Liverpool City Council Ban FOBTs In Betting Shops

[19QOS19]

Landlords or pub staff can & will refuse you drink if they think you have had too much. I don't think in bookies they can do that, if you have the cash you can gamble.

After a certain amount (can't recall how much) you were encouraged to ask them if they were ok or some such thing. I never had to do but my boss told me about it. It was years ago so maybe someone who works in a bookies can give some actual detail.

I don't think it's a solid arguement anyway. You just have to see the state of folk coming out of/entering pubs to know that that's not upheld the vast majority of times.

[ayrmad]

37 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

 

Again, I don't see how it's any different to alcohol though. Both very serious problems. Alcohol gets just as much advertising space as gambling and there are as many pubs on the high street (well, for now) as bookies. Isn't there something about bookies not being allowed to put promotions in their windows now either? Whereas pubs can puts specials on the boards outside. I just find some of the stuff very hypocritical in our society. Gambling seems to have this negative stigma attached to it but alcohol (a far bigger problem) doesn't have any such thing. I know the minimum pricing is in place now but as far as I'm aware that doesn't really effect the pub game.

 

The difference with gambling is that the deregulation is fairly recent and was conceived with next to no proper lobbying from the side of the gambler, part of why I started to question GA was their lack of input in the debate, it left the gamblers side of the debate to Gamcare who were a government funded enterprise.

Edited May 18, 2018 by ayrmad

[SlipperyP]

You can ask bookies to set a limit on you; wonder how often this “limit” gets upped when the guy losing money says that next time will be the last time. They’re absolute sharks.

Yes, so the limit is on the punter..again not the landlord. Unless you walk in a say only 3 pints today Josephine, then tell me to GTF

[ayrmad]

4 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

You’re supposed to refuse service to people who show signs of problem gambling but someone can sit there losing thousands without any obvious outward signs of distress. Everyone’s idea of distress varies as well. Someone might see swearing at a machine as a sign and others will wait until they’re flipping the machines over.

Looking out for signs of distress or drug dealers punting their ill-gotten gains is negated hugely by the managers wages being adversely impacted if said big spender is moved on to another establishment, they'll happily monitor you losing 4 or 5 figure sums every week but they ain't going to stop you in most cases, I remember a wee pal telling me he would have a member of staff solely to service another friends punting needs if he could get him as a regular, might have changed a wee bit in recent times but doubt it's changed too much.

[19QOS19]

You can ask bookies to set a limit on you; wonder how often this “limit” gets upped when the guy losing money says that next time will be the last time. They’re absolute sharks.

But of course they are. This is my point. If you're in a betting shop why wouldn't they tryb and get your money? You wouldn't walk in to a bookies, go to the teller and say "right you, I don't want you taking my money, I'm just in for a look!"

Any shop is going to try and get as much money out of you once you enter their premises.

Yes, so the limit is on the punter..again not the landlord. Unless you walk in a say only 3 pints today Josephine, then tell me to GTF

The point isn't valid because although you are correct in what you say, the reality is very different.

[SweeperDee]

The point isn't valid because although you are correct in what you say, the reality is very different.

That’s all fair and well; but should the bookies target those who genuinely have an addiction?

[SlipperyP]

After a certain amount (can't recall how much) you were encouraged to ask them if they were ok or some such thing. I never had to do but my boss told me about it. It was years ago so maybe someone who works in a bookies can give some actual detail.

I don't think it's a solid arguement anyway. You just have to see the state of folk coming out of/entering pubs to know that that's not upheld the vast majority of times.

I agree, it's not held up, however you only see the physical state of people leaving entering pubs, what about the mental state you never see leaving bookies.

[ayrmad]

1 minute ago, SweeperDee said:

 

That’s all fair and well; but should the bookies target those who genuinely have an addiction?

 

It was one of the things that helped me off the punting, took years for it to sink in,the bookies have progressively targeted addicts over the last 20 years or so, the 1st machines were pretty shite and never really worked too well, obviously they worked enough for them to take it further,before that it was just folk going in and punting, some like myself couldn't control it plenty of others could, I'm not against anyone having a punt but the FBOT's are just too much in the bookies favour due to the addictiveness of them.

[19QOS19]

That’s all fair and well; but should the bookies target those who genuinely have an addiction?

If they advertise they are targeting everyone surely? I don't think they can advertise and exclude addicts at the same time. If anything I'd say advertising is for new customers.

I can't recall ever seeing heroin being advertised yet we have a very big problem in that area as well. Addicts don't require adverts, they know what they want and where to get it. If there was no advertising it wouldn't rid the problem.

If folk really wanted to quit they'd quit. You can self ban yourself in shops and similarly online (I've done the latter in the past). The person needs to help themselves first.

[ayrmad]

1 minute ago, 19QOS19 said:

 

If they advertise they are targeting everyone surely? I don't think they can advertise and exclude addicts at the same time. If anything I'd say advertising is for new customers.

I can't recall ever seeing heroin being advertised yet we have a very big problem in that area as well. Addicts don't require adverts, they know what they want and where to get it. If there was no advertising it wouldn't rid the problem.

If folk really wanted to quit they'd quit. You can self ban yourself in shops and similarly online (I've done the latter in the past). The person needs to help themselves first.

 

Would it not be better having less future addicts as a starting point, just because we're fucked up with drink and drugs doesn't mean we should just allow our society to be fucked with whatever else without some effort.

[Im_Rodger]

27 minutes ago, SlipperyP said:

Landlords or pub staff can & will refuse you drink if they think you have had too much. I don't think in bookies they can do that, if you have the cash you can gamble.

This is wrong.

If a member of staff believes that you are no longer in control of your gambling they CAN refuse your service.

However this has never happened in my 2 years of working in a bookies.

Don't say this to mean or malicious, but a grand majority of bookie staff couldn't care less how much money one person loses. 

 

If someone were to smash up a machine the staff are advised not to call the police and just bar the customer.

Then phone SG Gaming who will fit in a new machine later that day.

[Jacksgranda]

24 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

The difference with gambling is that the deregulation is fairly recent and was conceived with next to no proper lobbying from the side of the gambler, part of why I started to question GA was their lack of input in the debate, it left the gamblers side of the debate to Gamcare who were a government funded enterprise.

GA is like AA, surely, it "has no opinion on outside issues, hence the GA name isn't brought into public controversy"?

[19QOS19]

Would it not be better having less future addicts as a starting point, just because we're fucked up with drink and drugs doesn't mean we should just allow our society to be fucked with whatever else without some effort.

In an ideal world yes, of course. But I think it's safe to say alcohol is a far bigger problem. You'd think they'd be more focussed on that.

[SweeperDee]

If they advertise they are targeting everyone surely? I don't think they can advertise and exclude addicts at the same time. If anything I'd say advertising is for new customers.

I can't recall ever seeing heroin being advertised yet we have a very big problem in that area as well. Addicts don't require adverts, they know what they want and where to get it. If there was no advertising it wouldn't rid the problem.

If folk really wanted to quit they'd quit. You can self ban yourself in shops and similarly online (I've done the latter in the past). The person needs to help themselves first.

Heroin addicts should JUST quit, aye?

[19QOS19]

Heroin addicts should JUST quit, aye?

Nope. Not what I said. I used that comparison to emphasise advertising isn't required for addicts.

[SlipperyP]

This is wrong.
If a member of staff believes that you are no longer in control of your gambling they CAN refuse your service.
However this has never happened in my 2 years of working in a bookies.
Don't say this to mean or malicious, but a grand majority of bookie staff couldn't care less how much money one person loses. 
 
If someone were to smash up a machine the staff are advised not to call the police and just bar the customer.
Then phone SG Gaming who will fit in a new machine later that day.

That's why I type I don't know, and never seen happen. What I do know, is bar staff do refuse a sale. Which has happened to me a few times, which will come as a complete surprise to everyone here.[emoji5] . You'll know much more has you have stated working in a bookies for 2 years and never once told someone that is enough. If you had been working behind a bar, I could think this would happen on a regular basis.

[NotThePars]

This is wrong.
If a member of staff believes that you are no longer in control of your gambling they CAN refuse your service.
However this has never happened in my 2 years of working in a bookies.
Don't say this to mean or malicious, but a grand majority of bookie staff couldn't care less how much money one person loses. 
 
If someone were to smash up a machine the staff are advised not to call the police and just bar the customer.
Then phone SG Gaming who will fit in a new machine later that day.

Your boss should blatantly be sacked then as we are told to contact security and then the police when this happens.

[SweeperDee]

Nope. Not what I said. I used that comparison to emphasise advertising isn't required for addicts.

Addiction works in the same way, regardless of what you’re addicted to. To simply state that people who are addicted to gambling should just quit is as equally ridiculous as suggesting heroin addicts should just quit.

[ayrmad]

2 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

GA is like AA, surely, it "has no opinion on outside issues, hence the GA name isn't brought into public controversy"?

I know and appreciate why they take that stance, unfortunately that stance allowed the government and their lobbyists to do as they pleased with the deregulation, the horse has bolted now, anything like the other days decision won't change that but it will save some from misery.

[Im_Rodger]

Just now, NotThePars said:

 

Your boss should blatantly be sacked then as we are told to contact security and then the police when this happens.

 

We are told to contact security but every incident I've heard from neighbouring shops was advice to not get the police involved. 

I think it's maybe the security company that needs a checkup if anything.