List of all posts by user:

In any other sphere of law the act of obtaining goods or services by deception is treated as just that and the person doing the deceiving is punished. For some strange reason it's reversed when applied to the sale of alcohol. No account seems to be taken of the staff, who may well be busy, and the pressures they're under to serve people. Regardless of how many schemes and initiatives are flung at us, until it's acknowledged that it's the poor defenceless kid who is in the wrong then the current situation just serves to widen a gulf between the Licensees and the authorities and agencies looking to trip them up or tell them what to do and how to do it. Perhaps one way of going about it would be to ask people to accept responsibility for themselves and their own actions. Over the past few years we seem to have fallen completely into a victim culture where everything bad or illegal that someone does can be somehow blamed on the ills of society. Whether it's vandalism, alcholism, broken familes or crime; the person in the spotlight always seems to have a litany of people to blame and demand support from. Whatever happened to standing on your own two feet as an adult and not bleating like a baby, demanding support you don't deserve and aren't entitled to.

Why should the supplier of the alcohol, in this case the Off-Licence, be punished for selling drink to someone over 21? If it can be proven that they supplied it in the knowledge it would be passed to an under 21-year old then perhaps but when the product leaves the persons premises then their responsibility should end. How can you demonstrate any liability on the part of the retailer should someone who is over 21 buy alcohol then go round the corner and give to someone who is under age? To apply that logic to another situation, everyone who gets a speeding ticket should be able to sue the dealership or private individual who sold them their car because it had the capability of busting the speed limit. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If I sell you a drink and you then go and give that drink to a kid; why should I then be punished?

Robert, on the contrary, I'm in agreement with you. It's the arguments and the way they are backed up which I'm suggesting are stupid.

Reading Robert's comments remind me of similar stupid arguments in my other profession, namely; let's all get out of our cars and walk or take the bus. Sure, they'll smack you senseless with figures but when you scratch just a little beneath the surface the figures they quote to support just about any argument suddenly look disjointed and silly. Being a Scot and living in England I have a unique perspective on this nonsense. A long distance lorry driver has to get out of his cab to light up a cigarette for example, because the private space he's in, is in public. Agents acting for the LA's have the power to stalk you all the way to your front door and charge you their travelling costs as well as the fine they have been following around to serve on you. All of this for enjoying a perfectly legal product... I visited the conference website. What a surprise to see the NHS logo. I wonder how much of our tax money, ironically picked from the pockets of smokers, will go to fund this so do-gooders and people with nothing better to do can agree with each other and pat each other on the back as they march us successfully towards another milestone on the road to complete supplication.