There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 95 comments are related to the topic:
Today's 49's results from the bookies
Today's 49's results from the bookies
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 95
|
By:
Glad its working for you Jacko. I would need the newsagent to cut out the racing pages before buying a paper
 everyone is different and as I said before Good Luck. |
|
By:
Thanks Glasgow and likewise wish you the best of luck . I live a simple life now no lies no ducking and diving looking over my shoulder missing for hours at time humours that followed thankfully I found honesty in my life and I am eternally grateful for it
|
|
By:
The Management Joined: 27 Dec 00
Replies: 1193513 Nov 25 16:41 Poor old cider (and mitolo) You might as well be arguing that you don't like the laws around drink driving and therefore you have the right and the choice to drink drive. The basis of everything you are saying is that flawed. To take that analogy to it's conclusion (ignoring the law of the land because you don't much like it), you are effectively saying that a law abiding pedestrian that get his by a drunk driver, is somehow at fault as he should have taken more personal responsibility for his actions and made better choices in order to have avoided getting hit. As susual you evade. Youve said all this about the gambling act ad nauseam so stop. You totally refuse to venture an opinion on what is potentially in the pipeline, so desperate are to remove all blame from this calamitous administration Bookmakers will not be bring in damaging new increases that might crush them and others, this Govt. will. Not what the 'growth' Govt. is supposed to be about. Whats gone before is not a reason for spiteful damaging tax increases But this is the worst bit; You bring in utterly spurious 'analogies', pin them on your opponent and then argue against them You brought up 'drink driving', nobody else. Then you say if a pedestrian is run over its their fault, if you follow it to its conclusion. eh? Utter claptrap, and entirely typical. All the time you fill freds up with your nonsensical bogus equivalents that are irrelevant and only expose the vacuity of your silly argument. Try and stick to the point You will not, of course because whatever point you had was exhausted long ago. You never answer a question or maintain a position, always defelcting and if that doesnt work, you leg it |
|
By:
Comparing a punter wilfully doing the lot to a ped killed by a drink driver, is, erm, an interesting analogy
|
|
By:
He can't help it
Look back at all his incredibly prolix posts Bogus 'analogies' everywhere, some of them bizarre |
|
By:
As an analogy, it's deliberately extreme cider - to make the point and highlight how ridiculous and extreme your views are.
It doesn't really matter what the offence committed is - it's totally academic. I could have picked any number of offences. When rules/regulations/laws or Acts of Parliament are broken, normal, rational people don't try to shift the blame or the accountability or the responsibility onto the person that has suffered the loss, injury or consequences as a result of the offence being committed by the offender. The political/ideological rabbit hole that you've gone down has caused you to lose any sense of objectivity. If you want to rant about people taking personal responsibility for their own actions - that's fine, start a thread, I'd probably agree with you on much of it - but it's a completely different topic has no bearing on the Gambling Act whatsoever - which as a condition of licence places all of the responsibility with the Bookmaker. Personal/individual responsibility has got absolutely nothing to do with why the Gambling Act and very little to do with the current predicament the Gambling Industry finds itself in. They've brought that entirely on themselves; initially by being in constant and repeated breach of the Gambling Act. It's then gone steadily downhill for them because of how badly they've handled it. They've also then compounded it with the uncharacteristically short-sighted and strategically flawed way that they have reacted to the events and developments (initially triggered by their own actions) that have flowed on from there. |
|
By:
Of course the alternative view to all of this being self-inflicted: is that a rag-tag collection of amateur activists and campaigners, spearheaded the purple-haired commie woman and IDS (a washed up ex-leader of the Conservative Party) have somehow conspired to bring the Gambling Industry in the UK to it's knees!
 |
|
By:
See whaT I mean?
repeating the same old stuff and steadfastly refuses to adress anything he finds a bit tricky, over and over Not that he has to, but given his relentless prolixity and badgering of others its a bit rum, is it not? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
I've seen the light mitolo. The arguments that you and cider have put forward are overwhelming.
The Industry is blameless. It has strived to uphold the law and act with fairness and integrity. The laws they did break persistently for about 15 years are silly and minor ones that I don't like anyway. Punters have put the Gambling Industry into the position they currently find themselves in, by not taking enough personal responsibility for their actions. Coupled with the actions of that Radicalised Lefty and political heavyweight - Iain Duncan Smith. |
|
By:
You are not being honest, thats not what was said and please leave others out of it. Answer the valid point I made or dont. Please do not put up an answer to a question not asked. here it is again. I doubt you will
As usual you evade. Youve said all this about the gambling act ad nauseam so stop. You totally refuse to venture an opinion on what is potentially in the pipeline, so desperate are to remove all blame from this calamitous administration Bookmakers will not be bring in damaging new increases that might crush them and others, this Govt. will. Not what the 'growth' Govt. is supposed to be about. Whats gone before is not a reason for spiteful damaging tax increases But this is the worst bit; You bring in utterly spurious 'analogies', pin them on your opponent and then argue against them You brought up 'drink driving', nobody else. Then you say if a pedestrian is run over its their fault, if you follow it to its conclusion. eh? Utter claptrap, and entirely typical. All the time you fill freds up with your nonsensical bogus equivalents that are irrelevant and only expose the vacuity of your silly argument. Try and stick to the point You will not, of course because whatever point you had was exhausted long ago. You never answer a question or maintain a position, always defelcting and if that doesnt work, you leg it |
|
By:
|
|
By:
There's nothing "spurious" about the analogy mitolo - I openly admitted it's deliberately very extreme - being objective doesn't seem to hit home to people incapable of objectivity.
It really wouldn't need any kind of analogy at all if you weren't mentally "owned" by your narrow-mindedness. It's this simple and it's inarguable: When you break the law, the rules or the regulations that govern you - you are the perpetrator of the "offence", you are to blame, you are held accountable and you are held responsible. Under what circumstances do you try to shift the blame and the responsibility away from the perpetrator or the "bad actor" and onto the person on the receiving end of the offence? If you wouldn't do it for a drunk driver, a mugger, a burglar - why would you do it for a bookmaker that has offended? Additionally when you break the rules, regulations or law persistently and over a couple of decades - are you handing ammunition to your (initially tiny and insignificant) band of detractors? Of course you are! The detractors and "antis" were getting absolutely nowhere fast on their own. These past 6 or 7 years especially (but also for about 12 years before that also) it must feel like Christmas every day to them! The big bookmakers have provided enough ammunition to their detractors for them to win World War III! - never mind to cause a lot of financial and reputational damage to an Industry, that most impartial people instinctively, probably already felt was a bit of a menace. If you look at the actions and the decisions taken collectively by the big firms - They literally couldn't have managed any worse if Gerald Ratner had been given executive control of UK bookmaking! |
|
By:
"I handed my 4rse on a plate to my detractors. Should I stand down? - nah, fck it, lets roll the dice in the US!"
|
|
By:
Narrow-minded? You dont believe that
Anyway, we know about whats gone and please shut up about it. This is what I think; How about you? Please 'school' me as you do others. My hand is up and I need to be educated This calamitious administration has made an absolute cobblers of everything and now all are being asked to pay their 'fair share' But theres nothing fair about a chancellor-chancer would more accurate, making a cobblers of everything and penalising everyone to make up for it. And she kept going on about growth. The only thing thats grown is everyones bills and the national debt. Nobody in business thinks she is not a disaster, including Labour If they are to close then market forces should decide, it should not be the business of the UK Govt to help them into extinction Bookmakers will not be bring in damaging new increases that might crush them and others, this Govt. will. Not what the 'growth' Govt. is supposed to be about. Whats gone before is not a reason for spiteful damaging tax increases |
|
By:
^ And there we have it. You've said what you were desperate to say - you've got a politically and ideologically motivated rant off your chest - even though it has no real relevance to the topic. It's all down to Labour.
Who will (most likely) raise the rate of Gambling Taxes? It's a Labour Government, you're right! - that's a fact. Well done for managing to state at least that one fact. Don't worry about the causes or any of the other facts that brought us here, don't worry about the previous govt that kicked it all off with their White Paper, don't worry about what the "bookmakers" have done to facilitate and accelerate their situation; erase all of that from your memory. The reality of all those facts, just doesn't fit in with the rant that you wanted to have. Let's draw a line under all of that. Bygones! |