Government Considers Banning Betting Companies from Clubs Sponsorship

[Same_as_before]

Not before time , my biggest regret of the last Labour government was their lax polices relating to gambling , FOBT etc

Jam I 1000% agree, Blair was in the tabbaco and getting companies lobby pocket.

 

[Muttley]

Do we ban everything that people can't control the use of?

I don't think anyone was advocating banning gambling just the advertising of gambling.

say again, if something is 100% legal and companies are entitled to run that business, I don't think banning them from advertising is the right way to go.

Why not? It is only legal because that is what the law currently says. Opium used to be legal, Laudanum was given to babies, legally!

Also for "excessive secretions" too

 

[ThirdLeg]

If

Because it could bankrupt a couple of clubs? Do we ban everything that people can't control the use of?

Do you think banning betting companies from sponsoring sports that people who have addictive problems with gambling will just knock it on the head?

I'd say the suggestion earlier is the best one, regulate it so the adverts don't focus on winning / happiness. Enforce some sort of financial contribution to services that aid those struggling.

I don't know where the 'I think that's detrimental lets ban advertising it' argument ends? Fast food? Sugar? Alcohol? High polluting cars?

I say again, if something is 100% legal and companies are entitled to run that business, I don't think banning them from advertising is the right way to go. You can add warnings and stuff and regulate them from outright lying. Again, I don't know the numbers if there are a few hundred thousand people who regularly watch football on their knees financially because they are addicted to gambling then they need help. Taking Bet365 off a stadium name or shirt doesn't really help them overcome a gambling addiction for me.

Most people seem to be against gambling adverts and betting companies but there are many threads on here about horses and betting, and it was rife on the old board.

It seems like a sound bite or a gesture to look like they are attempting to tackle it, whilst doing almost nothing to actually tackle it.

Dunno, just my two penneth.

if a club is going to go bankrupt because it has to have a non betting sponsor then they need to reassess their business.
But that’s not the case anyway.

The thread is about outlawing betting sponsorship. One part of what should be a multifaceted approach to the problem.

I obviously do not think it alone will stop the problem on its own. And nowhere have I come close to even suggesting that.

But It is certain to be more effective than the alternative which is to let them continue.

As you might have noticed by the state of our country and the world at large it’s quite difficult for governments to slap fines and levies and taxes and whatever else on large corporations for a number of reasons.
The question posed by the thread wasn’t should the government mandate a financial contribution to fund addiction treatment or just ban advertising.
I mean it’s **** easy to invent policy on a messsge board. You could say for every £1 spent on advertising, £10 must be spent on addiction treatment. And let us wish it into law. Now, thats going to be much more more effective. But it’s not reality.

this is one step that’s easily enforceable and that will have a positive impact - despite what you may think about the public’s immunity to the charms of the multi billion dollar marketing industry. Although as I’ve suggested earlier I’m sure you own at least a couple of branded goods.

look at how much the government has done with smoking in recent years. And along the way were many small pieces of legislation. Legislation that perhaps you would’ve considered ineffective at the time.
but they’ve been incredibly effective. Some of the best work I’ve actually seen produced by a government in recent years.
They technically could’ve just banned anything to do with cigarettes at the time. But that is not the reality in which we live in I’m afraid.
And much like you couldn’t just ban cigarettes then you can’t just ban gambling now. For obvious reasons.

But you can take small steps to counteract what is a very real problem in society.

And this is one of them and should be supported.

 

[jam69]

the help for compulsive gamblers is abysmal to non existent, the problem is gamblers tend to work and rarely turn to crime to feed their addictions unlike some other addictions, not to mention the billions generated in taxes so its a golden goose for the government.
any help is token and run by well meaning people with little or no understanding of the addicts.
iam not against gambling, in moderation its no worse than other vices, but they needs to be better help for addicts, funded fully by those making billions from them

 

[Cooper671]

What really winds me up is gambling firms advertising account restrictions. Why put an advert out to simply advertise that? Its simply a gambling advert disguised as something else

 

[Deleted]

If

if a club is going to go bankrupt because it has to have a non betting sponsor then they need to reassess their business.
But that’s not the case anyway.

The thread is about outlawing betting sponsorship. One part of what should be a multifaceted approach to the problem.

I obviously do not think it alone will stop the problem on its own. And nowhere have I come close to even suggesting that.

But It is certain to be more effective than the alternative which is to let them continue.

As you might have noticed by the state of our country and the world at large it’s quite difficult for governments to slap fines and levies and taxes and whatever else on large corporations for a number of reasons.
The question posed by the thread wasn’t should the government mandate a financial contribution to fund addiction treatment or just ban advertising.
I mean it’s **** easy to invent policy on a messsge board. You could say for every £1 spent on advertising, £10 must be spent on addiction treatment. And let us wish it into law. Now, thats going to be much more more effective. But it’s not reality.

this is one step that’s easily enforceable and that will have a positive impact - despite what you may think about the public’s immunity to the charms of the multi billion dollar marketing industry. Although as I’ve suggested earlier I’m sure you own at least a couple of branded goods.

look at how much the government has done with smoking in recent years. And along the way were many small pieces of legislation. Legislation that perhaps you would’ve considered ineffective at the time.
but they’ve been incredibly effective. Some of the best work I’ve actually seen produced by a government in recent years.
They technically could’ve just banned anything to do with cigarettes at the time. But that is not the reality in which we live in I’m afraid.
And much like you couldn’t just ban cigarettes then you can’t just ban gambling now. For obvious reasons.

But you can take small steps to counteract what is a very real problem in society.

And this is one of them and should be supported.

Very good post

 

[Mr_Fridge]

The sooner the better.

it’s quite shameful on the club itself who advertise gambling on Twitter to people as young as 13 (the age Twitter requires you to be to have an account). Would expect a greater level of social responsibility. But money talks.

 

[Laughing]

Because it could bankrupt a couple of clubs? Do we ban everything that people can't control the use of?

Do you think banning betting companies from sponsoring sports that people who have addictive problems with gambling will just knock it on the head?

I'd say the suggestion earlier is the best one, regulate it so the adverts don't focus on winning / happiness. Enforce some sort of financial contribution to services that aid those struggling.

I don't know where the 'I think that's detrimental lets ban advertising it' argument ends? Fast food? Sugar? Alcohol? High polluting cars?

I say again, if something is 100% legal and companies are entitled to run that business, I don't think banning them from advertising is the right way to go. You can add warnings and stuff and regulate them from outright lying. Again, I don't know the numbers if there are a few hundred thousand people who regularly watch football on their knees financially because they are addicted to gambling then they need help. Taking Bet365 off a stadium name or shirt doesn't really help them overcome a gambling addiction for me.

Most people seem to be against gambling adverts and betting companies but there are many threads on here about horses and betting, and it was rife on the old board.

It seems like a sound bite or a gesture to look like they are attempting to tackle it, whilst doing almost nothing to actually tackle it.

Dunno, just my two penneth.

I think removing advertising reduces the uptake in gambling or won't do much for those already addicted. Over time it will reduce the number of new addicts in the same way smoking is reducing.

Is a long game that the government don't really want to play, the same for smoking.

 

[Laughing]

I don't think anyone was advocating banning gambling just the advertising of gambling.

Why not? It is only legal because that is what the law currently says. Opium used to be legal, Laudanum was given to babies, legally!

Also for "excessive secretions" too

What's laudunum mutley?

 

[Jedi boro]

The sooner the better.

it’s quite shameful on the club itself who advertise gambling on Twitter to people as young as 13 (the age Twitter requires you to be to have an account). Would expect a greater level of social responsibility. But money talks.View attachment 10108

I agree with the point being made but was it just me that looked at that and thought watmore 11/1 hm not bad odds that