Affordability check trigger

Dave, the funny thing is that I agree with you completely!

But the FOBTs issue was the area where our enemies chose to fight their battle. If we'd kept fighting them there, we wouldn't have had them now parking their tanks on our front lawn.

If any Bookmaker froze the money in my account I would inform them I would be going to Obas and if that didnt work, the small claims court.

Ibas even

Smarkets closed my account too, soon be nobody left to contribute to the sport we love. Mine was for the amount of bets, and crucially time spent involved in daily betting. ( I'm a very small punter btw)

If you do deposit £500- £1000 be prepared for deposits to be blocked soon after.

If you are asked for personal information and you don't think it's warranted you could always escalate a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office.

I made a deposit of £4,000 in March last year, and didn't have any problems. My experience is that if you do deposit, do it once and do it big.

If everyone did it might be more effective that writing to your MP

Feb 6, 2023 -- 1:45PM, screaming from beneaththewaves wrote:

I made a deposit of £4,000 in March last year, and didn't have any problems. My experience is that if you do deposit, do it once and do it big.

Must agree with this. Thank You. My experience with the questions I was asked by Smarkets over the phone was in regard to responsible gambling-not affordability IMO...

I think people can get confused about Responsible gambling and Affordability-- They are completely different. The guy who spoke to me said I quote" I'm concerned you're having too many bets" I do have 2 or 3 horses running for me in a race, I'm aware the odds are shorter, but that's how I bet on horse racing. So obviously the amount of bets adds up over the month from a regular punter.
Also, the amount of hours I was engaged with the platform they took into account ( probably and algorithm they developed) very sad!

Remember horse races are every day, so it can take a lot of your time up, But I love the sport so watch daily:)

Smarkets closed my account too. Then made me jump through hoops before they would give my money back. Took over 2 months and over 25 emails. It seems wrong they can decide they dont want to do business with you but wont just send the money that has been won.

ceo email copied to the gambling commission should have an effect I would guess.

That was my next stance if they held off any longer

Effectively the same way it would be to open a bank account

From the piece above....
You dont need to provide details about salary etc to open a bank account, they do those checks behind the scenes based on credit worthiness.
Perhaps thats all they should be doing.

...even that is a liberty since you arnt asking for credit

He's won a few quid and they don't want his business, it's nothing to do with affordability it's a ruse that has been handed to them on a plate that allows them to clear out who they don't want all under the guise of welfare.

If the white paper business ended tomorrow absolutely nothing would change, the books would still carry on restricting who they wanted.

They have been limiting people to pennies for years anyway....way before all this nonsense, they weren't moaning about their profits then were they?

I keep saying, show us the % of casino players vs the % of sportsbook players restricted.

They talk about welfare and in the same breath we are still swamped with casino adverts all over the media.

It's utter bollox...affordability, do me a favour

I know I hadn't deposited for 18 months, and wasnt trying to obviously as they had closed my account. So why were they checking my affordability? Or perhaps they were just being awkward and causing maximum stress?? I know where I would put my money (if I was allowed of course)

They closed my account in September robbo without giving a reason (was obviously for winning), there was £15k in there, and it only took the one email to get paid which they did swiftly. 

The following might apply for some people

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/how-to-make-a-data-protection-complaint/

Wow Clydebank you were lucky I think. Mine was more than that but I had to send 9 months of my bank statements as well as other stuff. Admittedly I was loathe to send it all but it was a big sum of money to me.

If I was you I'd request they delete all your personal info under GDPR rules, especially since they have your bank statements now. They have to keep hold of 5/6 years of info under financial regulations (depending which bookie is right). I did.  Might be worth asking them to justify why they asked for the information.  If you are not satisfied by their response escalate it to the Information Commission.  Tell them that in the email of course.

What does concern me a little is what happens to my personal info. should they cease trading.  I was concerned they would sell personal info held including mine in those circumstances.  I asked them but they didn't respond.  Perhaps I'll ask them again and threaten to escalate it if they don't respond.

Posted this on another post little while ago but I think it needs repeating:


Is there actually going to be a final enactment of these proper legislations for gambling and 'affordability'?

What a joke term affordability in the current climate when most people can't afford to do most things, let alone gamble!

It's all been done casually, randomly and poorly so far without actual legal guidelines. So when are any actual legal guidelines going to be agreed on?

The Minister has (several times) confirmed it will be light-touch and frictionless - he has also confirmed that "affordability checks" is completely the wrong descriptor! So the only people still rumbling on about "Draconian" and "intrusive" are the Racing Post and the only people choosing to do anything Draconian or intrusive are the bookmakers themselves!  - It's almost like they have an ulterior motive!

Obviously they claim that it's because they are worried about getting huge fines from the pesky overbearing regulator - but if you look at what they have actually been getting fined for, that's a load of bollix.

The answer to your question stu, is (still) a couple of weeks - but they have been saying that for months - while they all play musical chairs in Westminster.

Even after they publish the white paper (if they ever do), there will be a "period of consultation" and I have never seen a definition of how that is proposed to be.

Cheers for the info TM.

Feb 6, 2023 -- 6:16PM, CLYDEBANK29 wrote:

What does concern me a little is what happens to my personal info. should they cease trading.

I know a little about this subject, as I've studied and worked in this environment.  1:   If they do cease trading and didn't secure their servers (It's not really possible 100%)

ALL companies will be hacked and data harvested it's only a matter of time, if they haven't already. (many do not disclose because of the negative impact, particularly small bookmakers with low budgets)

2: Your personal data is sold to data brokers

Feb 6, 2023 -- 6:59PM, The Management wrote:

The Minister has (several times) confirmed it will be light-touch and frictionless - he has also confirmed that "affordability checks" is completely the wrong descriptor! So the only people still rumbling on about "Draconian" and "intrusive" are the Racing Post and the only people choosing to do anything Draconian or intrusive are the bookmakers themselves!

The management I have a theory about all this racing post black market, affordability nonsense ... I think the bookmakers are getting hit by affordability to online slot players mostly. (Their guaranteed income) Online sites love unpredictability, Horse Racing is somewhat skill based IMO. Don't get me wrong, low grade racing is a lottery at times, but that's the fun of it for me!

Entain and other online sites KNOW that the gambling commission are going to be regulated/ audited strongly(like the Premier League soon) !!!!   :_), particularly with online slot/ casino players... So their "Certain" profits from slot and casino players who are addicted are going away.......

What do you think? Am I on the right path of thinking? Or not :)

All views welcomed

stu • February 6, 2023 6:47 PM GMT
Is there actually going to be a final enactment of these proper legislations for gambling and 'affordability'?

They are never going to say that people can't spend their money on a legal activity as that would breach the Human Rightd Act.

There are numerous reports of people gambling on horses being treated  like something from Kafka.

is the same occurring betting on football , tennis ,  golf .....and especially the casino type games......if so I have not heard of any cases.

sixtwosix. . .I dont think i placed a single horse bet with Smarkets and I think I was treated badly as I mention a few posts ago on this thread.

Trident - my take would be this:

Even though, (as I have said all along) the legislation was/is likely to be light-touch and frictionless (mostly due to the tax rake!) - the on-line slots/casino operators (masquerading as "bookmakers") obviously are against it. Hence all the alarmist hysteria and lies from them and their paid mouthpieces - because most of them stopped taking bets on horses a long time ago and proactively shifted their business into the much more lucrative and low-cost model of gaming.

However it's difficult for them to mobilise an army of degenerate slot & casino game addicts to object or motivate them enough to write to their MP's. So in the short-term (and the absence of any leadership or guidance) and for financial reasons, the books have deliberately targeted horse bettors. I say "deliberately" but in fairness it might just be panic stricken incompetence - but I would opt for deliberate if forced to choose.

Some of those horse bettors they have targeted are probably truly "problem gamblers" but a good number should probably never, ever have been impacted and would probably never, ever be impacted by the upcoming white paper. Either way those people are "outraged" and have been manipulated into arguing on behalf of the very "bookmakers" that have (deliberately imo) inflicted it upon them.

If I had a pound for every slot/casino player that has written to his or her MP (remember one of the beautiful things about their addictive casino/slot games is the vast new female market/audience!) I think i'd be skint. But I wouldn't mind a pound for every horse bettor they have manipulated/conned into doing it.

The bottom line is they don't want to take bets from horse bettors - gaming is much more lucrative and has a much, much bigger target audience. Sacrificing (or gambling with) horse bettors was probably a no-brainer.

Feb 7, 2023 -- 12:07PM, The Management wrote:

Trident - my take would be this:Even though, (as I have said all along) the legislation was/is likely to be light-touch and frictionless (mostly due to the tax rake!) - the on-line slots/casino operators (masquerading as "bookmakers") obviously are against it. Hence all the alarmist hysteria and lies from them and their paid mouthpieces - because most of them stopped taking bets on horses a long time ago and proactively shifted their business into the much more lucrative and low-cost model of gaming.However it's difficult for them to mobilise an army of degenerate slot & casino game addicts to object or motivate them enough to write to their MP's. So in the short-term (and the absence of any leadership or guidance) and for financial reasons, the books have deliberately targeted horse bettors. I say "deliberately" but in fairness it might just be panic stricken incompetence - but I would opt for deliberate if forced to choose. Some of those horse bettors they have targeted are probably truly "problem gamblers" but a good number should probably never, ever have been impacted and would probably never, ever be impacted by the upcoming white paper. Either way those people are "outraged" and have been manipulated into arguing on behalf of the very "bookmakers" that have (deliberately imo) inflicted it upon them. If I had a pound for every slot/casino player that has written to his or her MP (remember one of the beautiful things about their addictive casino/slot games is the vast new female market/audience!) I think i'd be skint. But I wouldn't mind a pound for every horse bettor they have manipulated/conned into doing it.The bottom line is they don't want to take bets from horse bettors - gaming is much more lucrative and has a much, much bigger target audience. Sacrificing (or gambling with) horse bettors was probably a no-brainer.

Very well articulated, thank you.

The Management new female market/audience!)  I have "Big Data" about this. It's remarkable and has a lot to do with how the female mind and brain works.

And before anyway says thats a "sexist comment" Im talking from neurological theory base.

new female market/audience! And from a social stigma point of view too, forgot to mention that.

It all fits nicely with Social Media etc - If I had a pound for every female "problem gambler" on the horses, I would be skint. If I had a pound for every degenerate female casino/slots addict they have groomed via bingo etc - I'd have a yot!

Whilst you may be correct, TM, anyone who has lived through the last three years, which included going from "two weeks to flatten the curve" to care workers being sacked for refusing a novel medical procedure, are not surprised that there are proposals for intrusive checks and to remove liberties from other aspects of life, now that the state has become emboldened by what it can get away with. So us "useful idiots" who wrote to MPs in an attempt to push back against this, I'd say it was done more out of concern of the general heavy handedness of the state, rather than us being "manipulated".

George.b can't resist piping up with his off topic bullsh1t.

Fair enough George - but my point was: That nearly all of the people that have "written"* to their MP's will in all likelihood be completely unaffected by any new legislation and the people urging you to write know this!. And perversely, I doubt that any of the people that will actually be affected have written at all. In that sense, the letter writers have been conned/manipulated.

* written: When I say written, Most people will have used a template that was composed by a "bookmaker" or somebody that has a vested interest in saving slots/casinos.

dave1357, run that one past me again, why are we seeing thousands of excess deaths?

Oh and btw, I've opened a market on who got the thread removed two nights back, I've put you in at 1.01.

Was it the d-dimer post that did it?

TM, I don't know if you have read what Geoff Banks has had to say about the issue on twitter, but apparently he no longer has a "casino" on his website, and he's been asking why the big bookies haven't pushed back against the checks, perhaps through a legal challenge, for example, but maybe your theory would explain it.

Asked my local Fred shop manager about AFCs told if customiser bets £500 A Day they have have a quiet word if £3k a week its the
Full Monty. How does that stack up to the on-line checks.

Has anybody who lost large amounts of Money that they clearly  could not Afford ,ever been refunded the losses ?  Been loads of cases  of massive unchecked losses, 

in fact Encouraged by the Firm Losses ... The answer I believe is no ..

George - pretty much all of the evidence points to my theory being correct.

The horse racing industry and certainly betting on racing are (sadly imo) dying (much of it is self inflicted), I think it will all but die with our generation (quite literally as we die!). The future as far as the "bookmakers" are concerned is gaming. It's low cost, high margin, available 24/7, available absolutely everywhere and most crucially available to everybody (not just older men) - It's highly addictive, yet it;s attractive to women. The development of the technology means absolutely everybody is a potential "player".

It's massive and it poses a huge threat to traditional "gambling" and definetely to horse racing.

In a nutshell - (if the animal rights people don't get there first) the "bookmakers" via gaming (and the mortality of people of a certain age) will kill horse racing.

It's already at the stage where "bookmakers" only tolerate it because they can exploit it as a gateway.

GEORGE.B • February 7, 2023 12:41 PM GMT
dave1357, run that one past me again, why are we seeing thousands of excess deaths

I've already answered that, the last time you asked.

And if that was the thread about the chap dying, why would I get it removed? I was at the racecourse and commented due to that.

in all probability betfair thought your lies were in bad taste.

Well can you answer it again please because someone got the thread removed.

I was basing it on your past history of getting my posts removed, the ones that had been directed at *YOU*.

You know the ones, where I exposed you as Dave the Labeller, and pointed out that you were the forum's number one narrative cucumber sucker.

Many at Westminster want horse racing gone ....if they cant stop the racing taking place ....stopping the gambling that keeps the sport afloat will do the job nicely......

Feb 7, 2023 -- 12:07PM, The Management wrote:

Trident - my take would be this:Even though, (as I have said all along) the legislation was/is likely to be light-touch and frictionless (mostly due to the tax rake!) - the on-line slots/casino operators (masquerading as "bookmakers") obviously are against it. Hence all the alarmist hysteria and lies from them and their paid mouthpieces - because most of them stopped taking bets on horses a long time ago and proactively shifted their business into the much more lucrative and low-cost model of gaming.However it's difficult for them to mobilise an army of degenerate slot & casino game addicts to object or motivate them enough to write to their MP's. So in the short-term (and the absence of any leadership or guidance) and for financial reasons, the books have deliberately targeted horse bettors. I say "deliberately" but in fairness it might just be panic stricken incompetence - but I would opt for deliberate if forced to choose. Some of those horse bettors they have targeted are probably truly "problem gamblers" but a good number should probably never, ever have been impacted and would probably never, ever be impacted by the upcoming white paper. Either way those people are "outraged" and have been manipulated into arguing on behalf of the very "bookmakers" that have (deliberately imo) inflicted it upon them. If I had a pound for every slot/casino player that has written to his or her MP (remember one of the beautiful things about their addictive casino/slot games is the vast new female market/audience!) I think i'd be skint. But I wouldn't mind a pound for every horse bettor they have manipulated/conned into doing it.The bottom line is they don't want to take bets from horse bettors - gaming is much more lucrative and has a much, much bigger target audience. Sacrificing (or gambling with) horse bettors was probably a no-brainer.

interesting and plausible

GEORGE.B • February 7, 2023 1:16 PM GMT
Well can you answer it again please

90% of excess deaths are people over age 60, who are likely not getting or not seeking timely health care.

total deaths uk 6th to 20th january: 48168, 60 or over 44015. Old people die in the winter and this increases when they don't get the right treatment.

'Likely' is a bit tenuous dave. Last year they tried saying people hadn't been getting statins and heart drugs during the lockdown years. Official numbers are out now and statin prescriptions actually increased during that time.

I'm going to report that post George.B if that's what you want?  why don't you toddle back to your fantasy betting thread, where there is no chance whatsoever that you would be able to get those bets on.

Off topic

10% cancer cases are under 50, and they prolly have better survival rates.  Cancer is more common in women up to the age of 55.  Cancer is more common in men over 55

80% of heart disease deaths are people over 65.  Keep moving and eat well

90% of excess deaths over 60.  Sounds reasonable

Don't report it dave1357, I want everyone to see it, though obviously you have the right to reply.

As for my "fantasy betting threads", as my regular reader will testify, at the end of each thread I do publish a table of results which includes the P/L at Betfair SP after commission.

For example, last season's thread was +180 at the "fantasy" prices, +94 at BSP after commission.

The current one is +13 and -7.

Average age of covid death was 82 and we made great effort to save them. Now excess deaths of over 60s is accepted as reasonable, it's a funny old world.

George and dave - both forum contributors that I enjoy reading - when the topic is betting, racing, horses, etc.

You are obviously fine at picking horses, but there is no chance you would get bog and in all probability would be restricted to pennies on extra place races.

saddo who says it's reasonable?

saddo, here's the thing, in 2020 their own commissioned report told them that their lockdown policies would cost lives.

So at "best", *THEY* decided to play God, and sacrifice the lives of younger people in order to save the lives of "vulnerable" people. That's the best spin one could put on it.

And yet despite being in full knowledge of what would be the costs of their lockdown policies in 2020, they still went ahead and had another one.

And all the while, while they themselves, by their very actions eg car rides to test eyesight, parties, affairs, etc...told us that they had no fear of covid 19.

So what was really going on?

The threat of mandated jabs.
Care workers sacked.
Drs / nurses threatened with the sack.
This novel medical procedure forced upon children after they'd said it wouldn't be.
etc

I've always thought it was a giant cluster f*ck George. Blind panic took charge and not conspiracy, common sense was suspended for two years. I still believe that is probably true.

Feb 7, 2023 -- 1:40PM, saddo wrote:

Average age of covid death was 82 and we made great effort to save them. Now excess deaths of over 60s is accepted as reasonable, it's a funny old world.

I implied the statistic is reasonably what you might expect.

There is a big difference between 90% and average.

And fwiw I have always been of the belief that far more life will be lost because of the economic cost of lockdowns in the long term than those die directly from COVID

but that's not to say I believe in any of the conspiracy and vaccine nonsense that does the rounds.  Vaccines will have saved loads of lives both directly and indirectly.  It's locking down that I disagreed with.

Feb 7, 2023 -- 12:56PM, The Management wrote:

George - pretty much all of the evidence points to my theory being correct.The horse racing industry and certainly betting on racing are (sadly imo) dying (much of it is self inflicted), I think it will all but die with our generation (quite literally as we die!). The future as far as the "bookmakers" are concerned is gaming. It's low cost, high margin, available 24/7, available absolutely everywhere and most crucially available to everybody (not just older men) - It's highly addictive, yet it;s attractive to women. The development of the technology means absolutely everybody is a potential "player".It's massive and it poses a huge threat to traditional "gambling" and definetely to horse racing.

Betting on racing in the UK is under pressure in the UK for three reasons:

1. The accuracy of the Betfair market meaning bookmakers can see who is beating BFSP at the click of button and ban them. Bookies also cannot take a view.
2. Those that run racing treat punters like dirt providing no weights, sectional timings or even accurate going readings.
3. The lax attitude of government to allowing street and online casino bets giving bookmakers easy profits so they can use racing as a lost leader with crazy offers like BOG and extra places.

Affordability checks are a red herring to the decline.

Other parts of the world where Betfair is weak (Australia) and does not exist (Hong Kong) racing on horse racing betting is at record levels. You can get a bet on in these countries and the information provided by the authorities is far better. There is also limited betting on casino games (none online?) and in the case of Australia the bookies have to take a decent bet.

I see that Paul Scully has moved on! - So probably even more delays to the white paper.

Not seen anything yet on who takes over the "gambling brief" from him - but whoever it is will be the 6th person to do so since the gambling review was announced. And people wonder why the govt can't get anything done!

I found out today their all Multiple reasons for the Affordability check trigger. But after a lot of work, I found out the main reason. It's a "Credit Check" I just wanted to let the forum know.

that's interesting - quite a lot of older people don't borrow so their credit score declines. It is well worth using a credit card for shopping and online purchases, paying off the whole balance each month by direct debit.

I check my Credit Report occasionally and I have never seen a search by any gambling company (I onlu use exchanges)

there is some sort of soft check that doesn't show up, I think.

quite a lot of older people don't borrow so their credit score declines Bingo!

Soft inquiries do not affect credit scores and are not visible to potential lenders that may review your credit reports. They are visible to you and will stay on your credit reports for 12 to 24 months, depending on the type. The other type of inquiry is a “hard” inquiry.

So you should actually be able to see them Brian, but others don't.

I will share something with the forum, Poker related: 888 UK Limited ( Cosmos, Cval, R) Date 27Dec 2022 Reason For Credit Check Gambling Affordability Assessment

Just to clarify ^ Above was on my credit file.

Would deserve a lol if it was indeed the case that not having / using a credit card or other loans would be used as evidence that a punter is betting more than they can afford

So if you're laden with debt but pay it off regular then everything is ok. Beware of not borrowing money it seems.

Little chance of the jobless propunter obtaining a credit card.

sparrow...Yes, sadly in the mad, modern world, you are correct.

I am 63 and am financially secure and wealthy by the standards of most, but still take out loans (interest free) from time to time so as to retain my 999 out of 1000 credit rating.

When I was young, if you had loans it counted against you. But now it is the opposite.

I keep on and on and on about this, but until us older brigade come to realise that things are now run by the young FOR the young, using the standards (often low) OF the young, the madness will continue.

The young just don't realise that many older people have large sums behind them but keep their income low so as to avoid higher rate tax. Hence the affordability checks are geared towards income and credit ratings.

God knows how many older customers with money the bookies are losing because of their stupidity and fear of the gambling commission.

It does have some unusual side effects using this metric, but it’s not a bad one.
To measure how reliable a person is and how competent with money they are it works quite well, but not perfect.

As Dave suggests, a credit card paid off in full is advisable (quite honestly I don’t know why people don’t have this setup already, buy everything through the CC and get extra protection on fraud and even make a bit of cash back , though this isn’t great these days still adds up)

It’s tru you can even have too good a score, MoneyBox on radio 4 have covered it several times where banks and card providers don’t want customers who they make so little from.
But I can’t see gambling turning their noses up at having too good a score.

For those of you (dusty) that are still too blinded by their political beliefs, to see that the current panic stricken ("intrusive and Draconian") mess has been inflicted pretty much single handedly by bookmakers:

Meanwhile, Gambling Commission chief executive Andrew Rhodes has claimed there has been a "significant amount of misinformation" about the regulator's position on affordability checks.

In a speech at the World Regulatory Briefing at the Ice gambling industry show in London he claimed the commission had not imposed affordability checks or set limits on what bettors should be allowed to spend.

He added: "What we have done is make it clear we do expect operators to consider a range of factors when assessing the risk for a consumer, including the financial situation for a consumer.

"It is for operators to set limits themselves based on their customer types, business and risks."

What we have done is make it clear we do expect operators to consider a range of factors when assessing the risk for a consumer, including the financial situation for a consumer.

And what do they expect companies to do as a result of this expectation? Obviously ask for the information that they need to assess the financial situation.

Dave - All the indications (from Scully) etc are that the mechanisms already exist to assess an individuals financial situation in a non-intrusive (frictionless) way.

The only people suggesting an across the board £100/month limit were the hard-line anti-mob - any yet despite all the outrage and the push back that is what all the bookmakers seem to have chosen to voluntarily adopt!

The £100 figure first appeared in the GC consultation.

This is the GC's guidance:

Affordability and a customer’s personal circumstances



2.8 Historically, gambling operators have not systematically considered customer affordability when developing their customer interaction policies. Many have used deposit or loss thresholds as a main or sole prompt for a customer interaction, but these have often been set at levels that were inappropriately high, in comparison to the average amount of money that the majority of people have available to spend on leisure activities. This has led to a number of examples of customers spending more than they could afford, and this not being identified sufficiently early, as seen in much of the Commission’s compliance and enforcement casework since 2017.



2.9 Operators should aim to identify those experiencing or at risk of harm and intervene to try to reduce harm at the earliest opportunity. Reliance on deposit or loss thresholds that are set too high will result in failing to detect some customers who may be experiencing significant harms associated with their gambling. It is therefore imperative that threshold levels are set appropriately.



2.10 Open-source data exists which can help operators assess affordability for their GB customer base and improve their risk assessment for customer interactions. Thresholds should be realistic, based on average available income for your customers. This should include the Office of National Statistics publications on levels of household income.



2.11 In considering these thresholds, you should be aware of the difference between ‘disposable income’ and ‘discretionary income’ which refers to the amount left after living costs are taken into account, but it does still include many other unavoidable costs. Most people would consider it harmful if they were spending a significant amount of their discretionary income on gambling.

It did. But it was the bookmakers and especially the Racing Post that seized upon it as though it was gospel!

In light of everything that has ever been said by the minister and/or the GC, any bookmaker that is restricting customers to £100/month and/or demanding documents (in an "intrusive and Draconian" manner) is doing so completely of their own volition.

Trident - I will share something with the forum, Poker related: 888 UK Limited ( Cosmos, Cval, R) Date 27Dec 2022 Reason For Credit Check Gambling Affordability Assessment

I suspect different gambling companies (i refuse to call them by their traditional name) will have different procedures. Personally, I would have no problem with them checking my credit status as that seems a sensible non-intrusive step.

I'm not wasting my time with you, when you are wrong you won't admit it.

It is absolutely clear that bookies are acting on what they consider to be the GC's guidance. And Andrew Rhodes is being extremely misleading.

I'm no fan of anybody at the GC dave - but I think all parties have done more than their fair share in terms of being deliberately misleading!

TM is a fooking danger to all on this place, he's so full of his anti bookie vendetta that absolutely everyone who adds anything counter to his vindictive BS he says are wrong, yet flaps around when shown himself to be wrong.

This from the man who openly admits he thinks AC checks are good, that he doesnt care if theres a significant material impact on people caught in the middle and will absolutely never admit individuals need to be self responsibile and/or seek out the help available and tell bookies to stop sending them info or even stop them betting as they are a danger to themselves....and inadvertently anyone else.

This obviously won't happen and I certainly don't want it to happen - but what would be f'kin hilarious and extremely ironic, in light of all the previous delays and in all likelihood more delays to come; Minister Number six (or maybe number seven by then) arrives on the scene and decides this current system that the bookmakers have completely voluntarily chosen to adopt has worked jolly well! - Lets make that the foundation of the new legislation - £100 monthly deposit limit across the board for every customer, no exceptions unless providing, P60, Wage slips, Bank statements, Mother-In-Laws vital statistics, etc!

All that propaganda, deliberate deception, deliberate inconvenience, deliberate abuse of their customers, etc - and then they get hoisted by their own petard!

Poor old dusty - doesn't understand the topic - but still needs to let off some daily steam before it explodes him.

Thats TM in a nutshell

If it were to go badly then he shrugs his shoulders and disappears, having been the gobsheit that said everyone else involved in the industry were tilting at windmills and concerned over imaginary threats.

WAC

Dave has the right idea...just to ignore you, insignificant worm.

My credit rating is P**s Poor!. Question to the forum: How does this in any way relate to what I consider to be an amount per month I can afford to gamble with as a responsible adult? I've always had in place deposit limits and loss limits per month...

Thoughts welcomed

Dave and I might not see eye to eye on everything dusty - but at least he understands and has some knowledge of the topic. You just want to blame "the commies" regardless of the subject.

Ive shown you countless ways why your theory is horse5hit and why all the origins of this attack on gambling has this newage illiberal leftie ideology behind it thats extremely ill thought through, not that either you or them give a 5hit about that, always suggesting everyone is a bookie mole when all we want is to be allowed to make our own choices.

Like I said you are a danger to people wanting to gamble given the fact you think people do need inconveniencing to pander to minorities unilaterally.

More ideology and anger, a bit of name calling and a lot of false quotes attributed to me.

But have you got any actual input? - apart from burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away?

It's happening now! - and all you have to offer is that "it shouldn't be" because it's out of whack with your political/ideological beliefs!

Ive spent far more time than most bother with your waffle TM, thats why I get angry at your floppy arguments.
You are the one who wants to shout down anyone who provides data on the subject in this method of denying how badly this focus on gambling can be....the result of anti gambling lobbyests who used slots to create a narrative and then lumped all gambling in with it.

Now do FO because Ive have more interesting piles than you.

The Management09 Feb 23 13:39Joined: 27 Dec 00 | Topic/replies: 8,626 | Blogger: The Management's blog
More ideology and anger, a bit of name calling and a lot of false quotes attributed to me.

That is all you have got then.