These are my principles - but if you don't like them, I have other ones that you can buy.

CLYDEBANK2930 Mar 23 14:19Joined: 10 Jan 02 | Topic/replies: 12,087 | Blogger: CLYDEBANK29's blog
The GC fines are due to lack of affordability and source of funds for stolen money checks, not to do with addiction.

I suggest you read the facts and think again:

The punishment, which eclipses the £17m action taken against Ladbrokes and Coral owner Entain last August, came after social responsibility and anti-money laundering (AML) failures described as "widespread and alarming" by the commission's chief executive Andrew Rhodes.

Among the examples of bad practice cited by the Gambling Commission were customers being able to open accounts and spend £23,000 in 20 minutes, £18,000 in 24 hours, and £32,500 over two days respectively, all without checks being made.

The commission also found customers able to deposit large amounts without being subject to AML checks, with one able to spend and lose £70,134 in a month, another to lose £38,000 in five weeks and another to lose £36,000 in four days.

What used to be one of the greatest bookmakers in the world - and we've long since passed the point where by definition if you still have an active account with them you must be a loser or an addict.

And you are making excuses on their behalf. Sad times.

Racing post (on behalf of the online casinos, like William Hill) trying to convince you that the communists have taken over because some little old boy has been restricted to £100/month deposit.

In reality for the last 20 years - so long as you are a degenerate loser or an addict you can deposit £70k and lose it on slots/casino games in a week. Meanwhile if they haven't profiled you as a degenerate losing addict, you can't have £5 each way at 7/2.

That is the reality - and it's good to see them squealing, now it's coming back to bite them.

I find that very hard to believe CB, unless it was a lucky/lottery style bet (multiples) or it was a good while ago, before they started only operating a sportsbook as a gateway to their wheels & reels.

For at least 5 years now (specifically WH) will close down any new account that doesn't profile well for them after about a week.

No there wasn't one lucky bet.

I suspect since WH were bought by 888sport it's got a whole lot worse

I'm just making the point that it won't be the "communists" or the "do-gooders" that destroy gambling (as the Racing Post would have you believe) - it will be the "bookmakers" and their (understandable) obsession with gaming.

I know they didn't kill themselves, but Merson and Shilton were sports bettors not fruit loopers.  Shilton was mainly on the exchange I think.

I'm not disputing things for punters were worse 5 years ago than 10 years ago and 10 years ago than 15 years ago.  But they are significantly worse now than 5 years ago, and that is primarily down to ACs imo.

Or is it a seed published without fact, that is repeated often enough that people start to believe as fact?

It's hard to tell imo. If bookmakers had been doing what they were supposed to be doing for the past 20 years (i.e. complying with the existing law rather than proactively breaking it), I don't think gaming would have been so lucrative for them. I also don't think anybody would be campaigning for AC's if bookmakers had complied with the existing laws for the past 20 years.

I still think it's a storm in a tea-cup to be honest. The only valid argument comparing betting with alcohol is that the govt can't afford for us all to give it up! So I have been very confident all along that whatever transpires will probably be light touch and fairly ineffective.

This is not a difficult issue to address. For a start ban all forms of advertising online, tv and mobile. In addition issue every online bookies and high street bookies with fobt (not sports) with a new gaming licence (not betting). Any incursion or sharp practice could result in a suspension of trading immediately.

I hope the Gambling Commission stop ****-footing about with bookies. They must start behaving like a regulator and monitor the bookies like a hawk. Any small woeful incursion against a new Betting and Gaming Act must be punished effectively eg a rescinding or suspension of license to trade immediately - no probation.

Also, a cull of bookies is necessary. There are far too many around and a blot on the landscape of most towns.

f4rty - Shouldn't you be in a betting shop somewhere, stinking of p1ss, throwing pens at the screens and shouting "it's all bent"?

Never once blew a gasket regarding a result…..I leave it to the silly people……

@TM

"for the first time huge numbers of females that have been profiled as likely addicts."

Bingo has been a thing for what, 50+ years?

The government and regulators have had years to impose deposit limits which triggers AML checks, but have done nothing.  They didn't have to wait for the Gambling Act.  It didn't have to be set in stone, just an interim figure subject to re-evaluation.  If it's cash in the bank it's £5k I believe

I don't have a goldfish

We have a Government that doesn't want to act and is in any event clueless (no surprise there). We have a Gambling Commission that is in many ways clueless. As has been stated elsewhere in the thread and an addition or two of my own:
1. Ban advertising of ALL online gambling products including the utterly pathetic "We help you to control your gambling by .....".
2. Limit other advertising to a factual statement of events on which bets are accepted and the relevant odds on offer
3. Ban FOBTs. Simple. They are addictive to certain people. We can't tell which people until the addiction becomes apparent but it is at least 80% of betting shop FOBT users. Just watch them: unresponsive to the rest of their surroundings, unaware of how much it is costing them, probably low intelligence. Sound familiar?
4. Ban all online slots, bingo etc. The excuse given for the old bingo halls (and probably accurate) was "it's an important social event for many". You don't have social online slots and bingo. Online betting is restricted to bookmaker account holders (who are subject to usual safeguards).