Liverpool City Council Ban FOBTs In Betting Shops

[lodmoorhill]

Clearly, if you're going to ban something to "protect people from themselves", then Liverpool council should be banning all alcohol sales.

And if were going down that road, what's next?

Smoking? Extreme sports? Scaffolding?

Seems a strange world when someone is banned from betting a fiver on a machine, yet can legally become addicted to alcohol, lose their job, destroy their family, wreck their liver and become a burden to the taxpayer.

Anyway, enough of this, I'm of to put my coupon on and have a pint.

[mid-table]

Clearly, if you're going to ban something to "protect people from themselves", then Liverpool council should be banning all alcohol sales.

And if were going down that road, what's next?

Smoking? Extreme sports? Scaffolding?

Seems a strange world when someone is banned from betting a fiver on a machine, yet can legally become addicted to alcohol, lose their job, destroy their family, wreck their liver and become a burden to the taxpayer.

Anyway, enough of this, I'm of to put my coupon on and have a pint.

I think you are taking a very narrow-minded view.

I am of the belief that you take the benefits of something to society, and the negatives of it, and sum them up to see if something is worthwhile.

Scaffolding benefits more to society, in terms of the safety provided to construction workers, and the buildings that we benefit from at the end, than is risked by it's existence.

Extreme sports benefit more to society, in terms of jobs, wellbeing of participants, than is risked by it's existence.

Like it or not, and this is a separate debate, but alcohol and tobacco bring in so much revenue, support so many jobs (in alcohol's case), coupled with the traditional element of their existence, that they have justified their place in society (I wouldn't have a problem with banning smoking tbh).

I don't see that the benefits of FOBTs to society, a new invention that didn't exist 12 years ago, outweigh the negatives that they bring. If they had a 50% tax on them, or preferably if they were recategorised to something closer to the current C category (say max stake £2, max winnings £72), then I might change my mind.

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

'Fairer Gambling' did not set out the 'facts' in its report - nor did your post - their claims have been challenged by other sources in the same field, without being successfully rebutted. One source naturally being the bookmakers themselves, a far more credible voice of dissent coming from the parliamentary select committee. This does not mean that the latter automatically possesses the 'correct' facts on the issue: as it stands neither has used evidence to conclusively demonstrate their point. Which is the best available benchmark for determining a 'fact'.

So you've cited a report as being factual when it contains no such 'facts' and is in direct conflict with several other interests on the same issue. Better luck next time.

^^^ Word salad.

Let's see these challenges from 'other sources in the field' please? Make sure they come from individuals with no dogs in any races.

[invergowrie arab]

The top 50 yards of lochee high street in Dundee has about 4 or 5 bookies. There were 3 Ladbrokes at the top of the hilltown but sensibly there are only 2 within a minute of each other now.

In.the city centre I can think of 6 within a 2 minute walk of each other.

Can't think of them all but I would be surprised if there are less than 40 acress the city.

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

Speak of the devil, back in the news today.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/08/gambling-machines-drug-money-laundering-bookies

I suspect what's best for the taxman will make more difference in getting these things regulated than all the desperados pouring hundreds of millions away.

Liverpool, eh? What a coincidence

Edited November 8, 2013 by SodjesSixteenIncher

[ayrmad]

Speak of the devil, back in the news today.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/08/gambling-machines-drug-money-laundering-bookies

I suspect what's best for the taxman will make more difference in getting these things regulated than all the desperados pouring hundreds of millions away.

Liverpool, eh? What a coincidence

If they wanted to stop the smart arses laundering cash into banks they could every day of the week.

If the guy in the piece thinks it makes him look like a successful gambler he's a clown, he only looks successful until someone looks at the fobt transactions, I'm quite sure they'll easily show up that he's a loser on the fobt's, if he gets collared his £100k will be as easy as pie to sieze..

[vikingTON]

Loki's post above sums up why strict regulation is needed. Bookies, especially nationwide bookies, have no interest in the consequences of effectively bankrupting someone.

At the shareholders AGM they are there to maximise profits, indeed they are obliged to maximise their profits. They will pay the minimum lip service possible to helping their customers/victims.

In what way is this different from licensed premises selling alcohol? Do you think JD Wetherspoons give a toss about the jakeys swilling in their pubs each day, or where they got their money from?

Let's see these challenges from 'other sources in the field' please? Make sure they come from individuals with no dogs in any races.

A challenge from a body in the same field is found in your article, in the form of the parliamentary select committee. Being 'in the field' automatically qualifies the source of evidence as having 'a dog in the race' to a greater or lesser degree, so your attempted qualification of the point is moot.

Safe to say this has been an utter disaster for you and your laughable Guardian-based 'fact' presentation.

[ayrmad]

In what way is this different from licensed premises selling alcohol? Do you think JD Wetherspoons give a toss about the jakeys swilling in their pubs each day, or where they got their money from?

A challenge from a body in the same field is found in your article, in the form of the parliamentary select committee. Being 'in the field' automatically qualifies the source of evidence as having 'a dog in the race' to a greater or lesser degree, so your attempted qualification of the point is moot.

Safe to say this has been an utter disaster for you and your laughable Guardian-based 'fact' presentation.

Do licensed premises have products that are 3,4,5 times more addictive than the rest?

Edited November 9, 2013 by ayrmad

[vikingTON]

Do licensed premises have products that are 3,4,5 times more addictive than the rest?

No, but they sell the same product in measures 10-20 times more concentrated.

Leaving aside that bizarre non-sequitur approach, account for why the much, much larger social consequences of alcohol addiction are deemed controllable within existing networks of clinical and social support, whereas addiction to FOBT machines is a menace that cannot be dealt with using similar, non-legislative tools.

Edited November 9, 2013 by vikingTON

[parsforlife]

If they wanted to stop the smart arses laundering cash into banks they could every day of the week.

If the guy in the piece thinks it makes him look like a successful gambler he's a clown, he only looks successful until someone looks at the fobt transactions, I'm quite sure they'll easily show up that he's a loser on the fobt's, if he gets collared his £100k will be as easy as pie to sieze..

To an extent I agree, there Is no way, long term, someone can regularly claim to make a profit off of FOBTs. But it may just get them away if they have been stopped as a one-off

[ayrmad]

No, but they sell the same product in measures 10-20 times more concentrated.

Leaving aside that bizarre non-sequitur approach, account for why the much, much larger social consequences of alcohol addiction are deemed controllable within existing networks of clinical and social support, whereas addiction to FOBT machines is a menace that cannot be dealt with using similar, non-legislative tools.

I'm quite sure I can't just pop up with a new alcoholic beverage and stick it on a gantry.

[ayrmad]

To an extent I agree, there Is no way, long term, someone can regularly claim to make a profit off of FOBTs. But it may just get them away if they have been stopped as a one-off

It will only get them off the hook on a one-off stop.

You need a big bookie turning a blind eye(won't happen often) or you need an independent who takes lumpy wedges and can be creative with his accounting, even then "no comment" must be your retort until an expensive lawyer is in your corner from round 2 onwards.

[vikingTON]

I'm quite sure I can't just pop up with a new alcoholic beverage and stick it on a gantry.

lol wut

People up and down the country produce new alcoholic beverages all the time. Some of them make it to the mass market, some of them are produced solely for personal consumption. You're unsurprisingly barking up entirely the wrong tree: the state provides no credible legislation against alcoholics getting jaked, so why do FOBT machines require much greater supervision for a fraction of the addicts associated?

[ayrmad]

lol wut

People up and down the country produce new alcoholic beverages all the time. Some of them make it to the mass market, some of them are produced solely for personal consumption. You're unsurprisingly barking up entirely the wrong tree: the state provides no credible legislation against alcoholics getting jaked, so why do FOBT machines require much greater supervision for a fraction of the addicts associated?

You don't appear to be in the same forest never mind the wrong tree.

[parsforlife]

It will only get them off the hook on a one-off stop.

You need a big bookie turning a blind eye(won't happen often) or you need an independent who takes lumpy wedges and can be creative with his accounting, even then "no comment" must be your retort until an expensive lawyer is in your corner from round 2 onwards.

.

It's more a give it rub with a sponge and hope they don't look hard enough than Money laudeering.

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

In what way is this different from licensed premises selling alcohol? Do you think JD Wetherspoons give a toss about the jakeys swilling in their pubs each day, or where they got their money from? A challenge from a body in the same field is found in your article, in the form of the parliamentary select committee. Being 'in the field' automatically qualifies the source of evidence as having 'a dog in the race' to a greater or lesser degree, so your attempted qualification of the point is moot. Safe to say this has been an utter disaster for you and your laughable Guardian-based 'fact' presentation.

Erm, featured in The Guardian =/= 'Guardian-based facts'.http://www.geofutures.com/2012/12/gamblinganalysis/

Gambling analysis continuesExcellent news that an academic paper by Heather Wardle of NatCen and co-authored by Geofutures’ Gaynor Astbury and Ruth Keily has just been published. Prof Gerda Reith of the University of Glasgow is also an author.The paper, exploring the results of our work with NatCen on the distribution of licensed gambling machine venues in Great Britain, appears in the Journal of Gambling Studies, December 2012. The original project was commissioned by the Responsible Gambling Fund, now the Responsible Gambling Trust.The paper concludes that the distribution of gambling machines, in line with other international jurisdictions, displays a strong association with areas of socio-economic deprivation. The profile of the resident population living in the areas with the highest density of machines mirrors the profile of those most at risk of experiencing harm from gambling.Geofutures is independent and non-partisan. The research and GIS specialist continues its interesting work in the gambling sphere with the provision of location data analysis to the Campaign for Fairer Gambling. The Campaign is involved with raising awareness of the potential dangers to gamblers of fixed-odds betting terminals, which were also the subject of the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary to which we contributed.

National Centre for Social Research - Independent.Geofutures - Independent.University of Glasgow - Independent.They seem to think gambling machines are concentrated in poorer areas and the Journal of Gambling Studies seem interested in their opinion.You have the Select Committee:

You wrongly assume that the government adopts a rational framework for legislating potentially harmful or addictive substances/behaviour. All evidence points to the opposite.

And...the bookies.Stinger.

[TONTROOPER]

In what way is this different from licensed premises selling alcohol? Do you think JD Wetherspoons give a toss about the jakeys swilling in their pubs each day, or where they got their money from?

A challenge from a body in the same field is found in your article, in the form of the parliamentary select committee. Being 'in the field' automatically qualifies the source of evidence as having 'a dog in the race' to a greater or lesser degree, so your attempted qualification of the point is moot.

Safe to say this has been an utter disaster for you and your laughable Guardian-based 'fact' presentation.

Dont get upset by VT's comment Lambie....he's still suckin aff his maws tits.

[Big Gus]

Not often I agree with VT but he's on the nail with this one.

I don't play FOBT's but if I fancied doing it I don't want to not be able to because some people have a problem with it.

People have a problem with alcohol. While I agree the concentration of bookmakers in Dundee is quite high compare it to licenced premises in the same area - there's twice as many of them.

It's OK though because alcohol never has any negative effects on peoples standard of living?

The crack cocaine talk earlier in the thread is also wildly off the mark. It's probably better not to compare a destructive, illegal substance to a machine that will not harm anything apart from your bank balance that you have to play to lose.

[ICTChris]

Not often I agree with VT but he's on the nail with this one.

I don't play FOBT's but if I fancied doing it I don't want to not be able to because some people have a problem with it.

People have a problem with alcohol. While I agree the concentration of bookmakers in Dundee is quite high compare it to licenced premises in the same area - there's twice as many of them.

It's OK though because alcohol never has any negative effects on peoples standard of living?

The crack cocaine talk earlier in the thread is also wildly off the mark. It's probably better not to compare a destructive, illegal substance to a machine that will not harm anything apart from your bank balance that you have to play to lose.

I sometimes like to smoke crack while playing FOBTs. It gives a really rounded crack cocaine experience.

[Big Gus]

The point is if I wanted to play a FOBT I should be allowed to do so. This thread is fairly amusing with all it's "can't watch a telly without the bookies shoving odds down your throat!"

Funny enough every other company trying to sell you a product does the same thing and most of their products are disposable "use once" deals.

There will always be people who have a problem with things like gambling like people can have a problem with drink or overeating chocolate and chippers so they become a huge obese c**t that drains the public purse when their health obviously goes bad due to their lifestyle.

Man, there's like 3 chip shops within a mile of me! And loads of places that sell chinese, kebabs and pizzas!

Ban this sick filth.