Are you ready for Gamstop arrangements for excluding yourself from betting?
– Back 3 losers in a row
– Self exclude for 5 years
– Wake up the next morning to find all your accounts closed in the regulated market.
– Decide, as usual, you didn’t mean it. After all this is how you’ve behaved for the last 6 years when you’ve lost, right? Shut one account down, pick up another elsewhere..
– Ring the Gambling Commission. They tell you you cannot return to any licensed operator under their rules. No, it doesn’t matter if your circumstances have changed, or you’ve simply changed your mind. You cannot change your mind.
– Set up your new betting account with Russia Bet
Having a little chuckle? Well it isn’t actually meant tongue in cheek. You see this exclusion charade has been going on for years. The plain truth is people like to gamble. 46% of us gambled last year, in one form or another. That’s circa 30 million people. ‘Surveys’ tell us, however, that there are 0.7% of those who gamble who are defined as problem gamblers. That’s 210,000. Hard core data on problem gambling levels isn’t currently available. This isn’t to say problem gamblers don’t exist, of course they do in every addictive product – and they do deserve protection from themselves from operators. However, I feel the focus as entirely disproportionate to the scale of the problem, and forgetting the enjoyment many clearly derive from gambling.
Society appears more and more focused on minority. Check out the toilets in the Old Vic.
So self exclusion can be said to benefit 210 thousand more or less, and be of minimal interest to the residual 29.8 million, who enjoy their gambling and keep things under reasonable self control. Grand plans to ban people on a permanent basis, because they’re anoyed with losses or fancy a pause but push the red button, will have the causal effect of sending UK gamblers to the black market. This cannot be the sensible or proportionate approach.
The Gambling Commission’s view is that they have a duty to ‘protect problem gamblers.’ In doing so, they’re advocating an unyielding ban with Gamstop. This means in plain terms if you choose to self exclude, they will not permit you to change your mind on that exclusion for the entire duration you ordered. Wholesale bans are akin to catching dolphins in fishing nets meant for cod. The Commission cannot see past total exclusion. This is a dangerous stance for a sensible regulator to even contemplate in a society driven by a click of the mouse
Ever had too much to drink and said to yourself ‘never again?’ Imagine if that became a reality in gambling.
No opportunity to return to gambling with any sensible training schemes. No chance to simply change your mind. This view is bolstered by a group of MP’s, who’s forum delights in a new breed of ‘experts’ in the behaviour of gamblers.They are, of course, all drawing wages. Their Doctorates, if they have one, are not in the field of gambling. This is entirely relevant.
This ‘cross party betting and gaming group.’ some of whom involved have questionable motives, so much is clear. After all – they’re in the business of self promotion and gaining votes. What should sharply define policy? To my mind the number of self excluded customers who currently return to gambling, of their own free will.THis is a key statistic, if you’re trying to understand gamblers. You see I know most of those who exclude right now return to gambling shortly after.
We’re dealing with people, after all, who are addicted to gambling. Why we are not asking excluded customers if they returned to gambling with another operator? To me it’s a key indicator of the will of people to actually stop and not pause.
These same MP’s want more schools, hospitals, police on our streets. Noble ideals, with bills attached. Last year gambling contributed 3 billion pounds to the economy, a figure that rises year on year. Start banning it, and you’re presenting the taxation to another state.
At the same time, MP’s have called for online stakes on certain products to be cut to £2 a wager. Effectively advocating closure. Members are unapologetic about the loss of jobs in the sector, or on ancillary jobs that also depend upon gambling. Frankly that’s irresponsible of a balanced legislator. I suppose the answer is to the loss in tax is to charge the rich more..
Grand plans to control people’s lives make good soundbites, but offer exceptionally poor prospects of success. It’s simply not thought through. There is another way.
You can train, educate, restrict advertising. But you cannot tell addicts no. It’s a fantasy.
Imagine trying to stop alcoholics from drinking or chain smokers from smoking, It’s unworkable.
I disagree. Fundamentally with proposed plans based on negatively impacting the many, to placate the few. Treating people as if they are children, with the regulators as patriarchs, didn’t work for the United States Government in the era of prohibition. During which time the mobsters collected the dues the state should have been collecting. People still drank alcohol. They found a way around.
Shopping with Amazon is easy. A click of the mouse and your parcel is delivered from a depot in the UK. Yet it is an order placed in another sovereign state, and taxed abroad. The UK benefits hardly at all. Opening your account with an unregulated operator, with all the ills that entails, is quite simply, a click of that same mouse
Bet365 proved that they can take on, and defeat, a sovereign state in China, with technology the Chinese cannot block and payment solutions which can reach inside China. There’s practicably little the Chinese can do, if their people want to gamble. We don’t need to re-invent the wheel here. Forcing people onto the black market, should not be the by product of protecting 210,000 people.
Train, educate, intervene positively. These are the answers to the overblown issue of problem gambling. Prohibition is a poor second place