Family friend forced/conned in to buying photos?

Hasn't the laws regarding the supply of alcohol to minors recently changed? as I understand it it they have to look at least 25 if no id is provided, I suspect supplying it in an enviroment where the customer is paying may bring it into the licensing area (not sure)
Personally I have concerns about them supplying a young woman with no chaperone drinks before a shoot, sounds a bit dodgy to me.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I understand it it they have to look at least 25 if no id is provided,.
Click to expand...

yeah but what does ' look 25' mean in tangible terms - I have a colleague who's 32 but is frequently asked for ID in pubs , while when i was 17 i could get served without a problem , due to my rugged good looks :LOL:
 
It's sound like something that been happening,in theses kind of dodgy studio for years.
It happen to a friend of mine years ago,one phone call from me they back of :)
 
A friend of mine (Tattoo Artist) has daily problems with underage/fake ID merchants, BUT, Becouse he runs a very professional business, he insists on 3 forms of ID if there's any doubt on age.

IMHO, its the "Studios" responseability to check and double check the girls age.
 
Oh, and as for she looked over 18 or she showed me her fake ID merlakie, didn't help Gary Glitter did it, Girls underage...... The End.
 
The Greek said:
Oh, and as for she looked over 18 or she showed me her fake ID merlakie, didn't help Gary Glitter did it, Girls underage...... The End.
Click to expand...

This is about contract law, it has nothing to do with the age of consent that you're thinking about.
 
Isn't there a difference between supplying alcohol and selling it? I don't think there is a lower limit on drinking on non-licensed premises or with a meal - a glass of wine with your meal at any age is OK, I believe. The booze is a bit of a red herring, unless it was intended to coerce her into something she didn't intend to do, which is a whole other ball of wool.

And has anyone involved in this actually spoken to the studio yet?
 
MartynK said:
This is about contract law, it has nothing to do with the age of consent that you're thinking about.
Click to expand...

That's my point, whether you enter into a contract law or just enter! its OUR responseability to make sure its with an
Adult.

Just my honest opinion.
 
Interestingly I came across an advert for a company (not the one involved in this instance I wouldn't think) offering a photoshoot for £40 that promised a glass of bucks fizz as part of the package (available to those over 17 years of age), was that perhaps the "alcohol" involved in the op case?

This particular offer promised that the photos would be taken by a "top fashion photographer" and asked for a £60 deposit upon booking the £40 deal.

What are people's opinions on that? Genuine or a scam?
 
jon ryan said:
Isn't there a difference between supplying alcohol and selling it? I don't think there is a lower limit on drinking on non-licensed premises or with a meal - a glass of wine with your meal at any age is OK, I believe. The booze is a bit of a red herring, unless it was intended to coerce her into something she didn't intend to do, which is a whole other ball of wool.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference. The legal restrictions only apply to licensed premises - including retailers - with one exception. It's an offence to give alcohol to a child under 5, unless under medical supervision in an emergency. I haven't a clue what sort of emergency this would be, but that's the law. Older children can drink legally, but there are obviously going to be other considerations to take into account.

Teenagers aged 16 - 17 can consume beer, cider or wine with a meal on licensed premises, but the licensee obviously has discretion. An adult has to order the drinks in England and Wales, but this doesn't apply in Scotland.

I don't think the studio should be offering teenage girls free drinks, but that's my personal opinion and it's not against the law as far as I know.
 
if you drink methanol the liver converts it to formic acid which inhibits cytochrome c oxidase. Ethanol acts as a competative inhibitor of alcohol dehygrogenase (converts methanol to formaldehyde then aldehyde dehydrogenase converts formaldehyde to formic acid). The methanol is then excreted by the kidneys

MartynK said:
It's an offence to give alcohol to a child under 5, unless under medical supervision in an emergency. I haven't a clue what sort of emergency this would be, but that's the law.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MartynK said:
There is a big difference. The legal restrictions only apply to licensed premises - including retailers - with one exception. It's an offence to give alcohol to a child under 5, unless under medical supervision in an emergency. I haven't a clue what sort of emergency this would be, but that's the law. Older children can drink legally, but there are obviously going to be other considerations to take into account.

Teenagers aged 16 - 17 can consume beer, cider or wine with a meal on licensed premises, but the licensee obviously has discretion. An adult has to order the drinks in England and Wales, but this doesn't apply in Scotland.

I don't think the studio should be offering teenage girls free drinks, but that's my personal opinion and it's not against the law as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and there are quite a few emergency medicines and sanitisers which contain either ethanol or very high levels of alcohol (same thing)
 
odd jim said:
Indeed, and there are quite a few emergency medicines and sanitisers which contain either ethanol or very high levels of alcohol (same thing)
Click to expand...

Gripe Water is the obvious thing that springs to mind. It sure makes crying babies quiet
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Interestingly I came across an advert for a company (not the one involved in this instance I wouldn't think) offering a photoshoot for £40 that promised a glass of bucks fizz as part of the package (available to those over 17 years of age), was that perhaps the "alcohol" involved in the op case?

This particular offer promised that the photos would be taken by a "top fashion photographer" and asked for a £60 deposit upon booking the £40 deal.

What are people's opinions on that? Genuine or a scam?
Click to expand...

A big scam,theses scams have been going on for years :(
 
And if they really were scams, being run from brick and mortar premises, they'd have been shut down by now.

It's a sales technique, not a very nice one maybe but not a scam.
 
Probably. Caveat emptor. A lot of these "problems" could be avoided by using some common sense in the first place.
 
My brother and his girlfriend had someone who came knocking at their house door and then did photos at their house. Who they paid in monthly installments. His girlfriend seemed happy enough wi service but she's the same person who got a brighthouse tv on installments - and i know my brother don't agree wi total cost o that. I never asked about total price for photos.

I thought anyone under 18 needed a guarantor in credit agreements. Obviously companies do this to protect themselves incase a child can't pay. So if they didn't do this then its their own fault. If just speaking to them doesn't resolve it sure a visit to citizens advice bureau can do it.
 
Samijo said:
I thought anyone under 18 needed a guarantor in credit agreements. Obviously companies do this to protect themselves incase a child can't pay. So if they didn't do this then its their own fault. If just speaking to them doesn't resolve it sure a visit to citizens advice bureau can do it.
Click to expand...

Quite correct about an under 18, but in this case the two parties were at fault - the girl for lying about her age, and the company for not asking for age verification.
 
andy700 said:
Quite correct about an under 18, but in this case the two parties were at fault - the girl for lying about her age, and the company for not asking for age verification.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I feel that both parties are at fault here.
 
It's common cause that the girl signed an agreement, confirming that she was over 18 - which is probably a standard clause - but this probably doesn't change the legal position. Minors can usually resile from contracts - there are some exceptions - and they can't be enforced as a rule.

OTOH, there's nothing to suggest that the studio would even attempt to enforce this agreement if they know the facts. The OP said that he offered to go with the girl, to sort it out, but she is "scared". He didn't explain why. I'm pretty sure this will just go away once they find that out she is a minor, without any need for lawyers or the CAB. The studio will be on a hiding to nothing if they try to compel performance.
 
I have read the whole thread & think both parties were at fault here..... BUT if I was the OP in this thread & the girl was too scared to go along to talk to the studio, I think I would go along on my own for a chat, no guns blazing etc, but just see how the land lies, so to speak!
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Interestingly I came across an advert for a company (not the one involved in this instance I wouldn't think) offering a photoshoot for £40 that promised a glass of bucks fizz as part of the package (available to those over 17 years of age), was that perhaps the "alcohol" involved in the op case?

This particular offer promised that the photos would be taken by a "top fashion photographer" and asked for a £60 deposit upon booking the £40 deal.

What are people's opinions on that? Genuine or a scam?
Click to expand...

Bit strange to me, we all know here that the 'headline' shoot price is often a sprat to catch a mackerel but the point of that is that many would read it as £40 being the cost involved, often only realising/accepting prints etc will cost on top of that and of course this is not an issue if prices are 'reasonable'.
However I am surprised somewhere is offering £40 but asking for £60 deposit thus confusing some clients and alerting others that a minimum spend of £20 will occur before seeing any results?
 
B1ts said:
Bit strange to me, we all know here that the 'headline' shoot price is often a sprat to catch a mackerel but the point of that is that many would read it as £40 being the cost involved, often only realising/accepting prints etc will cost on top of that and of course this is not an issue if prices are 'reasonable'.
However I am surprised somewhere is offering £40 but asking for £60 deposit thus confusing some clients and alerting others that a minimum spend of £20 will occur before seeing any results?
Click to expand...

According to the advert (which I won't post here as it would identify the studio) prints cost at least 3 x that £20 extra on the deposit...
 
Of course advertising can be misleading - most of it is, as far as I'm concerned - but is it really too much to expect people to read the terms of the offer carefully and/or ask for clarification?
 
Flash In The Pan said:
According to the advert (which I won't post here as it would identify the studio) prints cost at least 3 x that £20 extra on the deposit...
Click to expand...

Well at least they are upfront then lol, obv I was unaware of that because you hadn't mentioned it ;)
Still suspect 'people' will be confused that a deposit higher than the quoted headline 'fee' is required, if not a put off then must generate questions lol.
Either way sounds iffy to me.
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
....... If money changes hands it is a legal requirment to give a receipt if one is asked for, even if only buying a newspaper........
Click to expand...

This is not true and there is no legal requirement to provide a receipt.


Retailers are not obliged to provide anyone with a receipt, they may do so out of courtesy of course
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top