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.

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.