There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 231 comments are related to the topic:
Gambling losses could be capped at £100 a month to combat addiction
Gambling losses could be capped at £100 a month to combat addiction
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 231
|
By:
My two life observations.
1. Losers will always find a way to lose. 2. Nature doesn't wet nurse failure. |
|
By:
dark web exchange/bookies disappear overnight , the exit scam!
Some run by drug cartels, Crypto is not stable,£100,2013 to £20k 2018 to 10k now. Blockchain works well thou. It's a scammers paradise. |
|
By:
Quite honestly if the bookies/exchanges can't fight off this argument with statistics showing how individual turnover far exceeds profit in practically all users and ultimately would mean the total end of gambling at large unless measures are in place to target the insidious online games only, then quite frankly the industry doesnt deserve to continue.
There would be a total destruction to horse racing, and all the knock on unemployment. The impact would be unconscionable, and tax would be non existent. It would be suicide, all because a minority can't take responsibility for their own actions. |
|
By:
That's exactly why it won't happen.
|
|
By:
Going from limiting fobt stakes to this would be like going from a hand grenade to a nuclear bomb.
|
|
By:
Wesdaq, it is happening, the only debate is the amount and unless the GC changes its present course whether it is a blanket limit for all forms of gambling.
|
|
By:
They have a long way to go before even getting to that nuclear option.
They've not even banned advertising yet. Stop panicking imo. As I've said before, they are targeting online casinos. |
|
By:
So people will still be able to bet & lose on other financial products but not sports?
|
|
By:
Yes.
|
|
By:
I agree with wes on this, but I don't think we should be complacent.
Im all for fairness regulation, this isn't that. This is an attempt to stop winning because some lose. It requires anyone who places bets on sports where an amount of skill/logic determines decisions to go onto dave's link and voice your concern. |
|
By:
Some of you aren't seeing it through the eyes of the anti-gambling lobby.
There's no difference in their eyes whether a man loses £100 on the horses and can't afford a haircut or whether he loses £100 on an online casino and can't afford a haircut. |
|
By:
But 'they' would need an act of parliament wouldn't they?
MPs fell in line over FOBTs but this if without measures to single out the same online versions would be totally different, and MPs wont vote for it imo. |
|
By:
My point is that I can't think of anything to write on that consultation which addresses the issue the way the Gambling Commission have framed it.
They've said that losing a sum which means you miss a haircut is harmful and must be banned. How you lose it is irrelevant, whether it's through the horses or the slots or whether you get it back through arbing. And there's no question of arguing that there's a greater personal benefit in enjoying a bet which might lose than in having a haircut. THEY have decided what's good for you, and that's an end of it. Argue against that, if you can. I can't. |
|
By:
This is all old news.
MPs have long been pushing for limits to be placed on online games to bring them in line with fobts. The UKGC are now trying to implement their concerns. |
|
By:
Is there a chance that firms could simply move offshore. I think Betfair still have a license for the exchange in Malta, does this make a difference at all ?
Is that license still under The Gambling Commission ?, could they and others simply not pull out of the UK and just do it from offshore as was the case initially with firms telephone betting ? My understanding with regards to gambling adverts is that Racing was exempt simply because they rely on revenue from gambling for their business. It seemed they were targeting in play sports and gaming. |
|
By:
Screaming I havn't bothered reading it yet other than the bits posted.
The idea that gambling is different to any other excess that remains 'unregulated' is facile. Theres an 80 tory majority in the commons. Yesterday I saw a question to a yank Senator on 'why did so many vote for trump' He answered succinctly; 'because this is a right leaning nation' The commons also is atm. |
|
By:
why are you bothered ? Most of you won't need betting income for wages. Others do.
|
|
By:
My problem with this is as you say They have decided the amount and its based on averages.
We dont live off averages in the real world, you cant tell someone how they spend their disposable income, someone at the lower end might have £10 left each month, if they spend £100 its a major problem and an issue. At the top end saying a company director who has several thousands of disposable income available each month can only afford to lose £100 is ridiculous. If they are concerned about how the money is accumulated put more on banks to check how their loans are spent. What next theyre going to make sure that we all spend responsibly, on alcohol, etc Its disposable income, you cant lose online where checks are in place to see if you can realistically afford it, but you can go the bookies and place a cash bet in excess of £100 which could be from drug related activity or theft ? |
|
By:
dustybin • November 5, 2020 1:29 PM GMT
But 'they' would need an act of parliament wouldn't they No, why on earth would you think that? The UKGC sets its licence conditions and they are consulting on this condition. I have posted the link to the consultation in another thread and above in this one. thurnscoe thunder • November 5, 2020 1:33 PM GMT Is there a chance that firms could simply move offshore. They are offshore already, but they need a UKGC license to operate in the UK legally. As has been said many times there will be a massive increase in illegal gammbling. |
|
By:
screaming from beneaththewaves • November 5, 2020 1:24 PM GMT
Some of you aren't seeing it through the eyes of the anti-gambling lobby. There's no difference in their eyes whether a man loses £100 on the horses and can't afford a haircut or whether he loses £100 on an online casino and can't afford a haircut. Indeed |
|
By:
If the House of Commons has learnt anything from the last eight months, it's that nothing is more popular with the public than banning and regulating things.
It doesn't really matter what's being banned or regulated or whether there's any point. Just as long as the public gets the chance to purse its lips and get outraged at FLOUTERS, the public will be happy and will lend their support in the polls. |
|
By:
fck missed a dog race posting ITT
|
|
By:
So dave, the govt would be happy to create a massive black market filled by unscrupulous types which will exploit the most vulnerable even more than they are now & also lose all that tax revenue as well?
T |
|
By:
Surely it has to be related to a person's wealth or income? £100 per month might be significant to many but for others it would be less than they spend on a meal.
|
|
By:
i'm organising a game of penny up the wall, down the park if anyone fancies it. we'll have to get innovative now.
|
|
By:
Because dave I would have thought widescale restriction of trade would have been beyond their remit.
Didnt the MPs have to vote on the FOBT stake restrictions? Implementation of the £2 stake required secondary legislation. |
|
By:
So dave, the govt would be happy to create a massive black market filled by unscrupulous types which will exploit the most vulnerable even more than they are now & also lose all that tax revenue as well?
Have you been following the War on Drugs for the last 60-odd years? Of course they would. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Yes, and prohibition has been shown not work.
|
|
By:
They will know all about your income with a cashless economy controlled by a microchip in your arm and/or your smartphone. So the government will keep a precise record on all your income and spending.
|
|
By:
Launched today, the consultation calls for feedback from a range of stakeholders on proposals that strengthen the expectations on gambling businesses to act on information they have about a consumer’s vulnerability and to conduct assessments of whether the customer’s gambling is affordable at thresholds set by the Commission.
It really couldn't be more clear |
|
By:
Yes, and prohibition has been shown not work.
Tell that to every landlord in the UK right now. |
|
By:
I will read it later dave.
But that says they are consulting on proposals. That in itself doesnt say this is happening and the only determination is the amount. |
|
By:
In 2011 they consulted on whether hospitality and betting IR should be allowed or not.
|
|
By:
They will know all about your income with a cashless economy controlled by a microchip in your arm and/or your smartphone. So the government will keep a precise record on all your income and spending.
bstrds told me it was flu jab. |
|
By:
dustybin Don't just read it - complete the consultation and point out that a low loss limit won't protect compulsives, will cause illegal gambling to increase and severely inconvenience responsible sports/horse/exchange players and poker players.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
The draft Gaming Machine (Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocation) Regulations 2018 were laid on 15 November 2018. [b]They were approved by both Houses on 18 December 2018[/b]
The will require the same. But I shall later dave |
|
By:
dave, as dusty has pointed out, if the gambling industry can't drive a coach & horses thru these proposals themselves, they don't deserve to survive.
|
|
By:
No it doesn't dusty - there is no need for an SI for UKGC code.
|
