There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
03 Nov 20
22:50
Joined:
Date Joined:
30 Jan 05
Gamblers’ losses could be capped at £100 a month to force betting firms to combat addiction, under new plans by the official industry watchdog.
The Gambling Commission is consulting over setting a threshold for losses, which would trigger action and interventions by betting firms to ensure gamblers do not not spend beyond their means.
The crackdown comes amid growing concerns that gambling firms are failing to tackle the two million people in the UK that the Commission estimates to be either problem gamblers or at risk of addiction.
The consultation, seen by The Telegraph, found that more than half of the population had a “discretionary” income of under £250 a month, after they had paid their taxes, bills, food and accommodation.
The Commission said any threshold needed to take account of the fact that this disposable income was not just for gambling but also for travel, sport, leisure, clothing, haircuts and other activities.
This was supported by data that showed only 17 per cent of online slot gamblers and nine per cent of non-slot players suffered monthly reported losses of more than £100.
This corresponded closely with the 21 per cent who admitted betting more than they could afford, which is regarded by experts as a key trait of problem gamblers.
It said that thresholds set by some companies at tens of thousands were not “appropriate” given the research. Citing a £2,000 limit as neither “realistic or appropriate,” it said the evidence pointed to a number “considerably below this”.
“The lowest possible threshold is likely to be at least £100 loss per calendar month,” said the Commission.
The plans are part of a major consultation by the Commission into measures to protect vulnerable gamblers and those at risk of addiction. It includes time limits of an hour after which gamblers need to be challenged over their continued betting and curbs on bonuses.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/03/exclusive-gambling-losses-could-capped-100-month-combat-addiction/
____________________________________________
All you self-righteous snobs who cheered on the £2 FOBT limits - you just couldn't see that once they got that, they'd be coming for you next.
The Gambling Commission is consulting over setting a threshold for losses, which would trigger action and interventions by betting firms to ensure gamblers do not not spend beyond their means.
The crackdown comes amid growing concerns that gambling firms are failing to tackle the two million people in the UK that the Commission estimates to be either problem gamblers or at risk of addiction.
The consultation, seen by The Telegraph, found that more than half of the population had a “discretionary” income of under £250 a month, after they had paid their taxes, bills, food and accommodation.
The Commission said any threshold needed to take account of the fact that this disposable income was not just for gambling but also for travel, sport, leisure, clothing, haircuts and other activities.
This was supported by data that showed only 17 per cent of online slot gamblers and nine per cent of non-slot players suffered monthly reported losses of more than £100.
This corresponded closely with the 21 per cent who admitted betting more than they could afford, which is regarded by experts as a key trait of problem gamblers.
It said that thresholds set by some companies at tens of thousands were not “appropriate” given the research. Citing a £2,000 limit as neither “realistic or appropriate,” it said the evidence pointed to a number “considerably below this”.
“The lowest possible threshold is likely to be at least £100 loss per calendar month,” said the Commission.
The plans are part of a major consultation by the Commission into measures to protect vulnerable gamblers and those at risk of addiction. It includes time limits of an hour after which gamblers need to be challenged over their continued betting and curbs on bonuses.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/03/exclusive-gambling-losses-could-capped-100-month-combat-addiction/
____________________________________________
All you self-righteous snobs who cheered on the £2 FOBT limits - you just couldn't see that once they got that, they'd be coming for you next.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 231
|
By:
£100 is may average bet, so after 1 loser I am done for the month !
Obviously this would need collaboration between bookmakers as one could lose £100 with each of 20 online bookies. Not sure how this would be achieved with GDPR. Also how would this be enforced in shops and on course... everyone needs a players card? |
|
By:
On a serious point, it does make sense for a losses threshold be set in relation to income, albeit that would mean KYC enrolment would need salary info.
The bookies would hate it, as they dont want a cap and declaring earning would put off lots of customers from signing up. However, at the moment someone on £20,000 a year can s-punk £5000 in a month without challenge. |
|
By:
Firms required to pass all customer details and losses to the Gambling Commission? The Gambling Commission can then cross-reference them and pull the plug when they've decided you've lost too much overall.
All in complete confidence, of course. |
|
By:
That's me finished then. Thirty years of propuntering and no income.
|
|
By:
What a lot of ba**s this is.
It will never happen. How on earth will the bookies stand this and will they be willing to check anyone's income before taking a bet? I cannot think who else would be checking income, as it will cost to do so. Remember, as well, the bookie's profits are taxed and whatever government we have over the next 20 years will need every, single penny they can lay hands on to get us out of this Covid disaster. It really bothers me that MP's on a gambling commission are spending their time, and our money, on coming up with such utter, fantasy world, drivel. FOBT's were different but the money bet on football alone would be decimated by this crap. Mind you, for the last twenty years in the UK I've seen things be suggested that are utterly and completely stupid and ignored them as nonsense. Six months later, they come into law or at least start to become part of society. So, who knows? |
|
By:
Good idea.
Like individuals who deposit big amounts into their Bank , or buy expensive assets, perhaps the ombudsman should have the authority to ask Bookmakers where their profits are accrued. Control could then be exerted and constraints applied. Do they have to detail where they got their ill-gotten gains to authorities at the moment? |
|
By:
FOBT's were different
No. They're different in YOUR mind. YOU know you're better than a FOBT player. But the gambling prohibitionists never saw it that way at all. Once they'd got those restricted to £2, the way was clear to restrict all gambling to £2. |
|
By:
KYC requires you to send passport, bank card, etc. Would it be more difficult to add P60 ?
|
|
By:
They started this in Germany last month. They limited deposits to €1k per month, not losses though. You can still keep any existing balance as well.
|
|
By:
What's a P60?
|
|
By:
Didnt know that Richie, but we have the issue that a footballer depositing a grand a month is not the same as the guy on min wage.
|
|
By:
Exactly screaming, those who cannot prove their income (inheritance, illegitimate, others) may struggle or they would need to determine other criteria to prove solvency
|
|
By:
Well, winning would be the one cast-iron criterion to prove you can afford to gamble.
Good luck getting that one past the bookmaker though. |
|
By:
So this would obviously massively impact on the levy and the funding of the sport. Well at least we've identified what their ulterior motive is, the destroying of the horseracing industry.
|
|
By:
* that's if the government's covid policies don't do it first.
|
|
By:
The main problem is that the uk might end up totally segregated from the world and liquidity falls off a cliff.
|
|
By:
That hasn't happened to Germans, I think.
|
|
By:
Yet more state control over people's lives and the eroding of civil liberties, now potentially reaching a point where individuals are being told what they can and can't spend their own money on.
|
|
By:
Total wrong George, the government have no inclination to destroy horse racing, they just want to protect the vulnerable.
Or are you suggesting that the entire horse racing model is predicated on a financial model of people losing more than they can afford? |
|
By:
No. He's suggesting that people themselves can decide what they can afford and what they choose to spend it on.
|
|
By:
equine flew, is this along the same lines as "the government have no inclination" to destroy businesses and jobs, and cost lives, especially among sufferers from cancer and heart disease, and among the previously healthy old, now deprived of gyms, swimming pools and social interaction, but they're doing so just to protect the vulnerable from covid-19?
|
|
By:
Yes but as per the original article 21% have ADMITTED they cannot control their spending.. In addition he ones who CANNOT control but don't admit it makes the real figure far, far higher.
|
|
By:
The Commission said any threshold needed to take account of the fact that this disposable income was not just for gambling but also for travel, sport, leisure, clothing, haircuts and other activities.
In equine flew's world it's right that a man can be permitted to spend his last five ponds on a haircut, but not that he should be permitted to spend it on a bet. And certainly not on a bet in the hope of a better haircut. To do otherwise would be denying protection to the vulnerable in equine flew's world. |
|
By:
Screaming, the government are there to look after the populous. In may experience the things they hate are:-
1. Unpopular policy 2. Spending Money At the moment they are doing both.... do you think they really want to do this, or are doing it because there is a real risk. This is not a covid discussion but as you raised it, in your post.... |
|
By:
Where?
|
|
By:
SBTW, I never said I agreed with the original post, disposable income is just that, money left after essentials have been paid. If someone wants to bet that in the hope of a better outcome then so be it.
My point is that some regulation to curb none disposable income betting is surely in the interest of the government (who are often forced to bail out people in this situation) |
|
By:
Where did I mention Covid?
|
|
By:
Apologies Screaming the covid analogy was from GEORGE, Sauvignon kicking in...
|
|
By:
It would be best if the government restricted your drinking in that case. For your own good. You must see the logic.
|
|
By:
I am a libertarian in general but you seem to disagree that vulnerable or those with MH issues should be cared for by others/state.
|
|
By:
That's right. I think you should be allowed to carry on drinking too much. It's no business of mine or the government's to intervene.
|
|
By:
Thought it was April 1st when I saw this..
Fed up with those doing their conkers through being no good at punting blaming others.. or the state interfering in matters that don’t concern them. Plenty of people buying IPhones.. new TV’s, clothes that they cannot afford. Their own responsibility as is how much they bet. |
|
By:
You have completely sidetracked the original point I made... should there be greater protection for problem gamblers by restricting their none disposaable spend? Yes or No ?
Getting late now... so happy to call it a draw |
|
By:
Fair enough. (Shakes hands.)
|
|
By:
Indeed
|
|
By:
Nanny state .
Bonkers. Gamble responsible |
|
By:
I know the virus is playing havoc but could one not troll the city centre and put on....for example 10x£50 wins on the same horse?
|
|
By:
That’s a good point by ‘now where’s that switch’
You’d have to ban credit too, because by definition it’s payment for things you don’t have the disposable income to buy. |
|
By:
Depending on your stake , your first bet might ne your last ....until the 1st of next month.
Well unless you just log onto another betting site. Or will they make all brands under the same ownership ,share data , or even all brands ..... |