PANORAMA/ROSS KEMP

always the negative

Seems the suspicions of some about last week's programme are being realised.

Yes it's all a conspiracy by the evil BBC.

You misunderstood sparrow there is obviously a gambling is bad type agenda otherwise these 2 programmes wouldn't exist the timing of this Panorama isn't coincidental they've chosen now when they've had years to do such shows.
A poster made a good point on one of the threads last week saying what would've happened if Lloyd's teams won on the last day and he doubled his money,what sort of message would that've sent out would the show have been edited differently?
The country's had a huge gambling problem for years there'll be something like 100 online betting/casino companies available to users in the UK won't be much off that number anyway.

I've never known a horse racing punter - professional or not - that has never fallen on hard times in their vocation. I believe even the professionals unless with inside info or connected to stables made a good living out of their vocation. And, nearly everyone had a 2nd job to help facilitate the difficult periods.

I know exactly what some people think about the BBC Denzil and it's not just about racing either. Anyway, I would support any organisation that attacks off course bookmakers.

I agree. Off course bookies are parasites, and they take a monumental slice of the profit originated from horse racing - their sponsorship  amount to a smidgeon of their profits; they also manipulate sp to their advantage.

I have a vague recollection of one of his buddies from Albert Square using the furthest traveller system with considerable success.

Aug 11, 2019 -- 7:56PM, sparrow wrote:

I know exactly what some people think about the BBC Denzil and it's not just about racing either. Anyway, I would support any organisation that attacks off course bookmakers.

I aint knocking it either the glut of shows pointing out a many years old issue is the problem too late was the cry,the ropey editing practices is the key to the Beebs success in these programmes thought it was an interesting point t'other day.

Will be mildly interesting to listen to the numptie who lost (gave away) 3 million quid.

#Careless

Could he be a bigger numptie than the one on here who's give Paddy 200k?

Was it the same Paddy that issued VIP invitations to a guy on their patch who'd turned over 10 million online using the Post Office's 1+ million cash?

They do like dem mugs

where did this 200k figure come from

Magic_Daps

jeez,now that is a wake up call,thats a stop job.

Hope he doesn't read this thread , thin skinned he is.

low self esteem exasperated by gambling addiction.

should seek help asap.

sorry mate,its the truth.

'johnwayne': "Always the negative".

The positives of gambling can be listed on one hand eg it creates a buzz; a small financial reward - that seem to be it! And, I'm a regular punter (big races only), and periodically in the past). On the other hand it's a debilitating disease for an addict or compulsive gambler
which affects everything related to the individual eg family life, and society - these are expensive and immeasurable.

Addiction to gambling is fast becoming a scourge to psychiatrists. If left unchecked it could challenge that of dependency to drugs soon.

shouldnt it be addicted to winning,it is always people who have lost pretty much everything that claim they are addicted to gambling,never a problem when winning and they nearly always seemed to have lost it on things that vastly favour the bookie(no need to put any effort in) with the odds they give.even that beat the bookie programme had him betting on jockey colours and never went in to how to have the best chance of winning,it showed you that guy with his big team watching football but it never really explained that they are looking for differences in the odds,it made it look like they bet on ever football game

Great glad to see these programs in the public. The bookmakers are Toxic and do little to nothing to help people who have problems. I believe its the end for bookmakers.

The problem is lads. Bookmakers..I mean casinos, make all their profits from people who cant control themselves and get addicted. And from people who havent got a clue what they are betting on.

The guardian are anti gambling, which for me is a good thing. They expose the bookmakers for what they real are.

the one thing online betting has shown is the true MO of the bookies.  Win, banned.  Don't lose quickly enough, banned.  Beat the price, banned.  Show any semblance of nous, banned.  Any threat whatsoever to the bottom line, banned.  Complete mug, do you want to come to the box at Cheltenham, free lunch, drinks on us, meet fellow mugs.

Before I finish my rant. One thing the Gambling Commision (who are a joke by the way) must make the penalties larger 50 to 60 million. a 5 million pound fine is nothing to the big firms. Its a total joke. Does anyone know who the Gambling Commission is regulated by? Because they are doing a pathetic job currently.

regulation is the issue.  there's none.  we have the SPRC overseeing starting prices.  the SPRC have as much authority as a greggs mince pie.  however the fact they are there implies some kind of regulation is in place (the 'R' bit). It's a complete free for all, the bookies know it & are taking the p!ss because of it.

Gambling is no more of a problem than drinking, poor diet, lack of exercise,etc. etc. Programmes such as Panorama will only mention the

down sides of any topic. Should grocery stores limit how much food/alchohol/tabacco people buy? Maybe there should be limits on how

much any individual should be allowed to invest in shares etc (in reality a form of gambling).

If people chose to loose their fortunes on the stock exchange or gambling, or chose to increase their chances of an early death by

over-indulging and not exercising, that's their business, not the State's.

^^
There are various degrees of consequences from addiction/over indulgence, and the consequences are too eg if one is addicted to eating nuts that is non-offensive, self-induced and little consequence to the family concerned (if any) or public or society in general. However, to be badly affected and/or addicted to gambling as a youngster (uni days) who'd be our future is extremely detrimental to their future, their family, society and country too.

As for individuals who are constantly on a diet,...my simple advice would be, educate oneself; understand food; know what one is eating,t; eat lesser (in moderation) of the non-healthy food; eat less and not until one is felling completely full-up. And, remember there is no fat person amongst those affected in a famine.

If inducements or attractions aplenty eg food takeaways near schools, free bets promotions from bookies, etc, these must be monitored and stamped on asap, and not allowed another episode similar to the proliferation of fobt on the user, their family and society.

Do Camelot come under scrutiny.Selling scratch cards to sixteen yearolds?

Eat drink bet and be merry

No payout to winner under 16yrs of age; the retailer/seller and cctv are the main determinants of players. And, this minimum age could be increased to 17 or 18 in the future.

Been on both sides of this debate, must admit. I have dealt professionally with problem gambling (from an academic perspective) and attended some key conferences etc e.g. Gamcare.

But, I'm also a player myself, and I would never wish to see gambling over-regulated. There are elements of choice for many, and lack of choice for some when truly affected by gambling disorders.

The answer (as usual) has to be a balance between choice and controls.

do you get banned by the stock exchange if too many of your stocks appreciate ?  limited to buying a yorkie from the shop for getting too many winners on the scratchcards ?

hulk - I agree that stock trading is essentially a form of gambling. There's even some interesting research into that comparison, in terms of 'problem gambling stock trading'.

There is an abundance of spoofing and layering in the less liquid and small cap companies in the Stock Exchange (Aim); traders from within the same financial entity eg analysts and traders/dealers do collude to dislodge one's hard-earned cash by manipulating a sudden share sp fall and hike without a moment's notice eg could be as quick as the daily "walking the dog exercise" on one of these small-cap ill-liquid companies eg Rockhopper (an oli/gas explorer).

I think where there's money to be made, the temptation, greed and reward are aplenty; the Stock Market is just another platform where greed and fraud go hand-in-hand willingly and regularly (esp just prior to x'mas) with impunity from the toothless City Watchdog.

As you say impossible, most likely trading manipulations also. They will likely affect exactly the sort of stock trader who is prone to 'problem trading/gambling' i.e. the individuals, home trading, self funding etc.

It's an interesting point about forms of trading/gambling in this wider debate. I personally think that other forms of gambling are the real key issue.

For example 'casino' forms of gambling are the worst for several reasons. I think intervention (if there was any) should be targeted at those very random and high action forms which are essentially designed to purposely produce problem behaviours. That is different to someone who gets problems with other forms where slower and more controlled gambling can be naturally used. If a form of gambling (e.g. slot machines) is designed to cause compulsive, rapid, addictive behaviour, I fail to see how that should be promoted in gambling.

Will be surprised if these programmes are not about FOBTs rather than sports betting.

Yes, it may be, but still the casino sites spawn like bacteria everwhere, including standard bookies sites....

Gambling companies see huge rise in complaints
.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49284169

The high street bookies cannot be allowed to trade under the present Betting/Gaming Licences as they are archaic, and not formulated for electronic machines. Instead they ought to be operating under the same terms and conditions as those for provincial casinos - they are more casinos than traditional bookies.

And, they ought to be taxed more punitively as they do not create anything tangible or worthwhile, just sowing the seeds for future miseries for some users.

Totally agree impossible, don't know why bookmakers (not that several even are) can be allowed to be 'casinos' these days.

Tax would at least give something back to society, agree also.

since trading on stock markets is the largest (by far!) regulated form of gambling and most of our pensions, public and private, are in some way index linked, we are all gamblers - personally I'd rather take my chances with the likes of shane kelly, jim crowley and jimmy sullivan, than trust to a small group of LSE types from the shires born with silver ladels in their mouths...

If you want to trace where the seeds were first sown and subsequently grew into the biggest gambling addiction epidemic in history,look no further than Leonard Bernstein.It was he who lobbied for the introduction of FOBTs into betting shops in the early 90s and believe it or not stated that the welfare of punters was a priority concern.

there was a record 8,266 complaints against British bookmakers last year according to the gambling commission. most were about firms refusing to payout on winning bets or failing to operate in a socially responsible way.

Amanda, who features tonight,lost £633.000 betting online with Jackpotjoy, even betting on the day she was declared bankrupt.

1.01 no mention on Panorama of bookmakers refusing to payout bets.

I'm afraid if one is trusting one's hard-earned cash (assuming it was hard-earned and not a mega lottery win or inheritance) on some dungaree-wearing City oinks then good luck to one. Personally, I trust no one with my money, and manage it as best as possible. Just remember who's paying for their expensive attire, and trappings of success.

Their word is no longer their bond!

Bronagh shocked at the losses.

ladcrooks got the right name

sorry to here your fathers died, here is a £1000 bonus.

I was wrong again —- amazed they covered horse racing in this programme.
Sorry GLENTOBY,don’t know who you mean in Leonard Bernstein.

Hi Pilsudski,Bernstein who became Lord Bernstein was a big noise with Stanley leisure in the early 90s.It was he who lobbied for FOBTs to be allowed into betting shops.

Having watched last night's programme, which I don't think was helped by having a presenter who appeared to be something of a drama queen, I do think we need a programme that compares the way bookmakers treat winning punters compared to losing ones. That for me is the real story which needs highlighting.

Absolutely, d d.

Agreed

good to see these purest scum counts being outed by the BBC, at last some of the licence fee is being put to good use

When the fun stops we'll ring you up and encourage you to carry on losing more money.

The bloke from the gambling commission sounded like an apologist for the bookmakers.

I think Ladbrokes need a name change - the brand is sh1t - no longer what it once was; rid of the present lot of pr people and rebrand otherwise more shops will undoubtedly close in the near future; it's no longer a name to be trusted.

Profit, profit and more profit, regardless - that is the present Ladbrokes!

the worst had to be jackpot joy, calling the woman up, to be fair she wasn't overly distressed - "have you seen my account?" - but giving her £100 and £1000 free bets so she could carry on her addiction was appalling, given that they knew how much she was doing.

all gambling companies care about is profit, that's what they're in the business for, we shouldn't try and pretend any differently. plus there is a degree of personal responsibility/accountability. how that asian ish looking bloke could do so much mindless gambling losing all of his friends' money, that's not the bookmakers fault, that's a dodgy wire in his brain

that was the scariest thing in my opinion, the lack of self awareness that these people had not to be able to stop themselves gambling away all of that money. it's like they were possessed by some sort of demon. again it's like the gun debate. guns don't kill people, guns do. but obviously the easy access to gambling now means that people are going to gamble more and most people that gamble, especially on virtual games, are going to lose. in fact, not most, all.

sorry, guns don't kill people, people do.* you know what i'm saying

I havn't watched it yet
But from reading comments it just sounds like addiction

I watched an interview with Dick Van **** on youtube from the 70s, talking about alcohol addiction.

Its just the same, except those in the bookmaking industry know exactly how to manipulate and pull the strings of those sufferers

D Y K E

The bloke from the Gambling Commission needs to think outside the box, and get a grip with the subtle "grooming" from the bookies; the bookies are doing to him in a manner similar to their big (clueless probably lonely) losing punter.

A revamp of the existing betting/gaming licences are long undue to reflect the new electronic games ensconced in the premises of the bookies these days.

agree there betting masta but i think id be insulted if id just lost 60k in a session and they offered me 100 probably wouldnt buy enough vodka to ease the blow so id say thats just made up for tv and non punter purposes

trident the clowns that run the GC are all civil servants that no nothing about gambling

You can open accounts and deposit and lose thousands without proof of identity, yet if you do so and win they ask for all forms of identification before you can withdraw. If you complain, they tell you it`s to safeguard you in case someone has stolen your card and are using it for fraudulent gambling. So, it`s ok for someone to steal your card and identity and no checks, as long as they are losing. All a bunch of *****.

The only problem gamblers that they stop are gamblers who are a problem for them by winning.

Badbooks and that online Casino firm, highlighted last night, should be ashamed of themselves allowing that guy and woman to lose hundreds of thousands without making checks as to where the money was coming from. Instead, they bombard them with FREE bets when they go missing when trying to quit.

Thanks for info,GLENTOBY. But was it Leonard STEINBERG ? Not trying to be smart,l assure you.

if you would like stright races . get rid of betfair and **** , ive been betting 45 years ive nerver seen so bad results , it easyer for a trainer to get em beat . be4 thay had to back em to win to make any money

Oh no! If so, it would be another present as rewarding as the fobt had been for them; The Exchange can easily track the dodgy manipulating horsey related entities just like in the Stock Exchange, if the will is there. The inception of The Exchange has meant a competition for the bookies, and another platform for punters to place "back or lay bets" should one choose to do so without impunity or restriction.

Any proven dodgy horsey related entities eg trainers/jockeys/owners in the unscrupulous manipulation of race results must be given lengthy sentences eg 5 yrs or more similar to those dished out for administrating drugs to horses.

Jackpot joy woman was desperate, depositing £300 every 2 minutes through the night!!!

She says to the woman on the phone "have you seen my account" and the reply is, ", Yes, I know it's not been fantastic fantastic!!!

But see just how desperate the company itself was to keep her hooked, they started off giving her £100 a time to keep her hooked but then, when obviously concerned she might be coming to her senses, started chucking a £1000 a time at her.

Desperate stuff.

The gambling commission guy was despicable, he basically thinks that the Fox should be trusted to look after the Hen coop and thinks the fact that complaints have risen exponentially is a good sign because it means that the victims are more determined!!!!!!!!!!!

99% of horses are trying their absolute maximum in a race, there's a bit of manipulation that goes on sure but it's nowhere near as much as you think. losing punters tend to say it's **** and it is **** but only by the bookmaker. also if you genuinely believe horse racing is **** you 100% absolutely should not be betting on it

r i g g e d

there should be a deal of personal accountability here though as well, like i said it's not the bookmakers forcing people to bet. that woman seemed fairly cogent on the phone and she knew the state she had got herself into but she couldn't stop herself. that's on HER, not on the bookmakers. i'm not defending bookmakers because i think they are scu m but there's got to be some personal responsibility in all of this

Not rocket science identifying addicted gamblers. They know. They don`t give a ****. Bit like a drug addict trying to come off them and their dealer keeps giving them free drugs.

The Irish Derby; Noble Emperor (Limerick); Melon (Punchestown Champion Hurdle) - these races were ****, and certainly not run on merit.

Addiction takes many forms, and affects even the most cogent and highly educated professionals eg medics and journalists - they are known for their addiction to alcohol; an over-ride switch will flick to enable a continuation of an addiction activity - there is no defence until the end of the cul-de-sac is reached.

**** = r i g g e d

a reminder, Ross Kemp itv 1 7-30pm tonight on gambling addition.

Has he busted Tommy out of jail yet?

I'm too busy playing slots to watch this.

alex won and then lost £127k in 25 mins, takes some doing.

Awful waste of these two young lives

As a regular punter I think there ought to be a similar programme like this one aired every week, and compulsory at Uni; the blood-sucking bookies will not stop until draining the last drop of blood from their victims. And, that is a fact!

Indeed M_D, a shocking waste of life.

The guy from Bolton betting blind,does he frequent the forum?