Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.