Kicked out for 'Doing Nothing'

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.

**Lansirill**

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?

**joetoc**

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.

**Azazelx**

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?

**notprop**

More to the point - who cares?

**Azazelx**

Seven pages worth of people, including your good self.

Apparently.

**phatonic**

notprop wrote:
More to the point - who cares?

Spoiler:

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

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.

**frozenwastes**

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).

**CptJake**

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?

**Grimtuff**

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.

**notprop**

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.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

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.

**CptJake**

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'.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

See above note. No waivers or permission slips.

**Super Newb**

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.

**ALEXisAWESOME**

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.

**Super Newb**

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.

**Kanluwen**

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.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

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.

**nkelsch**

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?

**Super Newb**

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?

**Azazelx**

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

**Super Newb**

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?

**warriorpriest**

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.

**Grimtuff**

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!

**Super Newb**

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.

**Kanluwen**

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.

**WillyBRags**

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

**Super Newb**

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.

**Kanluwen**

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.