Ban the use of credit cards for gambling.

weegie.geek

dfub wrote: »

Not been able to use credit cards for gambling transactions would be a good thing. This would have saved me lots of money. If you are addicted to something or have a problem or compulsion with something, it is difficuklt to stop and measures like not been able to use a credit card to gamble would go some way to helping people.
Currently it is illegal to use a credit card in a british casino to gain funds to gamble with (except through an ATM and limit is normally £300/£500) so the Gambling Commission must think it's a bad idea, so why not ban it for online gambling too? Why not? Becuase the servers are based abroad and out of the GC's jurisdication (for now).

It sucks that you have this problem. You're in the minority though, and banning it would affect the majority.

There are banks who don't allow you to use your card to deposit at gambling sites. Surely a better solution would be to have an opt-out facility where if you know you're going to be tempted, you can tell your bank to disallow it?

YOU have the problem, not me. There are sensible methods to help you without affecting me.

C_Ronaldo

LizD wrote: »

#Troll alert!#

People should take more responsibility for their own actions, not keep blaming the Government for self-made problems.

exactley, people are in control of theyre own actions,

Mozette

tupperware wrote: »

I fully support the Graham Calvert courtcase - not necessarily because he will win or even because he is in the right - but because I fully expect the outcome of this will be that bookmakers will be forced to stop merely paying "lip service" to exclusion programmes and help for addicts and become accountable.

While you're at it have a go at off licences for selling alcohol, newagents for selling chocolate, chemists for selling a variety of drugs that folk get addicted to... where do you draw the line? When will people take responsibility for their own actions and stop trying to find someone to blame and sue and try to evade their responsibilities.
I drink vast amounts, but I don't want Threshers to tell me I can't, thank you very much. MY choice.

michaels

ICan'tStandIt wrote: »

If people don't want to pay the cash rate APR for gambling then they can use their debit card or cash from their own pocket.

My point is why are they double charging (retailer and card holder) for this type of transaction rather than any other - is it for credit card companies to collect 'sin taxes' or is in just blatant profiteering?

dealer_wins

From my experience in working for a High St bank, gamblers would just withdraw cash from their credit card to gamble if it was banned online.

Pre-internet I have seen countless cases of £500 withdrawals every day until the card was maxed.

The only answer for anyone who cant control having credit, is not to take it out, and cut the cards up. And seek help from GA.

leftfield20

The only answer for anyone who cant control having credit, is not to take it out, and cut the cards up. And seek help from GA

This is absolutely true but making these crucial steps can be the hardest. Me, i've learnt but it took a few times saying "right this is it definatley the last time"
If you were only allowed to gamble with debit cards then i believe (now, this is just my opinion) that the problem wouldn't have been as bad because the effect is more immediate with bills not getting paid etc and so it comes to a head much more quickly. Most people don't have thousands in their bank to spend but i reckon a lot more have thousands on a credit card that they could use and spend the rest of their days paying it off.

I know people make their own choices and banning the use of credit cards (for gambling) would effect everyone, not the just the 1% of people with a gambling problem but it would help at least a little not to create any more problem gamblers.

I'm not having a go at other peoples opinions, just wanted to put my 2p worth in.

Paul_Herring

Mr Calvert has lost his claim, leaving him with a further £366,000 legal bill to pay off. The judge refused permission to appeal, though he can still do so by applying directly: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/7291597.stm

going2die_rich

So it's the credit cards fault that you gambled everything away and are now in debt? I think if you are true addict, you'd have found the money else where. You may have got a loan and then stuck it in your bank and then used your debit card to gamble. It's a bit like an alcholic who doesn't want to stop drinking will always find a drink from somewhere. Credit card wasn't at fault it may have made it easier, but we can't ban everything because a few people get addicted.

Far better raising people with better self control to see when they are in trouble so they stop in time and seek help if needed.

Next you'll be wanting to close every fast food place down because it's unhealthy and fat people can't put the burgers down!

Riq

tupperware wrote: »

I fully support the Graham Calvert courtcase - not necessarily because he will win or even because he is in the right - but because I fully expect the outcome of this will be that bookmakers will be forced to stop merely paying "lip service" to exclusion programmes and help for addicts and become accountable.

Well thankfully the claim lost.
Now Mr Calvert has a beastly legal bill.

Now I expect he will sue William Hill for employing expensive lawyers.

Tr@cker

Some card companies have a sensible policy with gambling transactions such as Egg who allow a maximum of £500 per day into gambling websites. Having said that they've now upped the fee to 3% on cash transactions and gambling is classed as such so i 'd steer well clear of them now.
The ability to bet on-line with plastic was always going to lead to massive losses for some people and even bankruptcy.
Anybody who says 'who gives a toss about somebody gambling their lives away' (paraphrased) is ignorant and insensitive-they wouldn't see it like that if it were one of THEIR own family who were addicted.
I support Graham Calvert because Hills allegedly failed in their duty of care and allowed him to gamble himself to ruin after he'd excluded himself. This in my view is ugly capitalism.
But the gambling industry are going to be made to cough up more to help in the recevery of the addicts they've leeched on and rightly so.
Susie, would you really have gambled so much if you'd only had cash in hand to bet with ? 'REAL' money ?
You have my deepest sympathy.