Thanks sidewinder. That link was really helpful

All the comments seem to be focusing on being drunk and behaving badly. My main problem with these policies is that our freedom to go where we like on our time off is being taken away. They say: Human Rights "The casino division believe that the above is necessary in the context of the industry within which it emlpoys and it is a legitimate business aim and is proportionate to the achievement of this aim as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8. Sociality in this context is classed as an extension of employment. The Human Rights Act, Article 8, makes no mention whatsoever of legitimate business aims so I don't understand why they would use it.

Ok thanks for the advice and info. Will write back once I've had chance to get down there.

Ive worked for them for four years. Four years too long but there's nothing I can do about it in the current climate. I should be lucky I have a job that pays more than the minimum wage. Its funny that you mention all those things above because most of them are probably banned in our free time too. Should I go to the CAB with this?

Thanks both of you. As for this: I think the 'numerous incidents' involved staff at certain casinos elsewhere in the country, including managers. They are just tarring us all with the same brush instead of the offending people alone. If they cant employ managers that can control themselves around alcohol, why should everyone else have their freedom revoked? I absolutely agree and the company needs to clarify more precisely what is and is not, acceptable. You need to ask them whether this is a blanket ban, and on what grounds, or whether it refers only to company organised events - my reading of what you have posted is that this relates only to conduct whilst on work, or work-related events. They say it relates to both of the above AND any social nights out with colleagues. To me this is beyond belief. I don't know who they think they are.

Well that how it has been for us since the law changed to allow us into other casinos but now because of what a few have done we are all paying the price. What would be the next thing to do then? Some of us refused to sign the policies and we were told it would be reviewed with one of the managers. All the policies have a part in that says if you fail to adhere blah blah it could lead to dismissal.

I think the 'numerous incidents' involved staff at certain casinos elsewhere in the country, including managers. They are just tarring us all with the same brush instead of the offending people alone. If they cant employ managers that can control themselves around alcohol, why should everyone else have their freedom revoked? If my behaviour in public is a reflection on where I work, I would expect to be reprimanded AFTER I'd actually done something wrong, and I wouldn't expect everyone else to be punished for what I'd done. I could also understand this policy if I was going on a night out in uniform but thats never going to happen either. The way I see it, in my own time and my own clothes, no matter who I'm with, is my own free time to do whatever I wish. How can they possibly take this away? If they want us to behave as if we were working then shouldn't they also pay us as if we were working?

I work for a large casino group. Yesterday we were given 2 new policies which we were told to accept and sign concerning- 1. employee visits to competitor casinos 2. conduct in relation to alcohol consuption. The 1st one includes: changes to the Gambling Act in 2007 meant our casino group took the decision to allow its employees to visit competitor casinos as a social activity. However, following numerous incidents, the decision has been reversed. The 2nd one includes: non customer related social events away from the casino premises (which I take to include any night out with people I work with) can constitute an extention of the workplace and therefore alcohol consumption is permitted in moderation only. There is also a whole list of things that an employee must not do on one of these social events. Basically they want us to act as if we were in work when on a night out with colleagues. After all this there has been inserted a small paragraph which they are obviouly expecting us all to just ignore and get on with signing the stupid policies. This says: Human Rights "The casino division believe that the above is necessary in the context of the industry within which it emlpoys and it is a legitimate business aim and is proportionate to the achievement of this aim as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8. Sociality in this context is classed as an extension of employment. Ive looked up Article 8 of the Human Rights Act and found: Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Am I right in thinking that this does not apply in any way to what my employers are trying to propose? I cant see 'legitimate business aims' mentioned as reasonable interferance with this Act. I don't think employees visiting other casinos or drinking a bit too much on a night out is a matter of national security. Am I mising something here or can they actually do this? Ive also heard of another act to do with the right to travel anywhere in Europe or something but I don't remember what that is. Can someone help me out here?

Well for the last 2 years we've been managing ok but then something always happens that means we're maxed out again. We've had 3 addresses in the last year alone and we've just had to fully furnish a house off these cards. Now that they're all so close to their limits they've started going over and I just can't be bothered with paying their ridiculous charges or fighting over them again. Bankruptcy seems to be the easiest solution as we really have no way of paying and we have no assets that can be taken.

Thanks everyone for the info. Its not me that's doing it, it's my OH, but since everything is jointly paid for when the money comes in its easier to say 'we'. It will be around £4k including a £2k overdraft and 3 credit cards.

So it shouldn't really stop bankruptcy? We have no intention of hiding anything, just trying to see if its going to be worthwhile forking out £500 that we dont really have only to be told no to bankruptcy. Thanks for the info.

Thanks. One more thing - How much of your financial past do they look through? Some of the money has been spent on gambling sites over time. That's the only thing that's worrying about being rejected for BR.

None of the debt is money owed because of court claims etc it is all credit card and overdraft debt. We would co-operate fully with any agreement to pay but what I'm trying to figure out is if they would be wanting us to pay small amounts to the creditors out of the small monthly amount we'd have left. My understanding is that if we did then it would only last for a year then the debt wouldn't be owed after discharge. Is that right? Sorry to be thick

Thanks rory. Just had a look through that and there are still a few bits I don't understand. "Your trustee may apply to court for an income payments order (IPO), which requires you to make contributions towards the bankruptcy debts from your income. The court will not make an IPO if it would leave you without enough income to meet the reasonable domestic needs of you and your family. If you have an increase or decrease in income, the IPO can be changed. IPO payments continue for a maximum of 3 years from the date the order is made by the court and may continue after you have been discharged from your bankruptcy. Or you may enter into a written agreement with your trustee, called an income payments agreement (IPA), to pay a certain amount of your income to the trustee for an agreed period, which cannot be longer than 3 years. There are no fixed guidelines on IPOs or IPAs - each case is assessed individually." "Discharge releases you from most of the debts you owed at the date of the bankruptcy order." The top bit seems to contradict the bottom bit. The income minus outgoings leaves roughly £100 a month - would they normally apply for an IPO for this amount? (Thats just basic bills not including any monthly payments to credit cards) Also it says that when they look through your bank statements and stuff they can decide whether you're to blame and not let you be bankrupt. What is classed as blame?

Just started to consider bankruptcy today so I only really know the basics and any info or links would be helpful. This has come to a head after we've moved house again and a letter from the bank detailing yet more charges to be applied went to our old address so we never received it. Now that that money has been taken out we're over £100 over the overdraft with no way of paying it back for two weeks, and being charged by the day. Bankruptcy seems to be the only alternative now as we don't have enough debt for an IVA and two years snowballing our debts and trying to get them wiped off using loopholes has got us nowhwere. I have a few questions if anyone can help: 1) What are the restrictions on being allowed to go bankrupt? We don't want to be paying out £500 just to be told we can't do it. 2) If we are declared bankrupt and make the minimum payments to creditors for a year, what happens then? Is the remaining debt still owed? They might be stupid questions I don't know but I'm just trying to learn as much as I can right now before we get the ball rolling. Thanks