But if they did, they’d probably make Daily Mail readers. To lure the idiots into making a comment the Daily Mail just needs a pointless story like: ‘Schoolboy banned from buying pack of Wine Gums… for being too young to drink‘. You don’t need to worry if the story makes it clear that it was simply a computer glitch at a new store – it seems the word ‘Wine’ in the title of the sweets triggered the software to ask if the customer was 18 – the Daily Mail commenter can still work up a good foaming rant:
A computer system has a glitch that the store fixes, they apologise to the customer and offer him 9 free purchases at the store and someone the government is to blame for a non-existent law that somehow wants to ban selling wine gums to minors?
The person serving isn’t paid to think, they are paid to obey company policy. If the computer flags up that something shouldn’t be sold, they have to follow it. Perhaps they could have questioned it, or talked to a manager, or perhaps they just couldn’t be bothered because they didn’t really care or it was too busy? Who gives a shit, it says nothing about the stupidity of the guy serving but a lot about the mentality of morons who want to stick the boot into someone even though they have no idea what motivated them to take the action they did.
How stupid have some people become when they cannot even read a tabloid article well-enough to realise it was a computer that made the mistake, not the shop assistant. As I said above, the shop assistant is being paid to obey, simple as that. Considering shop assistants are personally liable for selling alcohol to minors I can see why they would just want to refuse to sell the item rather than make a fuss.
It’s a complete non-story, yet Mail readers react as if it is another compelling piece of evidence that Britain is broken, best summed-up by this muppet:
Australia, you have my sympathies.