Gambling sponsorship ban?

MolteniArcore said:
Rightly so (y)
Click to expand...
They are also trying to bring in affordability checks. The MP driving this is Labour’s Carolyn Harris. She and others would like to see limits on losses placed at £100 a month unless affordability can be proved via proof of income or investments.

At first glance this all sounds fine and dandy until you get into the nuts and bolts of it. This will immediately wipe out traders on the exchanges who do this for a living and have no proof of “traditional income”.
Turnover in the racing and betting industry which supports around 85,000 jobs will go through the floor and job losses will inevitably follow. Illegal gambling will flourish as the backstreet bookies will require no proof of income and millions in betting duty will be lost to the treasury through a downturn in bookmaker levy payments and betting duty.
Thousands of people supplements their income by using various matched betting sites that have been discussed on here before. Many of these are students and those on low incomes and this will be a killer for them and the matched betting software providers.
We have a supposedly libertarian government about to hand down nanny state directives at the behest of people like Ms Harris who has probably never struck a bet in her life. I wonder if she would take kindly to someone telling her how many doughnuts she can and can’t have. Maybe someone should.
 
Jimstewart said:
They are also trying to bring in affordability checks. The MP driving this is Labour’s Carolyn Harris. She and others would like to see limits on losses placed at £100 a month unless affordability can be proved via proof of income or investments.

At first glance this all sounds fine and dandy until you get into the nuts and bolts of it. This will immediately wipe out traders on the exchanges who do this for a living and have no proof of “traditional income”.
Turnover in the racing and betting industry which supports around 85,000 jobs will go through the floor and job losses will inevitably follow. Illegal gambling will flourish as the backstreet bookies will require no proof of income and millions in betting duty will be lost to the treasury through a downturn in bookmaker levy payments and betting duty.
Thousands of people supplements their income by using various matched betting sites that have been discussed on here before. Many of these are students and those on low incomes and this will be a killer for them and the matched betting software providers.
We have a supposedly libertarian government about to hand down nanny state directives at the behest of people like Ms Harris who has probably never struck a bet in her life. I wonder if she would take kindly to someone telling her how many doughnuts she can and can’t have. Maybe someone should.
Click to expand...


I remember having to do an affordability check when I put about 100k through bet365 about three Decembers ago 😂 obviously couldn’t explain it because i was doing matched betting, and therefore any 100k that went through them was laid off at Betfair or smarkets, but it shows that they do have existing controls but probably set too high.

I imagine £100 would be a nightmare to manage: I spent weeks liaising with them with redacted statements before they banned me.
 
TheFair86 said:
I remember having to do an affordability check when I put about 100k through bet365 about three Decembers ago 😂 obviously couldn’t explain it because i was doing matched betting, and therefore any 100k that went through them was laid off at Betfair or smarkets, but it shows that they do have existing controls but probably set too high.

I imagine £100 would be a nightmare to manage: I spent weeks liaising with them with redacted statements before they banned me.
Click to expand...
It will be a nightmare and the likes of oddsmonkey and PA will go to the wall because their subscribers won’t be able to get the turnover. It might send a few pros back to the on course market but the likes of me that use Betfair all day and various online accounts will be driven off line and some will inevitably go underground . It’s madness and I just hope they stop and think.
 
They’ve had it coming for a long time and it’s entirely their own fault. Gambling is a serious issue for a lot of people and the whole industry needs to be more strictly regulated. It’s far too easy to get into serious debt from it and I know a lot of people who have over the years.
 
SilentProf said:
They’ve had it coming for a long time and it’s entirely their own fault. Gambling is a serious issue for a lot of people and the whole industry needs to be more strictly regulated. It’s far too easy to get into serious debt from it and I know a lot of people who have over the years.
Click to expand...
Would you suggest a limit is put of beer because some people are alcoholics? Food because some people are obese? Just because some people have issues with things it doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be punished and limited in our enjoyment of them.
 
About time the issue was taken seriously, I would like to see more professional help for addicts funded by those making money from them
 
jam69 said:
About time the issue was taken seriously, I would like to see more professional help for addicts funded by those making money from them
Click to expand...
Would you like to see a limit placed on the amount of beer you can buy because the bloke around the corner is an alcoholic?
Would you like to be told you can only eat so many chips because the woman over the road is a bit chubby?
I’ve lost a very dear family member to alcoholism but I wouldn’t dream of putting a limit on how much anyone else can drink because of that.
 
Jimstewart said:
Would you like to see a limit placed on the amount of beer you can buy because the bloke around the corner is an alcoholic?
Would you like to be told you can only eat so many chips because the woman over the road is a bit chubby?
I’ve lost a very dear family member to alcoholism but I wouldn’t dream of putting a limit on how much anyone else can drink because of that.
Click to expand...
Much prefer help for those who need it, its none existent.
 
Jimstewart said:
Would you like to see a limit placed on the amount of beer you can buy because the bloke around the corner is an alcoholic?
Would you like to be told you can only eat so many chips because the woman over the road is a bit chubby?
I’ve lost a very dear family member to alcoholism but I wouldn’t dream of putting a limit on how much anyone else can drink because of that.
Click to expand...
But he didn't say any of those things - he said he would like help for addicts to be funded by those profiting from it. Not unreasonable??
 
jam69 said:
Much prefer help for those who need it, its none existent.
Click to expand...
We are in full agreement then. Because when Ms Harris and her band of followers get their way the already expanding dole q is going to be swelled by the ranks of many working class people being made redundant from an industry that supports 85000 people and their families.
 
Jimstewart said:
We are in full agreement then. Because when Ms Harris and her band of followers get their way the already expanding dole q is going to be swelled by the ranks of many working class people being made redundant from an industry that supports 85000 people and their families.
Click to expand...
Would have to read up and understand the implications of those limits to be honest
 
I actually think it will have a boost to employment as betting offices that don't come under those limitations will see an increase in footfall. It's sad that people suffer from addiction and I agree that they need support Betting Duty brings in £3m a year to government coffers surely a portion of that money should be ringfenced to fund help to those that have problems with gambling.
 
Last edited:
Whilst I wouldn't want to see Gambling banned there has to be far stricter measures in place than there are currently and as in previous post those benefitting should be contributing more toward funding help for those with problems.

"Fewer than 3% of problem gamblers are receiving treatment, according to figures that lay bare the devastating effects on their finances, relationships and careers."

"There are around 280,000 problem gamblers in England alone, according to a 2018 study by NHS Digital, although a YouGov survey earlier this year found there could be 1.4 million across the UK."

www.theguardian.com

Only 3% of problem gamblers in UK get help, says study

Report shows devastating effects on finances, relationships and careers ahead of government review
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Jimstewart said:
Would you like to see a limit placed on the amount of beer you can buy because the bloke around the corner is an alcoholic?
Would you like to be told you can only eat so many chips because the woman over the road is a bit chubby?
I’ve lost a very dear family member to alcoholism but I wouldn’t dream of putting a limit on how much anyone else can drink because of that.
Click to expand...

Do you like a bet Jim?
 
DCI_Gene_Hunt said:
Whilst I wouldn't want to see Gambling banned there has to be far stricter measures in place than there are currently and as in previous post those benefitting should be contributing more toward funding help for those with problems.

"Fewer than 3% of problem gamblers are receiving treatment, according to figures that lay bare the devastating effects on their finances, relationships and careers."

"There are around 280,000 problem gamblers in England alone, according to a 2018 study by NHS Digital, although a YouGov survey earlier this year found there could be 1.4 million across the UK."

www.theguardian.com

Only 3% of problem gamblers in UK get help, says study

Report shows devastating effects on finances, relationships and careers ahead of government review
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Jimstewart said:
Would you suggest a limit is put of beer because some people are alcoholics? Food because some people are obese? Just because some people have issues with things it doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be punished and limited in our enjoyment of them.
Click to expand...
Every pound won by one person is lost by someone else along with the cut taken by the betting company and taxes. One person buying alcohol doesn’t affect the next in the same way but if that’s your argument, why not legalise drugs and guns and let people drive without a licence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top