- This topic has 11 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
Looks like Panorama is looking at FOBT’s tonight:-
The worst thing the bookmakers (any bookmakers) did was introduce these machines. Now they looking at increasing their numbers, from 4 a shop to 10.
Paul , it wont make a jot of difference , next week it will have blown over , bookies will get permission to have more , each shop will have a minimum of 8
The bookies always get what they want
horrible but a fact of life ….imo
Ricky
The worst thing the bookmakers (any bookmakers) did was introduce these machines.
Sadly, that depends on the perspective from which you are looking at it. I suspect the bookmaking chains might consider it one of their better moves of recent years.
Rob
Its the only thing in their profession they have control over, of course they want as many as they can in the shops………..NO RISK PROFIT………….Utopia!!!…..
I loved the idea that the big firms thought their £7-an-hour employees should act as social workers, ‘having a word’ with some of their customers if they belive they may have a gambling problem.
That’ll be having a word with Zelkja the tooled-up Albanian who’s just done his bollocks (again) on your machines then?
Yep, that’ll happen.
Mike
Interesting programme, slightly less sensational than the C4 one a few months back and which highlighted a couple of issues that have always annoyed me. Those who remember my previous posts on this topic may recall I have worked for Ladbrokes for thirty years, so I can see it from both sides. As I say above there are a couple of issues which this programme highlighted.
Firstly, it was claimed that they had access to a document from William Hill which stated that the police should only be involved in damage to a FOBT where the staff knew the name and address of the person damaging the machine. In Ladbrokes the situation is even worse. We are told to report the issue to our security room, and the police will only then be involved if a member of staff has actually been threatened or worse still assaulted. We are told to remain behind the counter and let the guy smash the machine up, and if he then leaves he has got away with criminal damage. In all honesty if I go in to my local Odeon cinema and smash up the self service ticket machine are they going to let me walk out scot free? They may let me go at the time but I’m sure the police would become involved. In my honest opinion they do not want this anti social and frightening behaviour to become common knowledge and for fear of losing profits.
Secondly, we have received little or no training on how we should approach problem gamblers of which sadly there are many. In my shop I have one customer who can be waiting outside the door before opening time, who goes straight on to the machine when the door opens at 10am and can be last man out at 9.30pm. This customer clearly has a serious gambling problem and, as I believe I mentioned in the past, when I approached a senior manager to ask permission (yes we have to ask permission before we approach a customer) I was told to let it go. That to me was a blatant disregard of the Gambling Act 2005. Would I feel confident approaching a problem customer? Despite thirty years service and having seen most things, no I would not be confident because I am not trained in how to react depending on how the conversation was going.
Final comment on the programme. The William Hill manager (words voiced by an actor) claimed her shop made over £500,000 last year from FOBT’s alone. That works out at more than £2403 gross win per terminal per week. She then stated that imagine multiplying that by all the Hill’s shops in the country and how much money that is.
That to me was the only sensationalistic part of the programme, giving the impression that all shops were like that. The reality is far less. Ladbrokes currently run at an estate average of around £947 per terminal per week gross profit and Hills I believe are in the high £800’s or the low £900’s. Still a huge sum of money but nowhere near as exorbitant as Panorama would have you believe especially once the costs and taxes are taken off.So what of FOBT’s? It’s a real double edged sword isn’t it? They undoubtedly are keeping some staff in a job, without them many shops and not just independents would close. There would be job losses. On the other hand there is such a stigma hanging over them, they are obviously addictive, I am 100% convinced of that. Whilst accepting that every individual has a personal responsibility to control their gambling, something has to be done to balance the scales between providing this service to responsible gamblers who enjoy playing them, and the jobs of those in the industry who rely on the profits made by them, with looking after those who require help, support and counselling due to the problems caused by them.
I thought the key point was the "Gambling Act" which granted these machines along with online Casino’s etc – only granted permission if not increasing "Problem" gambling. Anyone thinking they do not increase "problem" gambling are kidding themselves.
However without betting on football, or racing, or the bags, there would be less "problem" gamblers too. Where do you draw the line? Personally I would ban "quick fix" gambling for high stakes such as FOTB’s and especially Internet Bookmakers Casino sites.
But I appreciate that is only my opinion.
And the lottery? Scratch cards? Should we ban them also? Or maybe they’re not addictive. Should we expect the state to step in and limit the opportunity for the individual to participate?
I never saw the programme but would agree with earlier posters re. the addiction of some to FOBTs. But, without these machines, would the punters not simply transfer their gambling addiction to other forms? Some certainly would, perhaps even a majority.
When and to what extent should the state interfere with the individual over how they spend or "abuse" their own money or time?
Smoking, alcohol, over-eating or maybe "unhealthy" eating? Or other practises that some might consider damaging or compulsive? Masturbation perhaps, perverted (but consensual) sexual acts maybe? tattoos?. Or maybe voting for an anti-EU party? All of these might be considered by some as areas where the state should step in: I don’t. Gambling? There’s certainly a valid argument that sometimes people need protecting from their own "bad" habits, but it’s a very difficult thing to say that the state should interfere in one case and not another. If the habit isn’t illegal, then maybe the state should just butt out and leave it to charities or education to warn the unwary (and most gambler/drinkers/smokers etc. surely know the pitfalls of their habit).
- Total Posts 438
In the light of meerkat’s professional observations and insomniac’s hypothetical comments, my suggestion would be that government ban the advertising of gambling, much as they did tobacco advertising.
Meerkat, and others who either work in betting shops or frequent them on a regular basis, will have seen that gambling machine addiction often isn’t merely an individual’s problem but also leads to violence, begging and other social problems. Gambling addiction is harmful to other people, much like passive smoking, and ought to be treated in the same way. If people still want to gamble, fine; however, don’t tempt them with all the commercials on television and in the press.
Another proposal is that debit card machines be removed from all betting shops- these merely serve to help the problem gambler get his fix more quickly. If someone who has just lost two hundred quid on the roulette had to brave the elements and walk to the nearest cash point and back, he might think about what he’s doing; of course, our bookmaker friends don’t want punters who think in their shops.
And that is why insomniac, and others, are wrong when they say that many FOBT players would switch to other forms of betting if the infernal machines where banned. The vast majority of FOBT players are there for a quick fix and simply wouldn’t have the patience to read a racecard and study the form. It’s all about maximum return for minimum effort as far as they’re concerned.
I’d love to see FOBTs banned- they don’t have them in Irish betting shops and their racing is probably in a healthier state than ours- but the bookies and government will always allow profit to come before ethics.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.