There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 576 comments are related to the topic:
Punters detail their frustration with intrusive checks
Punters detail their frustration with intrusive checks
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 576
|
By:
Well Dusty as I said those that it effects are generally addicts which in turn ruins the lives of their and others close to them. I believe there needs to be some sort of intervention to try and stop this happening and you think they should just be more responsible. Frankly, I'm not sure you understand the issue.
|
|
By:
They already know what 90% of the population do with their money, they just want the other 10% and when they get that it will be the start of controlled society, if you think you can stop it good luck.
|
|
By:
Why don’t you all grow a pair and just tell them to fk off…..ffs
Go on a punting and racing strike for a month and listen to them all squawk in pain Mind you that reptile (imo) setting out the rule book would love it and present itself with a gong….fkn n@b….imv.. Cheltenham…Newbury meeting…Lincoln etc….nah F off not interested…..poking the beak into my finances….in yer dreams prk… |
|
By:
They should be more responsible...just as the same should apply to stocks and shares investing if it applies to gambling.
CFDs are highly leveraged by definition and the 'stock' isnt even owned by the trader, you get given credit to gamble and only have it called in when you've lost it. |
|
By:
Movewiththetimes, we are talking about some sort of fairly limited scrutiny on people gambling here not the coming of the Antichrist. I think people should realise that what is being proposed is pretty light touch and won't stop anyone that wants to have a bet doing so.
|
|
By:
As for alcoholics and drug addicts the help is there for people who want it but those people have to bear some responsibility for their actions rather than everyone else.
|
|
By:
No way Dusty, the financial market is hugely regulated. If you want to invest in a bond that will give you a certain 5% over the next year they won't shut your account down because you are making money. Its just not a true comparison. .
|
|
By:
won't stop anyone that wants to have a bet doing so.
the opening post would suggest that's not the case and there are many other stories that suggest the sane. |
|
By:
Honcho- you need to get out more, alot more going on then the white paper on gambling! If you live in Kent this is coming
 Canterbury City Council unveils scheme to ban drivers moving between new 'neighbourhoods' A radical vision drawn up by council bosses to tackle congestion in Canterbury will see the city split into five separate zones - with residents banned from driving directly between each. Motorists will be unable to make simple journeys across the city, and will face fines enforced using number-plate recognition cameras if they break the authority's proposed rules |
|
By:
TH
You can fund a broker account and they wont ask what your salary is, how much capital you have or whether its your money....then ontop they will give you a multiplier as standard that you can gamble on comodity price indexes straight away, effectively betting it moves up or down on your phone with their money. You are correct that its a bad comparison, its bad because gambling by contrast is far less risky and you can only lose your own money and you have to convince them its yours. |
|
By:
Dusty you seem to have no idea of payday loans being taken to pay gambling debts and its your families money in many cases not just your own.
Dealer I don't think so. All they need to do is show they can afford to bet. If they can't they shouldn't be allowed to. My guess is that bookies will be far more interested in documentation for winning accounts but that's just how they role. |
|
By:
The point you are attempting to sidestep is that brokers dont ask you anything and allow you to bet with their money and it mirrors the most feckless of products any bookie has to offer.
Again, if a person doesnt realise they are in debt because of gambling and seek out help for their own problem why is it somebody else's problem who gambles responsibly? |
|
By:
I'm not sidestepping anything Dusty. I think possibly that those getting dragged into gambling problems by the bookies need a little more protection than those investing in derivatives (although I do accept that gambling effects everyone). Again, it will end up being everyone's problem if they are allowed to fall off the edge gambling. Debt is only a part of it.
|
|
By:
Thats not all they need to do and those who have and can afford to are being restricted to a meagre monthly amount.
The winning accounts is also wrong, it affects as many losing accounts as winning ones. I suggest you maybe read a bit more about it. |
|
By:
Have you read the opening post LH ?
|
|
By:
how do you get gambling debts ? You have to have the money to bet with main bookies ?
|
|
By:
My speculation about winning accounts was more about bookies than the proposed legislation and I'm glad to hear its not the case. It may be a meager amount to you but for the average person it may be sensible. I don't suppose we will ever get unanimity on how much is the right amount.
|
|
By:
Again I would say read the opening post, it's all there.
|
|
By:
The £100 a month comes from: Average disposable income in Uk £889(2021) and they say you shouldn't be bettimng more than 10% of that, actually down to £866 in 2022. So if you want more limit you have to show proof.
|
|
By:
they say you shouldn't be bettimng more than 10% of that
Who says? If a government body states that it would be illegal under the human rights act (right to enjoy property). |
|
By:
*I have Dealer and I'm not sure your point.
|
|
By:
Dave- when has that ever stopped them
 |
|
By:
Movewiththetimes, you'd think if the true definition of 'disposable income' was adhered to, that's after all bills and all food etc are paid, and especially if you have no dependants and are not on any benefits, you should be able to bet the lot if you are stupid enough and no government should be able to tell you otherwise.
|
|
By:
Is that some sort of hieroglyphics mitolo or are you just too thick to put up a sensible post?
|
|
By:
Totally agree Swift but the globalists want to control everybody, it's happening whether we like it or not.
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
I know of people on benefits that spend £200 a week on cigarettes. Zero checks but the benefits continue to drop into their bank accounts.
|
|
By:
you havent managed a sensible post amid dozens of em. ive posted many times about this and cant be arsed any longer. thats how i role
 and you calling me fick. risible. you are so fick you are being made to look foolish by busty the brain-damaged skaghead. |
|
By:
That may be swifty but about £180 is tax. If you took the tax a way a lot more people would be smoking. Far better imo to have these affordability checks than taxing bets. At least if you can afford it you are not paying taxes on it that would make it almost impossible to make a profit.
|
|
By:
Honestly - i dont know what or who are you trying to save? If you want a bet without checks there are some huge global black mkt brands that are relaible and fair. Much better than 365 or the established firms. Racing got itself into this mess, for years burying their head in the sand about issues that their core customers had and so i personally dont worry if it sinks to a level akin to dog racing! Because thats its destiny based on the leadership its had last few years. If it hadnt been this it would have been something else. Everyone was at it. Racecources turned events into drunken pop concerts. Betting brands pushed FOBTs and Casino and then the UKGC topped it off with Affordability checks and doing nothing about unfair restrictions. Australia has a model that works accross the board in racing from ownership to betting but UK is too arrogant to copy as in all things they think they know best
|
|
By:
Well Clitola there have been over 60 posts on this thread and only yours resorted to childish insults. On the plus side for you at least you don't have to produce an IQ certificate to have a bet. They'd only let you bet bananas.
|
|
By:
role on
|
|
By:
If you want a bet without checks there are some huge global black mkt brands that are relaible and fair.
Can you tell me who they are racing6699? Genuinely interested. |
|
By:
Movewiththetimes • January 17, 2023 1:59 PM GMT
Totally agree Swift but the globalists want to control everybody, Ah the globalist conspiracy theory - and you wonder why these people hold punters in contempt. Why don't you concentrate on the actual villains, who time after time have taken advantage of addicts with access to funds that aren't theirs. The only thing that government should be doing is defining an offence of negligently accepting stolen property for gain, that would apply to managers of betting companies, with a couple of years in jail as a sentence. If that happened, you can guarantee that the headline making cases would disappear. The wifie spending her benefits on scratchcards would still be there unfortunately, but the idiotic spending checks aren't going to save her either. |
|
By:
Dave- FO with your conspiracy theory- who do you think the government are bowing bow too IYO????
|
|
By:
it's the Rothschilds innit?!
|
|
By:
Governments listen to the same people they have for centuries - the people with money. Initiatives like this, though, are driven perceptions that it will be approved by voters.
|
|
By:
Baroness Davidson, the £300 bucks a day HOL freeloader, doesn't have a pot to pass in but she is determined to make her name here. It is people like her, who couldn't begin to tell us the difference between gambling and gaming, who are holding sway in this campaign.
|
|
By:
You've just answered it yourself- FOR CENTURIES- What's happened in last 20 years is definity a different path but you keep calling it a conspiracy.
|
|
By:
The only thing different in the last 20 years is that some people have found a way to make money out of spouting sh1te on the internet and gullible individuals with metal issues are happily clicking away.
|