limited to those that arose from their armchair and made a effort..

no different to fenwicks offering 6 55" tv's half price on boxing day..

what about cup final tickets?  is it fair that those that queued all night got preference?

Right Im done for the day, you can all rest easy

You never answered my question
Do you go and buy access to those exclusive rooms for the hospitality or for the single purpose to bet on the uniquely fast pictures?

Thats the opposite
Because you do go to the track to bet on the provided pictures and not for the ambience.

I was just curious to see whether you would admit thats why you go there, after you seem so intent to call others hypocrites.
But you wont admit it. Almost like you think the act is a dubious one.

To you latest attempt at arguing why you should be allowed early access to bet on pictures Id simply say...
The recording of an event is a contrived act. Relaying those pictures is defined in the Gambling Act as facilitating betting via offering a 'remote' product. (the word 'tele' in Television/Telecommunications comes from the Greek wording meaning 'at a distance'....you are betting using a piece of technology that isnt the actual event itself)
All those who do then need to meet the requirements of

The licensing objectives

In this Act a reference to the licensing objectives is a reference to the objectives of—

(a)preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,

(b)ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and

(c)protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

What is fair about limiting a service to a select few?

or racegoers using handhelds on track ? surely not fair.

what about the punters who bet with the track bookies..arnt they taking the prices before the betting shop punters can?

Facilities for gambling....


(3)A person provides facilities for gambling (despite subsection (2)(c)) if—

(a)he makes facilities for remote communication available for use,

(b)the facilities are adapted or presented in such a way as to facilitate, or to draw attention to the possibility of, their use for gambling, and

(c)the nature, adaptation or presentation of the facilities is such that—

(i)they cannot reasonably be expected to be used for purposes other than gambling, or

(ii)they are intended to be used wholly or mainly for gambling.


The only defence the provider of unique facilities inside the room has in my mind is to argue they werent for gambling

Horse racing pictures....not for gambling on

That in noway effects the fact that presenting fast pictures to a select number is actually counter the the requirement of providing a fair service to all.
Its all there in the Act. If you provide the pictures they are facilitating 'remote' gambling, if they provide a finite number access to a product that then impacts others using a slower one you provide thats an offence.

Thats my interpretation.
It also opens up scrutiny of the tv producers, whether they offer anyone directly or indirectly a fast feed.
People will start saying Im wrong....but we all know the GC have already come o the wrong conclusion re.trading rooms pretending to be 'hospitality'.

It's quite interesting to see the downfall of IR, pretty sure if tracks opening and spectators doesn't change anything and streams be like that for the rest of the life (which is quite safe to assume), this year might be the last for IR

Its a forum btw, its a relevant topic.
You prefer me to post pictures of fake bets or clowns instead sludge?

Wouldnt you say that was more akin to determining value?
Amazon sells books cheaper than their RRP, thats the nature of competition.

Its still subjective, until it isnt. And a winner is a winner is a winner

Wouldnt you say that was more akin to determining value?

its still enabling me to take 6/4 if i see the trainer having lumps on.

You would be deciding on an interpretation to take the price, so its subjective.
Betting on an event that has occured is not subjective, its a done thing so its objective.

sludge, Ive just answered it so many times, surely if you are reading my posts you have read it.
Its just a p1ss poor attempt at distraction when they struggle with the context of the argument.

But I do party pieces too, Ive also gone on at length about drones too so..

dusty = the rich mans andyl

sludge, and indeed greenie
If virtue were a prerequisite to debate then no c unt on here would say a word
But I just get bored and think about the subject quite a bit, but I think ive covered it
Unless you want me to clarify owt else on the subject?
It just feels theres nowt other than it at times

poor dusty ..campaigns againt anyone with an edge...

has he protested outside the gillette factory yet?

donny 5.05 race a good one for a video if you reading pigeonhole

winner 1.08 in 2nd late on

nous.