A 34-year-old bloke with a full "Viking beard" was refused entry to a film for not having ID -- but was then allowed to drink pints at the cinema's bar.
Steven McKimm was on a rare night out with his fiance, Joanne Nicol, to see the new T2 Trainspotting film.
But he was left gobsmacked when cinema staff said he could not see the 18-certificate flick because he did not have ID to prove his age.
Steven -- who has a full "Viking beard" -- thought the cinema employee was joking when she insisted there was "strict Challenge 25" policy.
But he was eventually forced to give in, despite pre-booking the tickets.
Instead, the cheeky dad enjoyed a number of pints the cinema's bar where he wasn't asked to prove his age.
Steven said: "When she first asked me for ID I thought she was joking.
"It was such a ludicrous situation that I thought Jeremy Beadle would come back from the dead to surprise me.
"She admitted that she didn't think I was under 18 but felt it was up to her discretion to use the Challenge 25 rule.
"I think she's completely misinterpreted the rule and realised that she's in the wrong around five minutes into the argument.
"There was a queue of about 30 people behind us and, with this being Shetland, the majority of them knew who we were and they couldn't believe it either.
"I then told her that I was going downstairs to the bar, in the same venue, and she said she didn't have a problem with it because that wasn't her area.
"If she didn't think I was old enough to see the film then why would I be old enough to have a drink?
"My friends have been joking with me about having to bring my National Insurance card to get into kids films.
"I don't go out to the cinema very often anyway and don't think there's any danger that I'll be going back soon."
Steven visited the Mareel cinema in Lerwick, Shetland, with Joanne and her brothers Marc Sherwood, 34, and Sean Nicol, 22.
They had even told Sean to take ID, because of his youthful looks.
The group had travelled for 45 minutes in blistery winter weather from their home in Mossbank to the cinema -- which is 30 miles away.
Joanne, said: "We don't really get the chance to have a night out since we're new parents and had to plan a few days in advance to get a babysitter in.
"This could have been so easily avoided if the duty manager just swallowed her pride.
"But there was quite a big queue behind us and I guess she didn't want to look weak.
"We even told her that we were going to go to the cinema's pub but she said she didn't care because that wasn't her area.
"I don't understand how she can think he isn't old enough to see Trainspotting but is old enough to drink in the bar.
"It took me quite a while to stop being so angry but eventually, after a few glasses of Prosecco, I saw the funny side."
Joanne posted a picture of her man enjoying a pint at the cinema's pub on their Facebook page.
The filmhouse responded: "Hi Joanne, I'm sorry your fiancé was unable to get into Trainspotting 2 due to lack of ID.
"Our staff are legally required to ask for proof that you are old enough to watch an age restricted film if they have any doubt.
"We follow the Challenge 25 policy here at Mareel, so we ID anyone who appears under 25 for 18 films.
"These decisions have to be made on the spot by the staff as without ID there is no other accurate way of telling age.
"The cinema staff believed him to be under 25, whereas the bar staff were happy he was over 25, in each case staff were just doing their job.
"I'm sorry this affected your evening but we have no choice but to fulfill our legal obligations.
"So please, please anyone who is under 25, or may look under 25, make sure you bring ID with you, we don't like having to turn anyone away."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel