Journalist Wanted - Gambling Commission Complaint

michael1983l

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

But this is the rub - as i and others have already mentioned - lots of people gamble large amounts - you are not unique - and lots of people spend an hour or two in the bookies every day - are you saying that they should also stop these people from gambling or question them as to their betting? Very difficult to spot irregular betting patterns from people who spend all day in the shops - one day they may have won loads off a race and decide to bet higher the next day lower as they hadnt won much if anything at all..

If this was the case then people would sack it off and bet online all together and thus the bookies would close.

Yes the bookies have a responsibility but so does the individual - no matter their circumstances.

I agree and ultimately we have to decide as the public, is it ok to accept the effect gambling has in a negative way on many peoples lives just to give people the right to gamble oh and of course raise lots and lots of tax revenue. If it is acceptable then why isn't heroin legal? because they both destroy lives and in general are bad for you but can feel quite nice if you manage to keep an addiction at bay.

michael1983l

tomwakefield wrote: »

Wouldn't this vary from person to person, depending on their finances? If I was on £1,000,000 a year, I might view gambling £100 a day differently to someone else who was on £20,000 a year and it is more likely to be indicative of a problem in the latter case.

No it shouldn't vary, the levels should be set at a value that protects everybody in society not just a few like it does now. The maximum accpepted levels of betting should be set at the maximum level of affordability for the lowest ecconomic level of society.

duckeggblue

I just want to suggest that this may not only be the medication,but that you have compulsive tendancies too? You may get more help on other boards here.I worry the internet is probably the worst place for you at the moment.You are on the right road now,the psychiatrist will be key.xx

bobajob_1966

michael1983l wrote: »

Months on at a review I told them that I was gambling excessivly and that I had just stopped my medication myself because I felt they were linked due to the gambling problem arising at the same time as starting this medication. The doctor then went on to state that this medication may have caused the highs that influenced my impulsive behaviour to gamble. He then said he was not qualified to decide what medication I should be on and reffered me to the practice mental health expert. Let me add the doctor that just admitted to not being qualified was the same doctor that issed the tablets initially and diagnosed depression.

The appointment with the specialist, within 10 minutes has diagnosed some sort of bipolar condition and possibly schizophrenia and has issued the medication to help deal with this. He has also reffered me to a psycologist and issued an appointment to have a fasting blood test.

Previously I have had 7 sessions of counsilling of which i mentioned the gambling problem and she reffered me onto a Cognitive Behavioural thearapist of which I am waiting to start.

All GPs are qualified to prescribe anti depressant medications, and it is rare that the first drug you try will suit you. Your GP was responsible in referring you on for further help, but certainly not 'unqualified' in prescribing the first meds.

Your posts come across as blaming other people - the bookies, the meds, the GP - whilst being bipolar is not your fault, nor is it the fault of anyone else.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

michael1983l wrote: »

I agree and ultimately we have to decide as the public, is it ok to accept the effect gambling has in a negative way on many peoples lives just to give people the right to gamble oh and of course raise lots and lots of tax revenue. If it is acceptable then why isn't heroin legal? because they both destroy lives and in general are bad for you but can feel quite nice if you manage to keep an addiction at bay.

Im sorry but thats a terrible analogy - they dont compare - one is a legal past-time the other is a class A illegal drug.

Yes they can both destroy lives but so can lots of other things also.

It has been deemed that there are enough things in place and help available for people who are addicted to gambling. The shops do as much as they can and if they claim that the pattern of your betting was normal then you are going to find it very difficult to argue otherwise as they will have facts and figures of other punters betting patterns.

bobajob_1966

michael1983l wrote: »

I agree and ultimately we have to decide as the public, is it ok to accept the effect gambling has in a negative way on many peoples lives just to give people the right to gamble oh and of course raise lots and lots of tax revenue. If it is acceptable then why isn't heroin legal? because they both destroy lives and in general are bad for you but can feel quite nice if you manage to keep an addiction at bay.

Heroin kills people. Gambling/ debt does not.

michael1983l wrote: »

No it shouldn't vary, the levels should be set at a value that protects everybody in society not just a few like it does now. The maximum accpepted levels of betting should be set at the maximum level of affordability for the lowest ecconomic level of society.

On that theory, the level would be set at zero.

michael1983l

bobajob_1966 wrote: »

None of this is going to happen.

On your first point, you'll get some ramble response that will have little substance. The reason for this is that, unless you tell the bookie that you are bipolar or you choose to set a limit, they cannot establish that your spending pattern is 'irrational'.

Again, what training could a bookie use to establish potential problems? All sites have links to gambling addiction charities and the ability to set a periodic spending limit - what more do you want them to do?

You miss the fact that bookmakers are not in a position to decide who is an irrational gambler. If you think that they should be able to establish this, perhaps you could suggest how?

May I reffer you to the legislation set out by the gambling commision I linked earlier. You will find that although ambiguos they say that what I have suggested should be in force. The contention here is that at no point are levels of what is acceptable or not is ever mentioned and thus because of this, except in the very of extremest circumstances they are rules that can never be enforced because of the lack of difinitive limits.

This all ends up like we are here that one person thinks the level is accptable wheras the other does not. Who's to a decide, well a judge ultimately if the complaint is pushed far enough down the line.

tomwakefield

michael1983l wrote: »

No it shouldn't vary, the levels should be set at a value that protects everybody in society not just a few like it does now. The maximum accpepted levels of betting should be set at the maximum level of affordability for the lowest ecconomic level of society.

Take an eighteen year old student, not working. How much do you think they can afford to gamble? What sort of level do you think would indicate they have a gambling problem?

Now take a millionaire. Do you think they should be forced to be limited to the same amounts if they have plenty of spare cash that they wish to use a portion of to gamble with, when they are fully in control of their gambling?

michael1983l

bobajob_1966 wrote: »

Heroin kills people. Gambling/ debt does not.



On that theory, the level would be set at zero.

Hence the reason gambling is illigal in many countries accross the world. And gambling does kill people, if it wasn't for my two young girls I certainly wouldn't be here today./

michael1983l

tomwakefield wrote: »

Take an eighteen year old student, not working. How much do you think they can afford to gamble? What sort of level do you think would indicate they have a gambling problem?

Now take a millionaire. Do you think they should be forced to be limited to the same amounts if they have plenty of spare cash that they wish to use a portion of to gamble with, when they are fully in control of their gambling?

Thats why it should not be legal at all, there is no way to protect the vulnerable who need protecting most so in which case it should just be outlawed as it is in many countries accross the world.