I've been going to the same gamesworkshop for about 3/4 years and this is the first time I've ever had any trouble there, or heck, in any store I've ever been into. Over the years I've had good experiences and have spent at least £800 there (That's a LOT to me, as I am only 14 and that constitutes many Christmases and birthdays) and was appalled at the customer service I got off a new member of staff today. I came in early by bus, bringing in my smaller case with a small 40k force in because I wanted to buy a big £60 case and couldn't carry both that and my large case home on the bus. I was disappointed to find that they had run out of cases but then the staff member instantly started pressuring me to buy something with the £60 in my pocket. He wouldn't lay off me saying that its not a free store, but was called away to lie to little Timmy (He lied about stats and rules to him then told him to buy a very mediocre army based on the false rules he told him) coming in to play a starter game. I settled down to play a game when I remembered I forgot my main rule book (I couldn't carry it in my little case anyway, it wouldn't fit and I didn't have little one) but figured that my opponent did, so we started to play a match. He then comes up to me specifically and asked to see my rule book, I said I left it at home because it wouldn't fit in case. He told me to pack my stuff up and leave the table and you can't play today. I wasn't exactly happy, as the manager would of let it slide, but I though it was kind of reasonable so I packed up.

I then started to look through my army books devising new lists and what to buy next, then he asked me what I was doing. I said making an army list, he said you can do that at home, so buy some paints or you'll have to leave. I said I didn't need paints and wasn't going to let him bully me into it. He then told me to leave and I got, understandably, agitated. He even threated to call the police, and when I asked what I am doing wrong, he said your doing nothing. I said I couldn't leave, as I didn't have a bus to catch until 5:30 (He kicked me out at 1:30) and he said he didn't care, this isn't a day care. With my parents in work I could do nothing but wait in a busy town with hundreds of people walking past with no supervision ( I wonder if he understands abduction) with a valuable looking case. While I was waiting some kids walked past and kicked my case over, leaving a raider almost beyond repair. Then I had the luck to randomly find another bus to near where I live (Still a good 45mins away, up hill) and took that, having to buy a new ticket because it was a different bus. While I guess that part doesn't matter, it just shows how he screwed up my entire day. So after all that Wall'O'Text I wanted to ask can he do that, kick me out because I wasn't buying something or playing a game? Is that what gamesworkshop has become now? Because it certainly isn't the friendly environment I was used to, nor the customer service I expected from a loyal customer who has went there for years. When I told my mum she was incredulous and wanted to right letters to HQ and everything, I said I would simply talk to the manager (A really nice fellow) to try sort things out. Sorry about the rant, but I just want to know if when I confront the manager i'm complaining about a disagreeable staff member who is enforcing rules or a disagreeable staff member who is simply being rude. Thanks

Quit whining because you were asked not to loiter. Remember why any store exists: making money. It isn't a library or a lounge.

Holy run on post.

If you want to hang out, go to a club.
It's a shop not a social centre.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Quit whining because you were asked not to loiter. Remember why any store exists: making money. It isn't a library or a lounge.

He wasn't loitering, he was partaking in the hobby that the 'Hobby Center' exists to cater to.

I find most GW staff intolerable and their policies absolutely ridiculous that is why I now try to go in the store for as little as possible, ordering stuff online and going to a local miniature wargaming club instead.

Get in touch with the manager ASAP. Explain what happened and at the very LEAST, demand that the employee in question sincerely apologize to you the next time you're "loitering" in the store.

If you get that, leave it alone. If not, never spend another dollar in that building.

Ha ha ha!

 undertow wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Quit whining because you were asked not to loiter. Remember why any store exists: making money. It isn't a library or a lounge.

He wasn't loitering, he was partaking in the hobby that the 'Hobby Center' exists to cater to.

Agreed.

He was basically kicked out because he did not have a rule book. or wold not spend his money on something he didn't want. If the manager is as nice of a guy as you say he is I would say talk to him first and explain what happened. See where it goes from there.

Since you are 14 i'd have your mom go into the store and yell at the employee for awhile, that would make me happy.

High pressure sales tactics are something I frown upon.

However, assuming UK laws are anything like Canadian ones, people do not have a 'right' to stand inside a private space, like a store. The store's employees are empowered to ask someone to leave for any reason that isn't a protected classification (for example, telling someone to leave because of their skin colour would likely be... unwise), but the store isn't responsible for the particulars of everyone's day.

He may have been a jerk, but no, it's not their responsibility to provide you a place to hang out for 4 or 5 hours either.

Now, this takes assumptions with local and federal law in another country, please feel free to point out if the UK does have some such legislation in place, and I'll cheerfully redact my commentary.

I see both sides of this.

On the one hand, the store is not a place to just hang out. Would you hang out at any other store like that and expect to be allowed to stay? What I also noted was that you said you were browsing the rulebooks, this means handling a lot of the copies that are meant to be sold and putting undue strain and use on them when you are not intent on buying them. It may not be malicious or intentional. but you are wearing out their product without any intent to buy.

But on the other hand, you are a fairly longtime customer and should be known by this point.

I'd discuss it with the manager.

Yeah, this is both not ok and totally not unexpected at a GW. I don't even get why you HAVE to have a rule book with you if you already know how to play. What, you need a receipt for every goddamn thing on the table now.

The worst part is that from all the talk about busses it sounds like you don't live in an urban area with a ton of stores. Find a local shop with a store owner who isn't a tool if at all possible. It's such a different experience. Night and day.

Also, if you're 14 I congratulate you on your posting prowess. Much more legible than SO many fully grown idiots. Also, long post does not a run-on make. Pretty sure your punctuation was alright.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Quit whining because you were asked not to loiter. Remember why any store exists: making money. It isn't a library or a lounge.

Loitering? I think you may have me confused with the stereotypical teen here, as this is a really unfair comment. This is a store I regularly visit and spend lots of money at, am I not thinking I would be afforded just a little respect? Your store may be 'Just a store' but when the manager is around, it becomes more of a community. Everyone is nice to everyone and everyone shares tips on how to play/paint the hobby we are all into. When did gamesworkshop decide to kill of the community it has been developing for decades, because it obviously hasn't succeeded other non of us would be here (well, you Warmachine people can stay ). The problem is there are no other hobby stores around that I know of, and no other GW's within easy reach. So that store IS my warhammer life, if that becomes somewhere that I cannot play the game, then the game will end for me altogether.

Edit @ Curran, I wasn't browsing their rule book, I was looking through my own codex which I had room for in my case, and the main rule book we used belonged to my opponent/friend. Also thanks for the comment on my posting, I try to type up everything on Word first before I post. I have quite bad dyslexia (Why would they spell it like that? Why is there a Y??? ) so I like to use word to check my spellings and such.

You could also go to the store and take a dump on the bathroom floor, but that's just me

 curran12 wrote:
I see both sides of this.

On the one hand, the store is not a place to just hang out. Would you hang out at any other store like that and expect to be allowed to stay? What I also noted was that you said you were browsing the rulebooks, this means handling a lot of the copies that are meant to be sold and putting undue strain and use on them when you are not intent on buying them. It may not be malicious or intentional. but you are wearing out their product without any intent to buy.

But on the other hand, you are a fairly longtime customer and should be known by this point.

I'd discuss it with the manager.

He said 'my rule books'

And to anyone saying its a store and not for hanging out, you are right on the same page with GW. WTF is my incentive to not purchase everything online and play in my basement if I can't hang out at the hobby store?

Just because you patronize a store doesn't entitle you to waste space. I have heard the line "do you know how much money I spend here?!?" as a bartender often enough to know that no customer is actually paying our bills. Did the employee go about it the wrong way? yes he did. But no one is entitled to hang out in any store just because he has nothing better to do.

Ah, my mistake then, misread that. Sorry!

 powerclaw wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
I see both sides of this.

On the one hand, the store is not a place to just hang out. Would you hang out at any other store like that and expect to be allowed to stay? What I also noted was that you said you were browsing the rulebooks, this means handling a lot of the copies that are meant to be sold and putting undue strain and use on them when you are not intent on buying them. It may not be malicious or intentional. but you are wearing out their product without any intent to buy.

But on the other hand, you are a fairly longtime customer and should be known by this point.

I'd discuss it with the manager.

He said 'my rule books'

And to anyone saying its a store and not for hanging out, you are right on the same page with GW. WTF is my incentive to not purchase everything online and play in my basement if I can't hang out at the hobby store?

Perhaps none of his friends play wargames?

14 years old, been going to the store for 3/4 years, has a dig about the staff talking to little timmys.

Best bit.

That is ridiculous and I honestly can't believe some of the posts I'm reading in response to you.

Definitely don't let this slide, stop spending money there and call and let the manager know exactly why you wont be buying from them anymore

pities2004 wrote:You could also go to the store and take a dump on the bathroom floor, but that's just me

Like you personally would really do this???? *rolls eyes*

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Just because you patronize a store doesn't entitle you to waste space. I have heard the line "do you know how much money I spend here?!?" as a bartender often enough to know that no customer is actually paying our bills. Did the employee go about it the wrong way? yes he did. But no one is entitled to hang out in any store just because he has nothing better to do.

powerclaw wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
I see both sides of this.

On the one hand, the store is not a place to just hang out. Would you hang out at any other store like that and expect to be allowed to stay? What I also noted was that you said you were browsing the rulebooks, this means handling a lot of the copies that are meant to be sold and putting undue strain and use on them when you are not intent on buying them. It may not be malicious or intentional. but you are wearing out their product without any intent to buy.

But on the other hand, you are a fairly longtime customer and should be known by this point.

I'd discuss it with the manager.

He said 'my rule books'

And to anyone saying its a store and not for hanging out, you are right on the same page with GW. WTF is my incentive to not purchase everything online and play in my basement if I can't hang out at the hobby store?

Agreed. He went there to play which is like free advertising for the store. I have never been to a store where it was buy something or get out and I am thankful for it.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Just because you patronize a store doesn't entitle you to waste space. I have heard the line "do you know how much money I spend here?!?" as a bartender often enough to know that no customer is actually paying our bills. Did the employee go about it the wrong way? yes he did. But no one is entitled to hang out in any store just because he has nothing better to do.

Sorry bars are not the same as gaming stores. Also can you honestly expect me to believe that every time you went in to your FLGS to play that you spent a large amount of cash there as well??

I would talk to the manager first, before you take your money elsewhere. If he knows you as a loyal customer he will probably take a positive view on things. If you straight away threaten to take your money elsewhere, the manager may give you up and kick you out.

 curran12 wrote:
Would you hang out at any other store like that and expect to be allowed to stay?

People expect to be able to do it at bookstores despite how much the employees and managers dislike it.

I can't tell you how many teenagers I've wanted to kick out for clogging the aisles(which is technically a fire hazard) or people who come and sit and read entire books(that they never buy!) the whole day.

Sorry bars are not the same as gaming stores. Also can you honestly expect me to believe that every time you went in to your LFGS to play that you spent a large amount of cash there as well??

In before the 'but he just wanted him to buy some paints' comment!

I highly recommend looking for a gaming club to join. There are, mostly, two types:

a) Your club has an own venue to play, usually involves paying a monthly fee, but certainly the best solution as it's a great atmosphere to hang around and you got no pressure. Buy everything you want online or second hand at maximum discount.

b) Your club plays in a FLGS that allows you to play there. No fees, but there's the rule of "Buy where you play": try to shop at your FLGS if you can afford it. Usually, they also offer a slight discount of 5-10%.

It's rough if you're 14, as this is a very young age and you don't seem to know many people who also wargame, but I am pretty sure you're on Facebook and lots of gamings clubs / groups also have Facebook groups you can join.

And, of course, there's the internet, google and ask around!

Secondly: report the manager asap. I'd recommend letting your dad report him as the complaint of a 14 year old will not be taken seriously by a lot of people.

Thirdly: GW doesn't have "hobby stores" anymore for a long while now, those are normal retail stores.

Filthy Sanchez wrote:
Get in touch with the manager ASAP. Explain what happened and at the very LEAST, demand that the employee in question sincerely apologize to you the next time you're "loitering" in the store.

If you get that, leave it alone. If not, never spend another dollar in that building.

Seriously, do the above. Despite the "internet sensationalism" posts in this thread, it sounds like the employee was extremely rude and most managers will not tolerate that. I find it likely that the manager would apologize, or have the employee apologize, and all will be well. If not, simply take your gaming and business elsewhere.

Honestly, as a small business owner myself. I REALLY don't want the legal responsibility of an underage child in my store all day. Especially if you aren't buying anything. It doesn't matter if you are a pinnacle of good behavior, it's just not worth the financial/legal ramifications.

If you get injured/abused/etc etc in my store I have no proof you have permission from your parents to be there, if they even know where you are....

You get where I'm going with this..If I have a tourney with underage children, their parents escort them and they are aware there is a set time for said child to be picked up within reason. My store is not a daycare for your child to hang out for 5+ hours.

Do you have the right to not shop here?..sure, but I have the right as a shopkeeper to not babysit an underage child either whose parents may not even realize their child is an hour away in the city; which in itself smacks of super parenting in my opinion..

I'm on board the "talk to management" train. Go to a hobby store to partake in the hobby, and get kicked out for not spending dosh? For real?

It wasn't the shop owner or manager who did this.

GW has for a long time had a policy of entertaining younger players in order to build up their customer base.

Sadly we dont have as many stores in the states like you do over there. But I had a similar situation but since my problem was with the manager I had to go to another store across town just to talk to someone about their behavior.

I would for sure talk to the manager about this.

The hypocrisy in this case, though, is that he could have stayed if he'd bought a bottle of paint. I'm sorry, but that's just rude.

Saying "Regardless of your purchase, you cannot stay in the store for more than X amount of time" is one thing. Saying "Buy a $4.50 bottle of paint and you can stay as long as you like" is quite another!

Again, just talk to the regular manager and see what he has to say about it. Personally, I'd appreciate hearing what, if any, resolution there is (and if not, if you are going to find another gaming venue, etc).

In the long run, a club is much better than a GW shop for all sorts of things.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
He then told me to leave and I got, understandably, agitated. He even threated to call the police, and when I asked what I am doing wrong, he said your doing nothing. I said I couldn't leave, as I didn't have a bus to catch until 5:30 (He kicked me out at 1:30) and he said he didn't care, this isn't a day care. With my parents in work I could do nothing but wait in a busy town with hundreds of people walking past with no supervision ( I wonder if he understands abduction) with a valuable looking case.

You are an unsupervised minor who planned to spend 4-6 hours in a store. He is not your guardian and not responsible for supervising you. If you are abducted, it is your parents fault, not the store owner. He doesn't want to be liable for your mere existence, so he is right to call the police and have you taken into custody if you won't leave. You are an unsupervised minor loitering, and then when asked to leave, trespassing.

The simple act of being an unsupervised minor is 'good enough' reason to have you removed from the store. Now if he 'chooses' to supervise a child for a parent by running a demo game while mommy goes shopping for an hour in hopes of making a sale... then that is his choice, but he cannot be forced to take custody of you with the explanation of 'I have no where else to go'.

I have often seen a parent march 5-6 children into a movie theater, sit them down, say 'be quiet' then leave for the entirety of the movie, many ages 7 and under. And when they return, they find their children have been taken into custody because the theater I go to takes abandon minors very serious.

Its the Summer Holiday, I want to go into the store to play MY hobby which I buy with MY money (I have a paper round, not much I know, but its what I can get). My parents can't take me because they are in work. I'd rather go into the store to play then go out with friends to hang out at street corners (Wouldn't want to be loitering...). What is wrong with going into town like I have been doing for years? What am I meant to do if I want to play? Playing on my own just isn't very fun.

Games Workshop no longer maintains hobby centers, they only have retail stores now. You wouldn't sit in your local electronics store for 4 hours, listening to music either, would you? That's how GW stores work nowadays, they are stores, not more, not less.

Join a club, get your friends into the hobby (second hand market is huge and entry costs are very low), play at home or at a friend's house. GW doesn't want you playing in their stores unless you also buy something.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Its the Summer Holiday, I want to go into the store to play MY hobby which I buy with MY money (I have a paper round, not much I know, but its what I can get). My parents can't take me because they are in work. I'd rather go into the store to play then go out with friends to hang out at street corners (Wouldn't want to be loitering...). What is wrong with going into town like I have been doing for years? What am I meant to do if I want to play? Playing on my own just isn't very fun.

Like Nkelsch said, you were an unsupervised minor--and from what I'm going to go out on a limb and guess, the employee in question was around your age.

How was the traffic at the store? If it was crowded I'm siding with the staffer on this one. Otherwise I don't see any reason you couldn't hang around.

Your case being kicked and your Raider being destroyed is fethed up, and I'm sorry about that. But don't try to blame that on the staffer.

See it as a lesson learned. In the future, always have a Plan B.

While the new employee cann't be expected to know all the regulars I find it strange when someone comes trying to buy a £60 item, but cann't since it is not in stock, then is exposed to this. It really smacks of bad business sense to me. If treated well I'd expect the customer to return to buy the item when it is back in stock.

Other than that the no loitering rules has been the policy for GW stores for a long time now. So the employee is strictly enforcing a standing policy while exercising little common sense.

If I were you I'd take with me one of your parents and talk to the manager. Explain the situation. If you're not happy with his answer take your business elsewhere.

 warriorpriest wrote:

pities2004 wrote:You could also go to the store and take a dump on the bathroom floor, but that's just me

Like you personally would really do this???? *rolls eyes*

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Just because you patronize a store doesn't entitle you to waste space. I have heard the line "do you know how much money I spend here?!?" as a bartender often enough to know that no customer is actually paying our bills. Did the employee go about it the wrong way? yes he did. But no one is entitled to hang out in any store just because he has nothing better to do.

powerclaw wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
I see both sides of this.

On the one hand, the store is not a place to just hang out. Would you hang out at any other store like that and expect to be allowed to stay? What I also noted was that you said you were browsing the rulebooks, this means handling a lot of the copies that are meant to be sold and putting undue strain and use on them when you are not intent on buying them. It may not be malicious or intentional. but you are wearing out their product without any intent to buy.

But on the other hand, you are a fairly longtime customer and should be known by this point.

I'd discuss it with the manager.

He said 'my rule books'

And to anyone saying its a store and not for hanging out, you are right on the same page with GW. WTF is my incentive to not purchase everything online and play in my basement if I can't hang out at the hobby store?

Agreed. He went there to play which is like free advertising for the store. I have never been to a store where it was buy something or get out and I am thankful for it.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Just because you patronize a store doesn't entitle you to waste space. I have heard the line "do you know how much money I spend here?!?" as a bartender often enough to know that no customer is actually paying our bills. Did the employee go about it the wrong way? yes he did. But no one is entitled to hang out in any store just because he has nothing better to do.

Sorry bars are not the same as gaming stores. Also can you honestly expect me to believe that every time you went in to your FLGS to play that you spent a large amount of cash there as well??

Walgreens in Scottsdale

What gets me about this is you even refer to yourself as an unsupervised minor so you put yourself in the wrong......

When I was 11 I had to have a parent with me in the store and when I turned twelve my parents asked if I still had to, the Manager (The nice one) said no, we will look after him well enough. Since then I've been going in on my own. Although he didn't put it in writing, he inferred I was welcome there as long as I behaved without an adult. Its been like that for ages, now a knew guy comes in and kicks me out for not buying anything, even when I came into the store with the intention to buy an expensive piece of kit. I just don't see that as fair.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Just because you patronize a store doesn't entitle you to waste space. I have heard the line "do you know how much money I spend here?!?" as a bartender often enough to know that no customer is actually paying our bills. Did the employee go about it the wrong way? yes he did. But no one is entitled to hang out in any store just because he has nothing better to do.

You are absolutely right. And it's the overboard embracing of this that is leading GW right into the toilet.

Let's keep like things with like things and not talk about anything other than hobby shops. 'Hobbies' are fairly social endeavors, and are usually supported by a community of like minded folks. If one person in that community gets treated like crap just because they didn't buy something one time out of the dozens of other times that they have spent hard earned money, that could start spoiling the whole community.

Of course we know that GW has long since disregarded that the community is even important as they have pretty much done away with open gaming in their stores.

So yes, he is not entitled to hang out, and that stors is also not entitled to his money, but it seems GW and even some gamers have forgotten that.

The idea that you have to buy something when you go into a shop is ludicrous. People come in to where I work all the time and can be served regardless of whether or not they intend to make a purchase.

This GW staff troll should really just suck it up that his company's client base is of a young age group. If he can't handle that he should get another job.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
When I was 11 I had to have a parent with me in the store and when I turned twelve my parents asked if I still had to, the Manager (The nice one) said no, we will look after him well enough. Since then I've been going in on my own. Although he didn't put it in writing, he inferred I was welcome there as long as I behaved without an adult. Its been like that for ages, now a knew guy comes in and kicks me out for not buying anything, even when I came into the store with the intention to buy an expensive piece of kit. I just don't see that as fair.

Yes, one guy chose to supervise you in order to make a sale, the other guy doesn't want that responsibility as supervising kids is a dangerous thing due to liabilities. Did the old manager have your parents phone info to contact them at work should there be an issue? The company can't make him legally supervise you, especially since he would be unskilled to do so.

You are a child. Life is not fair. You get 4 more harsh years of that until you turn 18, and then you can begin your quarter life crisis when you find out being an adult, life is still not fair as you will enter a job market which will leave you unemployed, under employed and saddled with college debt you will be paying until you are 50.

What are you doing not working at 14? When you turn 14 here, you get a job and work. Playtime and summer are over. Want to be treated like an adult, then go get a job.

Regardless, supervising minors is dangerous and no unqualified person should attempt it or be forced to do it in their line of work. This is both for the child's safety and the adult's protection.

I don't approve of GW's actions in this case. If that is how they want to treat you go spend your money else where. Just seems like a bully who works there who was probably picked on in high school

You are missing the point, nkelsch... quoting my post from above:

 RiTides wrote:
The hypocrisy in this case, though, is that he could have stayed if he'd bought a bottle of paint. I'm sorry, but that's just rude.

Saying "Regardless of your purchase, you cannot stay in the store for more than X amount of time" is one thing. Saying "Buy a $4.50 bottle of paint and you can stay as long as you like" is quite another!

Again, just talk to the regular manager and see what he has to say about it. Personally, I'd appreciate hearing what, if any, resolution there is (and if not, if you are going to find another gaming venue, etc).

It's easy for folks on the internet to say "Life's not fair", but they'd be upset if the same happened to them. Probably wasn't the best idea to post it here, as you're going to get these kinds of reactions.

Again, if the store has a policy about unsupervised minors (which, perhaps it should!) IN GENERAL, that's one thing. If the policy is, the minor gets kicked out for not buying a bottle of paint, when what he came to purchase is out of stock... that's quite another.

In your movie theater example, it'd be like the theater allowing kids to run around all day if they bought a fistful of movie tickets. But if they only came to see a single movie, they're not "high rollers" enough to be allowed to see the movie they came to see.

That's the disconnect here, and why I think the manager will apologize to you if he's got any sense, imo.

Ah, this thread again. We've had the standard responses from Solo and Nkelsch (Pull a string on their back to hear the same tired old statements!) All we need is ol' Bryllo to complete the trifecta of these replies.

GW have forgotten that their own website advertises about being able to "simply come in and have a natter" for their hobby centres. Either have a word with the manager or speak to H/O as it was unacceptable, but you'll have to face it OP, GW have changed. No longer can you come into the store for a simple chinwag with the staff or other members of the community that would inevitably be there. If you're not doing anything "hobby related" (which is a vague term at the best of times) or in extreme cases not buying anything then you're shown the door.

 pities2004 wrote:
I would call the authorities and say he tried to touch you.

Yep, because commiting a criminal act is the best way to handle being treated in such a way.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Quit whining because you were asked not to loiter. Remember why any store exists: making money. It isn't a library or a lounge.

what the is this? no where in his OP did he say he was asked not to loiter

 Sigvatr wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:
I would call the authorities and say he tried to touch you.

Yep, because commiting a criminal act is the best way to handle being treated in such a way.

In all seriousness I'm honestly surprised it has not happened yet. A lot of GW's run one man stores with either very little or no cameras. In this age of kicking out he "hangers on" (so anyone to witness it), all it takes is one pissed off kid getting kicked out of an empty store and the inevitable could happen.

Who are they going to believe? The screaming child... or the guy that works... in... a... toy... shop...

oh wait...

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:
I would call the authorities and say he tried to touch you.

Yep, because commiting a criminal act is the best way to handle being treated in such a way.

In all seriousness I'm honestly surprised it has not happened yet. A lot of GW's run one man stores with either very little or no cameras. In this age of kicking out he "hangers on" (so anyone to witness it), all it takes is one pissed off kid getting kicked out of an empty store and the inevitable could happen.

Exactly my point, obviously I wasn't serious.

 RiTides wrote:
You are missing the point, nkelsch... quoting my post from above:

 RiTides wrote:
The hypocrisy in this case, though, is that he could have stayed if he'd bought a bottle of paint. I'm sorry, but that's just rude.

Saying "Regardless of your purchase, you cannot stay in the store for more than X amount of time" is one thing. Saying "Buy a $4.50 bottle of paint and you can stay as long as you like" is quite another!

Again, just talk to the regular manager and see what he has to say about it. Personally, I'd appreciate hearing what, if any, resolution there is (and if not, if you are going to find another gaming venue, etc).

It's easy for folks on the internet to say "Life's not fair", but they'd be upset if the same happened to them. Probably wasn't the best idea to post it here, as you're going to get these kinds of reactions.

Again, if the store has a policy about unsupervised minors (which, perhaps it should!) IN GENERAL, that's one thing. If the policy is, the minor gets kicked out for not buying a bottle of paint, when what he came to purchase is out of stock... that's quite another.

In your movie theater example, it'd be like the theater allowing kids to run around all day if they bought a fistful of movie tickets. But if they only came to see a single movie, they're not "high rollers" enough to be allowed to see the movie they came to see.

That's the disconnect here, and why I think the manager will apologize to you if he's got any sense, imo.

Well, lots of stores have explicit policies to 'engage' people who are shopping to help them find what they want, or to get them out of the store if they don't intend to buy stuff. So regardless of age, a person on a sales floor should be able to 'engage' a customer. If the customer is an adult, you can probably leave them unsupervised, but if they are a minor, you should probably help them get what they need, help them check out, and help them leave. Once they are 'done' they leave the store.

Theft protection is a real issue and children steal, and the laws in most areas have almost no teeth to deal with child shoplifting.

Now of course many policies are used incorrectly to hassle minorities and such, but children are a different issue. I suspect, like most FLGS, that there is a policy on unsupervised minors and a 'process' on how to handle them, help them spend money and then leave if they are an issue.

I just don't see how anyone thinks that even at a FLGS that a 14 year old hanging out for 6+ hours buying nothing would be 'A-ok!' and that the store has an obligation to supervise and protect him from harm by accepting him into their custody. Parents may think 'I buy crap, you babysit my kids' and that is totally something a store owner can choose to put up with, but it is in no way an obligated right to be demanded of any retail establishment.

I know it is cool to hate on GW, but I can't imagine a single FLGS who would accept this behavior of unsupervised minors like this. You can't just be a neglectful parent and say 'hey, here is a roll of quarters, go play pac-man at the bodega down the street for 8 hours while I go to work.'

Nkelsch misses the elephant in the room again. IT IS CURRENTLY THE SCHOOL HOLIDAYS IN THE UK. Guess what? GW's target market wants to participate in their hobby during their time off from school. Who'd have thunk it?

nkelsch wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
You are missing the point, nkelsch... quoting my post from above:

 RiTides wrote:
The hypocrisy in this case, though, is that he could have stayed if he'd bought a bottle of paint. I'm sorry, but that's just rude.

Saying "Regardless of your purchase, you cannot stay in the store for more than X amount of time" is one thing. Saying "Buy a $4.50 bottle of paint and you can stay as long as you like" is quite another!

Again, just talk to the regular manager and see what he has to say about it. Personally, I'd appreciate hearing what, if any, resolution there is (and if not, if you are going to find another gaming venue, etc).

It's easy for folks on the internet to say "Life's not fair", but they'd be upset if the same happened to them. Probably wasn't the best idea to post it here, as you're going to get these kinds of reactions.

Again, if the store has a policy about unsupervised minors (which, perhaps it should!) IN GENERAL, that's one thing. If the policy is, the minor gets kicked out for not buying a bottle of paint, when what he came to purchase is out of stock... that's quite another.

In your movie theater example, it'd be like the theater allowing kids to run around all day if they bought a fistful of movie tickets. But if they only came to see a single movie, they're not "high rollers" enough to be allowed to see the movie they came to see.

That's the disconnect here, and why I think the manager will apologize to you if he's got any sense, imo.

Well, lots of stores have explicit policies to 'engage' people who are shopping to help them find what they want, or to get them out of the store if they don't intend to buy stuff. So regardless of age, a person on a sales floor should be able to 'engage' a customer. If the customer is an adult, you can probably leave them unsupervised, but if they are a minor, you should probably help them get what they need, help them check out, and help them leave. Once they are 'done' they leave the store.

Theft protection is a real issue and children steal, and the laws in most areas have almost no teeth to deal with child shoplifting.

Now of course many policies are used incorrectly to hassle minorities and such, but children are a different issue. I suspect, like most FLGS, that there is a policy on unsupervised minors and a 'process' on how to handle them, help them spend money and then leave if they are an issue.

I just don't see how anyone thinks that even at a FLGS that a 14 year old hanging out for 6+ hours buying nothing would be 'A-ok!' and that the store has an obligation to supervise and protect him from harm by accepting him into their custody. Parents may think 'I buy crap, you babysit my kids' and that is totally something a store owner can choose to put up with, but it is in no way an obligated right to be demanded of any retail establishment.

I know it is cool to hate on GW, but I can't imagine a single FLGS who would accept this behavior of unsupervised minors like this. You can't just be a neglectful parent and say 'hey, here is a roll of quarters, go play pac-man at the bodega down the street for 8 hours while I go to work.'

Most FLGS wouldn't kick someone out for not buying anything.

They actually care about there customers. I go into my FLGS all the time and spend nothing.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Nkelsch misses the elephant in the room again. IT IS CURRENTLY THE SCHOOL HOLIDAYS IN THE UK. Guess what? GW's target market wants to participate in their hobby during their time off from school. Who'd have thunk it?

What "GW's target market" wants to do does not matter if they're minors and the shop does not want to serve as a babysitting service.

well how long were you there? isnt it only legally loitering if your there for an hour without buying anything?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Nkelsch misses the elephant in the room again. IT IS CURRENTLY THE SCHOOL HOLIDAYS IN THE UK. Guess what? GW's target market wants to participate in their hobby during their time off from school. Who'd have thunk it?

What "GW's target market" wants to do does not matter if they're minors and the shop does not want to serve as a babysitting service.

Too bad.

Doesn't matter if it's GW or Tesco. Kids are gonna hang around since they're off school.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Nkelsch misses the elephant in the room again. IT IS CURRENTLY THE SCHOOL HOLIDAYS IN THE UK. Guess what? GW's target market wants to participate in their hobby during their time off from school. Who'd have thunk it?

What "GW's target market" wants to do does not matter if they're minors and the shop does not want to serve as a babysitting service.

In the OP he said he was going to play a game until the GW troll asked where his rulebook is. I don't think he needs to babysit two players wargaming. All my rules are on my phone, bet they would love that.

 pities2004 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Nkelsch misses the elephant in the room again. IT IS CURRENTLY THE SCHOOL HOLIDAYS IN THE UK. Guess what? GW's target market wants to participate in their hobby during their time off from school. Who'd have thunk it?

What "GW's target market" wants to do does not matter if they're minors and the shop does not want to serve as a babysitting service.

In the OP he said he was going to play a game until the GW troll asked where his rulebook is. I don't think he needs to babysit two players wargaming.

Playing games in GAMES Workshop? Heaven forbid!

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Nkelsch misses the elephant in the room again. IT IS CURRENTLY THE SCHOOL HOLIDAYS IN THE UK. Guess what? GW's target market wants to participate in their hobby during their time off from school. Who'd have thunk it?

What "GW's target market" wants to do does not matter if they're minors and the shop does not want to serve as a babysitting service.

Too bad.

Doesn't matter if it's GW or Tesco. Kids are gonna hang around since they're off school.

That's fine.

Kids "hanging around" should know that they can only do so at the discretion of the store.

Again, the key difference is that the shop was okay with him staying if he bought a bottle of paint.

That's a different policy than not allowing minors to stay in the store at all. And given that the OP had come specifically to purchase something and then play a game, it's really not how you are making it out, Kan.

Nkelsch, I like the wording of your last post much better and don't in principle disagree that stores need to be careful with minors. But it can be handled well or poorly, and this was clearly handled poorly, and is worth putting in a complaint over and seeing if they will recognize that. Otherwise, the OP will need to find somewhere else to play, since the policy of the store is too arbitrary and he can't know if he'll be allowed to game or not.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Who are they going to believe? The screaming child... or the guy that works... in... a... toy... shop...

oh wait...

And there, in a nutshell is why the OP was probably asked to leave.
Child protection laws are a real minefield, I certainly wouldn't want an unsupervised minor in a shop I worked in.
It's just not worth it.

It's unfortunate for the OP, but if a disgruntled minor makes an allegation, then there has to be an investigation, which will lead to "trial by press" and when the allegation that has ruined the shop workers life is proved to be false, the paper will print an apology on page 27 beside an advert for a stairlift.

I've seen this sort of thing happen before.

It's unfortunate, but your age works against you.

 RiTides wrote:
Again, the key difference is that the shop was okay with him staying if he bought a bottle of paint.

And?

If he "bought a bottle of paint", he's a paying customer and not someone just hanging around.

That's a different policy than not allowing minors to stay in the store at all. And given that the OP had come specifically to purchase something and then play a game, it's really not how you are making it out, Kan.

I'm reading it.

I also do not really believe that the exchange went as he put, since as we have seen who knows how many times, there is always more to the story.

Find a FLGS or club. If you can't, find friends who play and set up a club. When I was your age the only shops when there were tables to play games on were a 40 minute drive away. My friends were "feth that". So we set up "the dungeon", Basically my attic with some spare card tables. Some of my best memories were there.

Enjoy being a kid and do it the right way. Get into a group or start one man. Much better than dealing with crap like this imposed by "the man"

 dreamakuma wrote:
Find a FLGS or club. If you can't, find friends who play and set up a club. When I was your age the only shops when there were tables to play games on were a 40 minute drive away. My friends were "feth that". So we set up "the dungeon", Basically my attic with some spare card tables. Some of my best memories were there.

Enjoy being a kid and do it the right way. Get into a group or start one man. Much better than dealing with crap like this imposed by "the man"

Agreed here!

Not really interested in arguing about it further Kan, as I actually think we're more on the same page than is apparent... as you say, it's impossible to know the facts anyway just from one side. I think the manager would have good form to apologize, but it's not the end of the world either way

Regardless, you should do as dreamkuma posts above, OP! That's the best route, imo

 Grimtuff wrote:
Nkelsch misses the elephant in the room again. IT IS CURRENTLY THE SCHOOL HOLIDAYS IN THE UK. Guess what? GW's target market wants to participate in their hobby during their time off from school. Who'd have thunk it?

I don't believe he is, the "elephant" became a whole different animal when it was an underaged unsupervised child. Had the OP been an adult, it would have been a whooole different ball game. The possible cluster%$#@ of legal issues that this situation creates makes it entirely different. I'm supposed to let some child hang in my store for hour after hour just because his bus isn't for 4 more hours? why?...at what point as a store employee did I agree to babysit some kid that wants to loiter for hours and take on the legal responsibility?

Is the "buy paint and you can stay" line foolish?..of course it was. For me at least the OP being an unsupervised child is the issue more than anything

 dreamakuma wrote:
Find a FLGS or club. If you can't, find friends who play and set up a club. When I was your age the only shops when there were tables to play games on were a 40 minute drive away. My friends were "feth that". So we set up "the dungeon", Basically my attic with some spare card tables. Some of my best memories were there.

Enjoy being a kid and do it the right way. Get into a group or start one man. Much better than dealing with crap like this imposed by "the man"

FLGS in the UK? Don't make me laugh.
FLGS in the UK with room to game? LOLSRSLY?

For many people in the UK, GW is the ONLY place to game. Sure, there are gaming clubs, but they're not all like the one we've got in my city. Sometimes it's a crapshoot and they're not the "Trusted brand" (as it were) that GW is to certain people.

So if he buys a bottle of paint, he's a paying customer and there are no qualms about it.

Don't buy any paint and he's an unsupervised minor who is a risk to the establishement.

I know RItides and I aren't the only one seeing the disconnect here.

They didn't kick him out for being a minor, they kicked him out for being a customer who couldn't buy what he wanted (out of stock) and didn't have his rule book with him (but wasn't using a store version) and wouldn't spend money on another item he didn't want.

 Grimtuff wrote:
For many people in the UK, GW is the ONLY place to game. Sure, there are gaming clubs, but they're not all like the one we've got in my city. Sometimes it's a crapshoot and they're not the "Trusted brand" (as it were) that GW is to certain people.

Thank goodness I live in the US of A, then . Where GW has been on a streak of closing their stores... leaving room for independent FLGS to pop up, and thrive, offering a whole variety of games to play

 Prophaniti wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Nkelsch misses the elephant in the room again. IT IS CURRENTLY THE SCHOOL HOLIDAYS IN THE UK. Guess what? GW's target market wants to participate in their hobby during their time off from school. Who'd have thunk it?

I don't believe he is, the "elephant" became a whole different animal when it was an underaged unsupervised child. Had the OP been an adult, it would have been a whooole different ball game. The possible cluster%$#@ of legal issues that this situation creates makes it entirely different. I'm supposed to let some child hang in my store for hour after hour just because his bus isn't for 4 more hours? why?...at what point as a store employee did I agree to babysit some kid that wants to loiter for hours and take on the legal responsibility?

Is the "buy paint and you can stay" line foolish?..of course it was. For me at least the OP being an unsupervised child is the issue more than anything

I refuse to believe he was alone in the store with the OP simply based on the fact its the school holidays.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Prophaniti wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Nkelsch misses the elephant in the room again. IT IS CURRENTLY THE SCHOOL HOLIDAYS IN THE UK. Guess what? GW's target market wants to participate in their hobby during their time off from school. Who'd have thunk it?

I don't believe he is, the "elephant" became a whole different animal when it was an underaged unsupervised child. Had the OP been an adult, it would have been a whooole different ball game. The possible cluster%$#@ of legal issues that this situation creates makes it entirely different. I'm supposed to let some child hang in my store for hour after hour just because his bus isn't for 4 more hours? why?...at what point as a store employee did I agree to babysit some kid that wants to loiter for hours and take on the legal responsibility?

Is the "buy paint and you can stay" line foolish?..of course it was. For me at least the OP being an unsupervised child is the issue more than anything

I refuse to believe he was alone in the store with the OP simply based on the fact its the school holidays.

Has nothing to do if they were alone or not...the store and its employees are responsible for what happens to that child in their store. Why assume that risk for an unsupervised child just hanging out for hours? Or even one buying paint for that matter..or a case...I would sell him his product then scoot him out of the store until he had an adult with him.

nkelsch wrote:
You are an unsupervised minor who planned to spend 4-6 hours in a store. He is not your guardian and not responsible for supervising you. If you are abducted, it is your parents fault, not the store owner. He doesn't want to be liable for your mere existence, so he is right to call the police and have you taken into custody if you won't leave. You are an unsupervised minor loitering, and then when asked to leave, trespassing.

The simple act of being an unsupervised minor is 'good enough' reason to have you removed from the store. Now if he 'chooses' to supervise a child for a parent by running a demo game while mommy goes shopping for an hour in hopes of making a sale... then that is his choice, but he cannot be forced to take custody of you with the explanation of 'I have no where else to go'.

I have often seen a parent march 5-6 children into a movie theater, sit them down, say 'be quiet' then leave for the entirety of the movie, many ages 7 and under. And when they return, they find their children have been taken into custody because the theater I go to takes abandon minors very serious.

Way to totally miss the point.

There were multiple other "unsupervised minors" who were there in the store experiencing no difficulties. This particular kid was being singled out for not having his own copy of the main rule book and then not purchasing anything.

This isn't an issue of an employee not wanting to take responsibility for an "unsupervised minor." As stated above, if he had bought a bottle of paint, the employee would have let him stay. It was about sales, not liability.

 RiTides wrote:
You are missing the point, nkelsch... quoting my post from above:

 RiTides wrote:
The hypocrisy in this case, though, is that he could have stayed if he'd bought a bottle of paint. I'm sorry, but that's just rude.

Saying "Regardless of your purchase, you cannot stay in the store for more than X amount of time" is one thing. Saying "Buy a $4.50 bottle of paint and you can stay as long as you like" is quite another!

Again, just talk to the regular manager and see what he has to say about it. Personally, I'd appreciate hearing what, if any, resolution there is (and if not, if you are going to find another gaming venue, etc).

It's easy for folks on the internet to say "Life's not fair", but they'd be upset if the same happened to them. Probably wasn't the best idea to post it here, as you're going to get these kinds of reactions.

Again, if the store has a policy about unsupervised minors (which, perhaps it should!) IN GENERAL, that's one thing. If the policy is, the minor gets kicked out for not buying a bottle of paint, when what he came to purchase is out of stock... that's quite another.

In your movie theater example, it'd be like the theater allowing kids to run around all day if they bought a fistful of movie tickets. But if they only came to see a single movie, they're not "high rollers" enough to be allowed to see the movie they came to see.

That's the disconnect here, and why I think the manager will apologize to you if he's got any sense, imo.

I was not going to chime in but the moive one got me. Yesterday we went to the local theater for the last of the weekly summer free kids moives, the onwers run it at a large loss. But, becouse of that people will drive the extra 15min from the big theater, to go a moive at the small one becouse they go out of the there way to build a loyal customer base. Long trem thinking can go a long way to keeping a profitable business.

Saldiven wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
You are an unsupervised minor who planned to spend 4-6 hours in a store. He is not your guardian and not responsible for supervising you. If you are abducted, it is your parents fault, not the store owner. He doesn't want to be liable for your mere existence, so he is right to call the police and have you taken into custody if you won't leave. You are an unsupervised minor loitering, and then when asked to leave, trespassing.

The simple act of being an unsupervised minor is 'good enough' reason to have you removed from the store. Now if he 'chooses' to supervise a child for a parent by running a demo game while mommy goes shopping for an hour in hopes of making a sale... then that is his choice, but he cannot be forced to take custody of you with the explanation of 'I have no where else to go'.

I have often seen a parent march 5-6 children into a movie theater, sit them down, say 'be quiet' then leave for the entirety of the movie, many ages 7 and under. And when they return, they find their children have been taken into custody because the theater I go to takes abandon minors very serious.

Way to totally miss the point.

There were multiple other "unsupervised minors" who were there in the store experiencing no difficulties. This particular kid was being singled out for not having his own copy of the main rule book and then not purchasing anything.

This isn't an issue of an employee not wanting to take responsibility for an "unsupervised minor." As stated above, if he had bought a bottle of paint, the employee would have let him stay. It was about sales, not liability.

This man gets it

That would be wise, but again, that's not what the GW employee did... their policy was targeted to the fact that he wouldn't buy paint.

It was actually a chain reaction, from what I can tell:
-Product he wanted to purchase wasn't in stock
-Didn't have his rulebook on hand, due to not having bought said product (a larger case)
-Didn't want to buy paint

As I said, I think the manager will apologize and that will be that. You should still seek out your own gaming group, if possible, though.... let us know how it turns out for you!

 RiTides wrote:

 dreamakuma wrote:
Find a FLGS or club. If you can't, find friends who play and set up a club. When I was your age the only shops when there were tables to play games on were a 40 minute drive away. My friends were "feth that". So we set up "the dungeon", Basically my attic with some spare card tables. Some of my best memories were there.

Enjoy being a kid and do it the right way. Get into a group or start one man. Much better than dealing with crap like this imposed by "the man"

Agreed here!

Not really interested in arguing about it further Kan, as I actually think we're more on the same page than is apparent... as you say, it's impossible to know the facts anyway just from one side. I think the manager would have good form to apologize, but it's not the end of the world either way

One thing that was not answered that I asked earlier:

How old was the employee?
The OP mentions that it was a "new employee" and that the manager was not there. I know that when I was running games for a hobby shop when I was 18, we could not have unsupervised minors there unless their parents left contact info, etc in case of an emergency.

It was something to do with insurance--and simply covering their asses in case of something happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:

Way to totally miss the point.

There were multiple other "unsupervised minors" who were there in the store experiencing no difficulties. This particular kid was being singled out for not having his own copy of the main rule book and then not purchasing anything.

This isn't an issue of an employee not wanting to take responsibility for an "unsupervised minor." As stated above, if he had bought a bottle of paint, the employee would have let him stay. It was about sales, not liability.

Do you know for a fact that the other minors were unsupervised?

Seriously. We see this same scenario play out ALL THE TIME on Dakka, and when someone else chimes in it comes out that the 'victim' was in fact doing something completely omitted which makes it reasonable for them to have been asked to leave.

 RiTides wrote:
Again, the key difference is that the shop was okay with him staying if he bought a bottle of paint.

That's a different policy than not allowing minors to stay in the store at all. And given that the OP had come specifically to purchase something and then play a game, it's really not how you are making it out, Kan.

Nkelsch, I like the wording of your last post much better and don't in principle disagree that stores need to be careful with minors. But it can be handled well or poorly, and this was clearly handled poorly, and is worth putting in a complaint over and seeing if they will recognize that. Otherwise, the OP will need to find somewhere else to play, since the policy of the store is too arbitrary and he can't know if he'll be allowed to game or not.

'Willingess to supervise and take custody of a minor' is a discressionary whim. If the person managing was willing to 'supervise' a minor for a purchase... that is his choice. A purchase doesn't obligate the worker to 'provide supervision' though.

This is a grey area, and a good manager would protect employees from having to make discressionary decisions.

We also assume that this kid's account of his behavior in the store is 100% accurate. often 'buy or get out' is the first line od defense against someone bothering others are causing an issue.

I would say most 'FLGS' who have 'open gaming' usually have a volunteer who is a friend of the store or managing the store's CLUB who agrees to provide ownership of the children while in the store as a service. Parents usually (but not always) know this person and are handing off custody to a volunteer gamer, not the store. And if that adult (or someone else is not filling in for the club) is not there, the store has no open gaming for that gaming system. This is how many FLGS handle unsupervised children without the store taking responsibility or providing the supervision.

Then technically he is attending an independent 'event' managed by an adult which happens to take place in the store.

The sad part is when parents just 'assume' there are adults around so they will be ok, the adults go home and then a store owner has a child there by himself. I have seen such a thing happen which leads to store crackdowns on youths.

Regardless of how the store is or it responded, the issue is the unsupervised child who is being told to go to a public store for 8 hours and 'be supervised' by someone else. There are legal protections for children in the home, but not unsupervised in public in many places. A Discretionary policy in regards to accepting 'custody' of a kid based upon purchases may hurt feelings, but it doesn't need to be applied equally or fairly. He can provide supervision during the low times and turn around and say 'we got busy, please leave'. It is not 'fair' but neither is being a parent who sends your child off into the street to burden random strangers because 'school is out'.

In the US, we have daycares, clubs, summer camps and summer jobs to have places to 'stick' children when school is out and parents have to work, all of which put the child in a place where they can be supervised by an adult. The only real exception is children who are home alone which relies on the ability for a child to be able to not be at risk to himself or another and in MD over the age of 8.

Is it really that hard for a parent to drop in every once in a while and re-establish ties with a 'store vendor' who you have been banishing your unsupervised child for what appears over 3 years now? As an adult, I would want to discuss the situation, make sure it is ok, make sure they knew they could contact me at any time if my kid was an issue and guarantee it would be a equally profitable situation to allow my kid to game there and make an exception for him with the knowledge that I am a phonecall away and if they don't feel comfortable with it, he won't be there.

I just don't know why basic parenting like that is unreasnoable and why if a store declines, why they are upset?

I'm just wondering why the OP didn't just do the sensible thing of i have 60 bucks in my pocket, to buy a case. Hmm, you don't have it in stock? Well, Then please order it for me. Now not only are you a paying customer THEN. But also when you come pick up your order next week after new stock comes in. Why keep the money in your pocket if you wanted the case anyway?

I am of the mindset that if i go the GW to hang out, I always try to buy something, even if it is just that bottle of paint because If I am gaming/painting/socialising for a few hours the store should at least make some money of me.

That's a lot of assumption, nkelsch, when it looks like the parents did indeed ask the manager what their policy was:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
When I was 11 I had to have a parent with me in the store and when I turned twelve my parents asked if I still had to, the Manager (The nice one) said no, we will look after him well enough. Since then I've been going in on my own. Although he didn't put it in writing, he inferred I was welcome there as long as I behaved without an adult. Its been like that for ages, now a knew guy comes in and kicks me out for not buying anything, even when I came into the store with the intention to buy an expensive piece of kit. I just don't see that as fair.

Again, I think it's a case of a new employee acting overzealously. Take it up with your regular manager when he's back in, clarify when you can and cannot be in the store / under what conditions, and that will be that!

nkelsch wrote:
snip

Why is the minor the issue? His friend (also likely a minor) was not removed from the store. It's about the money. Stop trying to change the parameters of the issue by introducing your rants on child care.

NickOnwezen wrote:
I'm just wondering why the OP didn't just do the sensible thing of i have 60 bucks in my pocket, to buy a case. Hmm, you don't have it in stock? Well, Then please order it for me. Now not only are you a paying customer THEN. But also when you come pick up your order next week after new stock comes in. Why keep the money in your pocket if you wanted the case anyway?

I am of the mindset that if i go the GW to hang out, I always try to buy something, even if it is just that bottle of paint because If I am gaming/painting/socialising for a few hours the store should at least make some money of me.

Agreed here, I was actually wondering that, too... it's the same cost afaik, and you can do it in-store.

Well, it seems like the best course of action is to talk to the manager, in person if you can, so the other guy possibly sees this and you can go back. Explain what happened and apologize for anything you might have done wrong but you were only going on the knowledge that he, the manager, always allowed you some flexability.

Sadly, they can kick you out if his reasons are just...It's a privilege to have that store there...well that is how all my retail jobs have explained it to me in the U.S. Now, that doesn't make what happened right. You were participating in a game and not doing anything wrong, as you say, except you didn't have a rule book...but your opponent did. The wage-slave should have just let it slide because you really were not harming anything/anyone despite what the store rules are. Instead he created a scene when there didn't need to be one. My approach, as the retail guy, would have been to suggest a way to bring the rules with you next time and to have a good game.

It sounds like, based on your account, this guy is a little too gun-ho about what he is doing and wants to do things the way he feels is right regardless of the manager...I should know because I have been through this phase myself and got fired for it. Bare with it, talk to the manager about what went down; keep your cool and make sure you don't come off as whiny (that will afford you a lot of respect).

Saldiven wrote:


Way to totally miss the point.

There were multiple other "unsupervised minors" who were there in the store experiencing no difficulties. This particular kid was being singled out for not having his own copy of the main rule book and then not purchasing anything.

This isn't an issue of an employee not wanting to take responsibility for an "unsupervised minor." As stated above, if he had bought a bottle of paint, the employee would have let him stay. It was about sales, not liability.

Nowhere in any of his replies did he say he wasn't the only unsupervised child in the store. I see mention of "little timmy" but it doesn't say he was alone and without parents

 RiTides wrote:

NickOnwezen wrote:
I'm just wondering why the OP didn't just do the sensible thing of i have 60 bucks in my pocket, to buy a case. Hmm, you don't have it in stock? Well, Then please order it for me. Now not only are you a paying customer THEN. But also when you come pick up your order next week after new stock comes in. Why keep the money in your pocket if you wanted the case anyway?

I am of the mindset that if i go the GW to hang out, I always try to buy something, even if it is just that bottle of paint because If I am gaming/painting/socialising for a few hours the store should at least make some money of me.

Agreed here, I was actually wondering that, too... it's the same cost afaik, and you can do it in-store.

Sometimes things just don't occur to you in the heat of the moment, especially if the antagonist has been amped up right from the get-go.

 Prophaniti wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Prophaniti wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Nkelsch misses the elephant in the room again. IT IS CURRENTLY THE SCHOOL HOLIDAYS IN THE UK. Guess what? GW's target market wants to participate in their hobby during their time off from school. Who'd have thunk it?

I don't believe he is, the "elephant" became a whole different animal when it was an underaged unsupervised child. Had the OP been an adult, it would have been a whooole different ball game. The possible cluster%$#@ of legal issues that this situation creates makes it entirely different. I'm supposed to let some child hang in my store for hour after hour just because his bus isn't for 4 more hours? why?...at what point as a store employee did I agree to babysit some kid that wants to loiter for hours and take on the legal responsibility?

Is the "buy paint and you can stay" line foolish?..of course it was. For me at least the OP being an unsupervised child is the issue more than anything

I refuse to believe he was alone in the store with the OP simply based on the fact its the school holidays.

Has nothing to do if they were alone or not...the store and its employees are responsible for what happens to that child in their store. Why assume that risk for an unsupervised child just hanging out for hours? Or even one buying paint for that matter..or a case...I would sell him his product then scoot him out of the store until he had an adult with him.

Why? Because GW's target audience are kids my age or younger and it is unreasonable for them to assume that all those children who they draft into 'their' hobby will always have parents with them. If they did assume that, there would be something in there policy and there stores would be accommodated to it (if your not a painter, there is no seat. Parents wont be expected to stand around all day looking over a kids shoulder while they play) but there isn't. So is it not reasonable for me to assume if their target audience are underage minors, and they run hobby shops to let people game there, that they would allow there main target audience to play in these shops? If I am not allowed in without an adult, that's mine, and several other friends I know, who would have to give up the hobby on the spot (I did find one gaming group, but its run in a Bar/Club/Thing so I have to be 16 to join without adult supervision, which is the main problem in the first place!) . Also there where other unsupervised people my age there, he didn't kick them out, although one did leave because he didn't have the main rule book and he came to play (Rules on his phone, your right. He did NOT like that). So after me and him left there was a single 11 yr old painting and 2 adults in there. It was not a busy day, and he still managed to justify kicking me out for 'Wasting Space'. I wish there where other games stores, but there simply isn't any within easy reach

Edit. When I saw there was non in stock, I was going to ask my dad to come in (He works close the town and was on a half day) an order one as he has the account and the debt card because we would need it mailed to us, as we are on holiday soon. But strangely enough I didn't feel in a buying mood after that happened.

Edit Edit. I didn't use the 'When I was twelve...' argument because I know that's not a valid one, I'm young, I'm not stupid.I used it hear to show that the store (Or at least he) had no issues with me being there so long as I was well behaved. I doubt he would of said that if me being there was against policy rules. Also, this isn't about me being a Minor, its about him kicking me out for not buying something. Forget I'm a kid, If someone kicked you out for not buying something you don't need, would that be OK to you?

 RiTides wrote:
That's a lot of assumption, nkelsch, when it looks like the parents did indeed ask the manager what their policy was:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
When I was 11 I had to have a parent with me in the store and when I turned twelve my parents asked if I still had to, the Manager (The nice one) said no, we will look after him well enough. Since then I've been going in on my own. Although he didn't put it in writing, he inferred I was welcome there as long as I behaved without an adult. Its been like that for ages, now a knew guy comes in and kicks me out for not buying anything, even when I came into the store with the intention to buy an expensive piece of kit. I just don't see that as fair.

Again, I think it's a case of a new employee acting overzealously. Take it up with your regular manager when he's back in, clarify when you can and cannot be in the store / under what conditions, and that will be that!

When I was 12. Which is a full 2 years. And that is hardly a legal agreement and you would never put such a thing in writing.

New guy has no such agreement and isn't obligated to make one, especially if corporate has a policy of no minors and the old manager was making an exception for sales. And kinda 'demanding' a defacto 'I am here, the old manager said it was fine 2 years ago' ain't the best way to convince someone to agree to your situation.

A child shouldn't be 'negotiating' this either, an adult should. I don't know the laws in the UK, but in the US, the store owner could have had the police pick the child up to be reclaimed from the police station and the parents have to answer some very real questions with some social workers.

If you can't reach an adult who has custody of your child at any moment or call the child at home, then you got problems.

Not sure why people think that legally supervising children is something that unqualified strangers should have no problem doing. I am genuinely confused why people think such action is ok, or should be expected in FLGS.

I would buy something if I was going to just go and paint or game at a GW. I would never do either of those things, however, and when kids are in there screaming and shouting at a gaming table, I'll suddenly feel patient enough to order online at discount.

I also think it's a myth that GW's target audience are all kids. I've never seen it evidenced

I agree 100% with nkelsch

Even if you had an ironclad agreement with my manager that you were allowed in my store and that he would assume full responsibility, he wasn't there, I as the line employee was. Lets assume the very worst and say the young man in question was "touched" in the restroom or accosted in some way. When it comes down to it, whose name is on the police report and the quick to follow civil suit?..The manager who wasn't there or me as a minimum wage line employee who was the store representative on the day in question? I don't care what kind of crazy agreement you had with my boss, I'm not putting myself on the line for his promise.

Mayhaps things are different on your side of the pond but here in the US we are loaded with weirdos and creeps as well as people looking to sue at the drop of a hat. If any of you think its alright to have random unsupervised children in your place of business for hours at a time and assume responsibility for them, profit or no, you are foolish at best. It's easy to make these wild acceptances as fellow customers but when it's YOUR livelihood on the line and your business at risk it requires a lot more forethought.

Again, was the guy a moron for saying "buy this product and stay, or nothing and leave"?;probably, but I think they are crazed for allowing groups of children in at all with no parental dialogue or contact. If an underage child came into my store for league, to shop, or whatever, he was escorted by a parent that let us know his child was there for league and would be there to pick up said child at a predetermined time and a contact number was left if there was any issue. If anyone had an issue with that it was a simple matter to say "I'm sorry, but I'm uncomfortable with that and we will need you to stay with your child". If the person had an issue with that, was a possible sale lost?..perhaps...but I'd rather a child be safe and in the custody of his parents than a possible risk for my business I need to put food on the table for my family.

Again...I fully realize that that isnt the issue the OP had, but its the issue I have. I fully feel the situation would be different if the OP had been an adult rather than a child, but since he wasn't I feel the other factor enters about why he shouldn't be allowed to stay.

Maybe the policy over there is diffrent, But at the GW over here we have store checkout, where you can make an order on the GW site (From the in store order point) and have it shipped to your house or the store, and you can pay with cash in the store right there. Which is pretty much what I always do when something isn't in store.

Also keep in mind that it isa universal GW policy that to game there after you had a few demo games you need your own stuff. Rulebooks, models, codexes or you can't game there.

You most likely raised a number of red flags with your staff member.

1) You sound like an independant young bloke, I am going out on a limb here and say you walked over to the place that normally the cases are at, saw they werent there and asked if they were out of stock. More often then not, people your age do this just to show intention to buy something even when they really dont have any. IE explictly ask for things not in stock and then not buy anything.

2) You come in with your own models to game and don't have a rulebook with you, as a 14 year old people that don't know you will assume that you don't have a rule book. That your one of those kids who doesn't have that much money and spends it on other stuff rather then your essentials and coasts around loaning store stuff or other peoples. ESPECIALLY if the store is busy in vacation times this behavior needs to be cut down because it sets a bad prescedent. Showing people you need your essentials to game is key for a GW. Because otherwise the entire store will be full of kids gaming with 1 rulebook they share between them. This is nothing more then you falling victim to someone not knowing you personally.

3) You intended to stay in the store for a long time. All the arguments above show why having a young child in a store for a long time is legally frustrating. But having a child around that is not buying anything and does not have all his gaming supplies with him, in short someone who the staff has apprehensions about his intentions hanging around not doing much, as you are not gaming, not painting and not buying anything. You appear stagnant, and are a baecon of the hobby not entertaining you while you are in the store. Idle hands are negative advertising.

4) The staffer tried to sell you some paint because people who paint can always use paint, even with the big painting case that has every colour GW makes, you will always be running low on at least 1 colour that you could buy. But more importantly buying some paint validates you as a customer, this likely is the last step in verifying what your doing in the store. Its not so much a buy something or get out, its a check to see if you are infact intending to be a customer or just loitering.

If i did not know you, and i would have been in the store and witnessed all the above points from the employees perspective. I would have asked you to leave aswell. Because your not contributing to the store. Your not showing fun with the hobby which is always advertizing to the store. Your not buying anything. You don't have all your gaming essentials with you, and your probably having an annoyed look on your face because the staffer broke up your game.

When I worked at one back in 06-07 we had a lot of parents drop off their kids and leave. Heck I had customers come in and hang out and not buy anything. Our rules were once 9pm hit we had to kick them out but I wasn't so much of a prick to do that. I would just be nice and make them wait inside until the parents arrived. Their is a ton of pressure to make quota because if you don't then you have a strong chance of being fired which honestly that's not a bad thing as that job was the worst I ever had and I was in the infantry!

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Just because you patronize a store doesn't entitle you to waste space. I have heard the line "do you know how much money I spend here?!?" as a bartender often enough to know that no customer is actually paying our bills. Did the employee go about it the wrong way? yes he did. But no one is entitled to hang out in any store just because he has nothing better to do.

Did you even bother to read his post before you entered Judgement Mode? He went to the store to buy a case and play a game. The store had no cases in stock, so he proceeded to try and play his game. Upon finding out that the two players were daring to share one main rulebook between them because the OP didn't bring his, the Redshirt summarily cancelled his game. The only reason he was "loitering" is because the moron who works there took a hissy fit that the OP wouldn't spend the money he had for a new case on some other random product.

Hey mods, can we add "entitled" and "entitlement" to the list of filtered words please? So many people have started using them(incorrectly, I might add) as shorthand for "I think you're just whinging so shut up".

A store manager absolutely has the right to throw you out. I spent a few saturdays working for my evil-rich-corporate brother once in Sports Direct, and he would literally walk over to people that looked like chavvy shoplifters and say "get the feth out of my store" for no reason other than he didnt like the look of them.

Whenever they would argue and go "/scruffy chav voice ere feth you man its a free country were doing nowt like! he would say "yes yes, call the police, whatever you like, they will help me throw you out, now feth off or ill have the two large men we hire as security to drag you out"

A store owner absolutely has the right to throw you out for whatever they deem to be necessary, they don't even have to give a reason. Its private property and they always have a big sign up saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" for just that reason.

So legally, yes of course they can, though morally it sounds as though you should have been allowed to stay, and the store guy sounds like an absolute penis.

If your version of events is a true one of course, I have never been in GW and felt as though they would do such a thing, and they are always crawling with little bastards who don't seem to be doing anything!

 Prophaniti wrote:
<SNIP>.

You still seem to miss some of the major points. As he stated he was there to buy a case and game. No case fine. He could still game with other MINORS that where in the store. Thus attracting more customers. The store worked only kicked him out not any of the other unattended MINORS. I know one very successful FLGS that lets kids com in all the time. If i still lived in the area I would still be playing there. He does ask for all contact info though in case of an emergency. Granted I am an adult but when I ran tournaments there kids where welcome.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Just because you patronize a store doesn't entitle you to waste space. I have heard the line "do you know how much money I spend here?!?" as a bartender often enough to know that no customer is actually paying our bills. Did the employee go about it the wrong way? yes he did. But no one is entitled to hang out in any store just because he has nothing better to do.

Did you even bother to read his post before you entered Judgement Mode? He went to the store to buy a case and play a game. The store had no cases in stock, so he proceeded to try and play his game. Upon finding out that the two players were daring to share one main rulebook between them because the OP didn't bring his, the Redshirt summarily cancelled his game. The only reason he was "loitering" is because the moron who works there took a hissy fit that the OP wouldn't spend the money he had for a new case on some other random product.

Hey mods, can we add "entitled" and "entitlement" to the list of filtered words please? So many people have started using them(incorrectly, I might add) as shorthand for "I think you're just whinging so shut up".

What actually read the whole post?? or read his replies?? Perish the thought. This is the internet where we can say what we want without reading everything or even thinking things through for that matter.

 warriorpriest wrote:

You still seem to miss some of the major points. As he stated he was there to buy a case and game. No case fine. He could still game with other MINORS that where in the store. Thus attracting more customers. The store worked only kicked him out not any of the other unattended MINORS. I know one very successful FLGS that lets kids com in all the time. If i still lived in the area I would still be playing there. He does ask for all contact info though in case of an emergency. Granted I am an adult but when I ran tournaments there kids where welcome.

Read my last sentence/paragraph

 Prophaniti wrote:

 warriorpriest wrote:

You still seem to miss some of the major points. As he stated he was there to buy a case and game. No case fine. He could still game with other MINORS that where in the store. Thus attracting more customers. The store worked only kicked him out not any of the other unattended MINORS. I know one very successful FLGS that lets kids com in all the time. If i still lived in the area I would still be playing there. He does ask for all contact info though in case of an emergency. Granted I am an adult but when I ran tournaments there kids where welcome.

Read my last sentence/paragraph

I did, but you didn't read his replies. If you was the worker there then you personally would have thrown all the minors out I would assume. But that is not what happened in this case. He was singled out.

 Prophaniti wrote:
I agree 100% with nkelsch

Even if you had an ironclad agreement with my manager that you were allowed in my store and that he would assume full responsibility, he wasn't there, I as the line employee was. Lets assume the very worst and say the young man in question was "touched" in the restroom or accosted in some way. When it comes down to it, whose name is on the police report and the quick to follow civil suit?..The manager who wasn't there or me as a minimum wage line employee who was the store representative on the day in question? I don't care what kind of crazy agreement you had with my boss, I'm not putting myself on the line for his promise.

Mayhaps things are different on your side of the pond but here in the US we are loaded with weirdos and creeps as well as people looking to sue at the drop of a hat. If any of you think its alright to have random unsupervised children in your place of business for hours at a time and assume responsibility for them, profit or no, you are foolish at best. It's easy to make these wild acceptances as fellow customers but when it's YOUR livelihood on the line and your business at risk it requires a lot more forethought.

Again, was the guy a moron for saying "buy this product and stay, or nothing and leave"?;probably, but I think they are crazed for allowing groups of children in at all with no parental dialogue or contact. If an underage child came into my store for league, to shop, or whatever, he was escorted by a parent that let us know his child was there for league and would be there to pick up said child at a predetermined time and a contact number was left if there was any issue. If anyone had an issue with that it was a simple matter to say "I'm sorry, but I'm uncomfortable with that and we will need you to stay with your child". If the person had an issue with that, was a possible sale lost?..perhaps...but I'd rather a child be safe and in the custody of his parents than a possible risk for my business I need to put food on the table for my family.

Again...I fully realize that that isnt the issue the OP had, but its the issue I have. I fully feel the situation would be different if the OP had been an adult rather than a child, but since he wasn't I feel the other factor enters about why he shouldn't be allowed to stay.

I'm with you on the understanding that I would not be your problem. But I'm just saying if this where the case, I wouldn't be in the hobby. I can't have mummy and daddy hold my hand until I am 18 because I want to play with toy soldiers, that's unrealistic. GW is (arguably) targeted it at people my age, either younger or older, but we can all agree its not targeted at adults. Or at least its not anymore. With that in mind it is unreasonable for people to assume minors would always have a parent with them otherwise this WOULD be in there policy. At what age would you stop this being a problem, if I was 17, still legally a minor, would you still say I need a parent? At any rate, this isn't about me being a Minor, its them kicking me out because I wouldn't buy something. And even if that IS perfectly within the Law, It sure as heck isn't good customer service or the friendly environment I was used to from GamesWorkShop, and that is what im going to take up with the manager.

@ Nick I'm not sure what your implying with 1. I did indeed come there to buy the case, why would you assume otherwise? For 2 I explained to him why I didn't have it in a perfectly reasonable way, the way he responded it was 'Should of brought a bigger case', the Irony was of course lost on him. I had both my codexes and a sizeable army, if he didn't think I really had a rule book he could of asked the other regular I was trying to play a game with. It was not busy at all, it was infact almost a ghost town. This is nothing more then him not taking the time to try learn my personality or listning to others vouch for me. For 3 I guess your right, I did wake up early, take the early bus, and buy, make, paint and take my army in with the intension of playing a game for a sizable amount of time. What would be the problem with this other then sharing a friends rule book? If Idle hands where what he was worried about, he would of let me carry on my game with my nicely painted models to continue advertising the game. He didn't try to sell me some paint, he tried to bully me into buying paint. The Words where 'Buy some paint or you'll have to leave'. Why should I HAVE to buy something I don't need, and its defiantly bad customer service to chuck a loyal customer out for not buying something straight away. And for the record, while an annoyed look would be completely valid in my eyes, I took precautions to make myself look cold and indifferent when he started threatening me with the police...

I understand that you wouldn't be in the hobby if your parents had to be with you, but I have bad news..thems the breaks for being a minor. As a minor you are not promised everything an adult has access to. It's just how life works and unfortunately a few bad apples spoiled it for those that are probably good people. Again, I'd rather lose a sale than risk my business if something were to happen to you.

Do i think he handled it poorly?..yes, of course I do. But as a business owner I would have booted you out too. You just aren't worth the risk. Him having poor business sense I think is in agreement by every poster here for the most part...but I'd have still kicked you out as well as any other unsupervised children. And yes, even at 17 you are a liability, even if you are the model of perfect behavior. The issue isn't so much what YOU would do or how you would behave, it's more how someone else might treat you or do something to you. As the rep of the store he is essentially "responsible" for you should anything happen. If an adult hits you, touches you, or even another youth, he is at risk.

But the hobby is aimed at Teenagers my age, how can you say that the very people the game is aimed at, usually wont be able to play? That's worse business sense then GW's usual Gak.

I reject the premise that stores which sell stuff focused for children somehow are expected to provide de facto child supervision for underage minors.

Kids don't get to toy stores unsupervised. They don't get to go to McDonalds and play in the ball pit unsupervised. They don't get to see PG or G movies unsupervised. They don't get to go to 'play' places unsupervised.

The closest you get is Chuk E. Cheeses which allows you to check your kid into a 'contained' area so you know your kid won't escape or be taken from the premises without your authorization. And even then, they expect you to stay on the premises. You can sit at the table while the kid runs around like crazy and a staff member will prevent them from leaving without adult authorization. That doesn't replace your duty to watch your children, but in a place where children may be all over the place, you can at least make sure they are not abducted.

So why is there an expectation that FLGS need to take custody of children for extended periods, supervise, protect and make sure they are safe simply because they sell items which children may like?

"wait in a busy town with hundreds of people walking past with no supervision ( I wonder if he understands abduction)"

It was this sentence that got me most of all...Why is it his responsibility? It's not his job to be your guardian..it's your parents. Why weren't your parents worried about that same sentence you just wrote? It's his job to work his store and sell product for his minimum wage. And they aren't saying kids can't play..not at all. But they expect children to have parents with them or at least to be involved in some way.



How can people keep saying the hobby is aimed at children at the prices they charge?...Unless kids jobs are paying a lot more than they used to..

 Prophaniti wrote:
"wait in a busy town with hundreds of people walking past with no supervision ( I wonder if he understands abduction)"

It was this sentence that got me most of all...Why is it his responsibility? It's not his job to be your guardian..it's your parents. Why weren't your parents worried about that same sentence you just wrote? It's his job to work his store and sell product for his minimum wage. And they aren't saying kids can't play..not at all. But they expect children to have parents with them or at least to be involved in some way.



How can people keep saying the hobby is aimed at children at the prices they charge?...Unless kids jobs are paying a lot more than they used to..

I agree about the abduction part. However again you seem to miss the fact he was there to buy and play. So he was involved. Just not to the satisfaction of the store worker.



Personally OP I would have asked the store rep to order the case for me. Unless he was unable to do that with you being a minor. I would also see about buying the case online if things do not get resolved in a civil manor with the store manager.

nkelsch wrote:
I reject the premise that stores which sell stuff focused for children somehow are expected to provide de facto child supervision for underage minors.

Kids don't get to toy stores unsupervised. They don't get to go to McDonalds and play in the ball pit unsupervised. They don't get to see PG or G movies unsupervised. They don't get to go to 'play' places unsupervised.

This is funny, because as he is 14 he could go to any PG or G movie he want all by himself and sit in a big dark room where no one working there will be watch over him. Bad choose on that one .

What GW store was it?

I didn't pin responsibility on him, I just found his lack of concern something of note. While his quote 'Not my problem' is a perfectly lawful remark, it doesn't change the fact that that would not encourage me to go back there (Like I have a great choice...) and are not the right way to treat a regular of any age. That's what that sentence was about, not that I was pinning responsibility on the store for my care. I think maybe I should of phrased it better, I'm better at speaking then typing

GW Chester by the way, The New Guy who took over for Adam if you know him.

Reading this story, it seems if he would have let you do some list building perhaps you would have ended up buying something in the end. Anyway, sounds like you ran into an employee that has one foot out the door because of a poor sales record, if I ventured a guess.

The big concern for me is the fact you are 14. Im not sure about how things go in the UK, but I work at a movie theatre in the states, and we get teens that get dropped off her regularly. On occasion, I have to give them the boot from the theatre, but if they are minors, I cannot make them leave the theatre property by themselves. The reasoning is similar to the bar rule (dont let a drunkard leave and drive etc), where if I kick a minor/group of minors out and something horrible happens to them, I become liable because I did not ensure they were safely looked after by their parents or police. It is a bit of a stretch at times, but if you left the store, and were then beaten at the bus stop by some punks, GW would have themselves a lawsuit for medical/damages, as being in a hobby store, practicing said hobby (list building counts to a reasonable person), makes it unreasonable for them to remove you, unless there is a secret GW 15 minute 'buy out or get out' rule.

Overall, very poor customer service and I would bee-line it to the GW website and demand that donkey-caves head. That kind of customer service (you were alone for christ's sake, really, if you were in a huge group maybe I see his point)

Report it to GW, wait two weeks, return and enjoy yourself, or find a new store that wants you to grow the hobby in-store.

nkelsch wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
What are you doing not working at 14? When you turn 14 here, you get a job and work. Playtime and summer are over. Want to be treated like an adult, then go get a job.

Regardless, supervising minors is dangerous and no unqualified person should attempt it or be forced to do it in their line of work. This is both for the child's safety and the adult's protection.

What state do you livwe in when you can get a job at 14? I mean, aside from mowing lawns or some other random odd job type thing. Generally you cant get much until you're 16.

Anyways, I dont see much point in buying anything at a store you cant play at. Take the online discout and let them all fold.

I think it's just this new guy.

The OP sounds a bit like me. I've been going into my local GW fairly regularly for the past 2 years now (I've been in a long time before, but not on a regular basis). I come in on Saturdays for scheduled games, and on game nights and just whenever I can. I pre-order Codices/Army Books from GW, but other than that all I ever buy is the odd pot of paint. I try to hang around for games (and I don't own a copy of any 40k rulebook btw), and if there's no one around, I just hang around, though usually do some painting. However, the staff in my GW are more than happy to let me do this.

It sounds like your old manager was the same sort of thing. I'd have a chat with him and see if he'll have a chat with this new employee. Top tip though: always bring some painting. It actually gives you something to do!

I think it would have been cool if you got kicked out for painting models.

So, OP, did you talk to management? Because you should have, and let us know.


While I personally would absolutely have the same attitude as that guy had - if you're hanging out for 6 hours and not buying anything, you better GTFO - that's also not the Games Workshop business model, in which you should be free to come in and have a game. God, I could not imagine putting up with that nonsense, but that's how they want to do it.

ultraatma wrote:
as being in a hobby store, practicing said hobby (list building counts to a reasonable person), makes it unreasonable for them to remove you, unless there is a secret GW 15 minute 'buy out or get out' rule.

GW stores are NOT a hobby center, hobby store or anything. It's a completely normal retail store like any electronics market, CD store or something.

nkelsch wrote:

Kids don't get to toy stores unsupervised. They don't get to go to McDonalds and play in the ball pit unsupervised. They don't get to see PG or G movies unsupervised. They don't get to go to 'play' places unsupervised.

Do they get to go to their shift at the plant unsupervised though?

I'm pretty sure at 14 I spent most of my summer unsupervised. My older friends could drive, so we'd go see movies and stuff together. Again, what manner of bizarro world do you live in that requires 14 year olds to be under lock and key constantly? Is your lawn in that much danger?

 Sigvatr wrote:
GW stores are NOT a hobby center, hobby store or anything. It's a completely normal retail store like any electronics market, CD store or something.

Someone should let these misinformed fools know that. They're doing it totally wrong, looks like, according to you.

 Sigvatr wrote:

ultraatma wrote:
as being in a hobby store, practicing said hobby (list building counts to a reasonable person), makes it unreasonable for them to remove you, unless there is a secret GW 15 minute 'buy out or get out' rule.

GW stores are NOT a hobby center, hobbsoranything.It's a completely normal retail store like any electronics market, CD store or something.

Unfortunately, while it is a retail store, a reasonable person would call it a hobby store, just as a Barnes and noble would be considered a book store, even though it is a retail store. Your logic is unreasonable and has no bearing on this issue. If you cannot see thep poor treatment of this kid then you should reread his post

Bossk_Hogg wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Kids don't get to toy stores unsupervised. They don't get to go to McDonalds and play in the ball pit unsupervised. They don't get to see PG or G movies unsupervised. They don't get to go to 'play' places unsupervised.

Do they get to go to their shift at the plant unsupervised though?

When you have a work permit from the ages 14-16, you are 'supervised' by the place of employment. It is part of the work permit process.

I'm pretty sure at 14 I spent most of my summer unsupervised. My older friends could drive, so we'd go see movies and stuff together. Again, what manner of bizarro world do you live in that requires 14 year olds to be under lock and key constantly? Is your lawn in that much danger?

Most states have laws which either have age definition for unattended minors or only allow unattended minors at home, not in public.

In MD, no children under the age of 8 may be unsupervised. 13 and under can be 'at home' by themselves. Other states have different and some more 'ambiguous' rules like 'not be a danger to themselves or others' and so on which makes it hard.

Now Public venues can have their own rules in regards to unattended minors as the laws and can enforce them as they wish... Pretty much, if you are a minor, in public, you have no rights except when with a guardian. Here is an example from the new your public library:

Library staff are available to assist and support children with their use of Library resources. However, the Library is not responsible for children who are left unattended on Library premises. Unattended children are children of any age who are apparently unaccompanied by a parent, guardian, and/or responsible caregiver in the Library.

Library staff may call the police or other appropriate City agency if a child is left unattended when a Library facility closes or if a child otherwise appears to be at risk.

Pretty much, if they 'feel like it' and deem the child is 'at risk' they can and will call the police, have the child taken into custody and the parents will be answering some questions to Child Protective services.

Here is an article about a MALL:

on Fridays and Saturdays starting at 6 p.m., anyone 17 or under who wasn’t accompanied by a guardian who was at least 21 years old would be kicked out of the mall. It was around this time that other malls around the U.S. likewise banned unaccompanied teens during certain evening hours.

Starting this Friday, the St. Louis Outlet Mall is pushing its parental-escort rule back to 3 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Similarly, the Mall of America expanded its parental-escort policy during the recent holiday shopping season.

Read more: http://business.time.com/2013/01/24/hey-kid-wheres-your-mom-malls-ratchet-up-restrictions-on-unsupervised-teens/#ixzz2bylIWHZS

You would be surprised how common such policies are and lots of stores have them, and they have total discretion on how to enforce them. If you actually investigate, you would find there are very few places a Minor can legally go unsupervised.

Nkelsch, I don't know about you but as I also live in Maryland, and frequent the malls around here (Arundel Mills, Columbia, etc...) there are groups of minors there constantly.

What you're posting is fine in theory, but doesn't actually happen in practice. Children aged 14 - 17 are not sitting at home and only going out with their parents. That's just not how it is in reality.

That's the only thing I'm going to contribute here, since I don't want to get sucked back in to the drama

To the OP.

A bit of common sense would go a long way in both sides of this coin...

Kids should not hang out for such a long time without supervision... that is an open door to problems.

Store employees should know how to lure people without resorting to these poor scare tactics and grow some maturity. ( any adult worth a braincell would not kick a kid to the streets like this, at least have the decency to ask the kid to call his parents).

If the facts are as the OP states then sorry to say but the adults around you are kind of letting you down.

My sincere advice to you is that if adults are not present you should surround yourself with a bunch of buddies for safety sake, also dont expect that a stranger in any store will help you out. Sad but true we live in a selfish society.

But not all is bad from this, you have learned a precious lesson, plan ahead and avoid to put yourself in the hands of people you do not know.

As for the Posters saying " get a job" or " I would also kick you out "... Just ignore them.

Nice post, Navarro... cheers! And agreed on all counts (particularly about the common sense solution to this situation, and good lessons to be learned on both sides).

 NAVARRO wrote:

stuff

Agreed.

Strange how the people saying those things and talking about child protection are not from the UK. Just to clarify a few things:

Getting a job under 16 in the UK is not normal.

UK GWs still often have hobby and gaming areas.

Business staff in the UK would only have very limited responsibility for kids in the store, the same as adults.

I don't know what happend but it sounds like the guy was rather rude, but then having been in a GW last week I think some of the staff have the paitiants of saints in school holidays. However that's part of the job.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it would have been cool if you got kicked out for painting models.

I saw this happen in the old Tempe Mills AZ GW store.

 pities2004 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it would have been cool if you got kicked out for painting models.

I saw this happen in the old Tempe Mills AZ GW store.

Yeah, I have seen it. There was a guy who would show up with 1500 points of models and then try to burn through 5 pots of wash by washing all his models while at the demo table.

If you are not basically having a painting demo, you usually need to buy your own paints to 'painting tables'

 NAVARRO wrote:
To the OP.

A bit of common sense would go a long way in both sides of this coin...

Kids should not hang out for such a long time without supervision... that is an open door to problems.

Store employees should know how to lure people without resorting to these poor scare tactics and grow some maturity. ( any adult worth a braincell would not kick a kid to the streets like this, at least have the decency to ask the kid to call his parents).

If the facts are as the OP states then sorry to say but the adults around you are kind of letting you down.

My sincere advice to you is that if adults are not present you should surround yourself with a bunch of buddies for safety sake, also dont expect that a stranger in any store will help you out. Sad but true we live in a selfish society.

But not all is bad from this, you have learned a precious lesson, plan ahead and avoid to put yourself in the hands of people you do not know.

As for the Posters saying " get a job" or " I would also kick you out "... Just ignore them.

Telling the kid to ignore people who oiffer legitimate criticisms is NOT infact good life advice. The OP was not a saint that did nothing wrong and the Staffer a demon that drinks the tears of little children. They both had circumstances that the other party ignored. I outlined in the politest way how from the staff members point of vieuw the OP was not entirely blameless. He should understand that while he may be offended and feel singled out, there are legitimate qualms with the way he behaved aswel even if he doesn't feel it this way. proper advice would be not to ignore everyone who doesnt agree with him and to take a look at WHY his intentions were misread.

Thanks guys, I'm going back in on Friday to try resolve things. All I can do I hope the Manager is there and not the new guy, I can't exactly complain about him to him, or at least not with any reasonable idea of having a nice day there. I am not going to talk about the being un supervised business because that's not why he was rude to me, he was rude to me because I wouldn't buy anything. As to get a job, I already posted I have a paper round, which is legally the best job I can get with out a Gak load of paper work to the local council. I'll simply talk to the manager, he is a nice understanding person (When someone nicked my Wraithlord he gave me a new one) and I'm sure he values me, a long time customer, over a new GW lackey who was rude to customers. As he is new, I can only guess he is on a probation, so I could very well have his head. I'm not sure I want to though, he may of been rude to me, but before that I saw he was enthusiastic about the game when talking (Not selling, talking) to some veteran adults. So maybe I did do something wrong, i'll leave it to the manager to decide. Thanks for the Help.

NickOnwezen wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
To the OP.

A bit of common sense would go a long way in both sides of this coin...

Kids should not hang out for such a long time without supervision... that is an open door to problems.

Store employees should know how to lure people without resorting to these poor scare tactics and grow some maturity. ( any adult worth a braincell would not kick a kid to the streets like this, at least have the decency to ask the kid to call his parents).

If the facts are as the OP states then sorry to say but the adults around you are kind of letting you down.

My sincere advice to you is that if adults are not present you should surround yourself with a bunch of buddies for safety sake, also dont expect that a stranger in any store will help you out. Sad but true we live in a selfish society.

But not all is bad from this, you have learned a precious lesson, plan ahead and avoid to put yourself in the hands of people you do not know.

As for the Posters saying " get a job" or " I would also kick you out "... Just ignore them.

Telling the kid to ignore people who oiffer legitimate criticisms is NOT infact good life advice. The OP was not a saint that did nothing wrong and the Staffer a demon that drinks the tears of little children. They both had circumstances that the other party ignored. I outlined in the politest way how from the staff members point of vieuw the OP was not entirely blameless. He should understand that while he may be offended and feel singled out, there are legitimate qualms with the way he behaved aswel even if he doesn't feel it this way. proper advice would be not to ignore everyone who doesnt agree with him and to take a look at WHY his intentions were misread.

First and foremost I do not think he was talking about your post when he said ignore the ones that said 'get a job', etc. Your post was well thought out and could be one standpoint at looking at the issue at hand. However as ignored by others there was other unattended minors in the store and he had legitimate claims as to why he did not have a rulebook with him. Hardly grounds to ask someone to leave. It wasn't like he(OP) was trying to use a store rulebook,
Maybe you where playing devils advocate or maybe you are a GW employee or maybe none of the above. Either way you only presented one 'possible' side to the issue and/or how you would view it personally. However what about the others in the store?? Did they buy anything?? maybe maybe not .We have no way of knowing. For all we know the guy got a wild hair up his nose and felt like being an asshat to someone cause his girl broke up with him.

OP, did you see anyone else buy anything while you was there??? Did you see any receipts or anything laying around that would indicate they (others) in the store made a purchase?

Don't go in there with the idea that you are going to have his head or that the manager values you over someone else.

Present the situation as you remember it and just tell him..."I thought you should know..." Let the repercussions fall on thier own.

Shotgun wrote:
Don't go in there with the idea that you are going to have his head or that the manager values you over someone else.

Present the situation as you remember it and just tell him..."I thought you should know..." Let the repercussions fall on thier own.

What shotgun said.

Also, this is valuable for everyone who wishes to make a complaint. Don't ever say "I'm never shopping here again". Once you say that, there is no longer any incentive for them to help you; any attempts to do so are wasted time.

Go in, be polite, explain the situation, leave out invective and emotion, and present this for what it is - a problem you would like to be solved, and then tell him what you want. You need to decide what you want the outcome to be before you even express the problem. In this case, the outcome should probably be an affirmation that it's OK to hang out in the store painting or whatever even if you're not buying that day without being hassled, as is GWS policy. Don't get into disciplinary action for the employee in question - express your concern, and what happens after that is not your problem or your business.

Then let us know how it went.

NickOnwezen wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
To the OP.

A bit of common sense would go a long way in both sides of this coin...

Kids should not hang out for such a long time without supervision... that is an open door to problems.

Store employees should know how to lure people without resorting to these poor scare tactics and grow some maturity. ( any adult worth a braincell would not kick a kid to the streets like this, at least have the decency to ask the kid to call his parents).

If the facts are as the OP states then sorry to say but the adults around you are kind of letting you down.

My sincere advice to you is that if adults are not present you should surround yourself with a bunch of buddies for safety sake, also dont expect that a stranger in any store will help you out. Sad but true we live in a selfish society.

But not all is bad from this, you have learned a precious lesson, plan ahead and avoid to put yourself in the hands of people you do not know.

As for the Posters saying " get a job" or " I would also kick you out "... Just ignore them.

Telling the kid to ignore people who oiffer legitimate criticisms is NOT infact good life advice. The OP was not a saint that did nothing wrong and the Staffer a demon that drinks the tears of little children. They both had circumstances that the other party ignored. I outlined in the politest way how from the staff members point of vieuw the OP was not entirely blameless. He should understand that while he may be offended and feel singled out, there are legitimate qualms with the way he behaved aswel even if he doesn't feel it this way. proper advice would be not to ignore everyone who doesnt agree with him and to take a look at WHY his intentions were misread.

We disagree in what you consider legitimate criticism... again common sense is needed here. Telling a 14 year old who is by default already stuck in a hormonal revolution to get a job among other flaming comments is not helpful... its silly.
And please do not put words in my mouth... I never said to ignore everyone who disagrees with him... in fact in my post I flag problems on both sides of the equation.

As adults we have the duty to help out our younglings, besides any responsible parent over here who deals with this in a daily basis knows for a fact that you should not give more nerf gun bullets to a kid in rage

Seriously people just need to calm down a bit and be a bit more prudent to the OP age.

He might be a child but he is still a human being. Teenagers are people just like you, the scorn some of you have towards this kid is weird.

The attitude taken towards selling you other stuff, because they didn't have what you needed in stock, and the thing about you not having your own rule book seem unreasonable. But using their stock off the shelves to write army lists isn't on either. It's not a library, and that's how stock gets damaged, as soon as it gets creased or a dirty fingerprint people won't buy it.

Not really sure how things work in the UK, with small store sizes and all, but you certainly should not have been kicked out for not having a rule book. Is this a thing in the UK? I would call customer service and complain about the store. Just specify that it was not the manager who treated you this way, it was a minion.

Trying to get someone to use money they have on product you have seems like rule #1 of sales to me.

The only fault I can see with the black shirt was that he didn't get an online direct sale on the case there and then if the OP was so keen.

All the rest was blah blah blah self absorbed teenager bollox. I mean complaint that you might get abducted is the most crass thing I've read here in an age. If your so worried about kiddy fiddlers then why get on a bloody bus in your own in the first place?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
Not really sure how things work in the UK, with small store sizes and all, but you certainly should not have been kicked out for not having a rule book. Is this a thing in the UK? I would call customer service and complain about the store. Just specify that it was not the manager who treated you this way, it was a minion.

You have no legal right to be in the store without the owners (or their representatives) permission. So long as they are not decriminating on race\gender/etc the they can ask you to leave at anytime.

So when the OP started getting annoying he got kicked to the curb by the sounds of it.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The attitude taken towards selling you other stuff, because they didn't have what you needed in stock, and the thing about you not having your own rule book seem unreasonable. But using their stock off the shelves to write army lists isn't on either. It's not a library, and that's how stock gets damaged, as soon as it gets creased or a dirty fingerprint people won't buy it.

IIRC he was making an army list with his own book.

It's hard to judge something like this without hearing the story from both sides. There may have been more to it than what the op lets on. Seems to be more and more of these situations poping up all the time though.

I can only go off personal exp, and from what I've seen I find it the total opposite. I'm often encouraged to stick around to paint, play or get involved in whatever I like. Even been told I can ring up and book the table and he will chase up an opponent for me. I don't see much of the hard sell that others seem to get either, beyond the "hey, did you see the new releases this week?". I usually come in for a specific item and he knows this I guess.

So I'm in the other boat to the OP, once I walk into the GW I find it hard to get out of there again without having to end a conversation short or finding an excuse to turn down invitations to stick around for games or paint some minis in the store.

I've had the same experience as vossyvo....

OP, I would follow Ouze's and others suggestions - it seems that is the only reasonable course of action.

Lucairkx

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Just because you patronize a store doesn't entitle you to waste space. I have heard the line "do you know how much money I spend here?!?" as a bartender often enough to know that no customer is actually paying our bills. Did the employee go about it the wrong way? yes he did. But no one is entitled to hang out in any store just because he has nothing better to do.

Just because you patronize people doesn't entitle you to be a waste of space either.

After reading all the evidence, I can only point out that GW was in the wrong. Reasoning?

The gentlemen in charge knew the situation. A minor without supervision in his store. For those touting liability issues, this is his queue to politely ask them to leave prior to engaging in an attempted sale.

He did not. In fact, he even tried to pursue a purchase after intentions of a purchase of a out of stock product. Its this act right there that outlines his intentions. That's the elephant in the room and where I'm hard pressed to take any of the material presented by fellow posters as "he correctly handled the situation". While it doesn't disprove that your stances are indeed the legally correct route to take, its not the one this gentlemen took and it puts him in the wrong, twice. Once legally, and the second morally.

Alex, sir, keep us abreast of your situation and please do follow the advise of NAVARRO's first post.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Thanks guys, I'm going back in on Friday to try resolve things. All I can do I hope the Manager is there and not the new guy, I can't exactly complain about him to him, or at least not with any reasonable idea of having a nice day there. I am not going to talk about the being un supervised business because that's not why he was rude to me, he was rude to me because I wouldn't buy anything. As to get a job, I already posted I have a paper round, which is legally the best job I can get with out a Gak load of paper work to the local council. I'll simply talk to the manager, he is a nice understanding person (When someone nicked my Wraithlord he gave me a new one) and I'm sure he values me, a long time customer, over a new GW lackey who was rude to customers. As he is new, I can only guess he is on a probation, so I could very well have his head. I'm not sure I want to though, he may of been rude to me, but before that I saw he was enthusiastic about the game when talking (Not selling, talking) to some veteran adults. So maybe I did do something wrong, i'll leave it to the manager to decide. Thanks for the Help.

You should call before going. Don't waste your time if the manager isn't there.

The GW rep was way out of line. That is just bad customer service. Sounds like he was new, saw that you were a young kid and just assumed you weren't a paying customer but instead, a "leech". As long as you were respectful of the company and their products and didn't take advantage of them, you definitely need to tell his manager.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Nkelsch misses the elephant in the room again. IT IS CURRENTLY THE SCHOOL HOLIDAYS IN THE UK. Guess what? GW's target market wants to participate in their hobby during their time off from school. Who'd have thunk it?

What "GW's target market" wants to do does not matter if they're minors and the shop does not want to serve as a babysitting service.

When I was in school GW used to run lots of holiday events with big games. I guess they don't do that now because they've moved all their shops into shoeboxes.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Thanks guys, I'm going back in on Friday to try resolve things. All I can do I hope the Manager is there and not the new guy, I can't exactly complain about him to him, or at least not with any reasonable idea of having a nice day there. I am not going to talk about the being un supervised business because that's not why he was rude to me, he was rude to me because I wouldn't buy anything. As to get a job, I already posted I have a paper round, which is legally the best job I can get with out a Gak load of paper work to the local council. I'll simply talk to the manager, he is a nice understanding person (When someone nicked my Wraithlord he gave me a new one) and I'm sure he values me, a long time customer, over a new GW lackey who was rude to customers. As he is new, I can only guess he is on a probation, so I could very well have his head. I'm not sure I want to though, he may of been rude to me, but before that I saw he was enthusiastic about the game when talking (Not selling, talking) to some veteran adults. So maybe I did do something wrong, i'll leave it to the manager to decide. Thanks for the Help.

Bring your mum, the ultimate firepowah

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
If someone kicked you out for not buying something you don't need, would that be OK to you?

Yes, because it is a retail store, not a youth club.
If I have a game booked, If I have a painting table slot booked, if I am buying something.
These are the reasons to be in the shop.
Hanging around until my bus turns up (in 4 hours) is not a good reason.

 marv335 wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
If someone kicked you out for not buying something you don't need, would that be OK to you?

Yes, because it is a retail store, not a youth club.
If I have a game booked, If I have a painting table slot booked, if I am buying something.
These are the reasons to be in the shop.
Hanging around until my bus turns up (in 4 hours) is not a good reason.

He was trying to play a game. The assistant prevented him, ostensibly because he wouldn't buy anything.

@OP Kudos for maintaining a mature and articulate attitude in this thread, in the face of some fairly blunt, arguably unnecessary, criticism. It does you credit and makes me more inclined to believe you've been harshly treated rather than are whining because you pissed someone off and got kicked out.

 azreal13 wrote:

 marv335 wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
If someone kicked you out for not buying something you don't need, would that be OK to you?

Yes, because it is a retail store, not a youth club.
If I have a game booked, If I have a painting table slot booked, if I am buying something.
These are the reasons to be in the shop.
Hanging around until my bus turns up (in 4 hours) is not a good reason.

He was trying to play a game. The assistant prevented him, ostensibly because he wouldn't buy anything.

I think the "he wouldn't buy anything" was a convenient excuse to get him out of the store.
The OP flatout said that he was confronted about if he brought his rulebook or not.

@OP Kudos for maintaining a mature and articulate attitude in this thread, in the face of some fairly blunt, arguably unnecessary, criticism. It does you credit and makes me more inclined to believe you've been harshly treated rather than are whining because you pissed someone off and got kicked out.

Really?
The fact that he chose to post about it on Dakka as his first avenue of recourse suggests otherwise to me.

nkelsch wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
When I was 11 I had to have a parent with me in the store and when I turned twelve my parents asked if I still had to, the Manager (The nice one) said no, we will look after him well enough. Since then I've been going in on my own. Although he didn't put it in writing, he inferred I was welcome there as long as I behaved without an adult. Its been like that for ages, now a knew guy comes in and kicks me out for not buying anything, even when I came into the store with the intention to buy an expensive piece of kit. I just don't see that as fair.

Yes, one guy chose to supervise you in order to make a sale, the other guy doesn't want that responsibility as supervising kids is a dangerous thing due to liabilities. Did the old manager have your parents phone info to contact them at work should there be an issue? The company can't make him legally supervise you, especially since he would be unskilled to do so.

You are a child. Life is not fair. You get 4 more harsh years of that until you turn 18, and then you can begin your quarter life crisis when you find out being an adult, life is still not fair as you will enter a job market which will leave you unemployed, under employed and saddled with college debt you will be paying until you are 50.

What are you doing not working at 14? When you turn 14 here, you get a job and work. Playtime and summer are over. Want to be treated like an adult, then go get a job.

Regardless, supervising minors is dangerous and no unqualified person should attempt it or be forced to do it in their line of work. This is both for the child's safety and the adult's protection.

If a customer of any age walked into a store looking to purchase a expensive item why would the employee not just ask if you like to order it if you have intent to buy when they get it in stock what's the guys problem your basically telling him as soon as it comes in here's my money why not let him play? and about the 14 and getting a job.. what? at 14 most people do NOT have a real job or way of getting to one unless working for a family friend as most places you have to be able to get there which needs a car that you cant drive by yourself until your 16 even then most other students I know don't have jobs because we're enjoying our sports and high school life.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 marv335 wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
If someone kicked you out for not buying something you don't need, would that be OK to you?

Yes, because it is a retail store, not a youth club.
If I have a game booked, If I have a painting table slot booked, if I am buying something.
These are the reasons to be in the shop.
Hanging around until my bus turns up (in 4 hours) is not a good reason.

He was trying to play a game. The assistant prevented him, ostensibly because he wouldn't buy anything.

I think the "he wouldn't buy anything" was a convenient excuse to get him out of the store.
The OP flatout said that he was confronted about if he brought his rulebook or not.

@OP Kudos for maintaining a mature and articulate attitude in this thread, in the face of some fairly blunt, arguably unnecessary, criticism. It does you credit and makes me more inclined to believe you've been harshly treated rather than are whining because you pissed someone off and got kicked out.

Really?
The fact that he chose to post about it on Dakka as his first avenue of recourse suggests otherwise to me.

Things is, you've fairly obviously nailed your colours to the mast here (and anyone with any history on the board could have made the call without seeing you write a word) so there's really no point in engaging with you that I can see?

The main error I think the OP made is they same mistake a lot of teens make... They think they can just walk out into the world and be treated like rational adults by rational adults...
Nothing could be further from the truth.. First no adult is TRUELY rational.. Second of all the new guy probably didn't know if could trust you.. A kid you dont know in a store for 4-5 hours.. That's hair raising stuff mate.. Besides the legal issues there is also the risk of theft during that time.. He can't keep his eyes on you THAT long.. And he can't trust you just becaus should said he could..
This is the real world mate.. Your not going to be treated like a rational adult by rational adults.. Even WHEN your an adult.. And especially not now..
.. He did sound like a bit of a jack$&@ from the anecdote though..

 Overlord Zerrtin wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
When I was 11 I had to have a parent with me in the store and when I turned twelve my parents asked if I still had to, the Manager (The nice one) said no, we will look after him well enough. Since then I've been going in on my own. Although he didn't put it in writing, he inferred I was welcome there as long as I behaved without an adult. Its been like that for ages, now a knew guy comes in and kicks me out for not buying anything, even when I came into the store with the intention to buy an expensive piece of kit. I just don't see that as fair.

Yes, one guy chose to supervise you in order to make a sale, the other guy doesn't want that responsibility as supervising kids is a dangerous thing due to liabilities. Did the old manager have your parents phone info to contact them at work should there be an issue? The company can't make him legally supervise you, especially since he would be unskilled to do so.

You are a child. Life is not fair. You get 4 more harsh years of that until you turn 18, and then you can begin your quarter life crisis when you find out being an adult, life is still not fair as you will enter a job market which will leave you unemployed, under employed and saddled with college debt you will be paying until you are 50.

What are you doing not working at 14? When you turn 14 here, you get a job and work. Playtime and summer are over. Want to be treated like an adult, then go get a job.

Regardless, supervising minors is dangerous and no unqualified person should attempt it or be forced to do it in their line of work. This is both for the child's safety and the adult's protection.

If a customer of any age walked into a store looking to purchase a expensive item why would the employee not just ask if you like to order it if you have intent to buy when they get it in stock what's the guys problem your basically telling him as soon as it comes in here's my money why not let him play? and about the 14 and getting a job.. what? at 14 most people do NOT have a real job or way of getting to one unless working for a family friend as most places you have to be able to get there which needs a car that you cant drive by yourself until your 16 even then most other students I know don't have jobs because we're enjoying our sports and high school life.

The run on sentences is strong with this one.

I think that you guys is being a little bit dramatic, If he spends alot of money there, the store has a small moral obligation to him. The OP was a little in the wrong, but it are mainly the employees fault.(yes, grammar are intentional)

 Overlord Zerrtin wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
When I was 11 I had to have a parent with me in the store and when I turned twelve my parents asked if I still had to, the Manager (The nice one) said no, we will look after him well enough. Since then I've been going in on my own. Although he didn't put it in writing, he inferred I was welcome there as long as I behaved without an adult. Its been like that for ages, now a knew guy comes in and kicks me out for not buying anything, even when I came into the store with the intention to buy an expensive piece of kit. I just don't see that as fair.

Yes, one guy chose to supervise you in order to make a sale, the other guy doesn't want that responsibility as supervising kids is a dangerous thing due to liabilities. Did the old manager have your parents phone info to contact them at work should there be an issue? The company can't make him legally supervise you, especially since he would be unskilled to do so.

You are a child. Life is not fair. You get 4 more harsh years of that until you turn 18, and then you can begin your quarter life crisis when you find out being an adult, life is still not fair as you will enter a job market which will leave you unemployed, under employed and saddled with college debt you will be paying until you are 50.

What are you doing not working at 14? When you turn 14 here, you get a job and work. Playtime and summer are over. Want to be treated like an adult, then go get a job.

Regardless, supervising minors is dangerous and no unqualified person should attempt it or be forced to do it in their line of work. This is both for the child's safety and the adult's protection.

If a customer of any age walked into a store looking to purchase a expensive item why would the employee not just ask if you like to order it if you have intent to buy when they get it in stock what's the guys problem your basically telling him as soon as it comes in here's my money why not let him play? and about the 14 and getting a job.. what? at 14 most people do NOT have a real job or way of getting to one unless working for a family friend as most places you have to be able to get there which needs a car that you cant drive by yourself until your 16 even then most other students I know don't have jobs because we're enjoying our sports and high school life.

Work permits, want ads, the bus, walking, school-sponsored work programs and internships which arrange for transportation from school to employment. In most states you can work 20 hours a week at 14, and many jobs can legally be done by children less than 13 as they do not count as "employment" like paperboys or working at a family business.

Do you know how much of the population is below the poverty line? Do you know how many kids *have* to work to help support their families and feed their siblings? Must be nice to live in high school musical. That is not a reality for a helluva lot of kids out there who either have to work or provide child care for working parents.

Also, a lot of schools have mandatory community service requirements to graduate even from middle school. So for kids less than 13, they are expected to do hundreds of hours of "work" as part of their schooling.

I scrubbed toilets, mowed lawns and picked up garbage at the state park. I got 4.25$ an hour to do the job drunk drivers were forced to do when sentenced for public service.

I guess children with income to burn on GW models I guess don't have to worry about working huh? I paid for my models through my minimum wage paycheck and painting models for money.

So anyone who didn't work at 14 is living in a high school musical. Good to know -_-

Also, this thread is amusing to someone who lives in a country without such asinine laws.

nkelsch, I really think you're displacing onto this kid... granted, I had a job when I was 14, but what do you mean "around here"? We're both in Maryland, and there are tons of kids with no job at 14! And having a job or not is pretty irrelevant to the thread at hand, so... yeah

Really, I have no idea where all that about "income to burn", how you made $4.25 an hour, and the whole lot has anything to do with the OP... I mean, I walked uphill both ways to school and all that too, but just saying

 RiTides wrote:
nkelsch, I really think you're displacing onto this kid... granted, I had a job when I was 14, but what do you mean "around here"? We're both in Maryland, and there are tons of kids with no job at 14! And having a job or not is pretty irrelevant to the thread at hand, so... yeah

Really, I have no idea where all that about "income to burn", how you made $4.25 an hour, and the whole lot has anything to do with the OP... I mean, I walked uphill both ways to school and all that too, but just saying

When people are making excuses that "unsupervised minors" not only have the right to loiter, but should be expected to because "what else should they be doing", it is relevant.

No matter how fun it is to hate GW, he should have never been in that store the way he was, unsupervised, for an extended period of time, based off a flimsy handshake agreement made with a stranger, 3 years ago when he was 11. And the attitude that he is entitled to be there and he "did nothing" and takes no responsibility for his situation is unreasonable.

He would be banned from a lot of retail stores in the exact same situation, and no one would lose a second sleep over it. It happens every day all over in regards to loitering teens.

I think the problem with Nkelsch's (and others) arguments is focusing on if the manager CAN kick him out instead of if he SHOULD kick him out.

No retail store should be kicking people out unless they are breaking the law/likely to break the law (and especially not in a time when sales are falling).

 jonolikespie wrote:
I think the problem with Nkelsch's (and others) arguments is focusing on if the manager CAN kick him out instead of if he SHOULD kick him out.

No retail store should be kicking people out unless they are breaking the law/likely to break the law (and especially not in a time when sales are falling).

By that logic, if someone is being obnoxious and rude to the other customers at a store then they cannot be asked to leave.

nkelsch wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
nkelsch, I really think you're displacing onto this kid... granted, I had a job when I was 14, but what do you mean "around here"? We're both in Maryland, and there are tons of kids with no job at 14! And having a job or not is pretty irrelevant to the thread at hand, so... yeah

Really, I have no idea where all that about "income to burn", how you made $4.25 an hour, and the whole lot has anything to do with the OP... I mean, I walked uphill both ways to school and all that too, but just saying

When people are making excuses that "unsupervised minors" not only have the right to loiter, but should be expected to because "what else should they be doing", it is relevant.

Except the store in question has no reason to exist otherwise. If you cant loiter in it, why the feth are you throwing away money buying there over online? Brick and Mortar need to justify their existence in the world of 30% off online and 75% off recasts. Customer loyalty is earned.

A small shop that is busy doesn't need a non-purchasing loiterer (not the same as browsing me thinks) who didn't have the where with all to remember the stuff he has been told he needs for a game.

The OPs attitude I very much one of 'I was here first' to justify his short comings, when in fact the new staffer is the responsible adult in charge and get to make the call. Any talk of it not being responsible to get the kid to leave is being somewhat obtuse. Going into a store does not make them responsible for you outside of the usual duty of care (which would include asking people to and their things to leave to allow safe ingress/egress btw).

The fact that the OP admits he got agitated enough for the staffer to threaten calling the police suggests to me that there was some delinquent behaviour beyond that which has been stated.

As to getting a job; I had two at 14. Paper round every morning and trapping at a clay shoot sat/suns. But then I had to as my old man wouldn't give me money to spend on soldiers. Kids today eh?

nkelsch should run his own store where he can kick out anyone under the age of 18 who's unsupervised and then he can hang out with the people who had jobs at 14 and they can compare their wages back then.

Since when did loitering teens become such a huge issue. Most LGS here don't mind teens loitering about even if they're not buying anything at the moment, in fact most of them are places for people to hang out with their friends and maybe play a game or two.

Well this thread has truly ended up somewhere bizarre.

I love how people say there must be more to this story, meaning the kid must have done something wrong. What about the staff member having a bad day, having a vindictive personality or a personal dislike toward the kid - it happens, sales people aren't automatons.

Personally, as someone who works in the industry the behaviour as outlined has to be the crudest, most negative sales method I have ever heard. The staff member should have quickly grabbed the kids money by offering to order the case for him - nothing else is good enough.

As for stopping the kids game as the two players had one rulebook between them , I can only think of one word to describe that - starts with 'w' and rhymes with spanker.

If the kid wasn't in the way whilst figuring out his army list - from his own book, then i cannot see the harm , some other customer might stop and check out his list and have a conversation. I work in a very niche store and to be honest I encourage customers to interact with each other, help them to get to know each other and try and create a community feel.

Who cares who has a job at 14?????? I did, so apparently that gives me the right to hand out crap to people and most likely use the word entitled a few times.

As for it being childish to put issues on a forum, look around you Kan and welcome to toyland.

Children at 14 must be accompanied? For the love of god, who at 14 was accompanied by an adult, moreover who even wanted to. At that age we should be encouraging kids to get more independence not have a safety chaperone. Abductions are a very small number of child abuse , most likely you should be more wary of the friendly uncle.

Kids ignore the wowsers and get out by yourselves , you might even learn how to interact with adults

Lastly the guy who posted thqat adults aren't rational, truer word have never been said...just look at this thread....

Quite frankly, when I was working for GW, I'd get irritated at kids hanging about not gaming or doing very much and I'd have asked you to leave too. I'm not your babysitter.

Getting kicked out for loitering? Fair enough.

Getting kicked out because you didn't bring your own rule book and were going to share with your opponent? That's nuts. It's not as if you were using a photocopy, you just didn't have space for the tome in your case.

I actually can't comprehend not being allowed to take part in a friendly game for not having my own rule book. My gaming buddy and & regularly share a rule book (cos I've got the mini one and he's only got the BRB it makes sense to just pack the mini one).

I used to be one of these kids many moons ago, on a sunday which was usually quite a busy gaming day there (gw in romford) we would go down there for quite a few hours and play usually spending that weeks pocket money (must have been 13 ish, maybe younger).

If I had been kicked out for loitering I would not being in this hobby today, and having spent quite a few pounds in the past year on it I may not make a difference but if everyone had been treated the same I bet that would have made a difference.

I bet if you ask them on their website or by email or phone I doubt GW HQ would back his stance, as other people have said speak to the manager, he will be in the best position to get both sides of the story and decide how he would like to proceed. I do think a apogly is the what will happen.

And remember the golden rule, the customer is always right. If you argue that they arent they you do not understand the saying.

I WAS gaming until he said I wasn't allowed because he singled me out for not having a Rule Book when I was sharing a friends AND explained why I didn't have mine (wouldn't fit in case). So if he was worried about me not gaming, then he simply wouldn't of asked me to stop playing. Oh, it was a quiet store, 2 painters and originally 3 gamers. I didn't have my rule book and a new kid (Only in hobby for like 6 weeks tops) also didn't have one, but he was painting in-between games. As for the 'self indulged teenage bollox' I think you would want to look at the UK's children's welfare act stating that any harm to a kid directly, indirectly or a possibility coursed by an establishment is against the law. So by the UK's law, if he really wanted to cover his ass from suing (Which I wouldn't do as its my only store) then by Law he would of HAD to hand me over the police otherwise he kicked me out knowing I had to wait 3 hours would really not look good... I Don't know your USA Laws very well, I don't know the UK's very well either, but I know more then I am expected to and more then enough to tell him what he was doing was against the Law. He said he 'didn't care'. How is that the right kind of attitude for a staff member who is tasked with creating a family friendly environment?

nkelsch wrote:


He would be banned from a lot of retail stores in the exact same situation, and no one would lose a second sleep over it. It happens every day all over in regards to loitering teens.

Tosh. He's not a loitering teen, he's a customer, who has fallen foul of an ill-briefed staff member.

Yes, parents should take responsibility for kids; my 12 year old plays with all the grown-ups at Dark Sphere - he's participating, takes responsibility for his own actions, it's a part of growing up that kids should act independently, altho of course the staff are aware that I'm nearby and can be contacted if there's a problem. A 14 year old is not an accident waiting to happen, s/he is an individual.

GW have a policy that you can leave 12 year olds in their store, it's for that reason that all their UK shop workers are CRB-checked. It's an intrinsic part of their business model. Of course, I would expect any store worker to ban any child/family is abusing this service, but that would plainly not seem the case witih the OP

 notprop wrote:
A small shop that is busy doesn't need a non-purchasing loiterer (not the same as browsing me thinks) who didn't have the where with all to remember the stuff he has been told he needs for a game.

He went in to make a specific purchase, but the store didn't have it in stock (because they seem to be loathe to actually stock anything these days). Just because he didn't want to buy something different, does he become a non-purchasing loiterer?

He also wasn't loitering, he was playing a game with another customer, and it sounded like he had already started. He didn't have all the stuff required for a game, no, because of his intended purchase, and he was happily sharing the missing stuff (a book) with his opponent. He wasn't using the stores copy, or a pirate copy, or making it up, he was sharing a gaming resource with his opponent. Is that unreasonable?

I can see the point for tournaments, but for friendly pick-up play if both players were happy, where's the issue?

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
I WAS gaming until he said I wasn't allowed because he singled me out for not having a Rule Book when I was sharing a friends AND explained why I didn't have mine (wouldn't fit in case). So if he was worried about me not gaming, then he simply wouldn't of asked me to stop playing. Oh, it was a quiet store, 2 painters and originally 3 gamers. I didn't have my rule book and a new kid (Only in hobby for like 6 weeks tops) also didn't have one, but he was painting in-between games. As for the 'self indulged teenage bollox' I think you would want to look at the UK's children's welfare act stating that any harm to a kid directly, indirectly or a possibility coursed by an establishment is against the law. So by the UK's law, if he really wanted to cover his ass from suing (Which I wouldn't do as its my only store) then by Law he would of HAD to hand me over the police otherwise he kicked me out knowing I had to wait 3 hours would really not look good... I Don't know your USA Laws very well, I don't know the UK's very well either, but I know more then I am expected to and more then enough to tell him what he was doing was against the Law. He said he 'didn't care'. How is that the right kind of attitude for a staff member who is tasked with creating a family friendly environment?

There is no Children's Welfare Act. There is a Children's Act and without looking at I can say that there will be nothing that will make a shopkeeper responsible for the care of children beyond the usual Workplace and Duty of care obligations.

Even if there was such a duty if you manage to get somewhere safely on your own its reasonable to assume that you can make your way home.

So if you are standing there saying you are sue/whatever then I agree with this black shirt. Who cares about the tantrums of children - "get out kid I'm working here" seems reasonable to me.

Can you state where this store was as well. Because often when these threads appear there will be someone else in the shop who gives a different side to the story.

As to Herzlos point - assuming he was in at 11AM and getting the bus home at 5.30PM, he was planning on making a 2 minute transaction and staying for 6+ hours. His game finished but he stayed. Nope no loitering there.

The customer is always right is one thing but accepting any old gak is another.

- It's a free country, innit?
- Well, it ain't a free shop now, is it? So fach off!

No, it isn't a free country - you can not do what you want on someone else's property.

I'm sure the same applies in Scandinavia too.

so i can hang around in a shop for four hours by selecting something that's out of stock and saying that's what i came in for? Awesome.

Also, where do you live that the busses only come every four hours?

Let’s try and get a bit of perspective on this.

For decades, GW has fostered a “club” approach in its shops to attract new players, providing demo games, modelling and painting sessions, and game sessions, particularly to younger players, to the extent that ‘veterans’ were long ago exiled to Thursday nights.

Given that history I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a keen and frequent young customer to go into the shop and do some typical HHHobby activities for the afternoon.

 notprop wrote:

As to Herzlos point - assuming he was in at 11AM and getting the bus home at 5.30PM, he was planning on making a 2 minute transaction and staying for 6+ hours. His game finished but he stayed. Nope no loitering there.

His game was finished because he was sharing a rule book (which is ridiculous). He was obviously planning on making a £60 ($100) purchase (at a huge markup) and spend the afternoon gaming, which I think is pretty reasonable, I'd probably have bought less for the same. But because of an overzealous staff member his plans were cut short, and he instead decided to do some hobby that wasn't gaming when he was in the store anyway. It's not as if he planned to come in, buy a pot of paint and annoy customers all day; he had a legitimate (and endorsed) reason to be there.

 notprop wrote:

There is no Children's Welfare Act. There is a Children's Act and without looking at I can say that there will be nothing that will make a shopkeeper responsible for the care of children beyond the usual Workplace and Duty of care obligations.

Aren't UK child protection laws governed by location as well, e.g. Scotland would have different child protection laws from England and Wales, and Ireland as well, and so on?

I think as an aside a lot of the posters from the USA need to stop applying US law\State law to the UK, it is often very different. Specifically job's, you CAN get work at under 16 in the UK but it is highly specific, usually work experience or introductions to stuff, but you cannot really be an employee legally until you are 16, where you are classed as an adult for certain things (joining armed forces, marriage, , driver licence etc).

However this is an aside to the main point. The main issue here is that the OP was in the shop with the intention of being in it for a while to 1. Buy something, which happened to be out of stock, and 2. play a game with stuff he owned and took with him.

This game was stopped because there wasn't a rule book to be used, this was purely at the discretion of the manager and in my view was poor form as as long as you know the basics and have codexes etc, you can play a game.

However it is a case of' His gaff, his rules' and unfortunately for the OP as the manager wasn't there to give the OK nod, then he was within his rights to ask you to leave, its rubbish, but there you are.

The issue I have is that for many years GW goes through this cycle of " Come on in, we have tables and hobby materials for all, joy to the gamers come and play" which turns to "Come in, but something, get out, play at home!". Its been ongoing for about 20 years now.

The other issue that is a big difference between the USA and UK is that the UK GW stores were often sold as places to game with regular game nights and later nights for veterans (over 16's), in recent years this has all stopped again as GW goes through the usual cycle of becoming a shop and nothing more.
The problem with this is in the UK local gaming shops are in small premises, with no room for gaming tables, houses in the UK are smaller so gaming space is very limited in a family home unless you have a floored loft (attic) etc.

So whenever GW stops letting people play games in their (UK) stores, people suddenly find they don't have anywhere to play, gaming clubs are hard to set up due to child protection checks, rent, available space on a regular basis etc.

Its a poor situation for the OP but I understand his frustration, I have known many GW staff from many stores and some are the best bunch of guys in the world, but now and then you can get some right sods with no people skills at all, and tbh shouldn't really be in a position where they deal with the public, but that's another argument.

I would talk to the manager, explain how it was a bit of a poor situation, and you weren't very happy with it, understand their view of the 'day care drop off' phenomena many parents use GW for, but in this instance you were using the facilities that GW do advertise on their website, much as they moan its a shop, not a gaming centre, they do have a foot in both camps, its just often discretionary. Also if I remember right, Chester is a long thin shop so not a lot of room to sit so you may have been seen as cluttering up the floor??

But best bet is have a chat with the manager, be friendly and just look to reach an understanding.

TLDR: Poor situation, but seek friendly resolution

fishy bob wrote:
- It's a free country, innit?
- Well, it ain't a free shop now, is it? So fach off!

 notprop wrote:
No, it isn't a free country - you can not do what you want on someone else's property.

I'm sure the same applies in Scandinavia too.

As has frequently been pointed out, that's baloney; GW is a commercial entity, and its business model relies on having kids getting turned on to gaming in its stores. So the OP isn't being unreasonable in expecting to hang out. This isn't a human right - but it's the reasonable expectation of a regular customer.

There was another thread here where the OP was thrown out for hanging around, while bringing in armies he'd bought from a discount outlet. THat ejection seemed eminently reasonable. This, in contrast, is eminently unreasonable, assuming the OP was behaving - and there's nothing in his post to suggest he wasn't.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
........... thread here where the OP was thrown out for hanging around, while bringing in armies he'd bought from a discount outlet. THat ejection seemed eminently reasonable. This, in contrast, is eminently unreasonable, assuming the OP was behaving - and there's nothing in his post to suggest he wasn't.

OP wrote:....He then told me to leave and I got, understandably, agitated. He even threated to call the police......

The Staffer asked him to leave, the story should have stopped there.

From that if the OP was an adult I would infer that he was a clown, as he's a kid i'll reiterate that he seems to assume that he has the right to do as he pleases or threatens to sue shop staff (Oh noes!).

 Ouze wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
GW stores are NOT a hobby center, hobby store or anything. It's a completely normal retail store like any electronics market, CD store or something.

Someone should let these misinformed fools know that. They're doing it totally wrong, looks like, according to you.

I'm looking at what the stores *are* not what GW might want to sell their investors what they are.

This is weird. My new GW manager is doing everything in her power to lure us in.

Painting, gaming, you name it. Heck I even think she's flirting at some points just to get us to stick around.

I may not agree with GW's practices, but not all their employees are automatically jerks. The guy we had before the girl was nice too, I just didn't talk to him much because I shop local instead of the GW store.

Is it possible that the presence of a girl is scaring GW customers away?

xruslanx wrote:
so i can hang around in a shop for four hours by selecting something that's out of stock and saying that's what i came in for? Awesome.

Also, where do you live that the busses only come every four hours?

I work in niche retail and regularly have customers talk to me for 1-3 hours , it is part of the job. Niche hobbies have a limited range of people customers can talk to about it so I get to be their sounding board, story listener and general social contact. If you are going to be in a niche you should be prepared for people hanging about, it's a definite sign they love and are interested in the hobby.

GW isn't a retail shop like a music store or whatever , they sell weird things that most people aren't interested in hearing about , therefore your devotees are going to hang around so they can find others with similar interests. Seriously have you tried talking orcs or horus heresy to 'normal' peaople?

 notprop wrote:
No, it isn't a free country - you can not do what you want on someone else's property.

I'm sure the same applies in Scandinavia too.

It sure does. I was Doug the Head in that dialogue.

You guys act like because they have services used by Kids, that those Kids must by default be unattached from their adult supervision. You know, it is possible, they provide a facility and services for kids... but for kids who are supervised by an adult.

Being "for kids" is not the same as "being for unsupervised kids with no parents". The services are based upon the discretion of the person working and the situation of the store.

With the OP claiming somehow the store owner was "breaking the law" by sending him into the street with nowhere else to go continues to lead me to believe a mouthy whiney teen response was given as he continues to make excuses and attempt to establish some sort of 'right to be here' which doesn't exist. That attitude is enough to get the kid out of the store.

Not only do unsupervised kids put the store at risk, you put the other customers at risk. You would be surprised how many times 'staff' act is in direct response to the complaints of a customer in the store. In many of these threads int he past, we find out later when the 'other side' of the story shows up on the forums, that the person was being a pain, and customers asked for him to be removed.

The continued 'excuses' made paints the vision of a red-faced angry teen making a scene,e specially if he was regurgitating excuses like "you can't throw me out, you are breaking the law because I have nowhere else to go, i could be abducted and it is your fault!" which is a pretty hostile thing to accuse.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
GW stores are NOT a hobby center, hobby store or anything. It's a completely normal retail store like any electronics market, CD store or something.

Someone should let these misinformed fools know that. They're doing it totally wrong, looks like, according to you.

I'm looking at what the stores *are* not what GW might want to sell their investors what they are.

There have been four GW stores that I've regularly gone to, and all but one of them regularly had people in it painting, gaming, and talking hobby. The fourth one did seem to mostly be a retail outlet, but I also tended to visit that one at hours when most people are working (I'm not expecting much of a crowd at 2pm on a Tuesday.) The same is true of most of the independent game stores I've gone to. Maybe it's just the cultural difference, but in the US the social aspect of a game store is certainly important.

So because of that I find it difficult to view what this guy did as loitering. I've frequently made an entire afternoon or even day's event of hanging out at the game store. Get in a game, head out for some food, come back to hang out and eat, then paint some. Or get another game in. Or just BS about the latest crazy nonsense from GW. Usually I'll buy something, but not always... I figure it more or less balances out in the end. It's not loitering in a retail establishment; it's why I'm actually willing to spend 25-40% more for a product that I could buy online with a lot less hassle. If a game store was just a retail establishment? Pfft. Why bother?

Most of these replies make me sad. People should be encouraging as much gaming as possible instead of "you are loitering!" or "you were not going to buy anything!". Requiring everyone to have their own rulebook? Preposterous.

A young, poor gamer can eventually become a older, wealthy gamer. Unless he is treated like gak.

And as a new day dawned on the United Kingdom, the Dakka-ites all sat rapt at their interweb vid-screens, waiting for a next-day update on the tale. Did the young gamer's mum ring GW and give the manager a piece of her mind? Did the gamer himself talk to his friendly-neighbourhood manager?

More to the point - who cares?

Seven pages worth of people, including your good self.

Apparently.

 notprop wrote:
More to the point - who cares?

nkelsch wrote:
You guys act like because they have services used by Kids, that those Kids must by default be unattached from their adult supervision. You know, it is possible, they provide a facility and services for kids... but for kids who are supervised by an adult.

Being "for kids" is not the same as "being for unsupervised kids with no parents". The services are based upon the discretion of the person working and the situation of the store.

With the OP claiming somehow the store owner was "breaking the law" by sending him into the street with nowhere else to g...

Again, this is completely untrue.

GW stores across the UK have a policy that kids over the age of 12 can stay in their stores unsupervised. On their staff ads they state "Games Workshop welcomes young people into our Hobby Centres"... and require CRB checks. This is at the heart of their policy - indeed, of the 7 or 8 stores I've visited over the last few months, every single one encourages kids to stay without their parents, to help them enjoy the hobby independently.

Perhaps the OP got upset when he was ejected from the store - that's hardly unreasonable. An adult working in the store should know how to work with kids - and if, say, the store is overcrowded, to manage the situation. This one obviously didn't.

That's quite fascinating that GW UK has such a policy. It's actually commendable. I've heard so many things about the GW stores in the UK that make them sound so much better than the ones here. The closest one to me has no in store gaming allowed except if you participate in their small group game events (like a 250-500 pt bring and battle free for all).

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

GW stores across the UK have a policy that kids over the age of 12 can stay in their stores unsupervised. On their staff ads they state "Games Workshop welcomes young people into our Hobby Centres"... and require CRB checks.

Is that policy posted anywhere on the web? I'm just curious as to how it is actually worded. Sounds like a dangerous policy for the stores. How are they supposed to handle it if an unsupervised 12 year old acts up or something?

 CptJake wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

GW stores across the UK have a policy that kids over the age of 12 can stay in their stores unsupervised. On their staff ads they state "Games Workshop welcomes young people into our Hobby Centres"... and require CRB checks.

Is that policy posted anywhere on the web? I'm just curious as to how it is actually worded. Sounds like a dangerous policy for the stores. How are they supposed to handle it if an unsupervised 12 year old acts up or something?

Seeing as they have (or used to have) the words "COME IN AND PLAY" plastered across their windows, I'd say it sounds like policy to me.

It would depend on the store as to how to handle it. My local is technically part of the Waterside shopping mall (even though it's on the outside) so has mall security should such an event arise.

There may or may not be a company policy on it but that quote is lifted from;

www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=10900004

That's a Careers page and not their policies.

It's what I've been told by staff - check out their job ads, where they state working with children, unsupervised, is an integral part of the job, hence the CRB checks.

For example:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=10900004

Course I'm as cynical as the next person, but I'd say overall, GW staff are great with kids. THere are a few of them love stomping all over naive kids in test games and claiming it's all educational - but I took the nipper to the Warhammer Wolrd Young Bloods and was really, really impressed.

Edit: Note I say that kids can stay unsupervised, not have an automatic right. It's normally very activity-based, so to be fair, I doubt any store would be happy with kids just hanging around, as opposed to having an organised gaming/painting session. Anyway, my nipper was left in Truro from 3 till 7 or 8 so he could practise for an upcoming tourney. This was only after two getting-to-know-you visits. So I wouldn't want to give the impression that GW have a free babysitting policy.

I just see trouble with accepting responsibility for unsupervised 12 year olds. I would assume that forces them to have a minimum number of staff per X unsupervised minor, and if a minor got hurt or something would open up liability issues well beyond what most retail stores must accept, which in turn would cause higher insurance premiums and possible first aid certifications and so on.

Picture staff accepting responsibility for a 12 year old, and kid proceeds to slice a finger while cutting a space marine from a sprue, needing medical attention. How do they contact the parents? Do they force parents to sign waivers/permission slips and so on? Basically you are saying these shops are day care providers as well as retail shops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Seeing as they have (or used to have) the words "COME IN AND PLAY" plastered across their windows, I'd say it sounds like policy to me.

Seriously? That in no way implies 'Drop off your kids and we'll supervise them for you'.

See above note. No waivers or permission slips.

 Forar wrote:
High pressure sales tactics are something I frown upon.

However, assuming UK laws are anything like Canadian ones, people do not have a 'right' to stand inside a private space, like a store. The store's employees are empowered to ask someone to leave for any reason that isn't a protected classification (for example, telling someone to leave because of their skin colour would likely be... unwise), but the store isn't responsible for the particulars of everyone's day.

He may have been a jerk, but no, it's not their responsibility to provide you a place to hang out for 4 or 5 hours either.

Now, this takes assumptions with local and federal law in another country, please feel free to point out if the UK does have some such legislation in place, and I'll cheerfully redact my commentary.

The problem is your commentary completely and utterly misses the point.

The story moves along, but not necessarily in a good way. I asked on the Facebook page if the manager to post which staff are on which days. He replied (The manager) and said he is usually on all week, except he is on holiday until Thursday. The Good part if that I'm assuming that this New Guy might not be a New Guy after all, but just some replacement flunky they brought in to cover for him, at least I can hope. But the Bad part is that since he wont be back until Thursday that means I wont be able to go into the store until them without it being unwelcome (Not that I particularly want to go back there to him) and that's a real bummer for me considering that its the summer holiday and I would of liked to go into the store twice a week. The manager said right him a letter for when he comes back and he will look into it for me. I have a good feeling about how it will turn out, hopefully with a sincere apology and I can get back to enjoying my hobby. To the Whiney Teenage BullSh*t people, I can only say I must of gave a terrible impression of myself through my posts which only the most astute of you have picked up on or you just have a bad idea of teenagers all together.

On the Child Welfare Act, don't quote me on that. I was told that by a fellow sympathetic Dakka-ite, so I'm not exactly sure of how Legit the info is.

nkelsch wrote:
You are an unsupervised minor who planned to spend 4-6 hours in a store. He is not your guardian and not responsible for supervising you. If you are abducted, it is your parents fault, not the store owner. He doesn't want to be liable for your mere existence

Logic fail. He's not responsible as you said so how could the store employee ever be liable? I hope to Zeus almighty you have nothing to do with the law because even a sporadic watcher of Judge Judy wouldn't make the mistake you did.

Super Newb wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
You are an unsupervised minor who planned to spend 4-6 hours in a store. He is not your guardian and not responsible for supervising you. If you are abducted, it is your parents fault, not the store owner. He doesn't want to be liable for your mere existence

Logic fail. He's not responsible as you said so how could the store employee ever be liable? I hope to Zeus almighty you have nothing to do with the law because even a sporadic watcher of Judge Judy wouldn't make the mistake you did.

The liability of the store for injuries on the property is not the same as the responsibility of an employee to supervise children.

Good luck, Alex.

I would go light on the legal stuff - ihanging out in the store is a privilege rather than a right. But I hope you get a few good games in over what remains of the hols.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
It's what I've been told by staff - check out their job ads, where they state working with children, unsupervised, is an integral part of the job, hence the CRB checks.

For example:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=10900004

Course I'm as cynical as the next person, but I'd say overall, GW staff are great with kids. THere are a few of them love stomping all over naive kids in test games and claiming it's all educational - but I took the nipper to the Warhammer Wolrd Young Bloods and was really, really impressed.

"Working unsupervised with children" and "working with Unsupervised children" are not the same thing. A Librarian who reads books to kids at the library is 'working unsupervised with children' but not working with 'unsupervised children' because their parents are there. It just means your interactions with the children does not have another staffperson or direct supervisor to watch your interactions and you are 'at risk' of not having backup if you get into an issue. Many companies have policies that no Adult is ever alone with kids for legal protection, especially in schools. There are many employees in public schools who can never be 'Working unsupervised with children', Only professional staff are legally allowed to 'supervise children' so that comp assistant or media technician may work with the children, but never alone and he must always be supervised by another qualified and legal person.

It doesn't absolve parents from their legal responsibilities and doesn't take ownership or responsibility with the children, just their interactions with them.

I would love to see the policy where and how they take custody of these children. Nothing I have seen on their website say they allow unattended minors or even encourage it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Super Newb wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
You are an unsupervised minor who planned to spend 4-6 hours in a store. He is not your guardian and not responsible for supervising you. If you are abducted, it is your parents fault, not the store owner. He doesn't want to be liable for your mere existence

Logic fail. He's not responsible as you said so how could the store employee ever be liable? I hope to Zeus almighty you have nothing to do with the law because even a sporadic watcher of Judge Judy wouldn't make the mistake you did.

Did you miss the part where he told the store person he had no where to go for 4 hours and that he felt legally kicking him out was causing him to be put into harms way and breaking the law?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
You are an unsupervised minor who planned to spend 4-6 hours in a store. He is not your guardian and not responsible for supervising you. If you are abducted, it is your parents fault, not the store owner. He doesn't want to be liable for your mere existence

Logic fail. He's not responsible as you said so how could the store employee ever be liable? I hope to Zeus almighty you have nothing to do with the law because even a sporadic watcher of Judge Judy wouldn't make the mistake you did.

The liability of the store for injuries on the property is not the same as the responsibility of an employee to supervise children.

Try English next time? The kid is there, playing a game, hanging out, like kids and adults tend to do at a store. The employee is not 'supervising' anyone. So please explain how the heck the employee could be REASONABLY AND CORRECTLY worried about liability?

The duty of care/unsupervised minors thing is an interesting question. I guess the legalities of it would be slightly different in different territories. I know that before my local GW moved from the mall they were in with multiple staff, etc - to a one-man store further away - they used to have kids dumped in there for hours at a time while the parents went off to do whatever. I certainly avoided the place more than usual during school holidays or late-night shopping periods.

Get in, buy WD/paint, get out! Or better yet, ask the wife to do it! ;D

nkelsch wrote:
Did you miss the part where he told the store person he had no where to go for 4 hours and that he felt legally kicking him out was causing him to be put into harms way and breaking the law?

No, that's irrelevant. ESPECIALLY because that's AFTER he was told to leave. Please explain, precisely, with evidence, why an informed, reasonable employee would worry about liability for a kid hanging out in the store?

nkelsch wrote:
You guys act like because they have services used by Kids, that those Kids must by default be unattached from their adult supervision. You know, it is possible, they provide a facility and services for kids... but for kids who are supervised by an adult.

Being "for kids" is not the same as "being for unsupervised kids with no parents". The services are based upon the discretion of the person working and the situation of the store.

With the OP claiming somehow the store owner was "breaking the law" by sending him into the street with nowhere else to go continues to lead me to believe a mouthy whiney teen response was given as he continues to make excuses and attempt to establish some sort of 'right to be here' which doesn't exist. That attitude is enough to get the kid out of the store.

Not only do unsupervised kids put the store at risk, you put the other customers at risk. You would be surprised how many times 'staff' act is in direct response to the complaints of a customer in the store. In many of these threads int he past, we find out later when the 'other side' of the story shows up on the forums, that the person was being a pain, and customers asked for him to be removed.

The continued 'excuses' made paints the vision of a red-faced angry teen making a scene,e specially if he was regurgitating excuses like "you can't throw me out, you are breaking the law because I have nowhere else to go, i could be abducted and it is your fault!" which is a pretty hostile thing to accuse.

how many times are you going to regurgitate the same thing??

Also if you read his replies you would have seen more then once he was not the only unattended youth that was in the shop.

 warriorpriest wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
You guys act like because they have services used by Kids, that those Kids must by default be unattached from their adult supervision. You know, it is possible, they provide a facility and services for kids... but for kids who are supervised by an adult.

Being "for kids" is not the same as "being for unsupervised kids with no parents". The services are based upon the discretion of the person working and the situation of the store.

With the OP claiming somehow the store owner was "breaking the law" by sending him into the street with nowhere else to go continues to lead me to believe a mouthy whiney teen response was given as he continues to make excuses and attempt to establish some sort of 'right to be here' which doesn't exist. That attitude is enough to get the kid out of the store.

Not only do unsupervised kids put the store at risk, you put the other customers at risk. You would be surprised how many times 'staff' act is in direct response to the complaints of a customer in the store. In many of these threads int he past, we find out later when the 'other side' of the story shows up on the forums, that the person was being a pain, and customers asked for him to be removed.

The continued 'excuses' made paints the vision of a red-faced angry teen making a scene,e specially if he was regurgitating excuses like "you can't throw me out, you are breaking the law because I have nowhere else to go, i could be abducted and it is your fault!" which is a pretty hostile thing to accuse.

how many times are you going to regurgitate the same thing??
.

As I said at the beginning of this thread, he has a pullstring on his back. Pull it and hear the same phrase come out over and over again!

 warriorpriest wrote:
how many times are you going to regurgitate the same thing??

Also if you read his replies you would have seen more then once he was not the only unattended youth that was in the shop.

Yeah it's facepalm-worthy bad right now.

Super Newb wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Did you miss the part where he told the store person he had no where to go for 4 hours and that he felt legally kicking him out was causing him to be put into harms way and breaking the law?

No, that's irrelevant. ESPECIALLY because that's AFTER he was told to leave. Please explain, precisely, with evidence, why an informed, reasonable employee would worry about liability for a kid hanging out in the store?

Why should he provide evidence?
You clearly have this whole thing buttoned up and figured out, so where is your whiteboard and flowchart?

warriorpriest wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
You guys act like because they have services used by Kids, that those Kids must by default be unattached from their adult supervision. You know, it is possible, they provide a facility and services for kids... but for kids who are supervised by an adult.

Being "for kids" is not the same as "being for unsupervised kids with no parents". The services are based upon the discretion of the person working and the situation of the store.

With the OP claiming somehow the store owner was "breaking the law" by sending him into the street with nowhere else to go continues to lead me to believe a mouthy whiney teen response was given as he continues to make excuses and attempt to establish some sort of 'right to be here' which doesn't exist. That attitude is enough to get the kid out of the store.

Not only do unsupervised kids put the store at risk, you put the other customers at risk. You would be surprised how many times 'staff' act is in direct response to the complaints of a customer in the store. In many of these threads int he past, we find out later when the 'other side' of the story shows up on the forums, that the person was being a pain, and customers asked for him to be removed.

The continued 'excuses' made paints the vision of a red-faced angry teen making a scene,e specially if he was regurgitating excuses like "you can't throw me out, you are breaking the law because I have nowhere else to go, i could be abducted and it is your fault!" which is a pretty hostile thing to accuse.

how many times are you going to regurgitate the same thing??

Also if you read his replies you would have seen more then once he was not the only unattended youth that was in the shop.

Please point out exactly where he says that he was "not the only unattended youth" in the shop. All I have seen is mention that other kids were there, not that they were unattended.

This sounds like a huge pile to me, Alex....if games workshop losers like that work in a store, I bet even management wouldn't even help...."yea I'll talk to him" and that'll be that...time to find a new hang out, maybe a new game to play? if you can't participate in the hobby without participating in the hobby...then it's not really alot of fun, and a waste of money

 Kanluwen wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Did you miss the part where he told the store person he had no where to go for 4 hours and that he felt legally kicking him out was causing him to be put into harms way and breaking the law?

No, that's irrelevant. ESPECIALLY because that's AFTER he was told to leave. Please explain, precisely, with evidence, why an informed, reasonable employee would worry about liability for a kid hanging out in the store?

Why should he provide evidence?
You clearly have this whole thing buttoned up and figured out, so where is your whiteboard and flowchart?

*sigh* When one makes a claim, and a contradictory one at that, one needs to elaborate and explain. Provide evidence for that claim. nkelsch claimed the employee wasn't liable, then claimed he was in the next sentence. In short, he made a nonsensical statement. If he actually truly thinks the employee would be liable he needs to show why, with evidence. Otherwise he is just making an assertion that can be dismissed.

 Grimtuff wrote:

As I said at the beginning of this thread, he has a pullstring on his back. Pull it and hear the same phrase come out over and over again!

The very same can be said for the usual suspects who come into these threads and insist that these situations always go down exactly as the OP states, and that anyone who defends the store for removing people is "regurgitating" a party line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Super Newb wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Did you miss the part where he told the store person he had no where to go for 4 hours and that he felt legally kicking him out was causing him to be put into harms way and breaking the law?

No, that's irrelevant. ESPECIALLY because that's AFTER he was told to leave. Please explain, precisely, with evidence, why an informed, reasonable employee would worry about liability for a kid hanging out in the store?

Why should he provide evidence?
You clearly have this whole thing buttoned up and figured out, so where is your whiteboard and flowchart?

*sigh* When one makes a claim, and a contradictory one at that, one needs to elaborate and explain. Provide evidence for that claim. nkelsch claimed the employee wasn't liable, then claimed he was in the next sentence. In short, he made a nonsensical statement. If he actually truly thinks the employee would be liable he needs to show why, with evidence. Otherwise he is just making an assertion that can be dismissed.

Being responsible for supervising a minor is not the same as being held liable if something happens to said minor.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Please point out exactly where he says that he was "not the only unattended youth" in the shop.

I wonder though, why does it matter? From what we know the kid was kicked out after he wouldn't buy anything after high pressure sales tactics and then later did not have his rulebook with him. What does that have to do with whether the kid was attended to or not? And again, if the employee was secretly worried about liability for an unattended kid (making his other verbal complaints some kind of smokescreen?) was it REASONABLE for him to be worried? I see NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER provided here to support that hypothetical secret worry some people are claiming the employee had.

Super Newb wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Did you miss the part where he told the store person he had no where to go for 4 hours and that he felt legally kicking him out was causing him to be put into harms way and breaking the law?

No, that's irrelevant. ESPECIALLY because that's AFTER he was told to leave. Please explain, precisely, with evidence, why an informed, reasonable employee would worry about liability for a kid hanging out in the store?

Why should he provide evidence?
You clearly have this whole thing buttoned up and figured out, so where is your whiteboard and flowchart?

*sigh* When one makes a claim, and a contradictory one at that, one needs to elaborate and explain. Provide evidence for that claim. nkelsch claimed the employee wasn't liable, then claimed he was in the next sentence. In short, he made a nonsensical statement. If he actually truly thinks the employee would be liable he needs to show why, with evidence. Otherwise he is just making an assertion that can be dismissed.

No, the OP claimed he was liable if anything happened to him after being forced out as an excuse why he couldn't be asked to leave the store and saying the store was breaking the law by asking him to leave.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Being responsible for supervising a minor is not the same as being held liable if something happens to said minor.

And? Surely you can elaborate and write a coherent paragraph on how your above sentence relates to the OP

fishy bob wrote:- It's a free country, innit?
- Well, it ain't a free shop now, is it? So fach off!

notprop wrote:No, it isn't a free country - you can not do what you want on someone else's property.

I'm sure the same applies in Scandinavia too.

Bonus points for missing a Snatch reference (that quote is exactly what I thought of when I read this thread haha!) and thinking he was being serious

I am of the opinion that the Staffer was in the right. He didnt go about it the right way, and it sucks you were treated rudely, but he was right. If he lets you hang around he is assuming legal responsibility for you. GW stores are hobby centres in a way, but that doesnt mean you can go in and hang around all day im afraid. You shouldnt plan to use it in that way. Do any of your friends play 40k? Ask them for a game at theirs during the day next time.

I dont think it was fair he cut your game short for sharing a rulebook though. But if after your game you had tried to stay for another few hours he was within his rights to ask/tell you to leave.

Take some paints and do some painting next time. then at least you are advertising the store and its purpose. Then theyd probably be ok with you staying for a couple of hours. But not 6 mate.

At my (ex) local GW in Oxford St, they had the following policy: If you are sitting down on one of the chairs, you must be doing something hobby related. This includes gaming, painting, modelling or list writing.

The OP clearly states that he was writing a list from his codex. Therefore he wasn't loitering at all, he was doing something hobby related, basically looking after himself. And he only did that because the same staffer didn't let him play a game in the first place because he didn't have a rulebook! It's really ridiculous.

OP, I think if you haven't already, you should definitely tell the whole story to the manager. Even if that guy is only part time or whatever, you should be able to go in there without feeling uncomfortable and maybe in the future the manager will be able to say "no, we don't want that guy, his customer service sucks".

I did state there where other unattended children there indirectly by saying there where 3 kids and 2 veteran adults in the store (You could assume they where parents, they weren't, and its a lot of assuming based on nothing) but in case I wasn't clear, how about this. There where other unsupervised minors the store. He picked me out not because I was a minor, but because I didn't have my main rule book so he wouldn't let me play and then kicked me out because I wouldn't buy paints and a paint brush to do something 'Hobby related' (I would argue that army building fits into the collecting part of the policy that says we encourage people to play, paint and collect our miniatures) and was 'Wasting space' when there where only 5 others in the store (Its a big store. 2 starter tables, 2 3x2 boards). Hope that clears things up.

Edit, Another thing people seem to be miss reading. When I said Does he understand abduction, that wasn't me saying he was liable. Why I wrote that was I found his lack of concern worth noting because its meant to be a friendly enviroment. It was only today when someone on dakka told me that the store MIGHT of been responsible for not handing me over to the police, which they should of done rather then kicking me out by UK law.

In the UK it is Law to have a CRB (Criminal Records Check) if you are working with children i.e. make sure they don't have any form for noncing. This will form part of GWs child protection policy.

There is a separate List 99 check to ensure you are not on any sexual offences registers but I believe this is being phased out.

I know this as everyone had to have these at my last company - we refurbished live schools.

None of this makes the store owner/staff responsible for any children in their store.

nkelsch wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Did you miss the part where he told the store person he had no where to go for 4 hours and that he felt legally kicking him out was causing him to be put into harms way and breaking the law?

No, that's irrelevant. ESPECIALLY because that's AFTER he was told to leave. Please explain, precisely, with evidence, why an informed, reasonable employee would worry about liability for a kid hanging out in the store?

Why should he provide evidence?
You clearly have this whole thing buttoned up and figured out, so where is your whiteboard and flowchart?

*sigh* When one makes a claim, and a contradictory one at that, one needs to elaborate and explain. Provide evidence for that claim. nkelsch claimed the employee wasn't liable, then claimed he was in the next sentence. In short, he made a nonsensical statement. If he actually truly thinks the employee would be liable he needs to show why, with evidence. Otherwise he is just making an assertion that can be dismissed.

No, the OP claimed he was liable if anything happened to him after being forced out as an excuse why he couldn't be asked to leave the store and saying the store was breaking the law by asking him to leave.

No. No? Do you need me to go back and quote your back-to-back contradictory sentences about liability? Because *that* is what I am talking about. Not the irrelevant nonsense you just typed out. Please explain how those two sentences can logically co-exist:

He is not your guardian and not responsible for supervising you. If you are abducted, it is your parents fault, not the store owner. He doesn't want to be liable for your mere existence

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
I did state there where other unattended children there indirectly by saying there where 3 kids and 2 veteran adults in the store (You could assume they where parents, they weren't, and its a lot of assuming based on nothing) but in case I wasn't clear, how about this. There where other unsupervised minors the store. He picked me out not because I was a minor, but because I didn't have my main rule book so he wouldn't let me play and then kicked me out because I wouldn't buy paints and a paint brush to do something 'Hobby related' (I would argue that army building fits into the collecting part of the policy that says we encourage people to play, paint and collect our miniatures) and was 'Wasting space' when there where only 5 others in the store (Its a big store. 2 starter tables, 2 3x2 boards). Hope that clears things up.

And here comes the inevitable yardstick change.

So first he picked you out because you were not buying anything there, now he picked you out because you did not have your main rulebook and you would not buy paints?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
I did state there where other unattended children there indirectly by saying there where 3 kids and 2 veteran adults in the store (You could assume they where parents, they weren't, and its a lot of assuming based on nothing) but in case I wasn't clear, how about this. There where other unsupervised minors the store. He picked me out not because I was a minor, but because I didn't have my main rule book so he wouldn't let me play and then kicked me out because I wouldn't buy paints and a paint brush to do something 'Hobby related' (I would argue that army building fits into the collecting part of the policy that says we encourage people to play, paint and collect our miniatures) and was 'Wasting space' when there where only 5 others in the store (Its a big store. 2 starter tables, 2 3x2 boards). Hope that clears things up.

And here comes the inevitable yardstick change.

So first he picked you out because you were not buying anything there, now he picked you out because you did not have your main rulebook and you would not buy paints?

*facepalm* RE-READ THE OP THEN APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE FOR YOUR LACK OF READING COMPREHENSION ABILITIES

Apologise for the CAPs first.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
I did state there where other unattended children there indirectly by saying there where 3 kids and 2 veteran adults in the store (You could assume they where parents, they weren't, and its a lot of assuming based on nothing) but in case I wasn't clear, how about this. There where other unsupervised minors the store. He picked me out not because I was a minor, but because I didn't have my main rule book so he wouldn't let me play and then kicked me out because I wouldn't buy paints and a paint brush to do something 'Hobby related' (I would argue that army building fits into the collecting part of the policy that says we encourage people to play, paint and collect our miniatures) and was 'Wasting space' when there where only 5 others in the store (Its a big store. 2 starter tables, 2 3x2 boards). Hope that clears things up.

But those kids may have been there for Demo games, booked a table/paint station, or have been left by a parent who told the staffer when they would return.

I do agree that part of the reason he kicked you out is that you werent buying anything, and thats a harsh thing to do, but it is a shop and he is within his rights to do it. There are other people who would loiter in the shop all day just for somewhere to hang out. The staffer cant make exceptions for each of the good ones, the loyal customers like you, so they all have to be told where to go.

It is their store policy that you need to have all the relevant lit to play, but when two players are sharing a rulebook I think that should be fine, as you had a codex and models.

List building may be hobby related, but it doesnt really advertise the store in any way, which is what they want. If you had asked to use a paint station, he may have been ok with that.

 notprop wrote:
Apologise for the CAPs first.

I thought it was a good way to help him see, because he seems to have trouble with it.

Super Newb wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Did you miss the part where he told the store person he had no where to go for 4 hours and that he felt legally kicking him out was causing him to be put into harms way and breaking the law?

No, that's irrelevant. ESPECIALLY because that's AFTER he was told to leave. Please explain, precisely, with evidence, why an informed, reasonable employee would worry about liability for a kid hanging out in the store?

Why should he provide evidence?
You clearly have this whole thing buttoned up and figured out, so where is your whiteboard and flowchart?

*sigh* When one makes a claim, and a contradictory one at that, one needs to elaborate and explain. Provide evidence for that claim. nkelsch claimed the employee wasn't liable, then claimed he was in the next sentence. In short, he made a nonsensical statement. If he actually truly thinks the employee would be liable he needs to show why, with evidence. Otherwise he is just making an assertion that can be dismissed.

No, the OP claimed he was liable if anything happened to him after being forced out as an excuse why he couldn't be asked to leave the store and saying the store was breaking the law by asking him to leave.

No. No? Do you need me to go back and quote your back-to-back contradictory sentences about liability? Because *that* is what I am talking about. Not the irrelevant nonsense you just typed out. Please explain how those two sentences can logically co-exist:

He is not your guardian and not responsible for supervising you. If you are abducted, it is your parents fault, not the store owner. He doesn't want to be liable for your mere existence

The employee is not liable for what happens when the kid has left the store. The Op accused the employee for being liable for anything that happens to him when he leaves the store, hence he was breaking the law by asking him to leave. The OP was wrong in such a statement, and it is inflammatory which means the store needs this person to leave even faster.

The liability of the store while the kid is in the store is still in question for the courts to decide, but if something happened (like an armed robber came in and shot a customer) there would be a good chance that 'someone' would try to claim the employee or the store was liable. So getting a unsupervised minor who he has deemed 'a problem' out is the best thing he could do to protect himself.

I don't understand what you are confused about or what is contradictory.

Super Newb wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Apologise for the CAPs first.

I thought it was a good way to help him see, because he seems to have trouble with it.

You were wrong, don't do it again.

 HerbaciousT wrote:
I do agree that part of the reason he kicked you out is that you werent buying anything, and thats a harsh thing to do, but it is a shop and he is within his rights to do it.

I hope by now everyone can agree that yes, it is within the employee's rights to kick people out. On the other hand, it is a jerk move in this case based on everything the OP has said.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And here comes the inevitable yardstick change.

So first he picked you out because you were not buying anything there, now he picked you out because you did not have your main rulebook and you would not buy paints?

This is literally in the first post of the thread - first sentence, second paragraph. There is no "yardstick change".

Sigh, I would wonder if people not reading my posts is because they read the first one and are disregarding me because I am full of 'Whiney Teenage Bollox', but that theory involves people reading my posts in the first place... Thanks guys for the support. Although it does bring up the debate of if teenagers should be allowed in the store unsupervised, even when the (Admittedly scant) advertising is clearly targeted at people my age.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And here comes the inevitable yardstick change.

So first he picked you out because you were not buying anything there, now he picked you out because you did not have your main rulebook and you would not buy paints?

This is literally in the first post of the thread - first sentence, second paragraph. There is no "yardstick change".

And upon being asked to leave, he began making excuses about having nowhere else to go and questioning the legality of being asked to leave, which became a huge red-flag.

nkelsch wrote:
The employee is not liable for what happens when the kid has left the store. The Op accused the employe for being liable for anything that happens to him when he leaves the store, hence he was breaking the law by asking him to leave.

The liability of the store while the kid is in the store is still in question for the courts to decide, but if something happened (like an armed robber came in and shot a customer) there would be a good chance that 'someone' would try to claim the employee or the store was liable. So getting a unsupervised minor who he has deemed 'a problem' out is the best thing he could do to protect himself.

I don't understand what you are confused about or what is contradictory.

Are you serious? You wrote: "If you are abducted, it is your parents fault, not the store owner. He doesn't want to be liable for your mere existence"

Are you claiming the owner/employee is less intelligent than you are? That you know he wouldn't be liable, but he may worry he would be? Please explain "he doesn't want to be liable for your mere existence"

would be a good chance that 'someone' would try to claim the employee or the store was liable

Oh, that's your measure, whether or not someone would try? I could sue Donald Trump for emotional distress on the account of his hair piece, but that of course would get thrown out after one motion. So please, spare me the 'someone may try it' routine.

Interesting anecdote: I once threw a guy out of a bar I was working in because he had blue shoes on.

You can use virtually any reason.






(Okay he was actually an arse who had started fights before but the blue shoes bit made it funny for me and perplexing for him)

nkelsch wrote:
And upon being asked to leave, he began making excuses about having nowhere else to go and questioning the legality of being asked to leave, which became a huge red-flag.

The kid is wrong about the legality of being asked to leave. Ok? But this 'red-flag' came AFTER he was told to go (and therefore is irrelevant to why he was told to go). Yes, the store can always kick people out, we know this. But the reasons for it here were downright ludicrous. The only thing more ludicrious is you making up a secret worry on the part of the employee that the kid was kicked out due to liability concerns. Why are you doing this?

The only thing I don't understand is why didn't you just order the case from their online store, since most GWs have computers there now to let you do that.

Then you would have bought something and your case would be on the way.

Super Newb wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The employee is not liable for what happens when the kid has left the store. The Op accused the employe for being liable for anything that happens to him when he leaves the store, hence he was breaking the law by asking him to leave.

The liability of the store while the kid is in the store is still in question for the courts to decide, but if something happened (like an armed robber came in and shot a customer) there would be a good chance that 'someone' would try to claim the employee or the store was liable. So getting a unsupervised minor who he has deemed 'a problem' out is the best thing he could do to protect himself.

I don't understand what you are confused about or what is contradictory.

Are you serious? You wrote: "If you are abducted, it is your parents fault, not the store owner. He doesn't want to be liable for your mere existence"

Are you claiming the owner/employee is less intelligent than you are? That you know he wouldn't be liable, but he may worry he would be? Please explain "he doesn't want to be liable for your mere existence"

would be a good chance that 'someone' would try to claim the employee or the store was liable

Oh, that's your measure, whether or not someone would try? I could sue Donald Trump for emotional distress on the account of his hair piece, but that of course would get thrown out after one motion. So please, spare me the 'someone may try it' routine.

If someone accused him of being liable, why should he get into an argument with a child who is clearly wrong? Why not just throw him out?

If he walked out the door and was immediately abducted in a white van, the store is not liable regardless what the Op said. So asking him to leave was not breaking the law.

Super Newb wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
I did state there where other unattended children there indirectly by saying there where 3 kids and 2 veteran adults in the store (You could assume they where parents, they weren't, and its a lot of assuming based on nothing) but in case I wasn't clear, how about this. There where other unsupervised minors the store. He picked me out not because I was a minor, but because I didn't have my main rule book so he wouldn't let me play and then kicked me out because I wouldn't buy paints and a paint brush to do something 'Hobby related' (I would argue that army building fits into the collecting part of the policy that says we encourage people to play, paint and collect our miniatures) and was 'Wasting space' when there where only 5 others in the store (Its a big store. 2 starter tables, 2 3x2 boards). Hope that clears things up.

And here comes the inevitable yardstick change.

So first he picked you out because you were not buying anything there, now he picked you out because you did not have your main rulebook and you would not buy paints?

*facepalm* RE-READ THE OP THEN APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE FOR YOUR LACK OF READING COMPREHENSION ABILITIES

Only when you start actually reading other people's posts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Sigh, I would wonder if people not reading my posts is because they read the first one and are disregarding me because I am full of 'Whiney Teenage Bollox', but that theory involves people reading my posts in the first place... Thanks guys for the support. Although it does bring up the debate of if teenagers should be allowed in the store unsupervised, even when the (Admittedly scant) advertising is clearly targeted at people my age.

This post does not discredit your being full of "whiny teenage bollox".

Honestly, the fact that you chose to post it here rather than actually contact the manager first is what goes against you in my eyes.
I looked at GW Chester's page and saw that you did post on there, which I approve of--but I think that you should have actually included a link to this thread as well in case the employee in question decides to tell his own side of the story.

nkelsch wrote:
If someone accused him of being liable, why should he get into an argument with a child who is clearly wrong? Why not just throw him out?

WHAT? That happened AFTER he was already told to leave! It's irrelevant to why he was told to leave!

So asking him to leave was not breaking the law.

I never said it was. Are you even discussing this in good faith? Very strange response.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Only when you start actually reading other people's posts.

If you want to discuss this matter in good faith, re-read the OP and admit the goal posts were not moved. Please admit your 100% clear mistake. Thank you.

Super Newb wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
If someone accused him of being liable, why should he get into an argument with a child who is clearly wrong? Why not just throw him out?

WHAT? That happened AFTER he was already told to leave! It's irrelevant to why he was told to leave!

Since you want to jump on people for "not reading", the OP clarified that he never actually accused the employee of being liable.

Super Newb wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
And upon being asked to leave, he began making excuses about having nowhere else to go and questioning the legality of being asked to leave, which became a huge red-flag.

The kid is wrong about the legality of being asked to leave. Ok? But this 'red-flag' came AFTER he was told to go (and therefore is irrelevant to why he was told to go). Yes, the store can always kick people out, we know this. But the reasons for it here were downright ludicrous. The only thing more ludicrious is you making up a secret worry on the part of the employee that the kid was kicked out due to liability concerns. Why are you doing this?

Stores chooding to 'supervise kids' or 'look the other way' on the supervision of minors in order to make a sale is 'discretion' by the person working who is weighing the risk of an unsupervised minor vs profit. If the kid was there for 5 minutes and something happened he could say 'I had no idea he was alone, I assume his parent was with him.' After multiple hours he cannot quite say that and he is then putting the store at risk while he is on the premises. Once off the premises, the store is protected.

Using 'you buying something' is a common tactic to use 'loitering' policies to get unwanted people to leave because there is legal teeth behind it in the form of trespassing laws.

Buy something or get out is equally used on adults who are causing an issue, being loud, wasting space, whatever. Use of the tables and the facilities of the store is based upon the discretion of the worker, and not part of your purchase. He could have totally sold the kid some paint and said "thanks, you made your purchase, now leave." and been totally within his rights.

That is what the OP fails, regardless if it is 'fair or justified' he has no rights or recourse, especially when he says 'but I have no where to go for 4 hours'. He should realize being int he store is not a right and immediately left. Leaving without making a scene or making up legal threats would have had him be on good standing to come back and make a legitimate complaint to a manager. Now he will be the "kid who said I couldn't legally throw him out' which means the manager may stroke your parents ego, but not at all condemn what happen.

If you are asked to leave, minor or not, you leave... If you are a Minor, return with your parents and have them talk to the manager, but even then, demanding that your unsupervised minor has a right to be in your store for 8 hours isn't going to sit well with lots of retail stores, asking for a way to negotiate a situation which they would allow it is much better.