NO2ID

Hello everyone.

I've been a member of this forum since joining no2id a few months ago. I haven't read it religiously so I'm not sure where the best place for this sort of post is - apologies if I'm in the wrong place.


I work for one of the major bookmakers. The gambling commission, trying to justify its own existence, has recently been going over the top with the Think 21 campaign, to ID anyone who you think looks under 21 years of age. With this, the company I work for have also been going over the top with a ridiculous number of meetings and briefings etc. to staff.
In one brief, we were advised that we should take peoples names down so as to "avoid inconvenience to our customers in the future".
Obviously I have made clear to my area manager that I am already uncomfortable about asking people for ID as it is however I accept that it is the law. I have also made it clear that asking for their names is one step to far as far as I am concerned. I was assured at the time that this was only advisory and was at the discretion of the staff. However, with today's most recent letter is a new set of 'procedures' coming into force stating that we "MUST take the names of all customers with legitimate ID" and that failing to follow this procedure will result in a charge of gross misconduct. I was incensed that a company thinks it has the right to record such data without even informing the customer beforehand (There is nothing in there to state that the customer has to be informed that their name has been taken).
I have not spoken to my area manager today, but will do so this week at some point.
I'd like to know your thoughts on this.
Daz

Might be worth asking about your duties under the Data Protection Act.

I'm afraid this is part of the bureaucratic compliance culture that is invading every aspect of life, and that ID cards are both a symptom of this and would provide an instrument for instituting ever more recording and reporting.

I work for a bookmakers also, i am sick to the back teeth of hearing all this crap about Think 21!
The gambling comission clearly don't work in a betting shop! As if we haven't got enough to do without taking names down of everyone who doesn't look 21 - regardless of whether we know them to be 21!

Every so often throughout the day we have a commercial come on reminding customers about being asked for I.D.
Apparantly its the law?!

This is my question - has the government actually wrote up a new law to support the gambling comissions think 21 policy?

zOe*

Have to say i was totally gobsmacked at the amount of info on the net about these think 21 schemes..... so ok

I also work for a bookies, a colleague has just been sacked for serving someone that whilst over the LEGAL age of 18 (19) was not asked to prove that they were over 21 !!!!!
As individuals we ALL percieve things differently .... do we not ???
Any of us can get caught out....... but at the end of the day why should someone lose their job because some little scrot has managed to slip the net..... when all is said and done it is THEY that is breaking the law

a friend of mine used to put his grandads bets on on the way home from school, many many years ago now

a more innocent time

I too am at a disciplinary today in fact for serving someone under 21, even though they were of legal age (19). I said in my investagitive meeting that I believed they were over 21 or I would not have served them. Its been a stressful week of waiting to see if ill keep my job. I really don't see how they can fire me, it is after all down to human perception & judgement!

I am about to attend an investigatory meeting for the same thing. I served someone under 21 but who was over 18. As I was not informed about the incident until 5 days after it occurred, I cannot remember the individual in question. However, I do adhere to the policy so I obviously must have believed that this individual looked over 21 or I would have asked for ID. The policy itself is full of holes as it is purely a judgement call. I am 22 and therefore ask myself if the person I am serving looks the same age or older than myself. This is surely "thinking 21"?! I am currently suspended from work and am wondering whether I am going to keep my job also.

My employers obviously have to be seen to be acting where they believe the policy is not being followed, but I think the way staff are treated in some cases is outrageous and if I lose my job I will be taking it further if I can.

Any advice on how to do so?

Yeah, Im in the same boat as some people here. Heres my story.
Disclaimer: I have nasty habit of de-railing myself and going on some strange rants)

Like most bookmakers, internal age testing has been occuring in my area, and I am about to be dragged through the burning coals to satisfy some red tape obsessed moron with meeting their disciplinary meeting quota for the month!

Anyway, rambling aside. I do find myself in with agreement with what this think 21 approach is about, but the spirit of it is way off track. Though, I do understand, but do not sympathise with license holders being liable for £5000 / 51 weeks imprisonment (or 6 months in scotland) for being so paranoid about the issue. If I was in their circumstances, I'm fairly confident I'd have left the betting industry before now.

As Im sure everyone here is already aware, the concept of the policy is to challenge anyone who'm is perceived to be under the age of 21. However, the reality of the policy probably means challenge everyone who enters the shop, or challenge everyone who you think is 31 (yes, 31)

The reason Im saying 31, is that in a briefing I attended, some pictures were handed out of "young people", and the average difference between peoples opinion and the real age was as much as 10 years.

The area time decided they'd be smart cookies, and re-brief the material, under the guise of "Stranger Danger", which in my opinion, is equally, if not more stupid/pointless than the orgional of think 21.

The procedures fairly straight forward, but still subject to the ambiguity as you're pretty much having to guess someones age.

* Do you actually know the customer (from school, family, friend etc)
* Does the customer look "YOUNG" (spot the vital flaw here?)

Theres an equally vital, yet slightly more subtle problem here, regarding the point of knowing the customer. If you factually know a customer is over the legal age required, yet you do not request id, you're still just as likely to be challenged in a formal meeting as to why you did not ask for ID. A few months ago, I had a personal "Compliance Audit", conducted by our regional compliance manager, which we get done every 6 months or so to monitor staff to identify training needs etc.

Well, ironically enough, the only point I got marked down for, was not challenging a "young person" for id. The story behind this however, is most amusing. The person in question, is a well known footballer (to the county at least), and was in the paper for signing a contract to play football professionally. (So I actually knew how old this person was). The even funnier part was, that the person conducting this audit was actually sitting right next to the newspaper article in question, as I taken the liberty of putting it on display in the shop!

I think the largest problem faced by bookmakers in general, is that even from the gambling commision, everything is perception based. Ie: If they know/believe we are failing to comply with our duties then they will impose stricter terms on our licenses. As Im sure some of you here will be aware, a manager from glasgow was recently formally charged with serving someone under the age of 18, and was ultimately given a caution in court (rather than a hefty fine) was because he could prove that he was actively trying to do his job, and the shops under 18 log had lots of entries.

On the note of logs, I know someone already mentioned concerns regarding the data protection act. I am not certain of our legal obligations regarding this act, particularly in terms of what information we can store. At present, I am required to store name/date of birth/form of if presented. I am currently seeking advice from a few close friends who work in law, particularly employment law, so I am looking forward as to what their opinions are.

What really irks me regarding nonsense like this (and this could be applied to under age drinking too), is that whilst we're wrong for preventing a sale to someone under age, is that despite in the eyes of the law, someone age 16+ is legally considered an adult, yet there are no repercussions for repeat offenses of under age service.

For example, as it stands with the bookmaker I work for, if a customer claims to be under the age of 18, we will void all unsettled bets. Bets that are winners, and already paid, the customer keeps, and settled bets that are losers, are not refunded until the customer can prove their age. Whilst the repercussions for the employee's in question is fairly obvious, it is also proven that this customer has broken the law the instant they enter the shop, yet for some beaurocratic reason its not. Lets say the same random under-ager entered our shop, and then murdered someone, they would be charged to the full extent of the law as an "Adult"!

Back to the topic at hand though, people being on the receiving end of a witch-hunt because they LEGALLY served someone they perceived to be over 21.

I have not had a date set for my meeting yet, but I fully plan on being as much of a pain in the ass as I possibly can be. I know the general drill for this meeting, as I know a few other people have been in the meeting previously, so I know what to expect. The usual nonsense like:

Have you completed the think 21 briefing/training sessions and signed them off? *Yup, this ones a legal requirement*

Do you think the training material is useful, and relevent?
*Clearly not, otherwise we wouldn't be having these meetings... Problem is, the policy is that ambigious it is impossible to gather factual evidence using non-factual means.

Do you think you're capable of achieving this policy, and your legal requirements to the industry?
*To the policy, nope, because its broken. Legal requirements, yes. Because I am challenging people who'm I "perceive" as young, irrespective of their age. (nb: the oldest person I've challenged for id is actually 38... Yeah, he was pretty pissed!)

On top of that, I've prepared a rather nice presentation, in an attempt to try and collect more factual evidence regarding this think 21 policy. Seeing as the company argues a "stranger/young" approach, I will be presenting a series of pictures of myself, ranging from age 15-28. The objective of this, is to identify at what age are you no longer considered young, although, again this is very perception based, and what I might consider young, you may not. All in all, it should make a good foundation for a science experiment, and rid us of this farce called "Think 21".

I'll probably end up with a warning for being such a pedantic pain in the ass during this meeting, but I can live with that. I refuse to accept a disciplinary on the grounds of "Suspicion of likely hood to fail to challenge persons under the legal age to gamble", especially seeing as I have factual evidence to prove that I do meet this requirement.

It's a culture of risk aversion, if you adhere to a set of codes of practice or 'voluntary guidelines' no matter how irrational they appear to a free thinking individual you tick the required boxes to prove you have taken the issue into account.

To be fair to the institutions this really isn’t coming from them, but rather the regulatory enforces.

What’s worrying is just imagine if a culture like this develops around the process of ID verification via the National Identity Card scheme. Every Tom, Dick and Harry will be demanding ID to access services or complete transactions.

Filthy criminals! Arrest them both, put their personal details and DNA on a database, chuck them in the clink and throw away the key!

Yes, that's the idea. Is it sinking in yet?

Hearing about these disciplinarys is demoralizing, i am too being disciplined for serving someone above the age of 18 but below the age of 21, the campaign clearly states that it is THINK 21 so if you believe the person is above this age (as i did) then i cant see the major problem as it is based on judgement and discretion. I am also waiting to see if i will be keeping my job but i have to work in the meantime!! i feel like the gam commission and the people higher than the shop workers do not fully understand what goes on in the betting environment, a fair few times i have asked for ID i have had absuse thrown at me and threats, and when the shop is busy and if you are single-manning then it is extremely difficult to ID people that have walked into the shop, especially if they are being dificult i.e refusing to get of the machines etc... i feel this is a problem occuring in all bookmakers across the country and would like to make a campaign to stop or reduce the phantom shoppers and to increase or change the think 21 training to be more practical. i find the log that has to be filled out in our particular shop has to contain their full name and their birthday, many people do not want us to hold this information and i have had problems with this before so i also want to campaign for this to be changed. if you are interested in helping and stopping this unfair dismissal from loyal workers then please reply to this post with some ideas and ur storys xxx

I have been employed by a major bookmakers for 22 years. I have been suspended for a week and have just been given a final warning for a year. I served an 18 year old, 19 next month, sent in by an independent company. I have an exemplary record and now feel worried about returning to work. This person looked over 21.

You should phone a few national newspapers. This sounds like a story they could present quite fairly in your favour and NO2ID's. What a bloody travesty! You have my sympathy and I'm sure many others. This sort of petty bureaucracy has to stop.

Hang on a minute, you served an 18 year old? Someone who was 18 at the time?

What law exactly have you broken? None, thelegal age for gambling is 18 unless I missed something. Perhaps a point to remind your employers of.

Did you have reason to suspect they might be under 18? Did they look under 18?

You really need to get some legal advice over this as this seems just a tad like the whole Tesco thing. The law of the land is being changed by companies who have no right to do it by their creating of a defacto situation

I am working for one of the major bookmakers, and I am also very concerned about the potential consequences of being caught out by not only the Gambling commision, but 4 other agencies employed by the company to internally test the staff.

We operate a Think 21 policy, and the management (Particularly the £100,000+ a year Personal License holders) are attemptiong to cover their backs by holding regular briefings to fully educate us on the ins and outs of the policy.

But it's not the policy staff are not following when they are getting caught out by these internally hired agencies. I dont believe enough staff are fully aware of what someone over 21 looks like. This is quite obviously down to the fact that there is no benchmark to follow....its a huge grey area. Some 17 year olds look 23, some 28 year olds look 19.

The one thing I cannot understand, is that failing a test is 'Gross Misconduct'....as though we actually purposefully set out to serve an under 18. This is not the case, if I were to ever fail, it would not be because I wanted to serve an under 18...it would also not be because i was not following company policy.....it would be because I have mistakenly seen someone as looking over 21 years old. For the life of me, I fail to see how this can be deemed Gross Misconduct, and be a sackable offence.

I for one have got to the point where I am asking any non-regular who doesn't have grey hair to provide ID on entry....this might be extreme....and yes it has caused a few arguments. But I am not prepared to lose my job, AND risk prosecution, a fine, and a criminal record....simply for misjudging an individual (who is probably 18 anyway, perfectly of legal age to be in the LBO) as being over 21 years old.

i too work for a bookies, and been informed today that i will be receiving a disciplinary next week for not i.d someone last thursday, but was told they are over 18 years old. as for training reading social compliance is not training. on a daily basis i i,d most, but if the shop is busy and machines are busy what is the priorty? do i i.d then write down details whilst the punters want to put there bets on? i think it should be changed to think 25, as from today i i,d a man his age 75. so from now on i will i.d everyone who comes in the shop!!!

working for a major bookmakers and having read the comments on this page all of us at the shop where we work are all in the same boat.we have discussed this matter at length and have come to the same conclusion if we serve someone who is under 21 but who is 18 what law have we exactly broken can anybody tell us.there is enough to contend with working in a bookmakers without having this added pressure.if i was to lose my job over this i would certainly take it further and the national press

I too had a disciplinary over company think 21 policy.
I took my union rep with me and received nothing I suggest you should all give yourself some protection in these matters and join as well.
You are all entitled to be a member of a trade union and to take along a rep even if not recognised by your company.
check out community trade union for more details.

this may not be related but how do on line gambling sites deal with under age gamblers ? is there an internet equivalent of Think21 ?

and if internet gamblers only have to demonstrate they can pay their bet via credit card or paypal and then tick a box promising faithfully that they are of a legal age why do bookies have to verify age so strictly

after all just because someone is using an age verified account to gamble on line it does not mean they are the owner of the account or indeed that they are old enough to legally gamble

i could do with some help! i have been suspended. a relief cashier did not id 1 19 year old man. as the shop manager i have been suspended even though i did not take the bet myself! there saying it all my responisbility

Hi Gregg LB,

I don't want to see your appeal for help from NO2ID go unanswered. But this is just the public Forum and since NO2ID is a very small organisation, I doubt whether it will be picked up here.

I suggest you email one of the contacts on this page http://www.no2id.net/about/index and hopefully that will bring some results. NO2ID does have a "Union Rep" and maybe you could be put in contact with her.

Best of luck with it. If you are successful, please report back to the Forum.

This really is crazy. You cannot be dismissed for serving someone who is 18 or over. They may try and give you a warning but appeal against it.
Contact your Union for help, we're all in GMB http://www.gmb.org.uk They will represent you if you are already a member. There is a very small union of old iron and steel workers posing as a bookies union as they are short of members now as nearly all the steel works have gone but they are hopeless. I know!!
At the end of the day its all about perception. If you asked 20 people seperately how old they thought someone was they would probably all give varying answers. How can you discipline someone for that?!
My guess is they are trying to scare staff into asking for id by suspending and disciplining to get people to tow the management line. Fight back! Common sense will prevail.

The standard answer has to be 'Well they look 21 to me' End of!
Don't let management bully you over this. Involve your union (hopefully one that is good like ours, GMB) and stamp out this cr*p. All this is going to do is upset the punters.

We too had experience of a union claiming to be the bookies union called ISTC which was the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, a tiny union with few members (or ideas) desperate to try and re-brand and also claiming to be specialist to other groups of workers too!! Con-nunity I think they call themselves now?!

At Ladbrokes where many of us had got organised with GMB they persuaded us to leave them and promised us the earth and cheaper subs. Like fools we went for it and they did nothing. We are back with GMB now and getting organised

If your not in a union then your on your own and in an industry like ours you need protection especially when they ask you to single ma and you get robbed then they try and blame you!!

Who will look after your interests then? Worse still, who will fight for justice for your family if you get killed in a robbery?

http://www.gmb.org.uk

Never mind Think 21, howabout Think 30 (yes, i kid you not).

Yeserday I filled up at the Shell garage on the A683 on the outskirts of Lancaster. A large sign hanging over the fags said; "If you look under 30 please don't be offended if we ask for ID when purchasing age-restricted goods. Our staff are only carrying out company policy"

So my question is - which company are we talking about? Is it Shell, or is it the garage owner, which may be another organisation? I use Shell becuase I collect Shell points, but if it turns out this is the (bloody stupid) policy of Shell I'll be thinking seriously as to whether I should take my custom elsewhere.

We can all see where this is going; first it was 18, then Think 21, now it's normally Think 25, but here we have 'Think 30' - what next then?