The point I was making (which I think still stands) is that nobody that (properly) pays PC or currently pays PC has been impacted. The two people (to my knowledge) that have been (CB29 & Rico) have both sorted it (to some extent) when making contact.

So just to reiterate - while it is no doubt a panic stricken bodge job (trying to make up for 20 years of breaching the 2005 act) - they are just targeting losers. i.e. people that deposit.

You can own half of Belgravia but it won't count as much as a wage slip from Mcdonalds.

Indeed duffy - but as I said, it's a panic stricken bodge job.

All the anecdotal evidence (on here) so far indicates it is purely deposits that trigger - and then if other factors (i.e. lifetime profit, net deposits, PC, etc) are brought to their attention, it can be resolved.

Depositing (due to losing) is clearly the trigger that sticks. Obviously the loss of losers will eventually destroy the exchange model - but that's no different than destroying the model themselves by steering/enticing all the new blood and losers towards slots/ casino / live casino/ exchange games/ sportsbook/ bingo/ virtual sports, etc.

I don't see the difference dusty,

You steer an addict that loses £1k per month away from the exchange to get him hooked on Exchange Games.
You steer another addict that was losing £1k per month away from the exchange by stopping him from depositing.

The net result for the exchange is minus £1k of mug money in both cases imo.

*all under scrutiny

I didnt say that, I said it was different.
It is in truth additional to the lack of investment/direction of the exchange.
I have yet to see any example of how AC will shape for the better BF's position over the exchange. This is what I perceived as also fanciful in those expecting BF to radically improve the exchange out of need...when one of the things I have continually said BF take their lion share of revenue from America now and have alternatives.

Spoken like a true Champaign socialist no doubt, while gorging on the carcasses still present?
Or are you here just for the forum now, because all I’ve heard from you is criticism of bookies (this place being one of them) and nothing about personal responsibility.

It’s as though victims deserve the world to stop for their individual concerns however little they make up of the greater picture.
This is all about losing not being allowed, nothing about nuance or implied intention. You are either for it or against it.
Arrogant imbecilic losers that resulted in MPs bleeding hearts lighting a fuse under all monetary gambling totally unilaterally to all other forms of money loss.
Losers, being self evident. Imbecilic because even losing they apparently couldn’t see the dangers and arrogant because they were made aware through at the least campaigns to deal with their issues but decided not to.
It’s everyone else’s problem.

Dusty, I am probably about as big a fan as you are of the "victims" that blame all of their woes on somebody else.

But it's actually a pretty accurate description in this scenario. This is the usual parlance - the party that has (repeatedly) broken the law, they get known as the perpetrator. The party that has been wronged by them - they get known as the victim.

The dictionary backs this up:

Perpertrator: noun: a person who carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act.

Victim: noun: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. A person who is tricked or duped.

You still haven't bothered to read that 2005 Gambling Act have you?

I'm all for free enterprise and entrepreneurs - but I think they have to obey the law.

Expecting people/business to obey the law, doesn't make you a communist imo.

As you say the law, they did abide by the law showing sufficient amounts of advertising space for help, giving the options to self restrict etc (where they failed they got fined, what’s the problem?
And what does the 2005 Gambling Act define as ‘vulnerable’ or problematic?

That might explain the lack of urgency in publishing the official Gambling Commission position on all of this. Better just to continually leak rumours which encourage bookmakers to take action. That way the prohibitionists get what they want without the annoyance of a legal challenge.

If a book doesn't want you it doesn't have to justify it though, it can just say that we don't want you so tough.

No court in the world could force an operator to take a bet from you if it didn't want to.

.

screaming from beneaththewaves

I might be seeing you on the course sooner than later if these checks kick in and don't forget that cup of tea you promised me.

I seem to remember a similar joke response I read elsewhere once: 'May even have to talk to the wife!'

I could so easily adjust to betting in American Exchanges.  But we won't be allowed near it.

Is it the case at the moment you can walk up to the t o t e window and have £500 on that will be at least SP return ?

Michelle Donelan is now incharge of the DCMS.

At least Iain Duncan Smith did not get the job.

Apparently PM is in favour of people spending their own money as they want and having their own discipline. Let's hope so.

Hurray! A new minister who supported gambling reform eg voted for a massive reduction in fobt stake and an address in the dramatic increase in gambling advertising.

I think I'll like this new minister. It's long overdue a massive cull in the reduction of gambling advertising asap especially mobile and tv, and bill boards. These adverts prey on the vulnerable.