The One Eyed son of the manse Gordon (is a Moron) Brown was responsible. The same fool who sold our gold reserves for buttons.

Yes, many times, more than I can remember. I think I'd been to almost every one outside London; I used to facilitate transport to those keeping an eye on these establishments.

The casino in Aberdeen provided the best quality fish & chunky chips; Manchester served mushy peas too with curry sauce - very weird for a Southerner. This was a long time ago. Now, I do not even frequent a high street bookie unless I was caught short.

Loads, do not know the exact number. My very 1st one was in Northampton. I remember Sargeant York (they were every where) and Stanley, and some independent ones. From Torquay (stayed at Totnes) in the South to Aberdeen and Edinburgh in the North; Bristol and Cardiff to Yarmouth, a quaint sleepy town. I do not think there was one in Newmarket or Goodwood, But, at least two in Brighton; been to the one in Bournemouth, Blackpool. I remember having fallen asleep in a car and woken up by a copper about 2am in Scarborough.

The Chinese would come in after 11.30pm every night after closing takeaways and tucking into free food including fish and sirloin steaks; one only pay (tip) the waiters for refreshments eg hot chocolate/coffee/juice.

But, casinos are not nice places to spend one's evenings. I'd see the same faces eg Brighton/Hove; Edinburgh/Glasgow ; etc - probably for better change luck. The Chinese (mostly losers/the hosts loved them) were crazy roulette players. They'd put chips on every number except '0'.

Yarmouth a quant sleepy town Impossible? Rofl!!

When post 2300 hrs Impossible, Xmas day? lol

The one at Hove was posh unlike the Brighton one (very close to the train station). Portsmouth's was next to a bed & breakfast I think.

Maybe I'm wrong. Then post 11.30pm (mind you I only travel post 11pm) most towns looked deserted on weekdays. I think not much happened that part of Yarmouth.

I remember driving past Sunderland dog track post sergeant York Newcastle. In those days one would need good sign-reading skills to get to the destination; no sat nav. Even Telemaster was not around then.

I remember TM rubbishing every comment that was made about highlighting the impact on racing/gambling in general if these state applied restrictions were to materialise.

Now we see more of the ugly nature of them TM shut up and 1stTP taken over the baton.

It’s not irony that spread betting is one of the largest facilities of gambling….it’s one of the most prominent features of gambling on indices offered by brokers in the financial market rather than bookies in the ‘gambling’ sector.

Where is the hand wringing about that?

I don't know why the BHA have taken so long to become vocal but I thought perhaps they might be doing things on the qt, however just the other day, Harrington said "I think we have a meeting with the GC". Not exactly giving confidence they have their eye on the ball.

Just thinking back to when I was laying a few in the Aussie market and a separate wallet was required,it would not be the daftest idea for the Racing Industry to lobby for similar with online bookies i.e separate accounts for sports bettors and their casino's etc with no transfer of funds allowed.

An exemption from ACs for say a 2 year period and a re-assessment would either consolidate racings cause or otherwise, there will never be a distinct line unless something is done to separate the sport from all other forms of gambling online.

Did there not used to be a separate "Games" wallet on BF?  Albeit with transfers allowed (not sure I am with CG on blocking that, just means an extra faff to fund it).

Why would anyone - other than fixed-odds bookies - want no exchanges, and how would that further the 'safer gambling' agenda ACs are supposed to be a part of?

1st tp, what effect does the exchange have on shop punters, all 3 on FOBTs in each shop iyo? Even if your percentages were accurate how many affected? ROFL

if you cant see what effect the chance of connections to lay horses to lose has on racing /punters, myabe punting /racing not for you

So much coverage on the bookies horseracing paper RP yet no discussion or debate offered on ITV Racing. This entity is so quick to bring on bookies journos to promote horseracing, and syndicate ownership and other stuff but not Affordability Check (AC) live on air. Have they been ordered not to by their sponsor and/or horseracing journos paymasters?

I'm astounded and disappointed no concerned party has yet initiated a discussion/debate on live tv.

Gambling advertising should be banned for starters, especially on TV.
It causes far more social problems than drink or smoking.

Read between the lines on here, many punters have admitted they’ve had to knock it on the head for a while because they are losing too much money.

Did you not learn anything from the way you lot cheered on the FOBT restrictions? I warned you all on here, time and again, that if they win the battle against FOBTs, they would come for us next. Their target is gambling, not any specific form of gambling which you happen not to like.

We have to defend everyone's right to gamble how they like, and it's no business of the temperance and prohibition industry to go sticking their nose in.

Look. Think of it in practical terms. If racing had defended FOBTs with more vigour, then the busybodies and prodnoses would still be attacking those FOBTs, and not attacking us. Same applies to online casinos and advertising. They are now the frontlines. Let's commit to their defence, or we'll find ourselves having to retreat.

You obviously fail to notice that this exchange is no different than the books Celtic i.e casino games etc? The GC are not going to distinguish between books and exchanges so moving the majority of horse race betting is not going to happen and banning the online casinos is a longshot.The only viable alternative is a separate licence for sports betting, which has been done to death already on here.

The levy will suffer from punters walking away or betting with unlicenced books if the ACs the GC propose are implemented, that is the bottom line. As to odds, todays odds reflect how books were originally, what you no doubt refer to is the simplified version introduced for the mass market when off course betting was legalised?

Prior to that and on course for many years after most books would be offering fractions like 100/8, 100/6 etc.

^ To "Die Linke" (ugh!)

A House of Lords member on Wednesday labelled some aspects of the Gambling Commission's proposals for affordability checks "pathetic" as he called it "an even-money shot" that the most intrusive checks would find their way into the regulations.

Labour peer Lord Lipsey, a former Tote board member, was speaking in response to claims from Betting and Gaming Council chief executive Michael Dugher that British racing might face dire consequences should the Gambling Commission and the government get a consultation into the controversial checks wrong.

Dugher said ministers "must be true to their word" in ensuring financial risk checks on punters were truly frictionless, and warned the government and the Gambling Commission would be committing "an act of vandalism" on British racing if its consultation drove gamblers away from betting on the sport.

In April the government published its long-awaited proposals for gambling reform and promised checks would be frictionless, but fears the process would be more intrusive and heavy-handed grew last month when the Gambling Commission published a consultation on how these would be put into effect. The consultation set out that information provided by credit reference agencies might not be enough to prevent large numbers still having to undergo more intrusive checks.

Proposed financial risk checks would initially be triggered by a spend of £125, while more invasive checks on personal finances would be rolled out at a spend of £1,000 over 24 hours, or £2,000 over 90 days. In its consultation document, the Gambling Commission suggested winnings from as little as seven days prior would be disregarded for enhanced checks, meaning bettors could be subjected to proving they can afford to bet despite being in profit from their gambling.

"I think some of the aspects of these proposals from the Gambling Commission are pathetic," said Lipsey. "Like how many days have to go by until a win gets taken off your account. I should say I'm a person who only bets in fivers, but I had a similar thing as a politically exposed person recently. That means if you're a member of parliament or various other things, you have to go through different processes.

"I had with my bookmaker 32 emails before I was able to keep my account and I'm afraid that will be the same with affordability checks. I don't think people will relish that. There are privacy matters which, personally, I'm not that bothered about, but it's just the sheer weight of inconvenience heaped on people who are doing something perfectly legal.

"Whether this actually goes through, I have my doubts as this government is not keen on this kind of thing and it may well go away."

Asked if he thought intrusive checks would find their way into the regulatory requirements when the consultation ends in October, he replied: "As a betting man, I think it's an even-money shot."

Lipsey, who is now chairman of Premier Greyhound Racing, has great fears for the future of that sport should the checks come into force, saying: "One worries greatly about anything that will endanger the betting market. We rely, indirectly, on the betting market to provide us with our income – it's why bookmakers pay us for the product of greyhound racing. It is a threat."

He added: "I'm hoping the government and Gambling Commission will both think again and have a better consultation than they have had so far and get the facts on board.

"I have spoken to ministers about it and think they have been hearing me, especially about the political disadvantages of attacking a sport like greyhound racing, which a lot of voters still go to."

Lipsey's fellow Labour peer Lord Donoughue also shared Dugher's concerns about the impact on British racing.

Donoughue, who has produced reports on horse and greyhound racing and is the former chairman of the Starting Price Regulatory Commission, said: "I've just come back from holiday in France and the difference between prize-money there and here is huge, as was the number of runners. It worries me British racing has these problems and it certainly doesn't need any more."

He added: "If someone is a gambling addict that is a terrible tragedy for them and their family, but I think the extent of the problem has been exaggerated by loads of academics and, for ordinary working people, being able to have what I used to call sixpence each-way is an important part of their life.

"None of us want to diminish the tragedy if someone is a gambling addict, but I've seen quite a lot of stuff that suggests to me there are people involved in this who basically love banning things and interfering with our lives."