The vile gambling commission

The Gambling Commission serves no real purpose.
All the press releases and yak it provides are about how "committed" they are to keep on top of "problem gambling". Providing work and money for charities which didn't exist previously and which have offices in the most expensive area of London. It collects vast sums from smaller bookmakers and proportionally less from big firms and creates an aura of fear for all those who have to kowtow to it.

The gambling industry was always well self-policed, with bookmakers and casinos obeying the law with regard to underage gamblers, no alcohol on the premises (where applicable), opening hours etc. Then this organisation was set up. It is self-funding, quite easy given the amount it charges gambling operators. It had nothing much to do, so created ridiculous forms, doubtlessly consulted with the bigger companies to assist in it's operation - which in turn has added to the pressure on smaller companies.

A mate of mine, an on-course bookmaker, was confronted by a GC agent (or whatever they're called) at work, on course, at Epsom, just before the Derby!
She was evidently asking pointless questions and like all the things the organisation does didn't have the faintest idea of what she was talking about, or any real understanding of betting.

If the Gambling Commission wasn't there no-one would; a) Miss it, or b) Notice.

You might as well get used to it - they'll be regulating every legal online bookie, poker site and casino in a years time.

They don't regulate anything.
They collect bundles of money and waffle on about protecting vulnerable gamblers.

A huge waste of time and money.

Can't ever be abolished either. Any politician who attempted to do so would be accused of implicitly supporting problem gambling.

What did the FSA do? Which bankers have been locked up? There was a change at the top... Sir Hector Sants moved to Barclays Bank!!

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/12/former-fsa-hector-sants-barclays-compliance

I was assuming they brought about the PPI compensation Rollo. Was that not the case? I also thought that those at the top were sacked after the crash. I wasn't praising them in any way btw. Going by the recent panorama programme on the 'swp' scandal nothing has changed but it would be hard for the them to be as useless as the GC.

Another thing new "labour" brought in was making gambling debts payable by law. Wonderful thing for the bookmakers who can give irresponsible credit knowing they can seize people's houses but hide behind the bankruptcy laws if it goes t1ts up for them.

Oct 30, 2013 -- 9:21AM, ann witt wrote:

Another thing new "labour" brought in was making gambling debts payable by law. Wonderful thing for the bookmakers who can give irresponsible credit knowing they can seize people's houses but hide behind the bankruptcy laws if it goes t1ts up for them.

rofl - firstly the law in question had all party support as it couldn't pass without it due to a forthcoming election and secondly pleae provide the figures for "houses seized by bookies" in say 2012?

rofl - firstly I don't think anyone would be surprised it also had the support of a party that's suing the EU to protect banker's bonuses and secondly I only have to look up the racing post to see a recent case of punters lose out as bookmaker folds. If I have a 100K credit bet with a bookmaker why is it OK for him to fold and hang on to his house if it's not OK for me?

So no one has lost their house to a bookie then?  The debt is enforceable both ways and if the bookmaker in question was a sole trader he could be sued for his house. 

Btw the gambling commission is consulting on the matter of customers money as they will be licensing all the online bookies net year.  Don't suppose you or any of the other serial moaners have made any effort to find out about this or comment.  You just talk the talk on forums with like minded.

In principle the GC MIGHT be a good idea. In practice it is useless. The problems really began in 1995 under the then Tory govt (Kenneth Clarke iirc), with a revised gambling act and a deregulation of the whole industry.
The GC has nothing to do with party politics, nor is it run by anyone who knows anything about gambling.

Its licences are ridiculously expensive and the set-up seems to have just a single remit - 'Problem gambling', which is used because there is not much else for them to do.

As for someone losing their house to a bookie, I've never come across this, at least not as an enforceable debt. With the exception of spread betting, bookies are not able to enforce bad debts.
The licencing of online bookies should not have taken 9 years to come about and I suspect, like most of the "consulting" the GC does, it will largely be the whim of the large bookmakers which gets most credence, as happened with the FOBTs.

So no one has lost their house to a bookie then?

I give in, have they?

Btw the gambling commission is consulting on the matter of customers money as they will be licensing all the online bookies net year.  Don't suppose you or any of the other serial moaners have made any effort to find out about this or comment.  You just talk the talk on forums with like minded.

Studyform's pretty much answered that for me. I daresay you'll all put on a few stone during the "consultation" process dave. It's hard to take anything seriously from an outfit that thinks betting 0-0 when it's 3-3 is a fair bet.

"I was assuming they brought about the PPI compensation Rollo"

By a strange coincidence at the same time that banks had to write off lots of money for PPI compensation, the Bank of England brought in the Funding for Lending Scheme. So banks can borrow money from the BoE at dirt cheap rates and no longer need to offer savers a decent interest rate. Thus enabling banks to have a larger arbitrage between saving rates and mortgage rates and thus it's savers who in reality that are paying the PPI compensation not banks.

All regulation in the UK is useless. It merely enables larger firms to make more money and puts smaller firms out of business.

True Rollo.

Oct 30, 2013 -- 1:59PM, ann witt wrote:

So no one has lost their house to a bookie then?I give in, have they?Btw the gambling commission is consulting on the matter of customers money as they will be licensing all the online bookies net year.  Don't suppose you or any of the other serial moaners have made any effort to find out about this or comment.  You just talk the talk on forums with like minded.Studyform's pretty much answered that for me. I daresay you'll all put on a few stone during the "consultation" process dave. It's hard to take anything seriously from an outfit that thinks betting 0-0 when it's 3-3 is a fair bet.

good you admit you were making up the stuff about bookies taking peoples houses.  Dont know what the rest of your post means other than confirming my suspicions that you just moan on the internet and never do anything.

btw you are now blocked and join the bigots loons and moaning wastes of space on my blocked users list

From 2010

HAL: "What will happen to me Dave?"

Dave: "You'll be coming to work with me HAL"

HAL (sensing gravy train retirement): "I look forward to that very much Dave"

I said "Wonderful thing for the bookmakers who can give irresponsible credit knowing they can seize people's houses but hide behind the bankruptcy laws if it goes t1ts up for them."

dave said "good you admit you were making up the stuff about bookies taking peoples houses."

What did I make up dave? You confirmed what I said with "The debt is enforceable both ways and if the bookmaker in question was a sole trader he could be sued for his house.".

Did anyone read the GC investigation into in running betting in it's entirety, and is there a link to the full report?

How many months did it take them to come up with the gem something along the lines of; "Fast picture punters ensure those with slower pictures get fairer prices."

Like Leonardo's Mona Lisa, the in-running investigation has to go down as own of the GC masterpieces.

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf/In-running%20betting%20position%20paper%20-%20March%202009.pdf

I can't find your quoted conclusion in the document - they basically say that in running players should be made aware that they might be at a disadvantage.  Of course when Mick Fitzgerald mentions in-running and photo betting 12 times a day on ATR(without any caveats), nothing is done because the GC don't regulate ATR and Ofcom refuse to deal with complaints about this subject.

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf
/In-running%20betting%20position%20paper%20-%20March%202009.pdf

link appears to be dodgy will try again

Muqbil, it was Mark Davies who came away with that line whereas it was probably bot who dictated the GC's "in-running betting: position paper" over a happy meal.

link appears to be dodgy will try again

It's not the only thing that appears to be dodgy dave.

Ah, my bad, sincere apologies to the GC, not that they would be reading this forum/ thread :)

I had a peruse of the GC in-running document and the stance seems to be "If the punters are made aware they are potentially betting at a disadvantage, there is no problem." Lord only knows how much money it cost to distill that little gem from the months of investigation!

Indeed Muqbil and you wonder how a small print warning that the speed of light is finite would be enough to satisfy "there being no problem".

Remember the betfair groupies from the old days? If you said the slightest thing critical of betfair a throng of torched villagers would descend on the thread within minutes. Who would ever have thought there would come a day when they would be outnumbered by GC groupies.

The regulators did not discover the PPI scam they approved it.
It was only brought to the public's attention by the Guardian and the citizens Advice Bureau reports.

UK has the worst regulation in the western world because it employs naïve and gormless people that have no knowledge of what they are regulating.
We have politicians and a civil Service that would have a problem changing a light bulb but they pretend they are running things - no one is running anything.
Check a care home - they gave 3 months notice that they would be arriving on a particular day - even then the books were not sorted out and patient bruises had no time to heal - all missed of course. Report criminal activity and they ask the criminal firms to give them some PR spiel which they then take as absolute gospel and parrot it back to the complainant.
Double glazing firms that are serial bankruptcies - no problem we cannot interfere with new business. What about all the funds lost by customers, suppliers and worthless guarantees? Cowboy builders that don't show up again after the cash has been paid out up front - no problem you should have shopped around.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/may/05/how-ppi-scandal-unfolded

The biggest scandal is that the spiv firms that help claimants for 30% of the PPI pay-out
to fill in a simple form are creaming off £10B of the £30B put aside by banks.
So paying savers and pensioners a pitiful interest rate is allowing the banks to pay this fine without any problems and fellow financial parasite to pick up £10B for sfa. Rip-off Britain sinks to even lower lows.

Very true cornubia. Britain is run along the lines of the Sopranos. Rip off who you want for as much as you want as long as the government get their slice of the action. I just hope Scotland votes for independence so we can hopefully break free from it all and set an example for the rest of Britain. Incredibly it's unlikely though as even up here we have people who will vote for it to be stuck further up them.

A friend had a phone call from one of those spiv firms and agreed over the phone to them representing his PPI claim. The following day out of the blue a cheque for around 4K arrived from the bank. He's since been hit with a glut of phone calls from said spivs saying he owes them over a grand even though he never signed the form they sent out and they played no part in the claim. He hasn't paid it but there's probably no shortage of people who would.

The PPI scandal came to light before the crash and, after the taxpayer became the main shareholder in banks, I wondered how the government would weasel its way out of paying. As you say, the saving rates solved that problem.