Discussion in 'News and Current Affairs' started by Cycleops, 4 Jul 2019.
We’ll have to disagree on this one, and leave it there.
I tend to agree.
MrsPK and I have been to Casinos twice. Each time we have set a limit of £25 each (it was a long time ago) each time one of us has doubled their money and one has lost everything - but we have funded drinks over the evening from the £25. ie Completely free evenings of drinks and fun.
We have also had many expensive evenings at the Pub.
It's all about self control and seeing the process as entertainment
All this talk of bettings had put me in the mood
Nothing wrong with betting in moderation - I probably only put a few bets online a year usually when i’m out for a few beers on a Saturday afternoon for a bit of fun.
I also enjoy the odd day at the races and again the cost is just part of the day. If you come back with more money than you started with great but if you lose only what you planned on spending then fair enough.
I'm sorry for those who'll lose their (probably low paid, zero hours) jobs, but in the grand scheme of things it's a good thing.
Many of the shops that have opened in recent years have been little more than a place to put the FOBT machines.
Good... the pursuit of free money is unhealthy.
No one is stopping anyone from betting or using FOBT, they are just making it less likely that someone will lose their entire wags in half an hour. It seems sensible.
If you enjoy it, good luck to you, no one is stopping you, it will just take longer to lose your money.
And yes everyone spends money on frivolous things, but it rarely damages entire lives and ruins families. There are only so many football matches or pints of beer I can drink in a day. It’s very unlikely I will be speeding £100 every 30 seconds.
£100 stakes are the tip of the iceberg which make a good headline, of course.
The recommended max stake was £10-£20 which would have avoided most job losses and offered consumer protection at the same time.
Betting rarely damages entire lives and ruins families also. Of course that's not what you might have been learning from the media.
All I'm keen to do is to give another perspective, because there's a good deal of erroneous information flying around today, and again I emphasise that I am pro regulation, but think that these fobt restrictions went too far, as may be evident from the Hills announcement.
We're so far of the point here,it's not about the odd bet,once a year,50p e/w bets.Its the machines that play on people's addictions. The addictive gambling,crack cocaine machines as there called.The bookmakers don't really want the odd once a year gambler.They want money ! They don't give a feck who it's from.
Defending this reminds me of the smoker everyone knows saying..."never did xx any harm they smoked till they were 90"
With respect, I don't think that's an informed perspective. Perhaps you think that the current sh1tstorm's good for business? I guess that it passed you by that the industry declared a huge increase in its funding of problem gambling prevention and remediation only a couple of days ago? Or that there are calls from within the industry itself for a complete ban on advertising during sporting events?
I'm trying to inform the debate, that's all, but sometimes it's easy to swallow headlines.
When you base your business model on creating misery from people,don't expect sympathy.I feel for people losing their jobs.But for the company ? Nah do I feck.
Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. They voluntarily upped their funding of problem gambling to avoid a likely harsher imposed contribution. This was a business decision not an altruistic one
With respect again, I think that you talk about something that you little understand.
Or you could just take a view that it does actually give a sh1t. You have a view, I respect that.
Here's a thing. I worked in the industry. I think I have a social conscience and act on it*, you may think not, but it is an industry that was given, IMHO, too much freedom in the 2007 Gambling Act. I think that the fobt limit was too high, but there has been a knee-jerk in the worst tradition. We can pontificate all we like, and fire out all the clichéd headlines, but fundamentally it is an industry that does give pleasure to the overwhelming majority of its players, and I think that much of this new-found purience is overstated and misplaced.
*I left the industry as a result of what I had become increasingly uncomfortable with, which I have discussed in previous posts.
Businesses don't make decisions to make less money, especially big businesses. This is a cold calculated move to preempt more punitive legislation.
As pubs are seemingly a comparison in this thread it is a condition that they do not serve anyone already inebriated with alcohol. But that would cost them so they'd rather not.
Either that or they overstated the case as a lobbying tactic...
Separate names with a comma.