|
By:
..and it IS ideological, just because a tory may join in with this imposed restriction doesnt mean it isnt, that is the difference between 'wets and dries'
|
|
By:
Yes - of course they are collateral damage dusty. All the online bookmakers are running around like headless chickens trying to pretend that they do (and have) taken responsible gambling seriously. They are making it up as they go along!
Everyone involved in the game knows that in reality the complete opposite of "responsible" gambling is the foundation and strategy upon which they have built their business. |
|
By:
The very nature of gambling is to be allowed to lose.
Thats all that matters, this crackpot imposition stops that and stifles the activity, hence you are either for it or against and you were very much of the former. |
|
By:
You keep putting words in my mouth (which are inaccurate) so that's annoying! You also keep lumping me in with imp123 and I don't think we share the same views, so that's annoying too!
These are some things I believe: I believe there is an issue with problem gambling, I believe it needs to be addressed. I don't believe the govt or the regulator have the skill/knowledge/data to address it successfully. The only people with the skill/knowledge/data to address it successfully are the online bookmaker and they are NEVER going to do it. So of course it's a mess and there is collateral damage. |
|
By:
But the tiny minority with these arguable 'problems/habits etc' were saved by this course of action you thought was good, and anything like the decimation of the exchange as a result is what, fair game?
Did you ever, once mention individual responsibility? And what of these 'saved' rather than the newely inconvienienced...are they really now saved do you know, while the likes of swad are stopped for the noble cause? |
|
By:
I always called this what it was/is...an attack on the act of gambling in the guise of assisting weak willed losers.
|
|
By:
And there we have it. You don't understand "problem gambling" or "addiction", to the extent that you don't actually believe they exist.
Coupled with the fact that you also have no knowledge of the (existing) gambling act and both of us are guessing what might be in the new one. It's a pointless conversation. Do what I do. Don't deposit. Problem solved imo. GL. |
|
By:
Tell them to F off, unless you are an addict
|
|
By:
And that results in an ephemeral exchange mechanism, the short sightedness is now coupled with blithe inconsideration for the majority, bravo.
|
|
By:
Is swad a problem TM?
|
|
By:
As I told you before - 2000 till about 2010 was a perfect storm. Licence to print. It was never going to last!
It's been dying slowly since then and this is just another factor. |
|
By:
dustybin24 Aug 22 18:24Joined: 29 Dec 08 | Topic/replies: 22,724 | Blogger: dustybin's blog
Is swad a problem TM? I have no idea dusty - and I'd rather not get personal (he seems a nice enough guy). What all the impacted people seem to have in common is that they are losing and therefore depositing. I don't have access to the data that would tell me if he or anybody else is a problem gambler or not. Only the on-line bookmakers have that data - and of course - rather than use that data to take the action legally required in the 2005 gambling act - they have been using it to exploit people instead. So here we are. |
|
By:
That has nothing to do with the principle of the tail of the minority wagging the dog of the majority.
The whole approach is/was clumsy and arguably does nothing to save those few who were apparently a risk to themselves. How much data are MPs going to provide on the falling suicide rates...I bet very little, because they will still be killing themselves because it hasnt taught/fixed their problems. |
|
By:
Running around attempting to stop people who refuse help doing one thing after another is not the mechanism to source out the (small) problem.
|
|
By:
Agreed - the mechanism sits with the bookmakers. They know exactly who the problem gamblers/addicts are, so it would be very simple for them to just stop them (and only them) from playing!
Unfortunately, they have built their whole new business around a model that involves profiling and identifying those very people and then exploiting them to the full - so it's a conundrum isn't it! |
|
By:
Not in my book it isnt, not when the facility to help oneself is there and sponsored by the bookie.
Had they not done that I might have agreed. As it is the result of cutting the bits you personally dont like (and suspect dont ever bother with) are clearly too difficult if the end result is to leave the rest intact. As I always said, the feckless could have been educated...instead the soppy arsed (il)liberals thought they could hit the bookies with free shots and have no extra damage to the wider public. They were wrong. |
|
By:
And in conclusion, I also stated they never defined the difference between sports betting or slots, affordability doesnt only apply to slot betting it applies to all betting, so they couldnt even be arsed these MPs could they?
|
|
By:
"They know exactly who the problem gamblers/addicts are, so it would be very simple for them to just stop them (and only them) from playing!
" They might know who they are. What they don't know is whether they can afford to lose |
|
By:
Gambling is irresponsible, so is drinking, so is smoking, so is boxing, so is rugby, so is motor racing, so is eating sugar .. and salt ... and fat .. and pizza ..chips
|
|
By:
Being able to be irresponsible is progress. It's freedom
|
|
By:
That's not to say that checks should be made to people doing their absolute bollocks. Just to check they are not proceeds of crime. The current situation is absurd imo
|
|
By:
Agree, Clydebank.
This is 2020. We have Russia rampaging through Ukraine, A national strike on the horizon, inflation going through the roof, a crime wave taking place while police cavort about wearing rainbow face paint and drive rainbow coloured cars. More than a thousand illegals crossing the channel every day, possible power rationing this winter .... and people are worried about how much gamblers earn and whether they can afford it. These are the mad days that we live in. |
|
By:
correction : This is 2022 (so atleast we don't have Covid to worry about)
|
|
By:
Point of order. Russia did indeed plan to rampage through Ukraine. Didn't happen.
|
|
By:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/08/25/no-gambling-is-not-a-public-health-issue/
|
|
By:
I doubt it will happen,they are after the roulette brigade the silly people who can’t stop playing roll-a-penny..
|
|
By:
never heard the term usury before
|
|
By:
Yep cheers Dusty.
I sit somewhere a bit more in the middle of it all, to me the clear focus should be on idiots playing/spinning buying into games of chance Casino/Virtual/Bingo bla bla but ofc it isnt, that is where they make their funds, maybe thats not true, I dont know. The other thing is its blatently obvious no commonsense is allowed to be used or they are too lazy to do so. Someone with a 6fig bank allowed to lose 100 a month gambling is just bizzare imo but they are not worth arguing with this bunch however, better to just find a solution or give up. Hopefully this just about closes they debate what they are looking for...its solid old fashioned income and will no doubt let you lose a % of it, we still dont know what that is sorry. I have heard a rumour you are allowed to lose 1% of your take home yearly salary a month. Therefore someone that takes home 36K after tax can lose 360quid a month. |
|
By:
It also leads me to belive they firmly do believe that I am a problem gambler.
In the end I wasnt winning or losing, slightly up on the year... But importantly churning away...laying big prices paying 50 pence to a pound a UK/IRE race to them. By doing this they simply take away a "risk free" 100 pounds for themselves, ofc 100 quid a week to them is pishing in the wind but do it to enough people and it doesnt only add up it knackers up the eco cistern of the exchange, maybe just man v bot and who gives a fck now ey. |
|
By:
Any chance bedaq matchbok or smarkts for u swad
|
|
By:
Both theoretically but play in play so nah.
Good idea though. |
|
By:
Seeing as energy costs are going up by £200 a month per household does that mean by October you will need to win £100 a month to be able to continue gambling?
|
|
By:
Just as well they don't have affordability checks on using electricity or gas.
|
|
By:
Hopefully this just about closes they debate what they are looking for...its solid old fashioned income
This is the key takeaway from Swad's experience (and thank you to him for going through all rubbish with Customer Services on our behalf to find it out). If you're a full-time pro without official income who gets caught in the dragnet, don't even think about sending documents to Customer Services. At best you'll get nowhere; at worst you'll convince them that you do indeed have official income, and you'll be discussing the matter further with the Inland Revenue. |
|
By:
@ItsMeSwaddle
"the clear focus should be on idiots playing/spinning buying into games of chance Casino/Virtual/Bingo bla bla but ofc it isnt, that is where they make their funds, maybe thats not true, I dont know" Depends on the operator. I just had a quick google for 2022 interim results - 888 (who now own WH) make the vast majority of their revenue from gaming rather than sports betting. Flutter (BF/PP/SBG etc) make two-thirds or so from sports and a third from gaming. |
|
By:
screaming
This has been done to death. The In Rev have no angle under the present law regarding gambling winnings, whether its your sole income and you never lose or just 1 big win, it's still not a profession. In swad's case there is a grey area where he clearly has made it difficult for bf to make a decision. If he was winning a bit more frequently he might have had some kind of lieniency who knows? |
|
By:
*You dont pay Income Tax on capital, you pay Capital Gains...but betting isnt buying an asset that raises or lowers in value, so theres no tax.
|
|
By:
Dusty, I know all that. So does the Revenue. The nightmare is the Revenue having a go anyway, just to join in the anti-gambling fun.
But I'm not really talking about taxation of punting profits here. I'm talking about revealing your general finances to a state-backed audit, and that audit deciding that your finances do count as income. That what you'd always known were gambling winnings and no concern of the Revenue suddenly becomes unaccounted for income. If you really are a full-time pro, then you really, really don't want to do anything to rock the boat with the Revenue. The fact that you're in the right doesn't matter one bit. You simply don't want that battle. Just quietly pack things up and slip away to the racecourse, where you can bet in cash. We'll all be ending up there anyway at this rate. Who's going to be left to win money off on here? |
|
By:
My sis has turned £750 into £11k at the Tote and now they are asking for all sorts
Email says it's a legal requirement for wage slips assets etc IS IT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT? or just the tote t&cs? TIA |
|
By:
The IR wont, the council might try it on under certain circumstances but a letter from a solicitor will warn them off.
|