Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Racing Post
Opinion - Tom Kerr
Out-of-control Gambling Commission is either clueless or treating us with contempt
Last weekend, the Gambling Commission chief executive made a claim in these pages that was greeted with incredulity and amazement by those familiar with the organisation's work:
He claimed it was "nonsense" to say the intrusive affordability checks blighting punters and doing serious damage to racing's revenues were the work of the betting regulator.
Andrew Rhodes's rationale for making that claim was that the regulator has not explicitly mandated that bookmakers should demand pay slips, bank statements and tax returns from their customers.
But, he conceded, the Gambling Commission had made it clear to bookmakers they must have "proportionate thresholds" for betting activity above which firms are expected to consider customers' financial circumstances and their ability to 'afford' their betting.
Failure to do so could result in huge fines for bookmakers, or even the loss of their licence.
How firms satisfy this regulatory requirement, Rhodes stated, was up to them. But how else are bookmakers supposed to consider their customers' individual financial circumstances, except by asking bettors for pay slips, bank statements and tax returns?
The situation is compounded because the Gambling Commission refuses to define what those "proportionate thresholds" ought to look like, preferring instead some ambiguous waffle about "average available income" and the distinction between "disposable" and "discretionary" income.
Bookmakers, caught between the rock and a hard place of swingeing punishments and impossibly vague guidelines, have understandably applied the precautionary principle, meaning tens of thousands of ordinary, responsible punters have already been caught up in affordability checks.
It is akin to the German police declaring that anyone found driving "too fast" on the autobahn will be hit by massive fines and possibly lose their licence, refusing to clarify what "too fast" means, and then, when the network slows to a crawl because the roads are full of nervous Teutonic motorists tootling along at 20mph, saying, 'Well, we haven't imposed any speed limits, so it's nothing to do with us'.
If the Gambling Commission genuinely does not think affordability checks are the product of its own regulation, then it is oblivious to the obvious consequences of its guidelines[/b
If – as seems more likely – it is claiming innocence on affordability checks because it recognises how controversial they are and wishes to avoid scrutiny, then it is [b]treating bettors with contempt and misleading both consumers and the political masters to whom it supposedly answers.
According to a Racing TV survey released last week, more than a fifth of racing bettors have already been asked to supply personal documents such as payslips and bank statements, and the fear now is next month's Cheltenham Festival will prove a seismic moment in this saga for all the wrong reasons. Many punters whose betting activity the rest of the year is under the bookmakers' current "proportionate thresholds" are liable to be hit with demands for financial documents, simply because for one week of the year they significantly increase their betting budget.
While at most bookmakers these thresholds remain opaque, we know that at 888, owner of William Hill, the affordability check bar has been set at £500
This is a sum many recreational punters would regard as a conservative bank for the festival, yet, at some bookies, it will be enough to generate freezes on activity until sensitive financial documents are provided.
The madness of that figure is highlighted by the fact merely attending the festival would be deemed potentially 'unaffordable' on the same basis
At the time of writing, a three-star hotel room in town on the opening night of Cheltenham will set you back more than £400. A Tattersalls ticket for the Tuesday is £72. Throw in food, drinks and transport, and you're looking at close to £600 for the da. Is the Premier Inn going to start demanding bank statements at check-in?
It is absurd and offensive that people attempting to deposit a few hundred quid with a bookmaker next month are going to be treated as though they are incapable of making the most trivial of financial transactions without the nannying oversight of a bookmaker's compliance operator, but be under no illusions: this is a situation inevitably created by the Gambling Commission's overweening and ill-conceived regulation.
The commission's refusal to even admit it is the architect of affordability checks indicates the seriousness of the situation facing racing and bettors
The only real form of recourse, and the only hope that the out-of-control regulator can be stopped before catastrophic damage is done to racing, is for the government to step in.
Yet the prospect of that happening, which seemed relatively positive just a few weeks ago when the gambling minister Paul Scully declared it was not the regulator's job to determine what people can afford to spend on gambling, has now receded.
Scully has been reshuffled, having been in the job for less than four months. His successor - who more than a week later has still not been appointed - will be the sixth minister since the gambling review, which we hope will provide clarity about what is and isn't expected from bookmakers, was announced in 2020.
Clearly, gambling reform is not near the top of prime minister Rishi Sunak's priority list. But if the political class does not care much whether your rights are curtailed by a regulator, or that the collateral damage is a centuries-old sport loved by millions and a successful rural industry, what politicians undoubtedly do care about is votes.
Thankfully, Racecourse Media Group, the racecourse-owned parent company of Racing TV, has just launched a letter-writing campaign that enables bettors to quickly and easily alert their local MP to their concerns about affordability checks and the Gambling Commission's behaviour. You can sign the letter by following this link. If you care about your rights, or the future of racing, I urge you to do so before it is too late.
Opinion - Tom Kerr
Out-of-control Gambling Commission is either clueless or treating us with contempt
Last weekend, the Gambling Commission chief executive made a claim in these pages that was greeted with incredulity and amazement by those familiar with the organisation's work:
He claimed it was "nonsense" to say the intrusive affordability checks blighting punters and doing serious damage to racing's revenues were the work of the betting regulator.
Andrew Rhodes's rationale for making that claim was that the regulator has not explicitly mandated that bookmakers should demand pay slips, bank statements and tax returns from their customers.
But, he conceded, the Gambling Commission had made it clear to bookmakers they must have "proportionate thresholds" for betting activity above which firms are expected to consider customers' financial circumstances and their ability to 'afford' their betting.
Failure to do so could result in huge fines for bookmakers, or even the loss of their licence.
How firms satisfy this regulatory requirement, Rhodes stated, was up to them. But how else are bookmakers supposed to consider their customers' individual financial circumstances, except by asking bettors for pay slips, bank statements and tax returns?
The situation is compounded because the Gambling Commission refuses to define what those "proportionate thresholds" ought to look like, preferring instead some ambiguous waffle about "average available income" and the distinction between "disposable" and "discretionary" income.
Bookmakers, caught between the rock and a hard place of swingeing punishments and impossibly vague guidelines, have understandably applied the precautionary principle, meaning tens of thousands of ordinary, responsible punters have already been caught up in affordability checks.
It is akin to the German police declaring that anyone found driving "too fast" on the autobahn will be hit by massive fines and possibly lose their licence, refusing to clarify what "too fast" means, and then, when the network slows to a crawl because the roads are full of nervous Teutonic motorists tootling along at 20mph, saying, 'Well, we haven't imposed any speed limits, so it's nothing to do with us'.
If the Gambling Commission genuinely does not think affordability checks are the product of its own regulation, then it is oblivious to the obvious consequences of its guidelines[/b
If – as seems more likely – it is claiming innocence on affordability checks because it recognises how controversial they are and wishes to avoid scrutiny, then it is [b]treating bettors with contempt and misleading both consumers and the political masters to whom it supposedly answers.
According to a Racing TV survey released last week, more than a fifth of racing bettors have already been asked to supply personal documents such as payslips and bank statements, and the fear now is next month's Cheltenham Festival will prove a seismic moment in this saga for all the wrong reasons. Many punters whose betting activity the rest of the year is under the bookmakers' current "proportionate thresholds" are liable to be hit with demands for financial documents, simply because for one week of the year they significantly increase their betting budget.
While at most bookmakers these thresholds remain opaque, we know that at 888, owner of William Hill, the affordability check bar has been set at £500
This is a sum many recreational punters would regard as a conservative bank for the festival, yet, at some bookies, it will be enough to generate freezes on activity until sensitive financial documents are provided.
The madness of that figure is highlighted by the fact merely attending the festival would be deemed potentially 'unaffordable' on the same basis
At the time of writing, a three-star hotel room in town on the opening night of Cheltenham will set you back more than £400. A Tattersalls ticket for the Tuesday is £72. Throw in food, drinks and transport, and you're looking at close to £600 for the da. Is the Premier Inn going to start demanding bank statements at check-in?
It is absurd and offensive that people attempting to deposit a few hundred quid with a bookmaker next month are going to be treated as though they are incapable of making the most trivial of financial transactions without the nannying oversight of a bookmaker's compliance operator, but be under no illusions: this is a situation inevitably created by the Gambling Commission's overweening and ill-conceived regulation.
The commission's refusal to even admit it is the architect of affordability checks indicates the seriousness of the situation facing racing and bettors
The only real form of recourse, and the only hope that the out-of-control regulator can be stopped before catastrophic damage is done to racing, is for the government to step in.
Yet the prospect of that happening, which seemed relatively positive just a few weeks ago when the gambling minister Paul Scully declared it was not the regulator's job to determine what people can afford to spend on gambling, has now receded.
Scully has been reshuffled, having been in the job for less than four months. His successor - who more than a week later has still not been appointed - will be the sixth minister since the gambling review, which we hope will provide clarity about what is and isn't expected from bookmakers, was announced in 2020.
Clearly, gambling reform is not near the top of prime minister Rishi Sunak's priority list. But if the political class does not care much whether your rights are curtailed by a regulator, or that the collateral damage is a centuries-old sport loved by millions and a successful rural industry, what politicians undoubtedly do care about is votes.
Thankfully, Racecourse Media Group, the racecourse-owned parent company of Racing TV, has just launched a letter-writing campaign that enables bettors to quickly and easily alert their local MP to their concerns about affordability checks and the Gambling Commission's behaviour. You can sign the letter by following this link. If you care about your rights, or the future of racing, I urge you to do so before it is too late.
Show More
Organised crime will fill the void !
People who want a ''bet'' will always be accommodated !
Woke politicians are killing racing !
A new way to fund the sport MUST Be FOUND !!
People who want a ''bet'' will always be accommodated !
Woke politicians are killing racing !
A new way to fund the sport MUST Be FOUND !!
I don't have much respect for Tom Kerr. Let me share something. There are 1000s of players out there who enjoy a bet on the horses, but then become addicted to the Slots. When the algorithm triggered the bookmaker then puts all sports into consideration.........
The Fact is : People that contribute to horse racing then go and lose on games of chance, and i mean lose a fast some of money that comes from somewhere.
The Fact is : People that contribute to horse racing then go and lose on games of chance, and i mean lose a fast some of money that comes from somewhere.
I agree with halcyon days. It's time to move from bookmakers to fund horse racing. It's Over.
Surely it is organised crime that has been filling the void since about 2004 when the regs were liberalised and the GC went AWOL - Why do you think they keep getting fined millions of pounds?
The truth is, online bookmakers and casino's are just a place to launder money. The guardian will have a big story soon.
https://youtu.be/ABj7peI_R2M
https://youtu.be/ABj7peI_R2M
Halcyon seems to know the score.
Better the devil you know, all this bookie baiting is a confluence and a misconstrued one. I do wish people would remember that the GC’s form for wanting to ride two horses at once continues, they are scared to death to hold bookies to account over how they run their business, while attempting to appear supportive of the arrogant minority with no self control.
I want to see evidence of where bookies will be forced to take bets after being more strictly regulated, this is the continually implied undertone of all those happy to criticise them.
If they didn’t want you before they won’t want you in future and the cowardly GC won’t help you.
If you think the offering of slots by regulated operators is criminal you ain’t seen nothing yet. Just wait until the government are forced into acting, then the cards are played and everyone with sinister motive will have seen their hand and then will make their move. Governments are cumbersome and continually outmanoeuvred.
Better the devil you know, all this bookie baiting is a confluence and a misconstrued one. I do wish people would remember that the GC’s form for wanting to ride two horses at once continues, they are scared to death to hold bookies to account over how they run their business, while attempting to appear supportive of the arrogant minority with no self control.
I want to see evidence of where bookies will be forced to take bets after being more strictly regulated, this is the continually implied undertone of all those happy to criticise them.
If they didn’t want you before they won’t want you in future and the cowardly GC won’t help you.
If you think the offering of slots by regulated operators is criminal you ain’t seen nothing yet. Just wait until the government are forced into acting, then the cards are played and everyone with sinister motive will have seen their hand and then will make their move. Governments are cumbersome and continually outmanoeuvred.
Enforcing bookmakers to take bets from losing accounts in order to retain their licence is for the birds. Unfortunately. They would then be tacitly admitting that people like us could gamble for a living, and by dint of that pay no income tax or NI. The establishment in this country would not, I don't believe, ever entertain that, or risk being seen to encourage or give a pass to high stakes gambling.
Quangos are a blight on society, and as all regular people have now found to their detriment, are operated to protect the suppliers of, and not recipients of goods and services. While polishing their own public profile amongst the chattering/dinner party classes.
Quangos are a blight on society, and as all regular people have now found to their detriment, are operated to protect the suppliers of, and not recipients of goods and services. While polishing their own public profile amongst the chattering/dinner party classes.
I remember the GC used to send out newsletters via email (may still do) about how they justified their own existence.
They used to have bullet points of things they were doing. I’ll always remember when they thought it was worth telling everyone how they had confiscated an unlicensed fobt machine (singular) from a Chinese takeaway on the high street in Manchester.
They are the easy ones and they think they are wins?
Having a property in this country with registered owners, where the public physically go in and there being a physical machine to confiscate. How are they going to tackle state encouraged Russian online groups flooding emails of people actively wanting to bet?
They arn’t, because they’ll argue they arn’t under their remit as they arn’t licensed
For the I’ll informed, hacking attacks are common and the defence against them are always on the back foot. The Russian state are known to be behind many of them and the liberal elite here seem to think outlawing people here won’t encourage a whole new front of external disruption.
The naivety is astounding.
They used to have bullet points of things they were doing. I’ll always remember when they thought it was worth telling everyone how they had confiscated an unlicensed fobt machine (singular) from a Chinese takeaway on the high street in Manchester.
They are the easy ones and they think they are wins?
Having a property in this country with registered owners, where the public physically go in and there being a physical machine to confiscate. How are they going to tackle state encouraged Russian online groups flooding emails of people actively wanting to bet?
They arn’t, because they’ll argue they arn’t under their remit as they arn’t licensed
For the I’ll informed, hacking attacks are common and the defence against them are always on the back foot. The Russian state are known to be behind many of them and the liberal elite here seem to think outlawing people here won’t encourage a whole new front of external disruption.
The naivety is astounding.
I'll just share my experience this week with W.H. with you all.
Unbeknown to me I had a monthly deposit limit attached to my account of a grand, it's an account I use mainly for trap challenges and occasionally rugby union, so not a key account as such.
I went over this in this month and that was because I use Hills to do placepots now as I've previously mentioned, tote plus put me on the naughty step.
So after initial dialogue of "show me this, that and t'other" I said no I'm never ever going to comply with anything like that and I asked to speak to the decision maker at Hills and he engaged very readily and was really decent actually when I had been expecting just another drone spouting the company line.
After looking at my net deposits from 2006, which was - £247.32, I wasn't aware of this btw, he said he'd get back to me later that afternoon.
Which he did and he said, wait 24 hours and refresh the limit message in the account which I did yesterday. He changed it to £5K per month for me and that was that. All very reasonable and civilised from start to finish, which was nice!
Unbeknown to me I had a monthly deposit limit attached to my account of a grand, it's an account I use mainly for trap challenges and occasionally rugby union, so not a key account as such.
I went over this in this month and that was because I use Hills to do placepots now as I've previously mentioned, tote plus put me on the naughty step.
So after initial dialogue of "show me this, that and t'other" I said no I'm never ever going to comply with anything like that and I asked to speak to the decision maker at Hills and he engaged very readily and was really decent actually when I had been expecting just another drone spouting the company line.
After looking at my net deposits from 2006, which was - £247.32, I wasn't aware of this btw, he said he'd get back to me later that afternoon.
Which he did and he said, wait 24 hours and refresh the limit message in the account which I did yesterday. He changed it to £5K per month for me and that was that. All very reasonable and civilised from start to finish, which was nice!
It can be absolutely guaranteed that there is no correlation with affordability checks enforced by the operators and problem gambling. The only reason they are being done is as a veneer to the public (and establishment) that seeks to make it look like they care. I'm not really on social media, has anyone seen any gambler complaining publicly that they have been prevented from playing bingo or slots because they have not completed an affordability check requirement?
The technology exists through machine learning etc to automatically detect the vast majority of problem gambling and suspend ops on the accounts affected. Obviously, the operators have absolutely no interest in doing that.
The technology exists through machine learning etc to automatically detect the vast majority of problem gambling and suspend ops on the accounts affected. Obviously, the operators have absolutely no interest in doing that.
CLYDEBANK, I lost a fair bit at Glorious Goodwood last year which obviously raised a red flag. They did relent on deposits for a while afterwards but then changed their minds and wanted documentation to which I said, nah that's not happening any time soon and that was game over.
Cider - nobody wants to address the truth of your 13:37 post - because it doesn't align with their view that the communists are to blame! 
I have seen the reality of it yes, a chap on social media called Hyperlinx documents his affordability problems when ONLY playing online slots.
Its a fallacious argument saying bookies shut sportsbettors down unilaterally.
Its a fallacious argument saying bookies shut sportsbettors down unilaterally.
Dustybin I watch Hypalinx. He definitely has a radio voice IMO. What I like about his style is, he doesn't promote gambling websites and adverts etc, and is using his only money. He has gone on a journey with gambling, that's for sure!
Thats right Trident.
He does use his own money and seems a genuine person who looks to make his money from crypto trading.
The others are just fronts who promote slots betting from common knowledge.
He does use his own money and seems a genuine person who looks to make his money from crypto trading.
The others are just fronts who promote slots betting from common knowledge.
Just looked at a video titled 'Gambling Log 2021 and Half Way Through 2022'. Someone publicly advertising a loss of £44K in a single year wasn't exactly the typical gambler I had in mind. No idea of the chap's background or resources, but after listening to a few minutes of his commentary on the vid, sounds like an addict, so shouldn't have an account, never mind an affordability check. On the edge of doing the lot. Maybe he has the means to lose at that kind if level as he's high net worth or pays for it from being an 'influencer'.
Unless he changed his mind and started taking payment from youtube (which I doubt because they dont tend to do that for his type of channel) then he doesnt make money from his hobby, nor does he sell advertising.
He just has always been into that type of gambling, bandits etc and buys them for his property.
He would be the first to admitt he has gambling issues but he's sensible enough to keep it in check from what I understand.
He also has a drinking problem, smokes and eats a terrible diet.
But these are the freedoms of choice
He just has always been into that type of gambling, bandits etc and buys them for his property.
He would be the first to admitt he has gambling issues but he's sensible enough to keep it in check from what I understand.
He also has a drinking problem, smokes and eats a terrible diet.
But these are the freedoms of choice
The gambling commission never listen to what we have to say so dont bother trying to engage them in debate
Whats the point engaging in debate with someone when theyve already made their minds up..
Whats the point engaging in debate with someone when theyve already made their minds up..
It's an atypical example though, dusty. It's actually a pretty good idea to AC him as he will inevitably talk about it publicly.
I was thinking along the lines of that owner on Luck on Sunday. Retired, of significant means, and spending the odd £50 now and again on bingo with a long history of similar betting, suddenly being AC'd. Not someone with a public profile, showing themselves doing 44 bags in a year.
I was thinking along the lines of that owner on Luck on Sunday. Retired, of significant means, and spending the odd £50 now and again on bingo with a long history of similar betting, suddenly being AC'd. Not someone with a public profile, showing themselves doing 44 bags in a year.
You are picking out a narrative from the little you know of the guy.
If you watched more of his life you will see that the providers are many and generally have no idea he has a channel, the approach they use on him is the same they would to anyone.
And because he has a wide bredth of accounts he never does his brains in one website entirely...his losses include physical bandit in pubs and clubs as well.
If you watched more of his life you will see that the providers are many and generally have no idea he has a channel, the approach they use on him is the same they would to anyone.
And because he has a wide bredth of accounts he never does his brains in one website entirely...his losses include physical bandit in pubs and clubs as well.
He has documented all of the mentioned problems at some point or another, from not being allowed his winnings to being limited on deposits.
He doesnt have a particularly large following either, he's just an ordinary guy who happened to have made a few quid from cyrpto.
He doesnt have a particularly large following either, he's just an ordinary guy who happened to have made a few quid from cyrpto.
56K subs on yt isn't ordinary. But as I stated, wasn't the type of casual low stakes, under the radar player I had in mind when I posed the question.
The point I am making is that its false to assume/declare bookies dont close down slots/casino players to the detriment of sports betting.
Thats the first Ive heard of 56k, he's been going years and been struggling to deposit for years and the P/L ive seen in the past havnt been close to that figure.
Thats the first Ive heard of 56k, he's been going years and been struggling to deposit for years and the P/L ive seen in the past havnt been close to that figure.
BTw
What a fantastic case study though as to how fking pointless AC checks are.
This guy has a gambling problem, only play slots etc and even having been hindered still manages to blow (apparently 56k)
Bravo to the hand wringers at such a totally brainless and pointless excercise.
What a fantastic case study though as to how fking pointless AC checks are.
This guy has a gambling problem, only play slots etc and even having been hindered still manages to blow (apparently 56k)
Bravo to the hand wringers at such a totally brainless and pointless excercise.
he could prolly spunk £56k on crypto very easily without any checks
56K subscribers on you tube.
I literally only skim browsed his videos for a few minutes after the handle was posted here, but this one has his p&l for 2021. In the comms he's talking about why everyone else seems to win and he never hits on the big wins, etc
[ This image is no longer available. ]
I literally only skim browsed his videos for a few minutes after the handle was posted here, but this one has his p&l for 2021. In the comms he's talking about why everyone else seems to win and he never hits on the big wins, etc
[ This image is no longer available. ]
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.
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.
I have seen him cop a few very big wins, but it’s a daft hobby to have and apparently he’s gambled on similar things since a youth.
The issue clearly shows the point I made some time back; that these state interferences intended to help a target are ineffectual, as the people hell bent on avoiding them ,do, while they negatively affect the people who act responsibly.
The issue clearly shows the point I made some time back; that these state interferences intended to help a target are ineffectual, as the people hell bent on avoiding them ,do, while they negatively affect the people who act responsibly.
They are that rare beast that is both transparent and opaque imo
i.e. feck knows what they have been doing since 2004 - but you can see right through them.
i.e. feck knows what they have been doing since 2004 - but you can see right through them.
^ 2007*
I'm willing to forgive them for being utterly hopeless between 2004-2007
2007 onwards is less forgivable.
I'm willing to forgive them for being utterly hopeless between 2004-2007
2007 onwards is less forgivable.
Seems that having any knowledge of gambling, or being a recreational punter in any way is not permitted to be an employee of the GC; no wonder they don't understand the situation.
Nick Goff posted this on twatter yesterday, just need to look at couple of replies:
https://twitter.com/nickgoff79/status/1627440613573464064
Nick Goff posted this on twatter yesterday, just need to look at couple of replies:
https://twitter.com/nickgoff79/status/1627440613573464064
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??
I think it's more akin to pubs getting fined for serving alcohol to alcoholics, or newsagents selling cigarettes to compulsive smokers.
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.
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.
Alcohol is the same as gambling - in so much as, broadly speaking they both have the potential to be extremely harmful. However the other thing they have in common, is that the Govt can't afford for you to give them up! - So, as I have said from the outset - storm in a tea-cup.
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.
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.
None of that needs to stop you from having a balanced discussion. Maybe that's genuinely not possible because it's a bit chicken and egg. i.e. What came first, the useless GC being useless at upholding the law or the greedy bookies breaking the law.
They both have a serious case to answer imo - but of course you can't accept that because you don't believe in law and order. You believe in market forces and survival of the fittest. But like I said before, good luck with that when you are getting burgled/mugged by some fecker with a knife that is twice your size.
They both have a serious case to answer imo - but of course you can't accept that because you don't believe in law and order. You believe in market forces and survival of the fittest. But like I said before, good luck with that when you are getting burgled/mugged by some fecker with a knife that is twice your size.
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.
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.
Absolutely non of this however is relevant if as you keep announcing, you know best and know nothing significant will occur.
Then pipe down and wallow in self gratification when it all goes to plan.
Stop attempting to rubbish those who don’t see it your way (and failing miserably)
Then pipe down and wallow in self gratification when it all goes to plan.
Stop attempting to rubbish those who don’t see it your way (and failing miserably)
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.
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.
These tiresome analogies...
The world is neither sterile nor is it a utopia.
If somebody doesnt look after their own interests and take up the assistance thats made available then they deserve to be robbed.
As Louis' chancellor once said; 'take only as many feathers as not to kill the goose'
The world is neither sterile nor is it a utopia.
If somebody doesnt look after their own interests and take up the assistance thats made available then they deserve to be robbed.
As Louis' chancellor once said; 'take only as many feathers as not to kill the goose'
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
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.
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.
Eachtime the laws get changed they get avoided.
Read the history of betting.
Im still waiting to hear how these new rules will hold off the new wave of spam from Russia if they become inoperable enough (either to allow free choice, or not to encourage enterprise regulated here)
They are already attacking the premise of advertising in this area which isnt contested. The problem is entirely about them making a dog's dinner out of helping those who wont help themselves (how many fking times?)
Read the history of betting.
Im still waiting to hear how these new rules will hold off the new wave of spam from Russia if they become inoperable enough (either to allow free choice, or not to encourage enterprise regulated here)
They are already attacking the premise of advertising in this area which isnt contested. The problem is entirely about them making a dog's dinner out of helping those who wont help themselves (how many fking times?)
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!
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!
Sensible?
So you have held the lamentable GC's actions or inactions to account and now they are the epitome of truth and virtue?
Ofc the GC reckon nothing is their fault, as again has been established by anyone keeping up on this case, the GC offer little more than ambiguity, they are scared of making any move beyone telling the bookies they need to rectify it.Could you honestly envisage them holding an ever more strict line where people will attempt at avoiding it?
The MPs in parliament queue up to take lumps out the GC, and as for the government, only recently have they shown anything resembling conservatism when they stood up to stupidity which resulted in the SNP losing its leader.
So, once problem gamblers are turned away (along with however many who arnt problem gamblers) how will you stop Russian malevolence from taking advantage?
So you have held the lamentable GC's actions or inactions to account and now they are the epitome of truth and virtue?
Ofc the GC reckon nothing is their fault, as again has been established by anyone keeping up on this case, the GC offer little more than ambiguity, they are scared of making any move beyone telling the bookies they need to rectify it.Could you honestly envisage them holding an ever more strict line where people will attempt at avoiding it?
The MPs in parliament queue up to take lumps out the GC, and as for the government, only recently have they shown anything resembling conservatism when they stood up to stupidity which resulted in the SNP losing its leader.
So, once problem gamblers are turned away (along with however many who arnt problem gamblers) how will you stop Russian malevolence from taking advantage?
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)
Fair play to you - to summarise:
Online Bookmaker = good
GC = bad
Govt = bad
Problem Gambler = Indifferent (but lazy, arrogant, thickets).
Case closed!
Online Bookmaker = good
GC = bad
Govt = bad
Problem Gambler = Indifferent (but lazy, arrogant, thickets).
Case closed!
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.
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.
I have pointed out how I would address the key problem multiple times.
But whenever i do, you (quite rightly) point out that what I would do is irrelevant! - yet you ask again ffs
My answer is still the same, if only those on-line "bookmakers" had kept records or profiled their customers. They could have developed an algorithm to identify potential/likely/probable problem gamblers. Then, instead of inundating them with marketing and grooming them - they could have used it to intervene instead.
Unfortunately, nobody (especially the online casino/slots owners) knows who the problem gamblers are - so we'll just have to feck everybody over instead!!
But whenever i do, you (quite rightly) point out that what I would do is irrelevant! - yet you ask again ffs
My answer is still the same, if only those on-line "bookmakers" had kept records or profiled their customers. They could have developed an algorithm to identify potential/likely/probable problem gamblers. Then, instead of inundating them with marketing and grooming them - they could have used it to intervene instead.
Unfortunately, nobody (especially the online casino/slots owners) knows who the problem gamblers are - so we'll just have to feck everybody over instead!!
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.
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.
You know its a crazy notion, but just perhaps the only real answer is for people who put themselves in ruin, acknowledging their poor choices themselves, and seeking help.
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?
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?
But you certainly got one thing correct.
It is as much for me I even bother making these points....the thought of living in your pathetic world would be awful.
It is as much for me I even bother making these points....the thought of living in your pathetic world would be awful.
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.
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.
Oh dear I have to explain again...
As much for me, living in a world of free choice you tit, and not having others make my choices for me.
BTW
You cant have watched thise Nick Luck interview, because if you had youd have seen the GC guy sidestep the question regarding bookies not taking bets.
Its not his/their remit, evidenced by the 'I cant comment on idividual cases' cop out.
Because this was never about making bookies take your fantastic winning selection bets, because they wont, never have and never will.
As much for me, living in a world of free choice you tit, and not having others make my choices for me.
BTW
You cant have watched thise Nick Luck interview, because if you had youd have seen the GC guy sidestep the question regarding bookies not taking bets.
Its not his/their remit, evidenced by the 'I cant comment on idividual cases' cop out.
Because this was never about making bookies take your fantastic winning selection bets, because they wont, never have and never will.
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 !
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 !
And, why is it so easy for young men ( predominantly the one's who commit suicide ) to get ten of thousands of pounds worth of credit !! ?... Surely, The G C should be looking into this !!!!
halcyon - Should they look at the "young men" first or brace themselves to deal with the newest ticking time bomb of girls/women problem gamblers that is about to explode in their face?
dustybin20 Feb 23 13:59Joined: 29 Dec 08 | Topic/replies: 23,977 | Blogger: dustybin's blogYou cant have watched thise Nick Luck interview, because if you had youd have seen the GC guy sidestep the question regarding bookies not taking bets.
Dusty - I don't know why you keep referencing this ^
I have no expectation whatsoever of a regulator addressing this issue - I accepted long ago that UK "bookmakers" will only do business with "recreational" gamblers, mugs and losers. And that they only still "suffer" horse-racing at all because it is a gateway to more addictive products.
dustybin20 Feb 23 13:59Joined: 29 Dec 08 | Topic/replies: 23,977 | Blogger: dustybin's blogYou cant have watched thise Nick Luck interview, because if you had youd have seen the GC guy sidestep the question regarding bookies not taking bets.
Dusty - I don't know why you keep referencing this ^
I have no expectation whatsoever of a regulator addressing this issue - I accepted long ago that UK "bookmakers" will only do business with "recreational" gamblers, mugs and losers. And that they only still "suffer" horse-racing at all because it is a gateway to more addictive products.
Because you have always made out either directly or indirectly the fact bookies deserve regulating is because they turn people away from betting of sports.
When it has absoultely nothing to do with the regulation that is about stopping people bet on anything.
You make out like bookies who dont want your bets will be made to take bets once they (in theory) are restricted from allowing people bet on slots etc.
Otherwise dont even make the point about you not being able to bet with them.
When it has absoultely nothing to do with the regulation that is about stopping people bet on anything.
You make out like bookies who dont want your bets will be made to take bets once they (in theory) are restricted from allowing people bet on slots etc.
Otherwise dont even make the point about you not being able to bet with them.
You have said all of that - I have said none of it.
Because I disagree with your very extreme (imo) views - you have pigeon-holed me to be as extreme as you are - but in the other direction - such is modern life.
I'd like to see all relevant parties work together pragmatically to find a workable solution.
Because I disagree with your very extreme (imo) views - you have pigeon-holed me to be as extreme as you are - but in the other direction - such is modern life.
I'd like to see all relevant parties work together pragmatically to find a workable solution.
Tell me the pragmatic way you will stop the offering of unregulated online slots to those not allowed to bet with regulated ones online.
The Management, good afternoon.
Wasn't aware of any of the fairer sex ( sorry Sam ) ''topping'' themselves !!
Wasn't aware of any of the fairer sex ( sorry Sam ) ''topping'' themselves !!
If I do, will you pay me £185k per year, plus pension, car allowance and expenses?
Actually scrap that, I can't be bothered to think it through - lets go your route - we will just stop people going to those "evil" unregulated online slots, by offering good unregulated online slots.
Actually scrap that, I can't be bothered to think it through - lets go your route - we will just stop people going to those "evil" unregulated online slots, by offering good unregulated online slots.
...that pay for the treatment if the person can take ownership of responsibility
so, you cant.
As I always knew. Your logic again falls on its arse because any regulation thats added is about stopping people who want to gamble from gambling (without ANY assistance.
You are getting so god damn boring I cant take anymore of your fking nonsense or ill start insulting you again.
As I always knew. Your logic again falls on its arse because any regulation thats added is about stopping people who want to gamble from gambling (without ANY assistance.
You are getting so god damn boring I cant take anymore of your fking nonsense or ill start insulting you again.
I hope I'm wrong Halcyon - but the days of "problem gamblers" being predominantly male are numbered imo.
dustybin20 Feb 23 15:02Joined: 29 Dec 08 | Topic/replies: 23,981 | Blogger: dustybin's blog
so, you cant.
Get yourself on-line, try to buy a semi-automatic rifle, a kilo of heroin, 2 underage Romanian Teenagers and a contract killer.
I guess it can be done - but I think you will find it is quite difficult, possibly illegal. You might end up in trouble, get arrested, get fined, lose your job, go to prison. If only there was somebody in Govt that could make laws.
so, you cant.
Get yourself on-line, try to buy a semi-automatic rifle, a kilo of heroin, 2 underage Romanian Teenagers and a contract killer.
I guess it can be done - but I think you will find it is quite difficult, possibly illegal. You might end up in trouble, get arrested, get fined, lose your job, go to prison. If only there was somebody in Govt that could make laws.
Wow
Not only intent on potentially destroying jobs within the gambling sector and possibly pushing sports betting like horse racing into destitution...but outlawing the act of trying to place a bit with any unregulated entity, onus on the individual?
And/or having to finance a spy network to do such a thing.
That communications bill really getting ramped up eh...is there any end to the stasi state you envision?
Not only intent on potentially destroying jobs within the gambling sector and possibly pushing sports betting like horse racing into destitution...but outlawing the act of trying to place a bit with any unregulated entity, onus on the individual?
And/or having to finance a spy network to do such a thing.
That communications bill really getting ramped up eh...is there any end to the stasi state you envision?
Its a remarkable unbalance of logic on this one.
So a person has the responsibility of only attempting to bet with providers under regulation, but its not their responsibility to realise when theyve just sponked all their money again that they needed to live on?
What happened to these poor habitual souls?
Their actions are now punishable then are they?
So a person has the responsibility of only attempting to bet with providers under regulation, but its not their responsibility to realise when theyve just sponked all their money again that they needed to live on?
What happened to these poor habitual souls?
Their actions are now punishable then are they?
I really hope they don't but I just thought it would really outrage you. 
But making it unlawful to do business with an unlawful company is hardly draconian imo.
How are you getting on with the list of items I posted?
The bottom line is, that you don't think gambling can be harmful to anybody under any circumstances - so you don't believe it should be regulated at all. The "conversation" is pointless. Whether it should be regulated or not, is not up for debate currently. So you are opn the wrong thread.
But making it unlawful to do business with an unlawful company is hardly draconian imo.
How are you getting on with the list of items I posted?
The bottom line is, that you don't think gambling can be harmful to anybody under any circumstances - so you don't believe it should be regulated at all. The "conversation" is pointless. Whether it should be regulated or not, is not up for debate currently. So you are opn the wrong thread.
It just shows you havnt got a fking clue man.
You come out with this emphasis about how the irresponsible can do no wrong, until asked how youd fix it and you suggest punishing them.
I think a pen can be harmful, I think sharp objects and cars can be harmful, but they are all given elements of trust on how a person uses them.
You come out with this emphasis about how the irresponsible can do no wrong, until asked how youd fix it and you suggest punishing them.
I think a pen can be harmful, I think sharp objects and cars can be harmful, but they are all given elements of trust on how a person uses them.
Can you legally buy alcohol from somebody that doesn't have a license to sell it iyo?
If you get caught buying heroin, do they let you off and just deal with the vendor?
Those are the comparisons you (and other smoke and mirror merchants) want to make - but they don't stand up.
Now you are going on about pens ffs - I can only repeat this one more time:
The bottom line is, that you don't think gambling can be harmful to anybody under any circumstances - so you don't believe it should be regulated at all. The "conversation" is pointless. Whether it should be regulated or not, is not up for debate currently. So you are on the wrong thread.
If you get caught buying heroin, do they let you off and just deal with the vendor?
Those are the comparisons you (and other smoke and mirror merchants) want to make - but they don't stand up.
Now you are going on about pens ffs - I can only repeat this one more time:
The bottom line is, that you don't think gambling can be harmful to anybody under any circumstances - so you don't believe it should be regulated at all. The "conversation" is pointless. Whether it should be regulated or not, is not up for debate currently. So you are on the wrong thread.
Legally buy alcohol....its about how you would stop them.
You are saying the act of betting is doing the individual harm, now you suggest the only way to stop them harming themselves is to punish them.
And yeah, they arrest the dealer rather than the junkie...infact they actually give them methadone which is heroine substiutue. You know owt?
It is fking regulated, it has to carry warnings, oblige to a set of rules regarding advertising and enticements and pay a % towards rehabilitation (If the GC fail holding them to the full extent of this its them who failed)
You are saying the act of betting is doing the individual harm, now you suggest the only way to stop them harming themselves is to punish them.
And yeah, they arrest the dealer rather than the junkie...infact they actually give them methadone which is heroine substiutue. You know owt?
It is fking regulated, it has to carry warnings, oblige to a set of rules regarding advertising and enticements and pay a % towards rehabilitation (If the GC fail holding them to the full extent of this its them who failed)
You dont know what the first fk you are talking about and look an absolute clueless twa t
Lets leave it there - you can completely misrepresent some of the things I have said today, same time next week.
One of the apple trees in my orchard is looking a bit sick, it's gone brown and withered - Luckily this kind chap from Ladbrokes is coming round to help me chop them all down because he's not sure which one it is!
One of the apple trees in my orchard is looking a bit sick, it's gone brown and withered - Luckily this kind chap from Ladbrokes is coming round to help me chop them all down because he's not sure which one it is!
Talking of problem gamblers - right on cue - good afternoon fartonyerface.
Shouldn't you be busy chasing like a degenerate addict by now?
Shouldn't you be busy chasing like a degenerate addict by now?
I am up for it if there is an inheritance to be had mitolo.
I think we can safely say the same for dusty.
I think we can safely say the same for dusty.
busty is a machine. youd think he was on something if you didnt know he never has and never would
I'm finding that very doubtful tbh - but will take yer word for it.
One of the Big dangers of a gambling addiction is its almost undetectable to family and friends (unlike alcohol and drugs.) So with this new AI, online casinos and bookmakers know exactly who has a problem, but only a few percent get checked to make them look like they are acting.
The gambling white paper due sometime this century will smash down hard on online casinos, as government intervenes into the Gambling Commission, IMO. I truly believe an independent organization, like the one in Germany, will happen here too. I do believe the Big Boys already know this!
The gambling white paper due sometime this century will smash down hard on online casinos, as government intervenes into the Gambling Commission, IMO. I truly believe an independent organization, like the one in Germany, will happen here too. I do believe the Big Boys already know this!
Here's My view: If you can afford to lose money you can afford (Carry On) If you can't, you will be stopped in your tracks. Personally, having worked in this area, I don't have a problem with it.
But there are ways to implement this fair for everyone.
Now, restricting anyone in horse racing who wins a few bets, that's a whole different thing. IMO this is what's really happening with betting turnover, plus field sizes, plus nobody has much money any more to waste, we are in a recession. The Racing Post don't mention this!
But there are ways to implement this fair for everyone.
Now, restricting anyone in horse racing who wins a few bets, that's a whole different thing. IMO this is what's really happening with betting turnover, plus field sizes, plus nobody has much money any more to waste, we are in a recession. The Racing Post don't mention this!
For a GC licenced firm:
Your account has been referred to our safer gambling team as you have been spending more than our average customer recently. As a responsible gambling operator, we have some concerns regarding your affordability and have placed some temporary restrictions on your account. Please note that any balance you have on the account is still available for withdrawal.
If you believe that your gambling levels are under control and have no affordability issues, then please feel free to provide us with any further evidence you may have to support this. Please see the list below for some examples of acceptable documents:
• Salary (recent payslips or proof of earnings if self-employed)
• Bank statements
• Betting activities (lifetime betting account statements)
• Commercial enterprise
• Inheritance
The documents must be dated within the last three months and be full copies (no excerpts or screenshots) which clearly display your details in order for us to verify your affordability. Once we have received your documents (please provide more than one) and approved your gambling levels, the restrictions placed on your account will be removed and you will be free to play again.
Your account has been referred to our safer gambling team as you have been spending more than our average customer recently. As a responsible gambling operator, we have some concerns regarding your affordability and have placed some temporary restrictions on your account. Please note that any balance you have on the account is still available for withdrawal.
If you believe that your gambling levels are under control and have no affordability issues, then please feel free to provide us with any further evidence you may have to support this. Please see the list below for some examples of acceptable documents:
• Salary (recent payslips or proof of earnings if self-employed)
• Bank statements
• Betting activities (lifetime betting account statements)
• Commercial enterprise
• Inheritance
The documents must be dated within the last three months and be full copies (no excerpts or screenshots) which clearly display your details in order for us to verify your affordability. Once we have received your documents (please provide more than one) and approved your gambling levels, the restrictions placed on your account will be removed and you will be free to play again.
Only allowed to speak to customer services. No contact allowed with the 'safer gambler team'.
Customers services refused to say who would have access to the documents and have they would be secured.
Only complaints please go to IBAS.
Customers services refused to say who would have access to the documents and have they would be secured.
Only complaints please go to IBAS.
If anyone 'spending' more than the average customer over a timespan is asked for this I cannot see how they would have any customers left.
Who actually gives over the details without knowing how secure they are and who has access?
Who actually gives over the details without knowing how secure they are and who has access?
And how does one firm know how much I am 'spending' with all the other firms and offline?
frog - you need to do a bit of "role reversal" imo.
Hit them with a DSAR (Data Subject Access Request) - google it and take the "free text" sections, take the time to make it as specific, detailed and wide-ranging as possible. It's free of charge (although some charge businesses charge a "nominal fee".
It's very revealing - but more importantly it is incredibly frustrating. A detailed request (from somebody that knows what they are doing) can take weeks of manpower to comply with (but they must comply).
The Racing Post says it wants to stop this (ridiculously low deposit limits for people claiming to be recreational gamblers.
So it's a surprise to me that as well as their (bookmaker sponsored) letter template to your MP, they haven't also provided a template for a terribly time consuming DSAR request!
Perhap they will do so in the near future - to help you fight back against the intrusive nanny state! - but maybe don't hold your breath.
Seriously though - don't get mad, get even! submit a DSAR, it will make all the sh1te they have asked you for, look like a stroll in the park!
Hit them with a DSAR (Data Subject Access Request) - google it and take the "free text" sections, take the time to make it as specific, detailed and wide-ranging as possible. It's free of charge (although some charge businesses charge a "nominal fee".
It's very revealing - but more importantly it is incredibly frustrating. A detailed request (from somebody that knows what they are doing) can take weeks of manpower to comply with (but they must comply).
The Racing Post says it wants to stop this (ridiculously low deposit limits for people claiming to be recreational gamblers.
So it's a surprise to me that as well as their (bookmaker sponsored) letter template to your MP, they haven't also provided a template for a terribly time consuming DSAR request!
Perhap they will do so in the near future - to help you fight back against the intrusive nanny state!
- but maybe don't hold your breath. Seriously though - don't get mad, get even! submit a DSAR, it will make all the sh1te they have asked you for, look like a stroll in the park!
...... as you have been spending more than our average customer recently
-------------
Well that line of reasoning and rationale is completely FLAWED thinking - as -
Such a calculation has, therefore, to assumes that all their "average customers" earns almost exactly the Same salary, and have exactly the same, outings - and thus the same amount of remaining disposable income.
-------------
Well that line of reasoning and rationale is completely FLAWED thinking - as -
Such a calculation has, therefore, to assumes that all their "average customers" earns almost exactly the Same salary, and have exactly the same, outings - and thus the same amount of remaining disposable income.
And just to be clear Frog - the communication you have received is from a "BOOKMAKER"?
It's not from the "interfering" Gambling Commission or the "nanny state" government?
It's not from the "interfering" Gambling Commission or the "nanny state" government?
The calculation is also is regressive.
If you continue to take above average sums away then the resulting average will be lower.
If you continue to take above average sums away then the resulting average will be lower.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539