Have you had your Santander email about your gambling yet ?

Good post steer's   

Had my email tonight - arrived while I was at Southwell Races, ironically.

How dare they behave like this. I have been a Santander customer for over 40 years (they took over Abbey National). In all that time I have never been overdrawn, I maintain at least £30k in my current account and, at the moment, have £60k in it because of a pending pension contribution. I earn £90k a year and am a cash millionaire plus own outright my house (well, with the wife) valued at £400k.

I deposited £750 with 365 last week, as all my other betting accounts are healthy and in need of no further funds. That has been my only gambling deposit in the past 8 months.

I am seething at Santander over this because it has been a blanket email and not thought through.

To start with, how dare they say my level of gambling activity has been high! A deposit with a bookmaker does not mean someone is gambling and the bank have no right whatsoever to make such a conclusion.

I am a Select Customer with Santander and so on Wednesday I intend to raise a formal complaint over this email and request compensation. When that fail (95% certain it will) I will go through their appeals process and when that fails (because they will be too arrogant to back down and admit their little kiddy managers have made an error) I am going to raise it with the Banking watchdog - as I will be entitled to do so. 

I am also going to send a copy of my complaint as a letter for the RP to publish.

Santander have paid me around £750 over the past 10 years for compensation for small, yet plain stupid, errors and so I hope I will be able to add to that amount over this. ALL of us should do the same thing as me before this daft, yet becoming sinister, country gets any worse!

We are by far the worst nation in the world for 'woke' behaviour and 'nanny state' attitudes. I will keep you posted.

This is hugely unnecessary and ill-timed by Santander. It's taken the focus off AC, and problem gambling.

The racing papers are very quick jumping on the bandwagon to criticise Santander big-brother approach; Santander is wrong in this. However, the racing papers stayed schtum about bookies restricting and closing recreational betting accounts for many, many years.

I hope account holders will not suffer negatively in their application for mortgages or short term loans. But, I think it will sadly given Santander is a financial institution.

well done The Knight. Hope you get a response. There is a difference between a bank and a bookmaker. A bank current account is there to pass your money on to someone you wish to pay or credit your account with money someone pays to you. Lending, investing etc. is a separate part of banking. If banks feel free to take a moral judgement on who you pay or even who pays you, we have entered a totally new era. If the Gambling Commission or the Government are pressurising them to do this then we do need a court appeal against it. Bookmakers are free to accept or decline a customer's business as are any other commercial enterprises. All of the money that we pay into our bookie accounts (or are given as credit) is for gambling purposes but money in a bank is for all spending. Will they be banning us from McDonalds next as it is unhealthy?

They were a garbage Spanish bank back in the day when I worked in the city , always had to pay a premium themselves to get interbank deposits . Bought Alliance and Leicester , who I also worked for part time , and who were appalling.... . Suprised ......nah

I have used Santander, mainly because of the 123 account which paid the best fixed interest rate by a mile a few years back but now is below average. Their Credit card does give good cashbacks on payments to utilities such as BT, energy companies etc. The exchange rate on international card payments and cash withdrawal is also good.

Days gone by, withdraw cash from bank go to bookies bank has no idea, just the signals. Now with internet and every transaction can be traced the banks do what they have tried to do all along. Its not 'woke' ffs, its what banks have always tried to do and now they can. Calling banks 'woke' is about as dumb as a person can be and just soooooo lazy. Grow ups ffs.

A bank can look into the legaility of funds coming in and out
To try and "look after" the mentality of a customer is virtue signalling and woke
In reality they couldn't give a Fc*k about the person/number controlling the account, nor should they.

Does the bank now give out phone numbers for counsellors for gambling harm?
Tell them to eff off and withdraw your money. You wont be able to gamble it then so they should be happy.

So a bank being concerned about a customers gambling 40 years ago would be woke?  I think it was 'Big Deal' that covered this a number io times 40 years back!
Offering help that one is free to ignore - how disgusting can a bank get? Grow up you silly silly little boys.

A bank is not "concerned" with the welfare of its customers.
You really have to be incredibly naive to think that.
Wow.

Don't banks finance wars and sh1t? Spyker tells us to grow up

Where do I say concerned about welfare  - did mummy teach woo to wead and wite?

I'd happily join an anti banking thread but this is just a 'moaning about the world cos I'm an old idiot thread' innit? Take a look - its why this forums dead!

Condescending, self righteous and ignorant.  Well played Santander.  You got the treble up. 

could add controlling too for the fourfold

SICC for short.  Sums it up

Being woke is an indulgement in what is "right" Spyker for the sake of it
The bank here is indulging in wokeism by fake "worrying" about harm coming to its customer.
Dont talk like a baby you are in your 50s

It could be worse - imagine if they had just closed or restricted your account - told you it was non-negotiable and there was absolutely no recourse that you could take.

Now that would be outrageous imo.

The bank is singling out gambling customers because the Government have forced them to. If they had any concern about their customer, why do they let them spend on booze, tobacco and other harmful substances without any comment?

They haven't forced them to, else all the banks would be doing it.  It all stems from WOKE societal influence.  Santander's leadership is obviously on the SICC list. If the silent majority launch formal complaints, that will cost them staff resources dealing with it.

Just received the ok from the bank manager , i'm fine to bet at Cheltenham but told to keep the stakes moderate   

....my HSBC manager just called me....He said ,   " where's all this bladdy money coming from ?"...

My bank has emailed me concerned about the money I've been gambling.
They are concerned that the bookies could be bankrupt if I remain the shrewdest gambler ever and don't go easy on them..............which is nice.

sorry richgit, I sort of nicked your joke there

Just remind them who caused the Banking Crisis. Was it not unscrupulous (bankers) lending (gambling) to "friends" to indulge in personal egomania buying up expensive public assets and competing with fellow megalomaniacs.

My bank did an enhanced due diligence and threatened me with account closure within 30 days if I was unable to provide satisfactory explanations to the financial transactions despite I've been a customer for over 40 years. I think this was because I'd chosen money and bank transfers over loans buying big items over a 3 year period.

Surely the answer is to change banks rather than be subjected to abuse ? And tell them why you're taking your business elsewhere .

A little bonus is it always used to be the case that when a customer closed an account they have to explain to their branch manager why it's been closed, so the reason will be reported and logged.

Mar 5, 2025 -- 12:35PM, The Management wrote:

It could be worse - imagine if they had just closed or restricted your account - told you it was non-negotiable and there was absolutely no recourse that you could take.Now that would be outrageous imo.

it would not be wrorse, or even comparable. closing a bookmaker account is an inconvenience

closing a basnk account is potentially a very serious problem and harmful given the way of things nowadays. its almost impossible to exist without one

The point is (as you well know mitolo) - that plenty of people have had their betting accounts restricted or closed -  nobody on this thread has had their bank account closed.

Some people have been sent an inconsequential (easily deleted) e-mail - and they seem to be outraged.

I appreciate that it's currently very trendy to be outraged but given all of the current issues around betting are a direct result of (so-called) bookmakers behaviour - I was merely suggesting that the outraged people might want to redirect their outrage to the people that have behaved outrageously. Which is not (on this occasion) the banks.

This is how betting restrictions started by introducing this kind of rhetoric.
Nip it in the bud and change banks and tell them you don't like being challenged in any form on how people spend their money
It shouldn't even be commented on how we spend our money legally.

Do the big bookies get emails from their bank every time they pay out, suggesting that they might want to ban the winning punter?

I agree with Mitolo. Bank account is an essential - betting account a mere triviality in life.

The knight

Pretty sure they will offer compensation as you taking grievance to
ombudsman costs them £500,and costs you only your time.

Then there is the possibility everybody does it...

They may say they are obliged to send email, but you simply counter
with it being a blanket email that should not be sent to you, and
has caused huge distress as you may have to rearrange your banking
facilities due to them not knowing their customers.

I don't think anyone said that a bank account wasn't essential tmm. I was pointing out that nobody has had their bank account closed.

Just to repeat and clarify what has actually happened: Some people have been sent an e-mail

Outrageous? And possibly the most outrageous thing currently happening in the betting world?

No and no, is the answer to both those questions - but no doubt the Racing Post will be delighted to have misdirected some more outrage away from the the real culprits - the (so-called) bookmakers.

It's how it starts though management.
Test the waters.
Send an email, see how our authoritarianism comes across?
Why is spending money on gambling even worth bringing up by a financial institution if it is legal?
There's an agenda and small steps to begin with is how they get enacted, imo
Trust no-one especially banks.

Power to the people!

The banks haven't started anything ffs - they're just caught in the crossfire between (so-called) bookmakers and the GC's very belated attempts to regulate them.

What cam first iyo JCM? 

a) The outrageous behaviour of online bookmakers for the past 20 years or so
b) The outrageous over-reaction to the behaviour of on-line bookmakers

The answer is that a) came first and b) is the consequence. It's got feck all to do with banks.

If you want to blame somebody or get outraged, theres only really two options - either the (so-called) bookmakers or the (so called) regulators (GC).

The bookmakers ignored the regulations for 20 years - The regulator allowed them to do so.

Anything else (including blaming banks) is a complete distraction. And a lot of people on this thread seem to have been suckered into focussing on the distraction.

I’m suffering unimaginable pain agreeing with TM…..but it has to be done tbh…..ffs…

ffs.....

I agree TM. We are living in an Orwellian state. Big brother is watching you.

Can't blame bookies for bank emails, nor banks for bookies closing accounts.

You can only blame them for their own actions and how they are applied to you.

The fact that ombudsman charge banks per case means banks have to treat their
customers fairly, or risk paying £500 a pop.

Cash = shoe boxes under bed = no e mails etc.

Don't agree. The banks asking you for explanations of your spend is obviously driven by the government and so is all the bookies malarky.
They are trying to foster a culture of knowing where every penny of the people's  money goes and how they can monitor and decide how you act.
The emails are the beginning.

Nobody has been asked for an explanation of their spend.

Some people that gamble have been informed that there is help available if they feel their gambling is problematic.

^ These are the facts.

Is it a bit OTT? - probably yes. Is it worth getting outraged about? - Probably not.

What do you think the Bank is implying when talking about how you spend your money on gambling they consider too much?
It's a softly softly approach to you the money holder, explaining yourself.
Further on down the line there will be more questions on why you have bought this and that etc
I'm simply saying at least take your cash out in a "free" market and put the money into a bank that minds its own business. It's easy to do.
At least show a level of intolerance to being pushed around that will at least give these **** the vague notion we have a backbone.
Be fierce and nip it in the bud now, before we all sleepwalk into "whatever you say" territory.
The gambling part is a nothing burger, its a small fact finders mission to see if sheep will do as they are told and guage how resistant people are.
There's no outrage. Treat it as a smack on the fingers of a naughty child/bank who gets too interfering.

You're not wrong to be worried about what people have got your data and what they are doing with it.

But you seem to be missing the point that (ironically) it's what data the bookmakers have been collecting and how they have been exploiting it - that has got us to where we are today.

Anyone with half a clue can't have a bet, while anyone that profiles as a degenerate addict is targeted with "special" offers and free-spins every payday. You'd be better off pushing back against that - because if it wasn't for that, nobody would be getting inconsequential e-mails from their bank about gambling.

Agree with all that TM, I just feel the link in the chain of rights erosion is past the bookies and now we get to the serious boys like banks and try to stop or stall it there.

Great stuff the management but a totally different issue.

It's entirely the same point - it's a natural follow on to the situation the on-line bookmakers have engineered over the past 20+ years.

If you can still place a bet with a (so-called) on-line bookmaker* - then imo your bank (in the vast majority of cases) probably aren't far wrong to profile you as, best case scenario a losing gambler (in the long-term) or worst case scenario, a degenerate addict. Nobody else outside of those two groups is allowed to bet.

* Denises mob being (to my knowledge) the only possible exception - as unlike all of the rest, they will continue to service a winning account for more than a nano-second before making a decision to restrict or close your account.

Fair enough if you are a leisure loser - happy to pay (through losses) in exchange for the entertainment you receive - but that doesn't alter the fact that in essence - if you can still deposit with a (so-called) on-line bookmaker - your bank isn't gonna be far wrong in assuming you must be must losing.

If you're a loser (or even a winner) - I can't see what offence could be caused by your bank pointing out some information that is available to you. I'd take more offence at the (so-called) bookmakers that have closed or restricted my accounts very quickly - still constantly e-mailing me with "special offers" that they know I am ineligible for - but I still receive such e-mails every single day!

I take even more offence when in order to withdraw money from any of those (so-called) bookmakers, I have had to go through the massively inconvenient process of them pretending they think I am a money launderer or a terrorist and also pretending that the govt or the GC are forcing them to do that.

You deposit £30 and turn it into £500 you are treated like a terrorist. You deposit £500 and lose it, you are treated like a VIP!

Anything that is happening now (including inconsequential information e-mails from banks) is a direct result of how bookmakers have behaved. If you want to focus on the inconsequential e-mail from your bank, rather than the real issue - that is your choice. Go ahead - but it's a classic case of "shooting the messenger"*

*Shooting the messenger" (also "killing the messenger" or "attacking the messenger" or "blaming the bearer of bad tidings / the doom monger") is a metaphoric phrase used to describe the act of blaming the bearer of bad news, despite the bearer or messenger having no direct responsibility for the bad news.

And of course - going back to the opening-post, the Racing Post would love to sucker you into shooting the messenger, rather than considering how we actually got to where we are today.

There are lots of contributing factors of why we got to where we are today.  Of course there is a strong ring of truth to what you say and the bookies targetting addicts and big losers is probably the biggest factor.  But it doesn't help going forward.  Regulation is a snowball.  It increases bookies costs, it reduces bookies revenue, which in turn leads to worse prices, less options, restricting and closing of successful accounts.  Punters who remain win less and lose more and punters who are addicts may well switch to the black market. 

The Santander email in itself is pretty tame (imo) but it's the first of it's kind, it's more snow on the snowball attacking gambling.  It could be the pre cursor for worse.  It's self righteous, ignorant, condescending and controlling and is not in anyone interest's save an extremely tiny minority.

It's regulations and attitudes towards gambling that kills and I want to give an example.  I bet a little on a Dutch Fantasy betting site called Zweeler.  The stakes per entry are typically £4 to £10 and you are limited to typically 5-10 entries.  Each entry has to differ by a certain number of runners and 80% of players only have one entry.  So it's very much a fun thing where you can't win a serious amount and it's very difficult to lose a lot.  About 15 months ago, they had to pull out of the Dutch market, taking away 50% of their client base, because the Dutch government insisted on a different type of licence which was far more expensive.  This company has a model that couldn't be any more affordability and casual punter friendly (BY FAR) than anyone other betting company I know.  But the cost of regulation makes that almost impossible.

By ratcheting up regulatory costs and fines, you make achieving punter affordability more difficult.  Regulation is the biggest killer to gambling.  It always was and it always will be

That's just part of the regulatory cycle CB29:

Over regulation, strangles or inhibits an industry.
The regulations are slackened or liberalised (overly so).
The Industry then exploits the slackened regulations (often overly slow).
The regulator tightens the regulations (often overly so).
Over regulation, strangles the industry (often overly so).
And so the cycle continues going full circle at intervals.

You can blame either the industry for exploiting it's customers or the regulator for allowing that to happen by not enforcing the regulations (in this case it's fair to say both are to blame) - but the solution (where regulation is necessary) would be to proportionately regulate, allowing an industry to flourish without exploiting the consumer.

any email if you buy half a dozen of these for your gamesroom ? 

https://www.pinball.co.uk/spares-accessories/?yith_wcan=1&product_cat=pinbal...

I don't imagine the Pinball machine industry has been persistently in breach of any existing legislation for the past 20 years.

No they haven't been gambling machines for a very long time. It's just an example of how you could spend a lot of money on "toys" and have next to no chance of profit.  Put 15k on a horse and it may win.

howard06 Mar 25 11:45Joined: 09 Mar 03 | Topic/replies: 14,708 | Blogger: howard's blog
Put 15k on a horse and it may win.

Good luck with that - on-line - you would need accounts with 3 different "bookmakers" to get just £15.00 on a horse! £15K

That is the extent to which "bookmakers" have transitioned away from being bookmakers and becoming casino/slots operators instead. You try to submit a bet for £15 and the 3 biggest "bookmakers" in the UK all say no!

But let's not talk about that in the Racing Post - lets shift the focus onto a bank.

OK, an update from my email of 2 days ago. but first, a word for the odd one or two who have argued about this and feel my 'moaning' is being an old 'g*t'. Also, the same word applies to the poster who thinks this is an email from Santander that can be 'easily deleted'. Yes, of course it can but it is the thin edge of the wedge - where will the banks go next?

It isn't moaning either. The young and foolish on this site (and, sadly, there are plenty of both groups) do not yet realise that life in the UK is starting to become unbearable for people like me - a white, intelligent, well off (through his own efforts), respectable, 'straight' male. I do nobody any harm and yet face all kinds of restrictions that are not needed.

If the UK carries on like this, we will see future generations growing up accepting this meddling in their lives as their norm. They will not know what it is like to life with the freedom to do what you want providing you consider others and are inside the law.

Sorry, but bugg*r anyone that gets in gambling trouble - let them learn the hard way like I did a long, long time ago. Nothing is as good a teacher as hard knocks in life and trying to shield people from that is going to make our society full of 'snowflakes' who have their hand out for help all the time.

OK, rant over.

Right, I spoke to the Santander Select team (I am 'Select' customer) today and they were openly shocked at this email. My complaint has gone to the complaints team who will contact me shortly to discuss. What those on here who have decried my action do not realise is that I want to know if Santander have set this email up via auto-analysis software or through a team of people 'snooping' through my account transactions - which is totally unacceptable. (I suspect it is a crude bit of automated software, BTW.)

If a bank really must try to second guess the government and become 'oh so rightous' then let them do it with some common sense and proper analysis - not just blanket emails which capture those like me who need their 'advice and guidance' the very least!

I predict a long battle over this but I want to know the following:

1/ Have they snooped my account? 2/ What scale are they using to consider if someone has a high level of gambling activity. 3/ Have they ever heard of arbitrage? 4/ Will the same zealous interfering run to those who have paid a lot of cash out to wine companies, or restaurants etc. 5/ Why do they keep lending money to those who cannot afford it and thus encouraging feckless behaviour, whilst bothering themselves about what I am doing?

In the end, after first receiving a lot of 'woke inspired' replies from them, I do still predict they will apologize for the blanket approach over these emails but not for the content.

I will keep all posted as this progresses.

TM  here's a pro that's just had £20k  with 3  65      


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5h7PSurHJ2Q

I wouldn't disagree with much of that The Knight - I was just pointing out the origin of your "problem" is not a bank - and that is a fact.

Also, you can't have it both ways imo. You want to speak out or take action about an issue that is clearly important to you but you want to dismiss and name-call people doing the same about issues that they see as important to them. The credit you get for the former is wiped out by the latter imo.

Just read your first post again and to be fair - I'd say the fact that you want and expect to be compensated for the perceived wrong that your bank has done you - actually makes you come across as the worst kind of woke snowflake imo.

"Nothing is as good a teacher as hard knocks"

That reminded me of one of my favourite quotes .... "Good judgement comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement"

Bank currently having it problems!!!

If you cannot separate the two issues the management then good luck to you.

Good stuff the knight, it just depends where you settle this.

And if you can't see the connection between the two.... good luck to you.

There is a connection, but they are totally separate issues.

Curious to know what TM did for a living……

I was the Director of Communications at a Spanish multinational financial services company.

Ok,ta for the response.

Well oiled with nice pension…..

That was a joke David - I worked in what they used to call Industrial Relations for about 20 years and then moved into Arbitration.

TM.

Wool pullover…..ffs…..David knew ….

You should still be well oiled with a decent monthly…..on top of the golden handshake….

The Management,

No, I do not expect or want any compensation. Believe me, the £50 they MIGHT offer means nothing to me. I did not ask for any cash in my complaint either, I only suggested it for the reason below.

I am now 65 and have learned through business, and much else, that nowadays nothing will focus the mind of an organization more if they think compensation might come into play.

If they apologize for their heavy-handiness that will be fine by me, but I believe the best way of extracting apologies from any business is if that business has had to consider whether they should pay compensation or not.

Also, I do not understand why on earth you are seeking to somehow defend what Santander have done? Are you a contrarian or just having a bit of a giggle on here? Whatever it is, I generally find that those who argue in the face of inescapable stupidity are the first to then start crying foul if such stupidity affects them!!

The Management, I have just reread your posts on this. I really do not understand you. Much of what you have said makes sense but for you to think the banks are just the messenger is absurd.

So, taking this messenger bit further, surely you do not think the government and / or the Gambling Commission have contacted the Banks and asked them to start 'snooping' into whether their customers are gambling or not? Sadly, perhaps such a day is not that far off but it has not happened yet.

No, someone at Santander has come up with this idea about the email and then justified it by scaring those they report to with stories about what the gambling commission MIGHT do. But the stupidity of the emails amazes me, and here is why actually looking at it from the Gambling Commission's point of view.

The GC (to justify their existent) decide that problem gambling continues to be a 'massive issue' and that their warnings and fines to the bookies are not working. So, they turn on the banks.

Now in response Santander say that they have sent this blanket email to all customers who have made deposits with bookies. Do you really think the GC will say 'OK then, that's good enough, we will leave you in peace'

Of course not, the GC would say that the banks have the software (or could write it or buy it) to properly analyze their customers accounts and identify those who are more likely to have gambling problems.

And that is my point, if Santander are genuinely concerned about their customer's welfare they would be putting such software to use already.

For example, a customer who can be seen to be regularly depositing money with a bookie through the night, or only deposits weekly or monthly on paydays, and only after their account runs down to zero or worse, is likely to have more of a gambling issue than me - and I do not have one!

After all, banks use targeting software to sell products yet appear not to have done so to send out this daft email. Whatever you say, they should not have done it and it is the thin edge of a wedge that will become longer and wider unless the public really start to kick-back properly.

Regarding banks, three points here to highlight that it might not just be 'gambling' where they're involved in the 'crossfire':

1. When the truckers in Canada were protesting against the covid tyranny, they had their bank accounts frozen, and it didn't end there either, as those who had donated to the crowdfunding page set up to support the truckers, had their bank accounts frozen too.

2. In this country Nigel Farage was told by Coutts that his business wasn't wanted, they claimed at the time because he didn't have enough in his account, but was it because they didn't like his politics? Iirc, he had issues regarding opening an account with other banks too.

Fkn hell, George banging on about f*cking covid again; and Farage, f*ck that c u next Tuesday.

Nowt to do with us ordinary Brits?

3. Then let me remind you of the 'punishment' that may be dished out to those who refuse conscription / National Service, should it be brought in.

For WWW1, 'conscientious objectors' were shot.
WWW2: COs were sent to prison.

But what did Rishi Sunak last year say could befall the modern day CO, regarding refusing 'National Service'?

Yes, their bank accounts could be frozen / closed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-general-election-national-service-b2566249.html

* WW1 / WW2

And a shocking topical omission there regarding what's being brought in regarding spying on the bank accounts of people on welfare benefits.

And that's just for starters, where will that end up?

Of course not, the GC would say that the banks have the software (or could write it or buy it) to properly analyze their customers accounts and identify those who are more likely to have gambling problems.

And that is my point, if Santander are genuinely concerned about their customer's welfare they would be putting such software to use already.



Spot on

They have sent you an e-mail containing nothing more than some information. You have a relationship with them i.e. by your own admission you bank with them, so they have your bank records/statements etc and presumably you haven't opted out of them sending you communications.

You can delete it without reading it, read it and then delete it or read it and then act upon it.

It's not that different form them sending you some information or advice about how to avoid getting scammed or them sending you an e-mail offering you a car loan - when if their software was more advanced they could quite easily see you have say an £85k balance in your savings account - pointless them sending it to you because you have no interest in the information provided. Would you take massive offence or just delete it knowing it was a (poorly targeted) "blanket" communication?

Have they done anything wrong? Probably not. Will they apologise for sending you some information you didn't want? Probably yes, if only to pacify you.

I just sincerely hope you haven't got a Tesco Clubcard!

Is there a bigger agenda (that is maybe more sinister) coming over the hill? Almost certainly! Are the banks part of the cause? No. They've just got caught in the crossfire between an asleep at the wheel regulator and some businesses that are out of control and have been behaving in a predatory manner. The banks will (i'd imagine very reluctantly and sadly with the full blessing of the Information Commissioners Office) get forced into being part of a half baked solution.

If you still think you got the e-mail because your bank is "woke" and not because predatory on-line bookmakers got out of control, then you might as well go and become an investigative reporter for the Racing Post!

Good grief !

You never get p!$$ed off typing and lecturing ffs….not on £650 an hour now surely…

We got off lightly with his latest post.

7 paragraphs, 306 words but just the six parentheses.

10 free spins for top2rated - would have been 20 (if you could count)!

"predatory on-line bookmakers got out of control"   Why does Knight have a problem if this true ? You say the banks acted very reluctantly. Why not refuse to send emails to people where there is no evidence whatsoever of any problem ?

The Knight does not have a problem howard (that I can see) - his bank have sent him an e-mail that contains some information. This is all that has happened.

The Racing Post are aware of this - and instead of pondering or investigating why that might be or where the root cause may lie, they've decided to publish an article being outraged at a bank. If you are happy with that article and the depth of it, or worse, you want to join in with that approach - that's your prerogative and also The Knights.

I'm just pointing out that you've been deliberately misdirected away from the real issue by a publication with a massive vested interest in blaming anybody whatsoever apart from the real culprits.

Will the bank be fined or closed down if it doesn't send emails to customers with the profile of The Knight ? ( just a couple of 3 figure deposits & a profit )

I can't see what law they would have broken by sending the e-mail to anybody and I can't see what law they would have broken by not sending the e-mail to anybody. I think fines and getting closed down are for businesses that have broken the law or the regulations.

Why iyo are my bank sending me messages and information about how to avoid being scammed - when I have never been scammed iyo?

I do think if you send an e-mail offer of free spins to people that have self-excluded you might get away with it for the first 20 years or so - but not so much so these days!

But if it's laddies and h ILLS for example you me and the banks know they are not scammers or criminals.  They are high street names that have been around for 60 years.  Poor comparison by you there.

My word and parentheses count have been verified as correct by my Accountant. I demand the 20 Free Spins (10p Free Spins I assume) you referred to earlier, TM.

[   This image is no longer available.   ]

I get at least a dozen emails from them each month. Anything from mortgages to house insurance. Anybody depositing with a bookies or maybe swiping their card in a bookies will more than likely get the email. It will presumably done on an algorithm.

Most people will just think ‘feck off, it’s my money’ and carry on regardless. It may even hit home with some on how much they are losing and maybe reduce that in future.

Howard your last post is incomprehensible to me - if you DM t2r he can probably point you in the direction of some punctuation.
Plus I'm hitting the point where I suspect you might be responsible or have an association with the p1ss-poor article in the Racing Post that you posted in your opening post.

But for info - Scammers and criminals is probably a bit strong but they High Street names that have received massive fines for being in breach of the 2005 Gambling Act.

t2r - you've only counted the "dashes" and the "brackets" imo. Commas are also parentheses imo.

For 10 extra free spins - maybe you could mention that to Foyleswar so that his excellent write-ups don't make my eyes bleed!

s.kenbo 07 Mar 25 15:54 
I get at least a dozen emails from them each month. Anything from mortgages to house insurance. Anybody depositing with a bookies or maybe swiping their card in a bookies will more than likely get the email. It will presumably done on an algorithm.

Most people will just think ‘feck off, it’s my money’ and carry on regardless. It may even hit home with some on how much they are losing and maybe reduce that in future.

I remember a certain mob sending me an email a good while back…

Dear David we have noticed that have increased your betting…..

Thank you for showing concern but all is good my end,enjoying life and punting since time began.I won’t hold you accountable if all fails miserably.

Regards…..

Well, a resolution this afternoon. 

Santander complaints people called me at around 2pm and we discussed why the gambling email had so annoyed me. After listening to their fully-expected tripe about 'keeping our customers safe' I was then pleased to here an admission that 'in hindsight, the email would have been more effective had it been better targeted'. (It drives me mad BTW how many others want to keep me safe - unless it costs them to do so, of course!!)

Also, they 'understood' my concerns about how they were picking up my 'gambling activity' from my account and could reassure me that 'automated software was doing the analysis and not a team on individuals'.

This was all almost exactly what I thought they would say.

Of course, they do maintain their right 'to keep their customers safe' - as the young lady said about five times, and could not comment how, in 2008 and in a number of other instances since, banks all around the globe paid absolutely no attention whatsoever to keeping their customers safe (or anyone else) when they became involved in debt swaps etc. etc. etc!

Lastly, they also offered me a very small sum in compensation but I declined it and asked they send it to the guide dogs for the blind.

As for 'The Management', get over yourself son.

So you now admit they might apologize but only to 'pacify me'. No winning a debate with you is there? After all, you even prepare the ground for a 'defeat' before the verdict on something has been passed! Anyway, at least it appears I am valuable enough to my bankers to have them pacify me!!

Lastly, I didn't fully read why the £650 an hour as lecturer was mentioned and certainly cannot be bothered to find it now.

But if that hourly rate was the claim of yourself - The Management - best of luck to you. But please do advise me on whom would pay you that because going my your arguments on this thread, I am pretty bl**dy sure I could earn twice as much doing the same thing - I'd ever pay you a percentage for putting me onto such lucrative work and then you could spend even more time on here with your rather spurious and obnoxious arguments!!! ROFLMO - I think that is the right anagram!!

Einstein (tm) will be on with a lecture the length of the M6….

£650 appears to be the ramblings of the illiterate Scottish "pro-punter" - possibly his losses for the week so far?

I'll have to get back to you about the rest another time. I'm sorry to report that I had a bit of a serious personal crisis this morning. I received an e-mail from my bank containing some information that I don't feel is entirely relevant to me - It has outraged me, so I'm gonna be busy for a few days reporting it to the police, MI5 and the CIA.

Guide Dogs for the Blind? - seems very appropriate!

The manner of a wild hogg……you have slaughtered many a person on here with the pompous crap of a hated headmaster…..

Arbitration….Einstein…..the norm can be £650 per hour for a decent…..