UK - Man, 72, refused alcohol over age

[buckthesystem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7003325.stm

Man, 72, refused alcohol over age

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

Check-out staff at Morrisons in West Kirby, Wirral, demanded Tony Ralls prove he was old enough to buy his two bottles of Cabernet Sauvignon.

Mr Ralls asked to see the manager who put the wine back on the shelf.

The grandfather-of-three said he had refused to confirm he was over 21 as it was a "stupid question."

Mr Ralls, a retired insurance firm regional manager, said he expected the store manager to resolve the situation but he was disappointed.

"I felt like saying 'What do I look like? Are you a fool?'

It's bureaucracy gone mad

Tony Ralls

"He picks up the wine and, in the manner of a child taking home his ball, says 'Well, we won't serve you'."

The pensioner abandoned his shopping on the conveyor belt and left the store - but not before demanding a complaints form and phone number for Morrisons' headquarters.

Mr Ralls said: "It is bureaucracy gone mad. If the check-out lady, who was about 40, had asked me with a twinkle in her eye perhaps I would not have been so tetchy.

"But she asked me the question with a perfectly straight face and I said I wouldn't dignify the question with an answer.

"And if the manager had explained that all the staff had to ask everyone because they had previously been fined, but said I was clearly over 21, it would have been fine - but he showed no sense of humour."

Mr Ralls added that he felt embarrassed to return to the supermarket and wanted an apology for "the stupid and unnecessary confrontation."

He added: "I applaud any efforts to stop kids being served and standing on street corners getting drunk. But this was just totally stupid."

A Morrisons spokesman said: "We take our responsibility with regard to selling alcohol very seriously and all our stores operate the Task 21 scheme, which addresses the difficulties our staff face in being able to determine if a customer is legally old enough to buy alcohol.

"To further limit any element of doubt staff at the West Kirby store are required to ask anyone buying alcohol to confirm that they are over 21."

________________________________________________________________________________

_______

It would be one thing if these people were merely stupid enough to obsequiously follow an "order" that makes them look really idiotic, but this is rather more sinister. It is promoting a society where mistrust is the norm, people don't even trust their own ability, or that of others, to use reason and understand the obvious, and worst of all this is designed entirely (don't be fooled by a stated intention to "stop underage drinking" - that is a red herring) to make the public used to having to prove their identity everywhere they go.

________________________________________________________________________________

_______

[femelle]

...the manager had explained that all the staff had to ask everyone because they had previously been fined...A Morrisons spokesman said: "We take our responsibility with regard to selling alcohol very seriously and all our stores operate the Task 21 scheme, which addresses the difficulties our staff face in being able to determine if a customer is legally old enough to buy alcohol."

The thing is, they are making an issue out of something that clearly isn't an issue, when very many children buy alcohol every day in these stores. That's where they need to have tighter boundaries, where it counts. They did not get fined for failing to ask for and secure proof of identity, but for actually selling alcohol to an under 18 year old.

It is promoting a society were mistrust is the norm, people don't even trust their own ability, or that of others, to use reason and understand the obvious, and worst of all this is designed entirely (don't be fooled by a stated intention to "stop underage drinking" - that is a red herring) to make the public used to having to prove their identity everywhere they go.

I agree that there is a push to have id cards carried at all times in Britain, it has been on the cards for years and eventually some party or other will make a case for it especially if we already have to provide proof during several transactions already, which it's going that way.

[buckthesystem]

In NZ in 1998 the government succeeded in literally "sneaking in an ID card by the backdoor" (in the words of the then privacy commissioner) in the form of a digi-photo "driving licence". Some of us realised what was going on at the last moment and tried to do something about it but it was too late.

When we finally had "our day in court" in 1999 the judge's words were "sure there has been a miscarriage of justice and you are absolutely right, but I'm not going to do anything about it, as to do so would cause chaos".

Our small group of people (we didn't even manage to get much publicity out) realised that we'd been defeated, but we were absolutely determined to not let this thing become generally used as an ID card (well, it definitely will, but not in my lifetime anyway - as long as I am able to write). I secured an assurance from the Land transport office that the "drivers' licence" can only be demanded by a police officer from someone while they are in a car and have obviously been driving, but even then there has to be another "reason" (something like a broken headlight or "speeding") or an employee of the land transport office "IN THE COURSE OF THEIR DUTIES WITH REGARD TO MOTOR VEHICLES. I write every four or five months or so to make sure that this is still the case and it hasn't been surreptitiously changed overnight when we were all asleep.

Anyway, the point is that since 1998 I have come across several shops, libraries, pubs, lawyers offices, prospective employers etc. who have tried to demand the "driving licence" as of right. I have always challenged this and I have always won.

[Eliyahuw]

I had a cop stop me and ask me for id when i was walking down the road bout month ago. I didn't grab my wallet to go walking so i didn't have identification on me. He had a coniption fit and decided to give me a hard time when i told him i i don't carry identification to walk down the road.

He started in on me about the law where i have to identify myself when asked by a cop. I looked at him and complied, i said my name is ........

He got really infuriated and asked me if i was a smart*** and i told him no, that i did identify myself. He said that i had to have proof, and thats when i asked him to show me in the law where i have to provide proof! IT doesn't state that i have to carry identification, just that i have to tell the cop my name and thats all i have to do.

I figured that i was heading for jail at that point, actually i was looking forward to the trip. I sure could have used a couple million dollars for false arrest!

[rtwo]

I had a cop stop me and ask me for id when i was walking down the road bout month ago. I didn't grab my wallet to go walking so i didn't have identification on me. He had a coniption fit and decided to give me a hard time when i told him i i don't carry identification to walk down the road.

He started in on me about the law where i have to identify myself when asked by a cop. I looked at him and complied, i said my name is ........

He got really infuriated and asked me if i was a smart*** and i told him no, that i did identify myself. He said that i had to have proof, and thats when i asked him to show me in the law where i have to provide proof! IT doesn't state that i have to carry identification, just that i have to tell the cop my name and thats all i have to do.

I figured that i was heading for jail at that point, actually i was looking forward to the trip. I sure could have used a couple million dollars for false arrest!

Y'know, it's those very few cops with overcharged sense of authority that make people dislike cops.

Fortunately, I know enough of the good ones that I still tend to trust them and give them the benefit of the doubt in a tazing or shooting.

So that we're not hijacking the thread... back to the topic. I'm just not sure my conspiracy hat is on tight enough to see the incident as anything other than what the gentleman involved said it was: bureaucracy gone mad. To a certain extent, IDing for alcohol is fine. Underage drinking is very much a problem, and enforcement pretty much depends on checking IDs. The situation here was just based on bad policy... not a government conspiracy.

[buckthesystem]

I had a cop stop me and ask me for id when i was walking down the road bout month ago. I didn't grab my wallet to go walking so i didn't have identification on me. He had a coniption fit and decided to give me a hard time when i told him i i don't carry identification to walk down the road.

He started in on me about the law where i have to identify myself when asked by a cop. I looked at him and complied, i said my name is ........

He got really infuriated and asked me if i was a smart*** and i told him no, that i did identify myself. He said that i had to have proof, and thats when i asked him to show me in the law where i have to provide proof! IT doesn't state that i have to carry identification, just that i have to tell the cop my name and thats all i have to do.

I figured that i was heading for jail at that point, actually i was looking forward to the trip. I sure could have used a couple million dollars for false arrest!

This seems strange to me. I could very well be totally wrong, but I am not aware of any law in UK that states you must verbally identify yourself (i.e. give your name - or any other information for that matter) to a cop just because he demands it. How does that work? However, I know definitely that there is no law stating that you must carry ID at all times and produce it on demand by a policeman. That would be just too ludicrous for words.

Sure, if the cop catches you climing over a wall wearing a striped teeshirt and a mask and carrying a sack that says "swag" on it, and you seem to have just burgled someone's house, then he would be quite within his rights to demand your name, but if he has no suspicion of you then why should he have the right to know who you are?

I sure wouldn't tell any cop who asked, what my name was! I would automatically ask why he wanted to know.

[Eliyahuw]

I had a cop stop me and ask me for id when i was walking down the road bout month ago. I didn't grab my wallet to go walking so i didn't have identification on me. He had a coniption fit and decided to give me a hard time when i told him i i don't carry identification to walk down the road.

He started in on me about the law where i have to identify myself when asked by a cop. I looked at him and complied, i said my name is ........

He got really infuriated and asked me if i was a smart*** and i told him no, that i did identify myself. He said that i had to have proof, and thats when i asked him to show me in the law where i have to provide proof! IT doesn't state that i have to carry identification, just that i have to tell the cop my name and thats all i have to do.

I figured that i was heading for jail at that point, actually i was looking forward to the trip. I sure could have used a couple million dollars for false arrest!

This seems strange to me. I could very well be totally wrong, but I am not aware of any law in UK that states you must verbally identify yourself (i.e. give your name - or any other information for that matter) to a cop just because he demands it. How does that work? However, I know definitely that there is no law stating that you must carry ID at all times and produce it on demand by a policeman. That would be just too ludicrous for words.

Sure, if the cop catches you climing over a wall wearing a striped teeshirt and a mask and carrying a sack that says "swag" on it, and you seem to have just burgled someone's house, then he would be quite within his rights to demand your name, but if he has no suspicion of you then why should he have the right to know who you are?

I sure wouldn't tell any cop who asked, what my name was! I would automatically ask why he wanted to know.

I'm in the US. The US supreme court upheld identification upon demand. They didn't say that you had to provide proof. just that you had to identify yourself to any cop that asks. That only meansyou have to tell them your name. Nothing else.

IF you don't, they will arrest you and detain you for 72 hours while they identify you through fingerprints and if they can't identify you by fingerprints they just release you and rearrest you as you walk out the door of the police station until you comply. That way they don't have to give you a trial or allow you to see a judge.

[femelle]

So that we're not hijacking the thread... back to the topic. I'm just not sure my conspiracy hat is on tight enough to see the incident as anything other than what the gentleman involved said it was: bureaucracy gone mad.

I wouldn't even agree with the gentleman, that it's bureaucracy gone mad as my daughter currently workd in an identical store to Morrisons (different brand). She works one evening a week only as she has college and studies most evenings to work any more but, this is the only important element working as a teller that she has to be concerned about. Everything else is just stacking shelves and checking cash transactions etc.

Many of these stores have been fined for selling alcohol to underage people (as her's was again just last week) so i wonder if they are not making an issue out of this gentleman so as to be 'seen' to be having tight control of this issue when in reality, within the age group where it really counts, they do not!

Anyway, the point is that since 1998 I have come across several shops, libraries, pubs, lawyers offices, prospective employers etc. who have tried to demand the "driving licence" as of right. I have always challenged this and I have always won.

buckthesystem, i really admire your tenacity with this. I think it is really important to be a watchman in these times and confess i am not half as aware as i should be.

I could very well be totally wrong, but I am not aware of any law in UK that states you must verbally identify yourself (i.e. give your name - or any other information for that matter) to a cop just because he demands it.

I have no idea about this. I would instinctively have given it, if asked though.

Just as an aside, we have had incidences of rogue security guards in museums etc (who are not connected to the museum) checking id and asking to search people, then stealing their cell phones, car keys etc... Makes one think!

[buckthesystem]

I had a cop stop me and ask me for id when i was walking down the road bout month ago. I didn't grab my wallet to go walking so i didn't have identification on me. He had a coniption fit and decided to give me a hard time when i told him i i don't carry identification to walk down the road.

He started in on me about the law where i have to identify myself when asked by a cop. I looked at him and complied, i said my name is ........

He got really infuriated and asked me if i was a smart*** and i told him no, that i did identify myself. He said that i had to have proof, and thats when i asked him to show me in the law where i have to provide proof! IT doesn't state that i have to carry identification, just that i have to tell the cop my name and thats all i have to do.

I figured that i was heading for jail at that point, actually i was looking forward to the trip. I sure could have used a couple million dollars for false arrest!

This seems strange to me. I could very well be totally wrong, but I am not aware of any law in UK that states you must verbally identify yourself (i.e. give your name - or any other information for that matter) to a cop just because he demands it. How does that work? However, I know definitely that there is no law stating that you must carry ID at all times and produce it on demand by a policeman. That would be just too ludicrous for words.

Sure, if the cop catches you climing over a wall wearing a striped teeshirt and a mask and carrying a sack that says "swag" on it, and you seem to have just burgled someone's house, then he would be quite within his rights to demand your name, but if he has no suspicion of you then why should he have the right to know who you are?

I sure wouldn't tell any cop who asked, what my name was! I would automatically ask why he wanted to know.

I'm in the US. The US supreme court upheld identification upon demand. They didn't say that you had to provide proof. just that you had to identify yourself to any cop that asks. That only meansyou have to tell them your name. Nothing else.

IF you don't, they will arrest you and detain you for 72 hours while they identify you through fingerprints and if they can't identify you by fingerprints they just release you and rearrest you as you walk out the door of the police station until you comply. That way they don't have to give you a trial or allow you to see a judge.

Sorry EliH (short form, hope that is allright) I don't know why I thought you were in UK (maybe I thought the name "Huw" was Welsh).

Anyway, I still find that strange. I can almost understand it if the policeman in question suspects you of something, but generally ........well .........WHY????????

[Afal]

I agree that there is a push to have id cards carried at all times in Britain, it has been on the cards for years and eventually some party or other will make a case for it especially if we already have to provide proof during several transactions already, which it's going that way.

I agree! As I read this article, I actually thought to myself that on a day-to-day basis, I do not carry anything to prove how old I am.

Initially, I would consider it a compliment if I was asked to prove that I was over 21, considering that I am well past that age!!!! But then I too would get annoyed at the stupidity of the question.