Fracas at Ewood concourse bar today!

[johnmc]

To add, doesn't matter if you are 19 or 59, they have no obligation to serve you.

No shop has any obligation to serve you for anything at any time.

-- Sun Jan 05, 2014 1:22 am --

What's a sensible amount of alcohol to give a 5 year old?

Common sense. That is how the law on these things works - that it is what a normal person would regard as reasonable.

Any normal person would regard zero as the correct amount.

 

[bobmcfc]

Doesn't matter if the law backs them up or not, the employer will always back the employee if they have reasonable grounds to refuse a sale of restricted items. If you look under 25 and cannot provide ID to back up your right to be served then you don't get served.

The point though is reasonableness. And here's where the company needs to adopt common sense. If someone is 19, then they are doing. If a company refused to serve someone on the grounds that there was a minor with them, then they are not, nor if they refuse to serve someone who is 40 - and whilst you can't do anything about them refusing to serve you (that's up to them) you can kick up a stink about, cause a scene, and make sure we don't end up with the American situation where you are routinely asked for ID aged 65.

The reason being is all the trading standard stings that go on. Supermarkets are fed up of being fined and santioned because of staff making mistakes that they are all do scared of slipping up. Do you know how damaging it is for a supermarket store to lose its licence for 24 hours ? Or for a member of staff to receive an £80 on the spot fine and internal investigation ? It's best to design a policy that everyone can understand and adhere to so these instances are reduced. As much as you want sympathy for the customer, in terms of the bigger picture and the greater cost a few noses out of joint when you have followed correct guidelines isn't going to worry a checkout assistant

 

[Henkeman]

Disagree with this. No matter what you say is written

Anyone giving a 5 year old alcohol would be done for abuse or neglect.

Disagree all you like, the law is the law. And there's a big difference between a sip and letting them get pissed.

Legal drinking age of 5 and letting them have a sip are two different concepts.

No, they really aren't. You have the collision of several different laws. You can allow them to drink alcohol, but if you did so to the extent that the child was being ill treated, then you might fall foul of the laws on that.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Disagree all you like, the law is the law. And there's a big difference between a sip and letting them get pissed.

Err... again you're wrong and I refer you once again to s149 of the 2003 Licensing Act which makes no such distinction.


Got any more?

 

[Henkeman]

Doesn't matter if the law backs them up or not, the employer will always back the employee if they have reasonable grounds to refuse a sale of restricted items. If you look under 25 and cannot provide ID to back up your right to be served then you don't get served.

The point though is reasonableness. And here's where the company needs to adopt common sense. If someone is 19, then they are doing. If a company refused to serve someone on the grounds that there was a minor with them, then they are not, nor if they refuse to serve someone who is 40 - and whilst you can't do anything about them refusing to serve you (that's up to them) you can kick up a stink about, cause a scene, and make sure we don't end up with the American situation where you are routinely asked for ID aged 65.

The reason being is all the trading standard stings that go on. Supermarkets are fed up of being fined and santioned because of staff making mistakes that they are all do scared of slipping up. Do you know how damaging it is for a supermarket store to lose its licence for 24 hours ? Or for a member of staff to receive an £80 on the spot fine and internal investigation ? It's best to design a policy that everyone can understand and adhere to so these instances are reduced. As much as you want sympathy for the customer, in terms of the bigger picture and the greater cost a few noses out of joint when you have followed correct guidelines isn't going to worry a checkout assistant

I'm perfectly well aware of why they do it. And nothing I have said has gainsaid that in any way.<br /><br />-- Sun Jan 05, 2014 1:29 am --<br /><br />

To add, doesn't matter if you are 19 or 59, they have no obligation to serve you.

No shop has any obligation to serve you for anything at any time.

-- Sun Jan 05, 2014 1:22 am --

What's a sensible amount of alcohol to give a 5 year old?

Common sense. That is how the law on these things works - that it is what a normal person would regard as reasonable.

Any normal person would regard zero as the correct amount.

Not the point. A normal person wouldn't regard a sip as being worthy of sanction.

 

[johnmc]

Disagree all you like, the law is the law. And there's a big difference between a sip and letting them get pissed.

Legal drinking age of 5 and letting them have a sip are two different concepts.

No, they really aren't. You have the collision of several different laws. You can allow them to drink alcohol, but if you did so to the extent that the child was being ill treated, then you might fall foul of the laws on that.

Ok. How much would it take for a 5 year old to be affected by alcohol. I can't really believe I am having this debate. In my eyes giving a child a drink of alcohol at 5 years of age is irresponsible. Do you not?

 

[Berkovic_blue]

Disagree with this. No matter what you say is written

Anyone giving a 5 year old alcohol would be done for abuse or neglect.

Disagree all you like, the law is the law. And there's a big difference between a sip and letting them get pissed.

Legal drinking age of 5 and letting them have a sip are two different concepts.

If you're five or over and under 16, there is no legal restriction on you drinking alcohol at home or on other private premises.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/your_family/health/young_people_health_and_personal.htm#h_alcohol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/y ... #h_alcohol</a>

Argue with them if you don't like it!

 

[johnmc]

The point though is reasonableness. And here's where the company needs to adopt common sense. If someone is 19, then they are doing. If a company refused to serve someone on the grounds that there was a minor with them, then they are not, nor if they refuse to serve someone who is 40 - and whilst you can't do anything about them refusing to serve you (that's up to them) you can kick up a stink about, cause a scene, and make sure we don't end up with the American situation where you are routinely asked for ID aged 65.

The reason being is all the trading standard stings that go on. Supermarkets are fed up of being fined and santioned because of staff making mistakes that they are all do scared of slipping up. Do you know how damaging it is for a supermarket store to lose its licence for 24 hours ? Or for a member of staff to receive an £80 on the spot fine and internal investigation ? It's best to design a policy that everyone can understand and adhere to so these instances are reduced. As much as you want sympathy for the customer, in terms of the bigger picture and the greater cost a few noses out of joint when you have followed correct guidelines isn't going to worry a checkout assistant

I'm perfectly well aware of why they do it. And nothing I have said has gainsaid that in any way.

-- Sun Jan 05, 2014 1:29 am --

No shop has any obligation to serve you for anything at any time.

-- Sun Jan 05, 2014 1:22 am --




Common sense. That is how the law on these things works - that it is what a normal person would regard as reasonable.

Any normal person would regard zero as the correct amount.

Not the point. A normal person wouldn't regard a sip as being worthy of sanction.

It is the point as someone before related to the "normal person" argument.

Edit. It was you

 

[Henkeman]

Legal drinking age of 5 and letting them have a sip are two different concepts.

No, they really aren't. You have the collision of several different laws. You can allow them to drink alcohol, but if you did so to the extent that the child was being ill treated, then you might fall foul of the laws on that.

Ok. How much would it take for a 5 year old to be affected by alcohol. I can't really believe I am having this debate. In my eyes giving a child a drink of alcohol at 5 years of age is irresponsible. Do you not?

You aren't having that debate with me, because I'm not suggesting you let a child have alcohol. It's a straw man argument. I am saying that there is no way a tiny bit of alcohol would invite any sanction.

 

[Berkovic_blue]

Disagree all you like, the law is the law. And there's a big difference between a sip and letting them get pissed.

Err... again you're wrong and I refer you once again to s149 of the 2003 Licensing Act which makes no such distinction.


Got any more?

I'm not wrong and I've posted the sources. Are you going to keep being this daft lol

Stick to the "funny" one-liners, I think factual stuff is beyond you ;)