Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Online gamblers should not be able to lose more than £100 a month without proving they can afford it, according to a report that will also call for betting websites that base themselves offshore to face stiffer taxes.
Proposals from the Social Market Foundation (SMF) thinktank build on growing clamour for the government to make sweeping changes to how the industry is regulated, following a string of high-profile stories about problem gambling.
Among wide-ranging recommendations due to be published on Wednesday, the SMF will call for:
A £100-per-month “soft cap” on online losses.
Tax breaks for firms that move onshore.
Limits on how much can be staked online.
A regulatory shake-up, including a new ombudsman.
A kitemarking system for firms that uphold standards.
A clearer sanctions regime for those that don’t.
The report recommends online gambling should be regulated much more like land-based bets, include a stake limit of between £1 and £5 on online slot machines, echoing similar proposals from a group of MPs.
The maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) was cut from £100 to £2 from 2019 but at present there are no stake limits online.
“Remote gambling is on the rise, yet remains outside the same controls applied to its land-based equivalents,” the SMF said.
“It makes no sense that the same ‘obligation’ to reduce harm through limits to stake and speed should not be applied to an online sector which provides the most accessible content of all.”
One of the most eye-catching proposals is a £100 “soft cap” on monthly losses, with customers who want to spend more subjected to strict affordability checks by an independent gambling ombudsman.
The SMF said the cap was well within average gambling spend and would help limit the number of addicts who experience financial difficulty, or who turn to crime to fund their habit.
Industry trade body the Betting & Gaming Council (BGC) said its members already carry out affordability checks in some cases.
“We disagree with the suggestion of an arbitrary and random low cap on spending and can think of no other area of the economy where the government determines how much an individual can spend,” the BGC said.
“Measures must be proportionate, evidence-led and fully thought through so as not to jeopardise the 100,000 jobs the industry supports or the over £3bn in tax revenues it generates for the Exchequer.”
But the report questions whether the industry is paying its fair share, outlining reforms that would have significant ramifications for betting firms.
The government levies a duty on online bets to ensure at least some tax is collected from firms that base themselves in offshore centres such as Malta and Gibraltar.
But the SMF proposed tax incentives for companies that have a minimum “footprint” in the UK, to boost corporation tax receipts.
The report’s authors said this would also create jobs and promote compliance with British gambling licence conditions, including the protection of vulnerable people and addicts.
A similar proposal would bring an end to so-called “white label” agreements, where foreign firms with little incentive to protect UK consumers can buy access to the British market via an existing gambling licence holder.
The SMF added its voice to calls for an overhaul of the 2005 Gambling Act, introduced under Tony Blair’s Labour government, citing changes in technology that “could not have been foreseen when the legislation underpinning that regulatory framework was first drafted”.
The government has pledged to review the law and the public policy thinktanks called on ministers to consider redesigning the regulatory architecture it created.
The report proposes a more strictly defined framework of sanctions available to the regulator, the Gambling Commission, which has admitted it is underfunded and has come in for criticism in two parliamentary reports.
Changes would include a kitemarking scheme to promote good behaviour and additional regulators to beef up scrutiny of the sector and engage multiple government departments in oversight of the sector.
Proposals from the Social Market Foundation (SMF) thinktank build on growing clamour for the government to make sweeping changes to how the industry is regulated, following a string of high-profile stories about problem gambling.
Among wide-ranging recommendations due to be published on Wednesday, the SMF will call for:
A £100-per-month “soft cap” on online losses.
Tax breaks for firms that move onshore.
Limits on how much can be staked online.
A regulatory shake-up, including a new ombudsman.
A kitemarking system for firms that uphold standards.
A clearer sanctions regime for those that don’t.
The report recommends online gambling should be regulated much more like land-based bets, include a stake limit of between £1 and £5 on online slot machines, echoing similar proposals from a group of MPs.
The maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) was cut from £100 to £2 from 2019 but at present there are no stake limits online.
“Remote gambling is on the rise, yet remains outside the same controls applied to its land-based equivalents,” the SMF said.
“It makes no sense that the same ‘obligation’ to reduce harm through limits to stake and speed should not be applied to an online sector which provides the most accessible content of all.”
One of the most eye-catching proposals is a £100 “soft cap” on monthly losses, with customers who want to spend more subjected to strict affordability checks by an independent gambling ombudsman.
The SMF said the cap was well within average gambling spend and would help limit the number of addicts who experience financial difficulty, or who turn to crime to fund their habit.
Industry trade body the Betting & Gaming Council (BGC) said its members already carry out affordability checks in some cases.
“We disagree with the suggestion of an arbitrary and random low cap on spending and can think of no other area of the economy where the government determines how much an individual can spend,” the BGC said.
“Measures must be proportionate, evidence-led and fully thought through so as not to jeopardise the 100,000 jobs the industry supports or the over £3bn in tax revenues it generates for the Exchequer.”
But the report questions whether the industry is paying its fair share, outlining reforms that would have significant ramifications for betting firms.
The government levies a duty on online bets to ensure at least some tax is collected from firms that base themselves in offshore centres such as Malta and Gibraltar.
But the SMF proposed tax incentives for companies that have a minimum “footprint” in the UK, to boost corporation tax receipts.
The report’s authors said this would also create jobs and promote compliance with British gambling licence conditions, including the protection of vulnerable people and addicts.
A similar proposal would bring an end to so-called “white label” agreements, where foreign firms with little incentive to protect UK consumers can buy access to the British market via an existing gambling licence holder.
The SMF added its voice to calls for an overhaul of the 2005 Gambling Act, introduced under Tony Blair’s Labour government, citing changes in technology that “could not have been foreseen when the legislation underpinning that regulatory framework was first drafted”.
The government has pledged to review the law and the public policy thinktanks called on ministers to consider redesigning the regulatory architecture it created.
The report proposes a more strictly defined framework of sanctions available to the regulator, the Gambling Commission, which has admitted it is underfunded and has come in for criticism in two parliamentary reports.
Changes would include a kitemarking scheme to promote good behaviour and additional regulators to beef up scrutiny of the sector and engage multiple government departments in oversight of the sector.
Show More
Don't we already have the headline measure? Doesn't KYC commonly include questions about how much you can afford to lose? Perhaps so the books can avoid £10 million fines when it turns out I was embezzling from my employer.
What has always foxed me regarding the many high profile cases were punters have lost huge sums betting in substantial amounts is that they could easily get a heads up by the punters post code.
The SMF added its voice to calls for an overhaul of the 2005 Gambling Act, introduced under Tony Blair’s Labour government, citing changes in technology that “could not have been foreseen when the legislation underpinning that regulatory framework was first drafted”.
Once again this drivel is spouted. With no examples or explanation of these "technologies" other than "internet" Laughably this report includes a quote clarifying that the 2005 Act was specifically written to deal with internet connected phones (Alan Budd 2001) "no one had even thought about the possibility that someone might be holding something in his or her hand and be allowed to gamble freely".
The only issue with Gambling Regulation in the UK is the regulator.
Once again this drivel is spouted. With no examples or explanation of these "technologies" other than "internet" Laughably this report includes a quote clarifying that the 2005 Act was specifically written to deal with internet connected phones (Alan Budd 2001) "no one had even thought about the possibility that someone might be holding something in his or her hand and be allowed to gamble freely".
The only issue with Gambling Regulation in the UK is the regulator.
If you place a limit on losses, you're also place a limit on winnings. It's the losing bets which pay for the winning ones.
These people might as well just ban legal gambling altogether. But then where would all their jobs in kitemarking and ombudsmanning and regulatory restructuring come from?
These people might as well just ban legal gambling altogether. But then where would all their jobs in kitemarking and ombudsmanning and regulatory restructuring come from?
Two points -
Firstly I'm sure there are people who spend and lose more than £100 per month on the National Lottery. I just went to web site where I can play online Euromillions and register for 7 £2.50 tickets on Tuesday and Friday by Direct Debit at £140 per 4 weeks. Of course, unlike Racing, they are doomed to fail and lose that money by design. Government sanctioned guaranteed loss. National Lottery subject to cap? ID required and national spend register?
Secondly there is no direct credit betting. If I gamble with an online bookie or Betfair I MUST have cleared funds to bet or cover lay positions. Sure, I could borrow the money and therefore risk losing more that I can afford, but I could do the same to buy a car or go on a world cruise. If I smoked 40 Benson & Hedges Gold per day I'd spend £736 per month most of which is pocketed by the UK Government. Will there be a check on whether people can afford cigarettes or booze?
Firstly I'm sure there are people who spend and lose more than £100 per month on the National Lottery. I just went to web site where I can play online Euromillions and register for 7 £2.50 tickets on Tuesday and Friday by Direct Debit at £140 per 4 weeks. Of course, unlike Racing, they are doomed to fail and lose that money by design. Government sanctioned guaranteed loss. National Lottery subject to cap? ID required and national spend register?
Secondly there is no direct credit betting. If I gamble with an online bookie or Betfair I MUST have cleared funds to bet or cover lay positions. Sure, I could borrow the money and therefore risk losing more that I can afford, but I could do the same to buy a car or go on a world cruise. If I smoked 40 Benson & Hedges Gold per day I'd spend £736 per month most of which is pocketed by the UK Government. Will there be a check on whether people can afford cigarettes or booze?
You will need to win that Euromillions in order to be able afford the Bensons imo 
TM - Never touched a cigarette in my life and never will but those that do are more urgently in need of a Social Market Foundation report than those that gamble online!
Just another invasion into our personal circumstances. Can i afford to buy the 10 pints i'll drink Sat night or the new kitchen that the missus wants?
And this bull about gambling being a disease. Aids is a disease not gambling or drinking. If it affects your life too much then stop . Simple aint it.
And this bull about gambling being a disease. Aids is a disease not gambling or drinking. If it affects your life too much then stop . Simple aint it.
In an increasingly divided country, opinions on the issue of gambling reform are slowly reaching a consensus. This should come as little surprise given how outdated the current laws are: the 2005 Gambling Act was based on a review by the economist Sir Alan Budd way back in 2001, when Nokia 3210s were the pinnacle of technology and smartphones were the stuff of science fiction.
When Budd appeared at a recent House of Lords inquiry, he conceded that when he wrote his review “no one had even thought about the possibility that someone might be holding something in his or her hand and be allowed to gamble freely”. Today a huge proportion of online gambling is carried out on smartphones.
Our current laws were designed to put the most harmful products with the highest stakes in the least accessible, most tightly regulated places. Yet online gambling has brought the most addictive products to the pocket of everyone with a smartphone. Unlike physical machines, such as fixed-odds betting terminals in betting shops, the content online has no limits to the stake.
The rising tide of female gamblers need help. I know, I lost my home and job
Read more
That’s why online slots alone generated £2.2bn last year, more than FOBTs at their peak, with data from the Gambling Commission indicating that that figure is set to rise as a result of the lockdown. This risks making a difficult economic situation even worse. The House of Lords inquiry found that 60% of online profits are coming from 5% of gamblers, who are losing more than they can afford.
Thankfully the government has committed to reviewing the Gambling Act so that our laws are “fit for the digital age”. The public appears to back robust regulation. Polling by Survation found more than two-thirds back limiting stakes to under £5 on slots and casino games online, while more than three-quarters support a cap on the amount that can be deposited into a gambling account.
Despite the growing consensus among gambling firms, campaigners and the government on the abstract principle of “affordability”, the Social Market Foundation’s recently published report is the first time a workable model has been proposed. Authored by our generation’s Alan Budd, Dr James Noyes – previously an adviser to former deputy Labour leader Tom Watson, and a former head of policy at the thinktank ResPublica – his report proposes a £100 a month “soft cap” on deposits, mandating an affordability check before this threshold is breached.
Crucially, the SMF has noted the conflict of interest in gambling operators doing affordability checks, given that the majority of their profits are coming from people experiencing harm. So they propose outsourcing this process to a public agency, a new gambling ombudsman. This agency would also be handed responsibility for investigating consumer complaints and providing redress, which at present involves burdening victims of unfair treatment with legal fees. This is an insurmountable barrier for many who have fallen victim to the ruthless tactics of gambling firms: to either get them hooked or to refuse to pay winnings, where obscure terms and conditions are cited as justification.
The SMF also recommends limiting stakes on slots to between £1 and £5 and argues for a minimum time between spins for online casino content such as roulette. There are currently no restrictions on speed, meaning it’s possible to place a new bet within seconds. Survation found the majority are most receptive to a break of at least a minute between bets.
The public is also hugely supportive of bringing gambling firms back onshore, with more than three-quarters agreeing that in order to operate in Britain the firms should be based here and pay all their taxes here. To deter offshoring, the report proposes online gambling taxes should be calculated based on a firm’s capital, human, social, digital and legal “footprint” in Britain, which the government should consider as the principles underpinning our post-Brexit economy begin to take shape.
Public attitudes to gambling reform are consistent across all demographics. All ages, social grades and political persuasions are in favour of substantial reform, in particular Tory leave voters. It has also cut across party political lines. Labour MP Carolyn Harris chairs the all-party group on gambling-related harm, vice chaired by Ronnie Cowan of the SNP and former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith.
Earlier this year the influential cross-party group, which has grown to more than 60 MPs and peers, called for a ban on all gambling advertising as well as a stake cap of £2 on slots, alongside further recommendations such as the creation of an ombudsman and mandatory affordability checks. These were echoed by Lord Grade’s House of Lords select committee inquiry – again a cross-party endeavour.
While much of the government’s agenda has been paused by the pandemic, the gambling review presents an opportunity to rewrite the rules of a sector that has for too long profited at the expense of harm to the public. The public is increasingly supportive of more regulation: hopefully on this issue, at least, the self-described “people’s government” will live up to its name.
When Budd appeared at a recent House of Lords inquiry, he conceded that when he wrote his review “no one had even thought about the possibility that someone might be holding something in his or her hand and be allowed to gamble freely”. Today a huge proportion of online gambling is carried out on smartphones.
Our current laws were designed to put the most harmful products with the highest stakes in the least accessible, most tightly regulated places. Yet online gambling has brought the most addictive products to the pocket of everyone with a smartphone. Unlike physical machines, such as fixed-odds betting terminals in betting shops, the content online has no limits to the stake.
The rising tide of female gamblers need help. I know, I lost my home and job
Read more
That’s why online slots alone generated £2.2bn last year, more than FOBTs at their peak, with data from the Gambling Commission indicating that that figure is set to rise as a result of the lockdown. This risks making a difficult economic situation even worse. The House of Lords inquiry found that 60% of online profits are coming from 5% of gamblers, who are losing more than they can afford.
Thankfully the government has committed to reviewing the Gambling Act so that our laws are “fit for the digital age”. The public appears to back robust regulation. Polling by Survation found more than two-thirds back limiting stakes to under £5 on slots and casino games online, while more than three-quarters support a cap on the amount that can be deposited into a gambling account.
Despite the growing consensus among gambling firms, campaigners and the government on the abstract principle of “affordability”, the Social Market Foundation’s recently published report is the first time a workable model has been proposed. Authored by our generation’s Alan Budd, Dr James Noyes – previously an adviser to former deputy Labour leader Tom Watson, and a former head of policy at the thinktank ResPublica – his report proposes a £100 a month “soft cap” on deposits, mandating an affordability check before this threshold is breached.
Crucially, the SMF has noted the conflict of interest in gambling operators doing affordability checks, given that the majority of their profits are coming from people experiencing harm. So they propose outsourcing this process to a public agency, a new gambling ombudsman. This agency would also be handed responsibility for investigating consumer complaints and providing redress, which at present involves burdening victims of unfair treatment with legal fees. This is an insurmountable barrier for many who have fallen victim to the ruthless tactics of gambling firms: to either get them hooked or to refuse to pay winnings, where obscure terms and conditions are cited as justification.
The SMF also recommends limiting stakes on slots to between £1 and £5 and argues for a minimum time between spins for online casino content such as roulette. There are currently no restrictions on speed, meaning it’s possible to place a new bet within seconds. Survation found the majority are most receptive to a break of at least a minute between bets.
The public is also hugely supportive of bringing gambling firms back onshore, with more than three-quarters agreeing that in order to operate in Britain the firms should be based here and pay all their taxes here. To deter offshoring, the report proposes online gambling taxes should be calculated based on a firm’s capital, human, social, digital and legal “footprint” in Britain, which the government should consider as the principles underpinning our post-Brexit economy begin to take shape.
Public attitudes to gambling reform are consistent across all demographics. All ages, social grades and political persuasions are in favour of substantial reform, in particular Tory leave voters. It has also cut across party political lines. Labour MP Carolyn Harris chairs the all-party group on gambling-related harm, vice chaired by Ronnie Cowan of the SNP and former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith.
Earlier this year the influential cross-party group, which has grown to more than 60 MPs and peers, called for a ban on all gambling advertising as well as a stake cap of £2 on slots, alongside further recommendations such as the creation of an ombudsman and mandatory affordability checks. These were echoed by Lord Grade’s House of Lords select committee inquiry – again a cross-party endeavour.
While much of the government’s agenda has been paused by the pandemic, the gambling review presents an opportunity to rewrite the rules of a sector that has for too long profited at the expense of harm to the public. The public is increasingly supportive of more regulation: hopefully on this issue, at least, the self-described “people’s government” will live up to its name.
Did they also suggest all forms of betting forbidden to be advertised on tv? I've seen betting adverts eg 'ok koral' well past midnight "masquerading" as reminders of "Please Gamble Responsibly". To me the advert was merely to "remind" some online gambling was still opened at that time of night if one so wished to occupy one's leisure time.
No betting advert by bookies on tv.
No betting advert by bookies on tv.
When Budd appeared at a recent House of Lords inquiry, he conceded that when he wrote his review “no one had even thought about the possibility that someone might be holding something in his or her hand and be allowed to gamble freely”. Today a huge proportion of online gambling is carried out on smartphones.
That once again is nonsense, internet gambling was well established at that point with laptops widespread. "Laptops" have just got smaller and been incorporated in phones.
The law covers all possible technology and could even cover telepathy if desired.
Remote gambling
(1)In this Act “remote gambling” means gambling in which persons participate by the use of remote communication.
(2)In this Act “remote communication” means communication using—
(a)the internet,
(b)telephone,
(c)television,
(d)radio, or
(e)any other kind of electronic or other technology for facilitating communication.
(3)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a specified system or method of communication is or is not to be treated as a form of remote communication for the purposes of this Act (and subsection (2) is subject to any regulations under this subsection).
That once again is nonsense, internet gambling was well established at that point with laptops widespread. "Laptops" have just got smaller and been incorporated in phones.
The law covers all possible technology and could even cover telepathy if desired.
Remote gambling
(1)In this Act “remote gambling” means gambling in which persons participate by the use of remote communication.
(2)In this Act “remote communication” means communication using—
(a)the internet,
(b)telephone,
(c)television,
(d)radio, or
(e)any other kind of electronic or other technology for facilitating communication.
(3)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a specified system or method of communication is or is not to be treated as a form of remote communication for the purposes of this Act (and subsection (2) is subject to any regulations under this subsection).
If they put in those checks, they should also check that bookies (I'm thinking of mainly online bookies) have sufficient morals to conduct a gambling business.
Online bookies having "sufficient morals? Are you serious? Do drug pushers have morals towards their "clients"?
It was slightly "tongue in cheek" but drug pushers are committing a crime, the bookies are provided with government licenses.
dave1357 Joined: 05 Sep 10
Replies: 1327505 Aug 20 12:26
That once again is nonsense, internet gambling was well established at that point with laptops widespread. "Laptops" have just got smaller and been incorporated in phones.
You may well have anticipated the massive increase in online phone access as opposed to laptops but most people did not. I personally know numerous people who use their phones to bet that never even considered owning a desktop or laptop computer.
Replies: 1327505 Aug 20 12:26
That once again is nonsense, internet gambling was well established at that point with laptops widespread. "Laptops" have just got smaller and been incorporated in phones.
You may well have anticipated the massive increase in online phone access as opposed to laptops but most people did not. I personally know numerous people who use their phones to bet that never even considered owning a desktop or laptop computer.
My main issue is the repeated claim that the legislation was deficient where the internet was concerned and that isn't correct. There were online poker games with $100ks on the table in the early noughties and casino games were taking huge revenue. When Brown set the remote gambling duty at 15% there were howls of protest (and this was the reason the offshore firms stayed offshore).
The regulator ie Gambling Commission has been complicit to the increase in gambling and gambling addiction esp amongst the young, for their dereliction of duty and impotent measures and fines on entities responsible. For instance, where is the deterrent if fines imposed are being paid for by their "clients" each time, and out of profit/loss?
I firmly believe an immediate licence suspension or a 50% penalty on turnover should be the way forward. And, please forget about their sponsorship either; the unscrupulous and disrespectful are no good for the industry and only present a bad image for all concerned.
I firmly believe an immediate licence suspension or a 50% penalty on turnover should be the way forward. And, please forget about their sponsorship either; the unscrupulous and disrespectful are no good for the industry and only present a bad image for all concerned.
There is a misconception about gambling IMO,EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT GAMBLE HOLDS THE VIEW THAT ALL GAMBLERS LOSE.if it were the case bookmakers and gambling sites would not be telling customers to get lost and closing their accounts every day of the week.This view on gambling is aided by guys who are bad gamblers and blame the trade /industry for their losses instead of blaming themselves.Every study that is done is on losing gamblers,and hence we always end up with a lob sided study.
ard54, in fact William Mountains grant me credit. I used to do that over the telephone with a fortnightly bill. Since Covid it has moved online. However, if my balance is £0 and I place a bet for £100, the bet will be accepted and the balance show -£100. If I wish, I can pay in by registered debit card or wait until account period ends and send a cheque.
Brassneck,you are spot on. The MSM are completely bias on this point. I go racing with 4 or 5 people on a regular basis. I would say that only 1 of us does not win regularly, over a period of time (say annually). One despairs sometimes of the MSM. who claim to be "speaking truth to power" or some such bull***t, but who have an agenda like everyone else.
Brassneck,you are spot on. The MSM are completely bias on this point. I go racing with 4 or 5 people on a regular basis. I would say that only 1 of us does not win regularly, over a period of time (say annually). One despairs sometimes of the MSM. who claim to be "speaking truth to power" or some such bull***t, but who have an agenda like everyone else.
Will they put a limit to what compulsive shoppers can spend a month, or will they have to prove they can afford to run up huge credit card debt and be able to pay it off each month.
Society needs to change and Bad gamblers need to be educated to be Good gamblers ,a School for gamblers needs to be opened ,because one certain most important point is overlooked all the time and that is that a Bad gambler can be taught to become a good gambler if he is educated correctly."ask any gambler," who taught you how to gamble,?"94 % will tell you that they taught themselves ,and they are the bad gamblers=the losers.
but just like pep can turn an average footballer into a great footballer ,a bad gambler can be turned into great gambler if he gets the correct education.
but just like pep can turn an average footballer into a great footballer ,a bad gambler can be turned into great gambler if he gets the correct education.
Education of any kind needs patience and time eg growing up or getting an accreditation/trade. Do the present day throw-away immediate gratification youngsters/society have that? They want everything quick as if buying a product online and delivery instantly.
Invest to accumulate even in horse racing/punting.
Invest to accumulate even in horse racing/punting.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539