There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Gamblers who are losing £1,000 a day are expected to face checks as part of new, tougher gambling regulations.
Sources say these will kick in when a gambler loses £1,000 in 24 hours , or £2,000 over 90 days. How these will be carried out is as yet unclear.
Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer, who will outline the plans in Parliament later, says the rise of smartphones means "now there's a Las Vegas on every phone".
Ms Frazer said her "balanced" proposal would still let people enjoy a flutter.
(Ha bloody ha)
The announcement of what the government's white paper actually contains has been delayed at least four times, since the review of gambling laws was first announced by Oliver Dowden, then culture secretary, in 2020.
Since then, there have been regular reports of individual cases of problem gamblers - but the government's solution has been crafted by three different culture secretaries and three prime ministers without seeing the light of day.
Now Ms Frazer believes she has a proposal that is suitable for the digital age.
Writing in the Times, she says: "The internet and the rise of the smartphone means gambling is ubiquitous, not just on the high street but everywhere and anywhere, providing round-the-clock access to betting."
Describing the "maze" of sports betting, virtual slot machines, roulette wheels and blackjack tables instantly available on many apps, she added: "Many enjoy these features - but within their means, infrequently or on particular event - but sadly we know this does not apply to everyone."
She pointed out that, for those who become addicted, their smartphone becomes a trapdoor to despair - and said that the government's new approach would "protect the most vulnerable, but not get in the way of the majority of people who want to have a flutter"
.
One of the proposals that is known about is a mandatory levy to be imposed on gambling firms, to be used to pay for addiction treatment and research.
But it is not yet clear how that funding will be managed.
Reform campaigners and gambling companies we have spoken to believe there will not be much change around advertising and marketing.
That will be a big disappointment to campaigners who feel it is now endemic in sport.
Other planned changes have been strongly welcomed by parliamentarians who have lobbied for reform.
Lord Foster, chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform, said they were "an important step in the right direction".
Conservative MP, Ian Duncan Smith, vice chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Gambling Related Harm said they will "make sure we hold the government's feet to the fire to ensure these measures are implemented swiftly"
Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, Lucy Frazer leaves 10 Downing Street, London, after a Cabinet meeting ahead of the Budget
IMAGE SOURCE,PA MEDIA
Image caption,
Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer will unveil the government's white paper on gambling on Thursday
The white paper is expected to include the introduction of affordability checks to protect problem gamblers.
The government is also expected to consult on introducing stake limits for online slot bets - the digital version of the old slot machines.
It is thought the range will be from £2 to £15, with suggestions of a lower level for those under 25.
Some gambling firms including Flutter, which owns Paddy Power, SkyBet and Betfair, imposed slot limits of £10 from September 2021.
The compulsory levy on gambling firms is expected to be 1% of net revenue and could raise £140 million a year for education, treatment and research.
At the moment, the levy is voluntary and the money is not put into the NHS - which has not wanted to accept it, for ethical reasons.
The NHS has expanded its gambling-specific services in recent years.
The plan, we understand, would be to use some of the money raised from the new levy for NHS treatment in future.
Man with glasses in front of online casino slot machine
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
Online slot games are designed to mimic slot machines in betting shops
We also believe the white paper will relax some rules on land-based casinos to level the playing field between physical and online betting.
At the moment, for example, smaller casinos have limits on how many machines they can have. The number is expected to increase from 20 to 80.
A spokesperson for the DCMS said "We are determined to protect those most at risk of gambling-related harm including young and vulnerable people".
Annie Ashton's husband Luke killed himself in 2021 after struggling with a gambling addiction, losing money online.
"We're just waiting for the government to put in some regulations so that it can make it safer for people who do decide to gamble," Mrs Ashton said.
"This white paper has taken far too long. Any changes that are made need to be focused on preventing suicides and harm."
The Betting and Gaming Council Chief Executive Michael Dugher told the BBC they have worked closely with government.
"We want to see balanced, proportionate and effective reforms... whilst not spoiling the enjoyment of the overwhelming majority who bet perfectly safely and responsibly.
"Changes should also help to protect jobs and the economic contribution made by the world-leading UK regulated industry".
---------------------
£2,000 over 90 days
SHE/They - patently do NOT understand HORSE RACING Betting....
Unless - it is just - "a flutter" - on such as the National.
Sources say these will kick in when a gambler loses £1,000 in 24 hours , or £2,000 over 90 days. How these will be carried out is as yet unclear.
Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer, who will outline the plans in Parliament later, says the rise of smartphones means "now there's a Las Vegas on every phone".
Ms Frazer said her "balanced" proposal would still let people enjoy a flutter.
(Ha bloody ha) The announcement of what the government's white paper actually contains has been delayed at least four times, since the review of gambling laws was first announced by Oliver Dowden, then culture secretary, in 2020.
Since then, there have been regular reports of individual cases of problem gamblers - but the government's solution has been crafted by three different culture secretaries and three prime ministers without seeing the light of day.
Now Ms Frazer believes she has a proposal that is suitable for the digital age.
Writing in the Times, she says: "The internet and the rise of the smartphone means gambling is ubiquitous, not just on the high street but everywhere and anywhere, providing round-the-clock access to betting."
Describing the "maze" of sports betting, virtual slot machines, roulette wheels and blackjack tables instantly available on many apps, she added: "Many enjoy these features - but within their means, infrequently or on particular event - but sadly we know this does not apply to everyone."
She pointed out that, for those who become addicted, their smartphone becomes a trapdoor to despair - and said that the government's new approach would "protect the most vulnerable, but not get in the way of the majority of people who want to have a flutter"
.One of the proposals that is known about is a mandatory levy to be imposed on gambling firms, to be used to pay for addiction treatment and research.
But it is not yet clear how that funding will be managed.
Reform campaigners and gambling companies we have spoken to believe there will not be much change around advertising and marketing.
That will be a big disappointment to campaigners who feel it is now endemic in sport.
Other planned changes have been strongly welcomed by parliamentarians who have lobbied for reform.
Lord Foster, chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform, said they were "an important step in the right direction".
Conservative MP, Ian Duncan Smith, vice chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Gambling Related Harm said they will "make sure we hold the government's feet to the fire to ensure these measures are implemented swiftly"
Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, Lucy Frazer leaves 10 Downing Street, London, after a Cabinet meeting ahead of the Budget
IMAGE SOURCE,PA MEDIA
Image caption,
Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer will unveil the government's white paper on gambling on Thursday
The white paper is expected to include the introduction of affordability checks to protect problem gamblers.
The government is also expected to consult on introducing stake limits for online slot bets - the digital version of the old slot machines.
It is thought the range will be from £2 to £15, with suggestions of a lower level for those under 25.
Some gambling firms including Flutter, which owns Paddy Power, SkyBet and Betfair, imposed slot limits of £10 from September 2021.
The compulsory levy on gambling firms is expected to be 1% of net revenue and could raise £140 million a year for education, treatment and research.
At the moment, the levy is voluntary and the money is not put into the NHS - which has not wanted to accept it, for ethical reasons.
The NHS has expanded its gambling-specific services in recent years.
The plan, we understand, would be to use some of the money raised from the new levy for NHS treatment in future.
Man with glasses in front of online casino slot machine
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
Online slot games are designed to mimic slot machines in betting shops
We also believe the white paper will relax some rules on land-based casinos to level the playing field between physical and online betting.
At the moment, for example, smaller casinos have limits on how many machines they can have. The number is expected to increase from 20 to 80.
A spokesperson for the DCMS said "We are determined to protect those most at risk of gambling-related harm including young and vulnerable people".
Annie Ashton's husband Luke killed himself in 2021 after struggling with a gambling addiction, losing money online.
"We're just waiting for the government to put in some regulations so that it can make it safer for people who do decide to gamble," Mrs Ashton said.
"This white paper has taken far too long. Any changes that are made need to be focused on preventing suicides and harm."
The Betting and Gaming Council Chief Executive Michael Dugher told the BBC they have worked closely with government.
"We want to see balanced, proportionate and effective reforms... whilst not spoiling the enjoyment of the overwhelming majority who bet perfectly safely and responsibly.
"Changes should also help to protect jobs and the economic contribution made by the world-leading UK regulated industry".
---------------------
£2,000 over 90 days
SHE/They - patently do NOT understand HORSE RACING Betting....
Unless - it is just - "a flutter"
- on such as the National.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 493
|
By:
what a joke, pathetic
|
|
By:
If this current Government was a racehorse the form would read PPUFPUP and not run for a thousand days.
|
|
By:
Will hit the in running player.
|
|
By:
We also believe the white paper will relax some rules on land-based casinos to level the playing field between physical and online betting.
At the moment, for example, smaller casinos have limits on how many machines they can have. The number is expected to increase from 20 to 80. So degen gamblers will be able to do there cash in casinos when they hit the £2k limit. Seems like a well thought out safer gambling strategy. |
|
By:
Definitely hit the in-running punters particularly if they use an exchange which has no customer service worth the name. Stuck in account suspension for days/weeks.
|
|
By:
And what if you have a monkey with 5 different racecourse bookies ? ( £2500 )
|
|
By:
Brian and Tanglefoot , this hits everyone that doesn't bet in buttons not just IR players.
|
|
By:
The compulsory levy on gambling firms is expected to be 1% of net revenue and could raise £140 million a year for education, treatment and research.
At the moment, the levy is voluntary and the money is not put into the NHS - which has not wanted to accept it, for ethical reasons. No ethical reasons needed for the government though. |
|
By:
from the guardian
Ministers are expected to ask the Gambling Commission, the industry regulator, to consult on when and how to perform such checks. An early draft of the white paper envisaged doing so for punters who lose £1,000 in a day or £2,000 over 90 days. This is idiotic. The GC already consulted on them and had to quash the consultation because the many responses showed that it was pointless, intrusive and unworkable. |
|
By:
They don't know what will hit them. Years ago illegal bookies didn't have the kind of tech that is around now. Get ready for underground betting on a massive scale.
|
|
By:
At least this won’t affect anyone on this exchange
|
|
By:
Degen ??
|
|
By:
LOL jimnast
Seriously though - Surely the - £2,000 in 90 days- is the major issue. Plenty could Lose just that in far less time - and then Win £5,000 back in the next 5 days. -------------- Somewhat unnerving the the Betfair 'P/L page' - defualts to choose from ... Today - from Yesterday - Last 7 days - Last Month  ...Last 3 Months (90 days) Oooh Err. |
|
By:
However, according to the Times, the government is keen to see those who lose more than £125 a day face a ‘financial vulnerability check’ to make sure they are not bankrupts or have CCJs (County Court Judgements) against their name.
Losses of £1,000 a day, or £2,000 over 90 days, will face greater checks, apparently involving banks, to see if the player can afford such losses. |
|
By:
Def needs a legal challenge on the basis of the Human Rights Act's right to enjoy property without government interference.
|
|
By:
dave1357 -- Def needs a legal challenge on the basis of the Human Rights Act's right to enjoy property without government interference.
Surely that is what is proposed. Slow and intrusive checks to make sure it is (a) your property and (b) you are enjoying it. |
|
By:
The most crucial part isn’t mentioned- What constitutes ability to continue once information is requested.
How much is enough capital, what level of salary etc? Playing devil’s advocate for now, but it could be that people are asked once they lose a certain amount, are asked to provide something and the bookie have satisfied the request and the punter then allowed on their way. Have to wait and see, but either way if you got nowt your betting days are over. So the ones hit hardest are the poor. Congrats to the handwringers. |
|
By:
I know you are being flippant, but if you have say £10k and wish to spend it on gambling and are stopped doing so by the govt that is a breach of your human rights.
|
|
By:
Also, how long with the information last?
Do they have to keep requesting from those who pass? |
|
By:
So the ones hit hardest are the poor. Congrats to the handwringers.
rofl - the biggest joke is that many of "the poor" will be able continue to lose amounts that affect their ability to feed and clothe their children and fly under the radar of these cheacks. |
|
By:
The freedoms of the impecunious have been further restrained by those who want you to know they are doing it for your own good.
Whether they can get around them illegally or not isnt the point. Plenty will get stopped who have little and no problem with their gambling Wonder if the All Party will be banding around those figures instead of the 0.1% or whatever it was they were vocal over. |
|
By:
What time is the 5hit show in the house today anyone know?
|
|
By:
So if lose £125 in a day its a "soft" check - still a very low figure.
£2000 over 90 days means you likely need bank statements etc etc - This is the crazy one. £2K loss over 3 months is nothing. Please tell me they will at least work on the net figure and view a full 3 month period. You cuould easily be down by a lot more before the end of 3 months. This £2000 over 3 months is the killer. I'm sad enough to have kept records going back years and I've lost over £1000 a day hundreds of times. There is no f**king way I'm ever gambling £1000 over a 24 hour period again. Do these people even understand betting? £2000 over 90 days is rediculously low. Even if you gamble £500 a day on average (so £45K over 90 days) a £2K loss over 90 days is less than 5%. Do they not understand how pros work. You do well to make 3-5% a year so you have to be gambling large sums to make it worthwhile. To not trigger the £2000 loss over 90 days it likely means you can't gamble more than £12-15K in that period to account for losing runs. They've f**kng killed it for those who know what they're doing. £20,000 would still be bad but £2000 is f**king crazy. |
|
By:
dustybin..Yes, you are dead right.
I have been banging on about your first point since just before lockdown when I learned what was in the pipeline. Affordability checks are ridicolous and here is why. A retired individual of, say, 65 with total assets of £2 million including £1.5 million in cash might be retired and keeping their income low to avoid income tax. But so far the bookies are obsessed with income and if the white paper is as well, then someone with a wage/income of £25K but no assets might well be passed through an affordability check in front of the person with £2 million. This is the absolute folly of meddling with people's lives and can only pass muster if non-intrusive credit checks generally are used instead of proof of income. But I fear the white paper will only lay down guidelines and the bookies will remain obsessed with income and not capital. But let's see what the white paper actually says. Also, at first it might all be a real drag but things will lapse. After all, VAR in football was meant to be the end to all disputes and look at how that has worked out! All the do-gooders and hand-wringers never, ever realise that there is life as per the rules and life as it really is! |
|
By:
Looks like the next time I lose more than £1000 in a day (which has only happened to me once, 10 years ago) it will be game over for me, forever.
 And what about £2000 in 3 months? This is gambling; we all have bad runs. How are we expected to make a decent amount if we don't take risks? |
|
By:
Its £125 a day!
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Soft check for £125 which is alot of money for some, and myself for that matter. But.....What if that loss limit is from prevoius winnings that month? Thank you for answering
|
|
By:
Not many average punters can afford to lose £125 a day, So I understand that threshold perhaps.. Sorry for lots of posts in a row
|
|
By:
Trident...On a personal level I "gamble" anywhere from £50K+ a month. Have to to make it worthwhile. That figure can never be over £30K now and even then its almost certan the £2K loss over 90 days will be triggered at some point. No income but no mortgage and have savings/cash so likely fail any checks. It's f**king killed it for people who want to make it pay.
|
|
By:
They doing a number on gambling now on bbc with that radio DJ.
You know I’d fookin love to be a victim nowadays, totally rid myself of personal responsibility, blame everything on everyone else m **** in the gutter in the street, steal from passers by call it some defect of enterprise etc. Have everyone fked with by a repressive ‘caring’ state as a result that forces everyone into line doing the wink jobs their can’t ordinarily fill. |
|
By:
At least within a couple of years we'll be able to vote out this government and replace them with a government who will scrap this nonsense and, err, install their own legislation dreamt up by the welsh woman with pink hair who seems to think that gambling is the work of the devil.
|
|
By:
A retired individual of, say, 65 with total assets of £2 million including £1.5 million in cash might be retired and keeping their income low to avoid income tax.
But so far the bookies are obsessed with income and if the white paper is as well, then someone with a wage/income of £25K but no assets might well be passed through an affordability check in front of the person with £2 million. I have an email from the GC stating that they have issued no guidance on savings and affordability. As I said above it is a breach of the Human Rights Act for the government to restrict how you use your money to purchase legal goods or services. |
|
By:
And yet they'll allow the many casinos to jump from having 20 of those infernal machines to 80! They'll consider whether or not to place stake limits on slots etc. but I won't be holding my breath on that one...
On the other hand, anyone who tries to use any kind of skill to bet on sports etc. is effectively being reduced to buttons, unless they have a huge salary. So the degenerate 0.2% will still be doing their nuts on slots and casino games they have no chance of beating, while most of the rest of us will be forced to give up or else fall into the clutches of unregulated overseas bookies... Oh happy day! |
|
By:
£125 a day and 2K a month .....they will kill online gambling .
Gambling is a rollercoaster of wins and losses , up 5K one month down 5K the next month .........caught in the net. Many people can afford to bet stakes higher than these limits and will abandon the sport if they get asked for financial details. I look forward to the hapless racing media abandoning their daily apologising for the Grand National and saying feck all about this...... |
|
By:
Agree with Joe Lampton, if any serious punter hasn't lost £2K in 90 days I would be amazed, you make hay while the sun shines and batten down the hatches when it's not.
|
|
By:
Racing media will be redundant.
Who will fund them? Read an interesting pice in the FT the other day about how horse race gambling in America is folding completely with private clubs being given rebates to continue who make up something like 20% of that total revenue now. It’s completely bust, only growth is fanduel **** and each corp with an interest fighting over it like dogs lapping up their own sick |
|
By:
Sad day for Horse Racing
 |
|
By:
but for the average punter im thinking a £125 loss? Is this per site? How the f**k does this work? What if i Win or lose playing online poker?
|