- This topic has 22 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“You would at least put somebody in place who had an in depth understanding of it.”
That is not a requirement in the public sector.
You can guarantee that once Rhodes has failed in this job, he will fail upwards into another equally well paid or better paid job while leaving a trail of destruction in his wake. That trail of destruction will not trouble his conscience one little bit.
Most MPs do not understand the issues. This is hardly surprising when a survey of 100 of them showed that over half could not correctly answer the question if a coin is tossed twice, what is the probability of it coming down heads both times.
During the Cheltenham festival, Nick Luck interviewed the (frankly rather dim) minister for overseeing the gambling industry. The minister had clearly been briefed to answer each question by saying “We have got to protect problem gamblers”. He stuck to this line even when Luck explained to him that the proposed measures would not.
When Luck asked him if he was comfortable as a Conservative MP suggesting that anyone who wanted to spend more than £1.35 a day of their own money on betting should be subject to intrusive affordability checks, the fellow looked like his brain capacity was in danger of reaching overload.
It’s the Tories , why haven’t the bookmakers just bribed them ..it so much easier back in the day
Griff,
Personally I have no experience of casinos, or the online equivalents endlessly promoted by the bookies. But I’d assume, that for now at least, visiting an actual casino is much the same as visiting a racecourse, where the system of checks has yet to make an impact.
Most of the very large fines imposed by the GC, running into many millions, involve cases in which somebody has lost large sums in short order by playing the online games, not by betting on sports. The fines collected help fund the quango, but the GC also doles out money to various ‘charities’ that purport to be either anti-gambling, or to work with problem gamblers to cure them of their addiction.
There seems to be little or no requirement for the recipients to justify the funding or show that their work produces results. Then again we live in a country in which the Home Office, responsible for immigration control, last year gave £6.9M to a charity that organises protests and funds legal challenges to the Rwanda scheme. So who is going to make a fuss about a few grifters living off the back of GC funds?
I imagine visiting a casino is like visiting a brothel , you hand over money and then get ******
Online casinos have hardly any overheads to cover, no animals to care for and hardly any jobs to protect to keep the whole show on the road.
Racing has all these mouths to feed and its all funded by gambling.
People bet on all sorts of sports but only racing is funded by the gambling element. All the other sports have other means of funding the game.
Thats why Racing seems out on its own in this debate.
For politicians trying to solve the drug/ crime/ obesity issues is too hard and too long a fight for them to get any recognition for – so they are just looking for relatively easy and quick campaign they can get behind to make it look like they are actually doing something. Hence they blow up “problem gambling” into something much bigger than the tiny minority issue that it is.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.