An independent on the downward spiral

Birch he doesnt have to have a bet just be a couple of inches inside the door and you are done for.
You aren't old enough to go in a bookies but you can get married, have kids, join the army and throw grenades at the taliban, buy 100 scratch cards, drive a car but stick a pound on a 1st scorer and all hell brakes loose.

The gamb comm came in my shop and would you believe the woman who works for me had her 8 year old grand daughter behind the counter while the girls  mother had her hair done over he road. You would of thought I was runnin a fkin paedophile ring. I had to explain why she was in the shop in a 5 page letter and explain that I knew I was being socially irresponsible. They then called back a week later an had me beg for forgiveness. All this from a bloke who had only ever been in 2 betting shops in his fkin life. I wouldnt let anyone who looked under age have a bet but if old Joe wanted to bring his grand son in I never stopped him. Its just absolutley fu kin ridiculous they are classing anyone under 18 as being vulnerable. Clueless tw ats the lot of em.

Good posts guys, common sense is getting rarer by the day it seems in the UK.

It's hard to think of a form of gambling that offers worse value than the lottery and scratch cards, yet the age restrictions are less?

Nothing to do with them classing under 18's as vulnerable it is the gambling act which makes it an offence. The GC simply enforce the act they didn't create it in fact they were formed as a result of it.

It is your premises licence from the local authority that is a bigger factor in this case.

banks - just following 'the Act' is a lemmings way out  -  what ever happened to common sense?

Answer this - where is the protection for youngsters in the lottery/grocer scenario?

I presume he wanted a quid on and you knocked him back to 50p

I'm pretty sure that they have no leeway with the legislation. They can't choose which bits to enforce and which to ignore.

Whether the legislation is appropriate is another matter altogether but one for government to address.

The lottery issue is different because legislation allows 16 year olds to play. A grocer could be prosecuted for serving a 15 year old in the same way that a bookmaker could be for serving a 17 year old. No real difference.

There is a massive difference. They are both purchasing the same thing ( having a gamble ) yet the 17 year old cant do it in a betting shop.
The other difference is that a 5 - 10 - 15 year old can walk into a grocers with his mum/dad/whoever where as the same person cannot step foot in a betting shop. A big difference.

banks -

I know the what the legislation says in both scenarios - it would be better for you to give an opinion on the issue (ie youngsters gambling legally in one place where you could argue they are more vulnerable and been banned in a licenced place)

As maineroad says, if you cant see the difference, dont quote laws - just give an opinion

I think it is right to stop kids gambling but also reasonable that a sensible line has to be drawn somewhere.

Kids can legally play low stake gaming machines which is arguably worse than a 16 year old being able to buy a lottery ticket.

I think it is right that kids can't go into betting shops. Whether this restriction needs to be extended to lottery sales to 16 year olds etc is questionable. I think that the type of product is so different that it is not unreasonable to have a different age limit.

As for the example of being able to walk into the grocers with a child well that is irrelevant as there is no need for a child to be in a betting shop under any circumstances.