child spending money on playstation.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

baza52 wrote: »

I don't think BIL should have to password protect his own machine.
Who was supervising the child?


I think you should pay, not the BILs fault is it.

Me and the current BoPsie have our play toy password protected. That way, should any of our nieces deiced to download a free game etc, it does not happen. Nor are card details held on their system.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Ok, here is a solution

Pay BIL for his trouble

Remove any trinket, gissit or toy to the value of said debt from DS. Place on ebay to recoup losses. Any descrepency is made up by docking said DS pocket monies over time.

powerful_Rogue

adouglasmhor wrote: »

You can stop being over dramatic any time you like, no one is stopping you.

Opinions are not the same as facts, you gave it others challenged you on it and refuted your stand.

I cant see where I have been over dramatic in any of my replies. Neither have I tried to pass anything off as being a fact.

As I stated earlier, I stand by my original comments, no-where have I stated I refute my stand.

An 8 year old who can use the Playstation, navigate around the store, download extras should be able to understand the numerous warnings that items are going to cost money.

Venom :rotfl:

VictorCharlie

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Venom? Wow, someones being over dramatic!

I gave my opinion by which I stand.

The problem is you gave your opinion based on a fact you made up.

powerful_Rogue

VictorCharlie wrote: »

The problem is you gave your opinion based on a fact you made up.

Where exactly have I done that?

Hermione_Granger

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Venom? Wow, someones being over dramatic!

I gave my opinion by which I stand.

But your earlier post didn't state or even imply it was an opinion. The way that you wrote it was as if it was a confirmed fact.

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

The child knew what he was doing. If he's capable of navigating the Playstation store and deciding what he wanted, he's capable of reading that it cost money.

A clear statement that the child was aware that he was spending money.

Hintza

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Why are you bringing criminal responsibility into this.

Because below the age of 10 it is assumed they don't know what they are doing. And with the info we have it is as good a guide as any.

Yes we could follow your argument that the 8 year old is using the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model to generate extra pocket money on the financial markets and is a budding criminal genius. But I suspect not.

powerful_Rogue

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

But your earlier post didn't state or even imply it was an opinion. The way that you wrote it was as if it was a confirmed fact.



A clear statement that the child was aware that he was spending money.

The child obviously did know what he was doing. It wasn't an accidental purchase where he spent a couple of quid. He managed to spend £245.

powerful_Rogue

Hintza wrote: »

Because below the age of 10 it is assumed they don't know what they are doing. And with the info we have it is as good a guide as any.

Yes we could follow your argument that the 8 year old is using the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model to generate extra pocket money on the financial markets and is a budding criminal genius. But I suspect not.

I still dont understand why you are bringing the age of criminal responsibility into this thread. You seem to be implying that up until the age of 10 children can do anything they like and get away with it.

The age of criminal responsibility means they cannot be arrested or charged. It does not mean that children under the age of 10 do not know what they are doing.

Edit - I think what you are referring to is the doli incapax presumption which was removed in 1998.

Hintza

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

You seem to be implying that up until the age of 10 children can do anything they like and get away with it.

On a one off case that about sums it up. If the child had ongoing issues then social services would become involved.

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

The age of criminal responsibility means they cannot be arrested or charged. It does not mean that children under the age of 10 do not know what they are doing.

So at the end of the day it remains the BIL problem for not protecting his card details which is what I stated in post #2.