Bee in my bonnet

This post is far from my usual style, but I've got a bit of a bee in my bonnet. You see (for those who do not live in Britain), there are currently two campaigns called 'Look 21' and 'Look 25' which are designed to provide guidelines as to selling age-restricted products. The idea is that if someone doesn't look 21 or 25, depending on the scheme the company adheres to, they should be asked to provide proof of age. This is either a passport or a driving license. There are other things that can be ID, but I'm not confident they'd be accepted everywhere. In theory, maybe they should be, but in practise I've seen a place advertising that staff will not accept a driving license as proof of age, which might be illegal, I'm not sure. Both of these things require a reasonably significant investment of money: certainly more than I ever had to spare while I was a student. Bear in mind that the drinking age in Britain is 18, so 'Look 25' actually asks people who are anything fewer than seven years past the drinking age to provide proof of age. A fair margin for error, some might say, and at least the legal drinking age is 18, not 21.

Except every person has stories like the ones in this article from the BBC. I'm glad there's finally starting to be a backlash against this attitude.

My pennyworth on the subject.

While it is highly unreasonable that people twice the drinking age are asked for ID, it is unfortunately mostly employees being wary due to the high penalties for serving underage drinkers. As someone who works in a place that, due to recent company expansion, sells age-restricted goods, employees who handle age-restricted goods are subject to an atmosphere of fear of potential prosecution if they don't ask for ID and fear of aggression on the part of the customer if they do, as well as in many cases sympathy with the plight of the customer. We're heading towards a culture where literally everybody is asked to prove their age when buying alchohol and 18 certificate DVDs. It's not fun for anybody, but it's a flailing attempt to try and pull the potential media backlash against things like violent video games and binge drinking culture. From the POV of people in the arts industry, age certification on products provides a useful way of pointing to the certificate and saying, "Er, sorry, but it's not intended for kids, so it's not our fault Little Timmy was mentally scarred by 'Generic Soldier: Guts and Glory' or is [probably more likely] taking joy in pretending to viciously slaughter alien monsters, with extra blood splatters in 'Alien Invasion V'." Not that the media takes any notice whatsoever of the age certification system, so busy are they leaping on the next 'Serial Killer played Mankiller: Bloody Revenge IV' story. But that's a different bee for a different bonnet. Please notice that I don't mention the government anywhere else but in these two sentences. I'm unwilling to lay this blame at the feet of Labour, as seems to be the current trend: yes, they implemented a lot of the obsession with IDing, but I think any middle class, middle-aged government would have reacted in the same way to such a monumental problem. Let's just not talk about the Digital Rights Bill.

There are a few beefs I have with this whole system that aren't linked to IDing when buying. For a start, Tescos and some other supermarkets require ID for everyone going through a checkout with someone buying age-restricted products, which is extremely irritating, especially when parents cannot buy a bottle of wine when going through a checkout with their child. The culture of blame is putting the responsibility for drinking culture on the retailers, not on the individual and while there should be some level of corporate responsibility for one's products, shops shouldn't be required to make up for inadequate education about the dangers of drinking, nor should they be expected to treat adults as though they had no awareness or maturity regarding their own decisions.

When places like Wetherspoons ask someone to leave the pub at seven o'clock on a Tuesday evening for ordering a slice of chocolate cake and a glass of water without ID, something has gone wrong. I understand that ID measures are there for a good reason, but before I had ID I could potentially be thrown out of a pub when sitting with my friends drinking a soft drink. When you get to an evening's socialising, you'd be hard pressed to find somewhere open at that time that does not serve alchohol, and so by introducing such strict measures, innocent people are having their freedoms heavily restricted. My liberal soul rebels against the idea of guilt by association. ID is expensive and, for the only two definite pieces of ID that are accepted almost anywhere, are linked to facilitating either driving or leaving the country. In addition, for those who are teetotal, it verges on offensive to them that they must shell out a lot of money for ID just to sit with their friends in a pub with a soft drink. In an ideal world, their most suitable system would be an opt-in system rather than an opt-out one.

In short, if I'm attempting to buy an age-restricted product, feel free to ID me. I knew that was a possibility when I decided to buy it. OK, if I'm clearly not under 21, it's annoying, but you're just doing your job, I'll let it slide. But when I'm ordering a soft drink in a pub, or when I'm not directly buying an age-restricted product but someone vaguely nearby me I clearly know is, what right do you have to tell me I need ID for that? I don't buy drinks or cigarettes for underage kids when approached - please trust me as an adult to make that decision for myself.