Southwell non-preformance fine and outing

[redman]

Ian

I’m not that inconsequential – and its fair to say that I have a cordial relationship with Betfair who have been more than happy to debate issues with me and share information that leads to a better understanding.  

As to Betdaq and Sporting Options – I have never attempted to make contact with them (nor, as far as I am aware, they with me).

1. we are at loggerheads – your refuse to given any ground – the bottom line is though that whatever a "betting exchange" is, what it isn’t is a "traditional bookmaker".

2.  all depends on what is a bookmaker – your argument – one that I have used – viz. the "twin-bet" bookmaker – is a completely legal device in England – and technically in Australia.  The catch, in Australia at least is that a "bookmaker" must, if he displays a price, has a minimum wager obligation – (to lose between 1500 and 5000 depending on the sport/bet type etc.).  This sort of precludes ‘normal’ "betting exchange" operation (save imposition of the same conditions on exchange users).

3. disagree – I think its based on principle – with the counter balance argument is to release "bookmakers" from duty and levy, but that’s not likely to happen is it?

4. yes we agree – but usually if a court goes against a statuatory body then the legislation is changed to fix the defect that allowed the successful court challenge in breach of social policy – so its a damned if you do damned if you don’t proposition.

5. yes we agree – though in this case each party has the opportunity to use the courts.  The fact that these rights exist doesn’t detract from fact that owners of IP should be paid – its about what’s a fair fee (and abuse of any monopoly power).  When comparing the UK to the rest of the world in racing – the UK wagering industry gets of lightly – so why you think betting exchanges would get of even more lightly is a bit far fetched.

6. These arguments are sure to inspire the opposite effect – at the moment your Government is still a supporter of "free-trade" in gambling services – BUT I can’t see that lasting if any wagering operation ups stakes to a more favourable jurisdiction in a "race to the bottom".  The technology does exist and is getting better by the day to enforce jurisdictional boundaries any mainstream company (in gambling of not) can see the writing the wall in that regard and therefore is seeking to leverage that seachange to their long term advantage.

I enjoy our debates – and we are like minded souls in that no quarter is given, nor sought.  

I certainly wouldn’t say that your views were inconsequential because you give serious consideration to the arguments and invest considerable time to debate.

Despite your suggestions to the contrary – my future does not depend on which way this debate is finally decided – which is why I often express my concern for you / your position as you obviously have a lot invested in the decision going "your way".

Whatever its certainly not frustration talking!

Lastly as to "utopian naivete" the world would be a better place if there we no taxes, no levies, we could take what we want, eat what we want etc.  … but its not like that is it –

one thing is for sure the world will remain a place of separate countries with separate cultures and separate social policies – with an expectation that foreigners will not breach their sovereignty – even in wider free-market communities like Europe!  

If they all have that view then increased, not lesser, online regulation will come.

rouge homme<br>

(Edited by redman at 3:59 pm on Feb. 23, 2003)

[Author]

Posts