Tough New Curbs On FOBT's in a bid to protect problem gamblers

clive82 26 Sep 12 20:27 Joined: 06 May 10 | Topic/replies: 214 | Blogger: clive82's blog
Gandalf perhaps you should stick to your role as forum spell checker, actually giving an opinion seems to get you awfully het up.

As has already been established they don't have FOBTs in your country so why keep sticking your nose in?

Clive82, seems you don't like it when your blatant lies are torn apart by someone who tells the truth and throws the bookies own words back in your face, there is no famine in my Country or no British soldiers coming home in coffins but does that mean that I can't feel empathy or compassion for those who are unfortunate enough to die in either Africa or Afghanistan through famine or war or even worse, should I not raise my voice in protest when I feel such happenings to be against the good of Society as a whole.

In every post you make, all you to is add further proof to the fact that you are nothing more than someone who is employed as a mouthpiece, who is too stupid to realise that you are nothing more than fodder for the big boys to do with, instruct and use as they like in their pathetic attempts to defend the indefensible. Your level of education, as evidenced in this forum also shows that my belief is correct, that you are someone who the big boys realised, was stupid enough to do the job without having the brains to think for himself but would be perfect for their purpose of an obedient sheep.

Read the statements made by the various bookies management about what they want to happen here in Ireland, before you even dare to try and suppress this Irishman from expressing his opinion in an open forum.

Again i say to you, a pig in a suit is still a pig.

thats telling him gandalf....

Gandalf I know I have said it before but clive82 has you well and truely snagged in the net.

He is playing you like a fiddle and you react every time.

Banned_Banks, Clive82 is an uneducated moron, were you his **** at any stage during both of your school years, as I believe that is a traditional role, unique to British schools and normally given to someone who is beneath the person that they **** for.

And in this case, that's saying something!

F A G

What is evident is that sales of Crapping Pants are on the rise. Orders from bookmaker boardrooms lead the way now FOBTs are back on the political agenda. I would have thought that many a bottom line, and hence bonuses in the industry , depend on FOBTs being allowed to continue as at present.

Whether banning or restricting FOBTs will make any impact on problem gamblers is a mute point, as ,the online opportunities to gamble 24/7 in online casinos, have snowballed out of all proportion. There is only so much cake that can be gambled and the High Street is now in a fight to keep its share of the cake. The big firms are perfectly capable of maintaining or increasing their share online. I am amazed that so much advertising is allowed on TV promoting the online arena. If cigarette advertising can be banned as the product is harmful, then so can this advertising.

My personal view is that restricting FOBTs may help those gamblers with less willpower as it would provide a barrier to getting involved. This IMO would be a good thing.

Gandalf I'm not a mouthpiece for anyone.

I do know however when someone is on a massive wind up. Unfortunately this level of perception appears to have passed you by.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rCP4CRRO7E&feature=g-logo-xit

What amazes me is how they avoid parts of the gambling commission licence requirements.
The main instance being:
All licensees, except gaming machine technical and gambling software licences
Social responsibility code provision Licensees must put into effect policies and procedures for customer interaction where they have concerns that a customer’s behaviour may indicate problem gambling. The policies must include:
• identification of the appropriate level of management who may initiate customer interaction and the procedures for doing so
• the types of behaviour that will be logged/reported to the appropriate level of staff and
which may trigger customer interaction at an appropriate moment
• the circumstances in which consideration should be given to refusing service to customers
and/or barring them from the operator’s gambling premises
• training for all staff on their respective responsibilities, in particular so that they know who is designated to deal with problem gambling issues.
But such policies and procedures must be consistent with, and implemented with due regard to licensees’ duties in respect of the health and safety of their staff.

Yeah right.

erza ,i asked clive the same question , guess what , he never answered.....

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk
Meeting of the Parliament 25 September 2012
Time for Reflection
Scottish Government Question Time
Reforming Scots Criminal Law and Practice (Public Consultation)
Decision Time
Gambling Proliferation
The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott): The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-03812, in the name of John Mason, on gambling proliferation. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the recent comments made by the former Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman MP, when she said that the previous UK administration had made a mistake by allowing an increase in the number of betting shops on the UK’s High Streets; further notes the study by Professor Jim Orford of the University of Birmingham, which suggests that, on average, richer areas have around five betting shops for every 100,000 people, whereas less well-off areas have up to twelve; believes that many forms of gambling are effectively a tax on the poor; understands that money spent on buying lottery tickets in poorer areas is considerably higher than that being invested back into these communities, and would welcome a review of the legislation on gambling in order to protect vulnerable people in Glasgow Shettleston and the rest of Scotland.

17:05
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP): I thank all the members who signed the motion to enable the debate to take place.

A few years ago, a guy I knew came round to see me late on a Friday night. His partner had been saving up money for a while so that she and the kids could go on holiday—I suspect that they did not do that very often—but he had taken all the money, put it on one horse and lost the lot. He came round to see whether I would lend him the money so that he could put it back before his partner found out.

That is the kind of problem that we are here to discuss. Most of us are quite comfortable putting a few pounds on the grand national or another big event. Bingo and raffles, for example, are quite acceptable to most of us these days, and having a little bit of a gamble as part of social activities can be good fun. However, there is a darker side to gambling, when it moves from fun to addiction, as in the case of my friend.

The Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme in early August was one of the reasons why I lodged my motion. Professor Jim Orford of the University of Birmingham and Harriet Harman contributed to that programme. As a former minister at Westminster, Harriet Harman commented on the clustering of betting shops following the Gambling Act 2005. Among other things, she said:

“If we had known then what we know now, we wouldn’t have allowed this, because it’s not just ruining the High Street it’s ruining people’s lives”.

Many of us will remember that, a few years ago, betting shops were much more closed places. Only adults could go into them, and the doors and windows could not be seen through. Nowadays, betting shops are much more transparent and open. In one sense, that appears to be a positive move. If betting is legal, why should it not be out in the open? The other side of the argument is that gambling has been given much more of an air of respectability. In addition, the national lottery has drawn more people into regular grambling than used to be the case. For many, that is no more of a problem than buying chocolate or some other pleasure in life, but for others it has led to addiction problems that were not previously given such an opportunity.

We must ask why people gamble. It is a bit of fun for some, but others gamble because their life seems hopeless. They think that if only they could get a big win, it would take the pressure off their life. The topic is therefore linked to the economy, the gap between rich and poor, unemployment and poor wages. Many ordinary people struggle to make ends meet and dream of a magical win that would really change their life.

The national lottery has to shoulder some of the blame for that change. We read stories about ordinary people who have won huge sums of money, but we hear less often that those winnings can ruin lives. We are told how many good causes benefit from their share, but it seems that the net effect is to extract more money from poorer areas, where it appears that more tickets are bought. It also appears that more of the good causes tend to be in the richer areas, where there is the expertise to apply for the grants.

Professor Orford’s study suggested that there would be around five betting shops for every 100,000 people in the average affluent area. I understand from colleagues in Aberdeenshire West—which is, allegedly, one of those affluent areas—that that is approximately the number of betting shops there. The study also suggested that poorer areas would have around 12 betting shops. That intrigued me, as I had the gut feeling that there were more than 12 betting shops in my constituency, so I thought that I would count them over the summer. My constituency does not even have a population of 100,000—its population is probably more like 70,000. There were 31 betting shops for those 70,000 people. Our constituency also has the largest bingo club in Europe.

I am grateful to those who have made an input to the debate, especially Gamblers Anonymous and the Church of Scotland’s church and society council, which gave us comments. Gamblers Anonymous tells us that its membership has increased significantly recently, particularly among young, low-income men who have become addicted to fixed-odds betting terminals. FOBTs, as they are known, were introduced in 2001 and the most common game is roulette. I understand that four machines can make about £2,000 a week, that £123 million is wagered each day in the United Kingdom and that the profit for the gambling companies is some £3.3 million a day. I was struck by a quote that sums up the problem with FOBTs. David Armstrong, a former gambling addict, said:

“You lose your sense of money when you’re on the machines - it means nothing. It’s so quick, you’re thinking just one more spin, just one more - until you walk out and you’ve lost it all.”

Although we are mainly focusing on bookmakers in today’s debate, I want to mention in passing some other, modern forms of gambling that can be a problem. Smart phones now have applications for folk to gamble, and online gambling via the internet is also a huge issue. In a recent constituency case that I had, a guy had won some £10,000 online and the company, which is well known but is based in Gibraltar, made it difficult for him to withdraw his winnings. Temptation proved too much and he gambled the £10,000 and lost the lot. I am not saying that the individual does not shoulder some of the responsibility, but I question whether the balance between the gambling organisations and the individuals who take part has swung too far in favour of the former.

I was somewhat disappointed by some of the things that I read in the briefing that we received from the Association of British Bookmakers. For example, it claims to be part of the retail sector. That is stretching things a bit. Wikipedia’s definition of retail is

“the sale of goods and services from individuals or businesses to the end-user.”

I do not think that bookies quite fit in there. The association also claims that bookmakers contribute £352 million to the Scottish economy. Come on! If that £352 million was not going to the betting shops, it would still be in the economy. It might be paying for food and heating for families that really need those things.

I am conscious that gambling is a reserved matter, but I would be grateful if the minister could comment on a few issues. For example, schools rightly teach pupils about sex, drugs and alcohol, but does the minister agree that schools also have a role in teaching them about the dangers of gambling? Does she agree with Harriet Harman that the Gambling Act 2005 relaxed things too much? Will the minister make representations to the UK Government about possible amendments to the legislation, for as long as it is under Westminster control? Finally, will she press for better regulation of the betting companies, especially those that are based in places such as Gibraltar?

17:12
Anne McTaggart (Glasgow) (Lab): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the topic of gambling as I agree with John Mason in this instance. There are far too many betting shops in Glasgow and it is clear to me that betting shops are indeed preying on the vulnerable in our society. I am seriously concerned about the number of betting shops that exist and their locations near pubs and ATMs. They are luring new customers, particularly young people, off our high streets and through their doors.

Although I acknowledge that the majority of those who choose to gamble do so responsibly, gambling addiction is a problem, albeit one that is not often discussed. I commend the excellent work that organisations such as Gamblers Anonymous and the RCA Trust do in working with those who are affected by gambling addiction. I am pleased that a question on gambling was included in the latest Scottish health survey and I look forward to seeing the findings when the report is published later this year.

A number of issues need to be raised regarding betting shops, including the safety of their staff. Changes in working practices have meant that lone staffing is now commonplace. Worryingly, workers can be left to work alone in betting shops for hours at a time, often early in the morning or late at night. More than 55 per cent of betting shop workers are women, so there are concerns about how appropriate lone working is for betting shops, particularly as stores that are staffed by one person are more vulnerable to attack. No one should feel frightened to go to their place of work.

In 2008, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Community, the only union that represents betting workers in all the major and independent betting shop chains in Scotland, launched a fantastic poster campaign that was geared towards eliminating violence against betting shop workers and which was highlighted in a motion lodged by my colleague John Park. The campaign achieved cross-party support and did an excellent job in raising awareness of what betting shop staff are subjected to every day.

Community members’ experience suggests a direct link between increasing levels of violence and abuse in betting shops and the proliferation of FOBTs, which make up a rapidly increasing share of the profits generated by high-street bookmakers. Although official police figures suggest that violence and criminal damage in betting shops are falling, that does not reflect the daily experience of Community members and I want to share with the chamber two concerns that the union has raised.

First, Community believes that police authorities are neither gathering data effectively nor recognising that betting shops form a particular usage group that ought to be monitored more closely. Secondly, we know that some major betting shop operators are systematically discouraging the reporting of incidents involving FOBT machines to the police. Two members from two of the major betting chains in Scotland have noted:

“Company don’t want police involved unless staff are hurt”

and

“Company policy not to involve police, apparently due to low conviction rate”.

Betting shop chains provide limited support for staff who have been victims of a violent robbery and many have to return to work after they are threatened with loss of sick pay. Many betting shop workers are subject to regular verbal and physical attacks. That is wholly unacceptable.

We must put more pressure on betting shops operating in Scotland to provide safe environments for their workers and I believe that ending lone working in such shops is a step in the right direction.

17:17
Graeme Dey (Angus South) (SNP): Let me begin with a confession: I placed my first bet before the age of 16. Given that I turn 50 next month, I feel secure about making such a confession, given that the statute of limitations on that misdemeanour has probably come into play. I was able to gamble underage at a particular bookies in Aberdeen because my friend’s mum worked there; from that, I developed a keen interest in horse-racing, as a result of which I spent the August before I turned 18 in Yorkshire taking in the Ebor meeting at York and enjoying a very productive day at Beverley races.

The fact that all these years later I still remember backing six of the eight winners at Beverley is testament to the joy that people derive from successful punting. However, although problem gamblers always tell people when they win big, no one ever hears about the losses. I never became a problem gambler—some might say that I was helped in that regard by being an Aberdonian and therefore too tight to part with too much of my cash—but I retained my interest for many years, especially after moving to Dundee and becoming a regular at Perth races.

Nevertheless, I hardly bet any more. I cannot remember the last time that I placed a wager; upbringing, common sense and other interests probably kept me off gambling’s slippery slope. However, had I been born in this day and age—and especially into a poorer household—I might not have been so fortunate. As John Mason noted, well-off areas in the UK have an average of five bookmakers per 100,000 people, whereas the average in less-affluent areas is 12 per 100,000. Why is there such a discrepancy if there is no underlying drive to exploit the most vulnerable in our society? We are told that less than 1 per cent of society has a gambling problem. However, if we strip out from the statistics the non-gamblers and those who have only a once-a-year flutter on the grand national, we find a sizeable number of people whose lives and the lives of those around them are being impacted on.

Back in the late 1970s, when I was sneaking into the bookies of a Saturday, betting shops were pretty unappealing places. Coverage of the racing was via an often crackling audio-only service and the prices were conveyed over the Tannoy and marked up manually on paper sheets on the boards. As there was not even a toilet in the shop I tended to frequent, only pretty hardened gamblers could stay there for hours on end.

If we fast forward 30 years, we find that the betting shop environment has changed completely. Bookies have become far more adept at getting money out of our pockets. The Association of British Bookmakers states that over the past decade the number of betting shops has remained constant at around 950. Perhaps so—but there has been a sea change in the nature of bookmaking. The wee backstreet bookies have largely gone, swallowed up by chains that now ply their wares on high streets where the clustering phenomenon is all too apparent.

Prior to 2005, bookmakers were generally not allowed to open in close proximity to rivals but, if members have a wander down Leith Walk, they will find two of the majors operating within a shop’s width of each other and, 500m further on, located directly opposite each other. On Easter Road, those same chains have shops no more than 25m apart. The change in the environment within the shops has been just as striking. There are comfy seats and sofa-type seating in some. The shops sell snacks, and one major chain even offers the equivalent of a loyalty card.

The range of gambling opportunities is amazing. If there is no horse-racing on in the UK or Ireland, the shops beam in racing from South Africa or even tempt people to bet on online virtual racing. Banks of screens offer early prices on races and, as somebody mentioned, there are now roulette games on which up to £500 can be won on a spin. It is not only betting shops that entice Joe Public to part with their cash: there are telephone betting accounts, betting in running and spread betting—the possibilities are endless and potentially dangerous to the vulnerable.

On that last point, I welcome the inclusion in the motion of a reference to the buying of lottery tickets, which I take it also covers scratchcards. I confess to being repeatedly disquieted when queueing in newsagents and supermarkets by the sight of elderly folk who have spent relatively little on food buying up to £10 of scratchcards at a time.

It is difficult to tackle the issue. The genie is out of the bottle and, realistically, we cannot go back by reducing the number of shops. I note some of Anne McTaggart’s concerns, but I suggest that, whatever else happens and whoever drives our approach, we need to develop a far more extensive body of research on current betting practices and their impact on the vulnerable.

17:21
Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (Con): I, too, commend John Mason for bringing this important issue to the chamber. As others do, I recognise that problem gambling can be every bit as addictive as smoking or drinking alcohol. It is right for us to acknowledge that it is, in many respects, an illness that is often ignored.

As John Mason said, the social side effects of gambling are often to be seen in our poorest areas and communities, where families sometimes go without basic food and clothing because an individual has an addiction to gambling. His motion draws attention to the comments that were made last month by Labour’s deputy leader, Harriet Harman, who admitted that the previous Government at Westminster had made a mistake in relaxing the gambling laws. That view is also shared by the former Home Secretary, David Blunkett.

That is why I was pleased to read press reports that the coalition Government intends to impose restrictions on the high-stakes gambling machines that allow people to bet more than £15,000 an hour. Those casino-style machines, which are found in hundreds of betting shops throughout the country, have been described as the crack cocaine of gambling, because they are so addictive.

Although I acknowledge that gambling is a reserved matter, I look to the minister to tell us what discussions she has had with her counterparts down south regarding those fixed-odds betting terminals, which often allow users to accrue huge debts because they can stake as much as £100—Graeme Dey said £500—a time on roulette, blackjack or poker.

We would all accept that gambling in small measures is not, in itself, necessarily harmful. Indeed, I am an occasional national lottery player and freely admit that it is a form of gambling. I look back with great fondness to my late aunt, whose devotion to one-armed bandits was said to keep the local golf club afloat—although she would turn in her grave if she were classed as a gambler.

Mr Mason’s considered motion is summed up by its title—“Gambling Proliferation”. He is perhaps right to say that the east end of Glasgow is saturated with bookmakers shops. The fact that there are more than 30 of them in his constituency of Shettleston should be seen in the context of its being, I believe, only 6 miles in length.

If it is true that, as has been suggested, gambling companies are targeting vulnerable people by siting betting shops next to pubs, bank machines and post offices in some of our poorest areas, that would obviously be of concern. However, as with most matters, a measured response to a difficult situation is required. We must remember that the gambling industry employs 40,000 people throughout the UK, including 7,000 in Scotland, and contributes around £350 million to the Scottish economy.

I do not think that anyone would want us to return to the old days, when illegal gambling was underground and, therefore, impossible to police. By and large, the industry is responsible. It is regulated locally through the need to have licenses, which can be revoked at any time.

I fully understand the concerns that are being expressed by individuals such as John Mason, many of whom are opposed to gambling for moral, religious or ethical reasons. However, it is a legal activity, although I would not be inclined to argue, as one of my colleagues did, that that it falls within the sport element of my brief.

I believe that the industry is working hard to combat problem gambling through initiatives such as staff training, whereby workers behind the counter are taught how to recognise potential problem gambling behaviour. I also believe that the trade organisation, the Association of British Bookmakers, takes its role seriously.

The debate will continue, but I reiterate that although I understand the concerns that have been expressed by John Mason and the need to keep a very close eye on the situation, co-operation and compromise with the industry represent the best way forward.

17:25
Dave Thompson (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP): I thank John Mason for securing a debate on an extremely important issue. Although I believe that the occasional flutter is okay, there is a fine balance to be struck between allowing people the freedom to place a bet or have a go at the bingo and protecting vulnerable people in our society from what can, as we have heard, be a damaging addiction.

I grew up surrounded by gambling: the football pools, the horses, cards and—of course—the one-armed bandit, which Nanette Milne mentioned and which is aptly named. When I was a boy—I admit that that was not yesterday—I took bets on the horses down to the bookies for my dad. I am not sure that that was altogether legal. In those days the bookies was up an outside stair above a paper shop. The bet and the money, along with a nom de plume, were handed to a man through a wee window, so at least there was a bit of culture in it. My dad’s nom de plume was “Black Jet” after our jet black cross Labrador-Alsatian, who was my best friend. I therefore know a bit about gambling.

Of course, gambling gives people hope, especially those who are without a faith. Winston in George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-four” was always hoping that his lottery ticket would come up and lift him out of his despair, but it never did. It is a trick that is played on us by Government and big business.

There is nothing wrong with a bit of hope, however someone gets it, but gambling can become a real problem for many people, and it can get a grip before they know it. Bookmakers know that and so do Governments. Recent research has highlighted the staggering proportion of bookies’ profits that are derived from people who have a serious gambling problem. Addiction to gambling not only affects the addict but has, as with addiction to drugs and alcohol, detrimental effects on the people closest to them. We must therefore recognise the damaging effects of gambling addiction on families and move to minimise it.

Research by the Theos think tank suggests that lower-income gamblers spend proportionately more on the lottery than the rest of the population and, I believe, benefit least from it.

As John Mason said, Professor Jim Orford highlights the fact that there are significantly more betting shops by population in poorer areas than there are in more affluent areas. That demonstrates that the poorest areas of our society are, in effect, paying a voluntary tax with a low level of return.

I highlight a new form of lottery that I think is particularly distasteful—the postcode lottery. Members might find that strange, but in that model of gambling everyone in the country is entered by default, but must pay to be eligible for a share of the prize if their postcode wins.

Psychologically, that puts people in a similar position to a regular lottery player who uses the same numbers each week and is afraid to miss a week lest their numbers be drawn. The crucial difference, of course, is that in the postcode lottery the pressure to participate and not miss out on the prize exists regardless of whether someone has played before or not. Look at the newspaper headlines: “Get in! We’ve won £10,000 just in time for Christmas!” and “If you don’t enter, you won’t win it!” That puts pressure on people. It is an insidious pressure that works subconsciously and is a step too far. It is past time for another look at how Government and big business are exploiting our communities through gambling. We must tackle the issue. I hope that the minister agrees.

17:29
Hanzala Malik (Glasgow) (Lab): I thank John Mason for securing the debate. As many members have said, gambling is a reserved matter and the Parliament does not have the power to regulate betting shops. However, as a former councillor in Glasgow, I am aware of local authority licensing boards’ responsibilities in granting gambling premises licences under section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005. There is a strong case for giving local authorities increased powers and more flexibility to limit the number of betting shops in their areas. Gambling might not be a direct responsibility of the Parliament or the Scottish Government, but we are right to discuss it, because it affects our people and their quality of life, particularly when people develop a gambling problem.

The most recent gambling prevalence survey pointed to a number of facts that increase a person’s risk of developing a gambling problem. Of particular interest to me was the fact that people from an Asian ethnic background are three times more likely to have a gambling problem than is someone from a white ethnic background.

The issue is also one of social justice. People who are in poor health are four times more likely to have a gambling problem, as are unemployed people. Those with severe money problems are 12 times more likely to have a gambling problem than are those with no money worries.

The motion refers to Harriet Harman’s acknowledgement that the pendulum has swung too far in respect of the number of gambling premises. Her main concern is about the growth in high-stake rapid-play B2 machines, and I support her call for lower limits on stakes for those machines and on prize pay-outs.

We must take all possible steps to safeguard our communities against the dangers of gambling. As I come from Glasgow, a major issue for me is that some areas have so many gambling shops that social activity is limited and so people feel obliged to gamble.

John Mason referred to the frightening way in which gambling shops encourage customers—especially younger people—to gamble. More and more machines are being used to attract young people, who sometimes mislead themselves into thinking that they are playing a game, although real money is used. They do not have enough resources to start with.

I press the minister to share with Westminster our fears and concerns about the legislation and to ask for the issues that we face in Scotland—and, I am sure, throughout the country—to be addressed. I would very much welcome hearing the minister’s comments and how she can support us.

17:33
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): Like other members, my instinct is not to come over authoritarian and judgmental about gambling. I have been known to play the odd hand of poker—badly. I have been known to lose the odd few quid on political betting websites. However, I thank John Mason for bringing the motion to the chamber, because the impact of gambling and of the gambling industry—the impact of not a recreation but an industry—has become unacceptable because of its scale, the lack of responsibility that participants in the industry show and the promotion and, as the motion says, “proliferation” of the industry.

The industry is supposed to be regulated under the 2005 act, so I looked back at the debate when we considered the Sewel motion on what was the Gambling Bill and at the reasons why the Greens voted against that motion. In my speech, I pointed out that the first part of the bill set out to facilitate an expansion of the gambling industry and that the second part set out to deal with or ameliorate the problems that would arise from that expansion. The bill was deeply contradictory. I described it as

“a pay-off to the gambling industry for the introduction of better regulation”,—[Official Report, 12 January 2005; c 13405.]

which is exactly what it was.

That fact is borne out by the briefing from the Association of British Bookmakers, to which John Mason referred and by which I was disappointed. The briefing talks about the early history of the “liberalisation” of gambling. The phrase that struck me was this:

“In return”—

for that process of liberalisation—

“our industry submitted itself to increased regulation.”

Well, how magnanimous of it. Government has a responsibility, duty and right to regulate industries that cause social harm. We do not do that in exchange for anything from industry. We do not regulate the alcohol industry or other industries that can cause social harm in exchange for things; we do it because we think that it is right.

Other aspects of the briefing are equally disappointing. It states:

“Betting shops are generally places of community with high regulatory standards enforced by well trained staff.”

What a different picture that paints from the evidence shown by the “Dispatches” programme to which John Mason referred, which is backed up anecdotally by a friend working in our parliamentary group. A friend of his had a summer job working in a bookmaker’s not long ago and could not stomach it for more than two weeks because of the clear impact that its work was having on problem gamblers.

The final point in the briefing that I will highlight is this statement:

“Shop staff is also fully trained to recognise potential problem gambling behaviour, and they also have self-exclusion programmes, where a customer who believes they are developing a problem can bar themselves”.

Would we expect that kind of approach in relation to any other addictive behaviour? We are talking not about a retail leisure industry, but about an industry that is promoting something that creates addictive behaviour. Instead of requiring a pub to decline to serve someone who was clearly intoxicated at the bar, would we say that that that person could sign up to a self-exclusion programme if they thought that they were developing a problem? We simply would not accept that.

The last point that I will address is the comparison with sex shops. The local power exists for a limit to be placed on the number of sex shops in an area—I have much less of a problem with sex shops than I have with the gambling industry—and I see no reason why we could not apply the same power at the local level to place a limit on the number of gambling establishments that are allowed in a community. I welcome Harriet Harman’s comments and urge the minister to put that case to the Government.

I disagree with Nanette Milne’s remark that co-operation with the industry is the best way forward. There is a difference between what she described as illegal and uncontrolled gambling and free-market and uncontrolled gambling. We do not have to think of it as a dichotomy between those two—there is the option of proper regulation in the middle, and that is what I hope the minister will put to the UK Government.

17:38
The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs (Roseanna Cunningham): I am rather astonished by the intimate knowledge of gambling shared by colleagues in this chamber. I have a confession to make: I know next to nothing about the practice of gambling. I know nothing about even the alleged trap of the People’s Postcode Lottery, to which Dave Thompson referred. Gambling is something that I do not get, and I guess that there must be others in the chamber who have not spoken in the debate who are in the same position.

I congratulate John Mason on securing the debate, which is a valuable attempt to draw attention to an important problem. As most members have recognised, gambling is reserved to Westminster and the levers of control lie there. However, the consequences of problem gambling are manifest right here in Scotland—up to and including broken families, suicides and criminality. Both Graeme Dey and Anne McTaggart reminded us of those very negative impacts.

I welcome Hanzala Malik’s comments, which informed us about a differential impact of gambling on different ethnic groups. I was not aware of that. That was an important contribution.

The Government cannot be complacent about the consequences of problem gambling. In March, the cabinet secretary spoke at a conference that was organised by Money Advice Scotland at which those who see the effects of gambling problems every day and those who can make a difference came together with the intention of ensuring that help gets to those who need it.

Constitutional constraints mean that the Government cannot do as much as we would like, but it is important that we at least do what we can to ensure that there is a more widespread acknowledgement of the problem. Scarcely enough effort has been made to quantify and research the scale and nature of problem gambling, never mind to deal with its consequences, particularly given the changes to the industry in recent years.

Although there is anecdotal evidence—as a number of members have mentioned—of problems that are related to fixed-odds betting terminals, it is currently unsupported by detailed research in the UK. I am not saying that the anecdotal evidence is wrong—just that it is not substantiated by research. My impression is that other countries have benefited from far more comprehensive studies that go further in exploring problem gambling, which may offer a response to some of Nanette Milne’s comments.

Patrick Harvie: Will the minister give way?

Roseanna Cunningham: Yes.

Patrick Harvie: I am sorry—I have taken my card out.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is lost for words.

Patrick Harvie: I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer.

I accept entirely what the minister says about the reserved nature of the regulatory powers, but is it within the Scottish Government’s power to commission some of the research that she says is lacking at present?

Roseanna Cunningham: I suppose that it is possible for any Government to commission research, but one of the difficulties would lie in knowing what we would do with the research if we did not have the powers to act on it. That is a hurdle that cannot be overcome, although I do not doubt that we need more information.

Britain’s gambling industry contributes voluntarily to gambling research, education and treatment, so there is a wider research context, but the UK Government’s decision that it will no longer fund the highly comprehensive prevalence survey is regrettable.

I am concerned about other recent developments south of the border. I find it extraordinary, for example, that the recent House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee report called for relaxation to allow more rather than fewer betting terminals in betting shops. There are some contradictory voices out there.

The 2010 prevalence survey provided data by specific area for the first time, and what it revealed about Scotland is interesting. Scotland had the highest levels of gambling participation in no fewer than seven categories: football pools, slot machines, bingo, fixed-odds betting terminals, sports betting, betting on non-sports events and online betting. There must be concern that that will translate into higher levels of problem gambling.

The wider picture of gambling liberalisation over the past twenty years has been significant. It was right that the 2005 act addressed developments that were simply unimaginable to previous legislators who did not have to consider internet and mobile phone betting, and I fully accept that the act could not put genies back into their bottles. The difficulty of regulating gambling internet sites that are based offshore is not to be underestimated.

I recognise that, as gambling is a widely enjoyed activity—although, as I indicated, I cannot say that I have ever seen the attraction—there is no inherent reason that people should not place their bets using modern methods of delivery. However, I wonder whether the act fully recognised the potential consequences of the all-pervasive nature of gambling in the 21st century, including the advent of 24-hour gambling. People can bet from their mobile while they watch football in the pub, and come back from the pub and power up the computer for a session of poker or switch on a late-night interactive bingo channel. Internet sites are available 24/7, and there are 24-hour casinos available as well as many other options. Graeme Dey’s comments were certainly an eye-opener in that regard.

I have mentioned our limited scope for action in Scotland, but we are determined to do what we can. John Mason asked about teaching in schools. As he will appreciate, I cannot make commitments for the education portfolio, but I will communicate his inquiry to those who are working in that area.

I can confirm that the Scottish Government has already called on the UK Government to fund research, examine specifics such as the clustering of shops and take any necessary action. I am happy to provide an assurance that we will work with the Gambling Commission and others on those occasions where we do have a locus or simply to ensure that agencies work together to ensure better enforcement. As I indicated, the cabinet secretary has already written to John Penrose, the Minister for Tourism and Heritage—who is apparently the relevant minister for this policy area south of the border—in respect of research on fixed-odds betting terminals.

John Mason’s speech reminded me that we should acknowledge the tremendous work that Gamblers Anonymous has done in helping to pick up the pieces.

A wider debate on gambling is certainly worth having, as there are questions to be answered. Are there greater concentrations of betting shops in particular localities? Are those localities in areas of deprivation? Is there an association between the number and location of licensed gambling premises and problem gambling? I certainly welcome the fact that the debate has been opened up. There is no complacency on my part, and I fully recognise that problem gambling is a serious issue that can blight lives. We need to begin a debate on what an independent Scotland can do differently to balance the economic benefits and the enjoyment that gambling undoubtedly brings with a new approach that better mitigates the harm that problem gambling can bring.

Those two things—the good and the harm—must be recognised together. We must consider what we can do now, and what we would be able to do if we had the powers in future.

Meeting closed at 17:45

clive 82's utter contempt for betting shop customers, betfair forum users & very probably anyone else who does not agree with his avaricious agenda is really depressing.

don't go judging others by your very low standards c82. i don't deny i'm a gambler but believe it or not i would not rip you off or take you to the cleaners. it actually does not have to be that way.

i strongly suspect that given the chance you would have my last penny off me though.

Then when you turn to crime to feed your addiction, he'll take the proceeds of that as well, but don't worry when you smash the place up, you'll not be reported, no trail must be left to show the drain on local Police resources and neither can they give us nasty people with a social conscience evidence to bring them down with, they must suppress the truth at all costs for profit.

he will call us hypocrites gandalf (nap)

btw, i hope when you say "when you turn to crime to feed your addiction" you don't mean me.

things aint got that bad yet

Is this the world naivety championships?

I can't believe you all fall for it. Takes all sorts I suppose.

Leaving our colonial neighbour's hissy fit to one side...

These half baked responses still don't answer the fact that this outpouring of social concern, for the negative effects of gambling is taking place on the forum of an anonymous player to player betting exchange. There are no stake and prize limits on here and no means of anyone knowing whether their bet is being matched by someone with severe gambling problems.

This plastic concern is entirely based on a misguided view that if you restrict the LBO's revenue stream from machines that will prompt them to relax their trading policy. If anything if this fantasy became reality it would have the reverse effect.

damn i got my nap wrong. i should not have gone for C82 popping up to call us hypocrites when banned Banks coming on to call us naive was a much safer bet, even if the odds were even smaller.

btw are you geoff banks???

Leaving our colonial neighbour's hissy fit to one side...
..............................................................

You can't resist the insults can you? Now who does that remind me of?

Fair Bookmakers or just Hypocrits.THE COMMON GOAL.

Man walks into bookies wants £200 on No 3 at 36/1.Sorry sir you can only have £2 on at 36/1.
Next day same man now wants £200 0n No 3 at 36/1.No problem sir we can also give you as much free coffe and crisps as you like.

thats right 1st example is a racing bet
2nd example is a cash cow bet (FOBT)

This could be a clear sticky point for said bookies to complain on lower maximum stakes on FOBTs as they already regulate racing to have no high stake customers (however,this is only to protect liability in shops).

Although it can be said some bookies are now banning "IN THE KNOW PUNTERS" from FOBS who play the 1-23, 2-26, 3-22, 4, 5-27,6-19-21, 7-20, 8-25, 9-24, 10-34, 11-13, etc  system just the same as "IN THE KNOW" racing faces.

It could be really interesting as to see if the bookies act first and initiate a lower (say £50) spin to halt the possible £2 spin which would be a disaster for the bookies.
Racing fans lets not forget these FOBTs (although like ciggs booze and drugs where some people can not control how much they use)although dominant in the shops (by talk and takings)still offer an outlet to view our great sports of greyhound and horse racing.

Lets all hope that a common goal can be met so everyone (bookies,players,problem player,addicts etc) can have a flutter without regret or issue in sensible and controlled online and shop bookmakers.

ah wait now, can i get a ruling on whether my nap is landed or not.

C82 does not actually use the word "hypocrite" but surely the "plastic concern" comment amounts to pretty much the same thing?

This plastic concern is entirely based on a misguided view that if you restrict the LBO's revenue stream from machines that will prompt them to relax their trading policy

For "prompt" read "force".
Trading policy? Rampant boardroom greed you mean, and all the while sickening their staff.

Betfair has had a far bigger influence on trading decisions than any number of machines could ever achieve.

Betfair has had a far bigger influence on trading decisions than any number of machines could ever achieve.

Irrelevant, clive.

Alias is it beyond you to accept that more than one person may hold an opposing view to you?

For what it's worth I don't care if machine are banned, double in number, reduced to £2 stake or given unlimited stakes. I am merely commenting on the warped logic that some on here display.

I think Ladbrokes' forum mole is on the wind up here, Clive trying to perpetuate that BF users are just as bad as the bookies in taking the cash off problem gamblers is utter claptrap.

I think he suggested that it is a potential problem and I agree with that. I'm not sure states either way whether he thinks it is as bad or not in his opinion.

There is a case that FOBT issues are far more visible than online problems therefore they get a disproportionate amount of coverage vs internet gambling issues.

you keep saying that you really don't care whether the machines are banned, stakes restricted etc BB yet these sorts of threads always attract considerable attention from you.

why is that, have you a vested interest?

btw are you geoff banks?

No vested interest I just find some of the rhetoric reeled out on here ridiculous.

A little online sparring is no bad thing!

On the flank I see the point you're trying to make but i'm afraid you can't place £200 on on a single number. That is the whole point of stake and prize limits!

"C82 does not actually use the word "hypocrite" but surely the "plastic concern" comment amounts to pretty much the same thing?"

A winning bet no question.

"ridiculous" is a bit harsh.
you don't accept that anyone has a genuine concern then?

btw are you geoff banks?

or maybe jeff banks, in which case i was most disappointed in your autumn collection.

There is a genuine concern, but it is a selfish one, not the wider social concern portrayed on here.

"ridiculous" is a bit harsh.
you don't accept that anyone has a genuine concern then?


Of course some have genuine concerns however many appear a little disingenuous where this issue is concerned.

or maybe jeff banks, in which case i was most disappointed in your autumn collection.


Colour,colour,colour!

I would say C82 is a wee bit of cynic

^Dumb and Dumber

*a*

Speaking for myself who has had serious problem on these fobts.  I would like to see them totally removed from bookies but if that isn't going to happen then £2 max is the next best thing.  Apart from the opinion of them being **** which is obvious if you played them for a long length of time a lot of people who play don't want to.  Ask any regular fobt player and they say I don't want to play have had enough etc but on a daily basis they are still playing.  It is not about winning or losing it is an addiction which completes messes with your mind.  Everyone knows about mathematics/house edge but when addicted that goes out of the window.  Even if they never paid out you would still get people playing mad I know but it is the case.  The bookmakers should never have them in the first place (2002).  Since their inception racing/greyhounds have gone down the toilet, football prices are scandalous compared to 10 years ago, don't want to take sizeable bets of shrewd punters but don't mind taking thousands of fobt players knowing their playing a game with no chance of winning on a long term basis.  You know you're being taken for a ride when bookmakers staff are giving you free food and making you feel like a special customer when you are the biggest mug in the shop.  Even when self-excluded they still want you to play because of the dreaded word 'TURNOVER' which when an area manager comes visiting they put pressure on the staff to keep their figures up i.e make sure you get everyone playing compos etc.  This post might comes across as a bit angry but my life has been f**ed by these and I know of people who are sadly not around due to these fobts.

didn't know r1gged or f1xed is a swear word.

Optic - so because you couldn't demonstrate self control I and thousands of others who can, should be prohibited from playing FOBTs?

If the threshold for legislating on activities that cause harm is to be set at 0.4-0.7% of the population things are going to get pretty wild in GB.

Smoking, drinking, fish and chips, travel, weather, paper cuts.....

"football prices are scandalous compared to 10 years ago" - is this fact or just made up?

the lack of self control comment from C82 was a 1.01 shot optic.

survival of the fittest in his world, i dare say he considers you collateral damage although whether you are an unintended victim or in fact an intended victim is open to debate.

northanlite do you not accept that many products can cause damage and that some has to be tolerated otherwise pretty much everything is prohibited?

Alias is it beyond you to accept that more than one person may hold an opposing view to you?

No. Is it beyond you to recognise the amazing similarity in posts you make under your two chatnames?

yes i do BB and believe it or not i don't generally like the idea of banning things and over regulation however i also feel these machines we a discussing should never have been allowed on the high street in the first place. the experience of visiting a bookmaker has become a rather depressing one since their inception.

Alias I can assure you I have only 1 account on here.

Quite why I would want to post under different names is beyond me.

I think Alias has let slip a tactic of his own...

Reassuring to know we may only be dealing with one village missing an idiot.

northanlite do you not accept that many products can cause damage and that some has to be tolerated otherwise pretty much everything is prohibited?


Goodness Banned, after your FAILED attempt yesterday to correct my English usage, it's plain that you still require tuition. My free lessons are over however. You'll have to figure it out for yourself. It's actually worse if you are English, since English is not my first language. Meanwhile, a thought just for you, Banned_Banks.

Grammar: the difference between knowing your sh!t, and knowing you're sh!t. Good luck with it.

Quite why I would want to post under different names is beyond me.

And me.

I think Alias has let slip a tactic of his own...

What might that be?
......................................
Reassuring to know we may only be dealing with one village missing an idiot.

You just can't help yourself, can you clive?

It's all over. I hear the Gov are putting a clause in that they are not going to drop the limit but bookmakers can only allow the same stake as they lay on horses...So it's going to be a lot less then £2

Didn't Hills accept a £500k bet earlier in the year. I'm sure Kate Miller said so and why would she lie?

I hear the Gov are putting a clause in that they are not going to drop the limit but bookmakers can only allow the same stake as they lay on horses...So it's going to be a lot less then £2

As your boss said at the time Clive ..Believe the hype''? You bet, say Hills


By Charles Sale
15 April 2012


William Hill are providing only selective information about the extraordinary £500,000 bet to win £100,000 on record-breaking hurdler Big Buck’s, which is being viewed with disbelief by rival firms.

Other bookies, not averse to excessive hype themselves, are outraged by the extra yards Hills went to gain publicity during the Grand National meeting by making allegedly overly-ambitious claims about their share of the market.

These include not only the disputed Big Buck’s bet last Thursday, which Hills will only say was struck by one of their clients via a credit card in a High Street betting shop in the south of England, but also the Hills estimation that £1billion would be wagered with them during FA Cup semi-finals and National week.
Ladbrokes’ David Williams said: ‘This is irresponsible; it’s got out of hand.’ David Stevens of Coral, added: ‘One betting firm is out on its own with the publicity tactics it’s pursuing. At least the rest of us have a semblance of truth in what we claim.’

William Hill’s Kate Miller, who had a scanned copy of the 1-5 odds-on betting slip supplied by the company’s trading chief on her laptop, said: ‘We’re the leading bookmaker. We don’t have to make things up and have audited accounts.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2130220/Charles-Sale-Believe-hype-Y...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Didn't Hills accept a £500k bet earlier in the year

Must've been on a FOBT clive. I and others struggle to get £200 on with the chancers. On anything. I'm sure though, that I could have £2k in a machine comfortably, without the manager requiring permission to lay.

No David Williams wouldn't make up things like MONEY BACK IF CAMELOT GETS BEAT .. ."That's phenomenal David''

clive82 27 Sep 12 12:14 Joined: 06 May 10 | Topic/replies: 222 | Blogger: clive82's blog
Didn't Hills accept a £500k bet earlier in the year. I'm sure Kate Miller said so and why would she lie?

Didn't that idiot David Williams of Ladcrooks say on The Morning Line that if people backed Camelot they could not lose.

Is there an echo....Sheep

David Stevens of Coral, added: ‘One betting firm is out on its own with the publicity tactics it’s pursuing. At least the rest of us have a semblance of truth in what we claim.’
................................................................

A SEMBLANCE of truth? Is that all? Does that mean we can't trust anything you say, clive82?

Clive82, you been brought up to task yet about your Morning Line balls up ?

Ladbrokes shares like a downhill Alpine ski slope today http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=LAD.L

http://www.jagsreport.com

JPMorgan Chase downgraded shares of Ladbrokes (LON: LAD) to an underweight rating in a research note released on Thursday morning. They currently have $2.58 (160 GBX) price target on the stock.

A number of other analysts have also recently weighed in on LAD. Analysts at Exane BNP Paribas reiterated a neutral rating on shares of Ladbrokes in a research note to investors on Tuesday, August 28th. They now have a $2.67 price target on the stock. Analysts at AlphaValue reiterated an add rating on shares of Ladbrokes in a research note to investors on Thursday, August 23rd. They now have a $2.89 price target on the stock.

Ladbrokes opened at 176.40 on Thursday. Ladbrokes has a 1-year low of GBX 113.30 and a 1-year high of GBX 187.40. The company’s market cap is £1.602 billion.

2012 half year profits £106.9m, a 49% increase on 2011.

Yes it appears all downhill from here.

Clive82, watch the downhill stampede when the FOBT's are dealt with, let's see you gloat then.

Gandalf as you seem to be the oracle on overseas commercial matters would you care to indulge us with your view of the likely outcome of the review into FOBTs?

2012 half year profits £106.9m, a 49% increase on 2011.

Yes it appears all downhill from here.


And they still make dishonest statements re camelot and refuse recreational bets from the general public whose "crime" is to back a few winners.

2012 half year profits £106.9m, a 49% increase on 2011.

Not surprised, likely 50% from FOBTs.

Gandalf I know I have said it before but clive82 has you well and truely snagged in the net.

He is playing you like a fiddle and you react every time.

If Clive is actually on a wind-up, then the amount of time he has spent on here perpetuating it means the sad b*stard really hasn't got one over on anyone, that's for sure.

2012 half year profits £106.9m, a 49% increase on 2011

2013 half year profits £1.69 Million

I'm a mere novice of 224 posts... in comparison to others, so who is spending too much time on here?

Gandalf, I am genuinely surprised you actually believe this review will result in the FOBTs being 'dealt with.' Your ability to use a spell checker has seemingly created a false impression.

Clive82, you know it is only a matter of time, you can spout your lord and masters words all you like but the cash cow will soon be dealt with. You should feel more determined to improve your level of education, considering that an Irishman who's first language is Irish and who's second language is English, is the one who has to correct your embarrassing attempts at trying to look as if you have some semblance of intelligence, éisteacht leis an méid a rá liom, mo chara.

Why not stick to your own domestic affairs then?

You appear more concerned with the happenings over here than you do with your own country. You sound very much lie a wannabe Englishman.

Ah bless, reinforcing your little national quirks, how sweet.

So you are from the part we gave back?

A typical response from an illiterate fool. When you reach the educational standard that I require, I will gladly debate the fact that I don't give two flying fcuks about the North/South divide or who owns what, but unlike you, I care about human suffering, no matter what their race, colour or creed might be.

Banned_Banks, when you have an original thought, I will consider educating you also, but I will not be holding my breath while waiting for that to happen.

I take it that you are going to stick with your ranting nonsense rather than answering the questions posed?

The Scottish Gov don't want them The Con's and LIB-DEM don't want them and you think there wont be dealt with

When you ask a sensible question, tell the person who provided it for you, to give you their email also and I will reply to them.

clive82 27 Sep 12 14:03 Joined: 06 May 10 | Topic/replies: 226 | Blogger: clive82's blog
I'm a mere novice of 224 post

oh please!!!! everyone knows what your previous user name was.

ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLIDERS

Government wants addictive gambling machine clampdown

http://www.christian.org.uk

Gamblers could be given a £2-a-go spending limit on high stake machines, as the Government wants to review previously relaxed gambling regulations.

These high stake gaming machines have been branded the “crack cocaine” of betting, allowing gamblers to stake £100 a spin and up to £18,000 an hour.

But Don Foster, Liberal Democrat communities minister, wants a restriction of £2 a spin, the same as limits at bingo halls and casinos

Review

The Government has ordered a review of stakes, the number of these machines and the prize levels.

The previous Labour Government drastically liberalised gambling laws, but some senior figures now admit it was a “mistake.”

The number of fixed odds terminals has risen from 16,380 to 32,000 in five years.

Welcome

Gareth Wallace, of the Salvation Army, said they “warmly welcome” the Government’s plans.

He said: “All the evidence is that they are far more addictive than other forms of gambling.”

Two months ago, the Commons culture committee called for fewer restrictions on the high stake machines.

The Government has rejected these recommendations and wants local councils to have the power to restrict the machines.

Gambling with lives


Clampdown: The coalition is to bring in new measures against high-stakes gaming machines

Along with 24-hour drinking, Labour’s go-ahead for a gambling bonanza was an act of wanton social destruction that defied any notion of moral responsibility.

So the Mail warmly welcomes the Coalition’s plans for a clampdown on high-stakes gaming machines, so addictive that they are known as the ‘crack cocaine’ of the High Street.

Proposing strict new regulations, including a cut in maximum stakes from £100 to £2, Lib Dem communities minister Don Foster condemns these life-destroying machines as an ‘aberration’. We heartily endorse his judgment.

With Vince Cable’s much-vaunted business bank still months or years from fruition, this could be the one piece of solid good news to emerge from all the posturing at the Lib Dem conference.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2208048/A-warped-definition-wealth...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Though saying all that I bet the Joes have a plethora of solicitors looking for a loophole like they did last time around.

Gandalf surely it is the very definition of human suffering to have Whitehall dictate to someone how they spend their hard earned wages.

You increasingly appear to be one of these pompous left wing know it alls, who through their own insecurities feel the need to control the lives of others.

I have no vested interest in FOBTs beyond the possibility I may chose to use one in future. Whether I do or not is entirely my choice.

If you are looking for a foreign crusade to weigh in on I’m sure you can find something more meaningful elsewhere. Syria, Somalia, famine (not of the potato variety), global warming.. the list is endless.

I have no vested interest in FOBTs beyond the possibility I may chose to use one in future. Whether I do or not is entirely my choice.

does anybody believe this???

WALOFS

Why not stick to your own domestic affairs then?

You appear more concerned with the happenings over here than you do with your own country. You sound very much lie a wannabe Englishman.

..........................................

Ah bless, reinforcing your little national quirks, how sweet.

So you are from the part we gave back?
....................................................................................

The latest insults from B_B and clive. Nice people, aren't they? SORRY, nice person, isn't he?

Is the betfair forum flock hosting a drinks reception at all three party conferences or hosting MP visits up and down the country?

The betting lobby have been anticipating this assault for the last 18 months, and as was proven with the statutory acceptence of B2 entitlements in LBOs in 2005 they will prove what a formidable lobbying group they are when united behind a shared cause.

Not many industries pay more in tax then they make in profits. Not difficult to make the case for a sector contributing £941m in revenue to the treasury.

I see the mythical end date of Feb 14th comes exactly 2 weeks after the new 20% machines tax comes into force. Joined up government then.

your well informed for someone with no "vested interest" clive

Is the betfair forum flock hosting a drinks reception at all three party conferences or hosting MP visits up and down the country?

Only THREE parties?

The betting lobby have been anticipating this [i]assault for the last 18 months, and as was proven with the statutory acceptence of B2 entitlements in LBOs in 2005 they will prove what a formidable lobbying group they are when united behind a shared cause.

Assault? Poor dears. You mean assault, like the WH manager stabbed in the neck in the Dalkeith shop?
"acceptence"? Your English slip is showing, B_B. Sorry, clive. Oh, English is not my first language. Aren't you ashamed?

Not many industries pay more in tax then they make in profits. Not difficult to make the case for a sector contributing £941m in revenue to the treasury. 12.5 GPT isn't it?

I see the mythical end date of Feb 14th comes exactly 2 weeks after the new 20% machines tax comes into force. Joined up government then.
[/i] Your govt.

Clive and BB do you not see you are entirely alone?
If that doesn't hit the switch then I feel sorry for you both,it
must be a lonely life being on your own.

Entirely alone? - you think the two of us managed to turnover £48billion? looking at BBs posts I suspect he has never used a FOBT in his life, and I don't have the inclination to play them either, i'd just rather that was my choice then yours.

Northanlite - All publically available information, perhaps you should avail yourself of some before replying.

I'm a mere novice of 224 posts... in comparison to others, so who is spending too much time on here?

The difference is, the rest of us don't spend all our time on here purely regurgitating whatever the latest line is from the PR department of Ladbrokes and co.

Hopefully that is not typical of your 2337 previous efforts...

Believe that tomorrow for Sadcrooks free roulette tournament some managers have been sent a letter asking staff to actively discourage the "usual" tournament players from participating. They have also got to fill in sheets detailing the increased future spend of any of the targeted higher staking customers.
All just to make them aware of the wonderful opportunities available of course.
And all whilst not trying to create any further problem gamblers and besides we all know that there is no causal relationship between the introduction of FOBTs and the upsurge in problem gambling.

I have yet to see ONE punter say ''No leave the FOBT's alone as they are...Though i have seen plenty of Bookies reps say it. . . Pariahs it seems out on their own...Fixed Odds Betting Machines roll on febuary and the  "The St Valentines Day FOBT massacare'' Millions wiped off their shares, hundreds of thousands unemployed . . oh and they think the money spent on these machines wont be spent else where

Banned_banks and clive 82...

One at a time please...

In all my time on this forum clive82 takes the biscuit....

And banned_banks (who once incidentally stole my username,posted on my "behalf" and still was not given the red card) is the biggest corporate suck on the forum...

LEAVE FOBTs ALONE
A.Daughter i for one dont want to see a change it would be a bit like saying all horse punters can only stake £2 on any one race.

Its a case of doing your homework (not your nuts Optic) and get the edge,just like for a horse race.
Its a massive advantage when you know what is trying to win and what is really really really trying to win.
You need players who just keep pumping thier hard earned (government handout) money on random numbers,this is no different than pre FOBTs it was a random horse name or lucky number in every greyhound/horse race of the day.

As my post explains (9.55 27th sept) even FOBTs have numbers that are tryers  and numbers that are really really really trying.
Some posts come to the conclusion that the numbers are chosen so you lose,DO ME A FAVOUR,do your homework on whats trying, dont just pick random numbers as in the long run (100s of spins)99% of FOBT players lose just the same as when they were investing on greyhound/horse racing with the same system.
Because players get caught up with the ball spinning round and round then predicting what number it will be because it started at a certain point that all but a few actually study the numbers which come out in blocks of 16 and 24.These blocks consistantly have a numbers that comes out (say no2) which then repeats itself or its mate (no2 or no26) within the block,giving 8 or 12 matching pairs.
the key to success is knowing all the mates to each No e.g (2-26)(0-32)(18-33)(16-36) (15-28-29)(14-30)(12-31)(11-13)(10-34)(9-24)(8-25)(7-20)(6-19-21)(5-27)(4)(3-22)(1-23).
Go on Optic and you all stand by a FOBT player with this list for an hour and cross off the pairs as they come out then help one of the so called Problem Gamblers with a winning number you know is going to be really really really trying in the next few spins, just like an in the know owner used to help me out with the odd horse who was really really really trying in a horse race.

C82 £200 on No3 is possible,20 spins at £10 each time on No3 = £200 staked (poss return £7200)
No way would a bookie let me have £10 on the same horse 20 times at 36/1 was the point i was making in the post where FOBT players can stake that volume.

These blocks consistantly have a numbers that comes out (say no2) which then repeats itself or its mate

I'm now starting to understand how these machines make £1.3bn per annum.

They make so money by combining  being highly addictive, fast and  providing a guaranteed positive EV to the house, banned banks

Simples.

And banned_banks (who once incidentally stole my username,posted on my "behalf" and still was not given the red card) is the biggest corporate suck on the forum...


Methinks you take things just a tad too seriously on here.

As for being a "corporate suck" it is somewhat ironic that the comment was written by someone who has worked in the industry about another who has not. I guess it is probably due to some latent guilt you are trying to offload.

Be lucky.

"C82 £200 on No3 is possible,20 spins at £10 each time on No3 = £200 staked (poss return £7200)
No way would a bookie let me have £10 on the same horse 20 times at 36/1 was the point i was making in the post where FOBT players can stake that volume."

Surely you understand this would be the equivalent of betting on No 3 in 20 different races and cannot be compared to placing £200 on a single race in £10 increments.

Doesn't matter what we say or do...It's all over, sadly the good times a rolling are over...Sorry to see it go but I'm sure the bookmakers and their share holders wont be too disappointed with it, they got one hell of a living out of it and I'm sure like the bookmakers we can live with the new £2 limit.

Fair point C82.
Althought the No has exactly the same chance on each of the 20 spins (so your led to believe)as it is randomly selected so it can be seen as 1 race,where on 20 diff horse/greyound races has variables that can alter the outcome of each race which is not random.
key point is even if £2 is introduced some people will just keep warm with coffee all day until they have chased the losses they could not afford to lose in the 1st place.

By the way i forgot to mention it would mean they will have to take an extra 20 ciggy breaks (addict) also during the days play.
Work out rotas to visit the pub (addict) etc,this is going to cause mayhem for punters (addict) as well as bookmakers shops (shelter at a cost for addicts).