There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
20 May 25
09:20
Joined:
Date Joined:
27 Dec 00
Some top draw hypocrisy is on the way from everybody in the Bookmaking and Racing industries.
When the smelly stuff was hitting the fan around Regulation and particularly Affordability Checks, not a soul (not a single person in either industry) wanted to break ranks and argue (quite rightly) that gambling and gaming were two completely different things. Separate entities and accordingly that they needed to be treated and regulated differently. Everybody towed the bookmakers party line in order to protect their lucrative new gaming empires (at the expense of gambling). Betting on horses was deemed to be exactly the same as playing slots or casino games.
Now there is talk from the Exchequer of harmonising the three betting taxes (GBD, PBD & RBD); you can bet your bottom dollar that suddenly there will be a host of big names from the Racing Industry, Bookmaking Industry and of course the Racing Post standing up to be counted. Claiming that betting on horses is completely different from gaming on slots and casino games.
If you have (deliberately) not bothered to argue that gaming and gambling are different for regulation purposes - how do you now claim that they are completely different for taxation purposes?
Part of me (for the sake of the future of horse racing) would like to see them succeed in making that differentiation now - but their deliberate and organised avoidance of that approach when regulation was in the spotlight - means that if I'm really honest, a big part of me would also like to see them fail miserably. See them pay the price for their spineless cowardice, their subservience to the bookmakers, and the greed they demonstrated when they completely abandoned the people that really pay for the sport (gamblers) in order to help the bookmakers save their precious new gaming empires with all of it's addicts.
When the smelly stuff was hitting the fan around Regulation and particularly Affordability Checks, not a soul (not a single person in either industry) wanted to break ranks and argue (quite rightly) that gambling and gaming were two completely different things. Separate entities and accordingly that they needed to be treated and regulated differently. Everybody towed the bookmakers party line in order to protect their lucrative new gaming empires (at the expense of gambling). Betting on horses was deemed to be exactly the same as playing slots or casino games.
Now there is talk from the Exchequer of harmonising the three betting taxes (GBD, PBD & RBD); you can bet your bottom dollar that suddenly there will be a host of big names from the Racing Industry, Bookmaking Industry and of course the Racing Post standing up to be counted. Claiming that betting on horses is completely different from gaming on slots and casino games.
If you have (deliberately) not bothered to argue that gaming and gambling are different for regulation purposes - how do you now claim that they are completely different for taxation purposes?
Part of me (for the sake of the future of horse racing) would like to see them succeed in making that differentiation now - but their deliberate and organised avoidance of that approach when regulation was in the spotlight - means that if I'm really honest, a big part of me would also like to see them fail miserably. See them pay the price for their spineless cowardice, their subservience to the bookmakers, and the greed they demonstrated when they completely abandoned the people that really pay for the sport (gamblers) in order to help the bookmakers save their precious new gaming empires with all of it's addicts.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 211
|
By:
Well said. Sow and reap come to mind.
|
|
By:
If you have (deliberately) not bothered to argue that gaming and gambling are different for regulation purposes - how do you now claim that they are completely different for taxation purposes?
I would love to be present when Govt ask that exact question. |
|
By:
not even sure its hypocrisy. more like dishonesty
lets hope the committee (dismal word that evokes incompetence) are swayed by those like cruddace and dunshea who are both worthy advocates. but there are too many enemies in the govt who must have their say, even though they havent a clue and default to hating gambling |
|
By:
BHA led by the nose by the Books for years and couldn't run a raffle.
Julie Harrington the latest clueless Head |
|
By:
Ignorance from those who believe it's not deliberate. Now that the labour party have hold of the political levers, it will be expedited.
|
|
By:
The Gambling Commission could and should have been taken on by the BHA in the Courts,
The info required by them from punters is a clear breach of human rights |
|
By:
Why on earth would that happen. The way any quango operates has the blessing of the elected government.
|
|
By:
They just enable the politicians to wash their hands of any responsibility/accountability.
|
|
By:
 cider tries to derail another thread with his one dimensional Party Political obsessions. Shouldn't you be on twitter spreading fake rumours that Starmer likes to drown puppies at the weekends and that Reeves worked for cash in hand as a bouncer at a strip club while she was at University? |
|
By:
politicians shouldnt have any influence
no other country inflicts such agonies on itself |
|
By:
I don't care about twatter, do you.
Now there is talk from the Exchequer of harmonising the three betting taxes (GBD, PBD & RBD) The Exchequer is 'ran' by the Labour party. Since you neglected to mention in your OP this something that the Labour government wants to do in your OP, it was worth highlighting in my view. |
|
By:
But you don't want to highlight that Labour liberalised the Gambling Industry in the first place or that it was a Tory Govt that instigated the White Paper. Or that Iain Duncan Smith is probably the most vociferous member of the anti gambling lobby?
It's not a Party Political topic - but if you're gonna make it one - at least tell the truth ffs. You pathetic (and selective) sniping on pretty much every topic just makes you look like an obsessive nutjob (imo). |
|
By:
Hardly. I've been entirely consistent on the topic. Your post was disingenuous in that respect, so I called it out.
How on earth can you claim it's not party political when this policy is coming from the labour government, and they will be the ones being whipped into voting it through, presumably. |
|
By:
Personally I'd screw the boookies for as much as possible.The country certinally needs it.
When 15% came in they all promised not to go overseas. An industry were person A can get £1000 on and person B is refused £10 on exactly the same bet is a disgrace. The Tote is another on 15% and i think i've said enough about them in the past. If they scream about being treated differently I'd put the rate up to 25% instead of the 21% that i think is planned. I know it would end up costing me more but I'd have no complaints. |
|
By:
The starting point is that the blob, political class, establishment, whatever you'd like to call them, would like to see the end of horse racing.
They will use whatever means there are at their disposal to salami slice it away. It's not clear to me that anyone will be able to stop them, but to win a fight, you at least need to be in the correct boxing ring. |
|
By:
It was the blob wot dun it
 |
|
By:
Who do you think is behind affordability checks?
Ignorance from those who believe it's not deliberate. |
|
By:
On the Sunday show they were talking about a very large decline in yoy hr betting turnover, for the last year ended. It's not an accident
 |
|
By:
It is a dying sport, the idea it has something to do with a blob is just paranoid nonsense.
|
|
By:
Greyhounds went the same way, nothing to do with a blob just no one gives a fcuk about it.
|
|
By:
If you read my opening post and thought it was actually about the tax - you really do need help.
If you feel the need to clarify that the "Exchequer" is run by the Govt of the day - you also need help. |
|
By:
OK, sharp minds on bf right. You actually don't think there has been a decline in betting on horses, directly attributable to affordability checks?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
If you read my opening post and thought it was actually about the tax - you really do need help.
If you feel the need to clarify that the "Exchequer" is run by the Govt of the day - you also need help. If you had have stated it's something the Labour gvnt wants to do, I wouldn't have posted. It's just the standard way that champagne socialists try to deflect criticism away from a government that they support (or supported). It's not what the post was about, it was however misleading, and now I have added the due context. |
|
By:
affordability is the single biggest reason for the accelerated decline, and i have anecdotal evidence from serious punters for this
|
|
By:
Of course there has. I'm pointing out that Bookmakers brought that upon us when they broke the law for about 20 years while building their casino/slots empires by any means fair or foul. And that then having brought it upon us, they then sold racing down the river to protect their gaming empires - and that racing went along with it.
Maybe you should read the Opening Post again! |
|
By:
Before affordability checks are you telling me there WAS NOT a decline in betting on horses?
No. Evidently, ACs have expedited the decline. Evident to most people, I'd have thought. |
|
By:
The thing is something had to be done. You have fcukwits gambling away every penny and having fcukall to live on, now or in the future, and it is you and me who will have to bail them out unless they are saved from themselves.
|
|
By:
I can't be 4rsed cider, it's like conversing with a 6 year-old spin doctor.
You've descended (like every thread you post on) into a Party Political blame game. You haven't even expressed an opinion on the rights or wrongs of differentiating between different types of gambling/gaming. Left is bad, right is good. That's all you have to offer on any topic. |
|
By:
Nothing had to be done, aside from allowing people to be accountable for their own behaviour and decision making. I agreed with taking the option away for people to deposit via money they didn't have, fwiw. People however should be able to do whatever they want with their own money, if it's a legal endeavour.
|
|
By:
It wasn't legal. They had all been in massive breach of the 2005 Gambling Act for about 18 years!
|
|
By:
Left/right doesn't exist any longer in my view. But that's a different topic. It was worthwhile me pointing out the genesis of the tax hike you referenced, which I have now done.
|
|
By:
The thing is something had to be done. You have fcukwits gambling away every penny and having fcukall to live on, now or in the future, and it is you and me who will have to bail them out unless they are saved from themselves.
Spot on Captain. The problem is that the current measures do nothing to protect the addict at the bottom. They have next to nothing due to their addiction but are able to have numerous £100 limits. |
|
By:
Yes, thank you for clarifying that the Govt of the day runs the Exchequer. It's a very valuable service that you are operating, especially if there are people out there that didn't know it.
|
|
By:
No problemo.
|
|
By:
'saving' these fools isnt going to happen. sensible punters get caught and the mugs will always find a way
but the problem is wildly over-stated and is a small number |
|
By:
As has been covered ad nauseam, people waste their money on all manner of things. Which is their right to do so.
|
|
By:
Anything JML posts should be viewed with scepticism
|
|
By:
!Sh!t I've got Einstein on my case
|