Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
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.
Show More
Bringing out the big guns in the Group One hypocrisy stakes!
Gosden also questioned the apparent lack of distinction at the Treasury between betting on racing and online casino gambling and the latter's greater potential for harm.
He added: "They must understand in the Treasury they are talking about two completely different forms of gambling and there is no way they can be put in the same bracket.
When they were lumping it all in the same bracket for regulation (and affordability), where were you then John?
Gosden also questioned the apparent lack of distinction at the Treasury between betting on racing and online casino gambling and the latter's greater potential for harm.
He added: "They must understand in the Treasury they are talking about two completely different forms of gambling and there is no way they can be put in the same bracket.
When they were lumping it all in the same bracket for regulation (and affordability), where were you then John?
I got offered a £1 free bet by Paddy Power to set a deposit limit! What next my pub giving me £1 off a pint as long as i only have one pint
I am afraid coffers for the Treasury are going to be in short supply now the left wing of the Labour Party are running the gig. They see horse racing as a toff's sport so fat chance of special treatment. Tax receipts are needed. Sentiment is not at the races.
All this squirming from the horseracing community is pathetic, shameful and ill-conceived. The Treasury needs to tax the betting industry accordingly eg the annual profits have increased year on year; horseracing is only a minority sport. However, there is a walk-in-the-park solution to his "noise" from the horseracing community.
Just maintain the present taxation rate for horseracing, and bump up the taxation rate for fobt to 50%. It's so simple!
Just maintain the present taxation rate for horseracing, and bump up the taxation rate for fobt to 50%. It's so simple!
How would that work now? Given that throughout the consultation on the White Paper nobody in the Racing Industry was prepared to differentiate betting on racing from betting on addictive games of chance.
As ever with racing, nobody had the vision, the foresight, the imagination or the balls to stand up and be counted when it really mattered. As usual, they've now turned up to the party when all that's left at the bar is the dregs.
As ever with racing, nobody had the vision, the foresight, the imagination or the balls to stand up and be counted when it really mattered. As usual, they've now turned up to the party when all that's left at the bar is the dregs.
"You do not bite the hand that feeds you".
This has never been more true than the close association of the horseracing community and the bookies. The sole mentality of these stooges and most of the rancid Racing Post journalists is the reason why horseracing uK is where it is today ie a spiral decline. These bookies' stooges including those who work on terrestrial tv who readily advertise for the bookies eg Mr McCoy, Mr Chamberlin, to name two are complicit for the present predicament of horseracing UK. Their sole interest of feathering their own nests is evidently clear to all.
50% taxation on fobt, please, The Treasury. The expenses the state is incurring as a result of problem gambling and addiction is ever-increasing. As such, a late redress is better late than never.
A 50% taxation rate on fobt is well justified. The overheads are minimal, but the negative consequences to society are huge and costly.
This has never been more true than the close association of the horseracing community and the bookies. The sole mentality of these stooges and most of the rancid Racing Post journalists is the reason why horseracing uK is where it is today ie a spiral decline. These bookies' stooges including those who work on terrestrial tv who readily advertise for the bookies eg Mr McCoy, Mr Chamberlin, to name two are complicit for the present predicament of horseracing UK. Their sole interest of feathering their own nests is evidently clear to all.
50% taxation on fobt, please, The Treasury. The expenses the state is incurring as a result of problem gambling and addiction is ever-increasing. As such, a late redress is better late than never.
A 50% taxation rate on fobt is well justified. The overheads are minimal, but the negative consequences to society are huge and costly.
Some additional hypocrisy today as trainers Stuart Williams and Michael Bell also suddenly decide (all too late in the day) that there is actually a difference between betting on horses and playing addictive games of chance:
Trainer Stuart Williams said he feared racing would "crumble if we get lumped in with casinos"
"the sport needs to do more to distance itself from games of chance and to make that distinction clear to the government".
"We're a skill-based betting opportunity," said Williams. "It's difficult to get people who don't understand that all gambling isn't the same but that's what we must get across. Racing betting is not the same as casino-based games or the lottery, which everybody seems happy to take place without restrictions.
Where were you and why weren't you airing these views when the White Paper was being consulted upon?
Trainer Stuart Williams said he feared racing would "crumble if we get lumped in with casinos"
"the sport needs to do more to distance itself from games of chance and to make that distinction clear to the government".
"We're a skill-based betting opportunity," said Williams. "It's difficult to get people who don't understand that all gambling isn't the same but that's what we must get across. Racing betting is not the same as casino-based games or the lottery, which everybody seems happy to take place without restrictions.
Where were you and why weren't you airing these views when the White Paper was being consulted upon?
These trainers should advocate a different betting licence for horseracing and fobt. As suc, fobt should be banned on every high street in the UK and policed in the same manner as casinos.
50% taxation for fobt pls, The Treasury. Ignore the whinging and bleating from the parasites of bookies eg The Racing Post, and some trainers who've crawled out of the woodwork or persuaded for their support.
50% taxation for fobt pls, The Treasury. Ignore the whinging and bleating from the parasites of bookies eg The Racing Post, and some trainers who've crawled out of the woodwork or persuaded for their support.
The management, I couldn’t find myself disagreeing
With a single word you have posted on this entire thread
Where do you get the will to keep replying to some of these inane comments
With respect form of the race, if you have nothing to say, say nothing?
Best advice I was ever given
With a single word you have posted on this entire thread
Where do you get the will to keep replying to some of these inane comments
With respect form of the race, if you have nothing to say, say nothing?
Best advice I was ever given
Today's trainers to have suddenly seen the light are Andrew Balding & Roger Varian - they too have suddenly now decided (all too late in the day) that there is actually a difference between betting on horses and playing addictive games of chance:
"I think it's very important that we separate racing bets from [other forms of] online gambling. It can't be all grouped together like it looks like they're trying to do. We've got to really push hard against that".
Where were they with these views when it really mattered; when the online slots & casino operators were lumping it altogether using the defensible (racing) to defend the indefensible (slots & casino games), with regard to regulation (and affordability)?
Why weren't they at the forefront of a campaign by the racing industry to differentiate between different forms of gambling then? Or did they just go along with the slots & casino operators lumping of it altogether?
"I think it's very important that we separate racing bets from [other forms of] online gambling. It can't be all grouped together like it looks like they're trying to do. We've got to really push hard against that".
Where were they with these views when it really mattered; when the online slots & casino operators were lumping it altogether using the defensible (racing) to defend the indefensible (slots & casino games), with regard to regulation (and affordability)?
Why weren't they at the forefront of a campaign by the racing industry to differentiate between different forms of gambling then? Or did they just go along with the slots & casino operators lumping of it altogether?
Once a bookmaker/casino operator ambassador, always a bookmaker/casino operator ambassador...
Indeed T2R, and therein lies the problem.
They're (finally, now it's too late) prepared to try differentiating their product (racing) by talking about jobs, peripheral industries, communities, heritage, etc - but because they are effectively bought and paid for (owned) by the big on-line bookmakers, they're not prepared to go "all-in" and talk about the differences that really matter; different harm rates rates, different rates of addiction, the different demographics that are being targeted, etc.
Effectively they're saying - we're in a fight for our lives - but we're still only prepared to conduct that fight with one armed tied behind our backs because we're too greedy to bite the hand that feeds us (slot & casino empires masquerading as bookmakers). Even though those same bookmakers have absolutely just sold us (racing) down the river to protect their precious slots & casino games.
It's ok to try to differentiate now, because for tax purposes, the bookmakers now actually want us to differentiate ourselves and have given us some limited licence to do so.
They're (finally, now it's too late) prepared to try differentiating their product (racing) by talking about jobs, peripheral industries, communities, heritage, etc - but because they are effectively bought and paid for (owned) by the big on-line bookmakers, they're not prepared to go "all-in" and talk about the differences that really matter; different harm rates rates, different rates of addiction, the different demographics that are being targeted, etc.
Effectively they're saying - we're in a fight for our lives - but we're still only prepared to conduct that fight with one armed tied behind our backs because we're too greedy to bite the hand that feeds us (slot & casino empires masquerading as bookmakers). Even though those same bookmakers have absolutely just sold us (racing) down the river to protect their precious slots & casino games.
It's ok to try to differentiate now, because for tax purposes, the bookmakers now actually want us to differentiate ourselves and have given us some limited licence to do so.
No amount of racing post articles will stop the new betting tax.
We the punters would likely be better off with bookies charged 21% rather than any turnover tax. The latter and this place in trouble.
The government ministers ain't stupid. They knew how much the bookies have profited from fobt over the last two decades and more; how much fobt addicted players cost society and social services; their proliferation on the high street. The jobs predicament does not match the damage fobt has done, and still doing to society.
I hope fobt are taxed much higher eg 50%+ given the ever-increasing, the easiness and assuredness and the colossal amounts of profit are being derived from fobt. This has been since the early 2000's.
When bookies are bleating, you kick them hard. Vermins do not deserve sympathy or compassion. Get the exterminators, I'd say.
I hope fobt are taxed much higher eg 50%+ given the ever-increasing, the easiness and assuredness and the colossal amounts of profit are being derived from fobt. This has been since the early 2000's.
When bookies are bleating, you kick them hard. Vermins do not deserve sympathy or compassion. Get the exterminators, I'd say.
Racing TV (RTV) joins the "Axe the Tax" campaign, launching a portal, so that you can contact your local MP and send him a "template" letter. But of course, the racing industry being what it is, obviously the portal doesn't actually work! 
RTV suddenly now think there is a difference between racing and addictive games of chance (for taxation purposes) - but I can't remember RTV campaigning or trying to differentiate the racing product from slots & casino games during the White Paper consultation on regulation (and affordability).
RTV suddenly now think there is a difference between racing and addictive games of chance (for taxation purposes) - but I can't remember RTV campaigning or trying to differentiate the racing product from slots & casino games during the White Paper consultation on regulation (and affordability).
Link appears to be working OK now, TM....
https://www.axetheracingtax.org.uk/
https://www.axetheracingtax.org.uk/
Yes; somewhat predictably it's just the link in the Racing Post article that doesn't appear to work.
Very surprising that the RTV template doesn't really mention any of the differences between the racing product and slot/casino products. Just a reference to jobs associated with racing.
No mention of differing problem rates, differing addiction rates or the different demographics involved.
No mention of differing problem rates, differing addiction rates or the different demographics involved.
All you have to do is bet in the Channel Islands Tax what tax ??
Jul 10, 2025 -- 4:22PM, jerseyboy wrote:
All you have to do is bet in the Channel Islands
Jul 10, 2025 -- 4:22PM, jerseyboy wrote:
All you have to do is bet in the Channel Islands
what are the 'differing' problem rates and demographics?
are you suggesting rtv should say nothing on the subject, regardless of what has gone before?
are you suggesting rtv should say nothing on the subject, regardless of what has gone before?
I'm saying they didn't stand up (nobody did) and claim that betting on racing was in any way different from betting on addictive games of chance, during the consultation on the White Paper.
If you really want to know what I'm saying (I doubt you do). Maybe you could just read my opening post (I doubt you will)!
Regarding demographics - how many young people are betting on horse racing versus betting on addictive games of chance iyo? - how many women are betting on horse racing versus betting on addictive games of chance iyo?
If you really want to know what I'm saying (I doubt you do). Maybe you could just read my opening post (I doubt you will)!
Regarding demographics - how many young people are betting on horse racing versus betting on addictive games of chance iyo? - how many women are betting on horse racing versus betting on addictive games of chance iyo?
why so doubtful?
thats not what i asked. i know what you said. im asking(again) if you think they should remain silent now. did you understand? doubt it
i dont care what wimmin bet on, but i beleive they have a curious liking for random chance. although ive never known one, despite my expansive knowledge of a great number of them, that was interested in gambling
and youing people i do not understand and dont want to. their habits and predilictions bemuse me, eg instagram, bookface, gaming, idiotic tribal markings, incomprehensible mronic chat, wearing trousers round the knees to name a few
how is the demographic relevant anyway? i dont care what people do. its up to them
thats not what i asked. i know what you said. im asking(again) if you think they should remain silent now. did you understand? doubt it
i dont care what wimmin bet on, but i beleive they have a curious liking for random chance. although ive never known one, despite my expansive knowledge of a great number of them, that was interested in gambling
and youing people i do not understand and dont want to. their habits and predilictions bemuse me, eg instagram, bookface, gaming, idiotic tribal markings, incomprehensible mronic chat, wearing trousers round the knees to name a few
how is the demographic relevant anyway? i dont care what people do. its up to them
I'm not really interested in RTV - they're just a PR outlet for the bookmakers (same as the Racing Post), I'm more interested in what actual racing people are doing (or more realistically what they're not doing!).
I'd expect RTV & the Racing Post (as they're also effectively just an extension of the bookmaking industry) to do exactly what they have done. i.e. Make no attempt to differentiate whatsoever throughout the White Paper consultation and then make a desperate effort to do so now (regarding taxation). Save the slots/casino games first and then worry about trying to fend off a tax rise for racing later.
It's the racing people that did exactly the same that need to take a good long look at themselves - they stayed silent (on the differentiation of different types of gambling products) when it actually mattered during the White Paper consultation - so now, having failed to break away and back their own product in it's own right (and having been used by the bookmakers to save the slots/casino games), they look like either complete hypocrites, or short-sighted idiots.
Also saying (to people in racing), if you are going to differentiate now (albeit that it's too late), maybe you could actually go for it whole-heartedly by pointing out all of the differences instead of just some of them.
They've been completely outplayed (racing as a whole), partly because they went along with the bookmaker strategy of lumping it altogether (rather than having a strategy of their own for racing) - and partly because they're too short sighted to ever see the bigger picture.
They're still doing it now. Prepared to speak out about some of the differences - but still to short-sighted, subservient and disorganised to break away do it properly.
I'd expect RTV & the Racing Post (as they're also effectively just an extension of the bookmaking industry) to do exactly what they have done. i.e. Make no attempt to differentiate whatsoever throughout the White Paper consultation and then make a desperate effort to do so now (regarding taxation). Save the slots/casino games first and then worry about trying to fend off a tax rise for racing later.
It's the racing people that did exactly the same that need to take a good long look at themselves - they stayed silent (on the differentiation of different types of gambling products) when it actually mattered during the White Paper consultation - so now, having failed to break away and back their own product in it's own right (and having been used by the bookmakers to save the slots/casino games), they look like either complete hypocrites, or short-sighted idiots.
Also saying (to people in racing), if you are going to differentiate now (albeit that it's too late), maybe you could actually go for it whole-heartedly by pointing out all of the differences instead of just some of them.
They've been completely outplayed (racing as a whole), partly because they went along with the bookmaker strategy of lumping it altogether (rather than having a strategy of their own for racing) - and partly because they're too short sighted to ever see the bigger picture.
They're still doing it now. Prepared to speak out about some of the differences - but still to short-sighted, subservient and disorganised to break away do it properly.
I posted this on 23rd May - although it pretty much reflects what I was saying before, during and after the White Paper was published:
Imagine if anyone in a top level decision making position within the Racing Industry had a bit of bottle, a sense of self-worth, a sense of pride in their industry and some imagination/vision. They could have proudly welcomed the White Paper (regulation, etc) with open arms.
They could have joined with the govt, anti-gambling lobby, etc, they could have said, my god, you are right.
This explosion in on-line slots and casino games has got completely out of control and changed the betting landscape out of all recognition. It's having a horribly negative impact on the racing industry and it's damaging our reputation of providing a relatively safe/responsible product for our customers. If left unchecked it will probably won't be long until it kills off our industry altogether.
We're very proud to be so different from that - and not to have been a part of it. Go and regulate the feckers to death - because it's caused an explosion in gambling addiction and problem gambling and we don't want to be associated with that kind of evil. It's caused problems across every demographic, including women and the young. It doesn't support many jobs, it doesn't support any local economies or spin-off industries; it's like a parasitic cancer, sucking money not just out of our racing economy but out of the economy as a whole.
It's got nothing to do with our industry (which is based on real events in the real world), yet our industry (which has heritage and is part of the fabric of British Society & Country Life) is getting tainted by association. So please do all that you can to bring it back under control.
What did they do instead?
Made no effort to differentiate themselves whatsoever. Instead they (as usual) bowed to the bookmakers and towed their party line; that all forms of gambling are the same and must therefore be regulated in exactly the same way.
So that now they can look like utterly clueless, hypocritical gimps when they (all to late in the day) argue that racing bets need to be taxed differently from bets on slots & casino games.
Imagine if anyone in a top level decision making position within the Racing Industry had a bit of bottle, a sense of self-worth, a sense of pride in their industry and some imagination/vision. They could have proudly welcomed the White Paper (regulation, etc) with open arms.
They could have joined with the govt, anti-gambling lobby, etc, they could have said, my god, you are right.
This explosion in on-line slots and casino games has got completely out of control and changed the betting landscape out of all recognition. It's having a horribly negative impact on the racing industry and it's damaging our reputation of providing a relatively safe/responsible product for our customers. If left unchecked it will probably won't be long until it kills off our industry altogether.
We're very proud to be so different from that - and not to have been a part of it. Go and regulate the feckers to death - because it's caused an explosion in gambling addiction and problem gambling and we don't want to be associated with that kind of evil. It's caused problems across every demographic, including women and the young. It doesn't support many jobs, it doesn't support any local economies or spin-off industries; it's like a parasitic cancer, sucking money not just out of our racing economy but out of the economy as a whole.
It's got nothing to do with our industry (which is based on real events in the real world), yet our industry (which has heritage and is part of the fabric of British Society & Country Life) is getting tainted by association. So please do all that you can to bring it back under control.
What did they do instead?
Made no effort to differentiate themselves whatsoever. Instead they (as usual) bowed to the bookmakers and towed their party line; that all forms of gambling are the same and must therefore be regulated in exactly the same way.
So that now they can look like utterly clueless, hypocritical gimps when they (all to late in the day) argue that racing bets need to be taxed differently from bets on slots & casino games.
^ Not really surprised that RTV and the Racing Post didn't use it as the template for their letter to MP's 
But ffs - where are the actual racing people and why aren't they saying something along these lines now?
But ffs - where are the actual racing people and why aren't they saying something along these lines now?
that i do not know. i take zero interest in racing politics although i have repeatedly written to rtv asking them to get a bookie pr on and ask questions about this and more importantly, restrictions
they said they would consider it. for about one second and whoever it was that replied was probably told not to do so again
but i will be supporting anyone who can put an end to this looming disaster, however much they are to be derided
they said they would consider it. for about one second and whoever it was that replied was probably told not to do so again
but i will be supporting anyone who can put an end to this looming disaster, however much they are to be derided
Another day, another name. Today it's the turn of Patrick Veitch. At one point he bravely dedicates an entire sentence at trying to properly differentiate racing from slots/casino games:
“The effect of harmonisation of taxation with online slots and casinos would undoubtedly be disastrous for the racing industry. Those other types of betting are much more addictive and offer much faster intervals between betting opportunities. Bookmakers would be incentivised to promote them even more than they already do, and the overall loss of revenue to the sport, and resulting loss of employment, would be huge.
But then he pretty much reverts back to the party line (permitted by the bookmakers) about jobs and the black market.
Additionally today, Bill Barber, Industry Editor for the Racing Post (who never clarify whether he is their Industry Editor for the Racing Industry or the Bookmaking Industry - my money is on the latter!) also weighs in with another powder-puff rehash of his previous articles - but this time with a few quotes from Thoroughbred Breeders' Association chairman Philip Newton.
While Bill & Philip both think racing bets should be taxed differently from bets on addictive games of chance, neither of them really bother to try and differentiate the racing product from those addictive games of chance.
Another day, another couple of "names" half-heartedly pushing back, after the horse has already bolted.
“The effect of harmonisation of taxation with online slots and casinos would undoubtedly be disastrous for the racing industry. Those other types of betting are much more addictive and offer much faster intervals between betting opportunities. Bookmakers would be incentivised to promote them even more than they already do, and the overall loss of revenue to the sport, and resulting loss of employment, would be huge.
But then he pretty much reverts back to the party line (permitted by the bookmakers) about jobs and the black market.
Additionally today, Bill Barber, Industry Editor for the Racing Post (who never clarify whether he is their Industry Editor for the Racing Industry or the Bookmaking Industry - my money is on the latter!) also weighs in with another powder-puff rehash of his previous articles - but this time with a few quotes from Thoroughbred Breeders' Association chairman Philip Newton.
While Bill & Philip both think racing bets should be taxed differently from bets on addictive games of chance, neither of them really bother to try and differentiate the racing product from those addictive games of chance.
Another day, another couple of "names" half-heartedly pushing back, after the horse has already bolted.
Horse Racing for the big meetings entices new players with free bets to the slots. The 6% tax hike is coming.
I think you are 20 years out of date still giving credit to racing as a "gateway" product.
For sure there's still a small element of that - but they are entirely focussed on a much wider demographic now than racing could ever provide (i.e. everybody!).
Obviously using bingo as a "gateway" to slots/casino has played a large part in the massive number of females that are now "gambling" and football as a "gateway" to slots/casino has resulted in far more young people than racing could ever have sucked in for them.
But I think the combination of technology (smart phones with anywhere/anytime access) and social media, has got us to a point now where slots & casino games don't really need a "gateway" anymore; they are pretty much able to stand-alone now as the bookmakers preferred entry point - and you can bet your bottom dollar they won't be trying to "cross-sell" racing to any of those players even if racing does win the argument on taxation.
For sure there's still a small element of that - but they are entirely focussed on a much wider demographic now than racing could ever provide (i.e. everybody!).
Obviously using bingo as a "gateway" to slots/casino has played a large part in the massive number of females that are now "gambling" and football as a "gateway" to slots/casino has resulted in far more young people than racing could ever have sucked in for them.
But I think the combination of technology (smart phones with anywhere/anytime access) and social media, has got us to a point now where slots & casino games don't really need a "gateway" anymore; they are pretty much able to stand-alone now as the bookmakers preferred entry point - and you can bet your bottom dollar they won't be trying to "cross-sell" racing to any of those players even if racing does win the argument on taxation.
Today's name is trainer Jim Boyle, who says he's been active in racing's politics for the last 18 years - but he barely mentions slot/casino games and makes no attempt whatsoever to differentiate betting on racing from betting on addictive games of chance.
Says the harmonisation of betting tax will put him out of business - but doesn't use the opportunity to talk about the "betting" products that the racing betting tax will be harmonised with.
Says the harmonisation of betting tax will put him out of business - but doesn't use the opportunity to talk about the "betting" products that the racing betting tax will be harmonised with.
'Brant' on the ITV opening show stating that horse racing is really important to the heritage of this country. And they need to make the Labour government aware of that 
Brant, that's the point, mate. They (ruling classes) want to destroy our heritage
Brant, that's the point, mate. They (ruling classes) want to destroy our heritage
Horse racing is way down the table of our heritage. I hope the Labour government stays firm and taxes the bookies to the hilt esp fobt.
The "name" in yesterday's powder-puff piece in the Racing Post was Brant Dunshea (acting BHA chief executive) and I think on Saturday it was Sean Trivass (chair of the Horseracing Bettors' Forum - HBF):
Obviously they both think racing bets should be taxed differently from bets on addictive games of chance - but neither of them make any attempt at "going to town" on the "products" that have brought about this situation.
Only really prepared to extol the virtues of the racing product (jobs, the broader community, etc) - but still not prepared to mention any of the many negative issues relating to the "products" racing is being aligned with.
Obviously they both think racing bets should be taxed differently from bets on addictive games of chance - but neither of them make any attempt at "going to town" on the "products" that have brought about this situation.
Only really prepared to extol the virtues of the racing product (jobs, the broader community, etc) - but still not prepared to mention any of the many negative issues relating to the "products" racing is being aligned with.
"Be Noisy" is the latest cry from the BHA.
The only noise the Treasury hears is the constant advertising of Bookmaker's on every media outlet in the land, combine this with all the sponsorship and what does the tax taker see? An industry awash with money and ripe for picking.
Got to be odds on a level tax take, question is, will it stay at 21% or rise for a bigger slice of the pie?
My money would go on the latter.
The only noise the Treasury hears is the constant advertising of Bookmaker's on every media outlet in the land, combine this with all the sponsorship and what does the tax taker see? An industry awash with money and ripe for picking.
Got to be odds on a level tax take, question is, will it stay at 21% or rise for a bigger slice of the pie?
My money would go on the latter.
A government that takes the winter fuel allowance off pensioner's and axes welfare benefits will not give two hoots about horse racing owners and trainers. I will be sorry to see it happen from a punting point of view and have a lot of empathy for the sport but as The Management has often pointed out it should have let go of the coat tails long ago.
Will that include share trading I wonder? Or futures trading or bond trading? All gambling but done by people (me included) who are supposed to be good at managing their money. That is real hypocrisy. Of course financial gains are taxed as capital gains above £3000 but betting gains are not. It is a real mess.
Whilst not without faults of their own, I don't think the leaders in the financial services industry would have any qualms or difficulty differentiating themselves from addictive games of chance.
Unlike the racing industry, they probably wouldn't hold back and would be prepared to denigrate the thing they were being aligned with as well as pointing out the virtues of their own offerings.
Unlike the racing industry, they probably wouldn't hold back and would be prepared to denigrate the thing they were being aligned with as well as pointing out the virtues of their own offerings.
There's obviously CFD trading (leveraged). Which is somewhat analogous to gambling/guessing. And spread betting on markets and shares.
I believe CFD platforms are obliged to explain how many of their retail customers lose overall.
I believe CFD platforms are obliged to explain how many of their retail customers lose overall.
anyone find this joint statement from CEOs a bit funny ''A statement signed by John Coates (Joint Group CEO, bet365), Stella David (CEO, Entain), Jesper Svensson (CEO, Betsson Operations), Peter Jackson (CEO, Flutter Entertainment), Nils Andén (Chief Online Betting and Gaming Officer, FDJ United) and Mattias Wedar (CEO, LeoVegas), and Jimmy Maymann (Co-CEO, SuperBet Group), attempted to hammer the point home.
“Yet while we continue to invest significantly in responsible play and compliance, unregulated, untaxed black market operators, based outside Europe, are thriving across the continent.
“These operators target vulnerable players with unlimited access and significant
bonuses, offer no customer protections or support for struggling players, and don’t contribute to public finances or European sports.
“They operate entirely beyond regulatory oversight, avoiding all costs and obligations, and face few repercussions.”
“Yet while we continue to invest significantly in responsible play and compliance, unregulated, untaxed black market operators, based outside Europe, are thriving across the continent.
“These operators target vulnerable players with unlimited access and significant
bonuses, offer no customer protections or support for struggling players, and don’t contribute to public finances or European sports.
“They operate entirely beyond regulatory oversight, avoiding all costs and obligations, and face few repercussions.”
''They operate entirely beyond regulatory oversight, avoiding all costs and obligations, and face few repercussions'' you could list article after article of the likes of how all these companies acted before 2020. But seems they have seen the light now ;) Great!
Hilarious!
Are they describing how the "Black Market" operates? Or how they operated themselves between approx the years 2000 and about 2021?
Are they describing how the "Black Market" operates? Or how they operated themselves between approx the years 2000 and about 2021?
Bingo - TM! :) they are just simply looking out for players and governments apparently..
Perhaps Panorama should run a repeat of one of their expose's documenting how vulnerables were continually preyed upon until they were completely rinsed with absolutely no checks and when it looked like one victim was slowing down they bunged them a few more freebies to keep things going.
but duffy according to them in this statement ''“These operators target vulnerable players with unlimited access and significant
bonuses, offer no customer protections or support for struggling players'' NOT them of course...
bonuses, offer no customer protections or support for struggling players'' NOT them of course...
Who drafted the agreement supposedly agreed by all the head honchos or principal individuals of betting entities? They are describing themselves to a T!
The bookies have shot themselves in the foot yet failed to acknowledge they were the ones pulling the trigger; past and present governments were not to blame. We are where we are because of the greed and blatant disregard for compulsive and problem gamblers of almost entirely fobts.
I'd like to see a 50% taxation on fobt, with the present taxation on horseracing unchanged.
Fobt is the killer of horseracing; its association is toxic and immensely damaging to society and our social services.
Fobt should never have been allowed on our high streets.
The bookies have shot themselves in the foot yet failed to acknowledge they were the ones pulling the trigger; past and present governments were not to blame. We are where we are because of the greed and blatant disregard for compulsive and problem gamblers of almost entirely fobts.
I'd like to see a 50% taxation on fobt, with the present taxation on horseracing unchanged.
Fobt is the killer of horseracing; its association is toxic and immensely damaging to society and our social services.
Fobt should never have been allowed on our high streets.
Bookies are scum opening offices at 7.30 to profit from addiction from fonts before people go work , then they have cheek to request affordability checks from horse punters, john francome was correct when he said that bha should open up their bookie and don't give rights of pictures to other bookies , it would fund racing and punters could get on but this will never happen as there is big click between government , bookies and racing authorities but if did happen it would be a game changer
Today, with the consultation deadline looming and against a backdrop where everybody agrees that harmonising the tax on racing bets (with the tax on addictive games of chance) would be utterly catastrophic for the Racing Industry; The Racing Post just print another rehash of the same powder-puff editorials that they previously published.
They don't bother to launch a blistering attack on the devastating impact that addictive games of chance (slots & casino games) have had on racing, racing's finances, racing communities, etc. They don't run a series of interviews with people from the racing industry (senior officials, trainers, breeders, etc) that are prepared to speak out against addictive games of chance and they don't follow on by printing the views from degenerative casino/slots addicts that have had their lives devastated, those that have been harmed and their families.
Next to today's piece they do run a nice advert for yet another new casino/slots operator (masquerading as a bookmaker) that includes a New Customer Slots Offer of 100 Free Spins on Big Bass Splash!
They don't bother to launch a blistering attack on the devastating impact that addictive games of chance (slots & casino games) have had on racing, racing's finances, racing communities, etc. They don't run a series of interviews with people from the racing industry (senior officials, trainers, breeders, etc) that are prepared to speak out against addictive games of chance and they don't follow on by printing the views from degenerative casino/slots addicts that have had their lives devastated, those that have been harmed and their families.
Next to today's piece they do run a nice advert for yet another new casino/slots operator (masquerading as a bookmaker) that includes a New Customer Slots Offer of 100 Free Spins on Big Bass Splash!
"offer of 100 free spins"...Did it say what value they were worth? 1p per spin = 100p on. This is a very cheap price to attract a repeat play from a new player; about 30% will do so, according to known stats.
Today the "Industry Paper" has shoehorned a couple of paragraphs from previous articles, into an article about racecourse attendance figures.
Racecourse Association chief executive David Armstrong adds a couple of quotes and talks about "irreversible damage" - but like everybody else before him, he doesn't bother trying to differentiate the racing product from addictive online games of chance. The very thing that racing will be harmonised with for tax purposes.
So racing is still supposedly in a "fight for it's life" - but isn't prepared to actually fight against the specific thing that has already massively diminished it and will in all likelihood eventually destroy it.
With the consultation period closing on Monday, the totality of the response from the racing industry brings to mind the Fawlty Towers episode with the Germans:
"Listen, don't mention the online slots. I mentioned them once, but I think I got away with it".
Racecourse Association chief executive David Armstrong adds a couple of quotes and talks about "irreversible damage" - but like everybody else before him, he doesn't bother trying to differentiate the racing product from addictive online games of chance. The very thing that racing will be harmonised with for tax purposes.
So racing is still supposedly in a "fight for it's life" - but isn't prepared to actually fight against the specific thing that has already massively diminished it and will in all likelihood eventually destroy it.
With the consultation period closing on Monday, the totality of the response from the racing industry brings to mind the Fawlty Towers episode with the Germans:
"Listen, don't mention the online slots. I mentioned them once, but I think I got away with it".
The racing community esp the Racing Post will not bite the hand that feeds it ie the bookies. That's the over-riding problem with horseracing in the UK; fobt is killing horseracing, and the Racing Post is complicit to it.
The paid journos at the Racing Post are keeping schtum in exchange for their monthly pay packets from the bookies; a form of ill-gotten (personal) gains The bookies are pedalling the "crack cocaine" (fobt) of gambling in the high street and online.
I hope the government would tax fobt at 50% in the near future. This will be good for UK Plc, and horseracing in the UK directly; a higher rate of taxation could help pay down the costs to society, and social services.
A clear distinction between horseracing and fobt is a must for a revival in the fortune of horseracing in the UK in the near and long term. The bookies and their present business model are killing UK horseracing. This is also the major cause of problem gambling and addiction which is enormously detrimental to society and social services.
The paid journos at the Racing Post are keeping schtum in exchange for their monthly pay packets from the bookies; a form of ill-gotten (personal) gains The bookies are pedalling the "crack cocaine" (fobt) of gambling in the high street and online.
I hope the government would tax fobt at 50% in the near future. This will be good for UK Plc, and horseracing in the UK directly; a higher rate of taxation could help pay down the costs to society, and social services.
A clear distinction between horseracing and fobt is a must for a revival in the fortune of horseracing in the UK in the near and long term. The bookies and their present business model are killing UK horseracing. This is also the major cause of problem gambling and addiction which is enormously detrimental to society and social services.
A dreadful mess which perfectly illustrates the pitfalls of the unregulated free enterprise culture of our country.
Someone suggested horseracing in the UK is a heritage. I thought that was fox-hunting and dole-claiming.
unregulated?
gambling is the most highly taxed regulated and tightly-licensed business there is
gambling is the most highly taxed regulated and tightly-licensed business there is
So you are just like the Gambling Commission etc; who reckons font’s are gambling - just because they’re run by bookmakers.
lmao.
lmao.
dunno what you are laffing at
im nothing like the stop gambling commission. even i aint that fick
you didnt specify fobts so its not unreasonable to suppose you meant gambling in general. and it is gambling. in fact the reeturns for mugs on fobts are better than racing
im nothing like the stop gambling commission. even i aint that fick
you didnt specify fobts so its not unreasonable to suppose you meant gambling in general. and it is gambling. in fact the reeturns for mugs on fobts are better than racing
hard to know what you are on about. is gambling unregulated or not? fobts are also licensed and regulated. you cant just turn up with one and plonk it on the street
mitolo17 Jul 25 15:45Joined: 13 Apr 21 | Topic/replies: 6,076 | Blogger: mitolo's blog
you cant just turn up with one and plonk it on the street
tbf - for about 15 years, you pretty much could.
Amusement arcade owner (masquerading as bookmaker): "Yes that's right sir, the two new licences we applied for are in the town centre, and yes, one is 20 yards to the left of our existing shop and one 20 yards to the right of it".
Gambling Commission: "No problem. It all seems like harmless fun. Let us know if you need any more".
you cant just turn up with one and plonk it on the street
tbf - for about 15 years, you pretty much could.
Amusement arcade owner (masquerading as bookmaker): "Yes that's right sir, the two new licences we applied for are in the town centre, and yes, one is 20 yards to the left of our existing shop and one 20 yards to the right of it".
Gambling Commission: "No problem. It all seems like harmless fun. Let us know if you need any more".
The former head honcho of the Gambling Commission had a lot to explain himself if he'd not jumped ship before he was sacked. He was incompetent and hoodwinked by the bookies. He was also the steward of fobt at £100 per spin. Now. it's only £2 per spin.
Mr Rust was the instigator of the demise of horseracing in the UK; he was too chummy with the bookies, He allowed them a free reign to manage with little or no restriction.
Mr Rust was the instigator of the demise of horseracing in the UK; he was too chummy with the bookies, He allowed them a free reign to manage with little or no restriction.
thats the fault of the spectacularly inept stopgambolling commission and the govt
bookmakers were offered a product designed and produced by some enterprising web designers, or whatever they are, and were licensed taxed and regulated by the state. they leased them from the operators and paid tax on the profits
if you have an issue it should be with the legislator and watchdog. the bookmakers did nothing illegal
bookmakers were offered a product designed and produced by some enterprising web designers, or whatever they are, and were licensed taxed and regulated by the state. they leased them from the operators and paid tax on the profits
if you have an issue it should be with the legislator and watchdog. the bookmakers did nothing illegal
A bit of both in equal proportions imo.
But please don't say the bookmakers did nothing illegal, that's just not true. All of the "protections" that the online operators now boast about having in place were baked into the Existing Gambling Act (and have been since 2005!).
Not getting caught for 15+ years (even if it's because the regulator is ignorant and incompetent), isn't the same as doing nothing illegal.
But please don't say the bookmakers did nothing illegal, that's just not true. All of the "protections" that the online operators now boast about having in place were baked into the Existing Gambling Act (and have been since 2005!).
Not getting caught for 15+ years (even if it's because the regulator is ignorant and incompetent), isn't the same as doing nothing illegal.
its not the crime of the century more a sin of omission and primary blame lies elsewhere but i couldnt care less as those that use em are such mugs and they prbably do all sorts of other things that are extremely unwise and illegal. in fact, i know they do, as a well known drug dealer does his cobbelrs in em daily, even at 2 quid a go
the majority of people bend rules daily, like the bag shop that sells me a bottle at 3 a.m. i dont blame him
the majority of people bend rules daily, like the bag shop that sells me a bottle at 3 a.m. i dont blame him
Fair enough, in future I will check with you first, as to how you feel about which laws are worth bothering with.
And if I may say so, It's very well balanced and fair minded of you, to equate an industry that has made billions of pounds by proactively breaking the law for decades, with a man in a corner shop selling you a bottle of plonk after hours. Have you ever considered writing an opinion-piece for the Racing Post at all?
And if I may say so, It's very well balanced and fair minded of you, to equate an industry that has made billions of pounds by proactively breaking the law for decades, with a man in a corner shop selling you a bottle of plonk after hours. Have you ever considered writing an opinion-piece for the Racing Post at all?
And with regard to "sins of omission" - have you ever considered becoming a defence barrister?
Hit and run drivers - sin of omission, my client just omitted to stop.
Shoplifters - sin of omission, my client just omitted to pay.
Armed robbers - sin of omission, my client just omitted to leave his shotgun at home.
Tax Evasion - sin of omission, my client just omitted to pay tax.
It's an interesting legal angle and I'm sure you would have a lot of success with it!
Hit and run drivers - sin of omission, my client just omitted to stop.
Shoplifters - sin of omission, my client just omitted to pay.
Armed robbers - sin of omission, my client just omitted to leave his shotgun at home.
Tax Evasion - sin of omission, my client just omitted to pay tax.
It's an interesting legal angle and I'm sure you would have a lot of success with it!
i was suggesting in a light hearted way that mugs doing it in on machines isnt something they should have to police. its a business after all and they shouldnt have to be bothered about it, unless the machines were fixed or not licensed and regulated
good idea that should check in before you write many of your posts, particularly political, as i could save your embarrassment
good idea that should check in before you write many of your posts, particularly political, as i could save your embarrassment
I see what you're saying now and it all makes perfect sense. The machines don't need to be licensed and regulated, so long as they are licensed and regulated.
Couple more articles in the RP today. Preaching to the converted not enough. Probably hard to get exposure anywhere else with more important things going on.
I did read them barstool - but I've got to the point where if they can't be bothered, neither can I.
They'll likely reap what they've sown and deserve to do so.
They'll likely reap what they've sown and deserve to do so.
It’s very hard to envisage a centre left
Labour government, making concessions at this stage, to
The gambling of horse racing industries, post
Campaign all in vain
Labour government, making concessions at this stage, to
The gambling of horse racing industries, post
Campaign all in vain
“Individually, we are one drop. Together, we are an ocean.”
... Thats why the BHA and its dozens of other offshoots will never get anywhere, way too many noses in the Trough.
... Thats why the BHA and its dozens of other offshoots will never get anywhere, way too many noses in the Trough.
Esher MP Monica Harding said Sandown, sat "at the the heart of our community", and added: "Liberal Democrats support doubling the rate of remote gambling duty and oppose the government's unconvincing proposals to harmonise gambling tax rates."
I agree with her comment too. Doubling a game of chance taxation rate from 21% to 42% makes so much sense, and retaining horseracing at 15%.
I hope the bookies' stooge the Racing Post, and the racing community will find the cahoonas and echo what Ms Monica Harding has said to their paymaster - the bookies; the present tax rate of 21% for remote gambling is incredibly and obscenely low for casino games online.
I agree with her comment too. Doubling a game of chance taxation rate from 21% to 42% makes so much sense, and retaining horseracing at 15%.
I hope the bookies' stooge the Racing Post, and the racing community will find the cahoonas and echo what Ms Monica Harding has said to their paymaster - the bookies; the present tax rate of 21% for remote gambling is incredibly and obscenely low for casino games online.
Today in the Racing Post; Apart from a small handful (from the Lib Dems) most MP's expose the fact that they have no idea of the difference between betting on racing or sports (real events that actually take place) versus betting on addictive games of chance (virtual events driven by a Random Number Generator).
Hardly surprising given that the racing industry itself and of course the Racing Post has made hardly any effort throughout the consultation, to make the distinction between completely different products.
I suppose it's possible a few more MP's do understand the difference - but we'll never know because the Racing Post didn't even feel it was a question worthy of asking them!
We want you to treat us differently - but we're not really prepared to tell you how or why we are different.
Good luck with that.
Hardly surprising given that the racing industry itself and of course the Racing Post has made hardly any effort throughout the consultation, to make the distinction between completely different products.
I suppose it's possible a few more MP's do understand the difference - but we'll never know because the Racing Post didn't even feel it was a question worthy of asking them!
We want you to treat us differently - but we're not really prepared to tell you how or why we are different.
Good luck with that.
Oh, and Sebastian Butterworth (Strategic racing director, Flutter UK) thinks "Racing is doing a great job at fighting the tax timebomb"
Before going on to defend Bingo and Slots because apparently "Defending gaming isn’t to the detriment of racing."
Aye, right Sebastian - that approach has worked out really well for racing so far!
Before going on to defend Bingo and Slots because apparently "Defending gaming isn’t to the detriment of racing."
Aye, right Sebastian - that approach has worked out really well for racing so far!
Mr Butterworth has some neck defending bingo and virtual gaming.
How can he extol the virtue of something that people cannot win on?
How can he extol the virtue of something that people cannot win on?
Big corp making billions of pounds every year. Should be taxed at 40% on slots, but won't. The reason is they are in bed with the government and always have been.
The Racing Post might keep whipping up a storm with stupid headliners. Facts are, racing is swimming in money. I'm not saying it all goes to the right places though..
Noway the wealthy will let racing fall. They have too much, and have nothing else to spend their billions on.
The Racing Post might keep whipping up a storm with stupid headliners. Facts are, racing is swimming in money. I'm not saying it all goes to the right places though..
Noway the wealthy will let racing fall. They have too much, and have nothing else to spend their billions on.
They have too much, and have nothing else to spend their billions on. They have already brought all the land and houses, plus every asset possible.
Let's have a live public debate in the media eg tv. The bookies could nominate any entity including their mouthpiece eg Racing Post; I'd attend as a guest.
My 1st question will be why fobt eg casino games and slots are known as the crack cocaine of online gambling. Why? So far, no one from the bookies or stooges of bookies have tried to explain or defend fobt.
My 1st question will be why fobt eg casino games and slots are known as the crack cocaine of online gambling. Why? So far, no one from the bookies or stooges of bookies have tried to explain or defend fobt.
ratpack another sensible voice on this today. it's the right to bet that needs to be defended. without government or the state prying into your affairs. and why do other forms of gambling such as the omaze crap and national lottery appear to get a free pass. I'd actually hypothesise that more people bet on that shyte that can't afford it, than horse racing.
Cider27 Jul 25 10:39Joined: 29 Aug 02 | Topic/replies: 62,853 | Blogger: Cider's blog
ratpack another sensible voice on this today. it's the right to bet that needs to be defended
If you could extract your head from the sand very briefly - you might notice that you are slightly behind the curve. They (racing) have been there, done that - and very predictably - failed. They have (very foolishly) already rolled those dice (lumped all "gambling" together at the behest of the big online bookmakers), they've gone "all in" on the "right to bet" on anything - and they've lost.
They have however succeeded spectacularly in confirming the view of the anti-gambling lobby - that all gambling (and gaming) is the same.
Pretending you have the "right to bet" is a deeply flawed argument - you've never had the "right to bet"; you've only ever had the opportunity to bet in line with the 2005 Gambling Act. It might have felt like an absolute "right to bet" whilst the on-line bookmakers were driving a coach and horse through the existing Act (with the GC turning a blind eye) but you never had the right to bet" except within the limits of the Gambling Act.
So what you are pedalling as a "sensible voice" has already been adopted as the "all in" strategy and (very predictably) it has failed miserably.
Persisting with a failed strategy even after it has completely failed is the act of the deluded, the delusional, the head in the sand brigade - or somebody so consumed by an ideology that they are happy to pursue it, regardless of the damage it does to the thing they are claiming to try to defend.
ratpack another sensible voice on this today. it's the right to bet that needs to be defended
If you could extract your head from the sand very briefly - you might notice that you are slightly behind the curve. They (racing) have been there, done that - and very predictably - failed. They have (very foolishly) already rolled those dice (lumped all "gambling" together at the behest of the big online bookmakers), they've gone "all in" on the "right to bet" on anything - and they've lost.
They have however succeeded spectacularly in confirming the view of the anti-gambling lobby - that all gambling (and gaming) is the same.
Pretending you have the "right to bet" is a deeply flawed argument - you've never had the "right to bet"; you've only ever had the opportunity to bet in line with the 2005 Gambling Act. It might have felt like an absolute "right to bet" whilst the on-line bookmakers were driving a coach and horse through the existing Act (with the GC turning a blind eye) but you never had the right to bet" except within the limits of the Gambling Act.
So what you are pedalling as a "sensible voice" has already been adopted as the "all in" strategy and (very predictably) it has failed miserably.
Persisting with a failed strategy even after it has completely failed is the act of the deluded, the delusional, the head in the sand brigade - or somebody so consumed by an ideology that they are happy to pursue it, regardless of the damage it does to the thing they are claiming to try to defend.
Any person defending fobt is akin to defending child abuse or necrophilia. The person must be "dead" too if unable to differentiate between horseracing and fobt. Or their dependants posthumously paid by the bookies for defending fobt.
Fobt is abhorrent, and must not be allowed on UK high street betting shops and online bookies except in out of town casinos and in premises operating under a new betting/gaming licence to reflect the digital age.
And, do not use the possible loss of jobs for defending fobt. The pedalers of crack cocaine eg drug smugglers and suppliers have never used the threat to jobs as a defence so the bookies should not either; the bookies cannot sink below the drug smugglers or drug suppliers for defending fobt.
Fobt is abhorrent, and must not be allowed on UK high street betting shops and online bookies except in out of town casinos and in premises operating under a new betting/gaming licence to reflect the digital age.
And, do not use the possible loss of jobs for defending fobt. The pedalers of crack cocaine eg drug smugglers and suppliers have never used the threat to jobs as a defence so the bookies should not either; the bookies cannot sink below the drug smugglers or drug suppliers for defending fobt.
TM, I'm not advocating it as some kind of basic 'hooman right'. I don't need to be able to bet to stay alive and have an adequate life.
In an open Western society we have (or used to have) the freedom to choose. To make our own choices, good or bad, and be responsible/accountable for them. As long as they are within the bounds of the law. The State/Politicians/Police need to keep their noses out of my business, unless they have good reason to suspect that I have breached the law.
It may have happened, but I have not seen people in the public space that have the influence to impact the situation in horse racing taking this line. It has always tended to be, well yes, we agree there are stupid people that make stupid decisions, therefore we need regulation to protect themselves for themselves. ie account for the lowest common denominator. to the detriment of the rest of us. Not that if they can't handle losing and end up robbing off their family and/or their employer, it's entirely their fault and need to face up to the consequences of their choices.
In an open Western society we have (or used to have) the freedom to choose. To make our own choices, good or bad, and be responsible/accountable for them. As long as they are within the bounds of the law. The State/Politicians/Police need to keep their noses out of my business, unless they have good reason to suspect that I have breached the law.
It may have happened, but I have not seen people in the public space that have the influence to impact the situation in horse racing taking this line. It has always tended to be, well yes, we agree there are stupid people that make stupid decisions, therefore we need regulation to protect themselves for themselves. ie account for the lowest common denominator. to the detriment of the rest of us. Not that if they can't handle losing and end up robbing off their family and/or their employer, it's entirely their fault and need to face up to the consequences of their choices.
I don't think differentiating to quite that extent is helpful imp123 tbh - but it highlights the damage done to racing by just conceding that all gambling/gaming products are the same.
I don't see why racing should need to defend betting on anything apart from racing - but by going down the route they chose, of defending the "right to bet" (on anything) they have (by association) put themselves in that position.
They would have been favourite (imo) backing themselves in a one horse race - but they chose instead to take part in a much more difficult and dangerous race where the stakes were much higher and so were their odds of winning.
They lost that race badly - now they want to take part in the re-run!
I don't see why racing should need to defend betting on anything apart from racing - but by going down the route they chose, of defending the "right to bet" (on anything) they have (by association) put themselves in that position.
They would have been favourite (imo) backing themselves in a one horse race - but they chose instead to take part in a much more difficult and dangerous race where the stakes were much higher and so were their odds of winning.
They lost that race badly - now they want to take part in the re-run!
FOREST: freedom for the right to smoke tobacco.
What happened to them? They went all in for the right to smoke in a public, small and dingy enclosure. And, they lost badly.
Horseracing will end up with the same result if steadfastly and blindly aligning itself with bookies hell-bent on aligning horseracing with fobt.
Has anyone heard of the consequence of a rotting apple in a box?
What happened to them? They went all in for the right to smoke in a public, small and dingy enclosure. And, they lost badly.
Horseracing will end up with the same result if steadfastly and blindly aligning itself with bookies hell-bent on aligning horseracing with fobt.
Has anyone heard of the consequence of a rotting apple in a box?
I briefly got excited reading the latest article in the Racing Post - it implies that the BHA have actually grown a pair and launched their own petition:
"...stark new figures released by the BHA, which on Sunday launched a petition against the policy".
I should have known better, it's just the usual p1ss-poor reporting from the Racing Post. The BHA petition is pretty much identical to the existing petition - confirming that they think the only difference between betting on racing and betting on addictive online games of chance, is the number of jobs involved.
#toothless - no mention of slots or casino games.
"...stark new figures released by the BHA, which on Sunday launched a petition against the policy".
I should have known better, it's just the usual p1ss-poor reporting from the Racing Post. The BHA petition is pretty much identical to the existing petition - confirming that they think the only difference between betting on racing and betting on addictive online games of chance, is the number of jobs involved.
#toothless - no mention of slots or casino games.
"The difference between horseracing and fobt is the jobs involved"
What an idiotic statement by the BHA! What about the implications of fobt on society and social services?
What an idiotic statement by the BHA! What about the implications of fobt on society and social services?
CagliariG29 Jul 25 13:38Joined: 16 Jul 22 | Topic/replies: 11,587 | Blogger: CagliariG's blog
There you go TM, Gosden has said it out loud on ITV!!
Missed it!
- I was busy all day preparing for my travels. And in fairness to Gosden, he also managed to somehow get this past the Editors of the Racing Post (the guardians of the slots) about a month ago:
Gosden also questioned the apparent lack of distinction at the Treasury between betting on racing and online casino gambling and the latter's greater potential for harm.
He added: "They must understand in the Treasury they are talking about two completely different forms of gambling and there is no way they can be put in the same bracket.
I'm out of the country for a good while now - perhaps some kind soul could update the thread every time somebody in racing speaks out against the slots & casino games that their product is being aligned with.
I know it's a big ask - probably take 2 minutes of your time over the next 4 weeks!
There you go TM, Gosden has said it out loud on ITV!!
Missed it!
- I was busy all day preparing for my travels. And in fairness to Gosden, he also managed to somehow get this past the Editors of the Racing Post (the guardians of the slots) about a month ago:Gosden also questioned the apparent lack of distinction at the Treasury between betting on racing and online casino gambling and the latter's greater potential for harm.
He added: "They must understand in the Treasury they are talking about two completely different forms of gambling and there is no way they can be put in the same bracket.
I'm out of the country for a good while now - perhaps some kind soul could update the thread every time somebody in racing speaks out against the slots & casino games that their product is being aligned with.
I know it's a big ask - probably take 2 minutes of your time over the next 4 weeks!
Gosden on thé today programme, this morning, on radio 4
Giving a detailed explanation on the differences in the
Gambling products. Went on to say, the bookmakers
Are ‘robbing people’ with these casino type slots, you can’t win
Very strong stuff indeed
Giving a detailed explanation on the differences in the
Gambling products. Went on to say, the bookmakers
Are ‘robbing people’ with these casino type slots, you can’t win
Very strong stuff indeed
Mr Gosden is correct. You cannot win on the casino type slots. Also, they are "managed" eg I'd not stop winning (almost daily) for a long while (introductory/grooming period) - max £36.69. However, post this I'd not win to save my life; one bookie even "allowed" me to win one of their 5 £100 weekly/monthly draw; I withdrew the full amount without hindrance or penalty.
Lately I've been playing "free" bingo with promo tickets. I must have about 50 in total. And, I've only won once. I think the amount was 65p (my share); free tickets (min 2) only won every other day.
The jackpots banded about by bookies' ads on late night tv are very misleading and fantasy. The most I've won was £36.69 - not an astronomical amount.
Lately I've been playing "free" bingo with promo tickets. I must have about 50 in total. And, I've only won once. I think the amount was 65p (my share); free tickets (min 2) only won every other day.
The jackpots banded about by bookies' ads on late night tv are very misleading and fantasy. The most I've won was £36.69 - not an astronomical amount.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539