Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
27 Oct 11
12:03
Joined:
Date Joined:
25 Sep 07
From the flowing article
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-20/betfair-s-exposure-of-x-factor-scam-shows-need-to-fight-cheats.html?cmpid=yhoo
comes this little gem....
Of 197 cases of suspicious betting logged with the Gambling Commission between September 2007 and March 2011, 125 were reported by betting companies, according to licensing body data.
The FACTS are the GC has only ever voided ONE ‘set’ of bets – the much publicised X-factor bets....
So in 124 cases that betting operators have said to the GC “this looks dodgy”.... the GC have said all above board.
So who is incompetent?
a) the betting operator wasting the GC’s time with unsubstantiated reports,
b) the GC for giving the all clear
with only ONE success in 125 attempts, you could belive the Betting operators might stop reporting concerns...
perhaps that is what the GC want....
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-20/betfair-s-exposure-of-x-factor-scam-shows-need-to-fight-cheats.html?cmpid=yhoo
comes this little gem....
Of 197 cases of suspicious betting logged with the Gambling Commission between September 2007 and March 2011, 125 were reported by betting companies, according to licensing body data.
The FACTS are the GC has only ever voided ONE ‘set’ of bets – the much publicised X-factor bets....
So in 124 cases that betting operators have said to the GC “this looks dodgy”.... the GC have said all above board.
So who is incompetent?
a) the betting operator wasting the GC’s time with unsubstantiated reports,
b) the GC for giving the all clear
with only ONE success in 125 attempts, you could belive the Betting operators might stop reporting concerns...
perhaps that is what the GC want....
Show More
or perhaps the GC dont have the knowledge or infrastructure to act and rule with clarity?
My sister is a journalist for Bloomberg. Thank goodness she doesn't write as badly as this bloke - I would be ashamed!
But you're spot on, The Magician, the Gambling Commission are a complete and utter waste of time and money. They are unnecessary, unfair in their pricing, do absolutely jack sh1t for loads of funding.
They should be disbanded.
But you're spot on, The Magician, the Gambling Commission are a complete and utter waste of time and money. They are unnecessary, unfair in their pricing, do absolutely jack sh1t for loads of funding.
They should be disbanded.
A useless Quango that only serves as a purpose for its overpaid employees.
Agree with Corbieswood, frustraitingly most of the pressing issues within the industry are (conveniently) out of their jurisdiction. Rest assured they making the best of a bad situation, ensuring that their integrity is upheld...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8619677/Babies-to-be-won-monthly-in-first-IVF-lottery.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8619677/Babies-to-be-won-monthly-in-first-IVF-lottery.html
One of the top men at the GC had to have a 2 hour lesson on who Barney Curley is.
Jenny Williams the Cheif Exec earns a fortune and "works part time" and was previously involved in a water company and wouldn't know a dog from a horse.
The compliance officers think a round robin is a fat bird and a yankee is an american.
God forbid you let someone in who just had a shave a looks a bit young (say about 30 when they are 40) and you are out.
£1700 a year to stick up some leaflets and ask everyone who looks younger than Albert Tatlock how old they are.
Jenny Williams the Cheif Exec earns a fortune and "works part time" and was previously involved in a water company and wouldn't know a dog from a horse.
The compliance officers think a round robin is a fat bird and a yankee is an american.
God forbid you let someone in who just had a shave a looks a bit young (say about 30 when they are 40) and you are out.
£1700 a year to stick up some leaflets and ask everyone who looks younger than Albert Tatlock how old they are.
Useless, lazy, vermin who probably only OK'd the x-factor voiding because cheatfair did all the work and bought them a happy meal.
William Hills fully comply with the 2005 Gambling Act and are proud of it.
Read An employee profile on thie website when first established,it read " I am proud that i managed to obtain this position especially as i have no experience of the industry,in fact all of my colleagues are in a similar position we all have different backgrounds"
As for the GC..
It's like Torvill and Dean presiding over Hurling..
It's like Torvill and Dean presiding over Hurling..
A train which has Gravy oozing from every pore,a complete and utter waste of time and energy and and about as useful as T its on a Bull
Just a few sentences with the experience of the directors taken from the biographies of the directors of the GC.
Trustee of a homeless charity - non executive director for college of arts - tourism and transport - cabinet secretary of Bermuda - deputy director of NHS - Director of charity for women with learning difficulties - uk national ballistics service -it goes on and on.
I reckon this mob are on about 3 million between them.
I would bet not one of them watches the grand national.
This lot are responsible for regulating an industry that was self regulating for 35 years.
Trustee of a homeless charity - non executive director for college of arts - tourism and transport - cabinet secretary of Bermuda - deputy director of NHS - Director of charity for women with learning difficulties - uk national ballistics service -it goes on and on.
I reckon this mob are on about 3 million between them.
I would bet not one of them watches the grand national.
This lot are responsible for regulating an industry that was self regulating for 35 years.
some brilliant replys and the problem is that if the govt had to dip in their pocket it would be gone tomorrow but it's the bookmakers who have to pay for it through the ridiculous fees and as feck has already pointed out bf have them tucked firmly in their back pocket.
Regulators in the UK are not there to regulate. They are they to ensure the larger firms they are supposed to be regulating make more profits. This at the expense of smaller firms or consumers.
Take the GC fee structure, it massively favours large firms over independents and they do absolutely nothing for bookmaker customers.
Look what the FSA have done for large banks. Allowed 125% NR mortgages etc which when FSCS bailouts are required the building societies have to stump up larger amounts in relation to their size. Which is partly why so many of those have gone in recent years, giving larger banks more market share. Quite a few consumers are up to their eyeballs in debt, which favours large banks because after all they make money lending.
OFGEM.... well given our energy bills what can you say about them!!
Take the GC fee structure, it massively favours large firms over independents and they do absolutely nothing for bookmaker customers.
Look what the FSA have done for large banks. Allowed 125% NR mortgages etc which when FSCS bailouts are required the building societies have to stump up larger amounts in relation to their size. Which is partly why so many of those have gone in recent years, giving larger banks more market share. Quite a few consumers are up to their eyeballs in debt, which favours large banks because after all they make money lending.
OFGEM.... well given our energy bills what can you say about them!!
Used to deal with them on a fairly regular basis in a previous job. They are clueless.
THIS SAYS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW!!I WRITE in response to Jenny Williams, chief executive of the Gambling Commission (Letters, September 16), replying to Geoff Ellis's letter (September 12). Mr Ellis wanted to know what he is paying for. Well, perhaps I can help.
From the commission's website, Ms Williams' salary was between pounds 170,000-pounds 175,000 per annum, plus pounds 21,400 benefits in kind (whatever they are for). Her pay is therefore at least pounds 48,900 more than that of the prime minister.
Perhaps she should consider remitting a large portion - after all, it's not as if she's doing a particularly good job. Witness the Hampton Implementation Review Report, which found the commission falling short in a number of areas, including its responsibilities with regard to the economic vitality of the sector.
It also found conflicting views within the commission as to the extent to which it is responsible for setting a regulatory framework within which members of the gambling industry can operate effectively as a business. Amazingly, "the commission appeared to the review team to be less comfortable with this role. We believe this may be partly due to perceived sensitivities regarding the ethical issues associated with the gambling sector".
Ads by GoogleSalary Budgeting
Business Budgeting and Planning Software. Free Demo.
www.prophix.co.uk
Fully Insured Pet Sitter
CRB Checked, member of NarpsUK 5* pet care for your peace of mind
www.k925petservices.co.uk
I'm sure this didn't apply to Ms Williams, although her letter contained the assertion that there was "... deep-seated public concern about gambling" - this despite the commission's own figures (British Gambling Prevalence Survey, 2007) that showed 68 per cent of adults gambled.
Mr Ellis said in his letter he would like to pay his fees in instalments. Ms Williams came up with the old excuse that the law does not allow this. I thought one of the commission's remits was to advise the government on changes to the law. Only now, after five years of bullying the independent sector, is it "exploring the scope for amending the act ..." However, as she says, the commission has kept its fees as low as possible, and this is true for the major operators, who pay only about pounds 100 per shop - 1,700 per cent less than the single independent.
If the Tote were taken over by Betfred, Coral, Hills or Ladbrokes their licence fees would not increase and the commission's income would fall by approximately what Ms Williams is paid!
She goes on to say there are only 50 home-based compliance officers. Well, if each visited three shops a week that would cover about 7,000 shops a year, so in no more than two years the whole lot could be visited.
She also says licence fees are used carefully, with tackling sports betting corruption one use. Yes, one successful 'caution' over some after-time bets at Coventry greyhounds.
Ms Williams mentions advising the government on the impact of gambling. Does this include the loss to the government of tax due to competition from offshore and unlicensed onshore bookmakers (see Hampton report again)? I recall when the commission was set up, the UK was to be the global centre for gambling excellence. With the finest regulated betting industry, this could still be so - if the tax and licensing regime wasn't so punitive.
Ms Williams, according to the commission's website, is a trustee of a charity, Connection at St Martins (unpaid, very noble), and, until this year, was a nonexecutive director of Northumbrian Water Group, being paid a pounds 37,000 director's fee for the year ending March 31.
The average UK salary is pounds 24,000.
!!!!! Read it and weap.
From the commission's website, Ms Williams' salary was between pounds 170,000-pounds 175,000 per annum, plus pounds 21,400 benefits in kind (whatever they are for). Her pay is therefore at least pounds 48,900 more than that of the prime minister.
Perhaps she should consider remitting a large portion - after all, it's not as if she's doing a particularly good job. Witness the Hampton Implementation Review Report, which found the commission falling short in a number of areas, including its responsibilities with regard to the economic vitality of the sector.
It also found conflicting views within the commission as to the extent to which it is responsible for setting a regulatory framework within which members of the gambling industry can operate effectively as a business. Amazingly, "the commission appeared to the review team to be less comfortable with this role. We believe this may be partly due to perceived sensitivities regarding the ethical issues associated with the gambling sector".
Ads by GoogleSalary Budgeting
Business Budgeting and Planning Software. Free Demo.
www.prophix.co.uk
Fully Insured Pet Sitter
CRB Checked, member of NarpsUK 5* pet care for your peace of mind
www.k925petservices.co.uk
I'm sure this didn't apply to Ms Williams, although her letter contained the assertion that there was "... deep-seated public concern about gambling" - this despite the commission's own figures (British Gambling Prevalence Survey, 2007) that showed 68 per cent of adults gambled.
Mr Ellis said in his letter he would like to pay his fees in instalments. Ms Williams came up with the old excuse that the law does not allow this. I thought one of the commission's remits was to advise the government on changes to the law. Only now, after five years of bullying the independent sector, is it "exploring the scope for amending the act ..." However, as she says, the commission has kept its fees as low as possible, and this is true for the major operators, who pay only about pounds 100 per shop - 1,700 per cent less than the single independent.
If the Tote were taken over by Betfred, Coral, Hills or Ladbrokes their licence fees would not increase and the commission's income would fall by approximately what Ms Williams is paid!
She goes on to say there are only 50 home-based compliance officers. Well, if each visited three shops a week that would cover about 7,000 shops a year, so in no more than two years the whole lot could be visited.
She also says licence fees are used carefully, with tackling sports betting corruption one use. Yes, one successful 'caution' over some after-time bets at Coventry greyhounds.
Ms Williams mentions advising the government on the impact of gambling. Does this include the loss to the government of tax due to competition from offshore and unlicensed onshore bookmakers (see Hampton report again)? I recall when the commission was set up, the UK was to be the global centre for gambling excellence. With the finest regulated betting industry, this could still be so - if the tax and licensing regime wasn't so punitive.
Ms Williams, according to the commission's website, is a trustee of a charity, Connection at St Martins (unpaid, very noble), and, until this year, was a nonexecutive director of Northumbrian Water Group, being paid a pounds 37,000 director's fee for the year ending March 31.
The average UK salary is pounds 24,000.
!!!!! Read it and weap.
As i'm sure anyone else who has visited can testify, their offices are, unsurprisingly, very nice.
they will in the end put people out of work,if they hadnt already done so.
The GC will put smaller firms out of business and discourage other people from starting up as the costs are now so high. That is why they was formed. There is now no line between government and big business, everything is done to send more money to the top.
The country is now run along similar lines to the mafia.
Vito Corleone told Michael to go legit. He's been proved right, there is more money in it for them than drugs, prostitution and casinos.
The GC was initially designed to control gangsters infiltrating the super casinos that Blair instigated That was at the behest of the church lobby.When Brown became PM he scotched the idea of super casinos the idea of a GC remained because of inertia.If the GC fulfilled its mission statement it could be just argued that there is a role for such an organisation albeit on a smaller scale.Consider one role that it is to ensure punters get a fair crack of the whip.Is it fair that a small minority of course bookmakers by offering ludicrous place terms on all races[ie 1/6,1/7 1/8 the odds a place] are ripping off the punters and at the same time are shafting the vast majority of course bookmakers who offer fair odds?The GC argue that they cannot intervene in this con for legal reasons but this is tosh since the G Act specifically charges them to prevent unfair practices.It is now time for individuals but particularly the bookmaker representatives to contact the H of C Select Committee responsible for overseeing the GC with our complaints.
I still cant believe the betting operators have said "GC here are 125 potentially corrupt activities" and the GC have responded "124 look perfectly normal to us...." but we will void X-Factor
How can the betting opperators get it so wrong 124 times????
How can the betting opperators get it so wrong 124 times????
I still cant believe the betting operators have said "GC here are 125 potentially corrupt activities" and the GC have responded "124 look perfectly normal to us...." but we will void X-Factor
How can the betting opperators get it so wrong 124 times????
How can the betting opperators get it so wrong 124 times????
I still cant believe the betting operators have said "GC here are 125 potentially corrupt activities" and the GC have responded "124 look perfectly normal to us...." but we will void X-Factor
How can the betting opperators get it so wrong 124 times????
How can the betting opperators get it so wrong 124 times????
I still cant believe the betting operators have said "GC here are 125 potentially corrupt activities" and the GC have responded "124 look perfectly normal to us...." but we will void X-Factor
How can the betting opperators get it so wrong 124 times????
How can the betting opperators get it so wrong 124 times????
Steve White (Area Manager) of William Hills in the North East encourages Employees to knock back warm punters to the miniumum and then uses the info to arb.
The GC should do something about that - I know one major player in it is on here regular.
Gala Casino on Monday in M'Boro - Hills are watching you.
The GC should do something about that - I know one major player in it is on here regular.
Gala Casino on Monday in M'Boro - Hills are watching you.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539