One of the more egregious developments over recent years is the demand for identification documents when buying relatively innocuous products. I find it irritating and redolent of a previous era and place that would be best left behind. Often when cases are reported in the tabloids, the person doing the asking is castigated for their poor judgement. My ire, however, has always been reserved for those who truly deserve it; the people who made the rules in the first place.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve always had difficulty determining someone’s age just by looking at them. Okay, anyone looking at me would realise that I am well over the age of eighteen, even if I do look a good decade younger than my actual age. The problem occurs with people in their mid-teens to late twenties.
Having just been through the induction programme for Sainsbury’s I cannot say that I feel any better about the “Think 25” campaign than I did before. Probably worse. The logic is that someone who looks as if they are in their twenties could be much younger, so 25 is playing safe. From the perspective of the retailer and the shop assistant, this is pure survival. If they get it wrong, prosecutions, fines, loss of licence and criminal records follow. Yup, that’s right, if that checkout assistant makes a judgment that the customer is over eighteen, gets it wrong and it’s a trap set by the Trading Standards people, there follows a fixed penalty notice, a fine and a criminal record, not to mention potential loss of their job. Discretion is not allowed and judgement is not a defence.
That’s why these people apparently don’t used common sense. It’s drummed into them from the start – and they are looking after their own interests; sensibly, in my opinion. If in doubt, ask, is the mantra they have instilled into them from their induction onwards – and yes, I was silently fuming during this process, because we had the patter about “knife crime” and “binge drinking”, “you only have to read the newspapers”. Some, inevitably, take the easy route and ask everyone, hence the tabloid stories about greybeards being asked to produce ID when buying their bottle of vino. It isn’t the person on the checkout who is leading us to a “papers, please” society, it is the pressure placed upon them by the law and its enforcement agencies. They are as much a victim of this system as those of us gnashing our teeth with rage when we are asked.
And, of course, once it is established as normal to ask people in their twenties for ID when buying booze, kitchen knives and fags, it becomes easier to roll out for other things. But that was, doubtless, the idea all along.
Quite right too, you don’t want to risk a child of 17 buying this kind of thing and then getting in their car and driving away: http://ciarang.com/posts/underage-ii
That child could also be legally married…
“If they get it wrong, prosecutions, fines, loss of licence and criminal records follow.”
You do realise you are describing a ‘civilised western country’ here not North Korea!
Thankfully the only time I was asked for ID was when buying a television in Twatco. The look of horror on the assistants face when I said I cannot prove who I am because the birth certificate attached to my name states ‘it cannot be used as proof of identity’ was priceless.
Needless to say Twatco didn’t the sale.
ID – when buying a TV?
Not exactly – but, AIUI, they are ‘required to’ supply the ‘Authorities’ with your address – so they can check if you have a TV Licence.
“Not exactly – but, AIUI, they are ‘required to’ supply the ‘Authorities’ with your address – so they can check if you have a TV Licence.”
Twatco man asked for my name and address isn’t that asking for ID?
There’s no reason to give them your real name and address. They just write down what you say.
There’s every reason not to give them a false name and address, just as a matter of principle.
The response of the supermarkets is entirely rational. The problem is the law that prescribes very hard penalties for anyone who mistakenly sells alcohol to an underage person. But let’s not forget before we get too carried away that the reason such laws are created is because of the Daily Mail moron tendency that think that underage drinking is the biggest threat to civilisation other than a Muslim woman wearing a burqua of her own free will. Governments wouldn’t pass laws like this if there wasn’t a very substantial number of our fellow citizens who are hysterical freedom hating sewage.
There’s every reason not to give them a false name and address, just as a matter of principle
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of TV Licensing, I doubt that it does anything with the information it receives from retailers. Which is presumably you are not asked for proof of adress. It has a database of every household and it just makes life a misery for every address which does not have a licence registered to it, regardless of whether that address legally has to be licensed.