Fake IDs: Countering the counterfeit
This problem over the viability of independent proof-of- age cards has been going on for a very long time and clearly is still a major problem several years down the line.
A few years ago I discovered that one of our local nightclubs would accept only such proof as a passport or driving licence, and that this was policy across its whole national estate.
When I spoke to them about it, they claimed the pressure on them by the police with regard to under-age sales was such that they had to be convinced that the ID which they were shown was genuine. They felt that the range of proof-of-age cards lent themselves to forgery and they were simply not prepared to accept them.
This is still going on, unfortunately — in spite of the protestations that driving licences are easier to forge. There is this embedded position, brought about by fear of prosecution, or even worse by the suspension or removal of the licence.
Whether or not the Home Office can be persuaded to make the acceptance of these cards compulsory in the trade (in the light of the fact that they endorse them anyway) is a matter for debate.
The mandatory condition on proof of age, now included in the Licensing Act, is not specific, although it requires there to be a policy in all licensed premises that persons below a specified age (which can be greater than 18) should be required to produce “identification bearing their photograph, date of birth and a holographic mark.”
This requirement is met by any PASS card, as it is with both a card-style driving licence and these days by a passport as well.
However, some youngsters are understandably nervous about having to carry their passport around with them while they’re on a night out, as the loss of this can have serious consequences.
On the whole question of forgery, as I wrote last year, I do not see why a person who is old enough to try and dupe a licensee should not be old enough to be fined for it.
After all, it is a lot easier to establish that someone who is underage is attempting to buy an alcoholic drink than it is to chase around trying to discover who gave him the document — and actually a lot more effective.
I continue to be puzzled as to why the Government does not recognise the deterrent effect of prosecution in these cases. Young people (and their families) genuinely consider that trying to buy a drink under age is a guilt-free exercise and is not a criminal act at all.
Yet now that just two incidents of underage selling can risk the whole of a person’s livelihood in the licensed trade, would it not be a good idea to ram home the message that both attempting to buy and using fraud or subterfuge to do so is a crime which can be punished?
As it is, the only punishment that seems to be meted out is a stern warning and the confiscation of the offending document, which can easily be replaced, it seems. This could be seen by many youngsters as another part of the ‘game’ of getting a drink and not a pre-cursor to any form of criminal record.
I agree that as things stand it is unlikely that doorstaff or licensees are going to be any better disposed to these independent cards unless they are made obligatory. Would that I could see it happening.
