ID Check at Dan Murphys Rant

Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 09:43
Last edited 01/03/2015 - 10:28

Hi

I went in Dan Murphy's with my friend. I took a bottle of sparkling wine to the counter with my friend next to me. The sales person asked for my ID. I handed my ID and it was fine. The sales person then asked for my friends ID. My friend handed in the ID and it was fine and I paid and bought it. I bought the drink fine, thats not the problem but a thought struck me. We then had this conversation:

Me: why do you have to check my friends ID?
Sales: Yes we have to because its the store policy, we cant sell to people whos accompanied by an under 18.
Me: Er, so if my friend didnt bring her ID, I can't buy this?
Sales: Correct
Me: Then if my friend walks out of the shop, can i buy it then?
Sales: No
Me: Then when can I buy it. The next day?
Sales: Yeah, you'd have to come back the next day without your friend.

This raises several questions.
If my friend had just walked out and didn't stop at the counter with me, I would have no problem buying the sparkling?

Why have to wait 24 hrs? Why can't I just go out of Dan Murphys straight away then come back in by myself? I can just say my friend went back home?

What does 'accompanied' even mean. Just because i'm talking to the person standing next to me, they are accompanying me?

What happens to a family's day out to grab a six pack of beer? They can't buy it because their 4 yo kid is accompanying them?

This policy in my opinion is flawed and not effective in serving its purpose. If this really is their policy, then its not doing a very good job because it can be avoided very easily. Similar to guilty unless proven otherwise, they would have to prove the 'friend' is really my 'friend'. Can't they make this policy more efficient? I fail to comprehend.

Poll Options

  • 111
    This policy is flawed
  • 241
    This policy is not flawed
Food & Grocery

Related Stores

Dan Murphy's
Dan Murphy's

Comments

      • umamandy on 01/03/2015 - 17:55

        Lol this sounds like when my sisters and I go out for dinner. I guarantee every time, its something like "sorry, 16 year olds aren't allowed in the bar." Don't even ask for ID, so we all flip out full driver's licenses. Since I'm the youngest, I get it enough not to care, but my 27 yo, married sister gets furious. :D

        It was experiences like these when I was 18 that taught me to carry ID everywhere. :D

        • iridiumstem on 01/03/2015 - 18:11

          Don't worry, it's because you are Asian (sorta) ;)

  • altomic on 01/03/2015 - 12:40

    Staff usually laugh when I'm buying beer and accompanied by my 6 year old and I state "you'll enjoy this lager more than that stout ". Dad joke.

    Or maybe they are being condescending?

    • YTW on 01/03/2015 - 14:17
      +2

      I don't think condescending. Polite probably. You are the 53rd dad to make that joke this week most likely…when I worked in retail it absolutely amazed me how everyone would come up and say the exact same thing and make the exact same jokes about stuff. I could almost write the script of what they were going to say to me as they walked up to the counter.

      • AssociatedGina Rinehart @ Dan Murphy's on 01/03/2015 - 20:36
        +5

        "Need the receipt?" (for liquor)

        "Nah mate, can't claim that on tax!"

        • AssociatedDesolateApophic @ Dan Murphy's on 06/03/2016 - 18:42

          Politely chuckles, nods and smiles as they exit

          Wow.. I thought this was March of this year… Just realised it is 2016, not 2015.

  • djones145 on 01/03/2015 - 13:10

    you look under 18 be grateful!
    haven't been asked for ID for years.. :( getting old

    • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 16:35

      Its not about getting asked for ID. Its about effectiveness of the policy. Much loopholes.

      • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2015 - 18:09
        +9

        Much loopholes.

        Very wow!

      • tko6070 on 01/03/2015 - 19:36
        +1

        doge is that you?

  • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2015 - 15:28
    +2

    Totally unrelated but I remember getting random older guys to buy my friends and I alcohol.
    Rite of passage.

  • outlander on 01/03/2015 - 16:49
    +3

    I wish I knew about this when I was a teen. It would have been fun to call out "hey Jim, get me the big bottle", pretending to be friends with random people in the store so that they get chucked out.

    • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 17:49
      -1

      use this to pull a prank..

  • justpressplay on 01/03/2015 - 17:10
    +7

    It's a bit silly I agree. Harm prevention sometimes goes too far. It reminds me of a trip to Maine I took to visit my partner's mum. All three of us went into a lonely petrol station to choose a six of beer before I lined up to pay. The twelve year old behind the counter (slight exaggeration but not far off the mark) asked for photo ID and I obliged. Smirking, she then casually pointed to a very official sign taped to the counter that said "no out of state ID accepted" Okay…, so I hand over my passport thinking that'll do the trick. Still not good enough. I tried to explain the ridiculousness of the situation to her with no luck as she rebuffed my logic with repeated gestures towards the taped down (hand written) sign. Exasperated from having to endure this charade my partner's mum offered to buy it for us at which point the cashier swiftly took the beer from the counter and placed it out of sight at her feet. When we began to protest (politely but with palpable incredulity in our voices) the little dictator told us the police would be notified if we did not leave the shop. There was no aggression or rudeness on our part (just dumbfounded disbelief) and I certainly didn't feel our behaviour in the store justified the blatant power trip. Moral of the story: at least you weren't trying to buy a drink in the USA. BTW I would have been about 26 or 27 at the time. Thanks for jogging my memory.

    • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 17:57
      -1

      wow

    • Wampus on 03/03/2015 - 16:33
      +2

      Yeah I got stopped at the door of a club in DC when I was 24, wasn't allowed in even though I showed my passport. Got told 'no out of state ID' as well. My opinion was the bouncer was too thick to understand what an Australian passport was. Or maybe I was too ugly for the club…

  • majimaji on 01/03/2015 - 17:54
    +2

    Basically the person who is serving you is liable for a hefty fine if they serve someone underage. There's probably a fine for allowing an underage on the premises without a guardian/parent too. It sounds like the guy was just following orders and covering his own ass. One time at the bottleshop I work at, I refused to serve a guy who looked like he was 15 and could not produce ID. He left, and shortly afterwards two undercover police came in and questioned me about what had happened. They were apparently outside watching to see who we were serving. The juvenile in question then got a $300 fine or something.

  • Food on 01/03/2015 - 18:13
    +2

    So what happens if:
    Mum/Dad goes in, Mum/Dad doesn't know what beer/wine Mum/Dad likes, says "Which one is it" and underager takes alcohol out of fridge/points to it and the staff member sees it, how do they know the adult isn't supplying the alcohol for the underager?
    Does it depend on the person's appearance and suburb they're in?

    • Thenarrator on 01/03/2015 - 19:55

      if it does, it would be discriminatory.

      • Food on 01/03/2015 - 21:11

        I agree: But that's my take on the policies- they can do that?!

      • speednugget on 03/03/2015 - 08:37

        Under law you're allowed to drink privately with supervision of your parents

    • wonderboy on 01/03/2015 - 22:46
      +1

      This question was raised when I did my RSA and orientation at Dan Murphys a few years ago and the right thing to do is use common sense. You can overhear their conversation, you can tell by appearance and time (wearing party clothes and buying at night would be suspicious) or what go by product they are buying. I saw a mother and teen son buy Johnnie Walker and it wasn't for the teen since they bought a gift bag along with it.

      • JimmyF on 01/03/2015 - 23:33

        Basically you seen a mum buy her under age teen son a gift of JW for another most likely another under age boy as a present ;)

        So the trick is to buy a gift bag with your booze? :)

  • coulstee on 01/03/2015 - 18:46
    +1

    You would be suffering from some mental illness if you thought it would be a good idea to accompany the person buying alcohol for yourself while being underage. It really is a pointless ploy.

    I dont drink alcohol at all but this one time on a sunday with some friends we wanted to make some nonalcoholic mixed drinks with some sort of base mixer or something that had an extremely small amount of alcohol in it. There was a group of us and we went to get it from dan murphies. The dude wouldn't sell it to us because we had a chick that was under 18, and we asked if we could just walk back in without her which was denied. That messed up our afternoon plans but whatever floats the boats of people who think that it helps.

    If they are that scared of kids drinking alcohol they should just ban the shit altogether.

    • Agret on 02/03/2015 - 09:20
      +1

      I tried to buy non alcoholic margarita mix at BWS and my girlfriend went outside while I was paying and the old lady at the register asked for my ID and I told her it's non alcoholic and she insisted that my girlfriend come back into the shop and be carded as well, got the product because we were both 24 at the time but felt like just telling her to forget it and walk out. Could've just bought the same thing from the supermarket around the corner bleh. Imagine being carded for a bottle of coke.

    • Baghern on 02/03/2015 - 12:38

      or like most people you weren't aware of the policy… at the same time kids would think around hanging outside would be ok

  • ronnknee on 01/03/2015 - 19:53
    +7

    Congrats on recently turning 18 and realising these alcohol-related policies are in place. If you and your friend feel too inconvenienced for producing identification, go shop elsewhere. You do not have to shop at Dan Murphy's.

  • GooseHoward on 01/03/2015 - 19:59
    +2

    they probably figure they get fined less by doing this

    wouldn't surprise me if the benefit from avoiding fines was greater than the potential for lost sales

    so i guess if that assumption is correct, it's an effective policy

    • Baysew on 01/03/2015 - 20:41
      +9

      Im (sic) sure everybody agrees with me

      No, they don't.

    • Ughhh on 01/03/2015 - 20:45
      +8

      facepalm

      Im sure everybody agrees with me that it is a ineffective mechanism except that people are just being defiant on their views (as suggested by majority of the votes)

      Is it me, or does this not make sense? (Everybody)-(majority of disagreeing votes)= minority. Minority/=everybody.

      • Thenarrator on 02/03/2015 - 20:29
        -4

        This policy is flawed or inefficient because there is no consistency* and its based on best judgement aka common sense**

        *preview stories on this page to gauge the consistency of this policy applied on various groups of people
        **Best judgement is by its own nature an inefficient process.

        • Baghern on 02/03/2015 - 21:40
          +1

          Every policy is flawed in some way or another, we might as well have no laws going by your rants.

        • Thenarrator on 02/03/2015 - 21:47
          -2

          @Baghern: I never said any of what you accused me of saying

    • Agret on 02/03/2015 - 09:26
      +2

      It's the law dude, if they don't do the checks and get caught they will be fined over $5000. If I was running a business you're damn right I'd insist my staff check it. You don't have a form of ID then you're not buying cigarettes or going into a club/bar. Sure some people have workarounds but any inconveniences that make things less appealing to them is fine by me and I don't believe it's a flawed concept as you do. No I don't misunderstand the OP either as you bullheadingly reply to everyone with disagrees with you.

      • Thenarrator on 02/03/2015 - 19:50

        If you are at the counter,
        1) how do you prove the person next to me is my friend not a stranger?

        2) how do you prevent the abuse of this policy where a prankster can accuse every single customer is his/her friend (while maintaining the fairness/unbiased/legitimacy of this policy). Meaning, every customer should be treated the same, implying if ONE customer is refused sale, ALL customer is to be refused sale.

    • cheng2008 on 02/03/2015 - 17:39
      +2

      Now that you're in uni (I assume by your UNSW student number) you'll find that things aren't black and white in society. Not everything is as perfect as it should be.

  • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2015 - 20:53
    +3

    This is how that policy would have effected me and my friends at that age:
    1. Get refused.
    2. Go to a different bottle-o
    2. Realise underage person just walks in first decides what they want to buy, grabs a coke on the way out and tells mature age person.
    3. Mature age person gets alcohol.
    4. Drink alcohol.

    • Baghern on 02/03/2015 - 12:41

      yes because getting a mature age person to do it would be so easy, and from what I remember most kids would be shy/scared to ask a stranger to dot it

      • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2015 - 23:06
        +1

        Most kids in high school have at least one person willing to do it with no judgement or worries. i.e. sibling, older friend, parent from one of the group, etc.

        Also if we couldn't have gotten alcohol we would have gotten something else and most likely have supported locals without paying tax instead.

  • AssociatedGina Rinehart @ Dan Murphy's on 01/03/2015 - 21:39
    +11

    I work for BWS (also a Woolworths branch, like Dan's), and we have the same policies.

    Effectively, it is to avoid any confusion or element of doubt. We ask for ID from all individuals who are taking part in a transaction (or if they are outside, etc) if they look 25 years old or younger, as second hand supply is a major issue. I recall that the vast majority of underage persons who consume alcohol receive it via second hand supply.

    To prevent underage persons getting hold of alcohol easily, it is our policy to ask for ID for all persons in a transaction - for which there is a reasonable possibility the alcohol is for them - for ID. That is - if a group of young people come in, they will all be asked for ID. Of course, if it is a mother and her young child (think <12), common sense will prevail and you would allow the sale.

    However, when the staff member identifies that there is a reasonable chance the liquor might be for a minor, they have every right to ask for ID. It's not worth the risk (huge fines and a poor impression on the community) if the other person happens to be underage and intending to consume the alcohol.

    Sadly, as some have pointed out, this means that there are a few cases, where a young person may be asked for ID, even if the liquor is not for them. This is really frustrating for the customer, as of course the customer may know for sure it is not for the young person, however the staff member simply CANNOT know if the product is going to be consumed by the minor, so as a result, the ID is requested.

    We don't ask for ID to offend anyone, and we certainly don't want to drive away customers, but it's our commitment to the community to make sure that NO persons under the age of 18 are getting their hands on alcohol.

    • Please note that I do not represent the official opinion of Woolworths Ltd. and this post is my opinion, based on training I have received.
    • Thenarrator on 02/03/2015 - 20:10
      +2

      "common sense will prevail and you would allow the sale."
      This… this is what I have been looking for throughout the whole forum. Being a "common sense", it is in the end a perceptive thing and as I have pointed out previously (about it being perceptive), I have receive large volume of negative votes. I'm unsure of why this is the case but this suggests to me that people are unwilling to accept that this policy is an ineffective, inefficient (& thus flawed) one. Why? Because being perceptive by its own nature, quite generally, is an inefficient measure (as opposed to autonomy which is considered efficient. why? because imagine a manufacturing firm consisted of employees all of which had their own perception about the product). Without standardisation, processes can hardly become efficient.

      • Baghern on 02/03/2015 - 21:41
        +5

        People accept its flawed, but until you can show us all a more effective method we're willing to accept it. That's life…

        Early in this thread you were asked to show a more effective way, you have yet to do this, just continually whining… as can be shown by all the negs you've received

        • Thenarrator on 02/03/2015 - 21:50
          -4

          "People accept its flawed"
          Err nope, look at the poll. More have said otherwise.

          "Early in this thread you were asked to show a more effective way, you have yet to do this"
          Why me? You seem to have mistaken the purpose of this discussion topic.

        • Baghern on 02/03/2015 - 21:54
          +3

          @z3289598:

          Look at how bad your poll is, its the most flawed part of this thread. Anyone reading your original post can see that you're trying to imply an answer. Its called "leading" I guess you just learned this concept in uni

          People have just put down the 'closest' answer they can get.

          Things aren't "black and white"

        • Thenarrator on 02/03/2015 - 21:59
          -1

          implications and "leadings" cause emotions to come into question, impacting on decision being made and sometimes on rationality.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2015 - 23:01

          @z3289598: I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this point.

        • Thenarrator on 02/03/2015 - 23:17

          @waterlogged turnip: ok

        • iridiumstem on 02/03/2015 - 23:22

          @waterlogged turnip: If you put yourself in a box, you will be sorta like a Schrodinger's cat. :) Tell us the results at the end.

      • Altezza on 02/03/2015 - 22:26
        +2

        It's not the people are unwilling to accept that the policy is ineffective/inefficient or not. Regardless of the topic, every individual in this world form their own opinions through their perspective and past experiences. You cannot force feed your opinions on others expecting they will agree with you, even when you think your view and argument is correct. You are getting negative votes simply because people do not agree with your perspective and/or attitude towards the discussion . You saying: "Im sure everybody agrees with me that it is a ineffective mechanism except that people are just being defiant on their views (as suggested by majority of the votes)" clearly shows how arrogant you are. Yes your topic stirs up an interesting debate as there is no clear black and white solution to stop underage drinking, however your responses demonstrates that you are not willing to accept and respect other's differing opinion.

        So you think that standardisation will make the world efficient and a better place? There are many (what you refer to as "standardised") laws in Australia, and yet there are still many speeding drivers, murders, jaywalkers, illegal drugs..etc. There are no laws/standards/policy that can be 100% efficient, it's near impossible to enforce human behaviour in every possible scenario. Although the Dan Murphy policy is not effective ALL the time, as there are times when people are wrongly accused and can be easily worked around by not having the underage associates nearby, it is just one of many ways to try curb underage drinking. Another example will be speeding drivers, people get fined, speed cameras everywhere, yet many people still speed. Does that mean laws or the police are useless? Learn that this world is not perfect and cannot be governed by sets standards/laws/policies that can be completely effective and efficiently enforced

        • Thenarrator on 02/03/2015 - 22:50
          -2

          Have my perceived 'arrogance' influenced your decision making? Should my tone/attitude alter your rationality on the debate? Have you spoken out of your emotions?

        • Altezza on 02/03/2015 - 23:43

          @z3289598: No, no, yes, your point being? You are entitled to state your opinion anytime anywhere and I don't really care if you agree/disagree with whatever I am typing. However it just gets on my nerve when someone do not agree with you regarding this policy, doesn't make the others defiant/dismissive/dumb/irrational/lack common sense/mistaken..etc. You have found common understanding amongst these forum replies, and at the same time there are others who disagree with you as well (btw as of this reply there are more people thinks the current policy is not flawed). My main point simply is to respect both side of the discussion as there's no right or wrong, maybe just a better way of doing things.

          Back on topic, to be honest the policy on it's own has annoyance, flaws and can be bypassed. However I don't see the point in picking flaws in ONE policy regarding ID checks. It is one piece of a very large and complex puzzle, as there are other policies and laws implemented to collectively reduce the occurance of underage drinking. Even in the most extreme (and probably unpopular) case of completely banning alcohol consumption in Australia, people will still be able to acquire it in one form or another through an illegal distribution network.

      • AssociatedGina Rinehart @ Dan Murphy's on 03/03/2015 - 15:25

        The problem is that judging someone's age and intention is extremely subjective, and there isn't really an objective way to go about it. Every circumstance is different and so we have to err on the side of caution, rather than run the risk of a minor consuming the alcohol.

        As you said, it is subjective and totally depends on a variety of factors - did the person look like they were taking part in selecting the alcohol, did they carry it, give money to the adult, etc? These are all questions a staff member will be taking into account when judging the particular scenario.

        Sadly, this is pretty much the only way to go about it, but if you have any better ideas, I would certainly pass them along :)

        • Thenarrator on 03/03/2015 - 18:32
          -6

          Be more fair

        • AssociatedGina Rinehart @ Dan Murphy's on 04/03/2015 - 00:45

          @z3289598: How so? That is so vague I cannot help you there, sorry.

    • Logical on 04/03/2015 - 00:24

      'all people in the transaction'… well if all people are contributing $ then yes, ask for their id, otherwise the transaction is with the person buying and paying, so only their id should be checked.

  • rinco on 01/03/2015 - 22:11
    +1

    Last time I got ID check'd it was at mid-station Perisher. I was 28 years old. I do not remember the snow that day, but I do recall rejoicing for being ID checked. I hope one day the original poster has the same feeling. I hope they forget their idealistic, holistic and antagonistic view of the challenge. Being asked for ID is a complement. Extending that complement to your friends is both fair and just. Drink and be merry. LLAP.

  • centrelink on 01/03/2015 - 23:40
    +3

    I was refused to buy alcohol because some school kids were standing outside the shop whom i did not know and wasn't allowed to buy it because she thought i was going to give it to them.

    Too much tryhards at the job. This is the same when buying cigarettes too.

    • geoffellis on 02/03/2015 - 02:04
      +1

      I would be so (profanity) pissed if this happened to me!

      In my opinion, the intent of the person purchasing a product has nothing to do with the business. Would you refuse to sell a 40 year old guy condoms because there was a 14 year old girl with him? or hanging out front??

      if the cops wanna hang out and ding people for supplying alcohol to minors… thats one thing… but making it so a cashier needs to do a check around the block for loitering minors is too much.

      • Thenarrator on 02/03/2015 - 20:15

        I agree and I strongly support the notion of no underage drinking.

  • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2015 - 00:12

    You gave a creepy salesperson your girlfriend's age and home address? …. sounds like the start of at horror movies.

  • t_c on 02/03/2015 - 00:19

    What about pregnant woman.

    If one assumes people of legal drinking age will automatically be supplying there under age associates,

    It would only be fair to assume the same for pregnant women who could be supplying their unborn fetus.

    Particularly if in a higher risk age group of 18-25.

  • GordonR on 02/03/2015 - 00:23
    +1

    Saw this the other day. Buying some wine and a young Japanese couple ( early 20s to my eye ) came to the shop, but only one had a passport so the sale was refused. To their astonishment, and mine too to be honest.

    Seems to put a heavy and hard-to-define responsibility on the shop assistants who surely can't be expected to know who is associated with who else. Also, how effective can it be, when surely nobody can possibly have this happen to them TWICE?

    • Thenarrator on 02/03/2015 - 20:19

      no one on this forum seem to be able to make sense of this

  • hitman47 on 02/03/2015 - 03:08
    +1

    If I was a teen and I wanted my adult friend to buy me booze (i do not support underage drinking), I would not even go in store with him as I will just wait outside. I think most teens are not dumb enough to fall for this policy.

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 02/03/2015 - 06:51
    +1

    It's an offence under the Liquor Control Reform Act for a minor to be on a licensed premises. A bottle shop like Dans IS a licensed premises. They are entitled to ask anyone for ID and/or to leave at any time.

    A family with a 4 yo is fine as the child is accompied by a 'responsible' adult. Free to google the definition.

    Considering the heavy fines and demerit points why should Dans take the risk?

    • altomic on 02/03/2015 - 14:32

      It used to be the law in Vic that a minor could consume alcohol on a licensed premise if consuming a meal and in the company of a parent or guardian.

      I remember having a great lunch at the Mitta Mitta pub with my parents when I was 16 years old.

    • AssociatedGina Rinehart @ Dan Murphy's on 03/03/2015 - 15:32
      +1

      Each state has their own liquor licensing laws. For example, here in the ACT it is not illegal for a child to be on a licensed premises whilst accompanied by an adult/guardian, unless it is an adults-only area on an on-premise license (some parts of bars, pubs, etc). However it is illegal for the child to possess liquor on any licensed premises or in a public place.

      I'm not fully sure of the law in the other states, it would be best to check your local liquor licensing laws for further clarification.

  • ESEMCE on 02/03/2015 - 08:22

    It's the law… they're just doing their job, which includes abiding by the law.
    If there is reasonable suspicion that you might be buying alcohol for a minor, they are obliged by law to refuse service.

    • McFly on 02/03/2015 - 11:36
      +1

      And the law is an ass.

      • iridiumstem on 04/03/2015 - 00:59

        The law is harsh, but it is the law.

  • Pumpkin_rrr on 02/03/2015 - 09:11
    +1

    I witnessed one day BWS staff dobbed in a customer (matured age) accompanied by a young person. He went to next door Dan and was again refused. Oh what a big tantrum he throws. Without being rude, I'd say his appearance is not all that respectable. I guess staff in bottleshop have educated themselves over the years on how to evaluate their customers.

  • nikey2k27 on 02/03/2015 - 10:11

    I have been ask to leave over this before i had mate that did not have ID he was 22year old left it at home.

  • LSGH on 02/03/2015 - 10:48
    +2

    I have seen the same thing happen when I visited America (Palo Alto), a person was not allowed to buy beer since he was with an under-aged person (the adult threw a big rant I felt sorry for the cashier)…I think its a good policy to have…glad DM has it…

  • shaybisc on 02/03/2015 - 10:54

    How do kiddies get their alcohol these days? I wasn't interested in alcohol when I was under 18- my schoolmates on the other hand used to go to the pub at lunchtime in school uniform- so I never had the problem of obtaining alcohol illegally.

  • sempro on 02/03/2015 - 11:35

    the poll has spoken

  • TruckieGal on 02/03/2015 - 12:27
    +4

    I had my 16 year old daughter with me when I stopped in at Liquorland to buy a bag of ice - we had just finished shopping at Coles and the Liquorland is attached to the Coles store.
    I was told that they couldnt sell me anything as she was underage. I told them that I only wanted ICE not alcohol and they told me that they couldnt serve me as she was underage. Makes you wonder what a parent with a younger child is supposed to do - leave them in the car?
    I have no problem with them trying to stop young people trying to buy for teens, but surely some common sense has to be used somewhere along the track

    • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2015 - 13:04

      lol gg

    • ronnknee on 02/03/2015 - 14:37
      +5

      Now THAT's a bit ridiculous. You only wanted ice. They took the policy way beyond its context and purpose. It's almost like how international airports prevent you from bringing empty bottles onboard of flights to Australia when it's only liquids over 100 mL which are prohibited.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2015 - 17:33
      +1

      I was confused for a second when I thought you went to liquorland to buy a bag of rice.

      • Baysew on 02/03/2015 - 18:28

        I was confused for a second when I thought you went to liquorland to buy a bag of ice.

        A Walter White sort of confusion.

  • bundybare1967 on 02/03/2015 - 13:04
    +2

    I Have been in Dan Murphy with my underage kids I have never had a problem buying booze

    • Thenarrator on 02/03/2015 - 20:24
      -2

      And this is where the flaw of the policy is at. There is absolutely no consistency. Yet people on this forum do not agree. Its so dumb.

      • Baghern on 02/03/2015 - 21:44
        +1

        Where have people on this forum said this. YOU are IMPLYING a broad statement on the forum. Your entire argument has been flawed from the start.

        The forum has generally been, 'its the best the can do'

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 02/03/2015 - 13:39

    Dan Murphy's is one thing.

    In the UK you can buy alcohol in the supermarket. As a teenager or adult without ID you can say hi to some stranger in line and cause them trouble.

  • altomic on 02/03/2015 - 14:25

    I remember the olden days* when I'd buy beer when 15years old, and looked it, and never got asked for ID.

    *when lions had riches.

  • Noblejoker on 02/03/2015 - 14:37
    +1

    I recently reaccredited for my RSA (responsible service of alcohol)
    In the course it was made clear that the major cause of underage drinking in clubs (where minors can be onsite) is the friend scenario. E.g. 19 yr old with a 17 yr old partner, group of friends with some under age or even parents buying drinks for teenage kids.
    I am not a prude and if a 17 yr old has a couple of drinks big deal
    But if I was retailing them, especially in a national chain, my policy would be at least this strict or I can lose my very lucrative license to trade

  • tikei on 02/03/2015 - 15:06

    I don't drink so I don't know the pleasure people get from drinking. If people are that concerned about intoxicated people getting into trouble/accidents, the most effective way is to ban it altogether. But that won't happen because people like their social drinks too much and would be too much of an inconvenience.

    • shaybisc on 02/03/2015 - 15:19

      I'd like to see a total ban on alcohol- Prohibition was fun- oh the stories I could tell.

  • ev3nfl0w on 02/03/2015 - 15:39

    If you are under 25 I don't think you or your friend has a case on this. The staff member operated with due diligence and based on their corporate policy.

    In saying that - savour each ID check because for me and a lot of those here who are past their 20's it is now definately a compliment to be asked for ID!!

    • Logical on 04/03/2015 - 00:36

      sure, give out your personal details to strangers asking for your id, you may as well show then your passport while you are at it. Nice compliment indeed.

      • ev3nfl0w on 04/03/2015 - 09:59

        Why would a stranger need to do an ID check?

        Wouldn't that only occur when there is a reason for you to be identified?

  • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2015 - 17:31

    It is just another inconvenient hoop to jump through in order to try and save more lives WITHOUT infringing on your personal rights/freedom the way a more "effective" policy might.

  • r3volt on 02/03/2015 - 17:46
    +3

    I had a similar thing happen many years ago. I pulled up in my car at a bottle shop when a mate i hadn't spoken to for quite some time pulled into the adjacent shopping center car park, as i was walking into the bottle shop my mate came for a walk and talk. I went to the counter to buy them and was asked for ID which i presented and then they asked my mate for ID who at the time didn't have it on him as he left his licence at home. The bottle shop wouldn't sell me the drinks and after a frank discussion about how my mate had nothing to do with my purchase i left and never once stepped foot back into that bottle shop ever again.

  • cheeksahoy on 02/03/2015 - 18:10
    +2

    Last week, myself and four of my workmates made a quick stop by Dan Murphy's on the way home from work to stock up for the weekend.

    4 of us planned on buying alcohol, the 5th came in to get out of the heat (since we were obviously gonna be a while longer than he'd be comfortable waiting in the car).

    So an employee came up to us while we were still browsing, apologised and said that he would have to see all our ID's.

    We dutifully obliged but our 5th member, who didn't plan on making any purchases, could not produce. He didn't have his ID on him. He is, however, 25 years old, 6'4", tattoo'd, fully bearded and visibly much older than some of the other lads… ie. only a fool would entertain the idea that he was under 18. We were all in our work gear, so I doubt we could've been confused for students.

    Regardless, due to this, we were informed that none of us would be able to make a purchase at the store for 24 hours.

    Whatever the reasoning or legal requirements, I found the situation to be absurdly illogical - not to mention hugely inconvenient.

    Perhaps Dan Murphy's would do well to post signs stating this bizarre and invasive policy.

    • Thenarrator on 02/03/2015 - 20:32

      and why the (profanity) for the 24 hours? Why not 23 hours? why not 48? Is 24 somehow the magic number where we can't drug our innocent 17 year old lgs?

      • argonide on 02/03/2015 - 20:57
        +6

        Because 24 hours is what is stated in the SA, Vic and WA liquor acts, which isn't Dan Murphy's fault.

        WA:

        A person who re-enters premises within 24 hours of being
        refused entry to, required to leave, or being removed from, those
        premises under this section —
        (a) commits an offence; and
        (b) any other person, on the request of the licensee or a
        manager of the premises, may remove the person who
        re-entered the premises from those premises using such
        force as may be reasonably necessary.
        Penalty: a fine of $2 000.

        Vic:

        A person who has been refused entry from
        licensed premises or who has left licensed
        premises following a request by any of the
        persons referred to in subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c)
        must not without reasonable excuse enter the
        licensed premises for a period of 24 hours
        commencing from the time of being refused entry
        or leaving the licensed premises.

        SA:

        If a person re-enters licensed premises within 24 hours of being required to leave, or
        being removed from, the licensed premises under this section—
        (a) the person is guilty of an offence; and
        (b) an authorised person may remove the person from the licensed premises using
        such force as may be reasonably necessary for the purpose.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join