Forums

Posted: 07-11-2009 17:43 Post subject:

It's less an ID card "sneaky introduction" than a retail firm covering their corperate arse. They officially say it's up to the sales staff discretion but they point out how it could all go pear-shaped if "something happens" i.e. bad press for the firm concerned. "If you, Checkout Person, sell booze to an underaged shopper then we'll hang your arse out to dry!"

Thus, they insist (accurately) that the firm obeys and enforces national laws but if any bad - or silly - publicity occurs by some spotty 16-year-old on a checkout questioning the right of a zimmer-frame mobile pensioner, then the firm has deniablility by saying the checkout staff "have discretion".

I - myself a bearded and I'd like to think mature-looking reprobate - have been into the local supermarket to purchase some tinnies to enjoy for the evening and, on payment, joked that I have proof of age. The young (looking) girlie serving me smiled, looked at her terminal, then asked (in all seriousness) if she could see it. After laughing, I realised she was serious. Preserving a sense of humour, I presented my State-sanctioned identity (Driving Licence); she was obviously embarrassed to ask and hoping I wouldn't "make a fuss" which - of course - I didn't. I just found it funny that a person who was (to all appearances) younger than the legal age of alcohol consumption had to question someone who was obviously older than the legal age if they could prove their age!

Posted: 07-11-2009 18:13 Post subject:

Posted: 07-11-2009 19:08 Post subject:

A few years ago, when I was about 27, I stopped into a petrol station to fill up with fuel and buy some tobacco.

The chap behind the counter asked me for photo ID for the fags.

Now, we have to bear in mind a few points here. Firstly, at the time the legal age to buy cigarettes was SIXTEEN.

1. I had driven into the petrol station alone and was buying fuel (hence, I must be at least 17).

2. As someone alse mentioned above, I was paying with a credit card (minimum age 18 ).

3. I had an pretty decent-strength goatee beard.

4. Male-pattern-baldness doesn't usually remove virtually every hair from the top of your head before the age of 16.

So there I was - a bald, bearded, credit card holder driving a brand new motor. And I was being accused of being under 16.

After gently pointing these facts out to the young fella and being completely stonewalled, I asked for the manager. I had my driving licence in my wallet but it was one in the morning, I'd just finished a twelve-hour shift and I was a little tetchy.

The manager literally cuffed the cashier round the ear, and very slowly explained that he only needed to ask for ID if he thought the customer might be under age, not if it was pretty damn bloody obvious that they weren't.

I felt really guilty then 'cos it turned out that it was the lad's first shift and the system hadn't been explained to him properly - he had just been told to "check ID for booze and fags". Embarassed

He probably swung completely the other way after that and started selling gin to 10 year olds.

Posted: 07-11-2009 22:39 Post subject:

There were certainly plenty of firework horrors around in the sixties and seventies. I have never fortgotten the little lad of about ten, who was interviewed on a local news programme. He had made the big mistake of carrying a Roman Candle in his trouser pocket. The story was that a stray spark ignited it, though the position of the blue touch-paper makes his luck seem especially bad.

"How do you feel about that night now, Johnny?"
"Gutted."
"Would you have liked to have had a family one day?"
"I suppose so."
"Have you anything to say to the boys watching this?"
"Bollocks!"
"Thank you, Johnny. Now sing us a song!"

Only the last bit was invented. I remember quizzing my mum about why the kid could never have a family. I knew perfectly well but did it to annoy. Devil

Posted: 08-11-2009 17:59 Post subject:

O.K, I know of stories like that, but AFAIK there were not many. The vast majority handled their fireworks quite well. If half the nation died every time bonfire time comes round then I'd say it would be time to ban the practice as it is obviously too much to handle by mere humans.

But a small minority will always get injured or even die by doing anything really.
I mean there are deaths by bungee jumping, people are choking on food [more than those getting injured by fireworks], some die taking too much paracetamol, others injure themselves cutting onions and don't get me started with car accidents...

The normal state is that some people will always get hurt. Banning something isn't the answer because they just hurt themselves doing something else. The only safe state might be to keep everyone in some liquid suspension fluid, fed healthy nourishment through tubes.
But I dunno, something might even go wrong then.

Posted: 08-11-2009 20:46 Post subject:

Posted: 09-11-2009 14:34 Post subject:

Posted: 09-11-2009 16:01 Post subject:

Posted: 09-11-2009 16:25 Post subject:

Without wading in too deeply: Health & safety regulations and commercial caution when dealing with - essentially - explosives is fair enough.

The recent story about teachers not allowing students on a beach trip to paddle in the surf owing to safety guidelines is far more tragic.

Posted: 09-11-2009 18:14 Post subject: