Entry Policy - Mareel

[Colin]

Sub headline "Two different members of staff in different parts of a building had different opinions on how old a customer looked, and the customer didn't have the proof of age that customers are recommended to take with them"

 

THAT is why I suggested that some re-training might be required.

 

"The Challenge 25 initiative is promoted by 'drinkaware' and run by the 'Retail of Alcohol Standards Group'.

It is intended to be used as a tool to help determine age when young people are buying alcohol."

 

It is NOT "Law".  It is an initiative run by a "trade" body and is meant to apply to bars, not cinemas.  As usual, some of the people who are expected to apply "the rules" also apply "mission creep" and just don't understand the rules or their purpose.

[Scorrie]

I never said the '25 or ID' was law.

 

I was referring to the film classifications.

 

And how do you propose that this 're-training' will take place and presumably lead to everyone having the same opinion regarding someones age? Are there photos online showing how people should look at a certain age?

[tubstardelux]

With a beard like that he should be allowed to watch Trainspotting regardless of his age. 

[Colin]

And how do you propose that this 're-training' will take place and presumably lead to everyone having the same opinion regarding someones age? Are there photos online showing how people should look at a certain age?

Yes there are.. Part of the Servewise training (OK, it's for alcohol) involves photographs of different aged people. 

 

Anyway, the fact that the person was served alcohol with 10 minutes of being refused entry to the cinema suggest, to me, that at least 1 member of Mareel staff needs a "refresher"

[Rasmie]

Its not something you really think about, carrying ID in Shetland! Especially if you've been getting served in the pubs for 16+ years.

 

Last time/only time I was there I was turned away as well because I was with my son who didn't "look" 15 for a 15 film. I was annoyed because  it caught me unawares and again I had a thirty mile drive and no offer of a refund.

 

You canna blame the staff, as they're probably on a hiding to nothing.

[Colin]

The basic problem is that a lot of people treat these "initiatives" as "law" when they are not...

 

I suppose it's just another way of trying to control people when passing a "law" would be impractical/unacceptable.

 

If you are running any kind of establishment then, by default (in the majority of cases), you have the right(?) to refuse entry to anyone.  Trouble with "initiatives" is that they are a "cop out" that a number of people will hide behind.

 

AFAIK, there is no legal requirement to carry ID (in public) in the UK.  Demanding it (ID) "on spec" in order to be allowed to enter a public(?) place is just wrong on so many levels.  

[Spinner72]

I never said the '25 or ID' was law.

 

I was referring to the film classifications.

 

Film classifications are recommendations only, they have no legal status.

 

I can see both sides of the argument (age identifying is complex), but they could have at least given him a refund or voucher.

 

That would be the decent thing to do, a refund or replacement tickets for the group could have smoothed things over. Sure, it is made abundantly clear by Mareel that ID may be required, and is common knowledge for all cinemas or licensed premises, but it is also natural not to think about it when you're 34. Nobody is really in the wrong, and I hope one day I look young enough to be refused, i'd be delighted!

[magnie ii]

The basic problem is that a lot of people treat these "initiatives" as "law" when they are not...

 

I suppose it's just another way of trying to control people when passing a "law" would be impractical/unacceptable.

 

If you are running any kind of establishment then, by default (in the majority of cases), you have the right(?) to refuse entry to anyone.  Trouble with "initiatives" is that they are a "cop out" that a number of people will hide behind.

 

AFAIK, there is no legal requirement to carry ID (in public) in the UK.  Demanding it (ID) "on spec" in order to be allowed to enter a public(?) place is just wrong on so many levels.  

challenge 25 is definitely law as far as alcohol goes

http://www.challenge25.org/

[Scorrie]

It would be a lot easier if we were all bar coded on the forehead.

 

A quick scan and you're in or out. 

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

 

I never said the '25 or ID' was law.

 

I was referring to the film classifications.

 

Film classifications are recommendations only, they have no legal status.

 

I can see both sides of the argument (age identifying is complex), but they could have at least given him a refund or voucher.

 

That would be the decent thing to do, a refund or replacement tickets for the group could have smoothed things over. Sure, it is made abundantly clear by Mareel that ID may be required, and is common knowledge for all cinemas or licensed premises, but it is also natural not to think about it when you're 34. Nobody is really in the wrong, and I hope one day I look young enough to be refused, i'd be delighted!

 

I think it's actually the cinema licence that is legally enforceable based upon the film classification.  So if a cinema states it is going to show films with a recommended age classification of 18 and over, then the cinema licence conditions expects age checks to be undertaken.

[mick63]

Ok, you may have the right to do so however there was no common sense used in this matter.  The gentlemen was served in the bar.

He looked over the age that was required. I think the employee who was involved wanted to show his authority and wanted

to prove a point. If i go to the mareel should I bring my ID ???? Give him a voucher for him and the rest of the group and do the 

right thing.

[George.]

Steven McKimm should have the sense to put in a formal complaint about this. He should also demand a full refund plus compensation for ruining his evening for no good reason.

[Z O F O]

It's just another jobs worth trying to prove a point and the the manager backing them up.

The Mareel management and staff have really embarrassed themselves here, and are dammed if they are going to back down, they should be apologising and retraining there staff to stop this mindless debacle from happening again. customers should be made welcome, not ridiculously challenged when it is obvious to every man and his dog that this man was over 25 let alone 18.

Incompetence at its best. I for one will certainly boycott the mareel for the poor handling of this incident.

[Davie P]

I was turned away in a supermarket whilst buying alcohol in my late 30s and didn't have ID (and I also had bit of a beard!), and was once refused on a flight for having no photographic ID. I couldn't very well complain as it was the policy. Them's the breaks! If I'd had ID then it wouldn't have been an issue.

 
If I did feel aggrieved by the decisions then a formal complaint would be a more constructive way forward rather than going to the media. Once it has 'gone viral' then I don't suppose the organisation has much choice apart from sticking to the letter of their policies and backing their employee's judgement call.
 

On balance, I'd rather that establishments selling age restricted 'goods and services' were quite strict with their ID requirements and risk the odd incident such as this rather than operate a more lax policy and risk underagers accessing unsuitable 'goods and services'. I'd image there would be a hell of a stooshie if parents found out their kids were routinely getting in to unsuitable films or if Mareel was to lose it's film license (if such a thing exists!)  due to underagers getting in!

Edited February 14, 2017 by Davie P

[Urabug]

Goodness how I wish someone would ask my age,sadly they no longer do that