Journalist Wanted - Gambling Commission Complaint

bobajob_1966

michael1983l wrote: »

If it can't be defined, it can't be regulated, if it can't be regulated, it should not be legal. Simples really.

So you do not want tighter regulation, you want an outright ban?

michael1983l

bobajob_1966 wrote: »

So you do not want tighter regulation, you want an outright ban?

I am answering specific responses, if you say it is impossible to tell who has a problem then if you believe that is the case then I am telling you that there is only one sollution.

I have spent enough time in bookmakers now to be able to spot somebody with an addiction straight out. There is this spanish fella who is in william hills on the electronic roulette near me everyday. Everyday he loses his money and spends hours in there telling all and sundry that the machines are fixed yet he still gambles on them. Is that not clear enough for you or would you still want further clarification on wether he has a problem or not?

NCISROCKS

michael1983l wrote: »

If it can't be defined, it can't be regulated, if it can't be regulated, it should not be legal. Simples really.

So we should totally ban the sale of alcohol because some people spend more and drink more than they should?

michael1983l

NCISROCKS wrote: »

So we should totally ban the sale of alcohol because some people spend more and drink more than they should?

Sale of alcohol is cut and dry, if the person is drunk you are not legally allowed to sell them alcohol. Another area where regulations are ignored in favour of a high tax return.

bobajob_1966

michael1983l wrote: »

I am answering specific responses, if you say it is impossible to tell who has a problem then if you believe that is the case then I am telling you that there is only one sollution.

I have spent enough time in bookmakers now to be able to spot somebody with an addiction straight out. There is this spanish fella who is in william hills on the electronic roulette near me everyday. Everyday he loses his money and spends hours in there telling all and sundry that the machines are fixed yet he still gambles on them. Is that not clear enough for you or would you still want further clarification on wether he has a problem or not?

So because someone spends all day in the bookies and moans about losing he is an addict? Or is he just bored, has nothing better to do with his time, and simply chooses to spend his money there?

The example I gave above, he spends all day in a bookies, is he an addict? mrsmehere says he is not?

michael1983l wrote: »

Sale of alcohol is cut and dry, if the person is drunk you are not legally allowed to sell them alcohol. Another area where regulations are ignored in favour of a high tax return.

How do you tell if someone is drunk? Is it how they look, or maybe their speech?

NCISROCKS

michael1983l wrote: »

Sale of alcohol is cut and dry, if the person is drunk you are not legally allowed to sell them alcohol. Another area where regulations are ignored in favour of a high tax return.

Cut and dried my !!!. There's nothing to stop me buying umpteen bottles of spirits in the supermarket and drinking myself to death. Can that be effectively regulated? NO! So we should we ban the sale of alcohol?

mjm3346

michael1983l wrote: »

If it can't be defined, it can't be regulated, if it can't be regulated, it should not be legal. Simples really.

It is "regulated", age of punter, accuracy of machines etc, etc. What is not "regulated" is a limit on what a mug punter spends--if there was a shop limit then they could just visit another shop or go online anyway. There is no limit and no way to regulate the number of fish fingers you can buy/eat, as this cannot be regulated then by your logic fish fingers should be banned.

wealdroam

michael1983l wrote: »

You can read can't you, it is clearly because the regulation in place does not actually mean anything substancial due to its wording. Do you truely believe that no bookmaker has never taken money from somebody they have suspected as having a problem. You seriously cannot believe that..... Can you?

I beg your pardon.

I take exception to your abusive post.

You posted your opinion...

michael1983l wrote: »

At the moment they might as well remove the Social Repsonsibility Section of the Licensing Conditions because it is effectivly useless. I bet not one single bookmaker has ever been charged by the commission on this matter.

I note the words I bet.
That indicates to me that you have nothing to base your opinion on.

I offered an alternative opinion...

wealdroam wrote: »

Could that be because the commission believes that all bookmakers are following that part of the rules correctly?

Why do you question my reading ability?

Please explain what makes your opinion more valid than mine?

mrsmehere

reading over previous posts, it seems that a definitive example of a problem gambler is unlikely. However, i don't see what comparisons about banning alcohol, as some folks spend and drink more that they should, has to do with the OP?

michael1983l

NCISROCKS wrote: »

Cut and dried my !!!. There's nothing to stop me buying umpteen bottles of spirits in the supermarket and drinking myself to death. Can that be effectively regulated? NO! So we should we ban the sale of alcohol?

Ok if we shouldn't ban alcohol and gambling so that everybody has freedom of choice, shouldn't recreational drugs, canabis and euthenasia be legalised on the same grounds that gambling and drink should not be banned?