There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Compulsory, rather than the current voluntary system. From the Grauniad:
Casinos and bookmakers in Great Britain will be forced to pay a £100m-a-year levy to fund research, education and treatment of gambling harms, under government plans to be announced as soon as this week.
Labour is understood to be poised to rubber-stamp the previous government’s proposal to do away with a voluntary system that allows industry operators to choose how much to donate to tackle damage caused by gambling and which organisations should receive the money.
The levy, which multiple sources said could be announced by gambling minister Baroness Twycross as soon as Wednesday, is expected to take effect from next April, the Guardian understands.
Casinos and bookmakers in Great Britain will be forced to pay a £100m-a-year levy to fund research, education and treatment of gambling harms, under government plans to be announced as soon as this week.
Labour is understood to be poised to rubber-stamp the previous government’s proposal to do away with a voluntary system that allows industry operators to choose how much to donate to tackle damage caused by gambling and which organisations should receive the money.
The levy, which multiple sources said could be announced by gambling minister Baroness Twycross as soon as Wednesday, is expected to take effect from next April, the Guardian understands.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 55
|
By:
Denise paying it all out of her petty cash.
|
|
By:
Good news for gamblers then, cure problem gambling and no need for gambling harm groups, thats exactly what the grifters dont want.
|
|
By:
Bookies will be happy they've got away lightly - so far!
|
|
By:
100M is not enough, but better than nothing. These corperations are super rich. I would of said 500M as a start.
|
|
By:
Most bookies laughing all the way to the bank
|
|
By:
remember 100M between these guys is pennies.
|
|
By:
What about lotteries and scratch cards. Or is that not classed as gambling.
|
|
By:
Did UK billy bunters really lose £15.9 billion to gambling companies last year??
|
|
By:
Trident, if it's not enough, how exactly are you spending this £100million?
|
|
By:
I would of said
MORON ALERT |
|
By:
@hkf
"What about lotteries and scratch cards. Or is that not classed as gambling." The National Lottery - as such - I don't have any issue with. I doubt anyone does their nuts playing hundreds of sets of numbers per week. Scratchcards, on the other hand - how the Lottery was ever allowed to expand into that space - and at a time when they were legally selling to 16yos - is beyond me. |
|
By:
BBC off again with their usual emotive twaddle.
Featuring a father of a guy who I assume killed himself….explaining how when people say ‘just stop’ they don’t understand it’s an addiction. And unfortunately he doesn’t understand that the first port of call for all addicts is to admit they have a problem, the second is to go and seek the help for that addiction that is available. But no. Yet again, it’s everyone else’s fault because when this guy’s son apparently had his card rejected and realised he’d done his b ollox yet again that wasn’t a signifier that perhaps….just perhaps he should have done something about it. Before anyone starts arguing but but but the bookies….yeah that would have come some point after the second port of call being seeking help, a demand that bookies not contact him….but that wouldn’t have stopped the lure of the facilities that exist. So the remedy apparently is to curb everyone whether they have a problem or not, quality thinking. |
|
By:
This is mandatory (not voluntary). And, 50% to the NHS is wonderful news. The NHS cannot and must not be asked to shoulder the harm engineered by bookies.
Now, ban all post 9pm and late night adverts masquerading as 'GambleAware' advisory prompts on tv. These are subliminal and remind potential customers and players the bookies are open. I firmly believe the position of the CEO of repeat offenders should be barred from taking up a similar position at any other bookie in the future. A leopard never changes its spots! |
|
By:
Yeah, don’t allow anyone to see what they arn’t allowed to see, decided by those who say which characteristics are protected, however insane they might be.
Because you need to feel guilt and shame, because that’s how people have been controlled over time. The church did it for millennia. Convincing everyone there is an invisible friend watching everything you do and everything you think because you were born guilty and he’s looking for a reason to torture you….but he loves you (credit George Carlin) But all those eating jelly donuts freely, they your problem. Because no body gets sectioned, they just your burden. |
|
By:
Please stick to problem gambling and its ramifications to the NHS, and other social services espeg the crack cocaine of gambling ie fobt. Even horseracing trainers eg Gosden/Becket/Stoute to name a few despise these highly addictive electronic games which have no place aligning to horseracing or using horseracing a platform for promotion.
|
|
By:
And it’s the vast majority who don’t have problems that pay the price for the minority, yet again.
The NHS have far greater problems with diabetes rather than nincompoops who can’t seek help when they can’t stop losing We have done this over and again. Losers will always find a way to lose, but nobody can say they are losers and need help everyone has to wait for them to decide it. While the state are happy kicking doors off and imprisoning people criticising their decisions or upsetting other people. |
|
By:
The NHS cannot exist or function as it is. The staff in the NHS mean well, and experienced, but highly unmotivated and wasteful. There's clearly a distinct lack of efficiency and motivation between NHS and Private. It's only a matter of time a levy imposed on manufacturers/retailers of non-healthy convenience foods; the users/customers will eventually be asked to contribute eg targeted NI contribution according to health and NHS usage eg binging/indulgence to convenience/fast food.
The NHS cannot have additional strains on its already humongous financial budgets. Some UK nationals need to accept and assume some personal responsibility, and not heap their selfishness and ill-health onto other UK taxpayers. We all have choices. Some are just better informed, and exercise prudence; others just plain lazy, carefree and expect the state (NHS) to pay for their inadequacies and shortcomings. |
|
By:
How the fook can you bang on about the NHS as a matter of concern that gambling hardly impacts relative to far greater significant issues from elsewhere?
Or are you implying although utterly irrational to label gambling as its greatest problem, it’s just one of many freedoms that have to go in sanitising society to the extent only legitimate illnesses like old age can be treated? You say people need to excercise prudence….yet nothing whatsoever is used to educate those so daft as to blow all their food money on gambling, because they are that daft and none of these remedies changes that fact. As ever the minority issues get waved through because they are minority issues While it’s a tried and tested mechanism of restriction on the general public |
|
By:
And btw
In clearly referring to restrictions here, what the level of financial punishment is on the bookies is of little concern to those with no gambling problems But restricting them has. |
|
By:
Oh those poor bookmakers it's such a shame.
|
|
By:
Gambling is clearly an emotive issue for some here ie it's subjective. The burden on the NHS is humongous as it is without the issues that fobt brings and promotes. The betting industry esp online bookies where the majority of their profits derive from should be held responsible and taxed (direct and indirect) accordingly; the persistent rise in problem gambling over the last two decade esp since the inception of fobt must be stopped immediately eg ban all gambling adverts by bookies esp on tv, online and mobile. The last two named are mega platforms used by school children and young adults.
Addiction is a complex subject. It's a mind-game, an illness. It affects individuals differently. The negative consequences are the same just differing in the seriousness and effectiveness. Emotion and gambling cannot and must not mix. A deadly cocktail, if so. |
|
By:
And just look at how contrived it is to never ever ever blame the individual.
They are nothing but drones that have no thought in their heads nor responsibility for their action Because they are used as the weapon that restricts all those who do act responsibly. |
|
By:
It’s not actually about gambling, like I said it’s just one of the areas where in supposed support of the minority, the majority are incovienienced
It’s consistent through out all these issues. Minorities good, majorities bad The exact opposite of democracy….and when we get lectures about DEI we are told we have to take skin colour into account instead of the ‘content of a person’s character’ the exact opposite of ML King’s statement on racism. And all the while the remedy does nothing to educate that minority |
|
By:
Bonkers but ironic that you can bet £500 on the turn of a wheel on Crazy Time.
|
|
By:
Dear,oh dear ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
By:
Should be renamed Living in My Car or Weekend Access Only or Wife Left Me with Just a Rubber Plant
|
|
By:
Above post was to dustybin.....
|
|
By:
Indeed 'DIE LINKE'. All this at the discretion and say-so of bookies ie unqualified individuals and influenced by personal whims, employer loyalty/job security and end-of-year bonus. The inconsistency is staggering!
|
|
By:
Sparrow
Where does, following losers around to find where they lose, restricting everyone on that activity while not educating the loser on why they are losing help anyone? When the loser is then free to find some other failing they have and round we go again? |
|
By:
The statutory levy will replace the current voluntary system, under which gambling firms decide how much they contribute. At present, the charity GambleAware receives the vast majority of industry funding, collecting £49.5m last year.
While most companies in the sector contribute significant sums, some have been known to pay as little as £1, entitling them to appear on a list of annual donors. The new levy will be set at a range between 0.1% and 1.1% of revenue, with online businesses expected to pay the higher rate because their costs are lower. Half will go to the NHS, 30% to those working to prevent harms and the remainder to UK Research and Innovation to fund research. Both the levy and the slots limit are expected to take effect next year, with online casinos given a grace period to implement the stake cap. |
|
By:
By the way I have no time for the restrictions on punters but am quite happy to see bookmakers to pay their way in society.
|
|
By:
Are they going to pay for snatch squads to grab losers and drag them into help?
Ofc they arn’t. The only people who address their issues will be the moderate ones who accept their actions have an impact on outcome…they arn’t the issue, the ones who take responsibility The ones that don’t will be off finding another way, like toddlers finding fire, or sharp things and an adult leaving them to it just taking all sharp objects or useful things away from those without problems |
|
By:
^
Well you wrote that as I was writing the last comment So at least we potentially agree on the restrictions….while I’ve already said the fines etc have little impact overall on the majority, they could be anything |
|
By:
'GambleAware' is another cash-cow fronted by individuals having worked for/with betting entities previously. Their allegiance may have switched but still funded and/or indirectly employed by bookies.
A statutory 50% to the NHS is a good start. Personally 75%-90% would have been more applicable and effective given the costs to NHS, legal fraternities, social services, etc. |
|
By:
There's clearly a distinct lack of efficiency and motivation between NHS and Private.
Except of course the private will hoover up the very easy simple procedures and ops - no previous health conditions, being overweight and even family history of...... While the NHS has to do everyone. I wonder why private is more 'efficient'? |
|
By:
A degree of truth in that.
However, there is a visible lack of efficiency and motivation in the NHS. This was from a recent (1st) experience on the NHS eg this is the NHS (from the mouth of a doctor); porter who took me up for a CT scan 2hrs after the doctor's request - he said h'd misplaced his docket. The NHS is great, just the lack of motivation and inefficiency within the system (from experience). |
|
By:
So this money is to be used for 'research,education and treatment of gambling harms' In other words
it has an agenda,it isn't research. It is already biased. Yet another bunch of busi-body bureaucrats sticking their noses into our lives. For balance, will there be research into the positive effects of gambling? For example, as someone getting on in years who spends many hours studying and analysing horse races, it helps keep the mind alive. It could well be the case that certain kinds of gambling, that require thought, could help in preventing or delaying such things as Altzeimers, thereby saving the NHS money! |
|
By:
roggrain, well said. I can certainly second that where my Dad is concerned.
But another £20 million in pay packets for more researchers. |
|
By:
For some reason the NHS seems to be getting a lot of mentions here, surely the cost to them from gambling related issues is miniscule as it is a miniscule percentage of gamblers who have a problem severe enough to require medical interaction?
Perhaps the bureaucrats can introduce a levy on drug dealers which is obviously impossible but makes more sense than pouring money into the pockets of already biased organisations who's findings are nailed on to require further research to keep them employed? |