There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 493 comments are related to the topic:
Gambling white paper: Gamblers losing £1,000 a day to face checks
Gambling white paper: Gamblers losing £1,000 a day to face checks
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 493
|
By:
I cannot believe it hash come to this , honestly it seems we are becoming more controlled each month.
|
|
By:
I really don't understand why they've gone for this option rather than simply putting restrictions on deposits. If you can't (or aren't prepared to) prove that you can 'afford' your gambling, you should just be able to accept being restricted to a £100 monthly deposit. That would be a problem for those people who specialise in festivals or other occasional events, but most users could cope with it. It would still smack heavily of the nanny state, but it wouldn't limit most punters to modest stakes forever.
|
|
By:
''The National Lottery operator has voluntarily set limits on both draw-based and instant-win games for players using its online services. It has set a spend limit of £750 per week and an account deposit limit of £350 per week. An account can play up to 75 instant win games per day. Players are also able to set personal, tighter limits if they so wish.''
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2020-03-09.26969.h&p=25893 |
|
By:
Smokers and drinkers next.
|
|
By:
This **** will get far far worse under the Labour government which will come to power next year (NAP)
|
|
By:
When will the uprising begin against the dictatorship we are currently ruled by ?? Will you take part??
|
|
By:
Right....some final thoughts on this nonsense.
1/ BHA have allowed this white paper to combine non-skilled gambling (slots etc) with skilled gambling, starting with horse racing. BHA should be ashamed of themselves for not campaigning properly when all of this kicked off nearly 4 years ago. 2/ Who on earth has come up with these truly daft figures of £125 and £2000 etc? Shows those involved have no idea whatsoever about how gambling works. What other legislation in other fields might be dreamed up by those who have no idea about what they are trying to legislate? A very dangerous state of affairs. I wrote to my MP about this matter during Covid because I had been anticipating affordability checks etc when I first spotted the gambling act was going to be reviewed some time ago. His reply showed an ignorance of betting that shocked me. It also showed him to be a real wimp scared stiff of social media - like most in Parliament. 3/ This whole stupid sh*t is like wholly electric cars. Let's campaign for electric cars before we have nothing like the charging infrastructure to make them practical. Same stupidity with gambling - let's introduce these 'frictionless and instant' checks when no infrastructure exists to carry them out, let alone no suggestions about who will pay for it! 4/ Soft checks to include 'postcode affluence'. Now, what on earth is that? Totally daft to think you can control a population in this way. Does that mean wealthier gamblers must move home if they live in an area deemed 'poor'? 5/ Having said all that, I do agree about the check for County Court Judgments. After all, if you are, say, a plumber, and a client won't pay to the point where you have to take out a CCJ, you'd be pretty annoyed to find out said customer was punting away! BUT. I think there is some hope here. Why? Because this white paper is such a mish-mash of nonsense (IE suggesting checks etc where no way yet exists of doing them) I think it could quietly be abandoned. To me, further evidence for this is actually in the shape of the CCJ's and Post Code Affluence ideas. Both look like 'fudges' that were suggested in a panic when the idiots responsible for the pile of sh*t realised the hornets nest they had stirred up. Lastly, I would also like to know just how the bookies have failed to campaign to have any distinction made between skill- and non-skilled based gambling? I do hope it wasn't because they really would now SOLELY prefer to be operators of virtual slot machine and casino sites! Sad, though, that the UK has come to this. Control and utter stupidity now dominating everyday life. |
|
By:
does this include the shops can burn a grand easy in freds on a saturday morning
|
|
By:
Oh no, Fashion. The high street will do very well from this white paper, and many of the smaller/medium outlets will be able to dramatically increase the number of machines. And the bricks & mortar casinos will be given a host of new powers allowing them to fleece customers with sports bets, better casino machines etc. I'm sure the govt members involved in this white paper mean well, but they really don't have a bloody clue.
|
|
By:
It is very similar in sentiment to when you could only bet by going on course, it’s the convenience that they are attacking. Putting up barriers for all over a certain level when those sending emails from abroad with access won’t.
It’s also a direct attack on the activity of ‘professionals’. Sure you can go round the tracks like the old days, but technology is creeping in creating a cashless state. All this because the woke world of lack of self responsibility encouraged everyone to become a victim and blame everyone else for their own failures. |
|
By:
Honky what you say is very true the geezer in charge of the commmitteeeee looks smug not sure why suspect doesn't have a jot and DCMS woman frankly looks helpless talking about having a flutter. Tories will be out Labour in new brush hopefully empower the working man.
|
|
By:
Labour be no better we are doomed
 |
|
By:
Well if it will be 50p ew if that labour woman from Wales with the hair like a parrot has her way.
|
|
By:
It would be interesting to know if betting firms are going to change their current availability checking to that indicated in the white paper. I rule nothing out.
|
|
By:
why does movewiththetimes keep saying LAB would be no better
how do you no,it seems you,ll put up with anything the troy,s throw at you on the grounds LAB will do no better what have unions ever done for us what haver echr ever done for us blah,blah not bovered ,not bovered,does this face look bovered, bothered for the grammar police |
|
By:
in a casino not fotb,s would you be open to the argument that poker,roulette are games of skill not chance ?
|
|
By:
The white paper is prejudiced.
The allegation of ‘North/South’ divide gets banded around, and from time to time you hear ‘a postcode lottery’ when it comes to services available and funding for NHS. But I don’t think I have ever seen anywhere where it is in black and white definitively saying that where you live will be a criteria of whether you are allowed to continue betting. The affluence of you area will be one of the determining factors. Also, only certain people will be allowed to do certain activities on the exchange (if the exchange has a future). Only those with (a salary of X/ or X of capital) will be allowed to lay losers/fallers. It will simply come down to how much salary you are on, irrespective of whether you can make the game pay doing it. Quite remarkable. |
|
By:
Why does she keep telling everyone that the report is 250 pages long ? Just because it's long doesn't necessarily make it any good.
|
|
By:
Oh what a bloody mess!
We have the BHA that's not fit for purpose, A Gambling Commission that has scant understanding of gambling (and/or includes some evangelists who want to do away with gambling and all other forms of pleasure). A Government that panders only to minorities and bases policy on what it hopes will get it through the next election. And of course the Nanny State of which this White Paper is just the start. Once the cashless society arrives we will have our lives scrutinised in every aspect by Government, Security services and Big Business. Algorithms will control our spending. |
|
By:
I wish we had Trump or even Putin running this country rather than any of the wet shysters we got here. The country is finished.
|
|
By:
Security services and Big Business. Algorithms will control our spending. They already do!.........
|
|
By:
2k over 90 days is like the ave speed camera - dundee to aberdeen
  |
|
By:
BlazingWalker • April 28, 2023 9:54 AM BST
I wish we had Trump or even Putin running this country rather than any of the wet shysters we got here pootin shut down all the casinos in russia, apart from a few in resorts and trump actually managed to bankrupt a casino through incompetence. |
|
By:
All what you say roggrain is frighteningly true ,I love this country but I don’t want to hear people describe it as a free country any longer.
|
|
By:
I wish we had Trump or even Putin running this country rather than any of the wet shysters we got here. The country is finished.
No affordability checks needed to be loaded into a lorry to dig a trench in Bakhmut to die in. Get a grip, man. |
|
By:
1st timer, 'the blob' is in charge. the politicians are just decoration. virtually all tangible government has now been farmed out to completely unaccountable outfits such as the gambling commission and ofgem. who are most definitely not playing for the individuals.
|
|
By:
The sad thing is, there has been plenty of help for problem gamblers for years and years before all this crap. Gamblers anon, barring yourself from websites, deposit limits..but still we have this garbage introduced on top. Unbelievable.
|
|
By:
Labour would be no better we are doomed
Labour certainly couldn't be much worse. If we look at the policies of both parties they're the same. The only difference is the rhetoric. The Tories have been putting us away for 13 years over immigration. While Labour come clean and invite them all to come. With Net Zero, how could Labour be worse than this lot? Labour did nothing over energy, neither have the Tories. Labour didn't build enough houses, neither have the Tories. The lockdowns damaged us immensely, and all cheered on by Labour. Neither party wants a proper Brexit, which is why that isn’t going as well as it should. They're the same people. Don't vote for either party. Break the two party system. |
|
By:
certainly agree starmer is no different to the tories, he is a tory
|
|
By:
His views are whatever he thinks they need to be to suit the desired outcomes at that point in time. However, freedom from state interference is not his default position, I feel !
|
|
By:
If they can write code to control winners they must
have code to identify losers and more code to keep them losing. There's the problem. Seems quite obvious (well somewhat obvious) that banks rather than bookies should be controlling clients finances for online punting, via deposits. |
|
By:
There is absolutely no need for any control, outside of people in receipt of means tested taxpayer handouts being barred from using it to gamble online. However if online slots, bingo and all that crap was banned, I would have no objection. It should definitely be delineated from sports betting.
|
|
By:
Banks already know their customers, (or should do) and
should already spot problem gamblers. If bookies only took deposits via banks then the money laundering worries and most other worries are taken away from bookies. |
|
By:
What's a problem gambler? There is all manner of things people waste their money on. Should holidays to Benidorm be income tested ? How about financing cars people could only dream of buying outright ? Or how about the people on benefits with six dogs and eight cats ? Should you prove your income before you buy the seventh dog ?
|
|
By:
Punters that wish to deposit via other means, other than from
a bank, would then be vetted by bookies, or deposit would be responsibility of bookie. I'd guess most folk would avoid extra bookie checks. But bookies will still be running their code over all punters, and winners will be weeded out. |
|
By:
The sad thing is, there has been plenty of help for problem gamblers for years and years before all this crap. Gamblers anon, barring yourself from websites, deposit limits..but still we have this garbage introduced on top. Unbelievable.
Yes, a lot has been done to help gamblers. The percentage of problem gamblers has more than halved in recent years, and is now one of the lowest of any major country. And of those treated by the National Gambling Treatment Service in 2021/2022, half were from the slots/casino games, a group of people who this white paper does little to help. A mere 8.2% came from horse racing. A further 20% came from other sports betting. Those figures weren't broken down further, but I would imagine that most of that 20% were betting on football. If you're intelligent enough to realise that the slots/casino games are an idiotic venture, and fancy exercising some of your own, erm, judgement, then betting on football is likely to be your first port of call - most gamblers can look at Manchester City v Nottingham Forest (or whatever) and know which team to lump on. They won't make money long-term unless they get rather more sophisticated than that, but I can see the pull. So if you really feel the need to further cut the numbers of problem gamblers, hit the slots/casino games as hard as you can. If that's still not enough for you, possibly try and persuade some of the football bettors to relent. Quite why horse racing punters are having their hobbies ripped apart, when they're a tiny percentage of a small problem, is beyond me. (I'd be even more furious if I was a poker player. They made up just 1.8% of those NGTS figures, and are being sucked into this as well.) |
|
By:
What is the definition of a 'problem gambler' ?
|
|
By:
Horse race punters have had their hobby curtailed by
bookies code, unless they are losers. The legislation seems to be bookies wanting more info on their clients rather than any actual enforcement of protection. A recent legal case suggested bookies have zero responsibility to punters welfare from excessive losses. |
|
By:
One RA I thought a horse was a complete 'certainty', Promotion for Stoute, owned by the Queen iirc. So I thought it was lined up to win at the royal meeting, and it got beat (thrashed) by a soft ground horse on firm. I absolutely could not believe it, and went on full tilt ending up losing 7x of the original (very big) stake on a credit card. Who's fault was that, mine. Not the bookies, not the 'gambling commission', not the banks, mine.
What happened after that day. I learned discipline, how to bet, what I was good at (and not so good at). I did not seek to blame other people for my own shortcomings. Would I have been considered a 'problem gambler' on that day. Am I still a problem gambler now that I am many many thousands ahead of what happened on that fateful day. |
|
By:
A recent legal case suggested bookies have zero
responsibility to punters welfare from excessive losses That is true, but irrelevant when a regulator is telling them to stop "excessive losses" through these checks. |