Affordability Checks - one almighty mess

Not sure if anybody has mentioned it but Getting a short priced horse is an even more tempting way to beat the affordability checks.

^ Beaten

If AC was independently done eg by a qualified body governed by FCA code of conduct, and not by bookies, I'd be willing to pay a one-time £10 for the service. 

Just take the bookies out of the equation, the issue is no longer. It's so simple!!

nice one duffy

The bookies are toxic - plain and simple - just like their crack cocaine casino games which are generating the bulk of their profits. Take away fobt AC is no longer necessary for the majority of customers.

how about the bookies are forced to disclose how many accounts each have restricted to buttons or shut down.

would be a major fkng embarrassment and might open a few eyes at the absolutely useless GC

Freedom of choice no more sadly…..

A typical win/loss scenario (betfair only)... if my account was suspended when showing an unacceptable loss, say 100 points... what should I do to get money back, especially when it could all turn around in the next race???

impossible123 • August 16, 2023 6:40 PM BST
The bookies are toxic - plain and simple - just like their crack cocaine casino games which are generating the bulk of their profits.

I wish people would stop using stupid analogies like comparing crack cocaine addiction with people who play casino games

What casino games do is allow people to lose money more quickly than other forms of gambling and are easily accessible and easy to understand. Probably the small proportion of gambling addicts in the country  would just lose their money more slowly if casino games didnt exist

the rationale for updating our outdated gambling laws was the increase in online betting but the fundamental flaw in the white paper is not separating out sports betting from casino games

Agree rothko - but the fact is they have separated them to some extent though, in ignoring some of the casino play!! - you don't have to fill out an AC if you go and stick all your mortgage money into one of the bookies stupid machines, do you??

THAT is the craziness of this all.

But the bookies should be well aware, if ACs succeed in ruining normal sports betting/trading, then their precious machines, and all gambling in shops, will be next in line - which is basically their business gone.

Bookies did not disagree or even try to distance themselves from that analogy ie casino games are the crack cocaine of gambling in high street or online bookies. The repetitiveness of the casino games eg a spin every few secs (not minutes) for a satke amounting to many £ in a min or hour; the crack cocaine of high street and online gambling have brought us to where we are at present.

Does anyone think if this crack cocaine of gambling is not available in the high street or online AC would be subject to every horseracing punter or in existence at present in the UK?

Does anyone think the bookies can continue to operate these crack cocaine/highly addictive gaming machines in the high street and online under the same betting/gaming licence to horseracing?

Does anyone think there should not be a clear distinction between these addictive machines and horseracing? 

I'd like a representative from the bookies to publicly comment on these.

Ofc most if not all believe there should be a distinction between those games and sports betting.
But the notion of doing something about it came from people other than bookies, who themselves could have seen a distinct difference but lamentably decided to not separate them.

So blame is with them.
If bookies overstepped the mark they would be little different to all other enterprise who ‘butt the line’ of acceptability (everyone else would call it opportunism)

This attack on gambling is just that, by people who perhaps never gamble, have no care about impact and non for proper redemption for them who refuse to stop themselves.

I’m sick to death of hearing about minority’s afflictions that require root and branch reform to try and tackle them (and no doubt fail miserably)

The vast majority arn’t victims of these nasty bookies, and those who are the drop outs in society oft come out with nonsense like ‘my truth’

Fck ‘your truth’ why not just ‘truth’?

What a long winded consultation that was, same questions recycled over and over trying to get the result they want. A good barrister could rip that consultation to shreds, plus it's open to multi abuse and it's discriminatory.

Dustbin.
You seem very clued up about things can I ask your thoughts on entain  share price.down another  4% today.

I sold all stocks about 18months ago, I’m waiting to acquire property next when the arse drops out the market.
Knowall your man.

Though I did read the American market shedding losers and consolidating. Fox bet latest to go tits up.

Dustybin.
Thank you for taking  time to reply.
Ronnie.

My experience with people I have known who are addicts is that managing their own addictive personalities is what brings results rather than trying to restrict access to the products they are buying - obviously all gambling products are highly addictive to an addict like all alcoholic drinks to an reformed alcoholic

Addicts are addicts all their life and need to seek help if they need it to manage their addiction. Only when they accept and take responsibility will progress be made.

Affordability checks are already firmly in place with Betfair & enforced zealously being more draconian than what the govt proposes.
The horse has bolted long ago.
I'm sick of seeing all these articles & consultations etc as if we are still talking a about a theoretical situation.
***AFFORDABILITY CHECKS ARE ALREADY HERE***

'rotho', I accept your arguments. However, bookies need to take responsibility too, more so than the addicts themselves, why? We're all wired up differently susceptible to various addictions eg gambling/playing computer games/binging/social media, etc. And, gaming machines have been designed specifically to stir up interest for the player; incessant playing can lead to addiction.

Also, these days one cannot hide from the betting adverts. They are everywhere eg mobile, laptop, terrestrial tv, etc, day time, night time. These adverts even come on during the break of a movie; some are sponsors too. I occasionally succumb eg check my laptop for an update here.

The repeated fines imposed on bookies is clear evidence the bookies have been irresponsible and not acting in accordance with the terms and conditions of their license to operate. This cannot and must not be allowed to proceed unchecked.

stu 17 Aug 23 12:30 

But the bookies should be well aware, if ACs succeed in ruining normal sports betting/trading, then their precious machines, and all gambling in shops, will be next in line - which is basically their business gone.


Excellent point, because once the swathe of so called problem gamblers have been culled but the problem still exists, the naive Govt by a simple process of elimination will eventually see where the real problem lies. The books need to be forced to show the % of casino punters vs sportsbook players targeted.

It won't be their business gone though because one of the reason the books can afford to be so casual through all this is because they are looking to America that can more than make up for the losses over here.

The main irony of calling those machines ‘the crack cocaine of gambling’, is that a large proportion of the money put through them, came from people who earned it either selling crack or cocaine.

I’m sure a few addicts got caught up playing them, though to a lot of people, they were basically just money laundering machines. Cleaning up dirty money from illegal activities, giving the government a tax avenue they otherwise wouldn’t have had.

Lowering the stakes on them did nothing to help addicts, addicts play for lower stakes anyway as they want it to last longer. Those playing £100 a spin were probably just cleaning money. Most of the proper slot fiend addicts play online, where again, lowering the stake, or increasing the spin time does nothing for their problem, just ensures that they get to play for longer.

Why is fobt not in shops in Ireland? Do the Irish know something we do not? Horseracing and its community are mega in Ireland.

Irish regulations for betting shops don't permit fobts, as I understand it.

Fobts are not specifically targeted with these regulations proposed here in the UK… they are targeting all non specific gambling online.
So what difference does moaning about fobts do?

And while we at it, many countries have banned or blocked exchanges, yet plenty use them appropriately here.
Should they be banned also?

The Irish regulators deserve the utmost respect for not giving the go ahead to the FOBT's.

We're moaning about fobt's because we think that the decision to not target them is wrong, that's the whole point isn't it, that's how you affect change, otherwise why moan about anything, just accept what is.

That is just stating the obvious, it’s moved so far beyond that point they are irrelevant.

When a person’s wins by any means are potentially discounted disproportionately from all gambling activity, it’s pretty damn pointless saying how bad fobts are.

They ain’t listening about specifics, it’s those who thought it was all fair game and that they’d obviously see sense are the ones who have betrayed non problem gamblers.

The connection to the chance/casino type gaming, is that it should be the main target, if they want to tackle problem gambling.

But, it is the reverse, and those forms are being LESS targeted than other forms of gambling, via ACs.

i.e. the focus should be taken away from our standard forms of betting, such as racing, and back to these harmful forms.

How many here ever had an online slots habit or fobt addiction?
How many having told bookies to stop sending free offers then got more free offers from regulated orgs?

That message can be passed back via this consultation.

In my youth, sadly now a distant memory, I did go through a period of slot machine play that could prob have been called borderline addiction.

I look back at it now and boggle how I thought it was a good idea.

I used to put loads in bandits in pubs and clubs
But they were different anyway and not what they are referring to now by slots and fobts

They’ve already targeted the FOBTs. That’s how all this started.

The anti gambling campaigners considered getting the stakes lowered on those machines a massive victory. They still celebrate it.

However, the reality is that lowering the stakes and the number of machines per shop did absolutely nothing to help addicts. The machines are all still there, and the problem moved online, just as they were told it would. People either play the games online, or just play for longer in the shops.

In the white paper, it was announced that bingo halls are now allowed to fill their floors with these higher staking machines. After all we have been told about how dangerous and addictive they are, for some reason, it is a good idea to have even more of them where people go to play a mostly harmless game of bingo. It’s almost as if they are trying to create more addicts. And what’s more, is that all the campaigners from the original FOBT campaign have said absolutely nothing about this.

As the title of this thread says, it’s one almighty mess.

All the measures being brought in do absolutely nothing to reduce gambling harm or help addicts. They just stop non addicts from betting, impede on their freedom of choice, and make them give up their private financial data, all for no gain. It also destroys horse racing and its funding, again, all for nothing.

When I was a young lad down the local Workingman's Club with my pap I used to be addicted to playing the old 5p 10p bandits with the pears, plums, oranges, cherries, melons, bars and bells . Four reels and if you ever got two of the same symbols in the middle you'd hope that you'd get a chance to hold them because often another would drop in on reel 1 or 4 and sometimes both

Was also a very keen fruit machine player in my youth, though I believe I grew up in a golden age of fruit machines. Pink panther, monopoly, the Simpson’s, Monte Carlo or bust, road hog, only fools n horses, viz, eastenders, coronation street and loads more.

They were nothing like the FOBTs of today though, they were usually 5p a spin, or 10 p max. I remember when the machines changed a bit and went to 25 p a spin, that was a bit rich for my liking. 4 spins for a quid felt like a total rip off. Could never have imagined putting a note into a fruit machine back then!

They did target some aspects of FOBTs yes - but are not considering these ACs for them now - they should be, if they were serious about problem gambling.

While at the same time, forget targeting other less harmful types of gambling, not purely based on chance.

Showground material should be stripped from all shops and online noise and flashing material should be 10 Bob a poke,5 max per day.

They are they cause of this cr@p…

A former landlady of mine when I was a student was ballistic with bookies letting her son play the fruit machines. She'd go to every bookie in Sutton and give out a leaflet with the boy's picture.

Her boy was so embarrassed and furious he burnt down her garage. Now, the boy (a man) is an eminent barrister.

They put them in the shops not long after the exchange was born…

Aug 17, 2023 -- 3:00PM, impossible123 wrote:

Why is fobt not in shops in Ireland? Do the Irish know something we do not? Horseracing and its community are mega in Ireland.

Unfortunately there's still loads playing the roulette, which for me is as bad as the machines.

How the hell fobt were approved in the UK high street beggars belief. I understand it was Mr Blair's government who liberated gambling. But, fobt in high street shops when casinos are only allowed in out-of-town areas? Either the Blair government were ignorant, bought or totally duped.

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

Have you ever been to a casino impossible?

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.

How many were out of town?

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'.

used to frequent the casino all the time.

free chinese buffet at 630.  off to the pub, stop back in for a free copy of the next days paper on the way home.

no brainer.

Yarmouth a quant sleepy town Impossible? Rofl!!

May I add Yarmouth post 11.30pm is that way inclined. The car park in Sergeant York Bristol resembled that at a nearby Heathrow park. It was massive and gravel (not tarmac).

I think even lobsters were free to the Chinese punters.

When post 2300 hrs Impossible, Xmas day? lol

Yarmouth was then in the mid 80's. I do not think casinos opened on x'mas day when I was doing the round.

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.

Impossible Yarmouth has never been quaint and Xmas day might have been quiet for an hour when the natives were stuffing their faces!!

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.

FOBT,s were the sharp end of a thin wedge regards gambling started by spread betting punters losing 1000,s on runs,wkts,scored in the middle of the night on the other side of the world,then betfair laying horses,laying fallers,horses /races already lost/finished, betting on football, poker becoming mainstream on tv,in pubs etc, people like to think all the different sectors of gambling are inhabitated by different people but there,ll be a big group involved had/have had  a dabble in all of them,
just heard ian willames say an owner giving up in his yard isnt a big punter few £100 when williams gives him the nod,so presumably he,ll be there to watch it so can bet a few 100 on course,betting shop,tote, its a stretch the circumference  of the world to go from that to giving the game up,
of course williams could be lying {almost certain } and he/they  could be betting £1000,s backing and laying his horses
williams and his yard are big punters no mention of williams saying he,d have to give up game after telling us 24/7 for 20 yrs he cant operate without betting on his horses

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 argued at the time that racing should have fought much harder against the restrictions on FOBTs. We failed to defend that line against the anti-gambling lobby, which is why they're now able to come after the rest of us.

All I got back then was lectures from the likes of The Management that FOBTs are evil and that I was being played by evil bookmakers, and that betting on racing was completely different ackshually.

Not to the anti-gambling lobby, it's not.

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.

because BHA.itv, etc ha ve been trying to sell racing for yrs as a sport you can enjoy /come to without punting been an/ THE integral part of it

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).

little bit of mischeif if they had to choose would do you think punters,owners,those in the no would rather have if forced to a vote AC,s or no betfair/exchanges

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?

99.9999% of e everyday betting shop punters woulde like to see the end of exchanges ,why wouldnt punters want the chance for connections to lay horses ,bet on results that have already been decide fast pics etc, TO BE TAKEN AWAY ?

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

All but 1 in a million of betting shop punters (Are there even a million of them left?) would want that why?

Fast pics only affect other in-running exchange punters.

Betting on results that have already been decided doesn't feel exchange-specific.

Connections laying their own horses has been a bogeyman about exchanges since day 1.  I can see that being a concern for betting shop punters if they believed their losing selections were losing because the race was being thrown deliberately for private exchange profit by others, I suppose - is that really a major concern of the man in the bookies?

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

thanks for the advice, no doubt helpfully meant.

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.

They talked about them.on Itv this morning.

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.

Ban online casinos. This will curb most of the abuse. The collateral damage of this of course is a downturn in bookie overall profits. I think they market horse racing as a loss leader these days. So they will the have to cut back on levy contribution and TRY to increase overrounds.

I think most of these addicts play casinos not horses as its instant highs so the long term effect will be to reduce problem gambling and move the majority of normal horse gambling over to the exchanges. This is a good thing for me.

In most industries a great market innovation such as exchanges would have killed off bookmakers for good. (read Kodak, supersnaps for this). I give bookmakers alot of credit for innovating with extra places etc. However, their greed evetually came back to the surface with 'build-a-bets!). They seem to have totally taken charge of the sp market these days, which should never have been allowed to happen. prices such as 18/5 etc scream of twisting the last drop of value away from the punter.

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.

Defend the online casinos of bookies who restricted most of us years ago? Aye, that'll be right.

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.

Defend the Communist Party of East Germany by adopting it as your user name? The party that's currently cheering on Russia's assault on my family in Ukraine? That's sick.

And yes, if you want to bet on horse racing with bookies or exchanges, then you have to defend people who want to bet on bookies' or exchanges' casino sites. And that means defending the bookies themselves. Betting with bookies is what you want to do, isn't it?

^ To "Die Linke" (ugh!)

Btw Happysandwich, how much does the gambling fraternity cost the NHS etc with "social problems" compared with smoking and drinking?

The prize for the most laughable post of the year to date imo!!

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."

Had an odd conversation in my local bookies with the manager yesterday...
She was telling me about how the steps they must take for "possible problem gamblers" work...
Anyway step 3 was asking for bank statements to send to head office
She said that the only customers she had warned about it being the next step had said they would refuse to comply, but...

Not because they didn't want HER seeing their bank account statements, but that they didn't want some complete stranger at head office seeing them...

Whereas, I told her I would feel the complete opposite... Not that I'd agree to anyone seeing them, but certainly not someone in the shop who knows me

A Labour politician not being that bothered about matters of privacy is a long odds on shot.

What are you on about now, cider?

Did you read the quote, or just copy and paste it from the RP?

Please answer my question and then I will answer yours.

I'm not surprised that a Labour politician is relaxed about the privacy of our own personal financial affairs being compromised for the kindly permission to do something legal (I assumed, wrongly perhaps, that was self evident). I therefore assumed you must not have read the quote, to ask me that question (self evident).

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.

It's the opposite, it doesn't matter if it's a monstrous hassle or 'frictionless'. How I choose to spend my own money, is nobody else's business, but my own.

Relaxed or not relaxed,  for goodness sake the man is completely against the checks and that is it full stop.

That's not my interpretation from the RP article. He is not against the principle of AF, just the suggested method.

AC, not AF

Not in Cider world sparrow, he turns a personal statement into a political opinion to suit his own agenda.nap

Are you disagreeing? Do you interpret the quote as Lipsey being against AC in principle?

Yes he does it all the time, cagliari.  He wants people to believe that anyone on the left will be in favour of the checks which of course is nonense.

How can people who claim to be able to function, read English and assume to have cognitive ability, interpret the element I quoted as being against the principle of AC.

You quoted a comment he made as a personal opinion that it didn't bother him personally. He later says "It's a threat" so which do you want to twist about being in favour Cider?

He's fine with affordability checks to do something perfectly legal, as long as they are convenient. Or I'm missing something pretty obvious.

I've posted about this before, language emanating from a politician/on the payroll of the taxpayer (of any hue) is very important. Someone not paying attention, may indeed scan read the whole piece and assume he was against AC. Of course, they would be completely wrong.

Of course they would be wrong as your opinion is all that matters to you, personally I think if you swallowed a 6" nail it would emerge as a corkscrew!!

CG, the mooted ham fisted implementation is a threat, as he sees it. Not the ACs themselves.

[it's hard work]

Can't believe people are still talking as if AC is something just being discussed.

They are already in place & is killing off liquidity. Many are quitting or being forced to quit.

Fed up with bookmakers squealing about AC's . They believe they should be allowed to win as much as they can off punters without hindrance . But they are all in favour of AC's when the boots on the other foot . On Saturday I asked SkyinthepieBet for £8 @ 5's on the boxing . They did a quick check to see if they could afford to lay me .....and offered to risk a lay of £6.25 . That's the kind of affordability check they love !