Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
The group has been set up as a direct result of the Gambling White Paper and the threat it represents to both bettors and the Gambling and racing industries.
[appear genuine enough so hope they're not just bought and paid for opposition
]
99.6% of British adults gamble without an issue.
https://gamblersconsumerforum.com/about-us/
About GCF
Our 5 point plan going forward:
1. We will call for a change in culture at the Gambling Commission, so it actually does the job of a regulator – to represent and protect the interests of consumers, particularly by correcting poor market practises. If this is not achieved, we will call for a new regulator.
2. We will campaign for a panel of objective, qualified clinicians, who are experts in addiction recovery, to advise the Govt in how best to treat addicts, replacing the current set up of anti-gambling sociologists whose starting point is that gambling is a harmful activity.
3. We will strongly object to the use of affordability checks on the grounds they are impractical and illiberal, with evidence showing they will cause a surge in black market activity. We will campaigning that they be removed from all legislation.
4. We will call for the creation of a Govt panel made up of ordinary gamblers, independent bookmakers, and sporting industry reps to directly influence Govt policy concerning gambling, so ensuring there is a balanced conversation based on knowledge and expertise.
5. We aim to achieve this through a strong social media presence, a media campaign using our press contacts, a lobbying campaign using our political connections, and by responding to consultations and inquiries, ensuring those we seek to represent are finally heard.
[appear genuine enough so hope they're not just bought and paid for opposition
]99.6% of British adults gamble without an issue.
https://gamblersconsumerforum.com/about-us/
About GCF
Our 5 point plan going forward:
1. We will call for a change in culture at the Gambling Commission, so it actually does the job of a regulator – to represent and protect the interests of consumers, particularly by correcting poor market practises. If this is not achieved, we will call for a new regulator.
2. We will campaign for a panel of objective, qualified clinicians, who are experts in addiction recovery, to advise the Govt in how best to treat addicts, replacing the current set up of anti-gambling sociologists whose starting point is that gambling is a harmful activity.
3. We will strongly object to the use of affordability checks on the grounds they are impractical and illiberal, with evidence showing they will cause a surge in black market activity. We will campaigning that they be removed from all legislation.
4. We will call for the creation of a Govt panel made up of ordinary gamblers, independent bookmakers, and sporting industry reps to directly influence Govt policy concerning gambling, so ensuring there is a balanced conversation based on knowledge and expertise.
5. We aim to achieve this through a strong social media presence, a media campaign using our press contacts, a lobbying campaign using our political connections, and by responding to consultations and inquiries, ensuring those we seek to represent are finally heard.
Show More
Our argument against Affordability
The Gamblers Consumers Forum have serious concerns when it comes to the use of affordability checks, and will argue strongly against them.
The Gamblers Consumer Forum believe affordability checks are wholly impractical and illiberal – they infantilise a generation of adults who are effectively being told they are unable to manage their own finances, but above all, plainly and simply, they will not work in a real-world setting.
From an addiction point of view, they do not do anything to address or treat the condition, they merely attempt to temporarily halt it by blocking the ability to place a bet in the regulated market. This, naturally, has unintended consequences. According to a survey conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Betting and Gambling Council, 79% of bettors believed it would result in more people going to the black market, and they were right – black market gambling site visits trebled during the World Cup. That is an absolutely staggering figure. Even more staggering is the fact that anti-gambling activists appear very concerned by a 0.2% gambling addiction rate, but they consider what they call a ‘parallel market’ of 1% to be “low”, despite its rise.
In terms of credit checks, we believe these are being manipulated from their proper usage, and as such will produce inaccurate results. A credit check does not providean accurate financial analysis of the very nuanced financial position of each individual. After all, a person earning £40,000 in London with several children will have a very different disposal income to someone earning the same living in the North of the country without a family. Moreover, a credit check’s purpose is to ensure the likelihood of borrowed money being paid back, not as a sign off for one to spend their own money. There are already legitimate concerns that what should be a simple process of placing a bet will begin to resemble that of a multi-£100k mortgage application.
We also believe affordability checks massively disadvantage those who are self-employed, retired, or are concerned about their data privacy. This extends to those whose bank does not facilitate open banking, another way of estimating income and expenditure by decoding transactions. In other words, the infrastructure is just not there to support affordability checks and open banking, making the idea of frictionless regulations near impossible to achieve. The Irish Government have recognised this issue and have no plans to introduce affordability criteria.
Operators have privately reported that when they request documents, 80% of users decide not to provide them. The route of those individuals is either to stop betting altogether, or to divert to the black market. Indeed, the Government may see a repeat of the rush to Gibraltar as seen in the late 90s in a response to betting duty, with users registering in the Republic of Ireland under the CTA to avoid friction and checks. This would result in both a loss to the Treasury and the betting levy as a result of the tens of thousands of gamblers who will get caught up in the criteria as currently set out for when credit checks are instigated. This is why the GCF will becalling for the creation of a Government panel made up of ordinary gamblers, independent bookmakers, and sporting industry representatives to directly influence Government policy concerning gambling, so ensuring there is a balanced conversation based on knowledge and expertise.
The GCF’s fear is that the Government with continue to push ahead with affordability checks, despite evidence this would be a wholly unreliable and disingenuous method. The Gambling Commission themselves cite a University of Liverpool study that shows “that over the course of January 2017, there were 22,080 individuals losing in excess of £1,000 on slots, whilst for non-slots play, there were 10,373 customers losing in excess of £1,000”. Unfortunately, The Gambling Commission then conveniently omits the caveat found in the original report: “The data tell us nothing about these individuals. Some may be sufficiently wealthy that losses of this magnitude are not important to them. Others might have been returning to the operator large wins earned in the preceding month”.
To conclude, the barrier to achieving the Government’s aim are that they are a solution to a problem that does not exist – a world where the vast majority of people who gamble are harmed by it. Affordability checks are tools to please a fantasy of the anti-gambling lobby that cannot ever come to pass: where gambling harm is completely eliminated. What is almost inevitable is that it will reduce levels of gambling overall by non-addicts, deeply harming the industries gambling and betting turnover support, and will likely increase black market activity in addicts. Ultimately the main barrier is this: the belief that preventing gambling activity will prevent gambling addiction. The most likely outcome of this is a movement by addicts to the unregulated market, or a movement by addicts to another addiction, which arguably, actually makes the problem worse.
The Gamblers Consumers Forum have serious concerns when it comes to the use of affordability checks, and will argue strongly against them.
The Gamblers Consumer Forum believe affordability checks are wholly impractical and illiberal – they infantilise a generation of adults who are effectively being told they are unable to manage their own finances, but above all, plainly and simply, they will not work in a real-world setting.
From an addiction point of view, they do not do anything to address or treat the condition, they merely attempt to temporarily halt it by blocking the ability to place a bet in the regulated market. This, naturally, has unintended consequences. According to a survey conducted by YouGov on behalf of the Betting and Gambling Council, 79% of bettors believed it would result in more people going to the black market, and they were right – black market gambling site visits trebled during the World Cup. That is an absolutely staggering figure. Even more staggering is the fact that anti-gambling activists appear very concerned by a 0.2% gambling addiction rate, but they consider what they call a ‘parallel market’ of 1% to be “low”, despite its rise.
In terms of credit checks, we believe these are being manipulated from their proper usage, and as such will produce inaccurate results. A credit check does not providean accurate financial analysis of the very nuanced financial position of each individual. After all, a person earning £40,000 in London with several children will have a very different disposal income to someone earning the same living in the North of the country without a family. Moreover, a credit check’s purpose is to ensure the likelihood of borrowed money being paid back, not as a sign off for one to spend their own money. There are already legitimate concerns that what should be a simple process of placing a bet will begin to resemble that of a multi-£100k mortgage application.
We also believe affordability checks massively disadvantage those who are self-employed, retired, or are concerned about their data privacy. This extends to those whose bank does not facilitate open banking, another way of estimating income and expenditure by decoding transactions. In other words, the infrastructure is just not there to support affordability checks and open banking, making the idea of frictionless regulations near impossible to achieve. The Irish Government have recognised this issue and have no plans to introduce affordability criteria.
Operators have privately reported that when they request documents, 80% of users decide not to provide them. The route of those individuals is either to stop betting altogether, or to divert to the black market. Indeed, the Government may see a repeat of the rush to Gibraltar as seen in the late 90s in a response to betting duty, with users registering in the Republic of Ireland under the CTA to avoid friction and checks. This would result in both a loss to the Treasury and the betting levy as a result of the tens of thousands of gamblers who will get caught up in the criteria as currently set out for when credit checks are instigated. This is why the GCF will becalling for the creation of a Government panel made up of ordinary gamblers, independent bookmakers, and sporting industry representatives to directly influence Government policy concerning gambling, so ensuring there is a balanced conversation based on knowledge and expertise.
The GCF’s fear is that the Government with continue to push ahead with affordability checks, despite evidence this would be a wholly unreliable and disingenuous method. The Gambling Commission themselves cite a University of Liverpool study that shows “that over the course of January 2017, there were 22,080 individuals losing in excess of £1,000 on slots, whilst for non-slots play, there were 10,373 customers losing in excess of £1,000”. Unfortunately, The Gambling Commission then conveniently omits the caveat found in the original report: “The data tell us nothing about these individuals. Some may be sufficiently wealthy that losses of this magnitude are not important to them. Others might have been returning to the operator large wins earned in the preceding month”.
To conclude, the barrier to achieving the Government’s aim are that they are a solution to a problem that does not exist – a world where the vast majority of people who gamble are harmed by it. Affordability checks are tools to please a fantasy of the anti-gambling lobby that cannot ever come to pass: where gambling harm is completely eliminated. What is almost inevitable is that it will reduce levels of gambling overall by non-addicts, deeply harming the industries gambling and betting turnover support, and will likely increase black market activity in addicts. Ultimately the main barrier is this: the belief that preventing gambling activity will prevent gambling addiction. The most likely outcome of this is a movement by addicts to the unregulated market, or a movement by addicts to another addiction, which arguably, actually makes the problem worse.
Operators have privately reported that when they request documents, 80% of users decide not to provide them. 
not high at all - there is utterly no way I'm giving the dodgiest companies around my financial info and I can't imagine there are many who don't hold the same opinion.
Leif.
Must have given a dozen proof of funds out.
not had ONE back.
hope you are well.
Ronnie.
Must have given a dozen proof of funds out.
not had ONE back.
hope you are well.
Ronnie.
What will a bank statement saying u have 100k in savings. Get u able to gamble on ere
err
forging a statement is so simple even i could do it
they know this. maybe doing the checks but not actually checking absolves them in court
forging a statement is so simple even i could do it
they know this. maybe doing the checks but not actually checking absolves them in court
Freddie, No.
It gets you a £100 per month “spend budget”, unless you have proof of a regular income to go with it.
Savings get you nowhere.
It gets you a £100 per month “spend budget”, unless you have proof of a regular income to go with it.
Savings get you nowhere.
Where are the numbers these assumptions are made up of?
Where does it say what % of an amount of disposable income qualifies a person unlimited access?
The statement was to define a person who is ‘vulnerable financially’.
The government states a person with more than 16k in capital is self reliant and not entitled to financial assistance from the state.
So how can they then decide a person with more than 16k can’t spend it as they please?
Where does it say what % of an amount of disposable income qualifies a person unlimited access?
The statement was to define a person who is ‘vulnerable financially’.
The government states a person with more than 16k in capital is self reliant and not entitled to financial assistance from the state.
So how can they then decide a person with more than 16k can’t spend it as they please?
I dont think there are any numbers or guidelines, dustybin.
Gambling commission won’t give any, just give very vague guidance, then fine companies for not following their non existent rules.
Just seems random to me. Depends on who you are, and who is dealing with your account. Everybody just seems to make it up as they go along. Different firms seem to have different rules for different people.
Gambling commission won’t give any, just give very vague guidance, then fine companies for not following their non existent rules.
Just seems random to me. Depends on who you are, and who is dealing with your account. Everybody just seems to make it up as they go along. Different firms seem to have different rules for different people.
There's a gravy train getting stuffed with cash as it promises to tackle the effects of gambling harm but it's questionable whether these entities are actually effective. It's more likely they're filling their boots without producing tangible results. [but it is the UK after after all]
Fair play to the GCF as they challenge the methodologies behind the number crunching especially where they contend that the number of suicides associated with gambling are less to with gambling as they are to with other addictions. The hopeless cases are degenerate gamblers that would bet on two flies crawling up a wall and would sell their granny for the price of a yankee.
Fair play to the GCF as they challenge the methodologies behind the number crunching especially where they contend that the number of suicides associated with gambling are less to with gambling as they are to with other addictions. The hopeless cases are degenerate gamblers that would bet on two flies crawling up a wall and would sell their granny for the price of a yankee.
The Gamblers Consumer Forum is co-owned by a betting industry consultant.
Sad reality is that if you bet on here you will have a bank account so they already know everything about you, for this white paper they just have to have you confirm it!!
Probably google already processing this reply and monitoring whether it should be sent to another source- that's the sad reality we are living in
Probably google already processing this reply and monitoring whether it should be sent to another source- that's the sad reality we are living in
How much can you deposit per month into EACH betting/gambling account,say for example you are limited to £100 month by each betting site after you have been checked, so you have 10 accounts that equals £1000 per month. So how does that help a losing addict.
Here's your answer EMR:
What the white paper says: A live trial of a Single Customer View (SCV) system (under which information from different gambling operators can be shared to prevent customers from losing unaffordable sums) has begun this month with the assistance of GamStop. Gamblers considered to be high-risk are the focus of the trial with codes of practice being developed. At the end of the trial, there will be an assessment of whether the SCV system is identifying the right people and appropriate measures are being taken by bookmakers.
What it means: The government clearly expects the industry to deliver on the SCV, suggested that it and the Gambling Commission could yet reject the trial if they aren't satisfied and create their own solution. "If necessary, we will mandate a different or more comprehensive approach to ensure the system meets our objectives in a proportionate and safe way," says the white paper.
What the white paper says: A live trial of a Single Customer View (SCV) system (under which information from different gambling operators can be shared to prevent customers from losing unaffordable sums) has begun this month with the assistance of GamStop. Gamblers considered to be high-risk are the focus of the trial with codes of practice being developed. At the end of the trial, there will be an assessment of whether the SCV system is identifying the right people and appropriate measures are being taken by bookmakers.
What it means: The government clearly expects the industry to deliver on the SCV, suggested that it and the Gambling Commission could yet reject the trial if they aren't satisfied and create their own solution. "If necessary, we will mandate a different or more comprehensive approach to ensure the system meets our objectives in a proportionate and safe way," says the white paper.
How much can you deposit per month into EACH betting/gambling account,say for example you are limited to £100 month by each betting site after you have been checked, so you have 10 accounts that equals £1000 per month. So how does that help a losing addict.
same way allowing a "losing addict" to go to a racetrack and have as much as fancies on a horse without any questions being asked does ...
same way allowing a "losing addict" to go to a racetrack and have as much as fancies on a horse without any questions being asked does ...
SFB so the data protection act means nothing then if they can share your data with each other.
A live trial of a Single Customer View (SCV) system (under which information from different gambling operators can be shared to ensure each is dealing with strictly mugs only but we'll pretend it's to prevent customers from losing unaffordable sums and hope nobody notices) has begun this month with the assistance of GamStop.
Why would (eg) Betfair want (eg) 365 to know that customer (eg) hulk wasn't a mug and would cost them money if they didn't restrict/close him?
because its bookies v punters. and 365 might have information betfair might find handy.
it's all about profiling, they want to know everything including where you work and how much you earn. then they can decide if its worthwhile trying to empty you.
it's all about profiling, they want to know everything including where you work and how much you earn. then they can decide if its worthwhile trying to empty you.
It's also bookie vs bookie.
Your suggestion is like saying Tesco would share Clubcard information with ASDA, to my mind.
Your suggestion is like saying Tesco would share Clubcard information with ASDA, to my mind.
its you scratch my back i'll scratch yours.
they already pass lists round so it's nothing new. just out in the open rather than covertly thanks to their chums in the GC
they already pass lists round so it's nothing new. just out in the open rather than covertly thanks to their chums in the GC
EMR: SFB so the data protection act means nothing then if they can share your data with each other.
That's more or less what I wrote in my response to the Gambling Commission survey.
Make sure you do that too. Because posting about it on here is just a shout into the void.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/gambling-review/affordability-checks-explained-and-how-to-respond-to-the-gambling-commission-consultation-aklOV6K212Ko/
That's more or less what I wrote in my response to the Gambling Commission survey.
Make sure you do that too. Because posting about it on here is just a shout into the void.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/gambling-review/affordability-checks-explained-and-how-to-respond-to-the-gambling-commission-consultation-aklOV6K212Ko/
when you get gubbed by a bookie you've never had an account with before, before you've even placed a bet with them you probably get the feeling they've seen your name somewhere and decided they don't want you placing any bets with them.
so lets not pretend they don't share details.
so lets not pretend they don't share details.
SFB, maybe the disability discrimination act might become useful to a certain extent.
There you go, EMR. Good thinking. Something else to hit the GC bods with when you fill in the survey.
The Gamblers Consumer Forum call upon gamblers to write to their MP about the behaviour of the Gambling Commission
Following on from the Westminster Hall debate on affordability checks, The Gamblers Consumer Forum have produced a letter to lobby MPs on the failings of the Gambling Commission. The letter below illustrates a range of actions which demonstrates where they have overreached or failed as a regulator. We urge you to copy and paste the following letter and write to your MP.
You can find your MP here [https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP] and write to them via this website https://www.writetothem.com/
‘Dear MP
I am writing to bring your attention to significant concerns about the behaviour of the Gambling Commission.
The Commission, as you may know, is currently planning to institute low level caps on how much adults will be allowed to bet before facing a range of affordability checks. These checks represent an invasion of privacy as well as an incursion on consumer freedom. This will result in the growth of the black market as consumers switch their betting to either non-UK unregulated bookmakers or unlicenced bookmakers with the UK through the use or messaging services in order to preserve their freedoms.
I would like to draw your attention to the following specific aspects of the Gambling Commission’s behaviour:
After more than three years, it has still not released the results of a survey of the attitudes towards affordability checks of more than 12,000 consumers – undertaken as part of its 2020 call for evidence. It has refused a request for the publication of these survey results, claiming that there is ‘no public interest’ to support their release.
It has suppressed its own research (conducted in 2019 by 2CV), showing widespread opposition to affordability checks by consumers.
The Commission has already instituted a system of informal affordability checks by stating in its annual Compliance and Enforcement Report that, “customers wishing to spend more than the national average should be asked to provide information to support a higher affordability trigger such as three months’ payslips, P60s, tax returns or bank statements”.
The Commission and its advisers have become political in their approach and repeatedly expressed anti-gambling sentiments. In 2022, the Commission published its view that spending money on betting rather than the cinema and other entertainments was, in itself harmful. It has also claimed (without providing any evidence) that “greater harms are experienced by” non-problem gamblers compared with problem gamblers. This is whilst continuing to turn a blind eye to National Lottery products such as scratchcards as they are deemed to provide money for good causes
It endorsed a report by Public Health England on economic costs of gambling despite knowing that it was inaccurate. The report was subsequently withdrawn but the Commission has never admitted the suppression of its opinion (which was revealed by a Freedom of Information Act request).
It has provided financial support for a number of explicitly anti-gambling activist groups; and failed to take any action where these organizations have breached the rules for funding.
According to a recent report, the Gambling Commission has repeatedly breached the provisions of the Regulators’ Code.
The Gamblers Consumer Forum has called for an independent review of the informal system of affordability checks and the evidence presented in support of the Gambling Commission’s proposals, and the immediate release of the suppressed 2021 survey of bettor attitudes towards affordability checks. Evidence shows blanket regulation of this nature fails to achieve its objectives as will as the fact it is completely untested and numerous informed figures believe frictionless checks to be an impossible aspiration.
If you would like further information, please email contact@gamblersconsumerforum.com
It is critical that the Gambling Commission’s behaviour be subjected to robust scrutiny before it is allowed to expand its illiberal and economically and culturally damaging policy agenda. I would urge you to forward this letter to DCMS, HM Treasury and the Department for BEIS.
Thank you in anticipation of your support.’
Following on from the Westminster Hall debate on affordability checks, The Gamblers Consumer Forum have produced a letter to lobby MPs on the failings of the Gambling Commission. The letter below illustrates a range of actions which demonstrates where they have overreached or failed as a regulator. We urge you to copy and paste the following letter and write to your MP.
You can find your MP here [https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP] and write to them via this website https://www.writetothem.com/
‘Dear MP
I am writing to bring your attention to significant concerns about the behaviour of the Gambling Commission.
The Commission, as you may know, is currently planning to institute low level caps on how much adults will be allowed to bet before facing a range of affordability checks. These checks represent an invasion of privacy as well as an incursion on consumer freedom. This will result in the growth of the black market as consumers switch their betting to either non-UK unregulated bookmakers or unlicenced bookmakers with the UK through the use or messaging services in order to preserve their freedoms.
I would like to draw your attention to the following specific aspects of the Gambling Commission’s behaviour:
After more than three years, it has still not released the results of a survey of the attitudes towards affordability checks of more than 12,000 consumers – undertaken as part of its 2020 call for evidence. It has refused a request for the publication of these survey results, claiming that there is ‘no public interest’ to support their release.
It has suppressed its own research (conducted in 2019 by 2CV), showing widespread opposition to affordability checks by consumers.
The Commission has already instituted a system of informal affordability checks by stating in its annual Compliance and Enforcement Report that, “customers wishing to spend more than the national average should be asked to provide information to support a higher affordability trigger such as three months’ payslips, P60s, tax returns or bank statements”.
The Commission and its advisers have become political in their approach and repeatedly expressed anti-gambling sentiments. In 2022, the Commission published its view that spending money on betting rather than the cinema and other entertainments was, in itself harmful. It has also claimed (without providing any evidence) that “greater harms are experienced by” non-problem gamblers compared with problem gamblers. This is whilst continuing to turn a blind eye to National Lottery products such as scratchcards as they are deemed to provide money for good causes
It endorsed a report by Public Health England on economic costs of gambling despite knowing that it was inaccurate. The report was subsequently withdrawn but the Commission has never admitted the suppression of its opinion (which was revealed by a Freedom of Information Act request).
It has provided financial support for a number of explicitly anti-gambling activist groups; and failed to take any action where these organizations have breached the rules for funding.
According to a recent report, the Gambling Commission has repeatedly breached the provisions of the Regulators’ Code.
The Gamblers Consumer Forum has called for an independent review of the informal system of affordability checks and the evidence presented in support of the Gambling Commission’s proposals, and the immediate release of the suppressed 2021 survey of bettor attitudes towards affordability checks. Evidence shows blanket regulation of this nature fails to achieve its objectives as will as the fact it is completely untested and numerous informed figures believe frictionless checks to be an impossible aspiration.
If you would like further information, please email contact@gamblersconsumerforum.com
It is critical that the Gambling Commission’s behaviour be subjected to robust scrutiny before it is allowed to expand its illiberal and economically and culturally damaging policy agenda. I would urge you to forward this letter to DCMS, HM Treasury and the Department for BEIS.
Thank you in anticipation of your support.’
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539