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:
*mental issues
|
|
By:
Ah the some people have found a way to make money out of spouting sh1te on the internet conspiracy theory ffs.
|
|
By:
Talking to a keyboard what else do you expect ffs…..
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
conspiracy theory loons like richard hall make plenty of money because wanchors like thetimeswithmove luv em
|
|
By:
Here's Mitolo the one who tries to convince what numbers you should play on the routine wheel at 5am
 |
|
By:
One punter, who wished to be quoted only as 'Stuart', said he was concerned whether with Cheltenham looming there would be a bookmaker willing to take his bets at the meeting.
I can assure 'stuart' he has nothing to worry about on that matter. |
|
By:
** Apologies. I meant on-course.
|
|
By:
a bookmaker willing to take his bets at the meeting.
Actually, you could read that both ways. |
|
By:
I've not read everything on here, its too long, but why punish the 99.9% OF PUNTERS WHO DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM Gambling.
Because of the 0.01% who do and can't control it, or can't be bothered to seek help.? Do they Tar everyone with the same brush in other walks of life ? Whether Race ,Religion , Criminal gangs, etc ? |
|
By:
https://www.racingpost.com/news/not-fit-for-purpose-mp-davies-slams-gambling-commission-over-interventions/596233
|
|
By:
LH- Problem is like every issue which seems unreasonable, these days it's only the odd one or two MP's what are saying anything! Why is that?
 |
|
By:
Philip Davies MP
Is that the same Philip Davies that has been bought and paid for by the big bookmakers? - sometimes (but not always) he even remembers to declare on the register of interests all of his ill-gotten gains and the masses of "hospitality" he has received from bookmakers. |
|
By:
I seem to remember him doing everything he could to postpone/sabotage the stake limits on FOBT's. Then you look on the register of interests and he's had more hospitality than a fat lass at an all you can eat buffet!
|
|
By:
I've exchanged regular corr. with my M.P. He goes racing but simply toes the party line. I keep at him though and have sent him this one as well.
|
|
By:
It does seem like a sledgehammer to crack a nut to me but we will see what the law eventually says. I have been a punter for 60 years-and that is since I was 18 so does not include the money my grandfather put on for me at point to points from age 4. I have lost in about 80% of those years but never more than the 3 annual memberships that I had at Cheltenham, Chepstow and Wincanton for 30 years. A typical day on the stock market sees me up or down by more than my annual loss on racing. The potential problem if I am asked for financial data is that my income from pensions etc. is now quite low. Will they take assets into account?
|
|
By:
If they are looking for 'disposable income' I'd imagine it'll be like a mortgage application, assets have no bearing on your available funds in the future, so I'd imagine bank statements would need to show you have regular dividends coming in from stocks or savings.
|
|
By:
They weren't interested in my assets(Guess they don't want you to blow any inheritance what would be passed down) only bothered about income.
|
|
By:
So that is ridiculous. My assets are worth 40 times my annual income! At 78, I am hardly likely to blow it all on horses (or any other gambling) No affordability checks if I buy £10k worth of shares tomorrow though. So far I have not been asked for any by a bookmaker or exchange but watch this space.
|
|
By:
re savings. I nagged the GC until they finally said that they didn't have a rule preventing people using their savings to gamble.
|
|
By:
Why don't you stand for MP Dave seen as you can get things done
|
|
By:
I only use one betting company nowadays and if they refused to let me withdraw my balance until I gave them financial details, I would threaten them with The Gambling Commission and I'd go on GB News. And I would carry out my threats.
|
|
By:
I have the right to spend my money on whatever I wish. I won't have the Government or any of the
Nanny State Do-Gooders tell me otherwise. I suggest anyone who is the subject of such checks immediately close their account, without comment. |
|
By:
Good old marksman. Citizen Smith rules!
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
seems to be a lot of non gamstop sites available online
|
|
By:
They just all for show unfortunately, people like dumb dave don't like to hear that the davos boys want to rule the world. If you're bored at anytime this week just watch the **** they want us all to do while 207 world leaders fly in one thousand private jets
 |
|
By:
davos boys? Haven't heard of that bookmaking firm.
|
|
By:
Easy to say move your account or close it but I prefer an exchange which is not only better value but suits my strategy of laying off most of my bets when they go short in running and most important place only bets. Anyway my small level of stakes might mean they don't bother to ask. Why don't they have affordability checks on those who spend £20 a week on the National Lottery?
|
|
By:
Movewiththetimes • January 18, 2023 12:16 AM GMT
They just all for show unfortunately, people like dumb dave don't like to hear that the davos boys want to rule the world dave1357 • January 17, 2023 2:48 PM GMT Governments listen to the same people they have for centuries - the people with money Can't you read? |
|
By:
Ok Dave if you think they listening to the same people as even 20 years ago then good luck to you, I guess you don't like your freedom of choice, can't be bothered anymore, simple choice for punters either fill in the checks they want or get rid of online gambling unless you want to bet in pennies. Take an hour out your life like I did and got 3K monthly limit, I would be amazed if you beat them, I tried every which way but lose to not give them information but was clear if I didn't I would only get £100 a month.
2020 will always be remembered when the world changed for good. Good luck all in your request for a decent monthly limit. |
|
By:
I have the right to spend my money on whatever I wish. I won't have the Government or any of the
Nanny State Do-Gooders tell me otherwise. I suggest anyone who is the subject of such checks immediately close their account, without comment. --- You are absolutely right Roggrain. The point is that what they are proposing is just about the minimum inconvenience to the punter they could have come up with. Unless you are someone who believes (mistakenly) that gambling doesn't create significant problems for society then you will see government has to do something (or be seen to do something about it). The usual way they go about about this is taxation and prohibition. If they went this way for gambling it would be a lot worse for everyone. The RP is just a mouthpiece for the bookies and most of the rubbish it writes is biased. The bookies are just protesting because that's how business works and they want to minimise any effect on their profits. If you can't get a bet on under this new legislation (if that what it turns out to be) then you probably shouldn't be betting. |
|
By:
I get your point True.. but where is the evidence that gambling creates 'significant problems for society'?
|
|
By:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-report-reveals-harms-associated-with-gambling-estimated-to-cost-society-at-least-1-27-billion-a-year
This is the report that the GC usually quotes when justifying the white paper. In fairness roggrain there is a lot of other stuff not that's hard to find, NHS, LGA, GA etc. You may not agree with it but just like global warming the evidence is accepted and not disputed by those proposing the changes. |
|
By:
Roggrain- many reports, this is the government one-Landmark report reveals harms associated with gambling estimated to cost society at least £1.27 billion a year.
In 2019, the Department of Health and Social Care commissioned PHE to undertake a review of the evidence on gambling harms. The review includes the most comprehensive estimate of the economic burden of gambling on society to date, revealing that the harms associated with gambling cost at least £1.27 billion in 2019 to 2020 in England alone. This analysis includes the first estimate of the economic cost of suicide (£619.2 million) and provides an updated cost of homelessness associated with harmful gambling (62.8 million). Gambling related harms in the analysis range from financial such as bankruptcy and employment issues, to family issues, and health harms such as suicide. The review also shows that people at risk of gambling harms are concentrated in areas of higher deprivation, such as the North of England, and may already be experiencing greater health inequalities. The review found a clear link between higher levels of alcohol consumption and harmful gambling, with only 35.4% of non-drinkers participating in gambling compared to 74.4% of those consuming over 50 units of alcohol (equivalent to 16 pints of beer or large glasses of wine) per week. Alcohol use in children and young people was also found to be a risk factor for subsequent harmful gambling. The review also highlights the link between gambling and mental health issues. The report found that gambling can increase the likelihood of some people thinking about, attempting or dying from suicide. Evidence suggests that people with gambling problems are at least twice as likely to die from suicide compared to the general population, with one overseas study showing that people with a gambling disorder had a 19 times increased risk of dying from suicide. The review also found that gender and poor mental health were the strongest indicators of gambling related harm: men were 4.2 times more likely than women to be gambling at levels of elevated risk of harm people identified as having some mental health issues were twice as likely to participate in harmful gambling than people with no mental health issues those who indicated they had a mental health condition were 2.4 times more likely to be a gambler experiencing gambling-related harms The evidence suggests that harmful gambling should be considered a public health issue because it is associated with harms to individuals, their families, close associates and wider society with an approach that focuses on prevention, early intervention and treatment. The new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) will work closely with other government departments, including the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and key stakeholders to develop a workplan to address the knowledge gaps identified in this review, improve data collection, and deliver an effective response to gambling-related harm. Rosanna O’Connor, Director of Alcohol, Drugs, Tobacco and Justice at PHE, said: There is so much more at stake from gambling than just losing money – from the toll on mental health to the impact on those around the gambler. The evidence is clear – harmful gambling is a public health issue and needs addressing on many fronts, with an emphasis on preventing these harms from occurring as well as with help readily accessible for those directly and indirectly affected by the wide ranging and long lasting negative impacts of gambling. Minister for Mental Health, Gillian Keegan said: Whilst the economic costs of harmful gambling are stark, the cost to individuals as a result of their addiction, and those around them, cannot be overstated. We are working to protect vulnerable people from the damaging impacts gambling can have, including through specialist NHS gambling addiction clinics and investing at least an extra £2.3 billion a year by 2023 to 2024 to expand mental health services. I encourage anyone who is struggling to reach out – support is there for you. Gambling Minister Chris Philp said: We are gathering all the necessary evidence to reset the balance between giving adults the freedom to choose how they gamble safely, with the right protections for those at risk of harm. We are determined to protect vulnerable people from exploitation by aggressive advertising or unfair practices that entrench problem gambling. Jim McManus, Vice President, Association of Directors of Public Health said: This evidence review from PHE paints a stark picture of the avoidable harms from gambling to the economy, society and the individual. Again, we see that existing regional inequalities are exacerbated by these harms with those from poorer areas at higher risk from the negative impacts. A public health approach, with cross-government support, properly funded, is essential to reducing harmful gambling and all the negative consequences highlighted by this research in relation to debt, relationships and jobs. Tim Miller, executive director at the Gambling Commission said: We are pleased to welcome this important independent report from Public Health England. Protecting people from gambling harms is a priority for the Gambling Commission, and we take a public health approach to do so. Public Health England’s work will help to support the continuing collaboration of a wide range of bodies under the National Strategy to Reduce Gambling Harms. Faculty of Public Health President Professor Maggie Rae said: Harmful gambling is a major public health issue which seriously impacts on health in a number of ways. As well as suicide and severe mental health problems, this report highlights harms caused by gambling including financial, employment, relationships, physical health, and criminal activity. Gambling organisations are preying on people’s addictions, and we see that the burden of gambling harms is born by those already facing disadvantage, serving to widen existing health inequalities. This report is welcome as it highlights the wide range of harms caused by gambling, and calls for concerted action to tackle this major public health problem. This urgent call is especially timely as we have seen these problems exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. UK Health Security Agency press office Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR phe-pressoffice@phe.gov.uk Telephone 020 7654 8400 Out of hours 020 8200 4400 Share this page Sharing will open the page in a new tab Share onFacebook(opens in new tab) Share onTwitter(opens in new tab) |
|
By:
Truehoncho beat me to it.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
The cost of lung cancer at £2.4bn each year is far higher than that for any other cancer. This highlights the continuing need to tackle smoking, which causes more than eight in 10 lung cancers in the UK. --- Where's the switch, admittedly smoking costs the UK nearly twice as much but you could argue the same case. I don't think you would get far.
|
|
By:
Well New Zealand already banned smoking, labour hinted last week they would do same if they won the election- where would it stop?
|
|
By:
It won't stop, but gambling is a long way from there Movewiththetimes. The proposed legislation is facile. It won't stop hardly anyone who really want to have a bet and is the least cost to punters today. Tbf if you can't work your way around the new rules you're probably not bright enough to have a bet.
|