He just totally made that up. The Gambling Act 2005 does not have any such section. You can read the whole Act online and there is no mention of photography or video anywhere within the Act.
Although he refers to the gambling act, what he actually states is from the code of practice...and yep, he's got it completely wrong regardless. It's about identifying customers who are at risk of harms associated with gambling i.e. recognising a problem gambler, he's completely misunderstood the meaning of identifying in this context, and in any event it's an obligation on the licensee, not a member of the public. Of course, you kow this already.
I think the net on the wall is because of the spalling brickwork, health and safety at work. It's caused by using cement mortar on a old wall where lime mortar should have been used. Today's bit of useless nerdy knowledge for you.
Steve is wearing shoes that Court Ushers call 'Browners', they are used to identify the defendant. The defendant will often buy these for £9.99 in Shoezone, to compliment his Asda suit. If you prefer to be a little more anonymous in Court, I always suggest Italian styled black loafers, or a good quality round toed brogue. Steve is also ignorant of the difference between law, code, or matters suggested.
![MURDER DRONES Series Finale [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/p6mhC5Iatns/mqdefault.jpg)
He just totally made that up. The Gambling Act 2005 does not have any such section. You can read the whole Act online and there is no mention of photography or video anywhere within the Act.
Steve worries so much about the vulnerable he runs a gambling den!
Imagine having a betting shop taking the moral high ground with you over protecting the vulnerable.
Protecting the vulnerable from pictures but not from gambling?🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Although he refers to the gambling act, what he actually states is from the code of practice...and yep, he's got it completely wrong regardless. It's about identifying customers who are at risk of harms associated with gambling i.e. recognising a problem gambler, he's completely misunderstood the meaning of identifying in this context, and in any event it's an obligation on the licensee, not a member of the public. Of course, you kow this already.
Protecting the vulnerable meanwhile fleecing them for every penny they've got. Nice one, Steve.
Steve shows everyone how not to look smart but how to make yourself look ridiculous in only 2 minutes 😂😂😂
Lawfully filming anything the eye can see from a public place. Steve doesn’t know the law
Burnley was a nice place as were many northern towns until cultural enrichment took over.
I do find it amusing when people try and quote laws that they know nothing about but are adamant that they do!
Sorry Steve. Your authority stops at the door of your stinky gambling den. You have no say out on a public pavement.
Steve is so passive aggressive 😆💀
My late dad told me 60 years ago that you would never find a poor bookie. I love Victorian architecture.
Steve talking utter shite 😂
Baldie Steve is used to getting his own way. Well done Charlie. What an absolute knob head.
Steve, don't bother people on the pavement, it's foolish.
I think the net on the wall is because of the spalling brickwork, health and safety at work. It's caused by using cement mortar on a old wall where lime mortar should have been used. Today's bit of useless nerdy knowledge for you.
A betting shop talking about protecting the vulnerable 🤣
Protecting the vulnerable while working for a bookies 😂😂😂😂 brilliant!
Steve is wearing shoes that Court Ushers call 'Browners', they are used to identify the defendant. The defendant will often buy these for £9.99 in Shoezone, to compliment his Asda suit. If you prefer to be a little more anonymous in Court, I always suggest Italian styled black loafers, or a good quality round toed brogue. Steve is also ignorant of the difference between law, code, or matters suggested.