There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 480 comments are related to the topic:
Farewell to BF
Farewell to BF
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 480
|
By:
no it aint. lover waffle
you are a conspiracy loon, and have demonstrated it many times give us your opinion of putin. go on. do it. you wont i will after you havent you are scared |
|
By:
the checks are there for your benefit anorak, make complete sense. to stop you gambling beyond your means.
but remember you can still spunk 10 grand on this weekends eurolottery, do your lot on scratchcards, blow a wodge in an amusement arcade, lose a packet at the bingo, go to a racetrack and lose your house betting with the on course bookies, enter phone competitions at £2 a pop plus your network charge, lose a fortune on the pools, lose as much as you like on the health lottery, lose as much as you like on the postcode lottery, go to the casino and lose a fortune at roulette, go to a fairground and lose a fortune at the coconut shy, go to the pub and lose a wodge in the fruit machine so you're much safer now the checks are in place on here .... |
|
By:
Who said I have an opinion on Putin?
Why don't you ask someone who lives in Russia? If you're pushing for an opinion on the conflict, then I refer you to Peter Hitchens, who has lived in Russia, follows the politics in the region closely, wrote about what went on in Ukraine in 2014 at the time (and that article can be viewed online), and he believes there has been provocation caused by NATO expansion. Oliver Stone also made a film about the elected leader being overthrown in Ukraine in 2014, it's called Ukraine On Fire. The conflict didn't start when the scum media flicked a switch in your little brain last year. |
|
By:
Good luck Alan.
Saddened to read that you will be leaving us. Always enjoyed your contributions on here, as well as your various books over the years. Best wishes for the future. |
|
By:
A Conservative MP has warned of the dire financial consequences to British horseracing if the Gambling Commission's proposals for affordability checks are adopted and urged the sport to make its case to government.
Describing the Gambling Commission as "the most out-of-touch regulator in Britain," Philip Davies said some of the details contained in the public consultation into affordability checks betrayed a complete lack of understanding of betting. However, Davies, whose West Yorkshire constituency adjoins that of sports minister Stuart Andrew, believes the UK government can be persuaded to overrule some of the consultation's most troubling proposals, while arguing that, in Rishi Sunak, Britain "could not have a more racing-friendly prime minister". At the end of April the government published its much-delayed white paper on gambling reform, in which it proposed two tiers of supposedly "frictionless" checks that would be conducted to ascertain if individuals could afford their level of gambling. The first, which would be triggered by a spend of £125, would check for details such as bankruptcy orders, while a more invasive "enhanced" check of personal finances would be triggered at a spend of £1,000 over 24 hours, or £2,000 over 90 days. Last month the Gambling Commission published its detailed proposals for operating the checks. These included the suggestion that for the purposes of calculating spend winnings should only be counted as winnings for as little as seven days, and that enhanced checks should be rerun every six months to check financial circumstances had not changed. Concerns have also been raised at the degree to which checks will be frictionless, or whether many bettors will still have to provide bank statements and payslips to their bookmakers. Responding to the proposals, Davies said they were representative of a total lack of knowledge about the industry over which the Gambling Commission has jurisdiction. "They must be the most out-of-touch regulator there is in the country, and that’s a strong field," said Davies. "We’re going to find that tens of thousands of people, who are not problem gamblers, are going to be stopped from gambling any meaningful amount by the Gambling Commission. And it’s going to have devastating consequences for the horseracing industry. I think the racing industry and the bookmakers are being complacent about the effects, which are going to be crippling and absolutely devastating." One particularly contentious element contained in the consultation is the seven-day limit for calculating net loss on an account. Davies said: "There’s the proposal that any winnings from more than seven days ago will not be taken into consideration. What on earth is that about? "Say you just bet at major meetings. You could win £20,000 at Cheltenham, and if you lose £1,000 at Aintree you’ll be facing affordability checks. You’d have to be an absolute moron to think that makes sense." Davies added: "It’s embarrassing. The people at the Gambling Commission are zealots." Davies also warned that if the government accepts the Gambling Commission's proposals wholesale, there will be limited opportunities for MPs to make any alterations. "The government has to get a grip of the Gambling Commission," he added. "They can’t leave it to them because they will destroy the racing industry and people’s enjoyment of betting." While Davies enjoys a reputation as someone who has not been afraid to defy the Conservative whip on occasion, he feels that racing's leaders and professionals will continue to enjoy a sympathetic ear from the government as they press their case. "Stuart Andrew is my next door neighbour as an MP and I know for a fact he does not intend any harm to come to the racing industry," said Davies. "If he understands the seriousness of what the Gambling Commission is proposing, I think he will seek to intervene. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Read it slowly twaddle, and those threads above it.
The suggestion was ppl were getting stopped on deposits alone, so I added that if it is deposits (therefore cash flow) issues, keep an amount tied up on a future event that can’t be lost and is a safeguard to limit depositing. Keep up. |
|
By:
I am 70 years of age and have been gambling since the days of bookies’ runners. I left school at the age of 15 and went on to work for 17 years in my local shipyard. Upon leaving there, I started my own business and went on to achieve a personal Royal Warrant by Appointment to HM the Queen. Upon retiring, I felt I had served my country well; paying tax and insurance, and employing many people, who also paid tax and insurance over many decades.
I recently sold my home and now rent a flat. I have no dependents, have never married, and do battle every day with painful cancer, heart disease and arthritis. My only two pleasures in life are watching Liverpool matches and betting on horseracing. Now, to my complete and utter dismay, I find myself constantly being frozen out of my favourite pastime, because the government considers me incapable of managing my own finances. "I would very much like you to take up the cudgel on my behalf, and ask the government ministers responsible for this insane affront to my civil liberties and human rights, to address my queries. Firstly, after working all of my adult life until retirement age, why should I have to tell anyone details of my personal finances and financial commitments in order to do with my own hard-earned money exactly what I wish to? Secondly, why has gambling been singled out as the evil above all evils? Or can I assume that the next item on the agenda will be showing my bank balance to the bartender to prove I can afford my next pint? How insane that I can plod around my neighbourhood and buy a million lottery tickets, or lose every penny I have on the stock market, but I cannot indulge myself in the pastime I love dearly, which gives me hours of pleasure win or lose, all because of government policy that is supposedly going to protect a tiny minority of gamblers. Peter A Byrne Wirral" A basic freedom "Freedom of speech is part of our culture. “I don’t agree with what you say but I respect your right to say it.” Freedom to live our lives the way we want to, providing it is within the law, without government interference, is just as important. How we spend our own money, having paid our taxes, surely falls within this freedom. If there are consequences arising from how we spend our money, they are for us to consider and weigh up. Not for others to do so. I have enjoyed a ‘flutter’ for 50 years or so, with plenty of ups and downs. I will not tolerate anyone questioning whether it is “affordable” for me to do so, especially when metrics are to be used that display total ignorance of the subject. I can easily stop or find alternatives." Nigel Lindsey Farnham, Surrey |
|
By:
FWIW letters all from older people. So either; young people are just not interested in horse racing, or they can't be motivated to write in letters, or they are ok with displaying personal financial info, and possibly, maybe even probably, all three!
|
|
By:
Gambling as we know it is being dumbed down and thrown into the gutter. A new generation of stupid people is being fed a diet of bet builders and slots, whilst smart youngsters turn away.
|
|
By:
As opposed to the old generation who consumed a diet of yankees and football pools.
|
|
By:
True and 10% tax on turnover. That generation will be dead soon enough. But even amongst all that ****, there were avenues for the more astute. Better to say the 40-50 brigade, than the old generation.
Just got back from Vegas where I saw 0 00 and 000 on the roulette tables. Last time I went 30 years ago there was just 0!! |
|
By:
TBF it was 90% Lucky 15s, 10% Yankees in the 80s/90s.
|
|
By:
"Say you just bet at major meetings. You could win £20,000 at Cheltenham, and if you lose £1,000 at Aintree you’ll be facing affordability checks. You’d have to be an absolute moron to think that makes sense."
Good quote from that MP and article - I hope he is getting some of that kind of message across given his position as MP. |
|
By:
The Torys obviously ain't got shares in the gambling industry as obviously this would have been brushed aside 10 yrs ago.
|
|
By:
Good luck Alan See you at North 17 COYS
|
|
By:
CLYDEBANK29 09 Aug 23 22:56
Gambling as we know it is being dumbed down and thrown into the gutter. A new generation of stupid people is being fed a diet of bet builders and slots, whilst smart youngsters turn away. Been frowned upon for generations,gamblers seen as fodder bookies seen as leech since time began |
|
By:
there was never an issue until the introduction of electronic gaming machines - often referred to as the 'crack-cocaine' of gambling. these checks should be much more focused, perhaps exclusively focused, on anyone contemplating a shot on these. the fact someone who has been happily gambling on here for 22 years, within his means, is run out of town bcos the bookies have made people addicted to the electronic gaming machines is absolutely preposterous. ridiculous.
if you want to play electronic gaming machines you should be warned it is extremely addictive and as such an affordability check will be required. |
|
By:
still got Keith Lemon on every ad break trying to get people hooked on 32red's "super moolah" casino games.
don't lose too much though, cos that'll mean anorak's no longer allowed to get his £3 on the first favourite at brighton .... |
|
By:
you can bet on the horses at 32red. when was the last time you saw a 32red advert with keith lemon extolling the virtues of their horseracing odds ?? you wouldn't. they're not bothered about horseracing.
|
|
By:
An affordability check does nothing to stop the addiction anyway, it’s pointless. It basically just checking that people can afford to be an addict.
And it’s always the ones who can afford it (ie professional footballers, wealthy businessmen, trust fund kids), who are the first to cry about it and claim they were addicts who were abused after they do their money. Most normal people, who don’t have that sort of wealth, know the value of money and are more likely to bet responsibly with it in the first place. And if they do lose their money, they will always take full responsibility themselves. It’s always the same type of wealthy or well paid person that has to play the victim when they lose. |
|
By:
You could turnover £100k in 6 months make a 2% loss on investment and get pulled.
On the other other hand you could turnover £1.95k in 6 months, blow the lot and not get pulled. One pretty much knows what he is doing the other is clueless. So % loss on t/o would be a better guide to spot the vulnerable. Would the bookies buy into it though if it highlighted their their mug punters? |
|
By:
I remember when i used to go to Corals every sat morning, often the staff would be walking round asking people if they fancied 10 free spins on the machines. There would also be free biscuits on the tables as if it was some sort of party,i thought then, this is just like pushing dope.
|
|
By:
Chopstick.
Free biscuits every day in a Corals in dark and depressed Darlo. Hope you are well. Ronnie. |
|
By:
On tv quiz the 1% show people may win £10k and
then gamble it with a chance to win £100k. Will they stop show to undertake affordability checks on the contestant. £10k is a lot to lose for most people. Same with who wants to be a millionaire, gambling £500k... |
|
By:
Must be feeling it a bit on the exchanges with people dropping out, I got an email earlier with one of those 'how can we get better' questionnaires.
|
|
By:
First time EVER I got a free bet off bf today.
Ronnie. |
|
By:
Are you paying the extra commission to get that free bet, ronnie?
|
|
By:
Sparrow.NO.
Can't stop off to hospital with my heart monitor I have fixed for the last few days. Hope you are well. Ronnie. |
|
By:
Good luck Anorak, your input along with AinS were the most enjoyable threads to read..This world i am afraid is becoming full of thou cannot do this you have to do as your told, even with our own monies. Be lucky..
|
|
By:
Free Bet ? what a 1 pound or 2 pound or maybe 5 free spins at 10p a spin and win 0.08pence.....
Very generous This Company  |
|
By:
Hope everything is ok with you at the hospital, ronnie.
|
|
By:
Yes good luck Ronnie
|
|
By:
A lot of mention of younger people and slots /casino type things. Yes some are into that but maybe plenty of the brighter ones are into crypto where big money CAN be made ( and lost )
|
|
By:
You get the feeling it is the smaller horse racing participants that get the hassle. What about affordability checks on those buying racehorses where 100's of thousands can be involved and we've had a few high profile financial disasters in last year or two. Not that I'm suggesting that should be done (be another nail in the racing coffin) but pointing out one of the many inequalities in the plans.
|
|
By:
sorry to hear you are leaving Alan, always enjoyed reading your interesting posts.
|
|
By:
Yes Brian and also they won't like it if they are stopped betting. After all it's just a 2k loss in 90 days the trigger ?
|
|
By:
Enjoyed your posts on the AIS thread Anorak, hopefully you can still keep in touch with the Forum.
Having a Minus Lifetime Account myself I would like to think I am safe, but in this bonkers world who knows. |
|
By:
Anorak."never give up,there,s always a way.i left Betfair 23 times.Have a cup of tea and think of a new plan.hope to hear from you soon.you are one of the good guys on the forum"BRASS.
 |
|
By:
It's the horse racing industry which is their main target.
The do-gooders don't need anyone to tell them the damage that restricting betting will do to the industry, because that is part of the plan and always has been. |