• Media Enquiries

    07505 448925(24hr)

Constant Age Checks are Infantilising Adults

Marvin_logo Great work from our mates over at the Manifesto Club – a well-researched report called

28 ¾: How Constant Age Checks are Infantilising Adults

Which does what it says on the tin. You know, think 21, ask 25, demand a bus pass, think 45… but it's an even more robust report than the unbelievable irritation of constant demands for ID would suggest – inter alia, it points out that

People are being refused alcohol sales when shopping with younger siblings or children, on the basis of suspicions that the alcohol could be for the child. Case studies cited in this report include that of one woman who was prevented from buying a bottle of wine, because her 23-year old daughter and 22-year-old friend could not provide ID. In another case, a 17-year-old girl wasn’t allowed to help her gran carry her shopping because there was alcohol in the bag.

What are you doing still here? Read it, immediately!

By Alex Deane

Posted on September 2, 2010 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Home
  • http://ampers.wordpress.com Andrew Ampers Taylor

    The problem here is not Government, although they are probably ultimately to blame.
    The problem is our highly litigative society.
    Supermarket managers, knowing they have staff on the lowest wage levels, have to give them express orders on how to behave knowing that many are not able to use their initiative. So they go over the top to be safe.
    If I went in with my children and they wouldn’t serve me, I would tell the cashier to contact the manager as I was suing the store for insinuating that I was a bad parent about to feed liquor to my kids.

  • guy herbert

    No. The problem *is* Government, specifically the Licensing Act 2003 – the way it altered criminal liability, the way it put massive new compliance power in the hands of local authorities (which became the licensing authorities in place of magistrates), and the way it encouraged them to be restrictive by giving them a moralistic set of statutory duties concerning those powers. There is a parallel Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 of the Scottish Parliament, which is if anything even more bluenosed.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/laurasmith Laura Smith

    This report is exactly right. I am sick to the back teeth of being told I ought to be flattered rather than inconvenienced. When asked for identification whilst buying a bottle of wine and a 15 rated movie recently, I asked which one I was suspected of being ineligible to buy. They didn’t seem to understand that, given I am approaching 30, being asked to prove I’m 18 is not that much more ridiculous than being asked to prove I’m 15…

  • Francis Hoar

    Completely agree.
    It’s one stop from here to the moronic Elizabeth Dole led campaign to turn under 21 year olds into children in the US. And the result has certainly been a rather infantilised, immature generation of ‘School’ students (as they, rather appropriately, are known).

  • S Sampson

    I was once refused vanilla essence in Tesco because my 17 year old daughter was packing the bag. The rational being that vanilla essence has alchol in it and my daughetr I might be buying it for my daughter who might drink it. The thought of anyone desperate enough for alchol that they would drink vanilla essence is bizarre enough, but I am well over 21 and I would have though able to be trusted with such substances as vanilla essence!

  • Gram

    As I understand it, it isn’t illegal for the underage to drink it – just buy it. So why are the shops so concerned? They are neither the police nor my moral guardian. BTW Witherspoons refused to sell my 20 year old daughter two soft drinks as her sister was only 12. This in the hight of the summer when they were desperate for a drink.

  • blastproof

    If you don’t like the shop concerned, take your business elsewhere: act like an adult and make a choice of where to spend your money.

  • guy herbert

    @Gram: The Licensing Act 2005 changed that ancient rule too. It is now an offence to buy, or attempt to buy, alcohol *on behalf of* a person aged under 18. It is not an offence to buy it and give it to them, but the difference is a fine one, difficult to ascertain in practice, and if you are accompanied by a minor the retailer is going to be safe rather than sorry.
    Here one trading standards authority has helpfully produced a list of the criminal offences created by the legislation:
    http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/pdf/Licensing%20Authority%20Guidance%20Doc%2005%20-%20Offence.pdf
    There are 58 of them. All of which could result in your losing your license, quite apart from the fines and criminal record.

  • http://faustiesblog.blogspot.com FaustiesBlog

    According to that report, “New legislation due to come into force in October 2010 threatens to bring this confusion into the law itself, by requiring retailers to ask any customer appearing to be under the age specified in their own policy for photographic ID”
    So much for the coalition protecting civil liberties, eh?
    This push for photographic ID is to acclimatise people to accepting an eventual ID card, which the next government will probably re-introduce.
    It’s typical of the ‘elites’ to begin with the young – because they more readily accept such intrusions.
    If asked for ID, I challenge the idiot – who could possibly suspect a 50-year-old to be under age?! If they still insist on ID, I leave my shopping on the counter and walk out, reminding them that there are other places to shop.

  • Reason

    FaustiesBlog
    I agree. This is all about grooming the young into carrying ID.
    I am going to start a guerrilla sticker campaign placing stickers with “GROOMING” over the “Think”, “Challenge” 21 or 25 posters.

  • Jeremy Hummerstone

    “..insinuating that I was a bad parent about to feed liquor to my kids”
    But you are perfectly entitled to “feed liquor” to your kids, so what is the issue?