'm well over 18 but I have noticed that recently I have been getting IDed more and more, especialy in Morrisons and Co-op stores, whilst Spar, Sainsbury's, Asda and the majority of bars/pubs don't bother at all.

[Joe Duffy]

It’s hard to tell with those dark glasses what age he might be.

[dirk]

I'm suprised the more "conspiracy minded" members here havent spotted this creeping phenomenon.

People being asked for information when it's blatantly obvious that there is no real reason why the info is required....hmmmm

Interesting to note that the two posters above who have some sympathy for the shop/staff are from USA, perhaps they are a little more ready to accept a faceless system telling them what to do than some of the old codgers here in the UK.

Reputation Comments on this post:

we here understand about compliance to rules

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by dirk

I'm suprised the more "conspiracy minded" members here havent spotted this creeping phenomenon.

People being asked for information when it's blatantly obvious that there is no real reason why the info is required....hmmmm

Interesting to note that the two posters above who have some sympathy for the shop/staff are from USA, perhaps they are a little more ready to accept a faceless system telling them what to do than some of the old codgers here in the UK.

I have to say that it would be very difficult to construct a credible conspiracy theory on this issue - seeing as ID is just glanced at briefly by the check out person who tend to be bored, undertrained and payed and just want to avoid being fined 80 pounds and risk being fired. There is nothing that they could really be trying to do, especialy scince all ID cards are issued by the government and the information on them is already readily known to those who would be involved in such a conspiracy.

What's happened is Britain is becoming an increasingly sterile culture. Risk is thought of as something that should be eradicated rather than acknowledged as making life interesting - saftey laws always put one individual as more important that the rest of society, and people feel a growing sense of frustration in that they have to repress thier desires almost constantly. We now have 7 mile stretches of road with over 200 signs on them, we have speed limits of 50 on wide and open country roads, speed cameras get more and more each day, automaticaly sending you a ticket without ever passing through human hands. At least in America the cop gives you the ticket himself, and cameras don't stare down at the road providing a constant feed for unseen watchers. Risks get cut away every day untill more and more society becomes bland - why do you think underage kids smoke weed and drink in public, why do you think they invented a new sport of 'car surfing', why they actualy bring tools to unearth bins that have been concereted in - it's because they are bored out of their tiny minds because all everyone ever does is try and protect them rather than let them experience real life. I'm not defending thier actions but they are just bored and they don't feel a sense of responsibility because no one has ever given them something to be responsible for. If anything it is the British who are stripping away responsibility and risk at the cost of interest. I would happily take on a riskier world knowing that there was more chance of me being hurt or killed if it meant that humans were allowed to be human again.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good point(s)

[radiometer]

Originally Posted by dirk

I'm suprised the more "conspiracy minded" members here havent spotted this creeping phenomenon.

People being asked for information when it's blatantly obvious that there is no real reason why the info is required....hmmmm

Creeping? Gimme a break, the incident I retold happened in the early 1980s. OK, so you're saying that the shadow government is using checkout ladies at the grocery store to prepare us for the upcoming fascist revolution?

You want consipiracy to destroy privacy? Try this story on for size:

http://www.oxfordmail.net/search/dis...cks_public.php

The public were very supportive. Many people were saying they wanted to be tested.

Now THATS what I'd call "a little more ready to accept a faceless system telling them what to do."

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by radiometer

Creeping? Gimme a break, the incident I retold happened in the early 1980s. OK, so you're saying that the shadow government is using checkout ladies at the grocery store to prepare us for the upcoming fascist revolution?

You want consipiracy to destroy privacy? Try this story on for size:

http://www.oxfordmail.net/search/dis...cks_public.php



Now THATS what I'd call "a little more ready to accept a faceless system telling them what to do."

Good god! That's an abberation. But that's the problem with so many of these prohibitonist practices they make it seem like a bit of a joke, something fun to do at the pub and all for a good cause. The article said that the two people with traces on them were 'not arrested' - of course they wern't, there was no cause to arrest them, they wern't in possesion of any drugs! Yet the newspaper makes it seem like they were let off and only punished with barring - I'm sure that hit them where it hurts, seeing as there is undobtedly a multitude of other places they can imbibe the liquor without being violated.

[Nacumen]

Originally Posted by dirk

I'm suprised the more "conspiracy minded" members here havent spotted this creeping phenomenon.

People being asked for information when it's blatantly obvious that there is no real reason why the info is required....hmmmm

Interesting to note that the two posters above who have some sympathy for the shop/staff are from USA, perhaps they are a little more ready to accept a faceless system telling them what to do than some of the old codgers here in the UK.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean. ID laws are practically uniform throughout the West. If you can't produce ID when buying alcohol, there is no legal defense for the vendor if it turns out that you are actually under 21 (or 18 damn near everywhere else). Supplying minors with alcohol is a crime. The supermarket has this policy to protect its own ass. It is its business to sell its products. It is also its business not to be sued or brought to court, because that's bad business. Consequently, it doesn't demand ID solely because it wants to keep alcohol off the streets from kids; if there were no legal ramifications I guarantee that they would not deny this old man alcohol.

There's no conspiracy here. If there is, it's becoming worldwide anyway (see: illegality of supplying minors with alcohol), and it has long included the United Kingdom.

[Matt The Funk]

Lol...HOW THE FUCK does that guy not look way past 21? Most places card if you look under 35, and even then sometimes they won't card.

[radiometer]

^ Thank you, voice of reason.

[Nagognog2]

Bongo walked into a small store that had just opened a couple months back. He bought some sundry good and plunked down a 6-pack of good beer. He was visiting old friends and such was only a friendly gesture.

The proprietor of the store demanded ID from Bongo. Lordy! Bongo has grey in his fur. So Bongo inquired why he would be asked. The proprietor explained that the police were all over him. Why? The BIG STORE up the street wanted to shut him down. Bongo showed his passport (and had to talk the proprietor through how to read said Federal document) and set out.

He arranged for as many people as possible to shop for simple things at the proprietor's shop. Better to support the little guy under the gun - than at the firmly established oligarchy's place of maintaning control of half a town.

Bongo was not offended.

[zera]

The whole check ID to enter bars system always reminded swim of Soviet internal checkpoints. Your papers, comrade?

[beentheredonethatagain]

Wal-mart require that id be shown and b-day entered into the register upon any alcohol purchase. At first it was annoying, but oh well. Nothing to get your panties bunched up about.

[radiometer]

Originally Posted by zera

The whole check ID to enter bars system always reminded swim of Soviet internal checkpoints. Your papers, comrade?

What alternative do you propose? The honors' system? RFID tags?

[zera]

Originally Posted by radiometer

What alternative do you propose? The honors' system? RFID tags?

I think the whole idea of limiting minors ability to purchase alcohol is stupid in the first place. I have friends who grew up in countries where it was easy and common for them to purchase alcohol underage, yet they all seem fine. Besides if anyone should be limited from purchasing alcohol it should be middle aged people, not teenages, they are far more irresponsible.

• 18,249 deaths from overdoses of illicit drugs in 2004, up 550 percent per capita since 1975, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics.
• 46,925 fatal accidents and suicides in 2004, leaving today's middle-agers 30 percent more at risk for such deaths than people aged 15 to 19, according to the national center.
• More than four million arrests in 2005, including one million for violent crimes, 500,000 for drugs and 650,000 for drinking-related offenses, according to the F.B.I. All told, this represented a 200 percent leap per capita in major index felonies since 1975.
• 630,000 middle-agers in prison in 2005, up 600 percent since 1977, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• 21 million binge drinkers (those downing five or more drinks on one occasion in the previous month), double the number among teenagers and college students combined, according to the government's National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health.
• 370,000 people treated in hospital emergency rooms for abusing illegal drugs in 2005, with overdose rates for heroin, cocaine, pharmaceuticals and drugs mixed with alcohol far higher than among teenagers.
• More than half of all new H.I.V./AIDS diagnoses in 2005 were given to middle-aged Americans, up from less than one-third a decade ago, according to the Centers for Disease Control.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/op...in&oref=slogin

What little benefits the current ID system gives (which is very little in my opinion) its not worth the intrusion into our liberties that we are forced to carry an internal passport. If the Founding Fathers would have seen the situation where everyone has government identification papers they would revolt on that alone.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by zera

I think the whole idea of limiting minors ability to purchase alcohol is stupid in the first place. I have friends who grew up in countries where it was easy and common for them to purchase alcohol underage, yet they all seem fine. Besides if anyone should be limited from purchasing alcohol it should be middle aged people, not teenages, they are far more irresponsible.

• 18,249 deaths from overdoses of illicit drugs in 2004, up 550 percent per capita since 1975, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics.
• 46,925 fatal accidents and suicides in 2004, leaving today's middle-agers 30 percent more at risk for such deaths than people aged 15 to 19, according to the national center.
• More than four million arrests in 2005, including one million for violent crimes, 500,000 for drugs and 650,000 for drinking-related offenses, according to the F.B.I. All told, this represented a 200 percent leap per capita in major index felonies since 1975.
• 630,000 middle-agers in prison in 2005, up 600 percent since 1977, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• 21 million binge drinkers (those downing five or more drinks on one occasion in the previous month), double the number among teenagers and college students combined, according to the government's National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health.
• 370,000 people treated in hospital emergency rooms for abusing illegal drugs in 2005, with overdose rates for heroin, cocaine, pharmaceuticals and drugs mixed with alcohol far higher than among teenagers.
• More than half of all new H.I.V./AIDS diagnoses in 2005 were given to middle-aged Americans, up from less than one-third a decade ago, according to the Centers for Disease Control.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/op...in&oref=slogin

What little benefits the current ID system gives (which is very little in my opinion) its not worth the intrusion into our liberties that we are forced to carry an internal passport. If the Founding Fathers would have seen the situation where everyone has government identification papers they would revolt on that alone.

Hate to say this bub, but you're pulling a "government" on us - using statistics to demonstrate that which they do not. Firstly lets look at America's demographic break down (found here):

As you can see the demographic weighting is heavily tipped towards the 'middle aged' - not sure exactly how you described that, but let's call it 30+ 60-. That accounts for a grand total of 41.2% of the population. Now let's look at teenagers - college age (basically 15+24-) which makes up 13.4% of the population.

Now, in the light of this information lets look at one of your stats:

Originally Posted by zera

21 million binge drinkers (those downing five or more drinks on one occasion in the previous month), double the number among teenagers and college students combined, according to the government's National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health.

So there are only twice as many binge drinkers? If binge drink rates were the same from childhood to adulthood then we'd expect more than only twice as many. This means for students there are 10.5 million binge drinkers - working out at 27% of students being binge drinkers (10500000/39183891*100 to nearest whole number). Now lets see how adults fare as binge drinkers - 20% of them do (21000000/116806104*100 to nearest whole number). So, according to your own statistics college students and teenagers are far worse at binge drinking than the adults.

Now I'm sure you'll see how this applies to any stat where you are looking at absolute figures rather than relative to population size - by that logic America would be a country of disease and death compared to Luxembourg because more people die there...

Lets also talk about the different world that the adult inhabits. The adult may have been one of that 27% who got himself regularly slammed in college and, by now, his liver is starting to feel the burn, even though he doesn't drink anymore. Chronic alcohol poisoning is more likley to occur in adults because adults have had longer for the damage to start setting in.

Now lets go to that finer and grander place, the UK. Lets look at drug use statistics by age demographic... (found here)

Originally Posted by The Home Office

The 2005/06 BCS estimates that 34.9% of 16 to 59 year olds have used one or more illicit drugs in their lifetime, 10.5% used one or more illicit drug in the last year and 6.3% in the last month.

Ok, so 34% have used an illicit drug at least once

Originally Posted by The Home Office

The 2005/06 BCS estimates that 45.1% of 16 to 24 year olds have used one or more illicit drugs in their lifetime, 25.2% have used one or more illicit drugs in the last year and 15.1% in the last month.

So, even though the adult grouping had the major distortion factor of having the 16-24 demographic INCLUDED it STILL got lower on the illegal drug use score. And when we look at simple drug use amongst 16-24 year olds we see a very high trend (45.1% - seriously why do they still think chaos will happen if it's legal - 50% of young people already do it!) which shows you just how big the distortion must have been in the adult statistics.

It is perhaps time to draw this relativley tangental statistics fest to a close, just remeber - Just Say No! To Statistics Abuse.

[Swimster]

why shouldn't one have their ID anyway!

and if you do, but are wondering why, it's the law! I think it is a matter of -"Oh i got IDed!"

well, there are plenty of things that people dont complain about similar; Such as, going to a bar to drink, i mean, who complains about getting IDed at a bar? NO one. It is simply the law!

So, use the bar anology to understand WHY anyone selling alcohol should enforce the law.

[Joe Duffy]

I never carry ID.

[Swimster]

^^It comes in handy all of the time.

...especially if one gets pulled over while driving, then they might get there car towed away.
but who knows.