The simple solution is to have no service without valid ID, no matter how old you are. I wouldn't have a problem with this, but I am sure some people would. Some people want the world to be run entirely for their convenience.
I agree.
I like that other countries do that (or at least where there's like a "Think 50" rule )
The simple solution is to have no service without valid ID, no matter how old you are. I wouldn't have a problem with this, but I am sure some people would. Some people want the world to be run entirely for their convenience.
They won't state their plans openly and let democracy take its course as they know they'll lose so they do it sneaky, underhand ways like this.
Some people look much older/younger than they really are.
Not the extent where you can think a 28 year old (nearly 29) could be 17 as has happened to me. Unless...as I said before...someone's got an ageing disease and they should be treated as valid exceptions IMO.
Look I'll do a test for you get me 100 people between the ages of 16 and 25 and I bet you I can guess all the people that are over 20...every single one!
The problem with the Think 25 campaign is it enforces an uneccessarily paranoid mentality. That being you should ask for ID if you suspect that person is under 25. All you need and is neccessary is to ask yourself "could that person be 17".
I no longer work in retail but if I asked myself "could this person be under 25", a lot of the time the answer would be yes but the follow up would be "because they look 24, or 22, 23 etc".
I no longer work in retail but if I asked myself "could this person be under 25", a lot of the time the answer would be yes but the follow up would be "because they look 24, or 22, 23 etc".
Exactly. This is where 'Think 25/30/40/50/90' plans fall down as often they don't take into account the legal drinking age.
In many cases there's no reason to ask a 24 year old for ID when there might be for some 18 or 19 year olds.
Not the extent where you can think a 28 year old (nearly 29) could be 17 as has happened to me. Unless...as I said before...someone's got an ageing disease and they should be treated as valid exceptions IMO.
Look I'll do a test for you get me 100 people between the ages of 16 and 25 and I bet you I can guess all the people that are over 20...every single one!
The problem with the Think 25 campaign is it enforces an uneccessarily paranoid mentality. That being you should ask for ID if you suspect that person is under 25. All you need and is neccessary is to ask yourself "could that person be 17".
I no longer work in retail but if I asked myself "could this person be under 25", a lot of the time the answer would be yes but the follow up would be "because they look 24, or 22, 23 etc".
You'll find that those tests have surprising results. One of the people I know is a Pub Landlady and she's had some very surprising customers. One looked 19 but was actually 14 and another was 25 but looked about 16.
how do you know they are 24?
how do you know they are 18 or 19?
you cant tell someones age just by looking at them
You can get a very good idea.
Note that often the people used in those delightful 'sting' operations often look very young. They won't use someone who looks far older than their actual age for example as the retailer could easily just say they thought they were well over age.
If you go to the states people get asked for ID till they are 40 or 50 + and it happens everywhere not just now and again if you dont have id you dont get served so everybody has id on them all the time if they want to get served, its a better system, im 28 and dont carry id and very rarely get asked (once in 12 years) but i still think will i get asked everytime but i never ever carry it, if i was asked everytime i would carry it all the time.
If you go to the states people get asked for ID till they are 40 or 50 + and it happens everywhere not just now and again if you dont have id you dont get served so everybody has id on them all the time if they want to get served, its a better system, im 28 and dont carry id and very rarely get asked (once in 12 years) but i still think will i get asked everytime but i never ever carry it, if i was asked everytime i would carry it all the time.
It's only 'better' because it's created a need that wasn't previously there.
I work in a shop (and have done for some time) and am now used to the bad attitude of some customers when it comes to the Challenge 21 (now 25) Policy.
Do I think it is a load of rubbish? Yes, and you will find that many other people who work in the same type of job would agree.
However, when we are trained for Challenge 25, we are told on several separate occasions that we face a) an £80 fine and/or b) disciplinary action if we fail to ID a customer who looks Under 25 if that person purchases alcohol underage.
I've seen it happen to one of my colleagues who thought she would 'take a chance' because the customer looked young.
If you have come to the shop, then you have most likely driven, caught the bus etc, so you will most of the time have some I.D. on you. I fail to see why people are so rude about letting me have a look at it.
If you let me look at your ID, you are doing two things. Firstly, you are leaving the shop with the product you wanted, secondly, you are helping me keep my job.
Challenge 25 might be political correctness gone mad, it might be a step to far, it might be a waste of time, but it is here and I (and all shop workers) have to adhere to it - no amount of complaining, grumbling or rudeness will change that!
If you go to the states people get asked for ID till they are 40 or 50 + and it happens everywhere not just now and again if you dont have id you dont get served so everybody has id on them all the time if they want to get served, its a better system, im 28 and dont carry id and very rarely get asked (once in 12 years) but i still think will i get asked everytime but i never ever carry it, if i was asked everytime i would carry it all the time.
That would be the best approach, but people in the UK have weird hang-ups about such an idea.
edgexedge thanks for your smart alec comments that totally ignored the arguments in my post. But just to correct you, when I described the legal drink as as an arbitrary number I meant as in it's just a number plucked out of the air and slapped on a supposed age our body's have matured about.
From wiki...
"Arbitrariness is a term given to choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula."
If the law was decided by logic your body would be tested for alcohol "reddiness" and you'd be given some kind of drinking licence. This is obviously a bit of a hassle to sort out so an arbitrary number was placed on it...which is 18.
Now run along and take your big slice of Fail with you...
Note that often the people used in those delightful 'sting' operations often look very young. They won't use someone who looks far older than their actual age for example as the retailer could easily just say they thought they were well over age.
well over here in the real world
'you can get a very good idea'
simply does not mean anything when faced with a criminal prosecution
i will ask again, see if your actually able to answer the question:
how do you know they are 24?
how do you know they are 18 or 19?
Perhaps a more equitable solution would be 'Challenge 25' to come into the shop in the first place. Voila - no embarassment/inconvenience at the checkouts, plus no kids intensifying the abjectness that the supermarket shopping experience already is.
THE LAW
states that supplying alcohol to a minor (ie under 18) is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE
so, how does a retailer ensure that they DONT SUPPLY to anyone under 18?
really easy peasy answer this:
they ask for that person to show some ID, which can prove that they are indeed over 18
this bit makes no sense whatsoever;
'It's dangerous because if the retailers keep giving in and proposing stricter and stricter measures the government can just bring in more repressive alcohol laws like a ratchet.'
if someone is 'giving in', how are they also 'proposing'?
what repressive alcohol laws? theyve actually relaxed a lot of the licensing laws, absinthe is no longer illegal, etc etc
Um it never has been? It's been here for over 19 years too and was never banned even before it was imported. I find your other examples inadequate I'm afraid (etc, etc)
I tend to find facts help back up my arguments :rolleyes:
i believe you were looking for the word 'arbitrary'
1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5. Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.
so, the legal age isnt arbitrary. its from the legal age of majority, also used for contract law, voting age etc etc.
in fact, the age at which a persons body matures is arbitrary
edgexedge thanks for your smart alec comments that totally ignored the arguments in my post. But just to correct you, when I described the legal drink as as an arbitrary number I meant as in it's just a number plucked out of the air and slapped on a supposed age our body's have matured about.
From wiki...
"Arbitrariness is a term given to choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula."
If the law was decided by logic your body would be tested for alcohol "reddiness" and you'd be given some kind of drinking licence. This is obviously a bit of a hassle to sort out so an arbitrary number was placed on it...which is 18.
Now run along and take your big slice of Fail with you...
what 'smart alec comments'
you had completely mis-spelled & misused a word
within law, 18 is not a random number for purchasing alcohol.
it is the 'age of majority', which also applies to getting married without parents consent, voting, entering into contracts etc etc
so using an already existing age within law, & applying it to another area of law, is in fact entirely logical.
this was recently done for purchasing of tobacco, the age was raised from 16 to 18
alcohol 'readiness' is completely random, & is probably also situational.
You'll find that those tests have surprising results. One of the people I know is a Pub Landlady and she's had some very surprising customers. One looked 19 but was actually 14 and another was 25 but looked about 16.
Those were just the ones I heard about.
Yeah but... the 19 year old lookin 14 year old I'm sure would have still looked like they could be 17, so would get ID'd under the mentality I suggested.
As would the 25 year old if they genuinly looked like they could be 16 but if that is the case then I'm sure that person is aware they're odd and are probably used to it.
...that's still different to being asked to ID someone who you think looks 24, and therefore under 25.
It's seeeemples, do they look like they could be 17.
Yeah but... the 19 year old lookin 14 year old I'm sure would have still looked like they could be 17, so would get ID'd under the mentality I suggested.
As would the 25 year old if they genuinly looked like they could be 16 but if that is the case then I'm sure that person is aware they're odd and are probably used to it.
...that's still different to being asked to ID someone who you think looks 24, and therefore under 25.
It's seeeemples, do they look like they could be 17.
I'm with you on this one. I used to do shop work, before this silliness came in, thankfully.
Anyone who looked like they could possibly, even remotely be underage was IDed.
I can't understand someone who looks like they might be 21 but no younger having to be IDed for something they're legally allowed to purchase at 18.
Um it never has been? It's been here for over 19 years too and was never banned even before it was imported. I find your other examples inadequate I'm afraid (etc, etc)
I tend to find facts help back up my arguments :rolleyes:
ok, so i got 1 thing in that sentence wrong
it did pretty much disappear for nearly a century
still, the government did relax a lot of the licensing laws - fact
licensed hours can now be any time in a 24hr period - fact
still no facts from Tequila
strange, given his username youd think he would have loads of facts on this topic
Yeah but... the 19 year old lookin 14 year old I'm sure would have still looked like they could be 17, so would get ID'd under the mentality I suggested.
As would the 25 year old if they genuinly looked like they could be 16 but if that is the case then I'm sure that person is aware they're odd and are probably used to it.
...that's still different to being asked to ID someone who you think looks 24, and therefore under 25.
It's seeeemples, do they look like they could be 17.
You're placing far too much emphasis on specific ages.
25 is chosen because they think that the majority of people who look 25 or older ACTUALLY WILL BE 18 OR OLDER.
It's nothing to do with 17, 18 or 24.
The issue is that looking over 18 does not equal being 18 or older, hence the movement towards Think 21 and now 25.
It's simply a guideline to help retail staff determine if they need to ask for ID.
within law, 18 is not a random number for purchasing alcohol.
it is the 'age of majority', which also applies to getting married without parents consent, voting, entering into contracts etc etc
so using an already existing age within law, & applying it to another area of law, is in fact entirely logical.
this was recently done for purchasing of tobacco, the age was raised from 16 to 18
alcohol 'readiness' is completely random, & is probably also situational.
Oh jeez!
OK, let me explain...what is the single purpose of a law? To protect us from harm or wrongdoing yes? So therefore a logical law to applied, based on its entire purpose, would be to not have a set age but for a doctor to examin everyone and certify you fit to drink.
There are 18 year olds that can legally drink, but can't handle their alcohol and end up in A&E whilst their 6ft tubby 17 year old mate strolls home with a kebab.
It would only be "logical" if at 18 years everybody changed over night in a mature adult. You can't argue the age at which you are physically and mentally mature enough to have drink at is logically tied to the age at which you can get married without your parents consent...because that's what you just did.
That's basically like saying it would be logical to make all prison sentances the same length because their all crimes at the end of the day.
OK, let me explain...what is the single purpose of a law? To protect us from harm or wrongdoing yes? So therefore a logical law to applied, based on its entire purpose, would be to not have a set age but for a doctor to examin everyone and certify you fit to drink.
There are 18 year olds that can legally drink, but can't handle their alcohol and end up in A&E whilst their 6ft tubby 17 year old mate strolls home with a kebab.
It would only be "logical" if at 18 years everybody changed over night in a mature adult. You can't argue the age at which you are physically and mentally mature enough to have drink at is logically tied to the age at which you can get married without your parents consent...because that's what you just did.
That's basically like saying it would be logical to make all prison sentances the same length because their all crimes at the end of the day.
That's how it's seen internationally by the law.
People reach an age of majority where they are considered to be likely mature enough to handle smoking/drinking alcohol/voting/sex/agreeing to a contract etc.
While in some cases it's going to be wrong (in either direction) it's the most reasonable way of doing things.
I don't believe there is any examination a Doctor could do to establish whether a person could drink Alcohol as you miss so many variables out. How much? How often? Which drink(s)?
A 10 year old could have half a glass of wine, so maybe they should be allowed to buy that in a shop?
OK, let me explain...what is the single purpose of a law? To protect us from harm or wrongdoing yes? So therefore a logical law to applied, based on its entire purpose, would be to not have a set age but for a doctor to examin everyone and certify you fit to drink.
There are 18 year olds that can legally drink, but can't handle their alcohol and end up in A&E whilst their 6ft tubby 17 year old mate strolls home with a kebab.
It would only be "logical" if at 18 years everybody changed over night in a mature adult. You can't argue the age at which you are physically and mentally mature enough to have drink at is logically tied to the age at which you can get married without your parents consent...because that's what you just did.
That's basically like saying it would be logical to make all prison sentances the same length because their all crimes at the end of the day.
no i didnt
i didnt say that '18' was a logical age for anything;
'within law, 18 is not a random number for purchasing alcohol.
it is the 'age of majority', which also applies to getting married without parents consent, voting, entering into contracts etc etc
so using an already existing age within law, & applying it to another area of law, is in fact entirely logical.
this was recently done for purchasing of tobacco, the age was raised from 16 to 18'
'law' already has this number '18' within it
it happens to define it as the 'age of majority', the age at which a person becomes an 'adult' within said 'law'
it is completely logical for any new 'laws' to take account of the fact that 'law' already contains an age '18' at which you are considered an 'adult', if those laws are using the idea that certain things should only be allowed for 'adults'
Why should he apologise?, he has done nothing wrong. His company pay him to think 25, he did. Thats not his fault. Plus you had your i.d, so I don't really see a problem. I've been both sides of the counter so I can see both points. I'm 29 and still carry i'd. Yes it is inconvenient if you haven't got it, but he is doing as hes told. Take it up with the police who put immense pressure on bars and supermarkets, and dish out hefty penalties, if the lad didn't ask, he risks losing his job. Unless you have dealt with the general public or worked behind a counter, I don't think you realise just how difficult it can be sometimes.
Then his company if they are paying him to think 25 are wrong, one only has to be 18 to purhcase alcohol. If any employer sacked someone who did not ask for ID to prove the age of 25 from someone who was obviously over the age of 18 the legal age to buy a product they would find themslves on the wrong side of a law suit and rightly so.
It is right that retailers make sure that people are over the age of 18 however assisting the government to bring in ID Cards by the backdoor is wrong, and that is what they are doing. First it was Challeng 21 now Challenge 25 what next Challenge 50? They are deliberately playing into government plans to make us all feel its normal to carry ID.
If they want to bring in ID cards then put it to a vote but dont play games and make shopping a bloody nightmare to do it the backdoor way.
This has sod all to do with underage drinking anymore, if it did then they would prosecute the kids they find drinking on the streets but they dont they prosecute those who sell it.
I have no outlying problem with whole 'THINK 25' etc schemes.
Young girls (16/17) still get into nightclubs by flashing a bit of tit and wearing tiny skirts to make them look older.
If you do what they do in Vegas (ID EVERYONE whether your 21 or 71) then the problem is suddenly eliminated.
Lots of places in America (certainly urban centers anyway) have been ID'ing EVERYONE for years.. it also works to put people off who could be dealing drugs/etc. as they have to show a form of ID on entry, which a bouncer may have the chance of recognising.
Comments
I agree.
I like that other countries do that (or at least where there's like a "Think 50" rule
They won't state their plans openly and let democracy take its course as they know they'll lose so they do it sneaky, underhand ways like this.
Not the extent where you can think a 28 year old (nearly 29) could be 17 as has happened to me. Unless...as I said before...someone's got an ageing disease and they should be treated as valid exceptions IMO.
Look I'll do a test for you get me 100 people between the ages of 16 and 25 and I bet you I can guess all the people that are over 20...every single one!
The problem with the Think 25 campaign is it enforces an uneccessarily paranoid mentality. That being you should ask for ID if you suspect that person is under 25. All you need and is neccessary is to ask yourself "could that person be 17".
I no longer work in retail but if I asked myself "could this person be under 25", a lot of the time the answer would be yes but the follow up would be "because they look 24, or 22, 23 etc".
Exactly. This is where 'Think 25/30/40/50/90' plans fall down as often they don't take into account the legal drinking age.
In many cases there's no reason to ask a 24 year old for ID when there might be for some 18 or 19 year olds.
what the hell have you been drinking/smoking?
your 3rd quote:
how do you know they are 24?
how do you know they are 18 or 19?
you cant tell someones age just by looking at them
You'll find that those tests have surprising results. One of the people I know is a Pub Landlady and she's had some very surprising customers. One looked 19 but was actually 14 and another was 25 but looked about 16.
Those were just the ones I heard about.
You can get a very good idea.
Note that often the people used in those delightful 'sting' operations often look very young. They won't use someone who looks far older than their actual age for example as the retailer could easily just say they thought they were well over age.
It's only 'better' because it's created a need that wasn't previously there.
Do I think it is a load of rubbish? Yes, and you will find that many other people who work in the same type of job would agree.
However, when we are trained for Challenge 25, we are told on several separate occasions that we face a) an £80 fine and/or b) disciplinary action if we fail to ID a customer who looks Under 25 if that person purchases alcohol underage.
I've seen it happen to one of my colleagues who thought she would 'take a chance' because the customer looked young.
If you have come to the shop, then you have most likely driven, caught the bus etc, so you will most of the time have some I.D. on you. I fail to see why people are so rude about letting me have a look at it.
If you let me look at your ID, you are doing two things. Firstly, you are leaving the shop with the product you wanted, secondly, you are helping me keep my job.
Challenge 25 might be political correctness gone mad, it might be a step to far, it might be a waste of time, but it is here and I (and all shop workers) have to adhere to it - no amount of complaining, grumbling or rudeness will change that!
That would be the best approach, but people in the UK have weird hang-ups about such an idea.
From wiki...
"Arbitrariness is a term given to choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula."
If the law was decided by logic your body would be tested for alcohol "reddiness" and you'd be given some kind of drinking licence. This is obviously a bit of a hassle to sort out so an arbitrary number was placed on it...which is 18.
Now run along and take your big slice of Fail with you...
well over here in the real world
'you can get a very good idea'
simply does not mean anything when faced with a criminal prosecution
i will ask again, see if your actually able to answer the question:
how do you know they are 24?
how do you know they are 18 or 19?
Um it never has been? It's been here for over 19 years too and was never banned even before it was imported. I find your other examples inadequate I'm afraid (etc, etc)
I tend to find facts help back up my arguments :rolleyes:
what 'smart alec comments'
you had completely mis-spelled & misused a word
within law, 18 is not a random number for purchasing alcohol.
it is the 'age of majority', which also applies to getting married without parents consent, voting, entering into contracts etc etc
so using an already existing age within law, & applying it to another area of law, is in fact entirely logical.
this was recently done for purchasing of tobacco, the age was raised from 16 to 18
alcohol 'readiness' is completely random, & is probably also situational.
Yeah but... the 19 year old lookin 14 year old I'm sure would have still looked like they could be 17, so would get ID'd under the mentality I suggested.
As would the 25 year old if they genuinly looked like they could be 16 but if that is the case then I'm sure that person is aware they're odd and are probably used to it.
...that's still different to being asked to ID someone who you think looks 24, and therefore under 25.
It's seeeemples, do they look like they could be 17.
I'm with you on this one. I used to do shop work, before this silliness came in, thankfully.
Anyone who looked like they could possibly, even remotely be underage was IDed.
I can't understand someone who looks like they might be 21 but no younger having to be IDed for something they're legally allowed to purchase at 18.
ok, so i got 1 thing in that sentence wrong
it did pretty much disappear for nearly a century
still, the government did relax a lot of the licensing laws - fact
licensed hours can now be any time in a 24hr period - fact
still no facts from Tequila
strange, given his username youd think he would have loads of facts on this topic
You're placing far too much emphasis on specific ages.
25 is chosen because they think that the majority of people who look 25 or older ACTUALLY WILL BE 18 OR OLDER.
It's nothing to do with 17, 18 or 24.
The issue is that looking over 18 does not equal being 18 or older, hence the movement towards Think 21 and now 25.
It's simply a guideline to help retail staff determine if they need to ask for ID.
Oh jeez!
OK, let me explain...what is the single purpose of a law? To protect us from harm or wrongdoing yes? So therefore a logical law to applied, based on its entire purpose, would be to not have a set age but for a doctor to examin everyone and certify you fit to drink.
There are 18 year olds that can legally drink, but can't handle their alcohol and end up in A&E whilst their 6ft tubby 17 year old mate strolls home with a kebab.
It would only be "logical" if at 18 years everybody changed over night in a mature adult. You can't argue the age at which you are physically and mentally mature enough to have drink at is logically tied to the age at which you can get married without your parents consent...because that's what you just did.
That's basically like saying it would be logical to make all prison sentances the same length because their all crimes at the end of the day.
People reach an age of majority where they are considered to be likely mature enough to handle smoking/drinking alcohol/voting/sex/agreeing to a contract etc.
While in some cases it's going to be wrong (in either direction) it's the most reasonable way of doing things.
I don't believe there is any examination a Doctor could do to establish whether a person could drink Alcohol as you miss so many variables out. How much? How often? Which drink(s)?
A 10 year old could have half a glass of wine, so maybe they should be allowed to buy that in a shop?
We'd end up with "Think 5"!
What would the benchmark be? x Pints of y drink?
no i didnt
i didnt say that '18' was a logical age for anything;
'within law, 18 is not a random number for purchasing alcohol.
it is the 'age of majority', which also applies to getting married without parents consent, voting, entering into contracts etc etc
so using an already existing age within law, & applying it to another area of law, is in fact entirely logical.
this was recently done for purchasing of tobacco, the age was raised from 16 to 18'
'law' already has this number '18' within it
it happens to define it as the 'age of majority', the age at which a person becomes an 'adult' within said 'law'
it is completely logical for any new 'laws' to take account of the fact that 'law' already contains an age '18' at which you are considered an 'adult', if those laws are using the idea that certain things should only be allowed for 'adults'
Then his company if they are paying him to think 25 are wrong, one only has to be 18 to purhcase alcohol. If any employer sacked someone who did not ask for ID to prove the age of 25 from someone who was obviously over the age of 18 the legal age to buy a product they would find themslves on the wrong side of a law suit and rightly so.
It is right that retailers make sure that people are over the age of 18 however assisting the government to bring in ID Cards by the backdoor is wrong, and that is what they are doing. First it was Challeng 21 now Challenge 25 what next Challenge 50? They are deliberately playing into government plans to make us all feel its normal to carry ID.
If they want to bring in ID cards then put it to a vote but dont play games and make shopping a bloody nightmare to do it the backdoor way.
This has sod all to do with underage drinking anymore, if it did then they would prosecute the kids they find drinking on the streets but they dont they prosecute those who sell it.
Young girls (16/17) still get into nightclubs by flashing a bit of tit and wearing tiny skirts to make them look older.
If you do what they do in Vegas (ID EVERYONE whether your 21 or 71) then the problem is suddenly eliminated.
Lots of places in America (certainly urban centers anyway) have been ID'ing EVERYONE for years.. it also works to put people off who could be dealing drugs/etc. as they have to show a form of ID on entry, which a bouncer may have the chance of recognising.