Lidl Alcohol Purchase

hullaballoo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That's pretty poor advice to be giving out and likely to get someone in trouble if they follow it.

It's not advice? Who am I advising?

Anyway, you will see that I adjusted my position when Bepolite posted the amended section.

Little CuChulainn

hullaballoo wrote: »

It's not advice? Who am I advising?

Looks like open advice to anyone working in an offo. You should be more careful throwing out statements like that. If someone where to take it as the opinion of a legal professional and act on it, there could be all sorts of issues.

hullaballoo wrote: »

Anyway, you will see that I adjusted my position when Bepolite posted the amended section.

Your post is still there with a blatantly untrue statement about what an off licence professional can legally do. Maybe an edit would be a good idea. Even just to change the language so it doesn't dismiss other peoples correct claims as "absolute tosh".

Not only do employees have to avoid job losses but they also have to be wary of test shoppers both from head office and the Gardaí, who can now legally send in young people to test them. It is extremely important that they abide by the, admittedly ridiculously strict, rules set out for them. The consequences go beyond mere work place disciplinary measures.

MrBobbyZ

hullaballoo wrote: »

Ok, that makes a significant difference all right.

I tried very briefly to find out whether the definition of "age card" means only a Garda Age Card or not but I gave up when I realised I was trying to make sense of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts.

It's poor legislating if they have, by omission, made a law that does not allow shops to accept a passport in place of a Garda Age Card. Of course, I'm alive to the possibility (probability) that it could have been intentional to generate revenue from the age cards. (Having checked, though, they only cost €10 and presumably they cost the Govt more in terms of Garda resources, postage etc. than that.) Bizarre law.

It gets even worse, the act forbids sale of alcohol to anyone intoxicated. That bit makes sense until you realise that its not always very easy to tell if a person is intoxicated or not. And as far as I am aware, only two professions are leaglly qualified to make to make that assessment (Medical Doctor & Gardai).

Del2005

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Looks like open advice to anyone working in an offo. You should be more careful throwing out statements like that. If someone where to take it as the opinion of a legal professional and act on it, there could be all sorts of issues.



Your post is still there with a blatantly untrue statement about what an off licence professional can legally do. Maybe an edit would be a good idea. Even just to change the language so it doesn't dismiss other peoples correct claims as "absolute tosh".

Not only do employees have to avoid job losses but they also have to be wary of test shoppers both from head office and the Gardaí, who can now legally send in young people to test them. It is extremely important that they abide by the, admittedly ridiculously strict, rules set out for them. The consequences go beyond mere work place disciplinary measures.

If someone reading this thread takes only the post into account when they decide who to sell alcohol to they deserve what happens to them, they receive training from the store and a couple of posts later the relevant statue was posted.

Little CuChulainn

Del2005 wrote: »

If someone reading this thread takes only the post into account when they decide who to sell alcohol to they deserve what happens to them, they receive training from the store and a couple of posts later the relevant statue was posted.

I agree completely. But apparently there are plenty of people out there who will take that advice and act on it, which is why I presume it is against the charter.

Cookie_Monster

Bepolite wrote: »

I don't quite understand what was unclear about Conorh91's post. It was put clearly and succinctly. The line is where common sense puts it and within the judgement of the person manning the tills in the instant scenario.

What's unclear is that the decision is being left to someone who is not qualified to make such a judgement and is not aware of all the facts in the background.

Do you not see at as clearly ridiculous that a parent and teenage child will be served without issue but two 25-30 plus adults won't be unless both have ID, not just the purchaser.

Bepolite

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What's unclear is that the decision is being left to someone who is not qualified to make such a judgement and is not aware of all the facts in the background.

Do you not see at as clearly ridiculous that a parent and teenage child will be served without issue but two 25-30 plus adults won't be unless both have ID, not just the purchaser.

The cashier at the till is perfectly able to make a common sense judgement. If they think one or more of the persons concerned are underage, that the person purchasing my pass on the drink then they are perfectly entitled to refuse sale. They will always err on the side of caution, and rightly so. Most places have an ID 25 policy so you need to look over 25.

If a parents wants to hand their teenage child a drink in the privacy of their own home, my parents always did, that's their business.

If someone is there at the till with the DTs they should probably see a doctor rather than getting so angry over being turned down for booze because they look a lit too young.

A first world problem I wish I still suffered from.

Little CuChulainn

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What's unclear is that the decision is being left to someone who is not qualified to make such a judgement and is not aware of all the facts in the background.

Do you not see at as clearly ridiculous that a parent and teenage child will be served without issue but two 25-30 plus adults won't be unless both have ID, not just the purchaser.

There are plenty of stories of parents being refused when with their teenagers too. They really do err on the far side of caution.

Pro Hoc Vice

Bepolite wrote: »

It's made even more bizarre by the fact that the amendment only covers off-licences. Pubs are still allowed the reasonable grounds standard.

Incorrect, for a very clear statment of the law look at Waxy O'Connors. A pub can have a Defence in a charge for having a minor on the premises but not if served.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/491cd9c28228ffbe802576bf004b7705?OpenDocument

Pro Hoc Vice

MrBobbyZ wrote: »

It gets even worse, the act forbids sale of alcohol to anyone intoxicated. That bit makes sense until you realise that its not always very easy to tell if a person is intoxicated or not. And as far as I am aware, only two professions are leaglly qualified to make to make that assessment (Medical Doctor & Gardai).

A publican by is a professional and can for the purpose of the act make a determination that a person is intoxicated.

conorh91

MrBobbyZ wrote: »

It gets even worse, the act forbids sale of alcohol to anyone intoxicated. That bit makes sense until you realise that its not always very easy to tell if a person is intoxicated or not. And as far as I am aware, only two professions are leaglly qualified to make to make that assessment (Medical Doctor & Gardai).

S.2 of the Intoxicating liquor Act 2003 sets a much higher threshold for establishing drunkenness than would be applied by a medical doctor or a member of AGS in the course of alcohol breath-testing, for example.

The test is—

“drunken person” means a person who is intoxicated to such an extent as would give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the person might endanger himself or herself or any other person

A court would therefore ask itself whether a reasonable man, having regard to all the circumstances, would form an apprehension of danger.

It is not sufficient for the person merely to be drunk in a technical sense.

For example the High Court has previously held that a publican may continue to serve alcohol to a person who would be too drunk to drive a car.

Karede

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

This is the problem with enforcement of the law. You'll eventually get flak for asking the wrong person. Can you not just take it as someone doing their job and show ID? What's the harm if some people in their 20s and 30s have to show ID if it means the teenagers aren't getting their hands on easily accessible alcohol?

Ah come on, common sense needs to be used. When i'm going out to do my weekly family shop I don't want to have to run around the house looking for my passport!

Bepolite

Karede wrote: »

Ah come on, common sense needs to be used. When i'm going out to do my weekly family shop I don't want to have to run around the house looking for my passport!

I think you've skipped over some of the points in this thread.

ekimiam

I think we are against the american style ID'ing everyone even the over 50's.
we shouldn't need to be that draconian to stop drunken teenagers,
what we need would be min price alcohol laws and an effective police force.

Little CuChulainn

ekimiam wrote: »

I think we are against the american style ID'ing everyone even the over 50's.
we shouldn't need to be that draconian to stop drunken teenagers,
what we need would be min price alcohol laws and an effective police force.

What we need is an adult population that doesn't spend their weekends pissed out of their heads and parents who give a damn.

ekimiam

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What we need is an adult population that doesn't spend their weekends pissed out of their heads and parents who give a damn.

and fluffy little clouds to carry us home.....

amdublin

Why the references to 4 year old children and 12 year old children?

A child standing beside you proves nothing.

Carawaystick

the proper antisocial thing to do woulkd be to buy some frozen food and kick up if refused alcohol, until the frozen food has melted... then calling the health inspectors saying the shop was refreezing it...

Seriously though, I think the age card law would not stand up to challenge, with foreign resident citizens unable to get one during a short visit, and resident citizens turning 18 unable to get one for a while,
and homeless citizens unable to get one at all

Pro Hoc Vice

Carawaystick wrote: »

the proper antisocial thing to do woulkd be to buy some frozen food and kick up if refused alcohol, until the frozen food has melted... then calling the health inspectors saying the shop was refreezing it...

Seriously though, I think the age card law would not stand up to challenge, with foreign resident citizens unable to get one during a short visit, and resident citizens turning 18 unable to get one for a while,
and homeless citizens unable to get one at all

The law was challenged and to the best of my knowledge is awaiting a hearing in the Supreme Court.