Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

To be not understand why...

53 replies

cookiemonster5678 · 01/03/2014 16:43

...i was asked to leave a betting shop because i had my 5 week old baby with me?

I get that there are laws in place to stop under age gambling...

BUT

He is a tiny baby, tucked up in his pram, and was fast asleep so not screaming or anything...

I can understand the problem with toddlers/young children running around, or teenagers trying to gamble underage.

I can even accept if a baby was making a lot if noise then customers may be distracted.

I also understand that young people may be influenced by seeing gambling and therefore their presence isn't appropriate. But a 5 week old quiet baby, what the actual fuck?!

I took my custom elsewhere, and was not asked to leave in the second shop!

OP posts:

Sirzy · 01/03/2014 16:45

The law says under 18s aren't allowed in. It doesn't say tiny babies are excempt from the law

EverythingsDozy · 01/03/2014 16:47

I would say YANBU because it makes no sense to me either. It's not like you are encouraging your child to gamble, there's a 99.99999% chance he won't remember this event when he's older.
However, it's probably a) so they don't get into trouble with any random checks and b) because they can't say yes to one person and no to another.

Smilesandpiles · 01/03/2014 16:47

Because those are the rules. If they make an exception for you, when does it stop?

If you were granted special permission, everyone will want that too.

What were you doing in there anyway with a small baby?

Original poster

cookiemonster5678 · 01/03/2014 16:48

It just seems OTT to me... The thought didn't even cross my mind when i walked it!

OP posts:

Sirzy · 01/03/2014 16:48

So what age should the law start applying?

shakinstevenslovechild · 01/03/2014 16:48

The second shop was breaking the law then, no under 18s are allowed at all.

Original poster

cookiemonster5678 · 01/03/2014 16:49

Ha ha smilesandpiles that sounded incredibly judgey. I nipped in for my dad while i was out shopping.

OP posts:

ikeaismylocal · 01/03/2014 16:50

It is the law, the betting shop can't bend the law to accommodate a sleeping baby.

It isn't as if going to the betting shop is a vital errand.

SaggyOldClothCatPuss · 01/03/2014 16:50

I used to work in an amusement arcade. The same rules apply. As staff even I wasn't allowed to take my baby in. It's the law.

Smilesandpiles · 01/03/2014 16:50

It was a question, not judgy at all.

Why couldn't your dad do it?

Original poster

cookiemonster5678 · 01/03/2014 16:51

Im not suggesting the age limit should be changed, i just think a conmon sense approach would sometimes be more appropriate!

OP posts:

startwig1982 · 01/03/2014 16:51

We got told off at a service station when ds (2) wandered into the fruit machine bit. It's not because he may gamble, it's purely having an underage presence that they can get in trouble for.

yangsun · 01/03/2014 16:51

In cinemas it's 1 -that's why parent and baby showings sometimes insist on seeing birth cert and won't let you in once baby is 1. I'm still not sure I would want to go in a betting shop with a baby but yanbu

wonderingsoul · 01/03/2014 16:51

becasue oits off putting to the others aswell.

formerbabe · 01/03/2014 16:52

Its easier to have a blanket ban on all under 18s so YABVU.

Sirzy · 01/03/2014 16:53

Common sense is that they follow the law surely?

Smilesandpiles · 01/03/2014 16:53

By that logic, common sense would be this:

Your dad places his own bet and you don't take babies into betting shops.

Original poster

cookiemonster5678 · 01/03/2014 16:54

Because he is elderly and not very mobile.

Never said it was a vital errand either, i was already passing the shop.

My original post was about whether it was really necessary being asked to leave the shop that i was only going to be in for a couple of minutes, not why i was there, who for and why they couldn't go

OP posts:

Smilesandpiles · 01/03/2014 16:55

Yes it was necessary.

Original poster

cookiemonster5678 · 01/03/2014 16:56

Its not like i took him to a crack den! Wow!

OP posts:

Smilesandpiles · 01/03/2014 16:57

No, you just expect a betting shop to break the law for you. That's not unreasonable at all is it? Oh, wait, yes it is.

formerbabe · 01/03/2014 16:59

The law is no under 18s. Of course a 5 week old baby won't make a bet or be tempted to, but the law is the law in that case. Its not no under 18s except for babies/toddlers...where would the cut off point be?

ikeaismylocal · 01/03/2014 16:59

As it wasn't a vital errand it doesn't really matter that you were asked to leave.

wonderingsoul · 01/03/2014 16:59

least the op didnt leave her baby out side..

iv lost count of the times iv seen kids standing out side bookies waiting for thier adult to come out, its quite sad.

my dad used to take me on a saturday for a few hours id sit in their colouring .. bored as hell!

bookie arnt a place for children, even small sleeping ones. they cant make an exception for you, other wise theyd have to do it for others and theyd getr into trouble.

formerbabe · 01/03/2014 17:00

Oh and no judgment from me...I spent many a Saturday morning as a child standing outside the betting shop waiting for my dad!!

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread