Man, 72, refused alcohol over age

[MRGTB]

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

Can you believe that.

Read the full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...de/7003325.stm

[Quillz]

Maybe they thought he had the same physical issues that Robin Williams faced in "Jack."

[Freesteyelz]

Nah. Policy is policy. If the procedure is to check the ID of a customer purchasing alcohol, to confirm he/she is 21 years of age or older, it should be enforced without prejudice.

[Comtech]

Nah. Policy is policy. If the procedure is to check the ID of a customer purchasing alcohol, to confirm he/she is 21 years of age or older, it should be enforced without prejudice.

I disagree. It was apparent the man was older than 21 and thus he should not have been required to provide any ID.

[Dilly]

Good. Now they just need to refuse to under 21s and anyone in between 21 and 72 and it will be perfect

[Freesteyelz]

I disagree. It was apparent the man was older than 21 and thus he should not have been required to provide any ID.

Who's to decide that? Not the employee. Now the manager came in and made his decision not to sell the two bottles of Cabernet Sauvignon unless the customer provided his ID. How difficult is that? Simply by sticking with his principles Mr. Rall, the 72 year old customer, left without the alcohol. He lost out. It was he who didn't see the humor of it all.

As for whether or not it was apparent that the man was 21 years or older is not the point. The policy's procedure and how it is enforced is. Not too long ago stores had the policy in place that if a customer's age was questionable he/she could be carded. That left the discretion to the employees and unfortunately left many stores with heavy fines because employees made the wrong decision and sold alcohol to minors. By having a policy in place that says everyone is to be carded keep matters black and white.

[ManagerJosh]

If a store consistently demands ID for purchases like alcohol, then what the store did above was correct.

If the store was inconsistent and only demands ID when the clerk opts to do it, then I will have to say that the store was incorrect on this one.

[Vile]

I disagree. It was apparent the man was older than 21 and thus he should not have been required to provide any ID.

Nope, it doesn't work like that.
Waaaay back in the day I used to work retail at a store that sold alcohol. The policy of this particular store was to check for ID on all alcohol purchases, regardless of age. Signs stating this policy were plastered all over the place, and even then there were occasions where the older customers (60-70) were turned down if they couldn't show ID.

This is nothing really shocking at all, it's not a big deal.

*edit, I have not read the article, but was merely commenting on the quote above.

[Creepshow]

Typical frigging Morrisons. They're retards.

My mum worked there for a year or so and they treated her like crap.

F--- Morrisons.

[MRGTB]

Typical frigging Morrisons. They're retards.

My mum worked there for a year or so and they treated her like crap.

F--- Morrisons.

You'll find thats the same with most large supermarkets the way there run. I used to work for another very well known one for 8 years. They're all full of wannabe charge-hands with not a single braincell between them. Who only get there because they either tell tails or suck up to management. And have no people skills whats-so-ever!

Can't believe I spent 8 years there. So does everybody else I used to know who worked there also and left.

[Wayne Luke]

In California, the law states that if you appear to be under the age of 35 that you must show ID when purchasing alcohol. The legal purchase age is 21. I am 36 and haven't been asked for ID for 5 years. Of course, my wife and I go to the same store all the time and we will go to the same checkers each time we visit, even if we have to wait in line.

Of course, I could just order it all online. The UPS driver never checks for ID.

[slappy]

As one who actually worked in a liquor store in California way back in 1965 , at that time the fine for the employee who might even accidently sell liquor to someone not legally entitled to purchase it was $500, plus a fine for the Store, itself.

At that time, circa 1965, the minimum wage in California was $1.00 per hour, so the fine of the employee was equilivant to 500 hours of work, or 10+ weeks of a 40 hour week. A VERY significant event a struggling college student did not want to occur. Of course the fine has gone up and substantially more than the minimum wage usually paid to such people, so I can understand why a clerk might stand by the "letter of the law" and/or the instructions from the boss.

Regards,

[MRGTB]

Oh lets get real here, how many of you who are adults take ID with you into a shop when you buy beer. And when your 72 years old. Do you seriously think that would even cross your mind - That you might get asked to provide ID of your age.

If I'd have been that bloke I would have said. "Thats very flatering that you don't even think I look 18, I must look really good for my age". LOL

[Zachery]

You should ALWAYS have your id on you period.

[MRGTB]

Yeah, we all know YOU SHOULD always carry ID on you in-case you have an accident or something like that. Touch wood!

But it's something most of us just don't do. For reasons like, fear of losing it and it getting into the wrong hands etc. You are supposed to alwasy carry all your car documents around in the car in-case the police pull you over. But how many do that?