Journalist Wanted - Gambling Commission Complaint

michael1983l

Do you know what this place is full of keyboard warriors who love to take the high ground and spout their superiority to those that find themselves in a muddle. They take great pleasure in coming on here and telling people how right they are and how wrong I am, black and white... as simple as that.

If I had quoted a grievance about another subject, say insurance or banking then it will have been a love inn of people quoting this reg and that reg and saying to take it all the way.

As this is a subject about gambling people's immidiate reaction is well it is their own fault, I will just ignore what the legal responsibilites are from the bookmakers because I am taking the moral high ground.

Well my response to those people are chubb off and don't bother posting, if you are hear to gloat about how you would never get into this position or that i am an idiot for being in it then I don't want to know. stick to the subject in hand and if you have nothing of any value to say then !!!! off and troll somebody elsse's thread.

michael1983l

bobajob_1966 wrote: »

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

Your like a broken record,

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:

• 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.

Please do tell me of what effort did the book makers do to meet the above requirement?

PhylPho

michael1983l wrote: »

There is no way of saying what the limit is but surely there must be a common sense factor. Returning to the merchant with your debit card ready with anxiety on your face to credit £200 to a casino machin that you had just credited £200 to 2 minutes ago at the same time as having alredy credited upwards of £1000 that day.

Does that kind of activity not send alarm bells ringing? Is that acceptable? Well Betfred and William Hill both think this is normal behaviour in their shops and that there is no problem. . .

OP: please don't make a bad situation worse. Truth is, you know infinitely less about the gambling habits / spends of people than do the companies they gamble with. Your illustration, above, of what you -- personally -- feel to be excessive gambling can and will be easily countered by bookmakers who see spending patterns way, way, way above that.

I sympathise enormously with your plight. But the only way to achieve what you seem to be seeking is:

(a) ban gambling altogether; or:

(b) make it the law that no-one can gamble on anything, anywhere, in the UK unless they first provide the bookie / the casino with details of their annual salary, net salary, monthly outgoings, and disposable income, via which means the casino or bookie can then decide what is a "reasonable" percentage of disposable income to be spent with them, and what is "unreasonable".

Option 1 is anathema in a free Society where people make their own choices.

Option 2 is plainly bonkers. You are not your brother's keeper, and nor is the casino or the bookie, yours.

bobajob_1966

michael1983l wrote: »

Do you know what this place is full of keyboard warriors who love to take the high ground and spout their superiority to those that find themselves in a muddle. They take great pleasure in coming on here and telling people how right they are and how wrong I am, black and white... as simple as that.

If I had quoted a grievance about another subject, say insurance or banking then it will have been a love inn of people quoting this reg and that reg and saying to take it all the way.

As this is a subject about gambling people's immidiate reaction is well it is their own fault, I will just ignore what the legal responsibilites are from the bookmakers because I am taking the moral high ground.

Well my response to those people are chubb off and don't bother posting, if you are hear to gloat about how you would never get into this position or that i am an idiot for being in it then I don't want to know. stick to the subject in hand and if you have nothing of any value to say then !!!! off and troll somebody elsse's thread.

People have said that your understanding is incorrect, people have not called you an idiot.

bobajob_1966

michael1983l wrote: »

Your like a broken record,


Please do tell me of what effort did the book makers do to meet the above requirement?

You don't seem able to answer the salient point though - what more do you expect the bookmakers to do?

I have answered your second point several times. You do not think their current measures are adequate, but you fail to specify what more you reasonably expect them to do.

michael1983l

PhylPho wrote: »

OP: please don't make a bad situation worse. Truth is, you know infinitely less about the gambling habits / spends of people than do the companies they gamble with. Your illustration, above, of what you -- personally -- feel to be excessive gambling can and will be easily countered by bookmakers who see spending patterns way, way, way above that.

I sympathise enormously with your plight. But the only way to achieve what you seem to be seeking is:

(a) ban gambling altogether; or:

(b) make it the law that no-one can gamble on anything, anywhere, in the UK unless they first provide the bookie / the casino with details of their annual salary, net salary, monthly outgoings, and disposable income, via which means the casino or bookie can then decide what is a "reasonable" percentage of disposable income to be spent with them, and what is "unreasonable".

Option 1 is anathema in a free Society where people make their own choices.

Option 2 is plainly bonkers. You are not your brother's keeper, and nor is the casino or the bookie, yours.

I see your view point but again you are disregarding their responsibilities BY LAW to meet the following requirement... Yes I am going to quote it for a 3rd time because as of yet nobody has explained how they are meeting this legal requirement

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:

• 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.

michael1983l

bobajob_1966 wrote: »

You don't seem able to answer the salient point though - what more do you expect the bookmakers to do?

I have answered your second point several times. You do not think their current measures are adequate, but you fail to specify what more you reasonably expect them to do.

Jesus H, what more do I want them to do... erm the minimum of meeting the below legal requirement yes this is the 4th time

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:

• 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.

Did it notice how it says that they should refuse to serve me and even ban me from the premises where I display behaviour that MAY indicate a problem. Notice how I said May in big letters, that means they don't even have to be sure. My quick sucsession of transactions would at minimum fall into this MAY area, don't you think?

tomwakefield

michael1983l wrote: »

Do you know what this place is full of keyboard warriors who love to take the high ground and spout their superiority to those that find themselves in a muddle. They take great pleasure in coming on here and telling people how right they are and how wrong I am, black and white... as simple as that.

No-one is trying to take the moral high ground. They are simply disagreeing with you. On a forum, that's going to happen.

michael1983l wrote: »

If I had quoted a grievance about another subject, say insurance or banking then it will have been a love inn of people quoting this reg and that reg and saying to take it all the way.

Not necessarily. You'll see plenty of threads where people are mistaken in their beliefs about their consumer rights, and they are put right.

michael1983l wrote: »

As this is a subject about gambling people's immidiate reaction is well it is their own fault, I will just ignore what the legal responsibilites are from the bookmakers because I am taking the moral high ground.

Nonsense. I've no inherent objection with gambling. I did matched betting for about two years, and I occasionally put a few quid on the grand national, or another big race. The problem I have is that
1) You're blaming the bookmaker for your loss, saying they should have stopped you, which I think is unreasonable, based on what you have posted
2) You're suggesting that gambling should be totally outlawed as a small minority are addicted.

michael1983l wrote: »

Well my response to those people are chubb off and don't bother posting, if you are hear to gloat about how you would never get into this position or that i am an idiot for being in it then I don't want to know. stick to the subject in hand and if you have nothing of any value to say then !!!! off and troll somebody elsse's thread.

We are sticking to the subject in hand, albeit disagreeing with your idea of what is a reasonable result of all this.

bobajob_1966

michael1983l wrote: »

Jesus H, what more do I want them to do... erm the minimum of meeting the below legal requirement yes this is the 4th time



Did it notice how it says that they should refuse to serve me and even ban me from the premises where I display behaviour that MAY indicate a problem. Notice how I said May in big letters, that means they don't even have to be sure. My quick sucsession of transactions would at minimum fall into this MAY area, don't you think?

What behaviours would these be, taking into account that the bookmaker needs to protect themself from claims of discrimination?

michael1983l

£200 transactions within minutes of each other to fund a machine that has a maximum £500 payout in any one win. Patterns of spending most of the day in the shop until debit cards start getting declined and the next card is whipped out to play with.


What in your opinion MAY start to be a cause for concern then? I asked the same question to the bookmakers, this was their repsonse

With regard to the stake level that I would consider to be an indicator of a problem, no such parameters are set as this is very relative to the individual involved. Clearly all individuals have their own level of disposable income and what is a significant amount to one person may be of little consequence to another, the most suitable indicators therefore will relate to a persons behavior whilst gambling and their attitude towards the outcome of that gambling.

Hmmm, basically that means the shop doesn't have to do anything and can never have liability held against them in regards to Section 2 of the regs as it is all about the shop operators own opinion.

Kinda wrong don't you think? Especially as the bookmaker business is heavily bonus weighted in salaries. Kind of contradictoary to leave it down to the shop operator who relies on irrational spending to increase his own salary.

Vested interests do you not agree?