He also sponks cash regularly on scratch cards

he could prolly spunk £56k on crypto very easily without any checks

The entire concept of ACs are flawed anyway, even if they were well intended and applied appropriately. Just like an MOT, you can pass a test today and drive over a nail tomorrow. An individual can pass an income test today and be made redundant tomorrow. Which is actually the type of life changing event that could push someone into changing their gambling habits, detrimentally.

The people who are leveraging them are not stupid. They are only intended to provide the industry with cover (imho), and exert ever more state control.

Are the gambling commission transparent?

^ 2007*

I'm willing to forgive them for being utterly hopeless between 2004-2007

2007 onwards is less forgivable.

The biggest objection to all of this crap is surely telling poor/low income what they can do with their money, who the fck do they think that are. What next?? affordibilty checks at pub doors??

the WHO FWIW claims ....

Key facts
The harmful use of alcohol is a causal factor in more than 200 disease and injury conditions.
Worldwide, 3 million deaths every year result from harmful use of alcohol. This represents 5.3% of all deaths.
Overall, 5.1% of the global burden of disease and injury is attributable to alcohol, as measured in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).
Beyond health consequences, the harmful use of alcohol brings significant social and economic losses to individuals and society at large.
Alcohol consumption causes death and disability relatively early in life. In people aged 20–39 years, approximately 13.5% of total deaths are attributable to alcohol.
There is a causal relationship between harmful use of alcohol and a range of mental and behavioural disorders, other noncommunicable conditions and injuries.

And as I have said from the outset, the calamity of you being wrong is far more significant to those who want to bet than you being right.

There are no losses to contesting the possibility of it going badly if you are right, but significant ones for doing nothing.

Bookies won’t ever be held accountable for not being the entity people want, and those who do want to hold them to account for the unskilled product offerings don’t want to focus on only that, they want to lump all gambling in….most recently evidenced by the embarrassment of the GC bloke having to answer for the past declaration of facts pertaining most dangerous gambling activities.

1. If somebody twice my size came to burgle me then what? The police, it’s that what you are implying?
The deed would be long done by then and there’s absolutely no confidence a decent outcome would result.

2. Your logic continually falls apart. I say if the GC couldn’t do a job before, then why are you expecting them to be able to live up to ever more responsibility? Responsibility that would include such a contrivance that is now years overdue due to its complexity. It’s complex because those tasked with designing the new rules know the danger of getting it wrong, which they will very likely do because anything shaped around the protection of those who don’t want protecting results in ugly law.

3. What I actually said was if bookies pushed the boundaries and broke existing law, then the law was fine, just the regulator was useless, so make the regulator uphold existing law.

I'm saying laws, rules, regulations, policing (phrase it how you like) they are (also like tax - unfortunately) the price you pay for living in a civilised society.

You don't believe in that, you want to leave everything to "the markets", survival of the fittest. I'm just pointing out that the people with that ideology are usually the first to squeal - when it doesn't go their way! - like the bookmakers are doing now.

If you can't accept that the online bookmakers are largely responsible for self-inflicting the current situation, you are blind. You are basically arguing that we should accept mugging/burglary as a fact of life because the police are totally incompetent. I suppose in all fairness we are approaching that point - but it doesn't make it an acceptable argument.

We have already established those arrogant enough to not heed the warnings nor seek out the help will avoid any attempt at regulation of themselves.

So do stfu and rest your tiresome gob

I have never introduced any analogies - all the talk/comparisons/analogies with tobacco, alcohol, etc, etc, come from the smoke and mirrors brigade - trying to divert attention away from the problem and focus it instead on their politics.

Laws change every day. The 2005 act is nearly 20 years old (and almost certainly will be by the time it is updated/replaced). How many people (including women and children) were walking around with a computer in their pocket no matter the time of day, the day of week, their location, their age, their gender, etc in 2004 iyo.

Dave digits will no doubt correct me but iirc my children didn't have a smart phone in 2004 when the act was being consulted. I think my phone might have had that snake game on it and I could order a new one on expenses whenever I liked!

You can argue the existing act just needs enforcing (which in reality you wouldn't like either) - but the actual reality is, that it also needs updating. Laws change and while they will probably always be a fair way behind technical innovation, that doesn't mean you don't even bother trying to keep up.

You are only capable of thinking/talking in extremities.

Do I think some retired fella should be restricted to depositing £100/month? - Of course I don't (the only people doing that are the bookmakers) - both the GC and the Govt have also said as much.

Do I think an online bookmaker should ask a few questions if somebody earning £2k/month deposits £750k in a 20 month period - I think they should (but 32red didn't think so).

Just a couple of extremities for you to enjoy in return - but remember, whatever you do, never, ever consider a sensible compromise!

Apparently you know best remember, non of these difficulties will exist because you have stated everything will be fine (and anyone in the business are bookie stooges)

Online Bookie= required (as what else will provide a product?)
GC= laughable
Govt= Chance of redemption

All gamblers (Adults so treated as Adults in this free land)

Ive asked you twice about how youd address the problems of regulation and youve refused to even try.

Racing started now, so you as a time waster becomes even more expensive and tedious than before.

But that doesnt answer how you'd address the problem of stopping people betting who are then targetted by outside operators (whether problematic gamblers or totally innocent)

Either regulation does something, or it doesnt. If it does anything, that thing will be to stop people gamble who want to gamble.
So if regulation stops people gambling with licensed operators who fund treatment....then how will you stop them gambling with online providers who arnt regulated?

Its not an unreasonable question, and it doesnt matter how youd have preffered to have done things in the past, its about the future.

Let's hope they don't do that!

I would have to completely flip positions and (like you) just argue for my own best interests - no matter how ridiculous!

These on-line "bookmakers" that you keep defending - can you point me in the direction of one that takes a bet iyo?

Put your money in the market and stop bleeting.

And there it is - you don't give a monkeys about other bettors, bookmakers, problem gamblers, horseracing, jobs, etc, etc, etc.

You just want your status quo - and without mugs/losers getting involved beyond their means - yet another little cut gets inflicted on Betfairs' (largely self inflicted) death by 1000 cuts.

Before Gordon Brown abolished ''betting tax'' professional gamblers were getting on no tax !

Pro's work on between 3-10% on turnover, so 6-10% betting tax, a no brainer !

Trust me, organised crime will fill the void !

It seems to me that ''The Big 6'' High street bookmakers see horse racing as an irritant/necessary evil !