Tesco convenience shop in Lordswood Road, Southampton is handed ban from selling alcohol

Daily Echo: Store caught selling booze to children three times Store caught selling booze to children three times

A SOUTHAMPTON neighbourhood convenience store has been banned from selling alcohol.

Civic bosses have taken away the Lordswood Road store’s licence after staff were caught selling booze to children on three occasions.

Tesco bosses said they were “considering their options” after the council licensing committee’s decision.

Police had asked the council to take away its license to prevent crime and disorder and to protect children from harm.

The store only opened last year on the site of the former Woodman pub.

Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.

Two 17-year-olds were sold a bottle of wine on December 28 last year, a 15-year-old was able to buy cider on August 8 this year and another 17-year-old was sold cider on September 18.

The licensing panel was told that the area had experienced problems with antisocial behaviour and teenagers drinking in the past.

At the hearing representatives for Tesco had argued that the failed test purchases were the result of individual errors by staff members, and that the firm was “as mortified as everyone else” by the offences.

But with the store the only one in the city to have failed three test purchases, the licensing committee decided to take away its licence which will be officially revoked on January 10.

The news was welcomed by the area’s ward councillors.

Cllr Don Thomas, of Labour Councillors Against Cuts, below left,, said: “The licensing panel have accomplished a good, positive step to help prevent the sale of alcohol to children.

“They have sent a message loud and clear – that we won’t tolerate the sale of alcohol to children, no matter who you are.”

Labour’s Cllr Sally Spicer, below right, added: “It was serious – three failed test purchases is not good in an area which is very touchy about the subject of selling alcohol to kids.

“I’m pleased with the outcome, it’s good to see that the council taken this seriously.”

A Tesco spokesman said: “We are disappointed with the outcome of the review hearing and we are considering our options.”

Tesco has until January 10 to decide whether to appeal the decision or not.

Comments (49)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:47am Sun 29 Dec 13

sotonbusdriver says...

Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,, sotonbusdriver

10:07am Sun 29 Dec 13

userds5050 says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
???
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]??? userds5050

10:21am Sun 29 Dec 13

thinklikealocal says...

userds5050 wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
???
Yes, quite simply a ridiculous comment.
[quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]???[/p][/quote]Yes, quite simply a ridiculous comment. thinklikealocal

10:30am Sun 29 Dec 13

jungliztik says...

As someone who uses this store it will be an inconvenience but one which can be managed. What I would like to see is the occasional police patrol in the sports centre (as well as other similar locations) where the booze is being consumed. Far too frequently I have to navigate a way through broken bottles by the white cricket shelters.
As someone who uses this store it will be an inconvenience but one which can be managed. What I would like to see is the occasional police patrol in the sports centre (as well as other similar locations) where the booze is being consumed. Far too frequently I have to navigate a way through broken bottles by the white cricket shelters. jungliztik

10:52am Sun 29 Dec 13

issacchunt says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
How else do they catch the store doing this? Go on answer that one? Are you suggesting the Police are also criminals when they speed to an incident.

Get back to practicing indicating (the orange flashing things)and pulling over and not impeding traffic when stopping.
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]How else do they catch the store doing this? Go on answer that one? Are you suggesting the Police are also criminals when they speed to an incident. Get back to practicing indicating (the orange flashing things)and pulling over and not impeding traffic when stopping. issacchunt

11:31am Sun 29 Dec 13

Costa Baz says...

I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures.
Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result.
I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures. Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result. Costa Baz

11:33am Sun 29 Dec 13

WobblyCat says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
Oh dear. It is a legal operation carried out by the police and local authorities to control and monitor juveniles purchasing alcohol from establishments that should know better. I hope I never get on your bus!
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]Oh dear. It is a legal operation carried out by the police and local authorities to control and monitor juveniles purchasing alcohol from establishments that should know better. I hope I never get on your bus! WobblyCat

11:37am Sun 29 Dec 13

andysaints007 says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
You are quite thick really!!
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]You are quite thick really!! andysaints007

11:44am Sun 29 Dec 13

10 Minute Man says...

Glad to see this enforced for a change, especially against a major brand who surely are well practiced at arguing against such punishments.

Yes the police should also patrol other places where kids misbehave, but tackling booze as a component of them causing trouble (as well as the health risks) is a good move.
Glad to see this enforced for a change, especially against a major brand who surely are well practiced at arguing against such punishments. Yes the police should also patrol other places where kids misbehave, but tackling booze as a component of them causing trouble (as well as the health risks) is a good move. 10 Minute Man

12:14pm Sun 29 Dec 13

southy says...

andysaints007 wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
You are quite thick really!!
No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court.
You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact
[quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]You are quite thick really!![/p][/quote]No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court. You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact southy

12:36pm Sun 29 Dec 13

saint61 says...

When really busy The cashiers just acknowledge the self service tills without looking whose n them. Could be ten year olds they wouldn't know.
When really busy The cashiers just acknowledge the self service tills without looking whose n them. Could be ten year olds they wouldn't know. saint61

12:40pm Sun 29 Dec 13

WILLIAM HAGUES TWIN BROTHER. says...

WobblyCat wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
Oh dear. It is a legal operation carried out by the police and local authorities to control and monitor juveniles purchasing alcohol from establishments that should know better. I hope I never get on your bus!
private corporation ,check out companies house.
[quote][p][bold]WobblyCat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]Oh dear. It is a legal operation carried out by the police and local authorities to control and monitor juveniles purchasing alcohol from establishments that should know better. I hope I never get on your bus![/p][/quote]private corporation ,check out companies house. WILLIAM HAGUES TWIN BROTHER.

12:44pm Sun 29 Dec 13

On the inside says...

Costa Baz wrote:
I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures.
Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result.
Rubbish. Tesco are 100% responsible for their staff at all times. They take the profit and they take the blame.
[quote][p][bold]Costa Baz[/bold] wrote: I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures. Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result.[/p][/quote]Rubbish. Tesco are 100% responsible for their staff at all times. They take the profit and they take the blame. On the inside

12:49pm Sun 29 Dec 13

crusti says...

Bring back the traditional Offy.
Their licence and busines depend on it.
Bring back the traditional Offy. Their licence and busines depend on it. crusti

1:20pm Sun 29 Dec 13

solomum says...

southy wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
You are quite thick really!!
No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court.
You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact
Southy, you are another one without any common sense.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]You are quite thick really!![/p][/quote]No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court. You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact[/p][/quote]Southy, you are another one without any common sense. solomum

1:24pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Paramjit Bahia says...

southy wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
You are quite thick really!!
No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court.
You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact
Peter, I regret having to disagree with a fellow socialist like your good self, especially during the season of goodwill, but as you do not drink alcohol I think your head my have suffered few jerks due to recent stormy weather causing confusion in your brain...... Yes entrapment by the cops in some countries may be illegal, but have you checked what is the legal situation in this case?..... I have the feeling you may not have done it.

Also since when you a highly comitted socialist have started developing a soft spot for Tesco, the symbol of capitalism, and lost sense of solidarity with ordinary people whose lives are made miserable because of anti social behaviour partly caused by tanked up under aged kids?

Police have done the right thing by trying to enforce the law, which will at least stop one source of booze to these kids. This alone may not resolve the whole problem, because the youngsters may find some other sources, like stock of their parents etc. but the police is trying to do whatever they can, so deserve bit of apperciation, and most certainly not what you have suggested
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]You are quite thick really!![/p][/quote]No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court. You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact[/p][/quote]Peter, I regret having to disagree with a fellow socialist like your good self, especially during the season of goodwill, but as you do not drink alcohol I think your head my have suffered few jerks due to recent stormy weather causing confusion in your brain...... Yes entrapment by the cops in some countries may be illegal, but have you checked what is the legal situation in this case?..... I have the feeling you may not have done it. Also since when you a highly comitted socialist have started developing a soft spot for Tesco, the symbol of capitalism, and lost sense of solidarity with ordinary people whose lives are made miserable because of anti social behaviour partly caused by tanked up under aged kids? Police have done the right thing by trying to enforce the law, which will at least stop one source of booze to these kids. This alone may not resolve the whole problem, because the youngsters may find some other sources, like stock of their parents etc. but the police is trying to do whatever they can, so deserve bit of apperciation, and most certainly not what you have suggested Paramjit Bahia

1:29pm Sun 29 Dec 13

good-gosh says...

southy wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
You are quite thick really!!
No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court.
You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact
I agree this sounds like a dodgy sting. The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]You are quite thick really!![/p][/quote]No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court. You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact[/p][/quote]I agree this sounds like a dodgy sting. The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked. good-gosh

1:30pm Sun 29 Dec 13

saint61 says...

Premier across the road seem to manage it. Why not tesco?
Premier across the road seem to manage it. Why not tesco? saint61

1:30pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Paramjit Bahia says...

On the inside wrote:
Costa Baz wrote:
I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures.
Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result.
Rubbish. Tesco are 100% responsible for their staff at all times. They take the profit and they take the blame.
CORRECT.

Police operation and decision of the Council's licensing committee is also right, deserve full support, not unfair criticism
[quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Costa Baz[/bold] wrote: I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures. Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result.[/p][/quote]Rubbish. Tesco are 100% responsible for their staff at all times. They take the profit and they take the blame.[/p][/quote]CORRECT. Police operation and decision of the Council's licensing committee is also right, deserve full support, not unfair criticism Paramjit Bahia

2:01pm Sun 29 Dec 13

southy says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
southy wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
You are quite thick really!!
No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court.
You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact
Peter, I regret having to disagree with a fellow socialist like your good self, especially during the season of goodwill, but as you do not drink alcohol I think your head my have suffered few jerks due to recent stormy weather causing confusion in your brain...... Yes entrapment by the cops in some countries may be illegal, but have you checked what is the legal situation in this case?..... I have the feeling you may not have done it.

Also since when you a highly comitted socialist have started developing a soft spot for Tesco, the symbol of capitalism, and lost sense of solidarity with ordinary people whose lives are made miserable because of anti social behaviour partly caused by tanked up under aged kids?

Police have done the right thing by trying to enforce the law, which will at least stop one source of booze to these kids. This alone may not resolve the whole problem, because the youngsters may find some other sources, like stock of their parents etc. but the police is trying to do whatever they can, so deserve bit of apperciation, and most certainly not what you have suggested
If you break the law to catch some one breaking the law, then that makes you no better than the person who is breaking the law.
the question that begs to be answered is "would this crime of happened if the police did not send an underage person to buy" the police should never be above the law and doing what they are doing puts them above the law.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]You are quite thick really!![/p][/quote]No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court. You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact[/p][/quote]Peter, I regret having to disagree with a fellow socialist like your good self, especially during the season of goodwill, but as you do not drink alcohol I think your head my have suffered few jerks due to recent stormy weather causing confusion in your brain...... Yes entrapment by the cops in some countries may be illegal, but have you checked what is the legal situation in this case?..... I have the feeling you may not have done it. Also since when you a highly comitted socialist have started developing a soft spot for Tesco, the symbol of capitalism, and lost sense of solidarity with ordinary people whose lives are made miserable because of anti social behaviour partly caused by tanked up under aged kids? Police have done the right thing by trying to enforce the law, which will at least stop one source of booze to these kids. This alone may not resolve the whole problem, because the youngsters may find some other sources, like stock of their parents etc. but the police is trying to do whatever they can, so deserve bit of apperciation, and most certainly not what you have suggested[/p][/quote]If you break the law to catch some one breaking the law, then that makes you no better than the person who is breaking the law. the question that begs to be answered is "would this crime of happened if the police did not send an underage person to buy" the police should never be above the law and doing what they are doing puts them above the law. southy

2:19pm Sun 29 Dec 13

southy says...

good-gosh wrote:
southy wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
You are quite thick really!!
No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court.
You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact
I agree this sounds like a dodgy sting. The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked.
I agree with "The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked."
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]You are quite thick really!![/p][/quote]No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court. You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact[/p][/quote]I agree this sounds like a dodgy sting. The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked.[/p][/quote]I agree with "The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked." southy

2:45pm Sun 29 Dec 13

saint61 says...

When will we catch the bus companies out for letting OAPS on the buses before the allowed time in the mronigs
When will we catch the bus companies out for letting OAPS on the buses before the allowed time in the mronigs saint61

3:40pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Donald2000 says...

Costa Baz wrote:
I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures.
Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result.
Which part of Tesco broke the law did you not understand?
[quote][p][bold]Costa Baz[/bold] wrote: I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures. Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result.[/p][/quote]Which part of Tesco broke the law did you not understand? Donald2000

4:25pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Costa Baz says...

On the inside wrote:
Costa Baz wrote:
I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures.
Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result.
Rubbish. Tesco are 100% responsible for their staff at all times. They take the profit and they take the blame.
Not rubbish at all.
If Tesco have trained their staff how to use the till and explained what action the cashier should take, when selling prohibited goods, then they have shown due diligence.
In my days in super marketing, with time spent as a customer service manager, not for Tesco, cashiers had to sign documents indicating that they had received and understood the training.
If this hasn't happened at Tesco, then yes they are responsible.
But if it has, how is it the fault of the company?

By your method of thinking, maybe anyone who has a car accident can blame their driving instructor, after all, they took the profit.
[quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Costa Baz[/bold] wrote: I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures. Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result.[/p][/quote]Rubbish. Tesco are 100% responsible for their staff at all times. They take the profit and they take the blame.[/p][/quote]Not rubbish at all. If Tesco have trained their staff how to use the till and explained what action the cashier should take, when selling prohibited goods, then they have shown due diligence. In my days in super marketing, with time spent as a customer service manager, not for Tesco, cashiers had to sign documents indicating that they had received and understood the training. If this hasn't happened at Tesco, then yes they are responsible. But if it has, how is it the fault of the company? By your method of thinking, maybe anyone who has a car accident can blame their driving instructor, after all, they took the profit. Costa Baz

4:27pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Costa Baz says...

Donald2000 wrote:
Costa Baz wrote:
I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures.
Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result.
Which part of Tesco broke the law did you not understand?
What part of, it was individuals that broke the law, not Tesco, don't you understand.
See above for my explanation.
[quote][p][bold]Donald2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Costa Baz[/bold] wrote: I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures. Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result.[/p][/quote]Which part of Tesco broke the law did you not understand?[/p][/quote]What part of, it was individuals that broke the law, not Tesco, don't you understand. See above for my explanation. Costa Baz

4:47pm Sun 29 Dec 13

loosehead says...

shut down Tesco's & bring back the Woodman Pub. can't see teenagers walking down the street holding twelve pints of lager in glasses unlike twelve cans of lager
shut down Tesco's & bring back the Woodman Pub. can't see teenagers walking down the street holding twelve pints of lager in glasses unlike twelve cans of lager loosehead

4:54pm Sun 29 Dec 13

WobblyCat says...

WILLIAM HAGUES TWIN BROTHER. wrote:
WobblyCat wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
Oh dear. It is a legal operation carried out by the police and local authorities to control and monitor juveniles purchasing alcohol from establishments that should know better. I hope I never get on your bus!
private corporation ,check out companies house.
Who's the private corporation?
[quote][p][bold]WILLIAM HAGUES TWIN BROTHER.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WobblyCat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]Oh dear. It is a legal operation carried out by the police and local authorities to control and monitor juveniles purchasing alcohol from establishments that should know better. I hope I never get on your bus![/p][/quote]private corporation ,check out companies house.[/p][/quote]Who's the private corporation? WobblyCat

4:58pm Sun 29 Dec 13

WobblyCat says...

Costa Baz wrote:
On the inside wrote:
Costa Baz wrote:
I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures.
Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result.
Rubbish. Tesco are 100% responsible for their staff at all times. They take the profit and they take the blame.
Not rubbish at all.
If Tesco have trained their staff how to use the till and explained what action the cashier should take, when selling prohibited goods, then they have shown due diligence.
In my days in super marketing, with time spent as a customer service manager, not for Tesco, cashiers had to sign documents indicating that they had received and understood the training.
If this hasn't happened at Tesco, then yes they are responsible.
But if it has, how is it the fault of the company?

By your method of thinking, maybe anyone who has a car accident can blame their driving instructor, after all, they took the profit.
Tesco's will ultimately be held responsible. I worked in an off licence many moons ago and young staff seemed to find it difficult, even intimidating to challenge people about their age. Whatever the rights and wrongs Tesco’s have to be accountable if only to cure the problem.
[quote][p][bold]Costa Baz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Costa Baz[/bold] wrote: I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures. Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result.[/p][/quote]Rubbish. Tesco are 100% responsible for their staff at all times. They take the profit and they take the blame.[/p][/quote]Not rubbish at all. If Tesco have trained their staff how to use the till and explained what action the cashier should take, when selling prohibited goods, then they have shown due diligence. In my days in super marketing, with time spent as a customer service manager, not for Tesco, cashiers had to sign documents indicating that they had received and understood the training. If this hasn't happened at Tesco, then yes they are responsible. But if it has, how is it the fault of the company? By your method of thinking, maybe anyone who has a car accident can blame their driving instructor, after all, they took the profit.[/p][/quote]Tesco's will ultimately be held responsible. I worked in an off licence many moons ago and young staff seemed to find it difficult, even intimidating to challenge people about their age. Whatever the rights and wrongs Tesco’s have to be accountable if only to cure the problem. WobblyCat

5:16pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Positively4thStreet says...

good-gosh wrote:
southy wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
You are quite thick really!!
No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court.
You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact
I agree this sounds like a dodgy sting. The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked.
I agree,it does seem a bit "underhand" to deliberately encourage someone to accidently, mistakenly or unintentionally break the law,using people who have no legal right to do what they are knowingly attempting,and then punish the "offenders" for an offence which might not have been,or equally,may never have been,commited in the first place;albeit, if it happens, as a result of a negligent lapse on the part of an individual member of staff,which is all that is really being tested here.
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]You are quite thick really!![/p][/quote]No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court. You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact[/p][/quote]I agree this sounds like a dodgy sting. The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked.[/p][/quote]I agree,it does seem a bit "underhand" to deliberately encourage someone to accidently, mistakenly or unintentionally break the law,using people who have no legal right to do what they are knowingly attempting,and then punish the "offenders" for an offence which might not have been,or equally,may never have been,commited in the first place;albeit, if it happens, as a result of a negligent lapse on the part of an individual member of staff,which is all that is really being tested here. Positively4thStreet

5:20pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Costa Baz says...

WobblyCat wrote:
Costa Baz wrote:
On the inside wrote:
Costa Baz wrote:
I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures.
Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result.
Rubbish. Tesco are 100% responsible for their staff at all times. They take the profit and they take the blame.
Not rubbish at all.
If Tesco have trained their staff how to use the till and explained what action the cashier should take, when selling prohibited goods, then they have shown due diligence.
In my days in super marketing, with time spent as a customer service manager, not for Tesco, cashiers had to sign documents indicating that they had received and understood the training.
If this hasn't happened at Tesco, then yes they are responsible.
But if it has, how is it the fault of the company?

By your method of thinking, maybe anyone who has a car accident can blame their driving instructor, after all, they took the profit.
Tesco's will ultimately be held responsible. I worked in an off licence many moons ago and young staff seemed to find it difficult, even intimidating to challenge people about their age. Whatever the rights and wrongs Tesco’s have to be accountable if only to cure the problem.
I agree that Tesco will ultimately be held responsible, even if they have shown due diligence.
My argument is with the numpties that don't understand that individuals have to take responsibility for their own actions and be held accountable.

But then in today's world, it always seems to be someone else's fault.
[quote][p][bold]WobblyCat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Costa Baz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Costa Baz[/bold] wrote: I expect the tills would advise the cashier to ask for ID, when selling any prohibited item, so clearly a breach of procedures by individuals, who I am assuming, did not follow company procedures. Harsh that Tesco and their adult customers will be inconvenienced as a result.[/p][/quote]Rubbish. Tesco are 100% responsible for their staff at all times. They take the profit and they take the blame.[/p][/quote]Not rubbish at all. If Tesco have trained their staff how to use the till and explained what action the cashier should take, when selling prohibited goods, then they have shown due diligence. In my days in super marketing, with time spent as a customer service manager, not for Tesco, cashiers had to sign documents indicating that they had received and understood the training. If this hasn't happened at Tesco, then yes they are responsible. But if it has, how is it the fault of the company? By your method of thinking, maybe anyone who has a car accident can blame their driving instructor, after all, they took the profit.[/p][/quote]Tesco's will ultimately be held responsible. I worked in an off licence many moons ago and young staff seemed to find it difficult, even intimidating to challenge people about their age. Whatever the rights and wrongs Tesco’s have to be accountable if only to cure the problem.[/p][/quote]I agree that Tesco will ultimately be held responsible, even if they have shown due diligence. My argument is with the numpties that don't understand that individuals have to take responsibility for their own actions and be held accountable. But then in today's world, it always seems to be someone else's fault. Costa Baz

5:58pm Sun 29 Dec 13

mike coll says...

I agree with loosehead, bring back the woodman (not that I am close enough to use it anymore) but its very nice to laugh at Tescos expense its good to bite them back sometimes as they have killed small traders across the country.
I agree with loosehead, bring back the woodman (not that I am close enough to use it anymore) but its very nice to laugh at Tescos expense its good to bite them back sometimes as they have killed small traders across the country. mike coll

6:16pm Sun 29 Dec 13

RealTalkSouthampton says...

When you read the comments on here. It shows why the world is such a messed up place. An tesco store sold alcohol on 3 occasions over 12 months to an underaged person. This was the only store in the whole of Southampton to fail this test. So the council decide to revoke the the sale of alcohol of this store in an area plagued with underaged drinking etc...

Shouldn't we all support this. If not why should anybody do any good.
When you read the comments on here. It shows why the world is such a messed up place. An tesco store sold alcohol on 3 occasions over 12 months to an underaged person. This was the only store in the whole of Southampton to fail this test. So the council decide to revoke the the sale of alcohol of this store in an area plagued with underaged drinking etc... Shouldn't we all support this. If not why should anybody do any good. RealTalkSouthampton

8:33pm Sun 29 Dec 13

thinklikealocal says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
southy wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
You are quite thick really!!
No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court.
You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact
I agree this sounds like a dodgy sting. The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked.
I agree,it does seem a bit "underhand" to deliberately encourage someone to accidently, mistakenly or unintentionally break the law,using people who have no legal right to do what they are knowingly attempting,and then punish the "offenders" for an offence which might not have been,or equally,may never have been,commited in the first place;albeit, if it happens, as a result of a negligent lapse on the part of an individual member of staff,which is all that is really being tested here.
How can (on the face of it) an 'ordinary' customer approaching the till with alcohol be considered a 'honey trap'? Surely for it to be a 'honeytrap' some higher level of 'purchase deception' would have been required? Sorry Tesco, no excuses, you are bang to rights on this one. Stop making excuses or feeling sorry for yourself and make sure you get it right next time.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]You are quite thick really!![/p][/quote]No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court. You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact[/p][/quote]I agree this sounds like a dodgy sting. The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked.[/p][/quote]I agree,it does seem a bit "underhand" to deliberately encourage someone to accidently, mistakenly or unintentionally break the law,using people who have no legal right to do what they are knowingly attempting,and then punish the "offenders" for an offence which might not have been,or equally,may never have been,commited in the first place;albeit, if it happens, as a result of a negligent lapse on the part of an individual member of staff,which is all that is really being tested here.[/p][/quote]How can (on the face of it) an 'ordinary' customer approaching the till with alcohol be considered a 'honey trap'? Surely for it to be a 'honeytrap' some higher level of 'purchase deception' would have been required? Sorry Tesco, no excuses, you are bang to rights on this one. Stop making excuses or feeling sorry for yourself and make sure you get it right next time. thinklikealocal

8:46pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Lord Swood says...

RealTalkSouthampton wrote:
When you read the comments on here. It shows why the world is such a messed up place. An tesco store sold alcohol on 3 occasions over 12 months to an underaged person. This was the only store in the whole of Southampton to fail this test. So the council decide to revoke the the sale of alcohol of this store in an area plagued with underaged drinking etc...

Shouldn't we all support this. If not why should anybody do any good.
We should support this and be pleased the police are taking a proactive approach. Tesco broke the law, now they must accept the consequences, simple as that.

The Woodman was in-situ for many years and I don't recall it ever being closed for serving underage clients. Tesco appear and within one year, get a ban.

I can remember many of the comments that were made when Tesco opened that shop and it seems the concerns expressed by the local residents around that time have been proven correct.

I've always suspected pubs and privately owned shops are more diligent with regard to the law, after all, they could easily lose their entire livelyhood. The big, powerful supermarkets seem to think they're more competent than the small traders they've displaced. But as this case shows, the mighty Tesco is incapable of maintaining a law abiding corner shop.
[quote][p][bold]RealTalkSouthampton[/bold] wrote: When you read the comments on here. It shows why the world is such a messed up place. An tesco store sold alcohol on 3 occasions over 12 months to an underaged person. This was the only store in the whole of Southampton to fail this test. So the council decide to revoke the the sale of alcohol of this store in an area plagued with underaged drinking etc... Shouldn't we all support this. If not why should anybody do any good.[/p][/quote]We should support this and be pleased the police are taking a proactive approach. Tesco broke the law, now they must accept the consequences, simple as that. The Woodman was in-situ for many years and I don't recall it ever being closed for serving underage clients. Tesco appear and within one year, get a ban. I can remember many of the comments that were made when Tesco opened that shop and it seems the concerns expressed by the local residents around that time have been proven correct. I've always suspected pubs and privately owned shops are more diligent with regard to the law, after all, they could easily lose their entire livelyhood. The big, powerful supermarkets seem to think they're more competent than the small traders they've displaced. But as this case shows, the mighty Tesco is incapable of maintaining a law abiding corner shop. Lord Swood

9:17pm Sun 29 Dec 13

loosehead says...

you had a perfectly good store next to the Woodman,I use to stay with my sister so use the Woodman.
I left my Rugby club & with a friend went to the Woodman where I saw no trouble.
the only time I complained about it was on a Sunday Afternoon when I went for a meal there & vowed never to do it again which was a pity as I feel this might have saved the pub.
We hear all this Anti pub rhetoric coming from people who've never used the pub in question so it shuts they cheer then they moan about underage drinkers(plus Whacky smoking) terrorising the area yet none of it when the pub was there.
I've seen underage girls knocking doors & asking overage guys to by alcohol for them the only answer is to put a code on the cans & you have to give your name & details over when buying them & if found with underage drinkers(store code as well) you are then traceable & are charged.
This Tesco store wasn't needed yet we lose a good pub for it why?
you had a perfectly good store next to the Woodman,I use to stay with my sister so use the Woodman. I left my Rugby club & with a friend went to the Woodman where I saw no trouble. the only time I complained about it was on a Sunday Afternoon when I went for a meal there & vowed never to do it again which was a pity as I feel this might have saved the pub. We hear all this Anti pub rhetoric coming from people who've never used the pub in question so it shuts they cheer then they moan about underage drinkers(plus Whacky smoking) terrorising the area yet none of it when the pub was there. I've seen underage girls knocking doors & asking overage guys to by alcohol for them the only answer is to put a code on the cans & you have to give your name & details over when buying them & if found with underage drinkers(store code as well) you are then traceable & are charged. This Tesco store wasn't needed yet we lose a good pub for it why? loosehead

10:42pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Lord Swood says...

Reading the article again, I note that...

Quote: "At the hearing representatives for Tesco had argued that the failed test purchases were the result of individual errors by staff members"

I'm sure the Tesco workforce will be charmed seeing their management pointing the finger of blame directly at their staff when things go awry. Sounds like the type of company where people get stabbed in the back by the very people who are supposed to supervise, train and ensure staff are capable.

It's no wonder small traders cannot survive. If a publican chooses to break the law, he/she could be banned from selling alcohol, losing 100% of their alcohol related income. Given that "Tesco" has broken the law and "Tesco" is guilty of the same criminal act, then "Tesco" should be banned from selling alcohol in all their stores (and lose the same 100% of their corresponding alcohol related income). In the same way that a publican will be hurt and must redeem themselves, "Tesco" should be hurt to the SAME EXTENT and be required to prove they have taken remedial action before lifting of the ban can be considered.

Let's make the punishment of individuals and companies the same equivalent percentage, otherwise it's not a level playing field. Then Tesco would become as diligent and at least share the same 'equivalent risk' as the small trader.
Reading the article again, I note that... Quote: "At the hearing representatives for Tesco had argued that the failed test purchases were the result of individual errors by staff members" I'm sure the Tesco workforce will be charmed seeing their management pointing the finger of blame directly at their staff when things go awry. Sounds like the type of company where people get stabbed in the back by the very people who are supposed to supervise, train and ensure staff are capable. It's no wonder small traders cannot survive. If a publican chooses to break the law, he/she could be banned from selling alcohol, losing 100% of their alcohol related income. Given that "Tesco" has broken the law and "Tesco" is guilty of the same criminal act, then "Tesco" should be banned from selling alcohol in all their stores (and lose the same 100% of their corresponding alcohol related income). In the same way that a publican will be hurt and must redeem themselves, "Tesco" should be hurt to the SAME EXTENT and be required to prove they have taken remedial action before lifting of the ban can be considered. Let's make the punishment of individuals and companies the same equivalent percentage, otherwise it's not a level playing field. Then Tesco would become as diligent and at least share the same 'equivalent risk' as the small trader. Lord Swood

12:42am Mon 30 Dec 13

sotonlocal says...

RealTalkSouthampton wrote:
When you read the comments on here. It shows why the world is such a messed up place. An tesco store sold alcohol on 3 occasions over 12 months to an underaged person. This was the only store in the whole of Southampton to fail this test. So the council decide to revoke the the sale of alcohol of this store in an area plagued with underaged drinking etc...

Shouldn't we all support this. If not why should anybody do any good.
I think people need to do their research a bit better, especially the echo. Just 6 months ago, coxford stores were called to a council meeting for failing 3 test purchases by the police, and got away with just a 3 day suspension. They showed no due diligence or training, whereas Tesco did. Shoukdnt all retailersbe ttreated the same, and there not be a harsher penalty just because "its tesco"?? This clearly shows unfair treatment
[quote][p][bold]RealTalkSouthampton[/bold] wrote: When you read the comments on here. It shows why the world is such a messed up place. An tesco store sold alcohol on 3 occasions over 12 months to an underaged person. This was the only store in the whole of Southampton to fail this test. So the council decide to revoke the the sale of alcohol of this store in an area plagued with underaged drinking etc... Shouldn't we all support this. If not why should anybody do any good.[/p][/quote]I think people need to do their research a bit better, especially the echo. Just 6 months ago, coxford stores were called to a council meeting for failing 3 test purchases by the police, and got away with just a 3 day suspension. They showed no due diligence or training, whereas Tesco did. Shoukdnt all retailersbe ttreated the same, and there not be a harsher penalty just because "its tesco"?? This clearly shows unfair treatment sotonlocal

12:50am Mon 30 Dec 13

sotonlocal says...

Lord Swood wrote:
Reading the article again, I note that...

Quote: "At the hearing representatives for Tesco had argued that the failed test purchases were the result of individual errors by staff members"

I'm sure the Tesco workforce will be charmed seeing their management pointing the finger of blame directly at their staff when things go awry. Sounds like the type of company where people get stabbed in the back by the very people who are supposed to supervise, train and ensure staff are capable.

It's no wonder small traders cannot survive. If a publican chooses to break the law, he/she could be banned from selling alcohol, losing 100% of their alcohol related income. Given that "Tesco" has broken the law and "Tesco" is guilty of the same criminal act, then "Tesco" should be banned from selling alcohol in all their stores (and lose the same 100% of their corresponding alcohol related income). In the same way that a publican will be hurt and must redeem themselves, "Tesco" should be hurt to the SAME EXTENT and be required to prove they have taken remedial action before lifting of the ban can be considered.

Let's make the punishment of individuals and companies the same equivalent percentage, otherwise it's not a level playing field. Then Tesco would become as diligent and at least share the same 'equivalent risk' as the small trader.
If you read the minutes of the meeting online and all the attached paperwork, rather than jumping to conclusions, youll see that tesco had all paperwork and training up together, and that even the police agree in their statement that the manager had done everything right 100% as requested by the police, so yes the individuals should be blamed. Because of their incompetance to follow their training, they have caused this store to lose their licence. The store will lose money, and wherever stores lose money, staff lose jobs. So now because of peoples disregard for the trainibg they were given and were meant to folliw, people will now lose their job. Please tell me how this is fair that people trying to earn a living should be punished for other peoples mistakes?
[quote][p][bold]Lord Swood[/bold] wrote: Reading the article again, I note that... Quote: "At the hearing representatives for Tesco had argued that the failed test purchases were the result of individual errors by staff members" I'm sure the Tesco workforce will be charmed seeing their management pointing the finger of blame directly at their staff when things go awry. Sounds like the type of company where people get stabbed in the back by the very people who are supposed to supervise, train and ensure staff are capable. It's no wonder small traders cannot survive. If a publican chooses to break the law, he/she could be banned from selling alcohol, losing 100% of their alcohol related income. Given that "Tesco" has broken the law and "Tesco" is guilty of the same criminal act, then "Tesco" should be banned from selling alcohol in all their stores (and lose the same 100% of their corresponding alcohol related income). In the same way that a publican will be hurt and must redeem themselves, "Tesco" should be hurt to the SAME EXTENT and be required to prove they have taken remedial action before lifting of the ban can be considered. Let's make the punishment of individuals and companies the same equivalent percentage, otherwise it's not a level playing field. Then Tesco would become as diligent and at least share the same 'equivalent risk' as the small trader.[/p][/quote]If you read the minutes of the meeting online and all the attached paperwork, rather than jumping to conclusions, youll see that tesco had all paperwork and training up together, and that even the police agree in their statement that the manager had done everything right 100% as requested by the police, so yes the individuals should be blamed. Because of their incompetance to follow their training, they have caused this store to lose their licence. The store will lose money, and wherever stores lose money, staff lose jobs. So now because of peoples disregard for the trainibg they were given and were meant to folliw, people will now lose their job. Please tell me how this is fair that people trying to earn a living should be punished for other peoples mistakes? sotonlocal

1:25am Mon 30 Dec 13

sotonlocal says...

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/10409521
.Alcohol_licences_un
der_review_for_store
s/
Here ya go, the echos report earlier this year about 2 stores failing purchases from the police. Resd this and then tell me Tesco arent being bullied. Why didnt local councillors speak up about these 2 other shops earliervthis year. Why arent their licences being taken away?
http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/10409521 .Alcohol_licences_un der_review_for_store s/ Here ya go, the echos report earlier this year about 2 stores failing purchases from the police. Resd this and then tell me Tesco arent being bullied. Why didnt local councillors speak up about these 2 other shops earliervthis year. Why arent their licences being taken away? sotonlocal

10:46am Mon 30 Dec 13

jungliztik says...

Lord Swood wrote:
Reading the article again, I note that...

Quote: "At the hearing representatives for Tesco had argued that the failed test purchases were the result of individual errors by staff members"

I'm sure the Tesco workforce will be charmed seeing their management pointing the finger of blame directly at their staff when things go awry. Sounds like the type of company where people get stabbed in the back by the very people who are supposed to supervise, train and ensure staff are capable.

It's no wonder small traders cannot survive. If a publican chooses to break the law, he/she could be banned from selling alcohol, losing 100% of their alcohol related income. Given that "Tesco" has broken the law and "Tesco" is guilty of the same criminal act, then "Tesco" should be banned from selling alcohol in all their stores (and lose the same 100% of their corresponding alcohol related income). In the same way that a publican will be hurt and must redeem themselves, "Tesco" should be hurt to the SAME EXTENT and be required to prove they have taken remedial action before lifting of the ban can be considered.

Let's make the punishment of individuals and companies the same equivalent percentage, otherwise it's not a level playing field. Then Tesco would become as diligent and at least share the same 'equivalent risk' as the small trader.
Several times in this thread people refer to 'Tesco' doing this / breaking the law... Tesco is an extremely large corporation covering many areas of business (grocery, insurance, telco, fuel, etc.) This article is specifically reporting about a single tesco express store violating a law which covers every establishment selling this age restricted product.
The requirement in most stores is to check for ID if the person appears under 21 or 25. There is no 'Ming the Merciless' style Tesco villain controlling the staff, forcing them not to verify a persons age when required. If the cashier / till operator failed to do this when these 'test purchases' happened then there weren't doing their job. There could a number of reasons it was missed on that occasion but the reasons why are irrelevant, it happened multiple times and given the 'check 21/25' requirement operated in the store, a 15 year old should not have been served.
Whilst the woodman never failed a check AFAIK, some of the little darlings who used to go in there can now be seen gathering in the sports centre around a crate of larger.
Returning the premises to being a pub? Most people who frequented it when still operating as the woodman could see its days were numbered, I was sent home on several occasions when there weren't enough customers to justify the cost of keeping the doors open.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Swood[/bold] wrote: Reading the article again, I note that... Quote: "At the hearing representatives for Tesco had argued that the failed test purchases were the result of individual errors by staff members" I'm sure the Tesco workforce will be charmed seeing their management pointing the finger of blame directly at their staff when things go awry. Sounds like the type of company where people get stabbed in the back by the very people who are supposed to supervise, train and ensure staff are capable. It's no wonder small traders cannot survive. If a publican chooses to break the law, he/she could be banned from selling alcohol, losing 100% of their alcohol related income. Given that "Tesco" has broken the law and "Tesco" is guilty of the same criminal act, then "Tesco" should be banned from selling alcohol in all their stores (and lose the same 100% of their corresponding alcohol related income). In the same way that a publican will be hurt and must redeem themselves, "Tesco" should be hurt to the SAME EXTENT and be required to prove they have taken remedial action before lifting of the ban can be considered. Let's make the punishment of individuals and companies the same equivalent percentage, otherwise it's not a level playing field. Then Tesco would become as diligent and at least share the same 'equivalent risk' as the small trader.[/p][/quote]Several times in this thread people refer to 'Tesco' doing this / breaking the law... Tesco is an extremely large corporation covering many areas of business (grocery, insurance, telco, fuel, etc.) This article is specifically reporting about a single tesco express store violating a law which covers every establishment selling this age restricted product. The requirement in most stores is to check for ID if the person appears under 21 or 25. There is no 'Ming the Merciless' style Tesco villain controlling the staff, forcing them not to verify a persons age when required. If the cashier / till operator failed to do this when these 'test purchases' happened then there weren't doing their job. There could a number of reasons it was missed on that occasion but the reasons why are irrelevant, it happened multiple times and given the 'check 21/25' requirement operated in the store, a 15 year old should not have been served. Whilst the woodman never failed a check AFAIK, some of the little darlings who used to go in there can now be seen gathering in the sports centre around a crate of larger. Returning the premises to being a pub? Most people who frequented it when still operating as the woodman could see its days were numbered, I was sent home on several occasions when there weren't enough customers to justify the cost of keeping the doors open. jungliztik

1:31pm Mon 30 Dec 13

Brizzler says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
You are right the law is clear, its a shame you don't understand what you are looking at. This particular issue is covered under the Licensing Act 2003 (part 7, section 49), where it specifically states that "An individual aged under 18 commits an offence if he buys or attempts to buy alcohol" UNLESS "the individual buys or attempts to buy the alcohol at the request of a constable, or a weights and measures inspector, who is acting in the course of his duty."

Found by simply googling for a few minutes: http://www.legislati
on.gov.uk/ukpga/2003
/17/section/149
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]You are right the law is clear, its a shame you don't understand what you are looking at. This particular issue is covered under the Licensing Act 2003 (part 7, section 49), where it specifically states that "An individual aged under 18 commits an offence if he buys or attempts to buy alcohol" UNLESS "the individual buys or attempts to buy the alcohol at the request of a constable, or a weights and measures inspector, who is acting in the course of his duty." Found by simply googling for a few minutes: http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/2003 /17/section/149 Brizzler

2:42pm Mon 30 Dec 13

Lord Swood says...

jungliztik wrote:
Lord Swood wrote:
Reading the article again, I note that...

Quote: "At the hearing representatives for Tesco had argued that the failed test purchases were the result of individual errors by staff members"

I'm sure the Tesco workforce will be charmed seeing their management pointing the finger of blame directly at their staff when things go awry. Sounds like the type of company where people get stabbed in the back by the very people who are supposed to supervise, train and ensure staff are capable.

It's no wonder small traders cannot survive. If a publican chooses to break the law, he/she could be banned from selling alcohol, losing 100% of their alcohol related income. Given that "Tesco" has broken the law and "Tesco" is guilty of the same criminal act, then "Tesco" should be banned from selling alcohol in all their stores (and lose the same 100% of their corresponding alcohol related income). In the same way that a publican will be hurt and must redeem themselves, "Tesco" should be hurt to the SAME EXTENT and be required to prove they have taken remedial action before lifting of the ban can be considered.

Let's make the punishment of individuals and companies the same equivalent percentage, otherwise it's not a level playing field. Then Tesco would become as diligent and at least share the same 'equivalent risk' as the small trader.
Several times in this thread people refer to 'Tesco' doing this / breaking the law... Tesco is an extremely large corporation covering many areas of business (grocery, insurance, telco, fuel, etc.) This article is specifically reporting about a single tesco express store violating a law which covers every establishment selling this age restricted product.
The requirement in most stores is to check for ID if the person appears under 21 or 25. There is no 'Ming the Merciless' style Tesco villain controlling the staff, forcing them not to verify a persons age when required. If the cashier / till operator failed to do this when these 'test purchases' happened then there weren't doing their job. There could a number of reasons it was missed on that occasion but the reasons why are irrelevant, it happened multiple times and given the 'check 21/25' requirement operated in the store, a 15 year old should not have been served.
Whilst the woodman never failed a check AFAIK, some of the little darlings who used to go in there can now be seen gathering in the sports centre around a crate of larger.
Returning the premises to being a pub? Most people who frequented it when still operating as the woodman could see its days were numbered, I was sent home on several occasions when there weren't enough customers to justify the cost of keeping the doors open.
jungliztik wrote:
Several times in this thread people refer to 'Tesco' doing this / breaking the law... Tesco is an extremely large corporation covering many areas of business (grocery, insurance, telco, fuel, etc.) This article is specifically reporting about a single tesco express store violating a law which covers every establishment selling this age restricted product.


Your point being that the problem must be very widespread? If 'training' is supposedly up to date and an offence was still committed (three times), then there is something wrong with "Tesco" procedures/training.


Tesco are a victim of their own arrogance. They muscled out small traders under the guise of being 'better' than those they displaced. It is that arrogance that created an undercurrent of resentment (and also merriment when they're shown to be incompetent).

As a big company however, that does not give them some form of 'immunity'. The name Tesco is on the building in which offences were committed, so it is Tesco the company, that is guilty of the crime(s).
[quote][p][bold]jungliztik[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Swood[/bold] wrote: Reading the article again, I note that... Quote: "At the hearing representatives for Tesco had argued that the failed test purchases were the result of individual errors by staff members" I'm sure the Tesco workforce will be charmed seeing their management pointing the finger of blame directly at their staff when things go awry. Sounds like the type of company where people get stabbed in the back by the very people who are supposed to supervise, train and ensure staff are capable. It's no wonder small traders cannot survive. If a publican chooses to break the law, he/she could be banned from selling alcohol, losing 100% of their alcohol related income. Given that "Tesco" has broken the law and "Tesco" is guilty of the same criminal act, then "Tesco" should be banned from selling alcohol in all their stores (and lose the same 100% of their corresponding alcohol related income). In the same way that a publican will be hurt and must redeem themselves, "Tesco" should be hurt to the SAME EXTENT and be required to prove they have taken remedial action before lifting of the ban can be considered. Let's make the punishment of individuals and companies the same equivalent percentage, otherwise it's not a level playing field. Then Tesco would become as diligent and at least share the same 'equivalent risk' as the small trader.[/p][/quote]Several times in this thread people refer to 'Tesco' doing this / breaking the law... Tesco is an extremely large corporation covering many areas of business (grocery, insurance, telco, fuel, etc.) This article is specifically reporting about a single tesco express store violating a law which covers every establishment selling this age restricted product. The requirement in most stores is to check for ID if the person appears under 21 or 25. There is no 'Ming the Merciless' style Tesco villain controlling the staff, forcing them not to verify a persons age when required. If the cashier / till operator failed to do this when these 'test purchases' happened then there weren't doing their job. There could a number of reasons it was missed on that occasion but the reasons why are irrelevant, it happened multiple times and given the 'check 21/25' requirement operated in the store, a 15 year old should not have been served. Whilst the woodman never failed a check AFAIK, some of the little darlings who used to go in there can now be seen gathering in the sports centre around a crate of larger. Returning the premises to being a pub? Most people who frequented it when still operating as the woodman could see its days were numbered, I was sent home on several occasions when there weren't enough customers to justify the cost of keeping the doors open.[/p][/quote]jungliztik wrote: [quote]Several times in this thread people refer to 'Tesco' doing this / breaking the law... Tesco is an extremely large corporation covering many areas of business (grocery, insurance, telco, fuel, etc.) This article is specifically reporting about a single tesco express store violating a law which covers every establishment selling this age restricted product.[/quote] Your point being that the problem must be very widespread? If 'training' is supposedly up to date and an offence was still committed (three times), then there is something wrong with "Tesco" procedures/training. Tesco are a victim of their own arrogance. They muscled out small traders under the guise of being 'better' than those they displaced. It is that arrogance that created an undercurrent of resentment (and also merriment when they're shown to be incompetent). As a big company however, that does not give them some form of 'immunity'. The name Tesco is on the building in which offences were committed, so it is Tesco the company, that is guilty of the crime(s). Lord Swood

3:13pm Mon 30 Dec 13

loosehead says...

jungliztik wrote:
Lord Swood wrote:
Reading the article again, I note that...

Quote: "At the hearing representatives for Tesco had argued that the failed test purchases were the result of individual errors by staff members"

I'm sure the Tesco workforce will be charmed seeing their management pointing the finger of blame directly at their staff when things go awry. Sounds like the type of company where people get stabbed in the back by the very people who are supposed to supervise, train and ensure staff are capable.

It's no wonder small traders cannot survive. If a publican chooses to break the law, he/she could be banned from selling alcohol, losing 100% of their alcohol related income. Given that "Tesco" has broken the law and "Tesco" is guilty of the same criminal act, then "Tesco" should be banned from selling alcohol in all their stores (and lose the same 100% of their corresponding alcohol related income). In the same way that a publican will be hurt and must redeem themselves, "Tesco" should be hurt to the SAME EXTENT and be required to prove they have taken remedial action before lifting of the ban can be considered.

Let's make the punishment of individuals and companies the same equivalent percentage, otherwise it's not a level playing field. Then Tesco would become as diligent and at least share the same 'equivalent risk' as the small trader.
Several times in this thread people refer to 'Tesco' doing this / breaking the law... Tesco is an extremely large corporation covering many areas of business (grocery, insurance, telco, fuel, etc.) This article is specifically reporting about a single tesco express store violating a law which covers every establishment selling this age restricted product.
The requirement in most stores is to check for ID if the person appears under 21 or 25. There is no 'Ming the Merciless' style Tesco villain controlling the staff, forcing them not to verify a persons age when required. If the cashier / till operator failed to do this when these 'test purchases' happened then there weren't doing their job. There could a number of reasons it was missed on that occasion but the reasons why are irrelevant, it happened multiple times and given the 'check 21/25' requirement operated in the store, a 15 year old should not have been served.
Whilst the woodman never failed a check AFAIK, some of the little darlings who used to go in there can now be seen gathering in the sports centre around a crate of larger.
Returning the premises to being a pub? Most people who frequented it when still operating as the woodman could see its days were numbered, I was sent home on several occasions when there weren't enough customers to justify the cost of keeping the doors open.
I don't know when that was but I went in every Saturday night & it was packed?
on a Sunday lunch it was busy so what night did that happen?
[quote][p][bold]jungliztik[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Swood[/bold] wrote: Reading the article again, I note that... Quote: "At the hearing representatives for Tesco had argued that the failed test purchases were the result of individual errors by staff members" I'm sure the Tesco workforce will be charmed seeing their management pointing the finger of blame directly at their staff when things go awry. Sounds like the type of company where people get stabbed in the back by the very people who are supposed to supervise, train and ensure staff are capable. It's no wonder small traders cannot survive. If a publican chooses to break the law, he/she could be banned from selling alcohol, losing 100% of their alcohol related income. Given that "Tesco" has broken the law and "Tesco" is guilty of the same criminal act, then "Tesco" should be banned from selling alcohol in all their stores (and lose the same 100% of their corresponding alcohol related income). In the same way that a publican will be hurt and must redeem themselves, "Tesco" should be hurt to the SAME EXTENT and be required to prove they have taken remedial action before lifting of the ban can be considered. Let's make the punishment of individuals and companies the same equivalent percentage, otherwise it's not a level playing field. Then Tesco would become as diligent and at least share the same 'equivalent risk' as the small trader.[/p][/quote]Several times in this thread people refer to 'Tesco' doing this / breaking the law... Tesco is an extremely large corporation covering many areas of business (grocery, insurance, telco, fuel, etc.) This article is specifically reporting about a single tesco express store violating a law which covers every establishment selling this age restricted product. The requirement in most stores is to check for ID if the person appears under 21 or 25. There is no 'Ming the Merciless' style Tesco villain controlling the staff, forcing them not to verify a persons age when required. If the cashier / till operator failed to do this when these 'test purchases' happened then there weren't doing their job. There could a number of reasons it was missed on that occasion but the reasons why are irrelevant, it happened multiple times and given the 'check 21/25' requirement operated in the store, a 15 year old should not have been served. Whilst the woodman never failed a check AFAIK, some of the little darlings who used to go in there can now be seen gathering in the sports centre around a crate of larger. Returning the premises to being a pub? Most people who frequented it when still operating as the woodman could see its days were numbered, I was sent home on several occasions when there weren't enough customers to justify the cost of keeping the doors open.[/p][/quote]I don't know when that was but I went in every Saturday night & it was packed? on a Sunday lunch it was busy so what night did that happen? loosehead

1:15am Tue 31 Dec 13

Swissowned says...

good-gosh wrote:
southy wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
You are quite thick really!!
No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court.
You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact
I agree this sounds like a dodgy sting. The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked.
Apart from the fact that somebody has already posted legislation stating that the authorities can use test purchasing as a legitimate tactic, I would like to point out tha inaccuracies of one or two of the other posters.

Test purchasing is NOT entrapment. Entrapment is where the police (or government official) presents an opportunity for the suspect to commit a crime AND (note I said AND, so both parts have to be satisfied) the suspect has to be enticed into committing that crime.

So sending an under age person into a shop to buy alcohol isn't entrapment. However, if that underage person, having been refused service, offered an extra tenner to the cashier to entice them to sell them the alcohol, that would be entrapment.

Furthermore, for the stupid people who suggested sending in someone who is over 18 but just looks underage, how the hell can someone commit the offence if the person they are selling to is legally old enough to buy it?? Doh!!!
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]You are quite thick really!![/p][/quote]No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court. You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact[/p][/quote]I agree this sounds like a dodgy sting. The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked.[/p][/quote]Apart from the fact that somebody has already posted legislation stating that the authorities can use test purchasing as a legitimate tactic, I would like to point out tha inaccuracies of one or two of the other posters. Test purchasing is NOT entrapment. Entrapment is where the police (or government official) presents an opportunity for the suspect to commit a crime AND (note I said AND, so both parts have to be satisfied) the suspect has to be enticed into committing that crime. So sending an under age person into a shop to buy alcohol isn't entrapment. However, if that underage person, having been refused service, offered an extra tenner to the cashier to entice them to sell them the alcohol, that would be entrapment. Furthermore, for the stupid people who suggested sending in someone who is over 18 but just looks underage, how the hell can someone commit the offence if the person they are selling to is legally old enough to buy it?? Doh!!! Swissowned

11:53am Tue 31 Dec 13

good-gosh says...

Swissowned wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
southy wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
You are quite thick really!!
No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court.
You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact
I agree this sounds like a dodgy sting. The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked.
Apart from the fact that somebody has already posted legislation stating that the authorities can use test purchasing as a legitimate tactic, I would like to point out tha inaccuracies of one or two of the other posters.

Test purchasing is NOT entrapment. Entrapment is where the police (or government official) presents an opportunity for the suspect to commit a crime AND (note I said AND, so both parts have to be satisfied) the suspect has to be enticed into committing that crime.

So sending an under age person into a shop to buy alcohol isn't entrapment. However, if that underage person, having been refused service, offered an extra tenner to the cashier to entice them to sell them the alcohol, that would be entrapment.

Furthermore, for the stupid people who suggested sending in someone who is over 18 but just looks underage, how the hell can someone commit the offence if the person they are selling to is legally old enough to buy it?? Doh!!!
Its perfectly clear how it works by using over 18 buyers. If a shop is not doing ID checks when it could appear necessary, then it is cannot be trusted to have a licence.
[quote][p][bold]Swissowned[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]You are quite thick really!![/p][/quote]No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court. You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact[/p][/quote]I agree this sounds like a dodgy sting. The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked.[/p][/quote]Apart from the fact that somebody has already posted legislation stating that the authorities can use test purchasing as a legitimate tactic, I would like to point out tha inaccuracies of one or two of the other posters. Test purchasing is NOT entrapment. Entrapment is where the police (or government official) presents an opportunity for the suspect to commit a crime AND (note I said AND, so both parts have to be satisfied) the suspect has to be enticed into committing that crime. So sending an under age person into a shop to buy alcohol isn't entrapment. However, if that underage person, having been refused service, offered an extra tenner to the cashier to entice them to sell them the alcohol, that would be entrapment. Furthermore, for the stupid people who suggested sending in someone who is over 18 but just looks underage, how the hell can someone commit the offence if the person they are selling to is legally old enough to buy it?? Doh!!![/p][/quote]Its perfectly clear how it works by using over 18 buyers. If a shop is not doing ID checks when it could appear necessary, then it is cannot be trusted to have a licence. good-gosh

12:40pm Tue 31 Dec 13

Swissowned says...

good-gosh wrote:
Swissowned wrote:
good-gosh wrote:
southy wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months..
It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law..
But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,
You are quite thick really!!
No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court.
You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact
I agree this sounds like a dodgy sting. The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked.
Apart from the fact that somebody has already posted legislation stating that the authorities can use test purchasing as a legitimate tactic, I would like to point out tha inaccuracies of one or two of the other posters.

Test purchasing is NOT entrapment. Entrapment is where the police (or government official) presents an opportunity for the suspect to commit a crime AND (note I said AND, so both parts have to be satisfied) the suspect has to be enticed into committing that crime.

So sending an under age person into a shop to buy alcohol isn't entrapment. However, if that underage person, having been refused service, offered an extra tenner to the cashier to entice them to sell them the alcohol, that would be entrapment.

Furthermore, for the stupid people who suggested sending in someone who is over 18 but just looks underage, how the hell can someone commit the offence if the person they are selling to is legally old enough to buy it?? Doh!!!
Its perfectly clear how it works by using over 18 buyers. If a shop is not doing ID checks when it could appear necessary, then it is cannot be trusted to have a licence.
If it's selling to under 18's then it cannot be trusted to have a licence!!
[quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Swissowned[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]good-gosh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: Children test purchasing for the police were sold alcohol three times in nine months.. It makes me laugh, the law on the purchasing of Alcohol is clear, that you cannot buy alcohol if under 18, and to buy for underage, or encourage underage is against the law.. But I don't see any prosecution against the POLICE, for encouraging children to honey trap store,,,[/p][/quote]You are quite thick really!![/p][/quote]No he not really, he is expression concerns over the fact that the police used entrapment to get some one to break the law, in some country,s any case that go's to court that entrapment is used its kick out of court. You can not break the law to catch some one who is/or might be/ or going to break the law to catch them, that is entrapment, personally the police should be charge with at lest aiding and abetting before the fact[/p][/quote]I agree this sounds like a dodgy sting. The way do it legitimately is to use a young looking legal aged buyer to test that ID is properly checked.[/p][/quote]Apart from the fact that somebody has already posted legislation stating that the authorities can use test purchasing as a legitimate tactic, I would like to point out tha inaccuracies of one or two of the other posters. Test purchasing is NOT entrapment. Entrapment is where the police (or government official) presents an opportunity for the suspect to commit a crime AND (note I said AND, so both parts have to be satisfied) the suspect has to be enticed into committing that crime. So sending an under age person into a shop to buy alcohol isn't entrapment. However, if that underage person, having been refused service, offered an extra tenner to the cashier to entice them to sell them the alcohol, that would be entrapment. Furthermore, for the stupid people who suggested sending in someone who is over 18 but just looks underage, how the hell can someone commit the offence if the person they are selling to is legally old enough to buy it?? Doh!!![/p][/quote]Its perfectly clear how it works by using over 18 buyers. If a shop is not doing ID checks when it could appear necessary, then it is cannot be trusted to have a licence.[/p][/quote]If it's selling to under 18's then it cannot be trusted to have a licence!! Swissowned

2:02pm Tue 31 Dec 13

loosehead says...

all this rubbish about entrapment why? the store was willing to sell to an underage person with out asking for ID using a person over age defeats the object of it as they can't say "Oh! I'm underage "can they?
if a pub is caught doing this they can lose their license so why feel sorry that Tesco's have been caught?
up the tax on Supermarket alcohol & lower it on the pubs whilst encouraging owner Landlord pubs & not some company just looking for a quick buck
all this rubbish about entrapment why? the store was willing to sell to an underage person with out asking for ID using a person over age defeats the object of it as they can't say "Oh! I'm underage "can they? if a pub is caught doing this they can lose their license so why feel sorry that Tesco's have been caught? up the tax on Supermarket alcohol & lower it on the pubs whilst encouraging owner Landlord pubs & not some company just looking for a quick buck loosehead

4:42pm Tue 31 Dec 13

good-gosh says...

Nice photo.
Nice photo. good-gosh

12:53am Wed 1 Jan 14

Lord Swood says...

A quick Google search shows Tesco has received similar revocations as far back as 2007. Some of the guilty stores being in Dorchester, Middlesbrough, Crawley x2, Bexley, Worthing, Leicester, Dalkeith...

This is clearly a problem of incompetence prevalent throughout Tesco.
A quick Google search shows Tesco has received similar revocations as far back as 2007. Some of the guilty stores being in Dorchester, Middlesbrough, Crawley x2, Bexley, Worthing, Leicester, Dalkeith... This is clearly a problem of incompetence prevalent throughout Tesco. Lord Swood

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree