General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
From Gaming Intelligence:
In a landmark move, the UK Gambling Commission has issued voiding orders for the first time under the Gambling Act 2005, after concluding an investigation into suspicious betting patterns involving three employees of media channel Virgin Media during last year's series of the popular weekly TV talent show The X Factor.
The Commission has voided bets totalling over £16,000 which were placed on The X Factor, and follows an investigation into a report of suspicious betting activity brought to its attention by Betfair’s Integrity Unit.
The investigation established that three individuals employed by phone line operator Virgin Media were misusing their access to Virgin’s data on voting patterns to place unfair bets on which contestants would be eliminated from The X Factor. The employees have since been sacked by Virgin.
“There is no evidence that the integrity of the public voting or the TV shows involved were compromised,” said the Gambling Commission in statement. “However, the Commission has consulted with Ofcom, which has been working with Virgin Media and other relevant stakeholders, to ensure that firm steps are taken to prevent a repeat of such activity.”
The voiding orders mean that any contract or other arrangement in relation to each bet is void and that any money paid in relation to each bet - whether by way of stake, winnings, commission or otherwise - shall be repaid to the person who paid it, and repayment may be enforced as a debt due to that person.
The voiding orders also indicate that Betfair should, to the extent that it may be in its power to do so, cause affected Betfair customers to be repaid.
“Following a multi-agency investigation led by the Gambling Commission, we are satisfied that the bets placed were substantially unfair as the individuals involved had inside information,” said Nick Tofiluk, director of regulation for the Gambling Commission.
“We have worked closely with all the bodies involved to ensure that those individuals do not profit from their activity and that appropriate action has been taken to prevent a recurrence of such activity in the future.”
In a landmark move, the UK Gambling Commission has issued voiding orders for the first time under the Gambling Act 2005, after concluding an investigation into suspicious betting patterns involving three employees of media channel Virgin Media during last year's series of the popular weekly TV talent show The X Factor.
The Commission has voided bets totalling over £16,000 which were placed on The X Factor, and follows an investigation into a report of suspicious betting activity brought to its attention by Betfair’s Integrity Unit.
The investigation established that three individuals employed by phone line operator Virgin Media were misusing their access to Virgin’s data on voting patterns to place unfair bets on which contestants would be eliminated from The X Factor. The employees have since been sacked by Virgin.
“There is no evidence that the integrity of the public voting or the TV shows involved were compromised,” said the Gambling Commission in statement. “However, the Commission has consulted with Ofcom, which has been working with Virgin Media and other relevant stakeholders, to ensure that firm steps are taken to prevent a repeat of such activity.”
The voiding orders mean that any contract or other arrangement in relation to each bet is void and that any money paid in relation to each bet - whether by way of stake, winnings, commission or otherwise - shall be repaid to the person who paid it, and repayment may be enforced as a debt due to that person.
The voiding orders also indicate that Betfair should, to the extent that it may be in its power to do so, cause affected Betfair customers to be repaid.
“Following a multi-agency investigation led by the Gambling Commission, we are satisfied that the bets placed were substantially unfair as the individuals involved had inside information,” said Nick Tofiluk, director of regulation for the Gambling Commission.
“We have worked closely with all the bodies involved to ensure that those individuals do not profit from their activity and that appropriate action has been taken to prevent a recurrence of such activity in the future.”
Show More
these guys were sacked from Virgin Media aardvark. A normal punter would have been found to be clean
No chance of an innocent party being caught up in something like this. I imagine the accounts were identified due to something like them being late money at apparently poor value prices which always won.
Even then there needs to be a link between this and inside info ie they were employees of Virgin Media. Merely having a good strike rate even at poor odds would never be enough. There must be proof that you have done something wrong or are linked to someone who has and knew what they were doing.
The only way this type of thing will affect regular users is that you may get an occassional refund if you unwittingly end up on the wrong side of such bets.
Even then there needs to be a link between this and inside info ie they were employees of Virgin Media. Merely having a good strike rate even at poor odds would never be enough. There must be proof that you have done something wrong or are linked to someone who has and knew what they were doing.
The only way this type of thing will affect regular users is that you may get an occassional refund if you unwittingly end up on the wrong side of such bets.
What an embarrassing post. You should be ashamed of yourself.
What an embarrassing post. You should be ashamed of yourself.
What an embarrassing post. You should be ashamed of yourself.
QED
What an embarrassing post. You should be ashamed of yourself.
What an embarrassing post. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Good PR for betfair but the thin edge of a very big cheating wedge that is, in the main, sanctioned by betfair and their pet poodle the GC.
As someone who specialises in the markets where the fraud occurred it was not apparent at all. fwiw the bets were not at poor value prices as the majority of evictees over the period actually drifted in the betting and I think from memory over the period of the fraud the fave was evicted on only 2 occasions.
I imagine they were suspicious because they were new accounts or existing accounts with massively increased stakes.
I imagine they were suspicious because they were new accounts or existing accounts with massively increased stakes.
Good PR for betfair but the thin edge of a very big cheating wedge that is, in the main, sanctioned by betfair and their pet poodle the GC.
Once again your ignorance surfaces. BF are regulated by the GRA not GC. Mind you don't let the facts get in the way of a misinformed rant.
Once again your ignorance surfaces. BF are regulated by the GRA not GC. Mind you don't let the facts get in the way of a misinformed rant.
I imagine they were suspicious because they were new accounts or existing accounts with massively increased stakes.
Quite possibly. There are plenty of signs that would arouse suspicion. Quite often people who get such info aren't seasoned punters so have no idea how to disguise their activity.
Quite possibly. There are plenty of signs that would arouse suspicion. Quite often people who get such info aren't seasoned punters so have no idea how to disguise their activity.
Once again your ignorance surfaces. BF are regulated by the GRA not GC. Mind you don't let the facts get in the way of a misinformed rant.
They only recently moved their base to Gibraltar clown.
They only recently moved their base to Gibraltar clown.
Are we to take it that insider trading is now fine provided at least one member of the public is invited into the board room? Or does it have to be x members of the public? If the company charge each of them £yK does that comply with "the information being in the public domain" and "if you choose not to get hold of the available info that is your problem"?
Of course the GC don't regulate the financial parasites (unfortunately for said parasites) but this analogous insanity illustrates the route the GC have taken (or been 'guided' down). I'd love to sit in on a GC 'think' tank trying to put values to x and y.
Of course the GC don't regulate the financial parasites (unfortunately for said parasites) but this analogous insanity illustrates the route the GC have taken (or been 'guided' down). I'd love to sit in on a GC 'think' tank trying to put values to x and y.
Feck you really are a tiresome old fool.
If all else fails resort to abuse.
If all else fails resort to abuse.
Are we to take it that insider trading is now fine provided at least one member of the public is invited into the board room?
You are like a broken record. Do you not have the mental capacity to read previous posts and digest the answers?
Information is either in the public domain or it isn't. If it is non public information then you cannot use it to benefit from. A closed board meeting with one member of the public would not mean that the info was in the public domain. If the minutes of the meeting were published then as soon as publication is available to the wider masses then it is in the public domain.
It's hardly a difficult concept to grasp.
Using your analogy unless there is an event that can be witnessed by the whole world simultaneously it is not in the public domain. If a PLC published audited accounts I assume you don't count that as being in the public domain because there are a few remote Amazonian tribes who don't have access to newspapers and the internet.
I'm sorry but you really are clueless and because you can't see this you just keep spouting ridiculous rhetoric. It's like sitting next to the pub bore.
You are like a broken record. Do you not have the mental capacity to read previous posts and digest the answers?
Information is either in the public domain or it isn't. If it is non public information then you cannot use it to benefit from. A closed board meeting with one member of the public would not mean that the info was in the public domain. If the minutes of the meeting were published then as soon as publication is available to the wider masses then it is in the public domain.
It's hardly a difficult concept to grasp.
Using your analogy unless there is an event that can be witnessed by the whole world simultaneously it is not in the public domain. If a PLC published audited accounts I assume you don't count that as being in the public domain because there are a few remote Amazonian tribes who don't have access to newspapers and the internet.
I'm sorry but you really are clueless and because you can't see this you just keep spouting ridiculous rhetoric. It's like sitting next to the pub bore.
Information is either in the public domain or it isn't. If it is non public information then you cannot use it to benefit from. A closed board meeting with one member of the public would not mean that the info was in the public domain. If the minutes of the meeting were published then as soon as publication is available to the wider masses then it is in the public domain.
I didn't say it was a closed board meeting, in fact quite the opposite. I'll try and put it in terms that a slow like yourself might be able to fathom. A racecourse has a capacity crowd of 100. 90 of the crowd will be staff. Is the information in the public domain? If it is keep adding 1 to the number of staff and tell me at what point it's no longer in the public domain. If you say it isn't in the public domain then play about with the capacity, number of staff, number of non-staff and pictures delay until you consider it is in the public domain.
I'm sorry but you really are clueless and because you can't see this you just keep spouting ridiculous rhetoric. It's like sitting next to the pub bore.
If all else fails resort to abuse.
I didn't say it was a closed board meeting, in fact quite the opposite. I'll try and put it in terms that a slow like yourself might be able to fathom. A racecourse has a capacity crowd of 100. 90 of the crowd will be staff. Is the information in the public domain? If it is keep adding 1 to the number of staff and tell me at what point it's no longer in the public domain. If you say it isn't in the public domain then play about with the capacity, number of staff, number of non-staff and pictures delay until you consider it is in the public domain.
I'm sorry but you really are clueless and because you can't see this you just keep spouting ridiculous rhetoric. It's like sitting next to the pub bore.
If all else fails resort to abuse.
Feck, I sure hope there's a Guiness book of records official present watching your record attempt ?
At what? Getting Banks to actually answer a question?
Good morning all you fine people. Blue whales: very therapeutic.
No, deepest man-digged hole ever !!
It's the GC that have dug themselves into a hole. I'm not digging anyway, I'm merely presenting the exact same unanswered question I presented earlier.
PS If you've got an argument Eddie then put it forward. It's not very dignified crawling to and fawning over my opponents. It's something you do with regular monotony.
It's the GC that have dug themselves into a hole. I'm not digging anyway, I'm merely presenting the exact same unanswered question I presented earlier.
PS If you've got an argument Eddie then put it forward. It's not very dignified crawling to and fawning over my opponents. It's something you do with regular monotony.
Feck by your reckoning nothing is ever in the public domain umless every single person has the information. Is a plc report in the public domain if it is published online despite there being people without access to the internet?
Yor arguments appear to have been constructed by a child.
Have you asked Gibraltar what their view is or did you not like their answer either? At what point do you accept that there is a possibility that everyone else is right and you are wrong?
Yor arguments appear to have been constructed by a child.
Have you asked Gibraltar what their view is or did you not like their answer either? At what point do you accept that there is a possibility that everyone else is right and you are wrong?
Feck by your reckoning nothing is ever in the public domain umless every single person has the information.
You're the one that keeps going on about the public domain Banks but, given your failure to answer my question, it's clear you are unable to define what that is. Attempting to turn that failure on me by claiming I'm the one who has to define what it means doesn't wash. I'm saying that laying fallers is cheating, end of. You're the one defending such laying but seemingly have no defence to put forward.
Yor arguments appear to have been constructed by a child.
If all else fails resort to abuse.
You're the one that keeps going on about the public domain Banks but, given your failure to answer my question, it's clear you are unable to define what that is. Attempting to turn that failure on me by claiming I'm the one who has to define what it means doesn't wash. I'm saying that laying fallers is cheating, end of. You're the one defending such laying but seemingly have no defence to put forward.
Yor arguments appear to have been constructed by a child.
If all else fails resort to abuse.
I see a close analogy between the laying of fallers and betting on voting markets based on definitive inside information.
In both cases, one party is taking a bet that is 'sure to win'. The only reason any legitimate betting market has not been voided is that too little time has elapsed in which to stop offering it.
A sentimental public outcry meant that bf now void stakes on SP markets where horses have died and cannot win a future race. I can't see the difference in principle (certain winning bets, asymmetrical information) between this and fallers. The only diff. seems to me that one practice is publicly unacceptable to sporting bettors and the other acceptable to the kind of people who want to turn a penny IR.
In both cases, one party is taking a bet that is 'sure to win'. The only reason any legitimate betting market has not been voided is that too little time has elapsed in which to stop offering it.
A sentimental public outcry meant that bf now void stakes on SP markets where horses have died and cannot win a future race. I can't see the difference in principle (certain winning bets, asymmetrical information) between this and fallers. The only diff. seems to me that one practice is publicly unacceptable to sporting bettors and the other acceptable to the kind of people who want to turn a penny IR.
One is inside info though and one isn't....there is a clear distinction.
The rules are as far as I am aware that the laying of fallers isnt cheating as is the laying of an impossible score in another sport. In all honesty there isnt much difference between laying a faller and backing a darts player to win the match having watched him go 7-5 up in a first to 8 match live whilst those watching on tv still think he needs 170 to check out. Trying to make an example of people laying fallers is the thin edge of the wood. It isn't in the general interest imo as it will cost more to police effectively than the amounts saved and is the thin edge of the wood. If you want to ban people taking advantage of fast pictures in unmanaged markets the only way to do it is ban (unmanaged) in running betting and the upshot of that is mass redundancies and a less profitable exchange with increased charges.
I'd ban automated software myself which I think exacerbates the problem of fast pic merchants (probably costs loads to Betfair in IT associated costs as the markets are continually refreshed), but I'm surmising that those at Betfair believe its necessary for big players to seed the markets.
The rules are as far as I am aware that the laying of fallers isnt cheating as is the laying of an impossible score in another sport. In all honesty there isnt much difference between laying a faller and backing a darts player to win the match having watched him go 7-5 up in a first to 8 match live whilst those watching on tv still think he needs 170 to check out. Trying to make an example of people laying fallers is the thin edge of the wood. It isn't in the general interest imo as it will cost more to police effectively than the amounts saved and is the thin edge of the wood. If you want to ban people taking advantage of fast pictures in unmanaged markets the only way to do it is ban (unmanaged) in running betting and the upshot of that is mass redundancies and a less profitable exchange with increased charges.
I'd ban automated software myself which I think exacerbates the problem of fast pic merchants (probably costs loads to Betfair in IT associated costs as the markets are continually refreshed), but I'm surmising that those at Betfair believe its necessary for big players to seed the markets.
fwiw I think people are crazy to bet in those live unmanaged markets where they are at a significant disadvantage, but the rules do highlight the delay and if they still want to bet that's their choice. The fact that they are still ignorant of either the delay or their chances of winning against those odds is their issue.
Of course it will cost bf a significant amount to police effectively ... more than they are losing from the chance of the persons repeatedly fleeced walking away from betting w/ them. It is also a 'thin edge of the wedge' issue in that it is difficult to define 'privileged access to market information' in such a way as includes 'cheats' and excludes everyone else.
In a way, this is like defining 'public interest'...it's a 'how many grains of sand make a pile' problem, as feck says.
My feeling remains is that in deciding on the 'fairness' of betting, which is a legally enshrined principle, we are going to have to call in some sort of rule. 'If the bookmaker can't lose, then the bet is void' seems as good a rule as any.
This lands bf w/ the prob. of clawing back money from counterparties who have emptied their accounts. Tough luck--and if it's such a prob. for them then they shd be more careful about facilitating bets that can only ever result in a loss for clients' counterparties.
In a way, this is like defining 'public interest'...it's a 'how many grains of sand make a pile' problem, as feck says.
My feeling remains is that in deciding on the 'fairness' of betting, which is a legally enshrined principle, we are going to have to call in some sort of rule. 'If the bookmaker can't lose, then the bet is void' seems as good a rule as any.
This lands bf w/ the prob. of clawing back money from counterparties who have emptied their accounts. Tough luck--and if it's such a prob. for them then they shd be more careful about facilitating bets that can only ever result in a loss for clients' counterparties.
As for whether voiding faller bets is poss., bets are timestamped and a precise time can be assigned for any fall.
I agree voiding faller bets is possible but how many layers of management will it take to make the call...what if they get it wrong...what's the right of appeal? what about innocent parties laying the faller unknowingly?..what about anyone backing one of the other runners? (fast pic merchants will simply revert to doing this)...what about someone laying 1000 on 0-0 which is gladly accepted by someone wanting to free up liabilities?
I think it's a minefield
I think it's a minefield
I do think if you ban automated software you reduce the time advantage options of the ir fast pic merchant who also has automated software in his armoury.
It is a minefield but you need a principle imv, and mine wd be to void bets that cd not win at the time they were struck.
To answer yr other points, it wd take two layers of management--one to frame the principle (all bets are void on a horse after any part of the jockey's anatomy touches the ground) and another to timestamp every occurence of this and void bets struck after this point. The right of appeal wd be no different to cases where bf's pics are behind another provider's w/ the effect that they still have markets up for impossible outcomes. The competition between fast pic merchants on other runners wd not be 'unfair' in the same way as laying fallers and furthermore wd be the mechanism for taking the market to a state where recreational bettors cd bet into roughly fair value.
I am standing up for a clear voiding rule b/c I agree w/ yr point about the difficulty of classifying (as fair / unfair) bets that are made simply on the basis of having more timely info than other bettors. It is hard to define this 'time' or 'information' advantage in such a way as it excludes judgment, knowledge or the possession of any sort of winning edge.
The distinction between 'fair' and 'unfair' bets shd then imv revert to an utterly clear rule along the lines of 'if you can't win, you haven't bet'.
To answer yr other points, it wd take two layers of management--one to frame the principle (all bets are void on a horse after any part of the jockey's anatomy touches the ground) and another to timestamp every occurence of this and void bets struck after this point. The right of appeal wd be no different to cases where bf's pics are behind another provider's w/ the effect that they still have markets up for impossible outcomes. The competition between fast pic merchants on other runners wd not be 'unfair' in the same way as laying fallers and furthermore wd be the mechanism for taking the market to a state where recreational bettors cd bet into roughly fair value.
I am standing up for a clear voiding rule b/c I agree w/ yr point about the difficulty of classifying (as fair / unfair) bets that are made simply on the basis of having more timely info than other bettors. It is hard to define this 'time' or 'information' advantage in such a way as it excludes judgment, knowledge or the possession of any sort of winning edge.
The distinction between 'fair' and 'unfair' bets shd then imv revert to an utterly clear rule along the lines of 'if you can't win, you haven't bet'.
Innocent parties laying the faller unknowingly wdn't have won--but equally they wdn't lose. The presumption wd be that bets struck in these circs are just bad luc****il there's enough of them to make bf suppose that someone has an 'on-course strategy'. It wd be useless anyway, unless the player started betting more on genuine chances based on judgement.
'If the bookmaker can't lose, then the bet is void' seems as good a rule as any.
But the law doesn't say that so you would need to get primary legislation changed if you wanted to go down that route.
a precise time can be assigned for any fall.
Good luck with that one! Whilst you will be dealing with fractions of a second you will still have a subjective call to make which will inevitably be questioned by some. I also echo CLYBEBANK29's points on this issue.
Finally if you are looking at fallers I would argue that on principle you would have to look at all in running betting. Just because a faller is seen as an absolute event you could argue that all IR bets on every sport are unfair on that basis.
In fact where would you draw the line? What about a pre race market where someone sees a horse bolt on the way to the start a fraction before everyone else? Does that get voided to?
If you advocate that only bets were everyone has precisely the same info at the same time are permitted then you could argue that every single bet ever placed could be voided.
Finally I thing that CLYDEBANK29 hits the nail on the head when he starts talking about commercial solutions for BF. These are far more realistic and do not require legislative changes.
But the law doesn't say that so you would need to get primary legislation changed if you wanted to go down that route.
a precise time can be assigned for any fall.
Good luck with that one! Whilst you will be dealing with fractions of a second you will still have a subjective call to make which will inevitably be questioned by some. I also echo CLYBEBANK29's points on this issue.
Finally if you are looking at fallers I would argue that on principle you would have to look at all in running betting. Just because a faller is seen as an absolute event you could argue that all IR bets on every sport are unfair on that basis.
In fact where would you draw the line? What about a pre race market where someone sees a horse bolt on the way to the start a fraction before everyone else? Does that get voided to?
If you advocate that only bets were everyone has precisely the same info at the same time are permitted then you could argue that every single bet ever placed could be voided.
Finally I thing that CLYDEBANK29 hits the nail on the head when he starts talking about commercial solutions for BF. These are far more realistic and do not require legislative changes.
Let's take a case where the Virgin employees were not working for a company counting all bets ... they only had access to the entirely of the bets submitted on an event by one of many telephone providers. Let's assume that they knew about an estimated 25% of the votes and were extrapolating that this 25% were representative to a degree that made their bets good value.
Wd you void these bets? My inclination wd be 'no', as in principle the bettors wd be doing no different than other winning players--extending their information into a judgment likely to make them money.
'Materially significant' changes shd not affect whether bets are 'unfair'; unfairness shd be a matter of whether something is absolutely impossible.
Wd you void these bets? My inclination wd be 'no', as in principle the bettors wd be doing no different than other winning players--extending their information into a judgment likely to make them money.
'Materially significant' changes shd not affect whether bets are 'unfair'; unfairness shd be a matter of whether something is absolutely impossible.
*would be bad luc****il there are enough of them...
Not an outbreak of potty-mouth
Not an outbreak of potty-mouth
Eh?
The fact that they submitted these wagers at such an inopportune moment would not be taken to support any inference that they were accepting money on an impossibility...
The fact that they submitted these wagers at such an inopportune moment would not be taken to support any inference that they were accepting money on an impossibility...
Let's assume that they knew about an estimated 25% of the votes and were extrapolating that this 25% were representative to a degree that made their bets good value.
Wd you void these bets? My inclination wd be 'no', as in principle the bettors wd be doing no different than other winning players--extending their information into a judgment likely to make them money.
'Materially significant' changes shd not affect whether bets are 'unfair'; unfairness shd be a matter of whether something is absolutely impossible.
Couldn't disagree more with this statement. It is nothing to do with the degree of inside info it is to do with whether the info improves your position vs those without it.
Consider 2 scenarios. The first one where the Virgin employee knows how that contestant A has got 100 votes and contestant B has 0 with 101 votes still to be counted. Would you advocate that the employee can back contestant A without reproach as the outcome is not 100% determined?
Secondly if you want to talk about technicalities you could argue that fallers could still win. If the jockey remounts and wins they still the need stewards to call an enquiry and hand out the mandatory disqualification. What if the stewards made a mistake? Ridiculously unlikely I agree but it does highlight the issue of something being impossible.
Wd you void these bets? My inclination wd be 'no', as in principle the bettors wd be doing no different than other winning players--extending their information into a judgment likely to make them money.
'Materially significant' changes shd not affect whether bets are 'unfair'; unfairness shd be a matter of whether something is absolutely impossible.
Couldn't disagree more with this statement. It is nothing to do with the degree of inside info it is to do with whether the info improves your position vs those without it.
Consider 2 scenarios. The first one where the Virgin employee knows how that contestant A has got 100 votes and contestant B has 0 with 101 votes still to be counted. Would you advocate that the employee can back contestant A without reproach as the outcome is not 100% determined?
Secondly if you want to talk about technicalities you could argue that fallers could still win. If the jockey remounts and wins they still the need stewards to call an enquiry and hand out the mandatory disqualification. What if the stewards made a mistake? Ridiculously unlikely I agree but it does highlight the issue of something being impossible.
There is 'impossible' meaning 'extraordinarily unlikely' and 'impossible' meaning impossible on the rules, and I wd void in the case of the second.
Bookmakers anyway void in a wide variety of circs. to keep custom e.g. the recent Wolves (?) race where there was a pile-up, so if we are thinking about the commercial hit to a bookmaker of the rule, we shd be agreed that it wd be minimal.
On the wider 'where would you draw the line' question, I have said surely more times than anyone else needs to hear what principle my argument wd make operative. 'If a bet can't win, it hasn't been struck'. Void these bets. Bets which have been struck in circs when something has happened unbeknownst to the bettor wh/ materially affect the outcome shd not make the bet legally 'unfair'.
I also disagree w/ you re the law. Here, my reading is that the Gambling Act prohibits bets that are unfair--tho' no working description of this has as yet been generated by the Courts. Judgments of unfairness are deferred to judges, who will make reference to Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts legislation. Part of the reason for the absence of case law is that the major books have an interest in preventing any disputes coming to be heard by a County or court of higher instance. If you brought a case before a magistrate arguing that a bet which could not win at the time it was struck was ‘unfair’, I am sure (in the absence of categorical legal certainty) you wd get a v. sympathetic hearing.
Bookmakers anyway void in a wide variety of circs. to keep custom e.g. the recent Wolves (?) race where there was a pile-up, so if we are thinking about the commercial hit to a bookmaker of the rule, we shd be agreed that it wd be minimal.
On the wider 'where would you draw the line' question, I have said surely more times than anyone else needs to hear what principle my argument wd make operative. 'If a bet can't win, it hasn't been struck'. Void these bets. Bets which have been struck in circs when something has happened unbeknownst to the bettor wh/ materially affect the outcome shd not make the bet legally 'unfair'.
I also disagree w/ you re the law. Here, my reading is that the Gambling Act prohibits bets that are unfair--tho' no working description of this has as yet been generated by the Courts. Judgments of unfairness are deferred to judges, who will make reference to Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts legislation. Part of the reason for the absence of case law is that the major books have an interest in preventing any disputes coming to be heard by a County or court of higher instance. If you brought a case before a magistrate arguing that a bet which could not win at the time it was struck was ‘unfair’, I am sure (in the absence of categorical legal certainty) you wd get a v. sympathetic hearing.
Am I right in thinking that currently, when a courtsider lays an impossible outcome on a Spanish Primera Division game where bf's feed is so slow that they have not suspended their market, the bet is retrospectively voided by bf?
What is the diff. in principle between this and voiding bets on fallers?
What is the diff. in principle between this and voiding bets on fallers?
They do that because it is in the t's and c's of a managed market.
It would be virtually impossible in an unmanged market. You could also argue that their stance in the scenario you describe above is a bit arbitary too. If you voided on fallers why not on horses that nearly fall and then have no chance?
The whole idea of managed markets is to improve liquidity. If you tried to do a similar thing with horse racing it would have the opposite effect as the decision making regarding voiding would be so subjective that people would have no confidence in the market and their positions due to the dangers of retrospective voiding.
Again you need to consider the principle that it is not degrees of advantage that is the issue. Either all IR bets are inherently unfair or none of them are (ignoring genuine inside info for the purposes of the example). From a legal standpoint there is no middle ground.
It would be virtually impossible in an unmanged market. You could also argue that their stance in the scenario you describe above is a bit arbitary too. If you voided on fallers why not on horses that nearly fall and then have no chance?
The whole idea of managed markets is to improve liquidity. If you tried to do a similar thing with horse racing it would have the opposite effect as the decision making regarding voiding would be so subjective that people would have no confidence in the market and their positions due to the dangers of retrospective voiding.
Again you need to consider the principle that it is not degrees of advantage that is the issue. Either all IR bets are inherently unfair or none of them are (ignoring genuine inside info for the purposes of the example). From a legal standpoint there is no middle ground.
I cannot see the distinction in principle between the management of a market like a football match and the suspension of IR bets at the end of a horserace. What (you cd say) if the winning jockey is thrown out by the clerk of the scales?
The only way bf's terms for an unmanaged market are as they are is b/c the balance of opinion (by betting volume) on football matches is against being able to lay imposs. outcomes and the balance of opinion on horses presumably in favour.
I have said that I agree that degrees of advantage shd not determine fairness and that we shd fall back on a cast-iron principle. Mine wd be 'if you can't win, the bet hasn't been struck'.
I do not see what is subjective about the time a horse falls any more than when a goal is scored. Yr point about managing markets to improve liquidity is pragmatically correct but I don't see how it speaks to the principle that an unfair bet shd be allowed to stand.
Yr distinction between all IR and all betting (in relation to privileged info) also seems misplaced to me. Let's say that I know that a horse has schooled notably better. Why wd i wait for him to do it in public--I wd get on before the event!
The only way bf's terms for an unmanaged market are as they are is b/c the balance of opinion (by betting volume) on football matches is against being able to lay imposs. outcomes and the balance of opinion on horses presumably in favour.
I have said that I agree that degrees of advantage shd not determine fairness and that we shd fall back on a cast-iron principle. Mine wd be 'if you can't win, the bet hasn't been struck'.
I do not see what is subjective about the time a horse falls any more than when a goal is scored. Yr point about managing markets to improve liquidity is pragmatically correct but I don't see how it speaks to the principle that an unfair bet shd be allowed to stand.
Yr distinction between all IR and all betting (in relation to privileged info) also seems misplaced to me. Let's say that I know that a horse has schooled notably better. Why wd i wait for him to do it in public--I wd get on before the event!
The only way bf's terms for an unmanaged market are as they are is b/c the balance of opinion (by betting volume) on football matches is against being able to lay imposs. outcomes and the balance of opinion on horses presumably in favour.
Not sure I agree. Any managed market is going to get greater liquidity as it offeres customer protection. Some sports such as football lend themselves well to being managed, others such as racing don't.
I do not see what is subjective about the time a horse falls any more than when a goal is scored. Yr point about managing markets to improve liquidity is pragmatically correct but I don't see how it speaks to the principle that an unfair bet shd be allowed to stand.
The difference is that unless you have a inbuilt bet acceptance delay and then accept that you are effectively suspending before the fall as happens with football (albeit only fractionally) it is impossible. The problem then is that with racing all this would have to happen retrospectively unlike football.
Would you continue to trade a football match if the market was unmanaged and you had various bets taken when a goal was scored but knew that some may be voided at the end of 90 mins? The same would happen with IR horse racing. You would end up sweating on which bets were going to be voided. What if a horse is trading at 2.0 and you put a lay at 2.02 which is taken just as it falls? You would have no way of knowing if the bet was taken "fairly" due to market fluctuations or "unfairly" due to the fall.
Let's say that I know that a horse has schooled notably better. Why wd i wait for him to do it in public--I wd get on before the event!
If it is in the public domain albeit not everyone knows then good luck to you. If it is inside info then the bet would be questionable.
Not sure I agree. Any managed market is going to get greater liquidity as it offeres customer protection. Some sports such as football lend themselves well to being managed, others such as racing don't.
I do not see what is subjective about the time a horse falls any more than when a goal is scored. Yr point about managing markets to improve liquidity is pragmatically correct but I don't see how it speaks to the principle that an unfair bet shd be allowed to stand.
The difference is that unless you have a inbuilt bet acceptance delay and then accept that you are effectively suspending before the fall as happens with football (albeit only fractionally) it is impossible. The problem then is that with racing all this would have to happen retrospectively unlike football.
Would you continue to trade a football match if the market was unmanaged and you had various bets taken when a goal was scored but knew that some may be voided at the end of 90 mins? The same would happen with IR horse racing. You would end up sweating on which bets were going to be voided. What if a horse is trading at 2.0 and you put a lay at 2.02 which is taken just as it falls? You would have no way of knowing if the bet was taken "fairly" due to market fluctuations or "unfairly" due to the fall.
Let's say that I know that a horse has schooled notably better. Why wd i wait for him to do it in public--I wd get on before the event!
If it is in the public domain albeit not everyone knows then good luck to you. If it is inside info then the bet would be questionable.
I do agree that where racing is concerned the line between info that not everyone knows and inside info is not always clear cut.
Banks, on the broad issue, then, I think that laying impossible outcomes shd be imposs. and you don't. I see an absolute distinction between impossible outcomes (wh/ shd not be the subject of betting) and merely very remote outcomes, and you don't.
On more particular points, are you not contradicting y/s on managed markets? First, you say the management of horse markets wd discourage players (because of the risk of the unpredictable voiding of bets), then that the management of a market conduces to greater player participation (liquidity), because people don't want to leave up bets that are hoovered. If this is true of football, why is it not true of racing?
On the issue of calculating liabilities in the event of its being unclear whether a bet has been taken or not, I do not see it being the big deal you suggest. Either you have got lucky (laid a horse just prior to falling) or your position is the same as before. This is because the only market in doubt is the faller sub-market; since all other outcomes are absolutely possible in my terms (tho' almost all much more likely), they are not affected by the fall incident.
Imv Clydebank makes more of a point against voiding fallers in saying that bettors might want to free up capital by getting matched at 1000. However, so long as any voiding was post-race, they cd do this anyway and dip into their 'winnings' before the race in question was settled. These people wd in effect be in a better position w/ voiding fallers since they wd be refunded the 'transaction charge' of the tiny back bet at 1000.
As the final, really hair-splitting point about whether a horse schooling is in the public domain or not (how high was the hedge around the field? was the trainer's cousin's wife present?), I think this makes feck's earlier point that there can be no categorical definition of 'inside' or 'the public domain'. In practice, of course, huge numbers of people bet on what they think is inside info.
Instead of trying to outlaw it, we shd have a hard-and-fast rule about impossible outcomes.
On more particular points, are you not contradicting y/s on managed markets? First, you say the management of horse markets wd discourage players (because of the risk of the unpredictable voiding of bets), then that the management of a market conduces to greater player participation (liquidity), because people don't want to leave up bets that are hoovered. If this is true of football, why is it not true of racing?
On the issue of calculating liabilities in the event of its being unclear whether a bet has been taken or not, I do not see it being the big deal you suggest. Either you have got lucky (laid a horse just prior to falling) or your position is the same as before. This is because the only market in doubt is the faller sub-market; since all other outcomes are absolutely possible in my terms (tho' almost all much more likely), they are not affected by the fall incident.
Imv Clydebank makes more of a point against voiding fallers in saying that bettors might want to free up capital by getting matched at 1000. However, so long as any voiding was post-race, they cd do this anyway and dip into their 'winnings' before the race in question was settled. These people wd in effect be in a better position w/ voiding fallers since they wd be refunded the 'transaction charge' of the tiny back bet at 1000.
As the final, really hair-splitting point about whether a horse schooling is in the public domain or not (how high was the hedge around the field? was the trainer's cousin's wife present?), I think this makes feck's earlier point that there can be no categorical definition of 'inside' or 'the public domain'. In practice, of course, huge numbers of people bet on what they think is inside info.
Instead of trying to outlaw it, we shd have a hard-and-fast rule about impossible outcomes.
On more particular points, are you not contradicting y/s on managed markets? First, you say the management of horse markets wd discourage players (because of the risk of the unpredictable voiding of bets), then that the management of a market conduces to greater player participation (liquidity), because people don't want to leave up bets that are hoovered. If this is true of football, why is it not true of racing?
Probably a little poorly explained by me. What I was saying is that managed markets increase liquidity however it wouldn't with horse racing because they could only be managed retrospectively ie not suspended IR like football so you wouldn't know your p&l on the race until after the bets on fallers were accounted for.
Either you have got lucky (laid a horse just prior to falling) or your position is the same as before.
What if you have laid it just as it was falling and don't know whether it was matched? You may use the freed up funds to trade further and then find that your profitable bet is voided.
Imv Clydebank makes more of a point against voiding fallers in saying that bettors might want to free up capital by getting matched at 1000. However, so long as any voiding was post-race, they cd do this anyway and dip into their 'winnings' before the race in question was settled.
Who would be laying at 1000? There would be no point.
Instead of trying to outlaw it, we shd have a hard-and-fast rule about impossible outcomes.
That would have to be BFs call as the law allows bets on impossible outcomes. I think they would be wary of the effect on liquidity. Take football correct scores for example. People like freeing up funds if they have a lay on 0-0 etc.
The other issue is the definition of impossible. Many outcomes are highly improbable but are they really impossible? Is it impossible for a faller to win? A remounted faller only gets disqualified once the stewards call an enquiry. What if they forgot? A one in a billion chance i agree but impossible? No.
Probably a little poorly explained by me. What I was saying is that managed markets increase liquidity however it wouldn't with horse racing because they could only be managed retrospectively ie not suspended IR like football so you wouldn't know your p&l on the race until after the bets on fallers were accounted for.
Either you have got lucky (laid a horse just prior to falling) or your position is the same as before.
What if you have laid it just as it was falling and don't know whether it was matched? You may use the freed up funds to trade further and then find that your profitable bet is voided.
Imv Clydebank makes more of a point against voiding fallers in saying that bettors might want to free up capital by getting matched at 1000. However, so long as any voiding was post-race, they cd do this anyway and dip into their 'winnings' before the race in question was settled.
Who would be laying at 1000? There would be no point.
Instead of trying to outlaw it, we shd have a hard-and-fast rule about impossible outcomes.
That would have to be BFs call as the law allows bets on impossible outcomes. I think they would be wary of the effect on liquidity. Take football correct scores for example. People like freeing up funds if they have a lay on 0-0 etc.
The other issue is the definition of impossible. Many outcomes are highly improbable but are they really impossible? Is it impossible for a faller to win? A remounted faller only gets disqualified once the stewards call an enquiry. What if they forgot? A one in a billion chance i agree but impossible? No.
What if you have laid it just as it was falling and don't know whether it was matched? You may use the freed up funds to trade further and then find that your profitable bet is voided.
But you know that you won't lose money--you've either won in much shorter order than you've been expecting (and will be paid out on settlement) or just tied up some of yr cash. Should you use freed-up funds (perhaps b/c you have positions on other runners), you will just owe bf a small debit.
I'm more old-fashioned than you--I don't see what's wrong in taking positions based on a perception of value throughout a race. This is independent of any reference to your market position or need to green up. Why shd a bettor need to know his prospective p&l before firing in bets in every instance? It wd make a lot of laying strategies cripplingly slow.
Anyway, the number of cases where it's possible to bet w/ freed-up funds after a faller (that will later be clawed back after voiding) but not poss. otherwise must be very small. How many IT traders are there w/ so small a float?
I have said that I'm not sure that the law allows you to bet when you are sure to lose. The issue of a bet's fairness is left to a judge.
As for the impossibility of a definition of 'impossible', this is much more angels dancing on a pinhead stuff than my claim that it is impossible to draw a line around the 'public sphere'. Imv the prob. w/ yr line about voiding fallers is that you are thinking like a bookmaker--looking for a reason to void when your judgment has been off, not when the bet you have offered has been categorically unfair.
But you know that you won't lose money--you've either won in much shorter order than you've been expecting (and will be paid out on settlement) or just tied up some of yr cash. Should you use freed-up funds (perhaps b/c you have positions on other runners), you will just owe bf a small debit.
I'm more old-fashioned than you--I don't see what's wrong in taking positions based on a perception of value throughout a race. This is independent of any reference to your market position or need to green up. Why shd a bettor need to know his prospective p&l before firing in bets in every instance? It wd make a lot of laying strategies cripplingly slow.
Anyway, the number of cases where it's possible to bet w/ freed-up funds after a faller (that will later be clawed back after voiding) but not poss. otherwise must be very small. How many IT traders are there w/ so small a float?
I have said that I'm not sure that the law allows you to bet when you are sure to lose. The issue of a bet's fairness is left to a judge.
As for the impossibility of a definition of 'impossible', this is much more angels dancing on a pinhead stuff than my claim that it is impossible to draw a line around the 'public sphere'. Imv the prob. w/ yr line about voiding fallers is that you are thinking like a bookmaker--looking for a reason to void when your judgment has been off, not when the bet you have offered has been categorically unfair.
Another prob. w/ making voiding a matter of an extraordinary concession by a bm is that bookies will be tempted to void selectively to diff. clients--to void the bets of clients they wish to keep and to keep the losing cash of less profitable players.
This is also unfair.
When Jim Bolger's horse injures itself on the gallops and is laid violently on an AP market, imv lay bets on that runner shd be voided from the time of the injury as a matter of principle. This is not an extraordinary concession. If you can't win, you haven't bet.
This is also unfair.
When Jim Bolger's horse injures itself on the gallops and is laid violently on an AP market, imv lay bets on that runner shd be voided from the time of the injury as a matter of principle. This is not an extraordinary concession. If you can't win, you haven't bet.
I have said that I'm not sure that the law allows you to bet when you are sure to lose.
Section 9 of the gambling act allows this.
Section 9 of the gambling act allows this.
Another prob. w/ making voiding a matter of an extraordinary concession by a bm is that bookies will be tempted to void selectively to diff. clients--to void the bets of clients they wish to keep and to keep the losing cash of less profitable players.
This is also unfair.
Already happens every day of the week on a commercial rather than legal basis.
This is also unfair.
Already happens every day of the week on a commercial rather than legal basis.
In all honesty there isnt much difference between laying a faller and backing a darts player to win the match having watched him go 7-5 up in a first to 8 match live whilst those watching on tv still think he needs 170 to check out. Trying to make an example of people laying fallers is the thin edge of the wood.
I don't disagree with that Clydebank. It's the GC (set up to supposedly ensure fairness in betting) abandoning the written in stone principle (can't lose can't win) to accomodate betfair I'm going on about.
My opening post on this thread was this
"While I welcome this, it's a bit of a joke when you consider betfair originally claimed it was fair to allow betting right up to the announcement of the result until DJ reported them to the sc.um-of-the-world (insiders were cleaning up at the time). The GC's stance is also funny given they think laying fallers is just like two people betting down the pub on who won the 1980 cup final. You get the impression they'll say anything betfair wants them to in exchange for a bit of 'wining and dining'."
All I'm saying is, I'm not going to get bowled over because a prile of defrauding clowns used their own names and got caught doing something that's probably rife. Nor am I going to give betfair and the GC any respect for uncovering something they so blatantly don't particularly care about. Betfair I'd let off if they at least tried to inform punters of the disadvantages they were up against but their insurance type small print warning ("Transmissions described as “live” by some broadcasters may actually be delayed") suggests they don't really want the idiots to know the truth.
I don't disagree with that Clydebank. It's the GC (set up to supposedly ensure fairness in betting) abandoning the written in stone principle (can't lose can't win) to accomodate betfair I'm going on about.
My opening post on this thread was this
"While I welcome this, it's a bit of a joke when you consider betfair originally claimed it was fair to allow betting right up to the announcement of the result until DJ reported them to the sc.um-of-the-world (insiders were cleaning up at the time). The GC's stance is also funny given they think laying fallers is just like two people betting down the pub on who won the 1980 cup final. You get the impression they'll say anything betfair wants them to in exchange for a bit of 'wining and dining'."
All I'm saying is, I'm not going to get bowled over because a prile of defrauding clowns used their own names and got caught doing something that's probably rife. Nor am I going to give betfair and the GC any respect for uncovering something they so blatantly don't particularly care about. Betfair I'd let off if they at least tried to inform punters of the disadvantages they were up against but their insurance type small print warning ("Transmissions described as “live” by some broadcasters may actually be delayed") suggests they don't really want the idiots to know the truth.
they don't really want the idiots to know the truth
Their failure to implement the magician's suggestion of allowing customers to view separately P/L for ir bets confirms this view.
Their failure to implement the magician's suggestion of allowing customers to view separately P/L for ir bets confirms this view.
Banks: Section 9 of the gambling act allows this.
Doesn't this depend on a reading of 'may'?--as either 'is questionable as a valid bet' or 'can legitimately be counted as a valid bet'? Why is there no case law testing a definition of fairness in the matter of bets that are sure to lose? I'd guess it's because books have settled on an exceptional basis.
Anyway, I can see why you think as you do on the law. I can also see the opportunities for market manipulation (and moreover winning from the house overround skimmer) if there was a rule that all bets on fallen horses wd be voided.
As for the inconsistent voiding of losing bets, IBAS (hardly known as punters' friends) have stepped in to stop this and award a 'goodwill' refund on at least two occasions I know of.
Maybe I'll read the law more closely and get back if I am confident in an interpretation that differs from yours.
Doesn't this depend on a reading of 'may'?--as either 'is questionable as a valid bet' or 'can legitimately be counted as a valid bet'? Why is there no case law testing a definition of fairness in the matter of bets that are sure to lose? I'd guess it's because books have settled on an exceptional basis.
Anyway, I can see why you think as you do on the law. I can also see the opportunities for market manipulation (and moreover winning from the house overround skimmer) if there was a rule that all bets on fallen horses wd be voided.
As for the inconsistent voiding of losing bets, IBAS (hardly known as punters' friends) have stepped in to stop this and award a 'goodwill' refund on at least two occasions I know of.
Maybe I'll read the law more closely and get back if I am confident in an interpretation that differs from yours.
Banks: Section 9 of the gambling act allows this.
Doesn't this depend on a reading of 'may'?--as either 'is questionable as a valid bet' or 'can legitimately be counted as a valid bet'?
I agree askari. Here's what I said earlier.
Section 9 does not override the "if you can't win you can't lose" principle. The word "may" which is used throughout it allows for an interpretation such as (e.g.) 2 people betting on who won the 1980 cup final, although betting on something that's already happened, are actually betting on who has the best memory. That hardly applies to someone at the course laying a faller to someone unaware the horse has fallen or someone aware of the intracicies of the bet placement delay taking advantage of someone who mistakenly thinks it's there to protect them.
Doesn't this depend on a reading of 'may'?--as either 'is questionable as a valid bet' or 'can legitimately be counted as a valid bet'?
I agree askari. Here's what I said earlier.
Section 9 does not override the "if you can't win you can't lose" principle. The word "may" which is used throughout it allows for an interpretation such as (e.g.) 2 people betting on who won the 1980 cup final, although betting on something that's already happened, are actually betting on who has the best memory. That hardly applies to someone at the course laying a faller to someone unaware the horse has fallen or someone aware of the intracicies of the bet placement delay taking advantage of someone who mistakenly thinks it's there to protect them.
Result!
Well done betfair
Dear Mr van Wrinkle
We refer to the email sent to you by Betfair on 15 April 2011, regarding the Gambling Commission ordering the voiding of a number of bets placed on Betfair X Factor 2010 markets.
We have now recovered in full the funds lost by you on the relevant voided bets. Therefore your Betfair account will shortly be credited with the amount stated in our email of 15 April.
Kind Regards
Betfair Integrity Team
Well done betfair
Dear Mr van Wrinkle
We refer to the email sent to you by Betfair on 15 April 2011, regarding the Gambling Commission ordering the voiding of a number of bets placed on Betfair X Factor 2010 markets.
We have now recovered in full the funds lost by you on the relevant voided bets. Therefore your Betfair account will shortly be credited with the amount stated in our email of 15 April.
Kind Regards
Betfair Integrity Team
BIG congratulations to betfair for their exemplary behavior in this episode. People here knock them and they deserve better.
Transfer From CREDEB FRAUDINT X Factor
Transfer From CREDEB FRAUDINT X Factor
heck i have just recieved £109 i did not know id been swindled out of yes well done betfair.i critise sometimes but this deserves to be brought up to highlight that they do good as well at times withtheir transparecy 
scarecrow,
Betfair get unfairly critised. It is about time that they get some positive feedback.
Betfair get unfairly critised. It is about time that they get some positive feedback.
gee my last post deleted i was only joking,not having a go.yes alex it seems strange nobody else has visited this thread to praise them when they deserve it for this positive move thats gives customers more confidence in the site.well done betfair.
scarecrow, you sound very Texan. Are you or are you just putting that on?
no i am a scot alex hence pleased to get some money back!!
Ok I won't hold that against you [;)]
But the underlying issue issue is that betfair reported this in the first instance and have worked hard to make proper recompense. They ought to be congratulated.
But the underlying issue issue is that betfair reported this in the first instance and have worked hard to make proper recompense. They ought to be congratulated.
totally agree we are all quick to moan but it seems slow to praise when they do the right thing well.
I thought I might navigate my way though the betfair forums to try to find the specials forum. I got there eventually but figure that they must be all be bust as nothing is happening.
X factor punters must have moved onto Eurovision, I guess.
X factor punters must have moved onto Eurovision, I guess.
But the underlying issue issue is that betfair reported this in the first instance
To be fair they have merely complied with their legal obligations. Hardly worthy of gushing praise.
To be fair they have merely complied with their legal obligations. Hardly worthy of gushing praise.
The banks are lovely people as well giving back the loan insurance they defrauded people out of. Fred Goodwin for prime minister imo.
What on earth has that got to do with anything?
Are you having problems with your medication again?
Are you having problems with your medication again?
It's the same type of hypocrisy. Much of the fraud on betfair is a direct result of their interface and rules. A few x-factor punters getting their money back doesn't change that. HTH clown.
Is this a type of argument regression thread?
I expect your next comment will be along the lines of "my dad is bigger than your dad".
I expect your next comment will be along the lines of "my dad is bigger than your dad".
You just made that comment Banks. As I'm sick saying, you're becoming pathetic. This obsession with me, which clearly arises out of the fact that you're not up to me, is not healthy.
Dream on. You are the wrong side of clueless and that frustrates you immensely.
You also know that it is too late to do anything about it as you have been left behind.
You are so out of your depth it is laughable.
You also know that it is too late to do anything about it as you have been left behind.
You are so out of your depth it is laughable.
You can scweam and scweam and scweam all you want Banks but you know it and I know it. You're pathetic.
A clueless misinformed individual calling me pathetic really doesn't have a great degree of significance.
You have been exposed as a bitter old man who is frustrated at the hand he has been dealt and hates that fact that he doesn't have the ability or opportunity to do anything about it.
You have been exposed as a bitter old man who is frustrated at the hand he has been dealt and hates that fact that he doesn't have the ability or opportunity to do anything about it.
24 hours and no more posts
I was rather hoping to find out if banks or Feck has the biggest Dad.
I was rather hoping to find out if banks or Feck has the biggest Dad.
You think it's funny that my father's dead? You're a very stupid toryboy Banks.
Christ you are a fool Feck and a bitter one at that.
I can only hope that Scotland are successful in getting their independence so that we can cut the likes of you adrift.
Labour are about as popular as Celtic down here I'm afraid and long may that continue.
I can only hope that Scotland are successful in getting their independence so that we can cut the likes of you adrift.
Labour are about as popular as Celtic down here I'm afraid and long may that continue.
We're agreed on independence then. We'll be equally glad to see the back of you tory voting little englanders with your union jack underpants and your "we won the war" (PMSL), "we're too good for Europe" fascist attitudes. We're fed up subsidising you financial ponce lovers with our oil.
The north of England are welcome to join Scotland though.
We're fed up subsidising you financial ponce lovers with our oil.
Feck spouting nonsense again.
Check your sums and you will see that the reverse is actually the case. Scotland oil or no oil is subsidised by English tax payers. The real winners of Scottish independence would be the English but don't let the facts get in the way of your nonsense.
Feck spouting nonsense again.
Check your sums and you will see that the reverse is actually the case. Scotland oil or no oil is subsidised by English tax payers. The real winners of Scottish independence would be the English but don't let the facts get in the way of your nonsense.
A leading Professor of Economics, Andrew Hughes Hallett, has today [Saturday] confirmed that Scotland subsidises the UK treasury in London and that the unionist parties Calman recommendations are unworkable.
Professor Hughes Hallett made the remarks whilst appearing on Radio Scotland’s ‘Newsweek’ show this morning. When questioned by presenter Derek Batemen on the economics of independence, the Professor confirmed John Swinney’s case that Scotland would be better off financially with economic independence.
The comments come just weeks after Nobel Prize winning economist Josef Stiglitz confirmed that the UK Government had ‘squandered’ Scotland’s oil wealth and the SNP’s plans for oil fund must be carried out as soon as possible.
Professor Hughes Hallett made the remarks whilst appearing on Radio Scotland’s ‘Newsweek’ show this morning. When questioned by presenter Derek Batemen on the economics of independence, the Professor confirmed John Swinney’s case that Scotland would be better off financially with economic independence.
The comments come just weeks after Nobel Prize winning economist Josef Stiglitz confirmed that the UK Government had ‘squandered’ Scotland’s oil wealth and the SNP’s plans for oil fund must be carried out as soon as possible.
Feck it's a good job you did n't get independence from our great country years ago because the jocks would not have had the money to bail out RBS and HBOS to the tune of £100 BILLION+ and given all the scottish ill free prescriptions etc 
That t!t Salmon has champagne ideas but lemonade pockets!
That t!t Salmon has champagne ideas but lemonade pockets!
RBS & HBOS might not have had the same freedom under a socialist government (one that wouldn't ever have to worry about a non-socialist one).
But figures from the Scottish Executive show that Scotland is a net beneficiary as a result of its inclusion in the United Kingdom, and that it has been running a deficit for many years. The latest figures available from the Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS)show a Scottish deficit of £11.2bn, or 12.9 per cent of GDP, excluding proceeds from North Sea oil.
Even if Scotland were to receive all revenues from North Sea oil and the definition of Scottish GDP incorporated oil and gas production, the Scottish deficit would be £6.9bn or 6.2 per cent of output, according to its figures. Over time Scotland's reliance on the UK has grown, according to a spokesperson for the Scottish Executive with its net borrowing, or deficit, on an upward trend.
Even if Scotland were to receive all revenues from North Sea oil and the definition of Scottish GDP incorporated oil and gas production, the Scottish deficit would be £6.9bn or 6.2 per cent of output, according to its figures. Over time Scotland's reliance on the UK has grown, according to a spokesperson for the Scottish Executive with its net borrowing, or deficit, on an upward trend.
From the same web page you quote from Banks
Parliamentary answers and statistics from the Treasury have shown that just under £3.1m of non-identifiable English regional spending is mis-allocated. These mis-allocations include Scotland being charged for items which are England-only spending, and if spending is recalculated a total £435 is taken off Scotland's expenditure bill. Add mis-proportions charges for other revenues such as civil service wages and defence, a further £50 is taken off the per-head bill.
Meanwhile, the SNP has calculated Scotland's oil revenues at £1,818 per head. That's based on Aberdeen University's calculations of Scotland's share of North Sea oil revenues of £9.2bn for 2005-6.
Subtracting its newly calculated spending difference per head from estimated oil revenues per head, each Scot contributes £700 per head more to the UK than Scotland gets back in spending.
Its figures also show Scotland running a deficit of almost £1bn, and the SNP claims that, were Scotland to reap the benefits of all its natural resources, including oil and gas revenues it would be the eighth richest nation in the world, ahead of the other three countries of the United Kingdom.
"However, with devolution our oil wealth goes straight to London and as a result, devolved Scotland trails in at 18th place in the wealth league tables, behind each and every one of our nearest competitors," Hosie told FactCheck.
Parliamentary answers and statistics from the Treasury have shown that just under £3.1m of non-identifiable English regional spending is mis-allocated. These mis-allocations include Scotland being charged for items which are England-only spending, and if spending is recalculated a total £435 is taken off Scotland's expenditure bill. Add mis-proportions charges for other revenues such as civil service wages and defence, a further £50 is taken off the per-head bill.
Meanwhile, the SNP has calculated Scotland's oil revenues at £1,818 per head. That's based on Aberdeen University's calculations of Scotland's share of North Sea oil revenues of £9.2bn for 2005-6.
Subtracting its newly calculated spending difference per head from estimated oil revenues per head, each Scot contributes £700 per head more to the UK than Scotland gets back in spending.
Its figures also show Scotland running a deficit of almost £1bn, and the SNP claims that, were Scotland to reap the benefits of all its natural resources, including oil and gas revenues it would be the eighth richest nation in the world, ahead of the other three countries of the United Kingdom.
"However, with devolution our oil wealth goes straight to London and as a result, devolved Scotland trails in at 18th place in the wealth league tables, behind each and every one of our nearest competitors," Hosie told FactCheck.
North sea oil was discovered around 1970. In the 40 years that followed we've had a conservative government for 24 of those years (60%). Are we really expected to believe that the tories were favouring Scotland over the rest of Britain when Scotland returned practically no conservative mp's?
The Scotsman tells us about the British government report on how much Scotland receives in subsidies from England. The figure has risen to an unbelievable £2,200 per person - about £11.3bn per year.
The subsidy is calculated using the Barnett Formula and comes directly from English taxes as the rest of the UK are net receivers from the UK Treasury, leaving England the only net contributor.
State expenditure in Scotland last year was £45.3bn, over half of the entire Scottish economy. They only raised £34bn in taxes though leaving the rest to be paid for by English taxpayers.
A nation of unashamed money grabbers. Let me know if you need any help rebuilding the wall. We pay for everything else so might as well fund that as well as our last offering to you.
The subsidy is calculated using the Barnett Formula and comes directly from English taxes as the rest of the UK are net receivers from the UK Treasury, leaving England the only net contributor.
State expenditure in Scotland last year was £45.3bn, over half of the entire Scottish economy. They only raised £34bn in taxes though leaving the rest to be paid for by English taxpayers.
A nation of unashamed money grabbers. Let me know if you need any help rebuilding the wall. We pay for everything else so might as well fund that as well as our last offering to you.
http://blog.wonkosworld.co.uk/2005/12/english-subsidy-to-scotland-hits.html
This is where Banks is now resorting to for his cut and pastes. Wonkos world.
This is where Banks is now resorting to for his cut and pastes. Wonkos world.
We might be getting rid of the tories soon.
Cable's boots are made for walking
By George Galloway on May 16, 11 09:13 AM in
Dr Vince Cable was once a Glasgow Labour Councillor. Not always a term of approbation, I know.
One opponent of Home Rule chastised me once by asking why I was so keen on a Scottish parliament.
"It would be full of Glasgow councillors and Edinburgh lawyers," she said. To which the best reply I could think of was that it would be worse with Edinburgh councillors and Glasgow lawyers.
In fact, as it has turned out, it's much worse than that. Cumbernauld councillors and Pitlochry lawyers maybe.
Cable, on the other hand, became a power in the land when he was articulating his critique of the banks - Scottish bankers to the fore - and warning that we were heading for a crash long before any other politics frontliner.
I know because he was regularly doing it on my radio show.
Even as a minister, his foolish claim to undercover reporters that he was "at war with Rupert Murdoch" probably caused a cheer throughout the land, following as it did after a long period of New Labour at the feet of Rupert Murdoch. Back on my show last Friday, I was trying to talk Vince down off the ledge he's now stuck on.
The Con-Dem coalition will soon reach pre-Falklands Thatcher depths of unpopularity. A rally in London yesterday in support of their spending cuts attracted 350 people, most of them the well-heeled of Notting Hill.
But the Liberal-Democrash of May 5 when they lost 863 councillors in England and were massacred in the Scottish - where they were thrashed even by me! - and Welsh elections, together with opinion polls putting them at less than half of the previous general election score (itself a disappointment), show that it's the Libs wot are taking most of the blame.
People know it's the same old Tories but that it couldn't be happening but for the Lib-Dems.
Chris Huhne looked like he'd be the first to walk from the Government but now his life looks like a car crash. Anyway, it's Cable who has the nuclear option. If he walks, the Government falls. He's getting his boots on, I think. And those boots are made for walking.
Cable's boots are made for walking
By George Galloway on May 16, 11 09:13 AM in
Dr Vince Cable was once a Glasgow Labour Councillor. Not always a term of approbation, I know.
One opponent of Home Rule chastised me once by asking why I was so keen on a Scottish parliament.
"It would be full of Glasgow councillors and Edinburgh lawyers," she said. To which the best reply I could think of was that it would be worse with Edinburgh councillors and Glasgow lawyers.
In fact, as it has turned out, it's much worse than that. Cumbernauld councillors and Pitlochry lawyers maybe.
Cable, on the other hand, became a power in the land when he was articulating his critique of the banks - Scottish bankers to the fore - and warning that we were heading for a crash long before any other politics frontliner.
I know because he was regularly doing it on my radio show.
Even as a minister, his foolish claim to undercover reporters that he was "at war with Rupert Murdoch" probably caused a cheer throughout the land, following as it did after a long period of New Labour at the feet of Rupert Murdoch. Back on my show last Friday, I was trying to talk Vince down off the ledge he's now stuck on.
The Con-Dem coalition will soon reach pre-Falklands Thatcher depths of unpopularity. A rally in London yesterday in support of their spending cuts attracted 350 people, most of them the well-heeled of Notting Hill.
But the Liberal-Democrash of May 5 when they lost 863 councillors in England and were massacred in the Scottish - where they were thrashed even by me! - and Welsh elections, together with opinion polls putting them at less than half of the previous general election score (itself a disappointment), show that it's the Libs wot are taking most of the blame.
People know it's the same old Tories but that it couldn't be happening but for the Lib-Dems.
Chris Huhne looked like he'd be the first to walk from the Government but now his life looks like a car crash. Anyway, it's Cable who has the nuclear option. If he walks, the Government falls. He's getting his boots on, I think. And those boots are made for walking.
This fred seems to be becoming a banks/Feck virtual S&M "love in". I take no sides and one day betfair will be able to move you to "Politics"
Be good the both of you. [;)]
Be good the both of you. [;)]
Alex it is difficult at times when faced with such nonsense.
As Benjamin Franklin once said "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do"
He will no doubt come back with a pathetic retort. That is his modus operandi.
As Benjamin Franklin once said "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do"
He will no doubt come back with a pathetic retort. That is his modus operandi.
I can see when somebody other than Feck or Banks comments on this fred. It is a special facility that betfair have endowed on special people.
It just seems to me that here we have two people that might get on over a pint, ought to just consider that.
It just seems to me that here we have two people that might get on over a pint, ought to just consider that.
Face to face and you will be ****cats. Behind a computer screen is like being behind a wheel.
What do you know.
p u s s y is a banned word!!!
How silly
p u s s y is a banned word!!!
How silly
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539