- This topic has 101 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Does McCoy still have his mug plastered on the Hills machines?
Shame on the bloke for doing that.
The scenes about changes in the brain during gambling sessions were informative but I don’t believe that the programme revealed anything we didn’t already know. Bookies cynically exploit the needy and the greedy; until the government realises that punters committing suicide is utterly unacceptable, nothing will change.
As Gladiateur says, the science bit was interesting but otherwise its just the same things being said by different faces. This whole debate is going round in circles. Highlight for me was the casino owner calling FOBTs ‘immoral’
Am very much against FOBT’s – at least unless they massively reduce stakes. But tbh I was disappointed in the programme. Not sure it was right to have the widow of a suicide victim as presenter. Can see it may have come across to the average viewer as too one-sided. When both points of view are put across fairly and had a journalist gone through the widow’s story – I think the impact would’ve been greater. the ex-Paddy Power boss spoke a lot of sense.
Value Is EverythingInteresting that online gambling with no limits is never mentioned, surely that is far more destructive than FOBT’s in shops ?
A follow prog would be good how can bookmakers allow without question people pumping 1000’s into machines in a short space of time,but knock back bets like £200 on 6/5 on boxing/racing etc.
I know people will scream traders decision etc,but i would just like them to admit people with half a brain they dont want to ‘take on’So a small minority of users become addicted and ruin their lives – is that sufficient justification to ban them?
If your answer to that question is yes, then are you also advocating banning alcohol?
That can be as addictive and is certainly more damaging both in terms of lives lost and damage to the economy. I also cannot think of a single case where an FOBT addict or user has killed or maimed an innocent person – the same cannot be said in relation to alcohol.
The case for banning alcohol is far stronger than any case for banning FOBT’s
Personally I have never used an FOBT and never will but I believe strongly in choice – what about personal responsibility?
I’m with Paul on this, but it’s one of those emotive issues where strong feelings often prevent any reasonable degree of objective assessment. Those who hate FOBTs hate them and nothing anyone says will change that.
The machines offer a route to poverty for those with an addictive nature: no argument there. They also offer entertainment to those who don’t have an addictive nature.
From racing’s viewpoint – admittedly a self-serving one – any new rules on FOBTs which substantially reduce profit will have serious fallout for racing because it will result in shop closures, perhaps an awful lot of shop closures.
FOBT profits are subsidising payments to racing from bookmakers.If you are on the fence on the FOBT issue, maybe knowing about this subsidy will help you decide on which side of that fence to step.
I think at some point people have to take responsibility for their own actions, whether it be gambling, drugs or alcohol.
There is enough organisations out there now that can be used for help and if you fail to utilise them and continue to self destruct then that has to be your fault.
I’ve bet sensibly on horses for years (except for a few occasions) and recently decided to take offers from online betting firms, free bets and once the 1st. bet is settled they direct you to thew casino for your ‘bonus’.
Needless to say i will look at the small print and even phone them prior to opening another….and the logo is ‘Please Bet Responsibly’ and they want you to do the opposite.I also cannot think of a single case where an FOBT addict or user has killed or maimed an innocent person
So you’ve never heard of Andrew Iacovou? Look him up.
So a small minority of users become addicted and ruin their lives – is that sufficient justification to ban them?
Are we sure? A study a couple of years ago for The Responsible Gambling Trust questioned 4,000 gamblers and found that 37% of respondents experienced “problems with machine gambling” somewhere between “some of the time” to “almost always”. The NHS reckons some form of alcohol dependence occurs in 7% of drinkers.
Alcohol consumed responsibly gives much pleasure and has myriad positive social applications. As does gambling in my view. But do FOBTs? I don’t ever see a FOBT user looking anything other than intoverted and bloody miserable.
I think a better comparison would be with smoking. Sold to us as a form of ‘pleasure’ but really just a way of reinforcing a dangerous habit. It FOBTs are not to be banned, they they need to be grossly restricted as per tobacco.
Let’s be honest, FOBTs exist solely to line the pockets of bookmakers. They have zero societal or social function.
Mike
Personally I have never used an FOBT and never will but I believe strongly in choice – what about personal responsibility?
That’s a point that’s often missed. Nobody forces anyone through the bookies’ front door or to put a fag in their mouth or to do anything else. Certainly nobody did the first time. I am ashamed to say I’ve lost more than I should have on FOBTs in the past (thankfully I’m over it and wont be going back) but I always accepted that it was my fault.
These machines don’t belong on the high street, they should be in casinos. Would people who believe in choice have them in other outlets eg pubs, cafes etc?
It’s a disgrace they were ever allowed in betting shops in the first place and they should have had/should have they same £2 limit as other establishments. Bet bookmakers couldn’t believe their luck when they were allowed them and they will fight tooth and nail to keep their immoral cash cows.
Rather than a positive effect on horse racing they have produced a negative impact as bookmakers much prefer the certainty of Fobt’s rather than taking a risk with horse racing. You can’t get a few quid on a horse but you can stuff hundreds of pounds into these machines.
As for shop closures, there should be. Shop clustering has occurred purely to facilitate the Fobt’s. A small town centre near me had only 1 shop for over 30 years but now has 2 Ladbrokes and 1 Corals solely for for Fobt’s. They wont lay a horse racing bet but you can put as much as you want in the Fobt’s.
Notice no bookmakers spokesman was “brave” enough to appear on the programme to put their case, just a few throwaway lines from their pathetic association.
These machines don’t belong on the high street, they should be in casinos. Would people who believe in choice have them in other outlets eg pubs, cafes etc?
It’s a disgrace they were ever allowed in betting shops in the first place and they should have had/should have they same £2 limit as other establishments. Bet bookmakers couldn’t believe their luck when they were allowed them and they will fight tooth and nail to keep their immoral cash cows.
Rather than a positive effect on horse racing they have produced a negative impact as bookmakers much prefer the certainty of Fobt’s rather than taking a risk with horse racing. You can’t get a few quid on a horse but you can stuff hundreds of pounds into these machines.
As for shop closures, there should be. Shop clustering has occurred purely to facilitate the Fobt’s. A small town centre near me had only 1 shop for over 30 years but now has 2 Ladbrokes and 1 Corals solely for for Fobt’s. They wont lay a horse racing bet but you can put as much as you want in the Fobt’s.
Notice no bookmakers spokesman was “brave” enough to appear on the programme to put their case, just a few throwaway lines from their pathetic association.
Problem is Bookmaker profits are struggling as it is. You take away the FOTB’s and you might get hardly any shops left, which in turn has knock on effect on the industry.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.