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.

 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.

Super Newb wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Only when you start actually reading other people's posts.

If you are 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.

And if you want to discuss this matter in good faith, then admit that the OP is a nightmarish run-on wall of text that reeks of a knee-jerk post done in reaction to the OP being upset about having been asked to leave and not something intended to actually stir discussion.

 Kanluwen wrote:

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.

Oh please, the point up there is that the discussion on liability occurred after the kid was told to leave, so nkelsch bringing it up in any way at all as a reason for kicking the kid out initially is illogical.