- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1527 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 16185
The daughter's offended someone thought she looked younger than she was?
|>>|| No. 16187
>Coupled with the fact that my daughter looks at least 20 years old they should have used some common sense.
He's admitting she's unusually young-looking?
|>>|| No. 16189
Not really. It'd be a daft father to say "yeah, she's 26 but doesn't look a day under 32". And she does seem sensitive.
|>>|| No. 16190
From the training I received at the supermarkets I worked in, it's fine to sell alcohol to someone of age who is accompanied by someone underage, unless you have a reasonable suspicion that alcohol is being bought on behalf of the underage person (so if you overheard the underage person choosing what they wanted etc.) So in this situation I would have made the sale.
I can see why people are overly cautious. Penalties for selling booze to kids are quite severe, large fine, criminal record, and potential jail time. And you'd probably lose your job too.
|>>|| No. 16191
Yes. If at any point the customer admits that they will be giving the alcohol to their young companion, then you are forced to ask for their ID, and if you reasonably suspect if will happen then you also need to ask.
This guy doesn't deserve an apology. He's making a fuss to get a coupon.
|>>|| No. 16192
Hang on I just read the article and he is less angry about being denied sale than he is about the staff outing his daughter as having clinical anxiety to those within earshot. Why'd you leave that bit out OP?
|>>|| No. 16194
And his resolution was to spread word of her condition in the local press. Right you are.
|>>|| No. 16195
>If at any point the customer admits that they will be giving the alcohol to their young companion, then you are forced to ask for their ID, and if you reasonably suspect if will happen then you also need to ask.
She's 26. There's no need to ID her, and any checkout bod who thinks they do has badly misunderstood their training. People get caught based on tip-offs to Trading Standards, who then carry out test purchases, which they do with kids that are very obviously underage so that the target can't say "but she looked over 18, guv".
|>>|| No. 16197
>She's 26. There's no need to ID her, and any checkout bod who thinks they do has badly misunderstood their training.
If the shop has a challenge 25 policy, and she looks a year or two younger than she is, then they understand their training fully.
|>>|| No. 16198
>Excuse me madam, you only look 24, can I see your ID please?
Yeah, no. The till operator is perfectly entitled to say "fuck it, she's obviously old enough" and just make the sale, especially since she wasn't even the one buying the fucking booze in the first place.
As usual, that's except for viewers in Scotland
who have their own programmes where some idiots thought it was a good idea to sign Challenge 25 into law.
|>>|| No. 16199
>Yeah, no. The till operator is perfectly entitled to say "fuck it, she's obviously old enough"
Sure, and their manager is perfectly entitled to take disciplinary action because they broke the store's policy. Believe it or not most people who work in supermarkets probably need their job and are specifically trained to not use their own judgement when it comes to store policy. There's obviously a level of subjectivity to how old you think someone looks, but if we believe the chap in the article, the daughter looks 'around 20', so well below the Challenge 25 policy in place.
I'd have ID'd her too. I'm not a jobsworth but I do understand how being employed by a supermarket works. Aldis have made their policy clear in the article, and the worker followed it exactly. The only issue is that apparently they weren't very sensitive.
|>>|| No. 16200
>Believe it or not most people who work in supermarkets probably need their job and are specifically trained to not use their own judgement when it comes to store policy.
I really, really despise people who can't understand this. Anyone who's never worked retail or food service really can't ever be a fully good person in my opinion, as evidenced by the boorish cunt in the OP.
|>>|| No. 16201
>Sure, and their manager is perfectly entitled to take disciplinary action because they broke the store's policy.
Sure, assuming their manager was somehow psychic.
|>>|| No. 16202
I'm not sure how to reply to that without this turning into a cunt off, so I'll just leave it here. But fucking hell.
|>>|| No. 16203
Well I'm glad you told me you were leaving because otherwise I'd have been left waiting around for a reply like a right lemon!
|>>|| No. 16206
Fun fact of the day. Aldi’s internal auditors for age restricted sale compliance are known to send people in their early 20s to check the challenge 25 policy is being administered effectively. Failure of this audit is a serious store wide breach with immediate disciplinary action. They are also known to send in mixed aged groups to purchase alcohol together.
|>>|| No. 16207
The difference being, surely, they only buy alcohol and sundries and not a £100 weekly shop with a bottle of Pumpkin Spice Off-Brand Baileys in it.
|>>|| No. 16208
Fun fact of the day. Aldi's internal auditors for age restricted sale compliance are evidently idiots.
|>>|| No. 16210
They do know that unless they're using very youthful looking ones all the tillop has to say in their defence is "well I thought they looked 25" and there's no arguing with it, right?
|>>|| No. 16211
Look mate, it's clear you've never worked in a supermarket, or live in the same reality as the rest of us. I don't know how else to tell you that it doesn't work the way you think it does. Supermarket workers are trained to follow rules to the letter and suffer the consequences when they do not. You don't get to appeal to reason or logic when dealing with a supermarket manager or policy. You either do it the way you're told or you don't work there anymore.
It'd be lovely if we lived in a world where minimum wage employees had autonomy and were free to use common sense and judgement, but this is not the reality of the situation. I'm happy for you that you've never had to work in retail, but you should listen to everyone else telling you what it's like.
|>>|| No. 16212
Typically mystery shoppers are encouraged to do a regular shop, so them doing a weekly shop is not out if the question. Often part of their payment is the groceries.
|>>|| No. 16214
I know this is a fluff piece, but it strikes a chord. Selling to a minor carries the risk of making you personally liable. As in you, the person that handed over the alcohol to someone you belive to not be of the right age or someone whom you suspect would hand it to someone of not the right age. The alcohol selling license for the premise is also in trouble, but the person doing the handing over can also be got for a fine. So fuck this guy with a broom stick if he expects Mr or Mrs Cashier Wage to risk a 4-digit fine because he couldn't buy his fix.
Challenge-25 exists because it minimises risks to companies (I don't know why 25 got picked), but individual employees can and do still get in trouble. If that
fuck faceperson wants that changed, he should start getting involved in politics or voting for people who he thinks vote in favour. Law's the law and currently the law favours rejecting alcohol sales in any situation where underage people might be involved.
|>>|| No. 16215
Selling alcohol to a minor is a criminal offence. Refusing to sell alcohol to an adult is perfectly legal. It's entirely rational for cashiers to ask for ID if they have even the tiniest inkling of doubt. Anyone who has an issue with minimum-wage employees following the law and protecting their livelihoods can get stuffed.
|>>|| No. 16216
>So fuck this guy with a broom stick if he expects Mr or Mrs Cashier Wage to risk a 4-digit fine because he couldn't buy his fix.
Last time I checked, supplying alcohol to a 66 year old accompanied by a 26 year old is not illegal, so they're not risking a fine.
>Challenge-25 exists because it minimises risks to companies (I don't know why 25 got picked)
It's not quite that simple, and when you look into how this is actually enforced it comes apart quite quickly. The original policy was a rather sensible 21. 25 is taking the piss somewhat, and has the harmful side-effect of encouraging people to carry ID when there's really no need for them to do so.
>Law's the law and currently the law favours rejecting alcohol sales in any situation where underage people might be involved.
No, it doesn't. It punishes sales of alcohol to underage people. (FWIW, in some places you'll find pubs that don't get caught because they know the kids they're selling to and so the test purchasers get ID'd) Outside of Scotland, Challenge 25 is not lawm but an entirely voluntary policy. It's the sort of policy implemented from the top down by people who have never been near a front line. It's almost the corporate equivalent of the shipping forecast - "we're going to be really really strict on age checks so please don't look at this shelf dedicated to 3L bottles of white cider". It's on par with the gambling industry saying "yes, we have £100 FOBTs but we also let people self-exclude from the individual shops so we're being responsible".
I also find it funny how someone working a till can say they're going to ID random people for fear of not breaking the law, while they'll happily make the sale when the customer is reeking of booze so as to not get any trouble from a pisshead.
|>>|| No. 16217
>I'm happy for you that you've never had to work in retail
Nobody ever "has to" work in retail. I applied to work in the local supermarket, and between applying and being invited for interview I found out that I'd be personally on the hook for the fine if there was an alcohol issue. I figured that £3 an hour wasn't enough to take on a liability of £5k so pulled a sickie on the day of the interview and went to McDonald's instead where the worst I could fuck up was just losing the job.
|>>|| No. 16218
>while they'll happily make the sale when the customer is reeking of booze so as to not get any trouble from a pisshead.
There's no law or policy against a supermarket selling booze to someone who is already drunk. You're confusing it with pub licensing rules.
|>>|| No. 16220
I remember I was in Tesco in 2002 and they refused to serve two people who smelled of alcohol and they kicked off and got management and had a huge noisy row about it. I remember because it was a scruffy 60-something wino looking guy with a smartly-dressed 30-something black woman who looked like a businesswoman. I was puzzled who those two people were to each other because she looked too dark-skinned to be mixed.
|>>|| No. 16221
I got ID'ed into my late 20s and just thought it was funny and that was prior to challenge 25.
|>>|| No. 16222
When I overhear people getting ID'ed now the staff are always extremely diplomatic and stress how the person ought to take it as a compliment.
|>>|| No. 16223
I agree that Challenge 25 is taking the piss. I'm 28 now, literally at the point where I don't even go out anymore, but I still get ID'd getting a few cans in to sit at home. However if the 26-year-old nameless lass had been buying the booze herself I'd be defending these guys for just doing their jobs. It's not their fault a scheme has been concocted to force youths to carry their papers everywhere.
But this bloke is 66 and he was the one getting the beers in. This is just ridiculous. I reckon the lad behind the counter just fancied the daughter and wanted to try to hit her up on Facebook or something disgusting like that. That's what happens when you give broad discretionary powers to anyone who can string a sentence together sent in by the local job-centre, they abuse it just as readily as the rich and powerful.
I'd be willing to bet actual money that I could travel up to Manchester this weekend, visit the same shop with my 5-year-old cousin in his Spider-Man costume, buy alcohol, show them my ID and walk out without issue. I bet there were people walking past them on other tills doing exactly that whilst they were waiting for the manager to come out or whatever. I can sort of see the logic of ID'ing both customers if they look within a few years of each other but this is obviously an old man. They're basically calling him a pedo if they think he's just trying to get some random underage lass drunk. He should sue for millions.
|>>|| No. 16224
It's only a matter of time before some member of the professionally offended brigade complains that "you should take it as a compliment" is an unwanted comment that amounts to sexual harassment.
|>>|| No. 16225
It is though. I don't go shopping to recieve compliments on my appearance from total strangers and I don't give a fuck if some dipshit behind the till at my local Aldi thinks I look good for my age.
|>>|| No. 16227
>I'd be willing to bet actual money that I could travel up to Manchester this weekend, visit the same shop with my 5-year-old cousin in his Spider-Man costume, buy alcohol, show them my ID and walk out without issue.
Yes, because you're not likely buying the bottle of vodka for the five year old.
The daughter looked young and the cashier thought the dad might be buying alcohol for a minor. I don't really understand why people think this is odd or anything other than business as usual. I don't even know where you're going with the pedo line of thinking, it's still not legal to buy your daughter alcohol if she's underage.
|>>|| No. 16228
I was in Tesco with my girlfriend and two people in front of us got ID'd because she said the bloke looked young. He didn't have ID on him so the girl with him couldn't buy her beer or whatever despite having her ID.
Anyway, my girlfriend was buying wine and I said 'uh oh, I left my wallet in the car'. When we got to the cashier she made some mention of the previous customers and looked at me and said 'oh no, I don't need to ID you at all'.
|>>|| No. 16229
>159. In this part [...] “relevant premises” means [...] licensed premises, [...]
>193. In this Act [...] “licensed premises” means premises in respect of which a premises licence has effect;
|>>|| No. 16230
>The daughter looked young
She didn't look that young.
>it's still not legal to buy your daughter alcohol if she's underage
26 isn't underage.
|>>|| No. 16231
No 17-year-old girl is asking an old man to buy her a couple of bottles of bitter, her dad or otherwise. The lad behind the counter is either one of those seething with resentment jobsworths or one of those creepy "dear /r9k/, I touched a girl's hand today at work. AMA." types and decided to abuse the tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny bit of power that he has.
|>>|| No. 16232
>The lad behind the counter is either one of those seething with resentment jobsworths or one of those creepy "dear /r9k/, I touched a girl's hand today at work. AMA."
Or, as mentioned already to great extent, he needs his job and follows the store guidelines in order to keep it.
|>>|| No. 16233
No store guidelines say "do not sell alcohol to someone who is obviously old enough to buy it in the company of his daughter who is also obviously old enough to buy it".
|>>|| No. 16234
I just remembered I was with my sister in Argos once and a computer ordered the lady behind the counter (who was nice about it and did apologise) to ask for ID because she was buying cutlery along with duvets, pillowcases, crockery and a mop and bucket. My sister didn't have any on her but luckily her babyfaced, chainsmoking, alcoholic brother who always carries his passport was helping her move and could step in to save the day. So an adult can buy a knife for someone who has failed to prove their age and openly admit that's what they're doing but for some reason not alcohol.
Do you have images blocked in your browser? Can you see the photo of the old man who was buying the alcohol? Your mate decided to fuck them around for some reason. Fear of getting sacked was the last thing on his mind whatever he was thinking.
|>>|| No. 16235
>daughter who is also obviously old enough
We don't know how old she looks. If she looks 45 then fair enough, but if she looks 'about 20' like her dad says, then the cashier did the right thing.
>Do you have images blocked in your browser? Can you see the photo of the old man who was buying the alcohol?
Can you see a picture of the daughter?
>So an adult can buy a knife for someone who has failed to prove their age and openly admit that's what they're doing but for some reason not alcohol.
Just because it happened, doesn't mean it should have.
|>>|| No. 16236
>if she looks 'about 20' like her dad says
... then she's still obviously old enough to buy or be bought booze.
|>>|| No. 16238
The discretionary nature of the powers granted to literally anyone who can get a job in a shop and the subjectivity around how old a person "looks" make it both ineffective for its intended purpose as well as potentially ripe for abuse by unscrupulous individuals.
What stops me from opening a shop and introducing a "Challenge 90" policy and then exclusively targeting only individuals of a particular ethnic background and waving everyone else through?
Not to mention the scope creep of the whole thing. 15 years ago Challenge-25 would have sounded like alarmist doomsaying claptrap and now it's the world we live in. It's obvious this is a way to basically get everyone used to carrying ID with them at all times and as usual the country's pathological fear of young people enjoying themselves is the excuse they use.
|>>|| No. 16239
Sorry, I didn't realise it was a disciplinary offence to not think a person looks the same age her dad thinks she looks.
|>>|| No. 16240
>What stops me from opening a shop and introducing a "Challenge 90" policy and then exclusively targeting only individuals of a particular ethnic background and waving everyone else through?
But how can you tell if they're over 90 if they all look the same?
|>>|| No. 16241
That very obviously wasn't the point I was making, was it? We don't know what the daughter looks like so it's impossible to decide whether or not the Aldi bod followed his best judgement. According to Aldi themselves, he did.
>The discretionary nature of the powers granted
This isn't a way for Aldi to suppress the masses, for fucks sake, it's a hard-line policy to help prevent them losing their booze license.
You can live in fear of the establishment all you want but anyone in the real world can see this for what it is - dull, necessary bureaucracy. If you don't like that then I suggest you spend more time on your manifesto and less on hand wringing about the evil abusive powers of Nigel on the tills.
>It's obvious this is a way to basically get everyone used to carrying ID with them at all times
Do you think Aldi's bosses were in that particular cabal meeting, or do they just unquestioningly serve their masters with the voluntary policy we're talking about?
|>>|| No. 16242
>What stops me from opening a shop and introducing a "Challenge 90" policy
Nothing. You're entirely within your rights to ID everyone who wants to buy an age-restricted product. It wouldn't be particularly sensible, but it's perfectly legal.
>and then exclusively targeting only individuals of a particular ethnic background and waving everyone else through?
That's illegal under the Equality Act.
>ineffective for its intended purpose as well as potentially ripe for abuse by unscrupulous individuals.
Selling alcohol to anyone under the age of 18 is a criminal offence under Section 146 of the Licensing Act. If you inadvertently sell alcohol to a child, you have two defences available - that you took all reasonable steps to establish their age, or that no reasonable person would have suspected from that person's appearance that they are under 18. The onus is on the retailer to prove either defence. The law effectively says "if you're not 100% certain that this person looks substantially older than 18, then ask for ID", hence Challenge 25 policies.
Why should Aldi risk their premises license? Why should the employee risk a criminal prosecution?
|>>|| No. 16243
>Why should Aldi risk their premises license? Why should the employee risk a criminal prosecution?
They shouldn't, and they wouldn't be by not asking an obvious adult for ID. Not least because she was actually 26 and prosecutions for misselling alcohol in the wild are vanishingly rare.
|>>|| No. 16245
She looks pretty young to be honest.
Also, the Daily Mail's comments under that story look frighteningly similar to the ones in this thread.
What have we become, lads.
|>>|| No. 16249
How old is that picture? She's dressing like she's still a 14 year old.
Also, people who have kids when they're old are generally a bit on the thick side. You know the ones, people think it's actually their grandparents picking them up from school. I knew a kid with seriously old parents and he was that wrapped up in cotton wool even when he was in Year 11 he wasn't allowed to cross the street by himself, so if he was playing football he had to run in and get his parents if it went over the road.
|>>|| No. 16251
>That's illegal under the Equality Act.
The whole point I was making is that this allows people to dodge the equality act. I don't believe this cashier would have asked a 26-year-old man for ID because he wouldn't have been so desperate for a sniff of his hair. Someone was there who was provably over 18 and that should be that. You can't just give every shopkeeper in the country the power to pick and choose who looks like they're probably the sort to let their kids have a can of lager and who doesn't. They aren't police officers it's a fucking supermarket.
>Selling alcohol to anyone under the age of 18 is a criminal offence under Section 146 of the Licensing Act.
I have no problem with challenging the purchaser to prove their age (though Challenge-25 is definitely taking the piss and I guarantee it will be Challenge-30 in a few years). The man is 66. If he commits an offence by selling the alcohol on to an underage person or giving it away he is the one who should be prosecuted. What's next? Is a parent allowed to take their child with them to buy a car? A lottery ticket? Red bull? DVDs? Would you like to be cross-examined or have to get a babysitter every time you buy these things?
Why are Amazon allowed to deliver alcohol to houses with children living in them by this logic? How long before we are told the delivery drivers are allowed to request entry and have a nose around before they give me my case of lager? What if I'm having a children's birthday party today but planning to watch the match with a few of my mates later on in the evening? Do I have to give him their phone-numbers so he can make sure they are all over 18?
|>>|| No. 16252
>Why are Amazon allowed to deliver alcohol to houses
Amazon operate a signed, challenge 25 policy for alcohol.
|>>|| No. 16253
I am well aware. Are they going to have to ask for ID for every single resident of a property? Forgive me I'm very tired maybe I'm expressing myself poorly but the point isn't that the purchaser needs to be ID'd it's that everyone they are with needs to be seperately scrutisined. I'm not saying don't ask for ID or anything mental like that. This is a very different level of snooping. I am not comfortable that the power to decide if someone "looks dodgy" or not is being devolved to basically random unskilled untrained people.
|>>|| No. 16254
> I guarantee it will be Challenge-30 in a few years
It's been challenge-40 over in the states for as long as I've been going there.
I used to use Asda, Tesco, and Sainsbury's online delivery a lot and never got challenged for ID. Back then I was a wee bit more fresh faced too.
|>>|| No. 16255
I think you're overthinking it. Firstly, you're equating private company policy with the government, they are not. They also absolutely have the power to refuse to serve anyone they choose, Mr Aldi could tell you to fuck off even if all you're trying to buy is a box of cereal, so I don't know why you're drawing the line with this particular part of their "right to refuse service".
The entire point of the store policy is to remove the judgement call from the worker, other than asking them to know what a 25 year old looks like. Maybe it's because I'm a tedious manager, but I don't see the issue, it seems to protect everyone involved quite well. I also think the correct response to being ID'd like the bloke and his daughter is to just tell them to shove the beer up their arse and go elsewhere. It's really not the end of the world.
|>>|| No. 16256
As someone who has worked in retail, like the other lads in this thread, hearing people ignorantly complain about Challenge 25 is one thing, but for them to then stubbornly insist that they are right and shop assistants doing their jobs correctly are wrong, even after they have had the policy patiently explained to them, makes me want to insert their head into a wall.
|>>|| No. 16257
>The entire point of the store policy is to remove the judgement call from the worker, other than asking them to know what a 25 year old looks like.
Except it isn't. It's saying "Do you know what someone who is buying booze for someone else who might not be allowed to drink it looks like?"or "Do you know what a drink-driver looks like?" or "Do you know what someone who gets drunk and beats their spouse or partner looks like?" These are police issues, if the bloke is obviously in the process of committing a crime dial 999. Why are these companies taking the law into their own hands?
Forget the girl for a minute. If I pretended to think this bloke on his own looked under 25 as an excuse not to serve him I'd obviously have had it in for him. But if you are now saying "Don't just judge his age, judge his character as well" suddenly I'm free to make up whatever crap I like to ruin his day because he reminds me of a schoolteacher I didn't like or whatever. It's a huge step in a frightening direction.
This has nothing to do with Challenge 25. That applies to people buying alcohol. This girl was not buying alcohol. She should not have been asked for ID.
|>>|| No. 16258
You're not judging him, you're judging THE DAUGHTERS AGE.
I refer you to >>16256 at this stage, particularly :
>...even after they have had the policy patiently explained to them, makes me want to insert their head into a wall
|>>|| No. 16259
>It's saying "Do you know what someone who is buying booze for someone else who might not be allowed to drink it looks like?"or "Do you know what a drink-driver looks like?" or "Do you know what someone who gets drunk and beats their spouse or partner looks like?
What the actual fuck are you on about? Aldi policy is not "don't serve people who look like they beat their wife", surprisingly enough, the policy is to ID those who look under 25, and this girl, who was with someone buying alcohol, looked under 25. That's the entire story. Your post reeks of unstable paranoia.
|>>|| No. 16260
So you're saying they're happy to serve wife beaters? Shouldn't we be more concerned about that then?
|>>|| No. 16261
BAN STELLA NOW
ID GRANNIES BUYING GIN
WINE GUMS? HOPE YOU'VE GOT YOUR ID LAD!
Sorry, I thought I'd dropped into /IQ/ for a minute.
Normal service will resume shortly.
|>>|| No. 16262
> Your post reeks of unstable paranoia.
I thought it reeked of cunt-off-instigator.
|>>|| No. 16263
>Did you have a nice Thursday?
I spent it bickering over whether one of the blokes from Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away! should have been served at Aldi with a bunch of strangers on Britain's number five forum for shed enthusiasts.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]