Journalist Wanted - Gambling Commission Complaint

bobajob_1966

michael1983l wrote: »

Well my next step will be a desperate one but it is going to involve a set of handcuffs and one of their flagship stores. No food, no sleep, no water. Just a handful of leaflets, my will and the refusal to move until they acknowledge that they need to do more for people like me or a judge gives the police an order to have me removed. A breach of the peace offence is nothing to a man as low as me.

Now you are being irrational - what do you think that will achieve?

The police do not need a court order to remove you if you are committing a breach of the peace.

Have you discussed this with your medical team?

michael1983l

bobajob_1966 wrote: »

Now you are being irrational - what do you think that will achieve?

The police do not need a court order to remove you if you are committing a breach of the peace.

Have you discussed this with your medical team?

They will need a court order if I am physically attached to the store, like I plan to be.

bobajob_1966

michael1983l wrote: »

They will need a court order if I am physically attached to the store, like I plan to be.

Believe me, they do not. They can use reasonable force if you refuse to leave, without referring to the court.

michael1983l

bobajob_1966 wrote: »

The legislation requires the bookmakers to take reasonable measures. They do this by allowing clients to set a limit and by advertising and linking to gambling addiction charities.

You still have not stated what more you think they should do.

Is that what the regulations state because I thought they stated this-

Protection of children and other vulnerable persons
Combating problem gambling
Social responsibility code provision
Licensees must have and put into effect policies and procedures intended to promote
socially responsible gambling.
Licensees’ policies and procedures for socially responsible gambling must include but need not be confined to:
• the specific policies and procedures required by the following provisions of section 2 of this code
• a commitment to and how they will contribute to research into the prevention and treatment of problem gambling
• a commitment to and how they will contribute to public education on the risks of gambling and how to gamble safely
• a commitment to and how they will contribute to the identification and treatment of problem gamblers

Notice the bolded text.

arcon5

michael1983l wrote: »

If the fast food company is regulated and the regulators state that they should do so then YES of course.

Why can't people get into their heads that there is a set of legislation involved supporting my grievance with these merchants.

Unless i'm missing the point, your not looking to enforce current legislation, your looking to increase it. So the debate is whether it is needed or not, not whether it needs greater enforcement powers.


This is the kind of thing that makes me want to bang my head against the wall..... whatever happened to personal responsibility?

I'm going to requote a previous poster because I thought it was an excellent point, well made and I think it is 100% correct:

While people are free to live their lives, we're also free to ruin them. Freedom has its costs, and this may be one of them. But, in all honesty......I wouldnt want to give up that freedom. If everything was moderated by a "big brother" type system....no one would smoke, no one would drink, we'd be made to exercise daily and eat tasteless food. Wouldnt be allowed to bet/shop etc.

Making bad decisions is what gives us the life experience we need to mature. You learn MUCH more from a bad decision than a good one imo.

bobajob_1966

michael1983l wrote: »

Is that what the regulations state because I thought they stated this-


Notice the bolded text.

The bookmakers fulfil that guideline by actively promoting the gambling addiction charities. You should also be aware that you have quoted the CoP, which is not legislation.

michael1983l

First of all no they don't and secondly there is more I haven't quoted this -

Social responsibility code provision
Licensees must put into effect policies and procedures for customer interaction where they have concerns that a customer’s behaviour may indicate problem gambling. The policies must include:
• identification of the appropriate level of management who may initiate customer interaction and the procedures for doing so
• the types of behaviour that will be logged/reported to the appropriate level of staff and which may trigger customer interaction at an appropriate moment
• the circumstances in which consideration should be given to refusing service to customers and/or barring them from the operator’s gambling premises
• training for all staff on their respective responsibilities, in particular so that they know who is designated to deal with problem gambling issues.
But such policies and procedures must be consistent with, and implemented with due
regard to, licensees’ duties in respect of the health and safety of their staff.

michael1983l

arcon5 wrote: »

Unless i'm missing the point, your not looking to enforce current legislation, your looking to increase it. So the debate is whether it is needed or not, not whether it needs greater enforcement powers.


This is the kind of thing that makes me want to bang my head against the wall..... whatever happened to personal responsibility?

I'm going to requote a previous poster because I thought it was an excellent point, well made and I think it is 100% correct:

Yes you are right, you are missing the point. Not only do I want regulation increased, I also want them to abide by the current regs of which they are not as stated above.

NCISROCKS

michael1983l wrote: »

They will need a court order if I am physically attached to the store, like I plan to be.

That's just nonsense. The police will not need a court order, will easily remove the handcuffs closely followed by the removal of yourself. You need help and not from MSE.

bobajob_1966

So I'll ask again, what do you expect the bookmakers to do if you do not think they are doing enough now?