Less the 30 FOBT's BUT Berwick’s FOBT's rake in £30m

he always bangs on about arbers harry. i have no idea why i think it is drilled into them that all punters are arbers & all arbers are evil.
the poor guy is twisted in knots & if you read a lot of his posts contradicts himself regularly & misquotes the disinformation he has been handed out by his paymasters.
i don't think he is the brightest bless him.

as everyone knows there will be some form of (insufficient watered down) legislation eventually but in the meantime the misleading stats & downright lies will continue to be trotted out while the industry asks for proof, then more proof, then further unequivocal proof and then tries to cut a deal. depressing stuff imo.

I think the phrase they like to use is "empirical evidence". This bandied around regularly by the likes of the ABB, without ever stating what this means. No matter what proof is provided, they will continue to say the same, because they think it can't be evaluated. It's a bit like having a race without telling the competitors where the finishing line is.

Warning over the perils of betting shop machines



Published on Monday 28 January 2013  http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/business/local-business/warning-over-the-perils-of-betting-shop-machines-1-4726856



A MEMBER of a gambling support group has spoken of the dangers of using machines in betting shops.



Fixed odds betting terminals in shops allow gamblers to place bets of up to £100 every 20 to 45 seconds, typically in roulette type games, meaning a user can lose thousands in just minutes.

Gambling companies kept £1.4bn from these machines and similar types across the country in 2011/12, an increase of 10 per cent, according to the Gambling Commission.

Betting shops are allowed to have a maximum of four machines in a shop.

Stefan Goodson, 22, of Fareham, is an ex-gambling addict and now attends Gambler’s Anonymous meetings in Portsmouth, Havant and Southampton.

He said newcomers regularly talk about their problems with the machines.

He said: ‘I don’t know what the attraction is, but it’s a compulsion – people I know love playing on them.

‘As a group we think that you shouldn’t be allowed to spend so much money in so little time – that’s what’s causing debt across the country.’

Stefan has not gambled since April but is still in thousands of pounds of debt.

It comes as the Campaign for Fairer Gambling is calling for the government to limit the maximum bet to £2 and increase the amount of time between playing, as well as remove game content.

The group have calculated an estimated £427,074,526.67 has been spent in Portsmouth, Havant, Gosport, Fareham and surrounding areas.

MP for Portsmouth South Mike Hancock said: ‘The relaxation of the rules which allow betting shops to have these machines and the availability of them – people literally walking in off the street – could lead to an enormous problem. The government should rethink the gaming laws on this issue.

‘Somebody somewhere is making a lot of money.’

n Call Stefan on 07572 501847 or visit the national website gamblersanonymous.org.uk for help

Not a nice thing to say, but if one of his relatives, done the mortgage money, lost their house, wife, jobs and kids becasue of these roulette machines, he might change his tune. I know of one such person, who has gone from successful businessman to having lost the lot through these machines. He was a regular horse and dog punter for years, now reduced to being unemployed in some bedsit.
Yes, it's all about self control, but the psychological hit every thirty seconds or so stimulates the brain more than a horse race every ten minutes.

i knew we had gone to hell in a handcart a couple of years ago when i went down to the cheltenham festival.
i've been going for years & on the high street the PR girls are always out with the jockey gear on pushing various racing offers etc. that has all changed now though and there are more PR folk than ever out on the street but the racing doesn't get mentioned. all they do is relentlessly push free goes on the machines and it is the same when you walk into the shops.
i guess for every hundred or so punters you can get to have a spin you might hook a true compulsive. depressing stuff yet again.

A few years ago Newbury allowed the tote bookmakers to site two FOBT's on racedays. Ground floor of the Hampshire Stand.

What these bookmaker apologists don't seem to realise is that this forum is for people who like gambling. If it was a forum for baking, you could both understand why the baking fraternity think its a good idea to ban FOBTs, and why bookmakers might say they are ill-informed. This isn't a baking forum, and I'd expect a vast majority of the posters here are both gamblers, and have been in a bookmakers recently, and yet these are the people who say FOBTs are simply wrong.

I'm still waiting for someone, apart from the obvious ones, to praise FOBTs, and say what a wonderful addition they are to bookmakers and society. Or am I right in thinking that these people aren't really interested in any other form of gambling ?

Are you out there FOBT players ?

most of the people posting on here are responsible for alleviating Laddies of most of their Horse Racing profits from their inept trading team so it is only natural that they have a few spies in the camp here eh Clive ?

the only thing in there favour is that if there were no FOBTs there would probably be no shops and I do like to pop in now and again and have a few cash bets when in town

how many shops a week were closing before fobts ?

Not many but that was pre the explosion in online betting.

"The comparison about crack cocaine is not about money or how many, it's about the level of addiction that is caused."

Precisely, that is why it is such a stupid comparison.

Struggling to follow your bread based analogy but i'm fairly sure the BF forum does not provide an accurate reflection of the wider public. Unless you think every single machine player is a problem gambler, then surely the fact these machines are so popular is evidence that they provide enjoyment to those who use them. You may not understand why, but then I don't understand why people buy scratchcards or lottery tickets but at the end of the day they do and it's their business.

Harry I think you'll find for the majority of anti-FOBT posters on here the issue has absolutely nothing to do with problem gambling (as they readily admit,) it is about some twisted notion that banning FOBTs will make bookies relax their trading restrictions.

As for your tale of woe, very unfortunate but presumably nobody put a gun to your 'friend's' head. Just because they're a degenerate gambler, why should that impede how I spend my money. Did problem gambling begin in 2002? Should we ban Big Macs because of fat people?

Should we ban Big Macs because of fat people?

clive , should we ban winning punters because they win ?

clive
never have and never will play one of those things but I have some sympathy with your views.the decision to play is a matter of personal choice at the end of the day no matter how aggressive the marketing..I think its ur picture that may be raising the hackles of some on here !

clive , should we ban winning punters because they win ?

Brilliant !

Clive ?

And yes, I would ban big macs !

Another company, like Ladbrokes, exploiting the feckless.

Choice of photo was just to throw some red meat to the lunatic fringe on here who think you can't express a view other then that of the herd's, without working for a bookmaker!

Rcing, you've already explained you are motivation is to maximise the levy. So you should be in favour of banning unprofitable customers.

Perhaps, the wiseheads on here can end the smokescreen of FOBTS and perceived harm, and explain how they believe banning FOBTs will make bookmakers relax their trading restrictions? Nobody has ever actually explained that.

this may have been said earlier but i believe the figures have to be taken with a pinch of salt.....if someone goes in with a tenner, plays for 10 mins at the end of which he's lost 10 and won 8, he then puts the 8 in and wins 6 over the nxt 5 mins, then puts the 6 in and wins 4, then loses the 4...that will be seen as losses of 10+8+6+4= 28 rather than merely of the original tenner...or something like that

Choice of photo was just to throw some red meat to the lunatic fringe on here who think you can't express a view other then that of the herd's, without working for a bookmaker!

I find it difficult to believe any sensible person would choose a photo of the odious Mr Williams unless he was him ? I do realise you couldn't admit to it. Your parasitic bosses might object to this level of PR.

Rcing, you've already explained you are motivation is to maximise the levy. So you should be in favour of banning unprofitable customers.

Failing to see the connection here ? Who mentioned the levy ? Another smokescreen, perhaps ?

Perhaps, the wiseheads on here can end the smokescreen of FOBTS and perceived harm, and explain how they believe banning FOBTs will make bookmakers relax their trading restrictions? Nobody has ever actually explained that.

Again, this seems to be your agenda only. Who mentioned bookmakers relaxing their restrictions ? Personally, I don't think it would make any difference to your odious policies, other than that to your profits.

clive/banned banks

if winning accounts will be closed or restricted , in the terms and conditions upon signing up to use a bookmaker shouldn't it state that

" if you win over x ammount your account will be restricted or closed "

the crack analogy does make some sense in that even amongst other addictive drugs crack has been seen to be unusually addictive both is the rapidness & rabidness of that addiction.   

the many studies done in australia are absolutely applicable here and even the governments own figures show an astonishing 80% of all problem gamblers got into problems due to pokie machines. i dare say that will be dismissed by the apologists though as they are not exactly the same machine.

the biggest lie of course is when the bookmakers say that they don't want problem gamblers in their shops. what % of profit would we guess the problem gambler provides alongside the more occasional user? the australian studies estimate 40%. i would not be surprised if it is higher here given that fewer people are likely to visit bookmakers as opposed to the social clubs where the machines in australia are located.

No.

Does Clive want the professional FOBTplayer do have his stakes limited??

15. Termination of Account

15.1. We reserve the right to close your account at any time.

Is this the sort of thing you have in mind Rcing? Fairly clear I think, if you don't agree don't open the account.


"Your parasitic bosses might object to this level of PR"

Perhaps they wouldn't have their staff using photos of themselves then? Thanks though for confirming my lunatic fringe observation so quickly and completely  for the benefit of Ranadar!

*to have

Betting transactions are individual legal entities. There is no need to tell people how previous transactions may affect the acceptance of future contracts.

There is no contractual link that requires either side to accept a bet and nor should there be unless you are also happy for your bookmaker to ring you up and demand that you have a bet on a race that you don't want to bet on.

all the rules and regulations of each bookmaker are there in there t&c to protect the bookmaker and the customer , also so that if any discrepancies of bets placed appear it is easy to point to the t&c  .
so why should the customer not be warned or made known of the fact that " if you win over x ammount your account will be restricted or closed "

in your opinion banks ?

The termination of account stuff is not quite explicit as to why though is it Clive? Do you think the likes of bad blokes would invoke the clause in respect of a proven long term loser

Perhaps they wouldn't have their staff using photos of themselves then? Thanks though for confirming my lunatic fringe observation so quickly and completely  for the benefit of Ranadar!

So, you used a photo of Mr Williams just on incite us "lunatic fringe", then ? Ok, I believe you David, sorry Clive.

I notice Mr Williams hasn't tweeted much lately. Perhaps his bosses have curtailed that little enterprise ? What do you think, David, sorry Clive ?

What about offer and acceptance banks? Baddies or Hillies offer me a price via their website or advert and then wont lay it...... Yet at the same time their PR man is spouting nonsense about how they've laid the self same price to lose ten squill ion......

Do you think the likes of bad blokes would invoke the clause in respect of a proven long term loser

Is that a serious question?

My apologies, I assumed we all understood bookmakers exist to make profit.

If people can't accept that a bookmaker can decide who they transact with and on what terms then they should try and find a bookmaker who doesn't have the power to close accounts within their T&Cs.

Anyone who signs up to an account with such a clause should not then complain when the bookmaker chooses to use a clause that they have openly shared with you.

clive , give us a few examples of why accounts would be closed .

clive & banks, why don't you just be honest and state what everyone thinks anyway.

that you really don't care about who loses what on these machines.
that no matter how much they lose you think it is entirely their own fault.
that the bookmakers should be entitled to maximise their profits any way they see fit.

all the rest of your nonsense it is just spin.

I've no reason to spin anything.

There is such a thing as the Unfair Contract Terms Act. Merely by signing a contract does not prevent a party seeking via legal action to overturn  a part or all of the contract if it can be held to be unfair. In judging what is unfair the relative strengths of the parties involved will be a consideration.

Might be interesting to see outcome has challenge has especially if the likes of Clive can produce no other scenarios than winning where the clause is invoked.....

My apologies, I assumed we all understood bookmakers exist to make profit.

Don't bookmakers assume that punters would like to make a profit also ? It would seem you exist to make a profit at whatever cost. If the feckless suffer, why should you care, eh Clive ?

If people can't accept that a bookmaker can decide who they transact with and on what terms then they should try and find a bookmaker who doesn't have the power to close accounts within their T&Cs.

Unfortunately, there are no bookmakers who behave accordingly as well you know. The cartel, that is now British bookmaking, ensures that the same rules are spread evenly.

Anyone who signs up to an account with such a clause should not then complain when the bookmaker chooses to use a clause that they have openly shared with you.

I'm not complaining, I've just had to get clever. That's why I've had to use aliases to get a bet on. And you give me free bets every time I do !! Is this really a successful business model ? Muppets.

Poor English above (typing on I Pad!) but you'll get the gist...

Bookmakers have historically made profits despite the presence of winning punters.....

true paris but bookmakers have historically been run by bookmakers not accountants as is now the case.

Parispike the UCTA is not relevant as an account is merely a collection of stand alone contracts. UCTA deals with the construct of contracts that have been agreed. It does not address the availability of contracts.

A betting account does not require either side to enter into a contract against their wish.

Betting shops have changed a hell of a lot since they were legalised in the 60s. It's not so long ago though, that it was an offence for staff to encourage or entice someone to bet - on anything. No tea or coffee, no clear windows. Now, a lot of the changes have been for the better, but these days we are at the stage where staff are sent into the customer area expressly to encourage and entice customers - not to back a horse or greyhound or football team - but to chance their luck on FOBTs. That fact is a huge giveaway, i.e., the companies concerned know that the machines are addictive, and they want people to become addicted. It is as simple as that, and it is unarguably immoral.

"Is this really a successful business model ? Muppets."

According to the latest results of the big operators, it seems the business model is very successful.

For the avoidance of doubt I have never given you a free bet, as I don't work for a bookmakers. If I change my photo to Santa will you believe I wear a red coat?

I thought this thread was about FOBTs, not the matter that bookmakers justify an unfair practice by quoting terms and conditions, and contract law.

It's pretty pointless discussion really. They believe they're allowed to cheat simply because there's a clause that says we don't want your business if you win. That'll never change.

Expressing our view, that FOBTs are simply wrong, still has a chance to make a change because they don't make the law, government does. They do bribe MPs though. I forgot about that one.

We're in sh*t creek !

terms & conditions are not water tight by any means. a court can deem them unreasonable.

if you could be bothered going to the bother of challenging the right to close an account at any time for any reason i suspect you may get somewhere.

it may well be deemed unreasonable for a company engaged in betting to close your account just because you are better than them at it. when put like that it seems very unfair indeed and should surely be made clear to prospective customers?

a business can say the management reserves the right to refuse entry but you can't then turn people away for any reason you feel like. it has to be on reasonable grounds.

If I change my photo to Santa will you believe I wear a red coat?

Only if the red coat is in the photo, Clive.

Having said that, I don't think there is anything you could say, that any reasonable person would believe.

So what do you do for a living, Clive ? As professions go, I'm trying to think if there's anything lower in the social ladder than a bookmaker. Perhaps, an MP ? A terrorist ?

With regard to account closures, I've had accounts closed not because of winning, but because of how I lose. If they even suspect you're capable of applying an edge over them, they close you down. That's the part that's akin to cheating.

hang on a mo WTF i have known many decent bookmakers over the years that understood the game they were in and the inherent risks.
clive is a lackie of the risk averse corporate betting industry. not the same thing at all

With regard to account closures, I've had accounts closed not because of winning, but because of how I lose. If they even suspect you're capable of applying an edge over them, they close you down. That's the part that's akin to cheating.

Snap ! Just simply getting the price available, win or lose, is tantamount to bookmaker heresy, and they think it deserves closing down ? Like I said earlier, a great business model.

Ladbrokes actually closed one account down before I made a bet. They must have employed Mystic Meg ? I sussed out how they did it, and managed to get around it with my next account, though.

Again condition 15 seems very clear to me..

15. Termination of Account

15.1. We reserve the right to close your account at any time.

If you don't like it, don't open an account with them.

WFT - I think you'll find this thread is more about account management then FOBTs. When the thread's author is done scanning his google alerts for the latest FOBT cuttings in the Bognor Advertiser, i'm sure he'll be happy to confirm his true motives.

Clive isn't an accountant, is he ?

He once accused someone else, on another thread, of being a paedophile.

Is an accountant worse ?

you have to say , clive has a sense of humour judging by his avatar .

clive , regarding condition 15 , if i am placing bets with a bookmaker and i win a few bets and they close my account , what have i done wrong  ?

Addiction ,crack cocaine,what on earth are some posters on about.
   I am only too aware that FOBTs were christened the "crack cocaine of gambling",which has to be a complete load of tosh.Once a person smokes their first rock of crack,then they are in serious trouble.
Not so with FOBTs as many can play,and walk away,and don't get serious withdrawal symptoms,or serious cravings.Yes,there will be some that keep coming back for more,as in ALL forms of gambling,but to compare the machines with an extremely addictive drug,which will ensnare nearly all that try it is both incorrect,and highly inaccurate.
There is no proof needed that crack cocaine is a dangerous drug,but comparing a chemical substance,with a pursuit that involves neither drugs,alcohol,or anything else that can distort a person's rationale is just nonsense.
  Many people can play for small amounts and walk away,again showing that the theory about being "highly addictive", like a drug,is just a theory.
    When these threads were first started I questioned the concern for this type of gambling,and still do.
   Regarding the one off examples of businesses going down the pan,or a home being lost,that has,and always will happen,whenever gambling has been concerned.

the question is whether 15.1 is reasonable or not.
they should at least have to give a reason.
next time they close one claim they did it for some sort of discriminatory reason. i'm sure they would have to give a reason then

unbiased do you think everyone that smokes crack becomes addicted?
how stupid are you ffs???

Rcing - I'm not suggesting in such a scenario the bookie is right but it is their choice, and the T&Cs make it clear they can do it. A cursory glance at their results shows any suggestion this approach is negatively effecting their profitability is not correct.

.Once a person smokes their first rock of crack,then they are in serious trouble how would you know ?

would you say the same about cigarettes ?

nicotine is more addictive , yet i know many people that smoke when they are having a few beers in the pub , but not when they are at home .

Northanlite,no need for abbreviated swearing in order to express your annoyance.Yes,crack is one of the most addictive drugs out on the street.Perhaps you weren't aware of that fact.

Not so with FOBTs as many can play,and walk away,and don't get serious withdrawal symptoms,or serious cravings

Strange choice of name, given your views.

"many" can play and walk away, but not all. Many can refuse crack cocaine when offered, some don't.

There is evidence, I'm not sure if it's "empirical", of people who become addicted that have never gambled on anything else.

I'm not suggesting in such a scenario the bookie is right but it is their choice

if " if you win over x ammount your account will be restricted or closed " was in the t&c i would know why my account was closed which is fair enough . why should i not be warned that this might happen ?

WFT,you can see from my posts that I will only post FACTS.Re. my user name,that was given to me years ago,for being able to see all sides of a situation.Studying law being a great help,obviously.
   The problem is trying to explain to people that have preconceived ideas about something,that they may be wrong.

"The Berwick constituency currently has 29 FOBTs, spread around eight licensed bookies. The Gambling Act 2005 limits each betting shop to a maximum of just four FOBTs. A total of £30,338,187 was gambled in 2011/12"

8 shops x 4 = 32 but only 29 FOBTs
Which fools don't have the 4 machines allowed? At over £1m gambled per machine

Once a person smokes their first rock of crack,then they are in serious trouble.

The problem is trying to explain to people that have preconceived ideas about something,that they may be wrong

Banned Banks, an account could be held as a conduit for the purpose of aggregating bets.....otherwise why do bookmakers monitor the opening of multiple accounts.

Your reasoning is flawed.

well if you can be bothered reading my 14:11 post then yews i was aware of the nature of the drug. i can assure you though that while it is a very dangerously addictive substance not all those you smoke it become instantly addicted, despite what you might read in the daily mail.

The problem is trying to explain to people that have preconceived ideas about something,that they may be wrong.

Tell that to, Clive/David/Philip.

I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong, and perfectly prepared to admit so.

I suspect Clive/David/Philip, however, comes from a different breed.

Some people spend all their money on FOBTS.....their choice and RESPONSIBILITY

Some people spend all their money on Horses/Dogs....etc

Some people spend all their money on Drugs inc Alcohol....etc

You can't have a namby-pamby state legislating to 'save' these people, they destroy themselves no matter what.

big issue , why not legalise drugs then and let people use what they wish ?

rcing - I agree, prohibition doesn't work so why not legalise and sell at the Chemist's like they used to, perhaps people need to sign a disclaimer or have a Doctor's prescription, alcohol and tobacco kill far more people than other illegal drugs, they are readily available. Doesn't make sense.

Some people spend all their money on FOBTS.....their choice and RESPONSIBILITY

Some people spend all their money on Horses/Dogs....etc

Some people spend all their money on Drugs inc Alcohol....etc

You can't have a namby-pamby state legislating to 'save' these people, they destroy themselves no matter what.

Some people commit indecent acts with children

Some people strap explosives round their bodies

Some people kill innocent others

and some people talk sense.

Shame you're not one of them.

Any arguments/opinions on here are drivel when you can't even do basic sums.
For what it's worth. 30m / Berwick constituency population 60,000=

£500 per person. That seems like a problem to me.
But everyone on here is thick as fook. Yes I am aware of the irony.

Yes WFT, but they are harming other people with their illegal actions, slightly different. Not aware FOBT's are illegal or playing them an illegal activity.

If you think FOBT's should be banned, then all betting would surely follow by your arguments?

Get real, these people should take RESPONSIBILITY for their OWN actions, nobody forces them to play these machines as far as I am aware?

northanlite,what a childish response,as I DON't read the Daily Mail(more ridiculous figments of your imagination),but spent a deal of time in Battersea,where there were many "crack houses".
I repeat that it is a totally stupid comparison between drugs and FOBTs,as there are no substances involved with the machines.
  Meanwhile it keeps you guys busy,not to mention Anaglogs with his daily mention of another area.
  I will leave these threads now,as there is no more to be said.Enjoy your silly theories.

big issue , my point being that the governmaent make laws to protect the public .

i would agree that the drug laws are some what messed up . if alcohol and cigarettes were invented tommorow , i would seriously doubt that they would be made legal

@ MFF so that's £500 turnover per person, lets say a 5% profit thats £25 per person loss, about same as the lottery then I would guess. The £30 million is a nice figure that sounds emotively big, reality is it's not so big a loss in comparison.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like these machines, I lost on them a few bob and more when they first came out, but it was MY CHOICE to do so and when it got out of hand I stopped, I took personal responsibility for my actions. Same as people who do cigarettes, alcohol, it's personal choice to destroy yourself this way if you want to.

Yes WFT, but they are harming other people with their illegal actions, slightly different. Not aware FOBT's are illegal or playing them an illegal activity.

You think taking drugs, or drinking alcohol to access, doesn't have an effect on other people ? Tell that to the families of drug users and alcoholics.

If you think FOBT's should be banned, then all betting would surely follow by your arguments?

Stupid conclusion. I believe FOBTs should be banned in bookmakers because of their addictive nature.

Get real, these people should take RESPONSIBILITY for their OWN actions, nobody forces them to play these machines as far as I am aware?

I agree people should take responsibility, but some people need protecting from themselves. As a Big Issue salsmane, I thought you might have realised that.

salesman even

big issue , my point being that the governmaent make laws to protect the public .

You would think so, but mostly they are short-term knee jerk reactions to 'hot' issues, not well-thought enforceable legislation or very rarely.

I don't know what the answer is, but banning FOBT's won't have any impact whatsoever I am sad to say, money will just go to online betting, other betting, national lottery etc instead, the people 'addicted' to these machines (they are not it's just an excuse they use to devolve themselves from responsibility for their actions) will find whatever way to fulfill their self-destructive desires.

Is online betting and gaming more or less addictive than FOBTs?

THERE SHOULD BE NO GAMBLING WHAT SO EVER AND NO ALCOHOL OR DRUGS WHATS SO EVER .AND THIS WORLD WOULD BE ALOT BETTER PLACE FOE ALL ALL ALL ALL MANKIND

Yes WFT, but they are harming other people with their illegal actions, slightly different. Not aware FOBT's are illegal or playing them an illegal activity.

You think taking drugs, or drinking alcohol to access, doesn't have an effect on other people ? Tell that to the families of drug users and alcoholics.

Unfortunately they do, alcohol is legal though so do you advocate prohibition?

Like I say I don't know the answers but prohibiting stuff for the greater good doesn't work. See USA model re Alcohol earlier last century an on-line gambling legislation earlier this.

I feel genuinely sad for these people, they need help, perhaps education or support groups are the way, make the FOBT operators pay for this from the profits?

YOUR ALL LOOKING AT WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING SO YOU HAVE AN EXCUSE TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO ,LOOK AT YOUR SELVES

Is online betting and gaming more or less addictive than FOBTs?

I can't speak for gaming as that also is for the feckless, but I can say that I owe thanks to the on-line bookmakers for helping me with my "habit" by continuous closing/restricting my accounts. I'm sure the fact that I seem to win a lot is purely coincidental.

If I were to play FOBTs would the bookmakers show the same caring attitude ?

Yes. I'm off to the bookies now.

ITS ALRIGHT TO GAMBLE ONLINE BUT NOT TO GAMBLE ON A MACHINE ,YOU TALK TO SUIT YOUR SELVES

YOUR ALLOWED TO LOSE £100 ON ONLINE GAMBLE BUT DONT DARE LOSE £100 ON ONLINE GAMBLING

unbiased, are you saying you spend a lot of time in crack houses in battersea or just a lot of time in battersea? and, "crack houses" by their very nature attract full on crack heads so how is any of that relevant?

give your posts a modicum of thought at least.

BUT DONT DARE LOSE £100 ON A MACHINE THAT SHOULD READ ^^^

i dont know the answer banks and i am surprised that you dont know either .

but it is harder for someone with a gambling problem to hide there activity from family online than it is in a shop

YOU CANT DO THIS (LOSE £100 ON THEM ADDICTIVE MACHINES )
BUT YOU CAN( LOSE £100 ON ONLINE GAMBLING )

ITS ALLOWED

STOP ALL GAMBLING IS THE ANSWER AND EVERYONE CAN BE FAMILY PEOPLE

what on earth is the guy with the broken caps lock wittering on about???

"but it is harder for someone with a gambling problem to hide there activity from family online than it is in a shop "

What possible basis do you have for this statement?

For starters there are no stakes and prize limits online, you can use credit cards, and it is available 24 hours a day on your phone, Ipad, Laptop. Rather easier then disappearing down the local bookies for hours on end.

what on earth is the guy with the broken caps lock wittering on about???

I'm guessing alcohol, or crack perhaps.

If anyone is wondering what I mean by feckless, read his/her posts.

GUESS AGAIN YOU GUESSERS

YOU THINK YOU CAN TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY CAN BET ON ,WHILE YOU NET ON WHAT YOU LIKE AND PARK ON YELLOW LINES WHEN IT SUITS YOU

what i meant clive , is , someone with a gambling problem would find it hard to sit at home on the laptop and gamble away without his wife/girlfriend seeing what he was doing . where as in a shop there is no one to stop him/her

YOUR THE TYPE THAT TERLL PEOPLE NOT TO PARK OUTSIDE YOUR GATE BUT PARK IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLES GATES WHEN IT SUITS YOU

do wah is ok imo

wtf is he on about tho???

ITS OK IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND ,I DIDNT UNDERSTAND HOW A NICE PERSON LIKE ME COULD BE A ALCOHOLIC UNTILL I WENT TO MY FIRST A A MEETING ,BUY BUY TILL THE NEXT TIME

nee nah nee nah nee nah nee nah nee nah the white van is here in you get old chap i dont know how you got out