I answered it. There's no point into getting into the weeds about what version of AC supersedes another. It would be in effect, discussing the reorganising of the deck chairs on the titanic.

fwiw, I don't care if you call me a 'conspiracy nut' or not. I can quite confidently predict that whatever they do, it will have the impact of suppressing our freedoms. Gambling is just one example, but they are being squeezed from many of them.

I'll post whatever I want, on whatever thread I want. Certainly will not be put off by the likes of your good self.

I didn't state credit checks are marketing, I stated that credit scores are marketing.

With respect, you don't know what you are talking about. It's not my place to educate you.

Nobody with a semblance of knowledge would consider using an individual's credit file to determine if said individual can afford to bet. The concept would be absurd, ludicrous even.

You're asking me what is the difference. Evidently you don't know too much about credit checks.

Yes I know what they are proposing. It's so dumb, but you want to 'debate' it. It would be like a debate on a proposal to run a car with milk. My stance is that, running a car on milk is so stupid, it's not worth entertaining the concept, it's so idiotic and unworkable. Testing gambling affordability using a credit file would be akin to running a car with milk.

awful video ref decision in the RL

Cagliari/Cider, please stop bickering! This thread is about AC; the gradual but sure demise of horseracing by bookies executing AC; the causes of AC; why bookies are using AC to crush recreational and seasoned horseracing punters?

The total silence on any live debate on AC on mainstream media is clear reason AC is toxic; its use by bookies to approve/disapprove/curtail betting is toxic and non-defnesible; the use of AC by bookies has not been mandated by GC; etc.

There's so much to be discussed but the bookies or their stooges at the Racing Post will not admit or want to debate AC live on mainstream video with the horseracing fraternity eg jockeys/trainers, owners, and recreational and seasoned punters.

However, the Racing Post which does not represent the racing fraternity and punters want a one-to-one discussion with the GC. How absurd and arrogant the Racing Post is!!

In an industrial dispute or tribunal the parties involved in another conflict will be invited. In this case a discussion between GC and the bookies (not Racing Post). It's that SIMPLE!!

lumping a pensioner who likes a recreational bet on the horses at the weekend in with people who have a very serious addiction to FOBT's / slots / casino / electronic gaming.  and branding them all "gambling addicts" who need to be supervised.

same as Tesco asking someone who comes in to buy a packet of paracetamol to prove they can afford it because someone else has a 2 grand a week crack cocaine addiction

   Or another example is the proposal for kids to be taught how to brush their teeth every day in school by teachers. ffs. If you say that is stupid, that parents should be the parent and not the State, they will paint you as being someone who doesn't give a sh1t about tooth decay in kids.


    Only the Torys ...  Brushing schoolchildrens teeth but not giving them anything to eat.!

Schools are apparently already expected to feed kids whose parents can't manage to do that themselves. And me to pay for it, obviously. Personally I struggle to wrap my head around anyone who has a child or children, and can't raise them to do the basics of life.

You have kids Cider?  One thing is for certain.  If you don't have kids you have no experience, and until you do, you have little idea.

I have 4 kids.  It's easy for me to get my head around it.  And there's no way I would have been able to cope on my own.  So there's one reason.  The father buggers off.

I don't really want to steer the thread away about that particular policy proposal (although I am quite happy to debate it). I raised it as there is a huge move to take responsibility of people and make it collective. This is just one example. The 'fight' in my view is against this ideology of safetyism. Not the specifics of ACs

Racing could lose between £147m and £321m due to these checks because 70% of profits come from 1% of customers. These 1% will be asked checks and many will refuse. It will finish off racing as we know it.

"400 gambling related suicides per year" about as true as saying "4,000" coffee related suicides per year.

Because being against gambling is seen as a high status opinion. Have you caught the petrol company ads promoting cycling?

The problem gamblers and addicts are almost entirely confined to fobt and casino game ie gambling that occurs in high street betting shops and online betting entities yet the bookies are using their stooge ie the Racing Post to use horseracing recreational and seasoned punters including horse owners to beat AC, why???

The online entities is the killer because gambling/playing the casino games online in the comfort of one's home and ideal environment eg alone/quiet/peaceful/middle of the night/no distraction; etc is the dream the machines have been designed to "capture" eg the full attention of player and enticing them into a world of their own; losing all sense of the value of money and time. This is the perfect scenario to lose loads of money without sensing it until the bank is empty eg your deposit has failed or refused.

The bookies and the Racing Post (a discredit to horseracing) are the disingenuous entities; the latter ought to be made defunct or its association with bookies made illegal given it does not represent horseracing.

Has the Racing Post ever attempted to opine why the prize monies of horse races in the UK are significantly lesser than Ireland, Europe, Australasia, USA, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, etc? Nope, the Racing Post knows the cause lies at the door of the bookies for their restricting and closing of recreational and seasoned horseracing punters.