Matt Hancock calls Afford' Checks - 'really serious policy error'

Nobody in current government is going to be listening to that Tool. Best he sticks to "celebrity" performances.

Seems like Hancock, too, has no idea what he is talking about. The issue is casino style gaming and not sports or financial betting.

He's made multiple policy errors. A complete clown..

he's doing well in Celebrity SAS - Are You Tough Enough tbf.

I think bettysboy's is the most stupid and irrelevant comment I have ever read on this forum.

The affordability checks are being applied regardless of what the punter is betting on, and the Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission has explicitly stated that there is no difference between an unaffordable loss on horse racing or on a casino game. Fighting for the right to bet unhindered means fighting for the right to bet unhindered on whatever anyone wants to.

Pretending that doing your money on horse racing is ever going to grant you extra credibility or an exemption in the eyes of the prohibitionists is arrogant and deluded.

All credit to Hancock, because he's one of the few who have got this exactly right. The issue is not the White Paper. That's for the future. The issue is what's going on right now with affordability checks. They've arisen as a result of abuse of power by the Gambling Commission, and they've got to be stopped this minute. That's the real battle, and the battle over the White Paper is just a useful means for the prohibitionists to deflect attention and continue the current affordability checks unchallenged.

Hancock was a real power-hungry abuser of democracy during Covid, and it's taken someone like that to recognise what's going on right now and to call it out.

Looking at the fuller article, wasn't just Hancock, though he is highlighted in the headline - a few others adding some good support against this mad AC campaign now. Let's hope it resonates.

Fuller article

https://www.racingpost.com/news/gambling-review/this-policy-has-been-a-mistake-matt-hancock-calls-for-review-into-affordability-checks-in-parliamentary-debate-aUE2K9w2q31F/

Good to see this is from a Labour shadow cabinet on gambling too as they may later have a say longer run: Peacock (shadow gambling minister)

As well as ensuring the law protects children and adults vulnerable to gambling harms, it’s important to ensure that the regulation recognises that millions of people enjoy betting safely and without harm. The government has to be clear on how it will ensure affordability checks are frictionless for consumers as they have promised. The Labour Party acknowledges the huge contribution horseracing makes to both our culture and our economy. It’s really important that we protect the future of the industry.
Stephanie Peacock, MP for Barnsley East

Yes, in all likelihood, it's Labour party policy that matters in this area - there may well not be enough parliamentary time to get any Tory proposals, when they are eventually solidified, through Parliament before an election.

I'm not going to defend Hancock personally in any way, but it's right he's stuck his neck out on this - he is, after all, MP for Newmarket.

Well then Hancock has actually made a useful contribution for once that these affordability checks are already happening initiated by an unelected Quango

Lets have a bonfire of the Quango's!!

I wonder why Hancock wants immunity from prosecution before he gives evidence to the covid enquiry?What crimes does the think he committed At the time they said we are to busy to answer questions now wait till the enquiry and all will be revealed.

We should try to keep this on-topic, rather than discussing Hancock personally, about which I'd have various wider views.

Have affordability checks for online casino and no skill gambling.
But not for skill gambling like racing and other sports.
Also ,no discrimination against winning and losing punters and a MINIMUM bet stake of say winning £500 after 11am .

far more skill in roulette,poker,etc than racing but as everyone no,s the house still wins,racing/sports  punters classing themselves as skilled as 99% of them/us are losers is embarrassing,
just as a perfect recent  example    would loved to hear the skilled punters explain some of saturdays group one ,pinnicle of the sports results away
i no people in past who could reel off every fruit machine symbol where they were on the reel,a great skill but they still couldnt win
no amount of skill in racing is going to get you past whatever other people no and you dont
another 3 hrs yesterday of one of the so called highly skilled punters making money out of the game,trying to prove it was the 1st time he,d ever seen a horse race with the way he,d read the races

The GC wont be listening to Matt Handcock thats for certain!

They are too shrewd, IMO. And so is their algorithms and Ai.

1st time poster • October 26, 2023 12:21 PM BST
/....just as a perfect recent  example    would loved to hear the skilled punters explain some of saturdays group one ,pinnicle of the sports results away

I would have loved to hear them explain the results before the races happened,



dambuster • October 26, 2023 12:10 PM BST
/.....Also ,no discrimination against winning and losing punters and a MINIMUM bet stake of say winning £500 after 11am

This is more like it.
If the punter can prove he can afford to gamble then let him gamble for the full amount that he is able to loose.
And if he does loose then he should be able to bring the loss into his tax return. Conversely if he wins, he should also pay tax.

i could do a THE SHOE/steve jones/nevo etc etc go on tv everyday bang on about so called skill.form,pace,ground,weight,handicapping and turn a 10 million bank in to a 1 million bank and smile be happy sound knowledgable get 200 quid of ruk,
i obviously dont see it all but if THE SHOE for example is a skilled winning pro punter he,s keeping it very well hidden from the people ruk are paying him to advise/comment,their subscribers,
3 x 10 to 1 + shots who in THE SHOES opinion are out running their odds finshing 5th,6th,7th all losing their bettors money isnt a skill most people would recognise,bookmakers are offering odds on a horse to win /place not to out run their odds in someones opinion,tissues,books,overounds mean nothing today as compared to 30,40 yrs ago

@dambuster

"Have affordability checks for online casino and no skill gambling.
But not for skill gambling like racing and other sports."

I get how that would be more convenient for most of us on here, but I see no way to intellectually justify it - there have been more than enough cases in the press of punters stealing from their employers/clients/relatives or just going bust and leaving their families destitute by betting on horses or football.

If there's a case to be made for skill based gambling to be differentiated from games of chance, it's necessary to follow up with a crucial point that not even the most articulate opposition have made at any time in their opposition to ACs. It's a point that is central to the nature of skill based gambling and one which ensures anyone excercising that skill to make worthwhile returns, is certain to run into enhanced checks on a regular basis, contrary to the claims made by the GC and the Government that checks won't affect the majority.

It's this: that in order to be a succesful punter in the longer term, it is necessary to endure periods of sustained losses in the shorter term.

"Shorter term" here will involve longer periods that those currenty proposed for enhanced checks.
To me it seems pointless making any "skill" arguement against the proposals that doesn't take this into account.
Clearly no-one on the commission seems to have even the most tenuous grasp of what we do or how we do it. But if we miss out a big part of the syllabus there's not much hope of them being educated is there?

I made exactly that point in my submission to the GC, steerforth. And that affordability checks are effectively forcing punters into backing short-priced selections regardless of any value in the price, because punters can no longer run the risk of a near-term losing run at big odds. As I said to the GC: have you wondered why bookmakers have shown so little opposition to affordability checks? It's because these checks will effectively make it impossible for a punter to turn a long-term profit.

I'm pretty sure no one at the GC will have the slightest idea what I was talking about, but you've got to at least try, haven't you?

why would you risk losing runs at any odds if you think you can guarantee winning runs backing shorties ?

Because you can guarantee losing runs as well backing shorties, and at short prices the winning runs don't win enough to pay for the losing runs.

The only advantage losing runs at short prices offer is that they're not long enough or big enough to trigger affordability checks. But they don't offer any chance of a long-term profit either.

sbt and steerforth - i agree that losing runs are inevitable to those who regularly play on sports and financial markets. Winning tends to be a slow process, losing rather less so.
The GC do not understand the longer term process of gambling - losing or winning - and very few MPs do either.

The point i make about casino style gaming is because it has been shown to be the market segment in which most problem gamblers operate.
The fact the GC refuse to contemplate segmenting these markets is politically driven and should be challenged.

Fair point, bettysboy. I shouldn't have been so rude to you! I just get exasperated, because attempts to differentiate between various types of gambling is wasted effort here. It's not fighting the battle we've got in front of us, with the Gambling Commission explicitly stating that a loss is a loss, no matter what you were betting on.

If we allow ourselves to be sidetracked into arguing about something that's not on the table, it's playing into the GC's.

*into the GC's hands.

obviously we only no what we,re shown but every case study ive read about or been shown on tv has been about problem race /sports bettors not casino game players,why would you entice a bed room fruit machine player with free tkts to ascot,old trafford etc,makes no sense,all started with spreade betting ,spot betting exchanges,etc long before online casino,s

its just punting snobery that 99.9% of losing punters due to frank spencer fooking up out the back are some how superior to someone doing their conkers on online roulette,poker etc

An online gambling addict stole more than £1 million from his employers to pay for betting sprees, forcing the company to go into liquidation and lay off staff, a court heard yesterday.
Bryan Benjafield, 23, an accounts administrator earning £16,000 a year, exploited his position at a building firm to transfer money to his bank account then into his Ladbrokes internet account.
He spent up to £7,000 a day, placing bets on sports of every kind, including horse racing and football matches, and on internet poker and other online casino games.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1523567/Gambling-addict-stole-1m-from-employers.html
______________________________

A YOUNG man with a promising career in the Post Office lost it all when he became addicted to gambling and embezzled more than £134,000 from his bosses.

Defence solicitor, Jennifer McEvinney, said her client had online accounts with three betting companies, where he gambled on football and horse racing.

Read more at: http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/post-office-worker-stole-134-000-to-fund-gambling-habit-1-4375181
______________________________

Ex-councillor stole £81k to fund trip on the QE2 and gambling spree.

Mr Lake had left the money upon his death for relatives, his church as well as charities including Cancer Research UK and the Injured Jockey's Fund. But Lloyd, of Symington Street, St James, who worked for a wills business and was acting as Mr Lake's executor, kept hold of the money and spent it on a cruise with his wife as well as gambling away 25,000 on horse races.

Read more at: http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/ex-councillor-stole-163-81k-to-fund-trip-on-the-qe2-and-gambling-spree-1-898785
_______________________________________

An unregistered financial adviser who fleeced more than £2m from his clients to fund his internet gambling addiction was jailed for nine years yesterday. Philip Smith conned at least 51 victims out of the money, many of whom were elderly and vulnerable. He even stole £42,000 from his brother Christopher who had previously lent him money to pay off mortgage arrears. As his debts spiralled out of control, Smith simply did not care who he stole from, detectives claimed.
In total, Smith took £1.75m from clients and laundered a further £600,000 to fund his online gambling habit - with accounts at firms Betfair, Stanley James, Blue Square and Spread Ex.

At one point, Smith had 67 credit cards registered with a single online betting company and it is thought that he squandered £2m by gambling on horses, golf and other sports.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/oct/31/gambling.ukcrime

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

It's horse racing, not FOBTs or casino games, which has seen the really lunatic losses by people who can't afford it. And it's precisely because it is actually possible to win long-term on horse racing that it happens. It deludes people.

the reasaon given for removing FOBT,s was to stop money laundering not problem gambler,s

SBTW, there is already proceeds of crime legislation that should have triggered investigations into all these people. These new checks will only affect people who once in a while breach one of the thresholds. Anyone losing large funds over a period is or should be asked for the source. Perhaps having minimum jail sentences for the managers of betting companies who fail to implement the existing law would concentrate minds.

Oct 26, 2023 -- 6:11PM, screaming from beneaththewaves wrote:

I made exactly that point in my submission to the GC, steerforth. And that affordability checks are effectively forcing punters into backing short-priced selections regardless of any value in the price, because punters can no longer run the risk of a near-term losing run at big odds. As I said to the GC: have you wondered why bookmakers have shown so little opposition to affordability checks? It's because these checks will effectively make it impossible for a punter to turn a long-term profit. I'm pretty sure no one at the GC will have the slightest idea what I was talking about, but you've got to at least try, haven't you?

As did I Screaming - and also to the Racing Post, who continue to fail to mention the long term strategies backed by sound funding which need not, (and indeed should not), have anything to do with earned income and/or day to day living expenses. I wonder why? I'm feeling a little naive for ever expecting them to drive home an argument that might clash with a vested interest.

sfb - headlines sell a story - not tell a story

it may now be too late for anyone to convince the GC or our parliamentary peers that there is a very different story between people who are attracted to addiction and those who are not (at least can control it).

The biggest thing that would win the argument is already out there - that it will affect a massive industry such as racing.

They don't give a stuff about other arguments concerning winning gamblers. But they might give a stuff if they think the knock on effects will hit an industry such as racing in the UK.

screaming - you keep trotting out (copying and pasting) the handful of cases where problem gamblers have hit the headlines but never problem gamers.

Availability of evidence is admittedly limited - but all of the evidence that is available confirms that slots/casino games are far more addictive and generate far more problem gamblers than sports betting.

I know this doesn't suit your agenda (you want the whole problem left alone) but if you accept that we are past that point and there is going to be an intervention, you might as well let those that want to address the problem, actually target the problem area.

Ex-councillor stole £81k to fund trip on the QE2 and gambling spree.

Mr Lake had left the money upon his death for relatives, his church as well as charities including Cancer Research UK and the Injured Jockey's Fund. But Lloyd, of Symington Street, St James, who worked for a wills business and was acting as Mr Lake's executor, kept hold of the money and spent it on a cruise with his wife as well as gambling away 25,000 on horse races.

Theft/embezzlement is the crime, not what they do with it.
Anyone asking cruise holidays to be shut down?

dustybin 27 Oct 23 08:33 
Ex-councillor stole £81k to fund trip on the QE2 and gambling spree.

Mr Lake had left the money upon his death for relatives, his church as well as charities including Cancer Research UK and the Injured Jockey's Fund. But Lloyd, of Symington Street, St James, who worked for a wills business and was acting as Mr Lake's executor, kept hold of the money and spent it on a cruise with his wife as well as gambling away 25,000 on horse races.

Theft/embezzlement is the crime, not what they do with it.
Anyone asking cruise holidays to be shut down?


Certainly not a person with an addiction just thieving vermin (imo)..

The word 'gambling' or 'gambler' seems to be starting to get treated similar to saying something like 'Paedophile' these days sadly.

Not much hope we can argue for support for the professional/career gambler in that light for sure. The better hope is to argue for recreational gambling and it's related service industry as a business.

The top and bottom of it is that these affordability checks wont help one addict

The GC don't seem to understand the nature of addiction
Making it a bit more difficult to get a bet on just p5sses off the very vast majority of non addictive  gamblers to get a bet online and the addicts will just keep gambling by any means unless they seek help

If you believe the GC figures (I don't) evasive checks will only apply to 3% of accounts which will have such a tiny impact anyway compared to the potential detrimental impact on sports like horse racing. I suspect a large number of the 3% are just high net worth gamblers who having a couple of grand on is nothing.

Honestly all this shyte for 3% who the bookies know the history of these accounts anyway

its not to stop/prevent problem gamblers its to stop bookmakers wining and dining them at ascot/old trafford ,topping their accountants up if their betting drops off to keep them interested and then it all ending up on front page of sunday mail