Journalist Wanted - Gambling Commission Complaint

michael1983l

Thanks Mountainofdebt, as you say there are systems in place already, I just do not think that the bookmakers did the best they could in order to enforce these systems, in fact I would go as far to say that they plainly did nothing. after all it is easier to stand by and do nothing than it is to make a conforntational situation.

michael1983l

bobajob_1966 wrote: »

You might want to read the rest of the thread - this has all been discussed, several times over!

No it hasn't, what has been discussed several times over was that you thought that the staqff in the shops have no need to dispute if I am in control of my gambling or not. You never actually discussed the options they had themselves, you have been too busy defending why they shouldn't/couldn't have highlighted that I had a problem.

arcon5

What about shop-o-holics?

Some peoples addiction is shopping and can get themselves into thousands of pounts of debt on store cards, credit cards, overdrafts ect ect.

You could equally ask retailers to monitor customers spending habits also and govern how retail deal with consumers. But how much regulation can we put in place before we are a complete nanny state and the minute amount of personal responsibility society currently holds disappears?

These regulations to govern gambling, also how far do you extend them? Because lets take a game like Poker for example, I would say there is much more skill involved than luck, would this be outlawed in your opinion?

wealdroam

michael1983l wrote: »

So we are all agreeing that it is very difficult to highlight a person that has a genuine problem. then in that case by default if there is no way to properly regulate the industry then surely the industry should not exist at all?

The industry will always exist.

I am old enough to remember before we had licensed betting shops.

Do you think that off course betting did not take place simply because there were no betting shops?
Of course it was unregulated, and that (apart from the tax) was why licensed establishments were invented.

If gambling was banned, do you really think that the more vulnerable gamblers would be better protected?

bobajob_1966

michael1983l wrote: »

No it hasn't, what has been discussed several times over was that you thought that the staqff in the shops have no need to dispute if I am in control of my gambling or not. You never actually discussed the options they had themselves, you have been too busy defending why they shouldn't/couldn't have highlighted that I had a problem.

I have asked you countless times how they should spot someone with a problem. You have failed to provide a workable answer.

michael1983l

bobajob_1966 wrote: »

I have asked you countless times how they should spot someone with a problem. You have failed to provide a workable answer.

There is no workable answer that will satisfy you, however if there is no workable answer then why would the regulators create a rule to work bye of which in your words is unworkable?

michael1983l

wealdroam wrote: »

The industry will always exist.

I am old enough to remember before we had licensed betting shops.

Do you think that off course betting did not take place simply because there were no betting shops?
Of course it was unregulated, and that (apart from the tax) was why licensed establishments were invented.

If gambling was banned, do you really think that the more vulnerable gamblers would be better protected?

I am not naive enough to think it will be banned but I do believe tighter, more clear regulation could be introduced.

wealdroam

michael1983l wrote: »

There is no workable answer that will satisfy you, however if there is no workable answer then why would the regulators create a rule to work bye of which in your words is unworkable?

But 'the rules' say they need to have cause for concern.

Without knowing the bank balances of every punter (amongst other things), 'the rules' are flawed.

To get 'the rules' changed perhaps you need to get the attention of your Member of Parliament.

bobajob_1966

michael1983l wrote: »

There is no workable answer that will satisfy you, however if there is no workable answer then why would the regulators create a rule to work bye of which in your words is unworkable?

No, you have come up with no workable answer that has satisfied anyone. What do you want the bookies to do?

The regulators recognise that there is no ideal model that will eradicate the problems associated with gambling. So they ask bookies to try to meet their clients halfway, by giving them the means to seek help from gambling charities, and by allowing the client to set limits on what they can bet.

bobajob_1966

wealdroam wrote: »

But 'the rules' say they need to have cause for concern.

Without knowing the bank balances of every punter (amongst other things), 'the rules' are flawed.

To get 'the rules' changed perhaps you need to get the attention of your Member of Parliament.

Plus even if they had that knowledge, there would be a fine line between helping someone who may have a problem, and restricting the freedom of the individual to use his money as he wishes.

Not to mention the disability discrimination issues ...