Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B681 - Gambling (Advertising and Sponsorship) Bill (Second Reading) 2014 Watch

    • Offline

      15
      (Original post by Mattvr)
      Wearing the same glasses as the ones that I wore whilst posting the original comment, I'd say you've spent your money pretty wisely - you've paid all the bills, put money aside, and still even had a surplus (you really must be doing something right!). I'm not saying we should be totally autocratic about how people spend their money, I said we should encourage it being spent wisely. No, circumstantially, I wouldn't see you as "reckless".
      I'm not quite sure your 'phrase', if it could even be called that, fits such a situation, har har har.

      Nice joke, I'll put it in a Christmas cracker.
      Habe I though? How do you know my investments are wise or that I'm utilising the best rates for saving?

      The reality is that while you wouldn't see me as reckless, I am. I spend roughly £2,000-3,000/mo on gambling, while it's true I can afford it, I'm also rather reckless in the amounts I gamble at any one time.
      (Original post by Mattvr)
      If someone (on an average salary) bought a £200,000 super car today, I doubt that they are consciously going to go and buy another £400,000 car tomorrow, and a £50,000 car the day after.
      No one on an average salary can afford a super car so why use that as an example?
      • Wiki Support Team
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by The Politisphere)
      I know, you're banning allowing gambling firms to advertise and provide sponsorship. The Postcode Lottery isn't exempt and we've all seen adverts for that on TV. Why is the National Lottery exempt but not the Postcode Lottery?

      Gambling firms whether they be Foxy Bingo or Ladbrokes provide £millions in sponsorship, who will replace them?

      Death from alcohol and fast food is far more serious than someone running up debt. If I were you, I would want to help those who kill themselves first. You have failed to answer TehFrance's and Jarred's question: "Why should everyone else be punished for the sake of a small minority?"

      The revenue form sponsorships by gambling companies helps millions of people across the country. There is already a shortage of sponsorship money and this bill will make it worse.

      Why can't the same principles be used to prevent alcohol companies, tobacco companies and fast food companies from advertising or providing sponsorship?
      As far as I know (and please do correct me on this) the Postcode Lottery does not provide the funding that the National Lottery does.

      It seems to have been quite recently that gambling firms have started to provide huge amounts of sponsorship, so we would return to what we had ten years ago.

      People in general aren't being punished (tobacco advertising is banned and that doesn't 'punish' smokers) only gambling firms who make their product look unrealistically attractive and take advantage of this minority

      We had a bill that has just failed which would have banned alcohol advertising and sponsorship, tobacco advertising and sponsorship is already banned, and banning fast food advertising and sponsorship is certainly worth a look.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by The Politisphere)
      Death from alcohol and fast food is far more serious than someone running up debt. If I were you, I would want to help those who kill themselves first. You have failed to answer TehFrance's and Jarred's question: "Why should everyone else be punished for the sake of a small minority?"
      If a person is seriously in debt, they'd be likely to have their belongings repossessed. Consequently, they'd end up on the streets, homeless, without a job and generally struggling to live. Something CAN be done to help those who are morbidly obese, and who are alcoholics. The repercussions from fast-food and alcohol are physical - the body becomes damaged. If there are addictions with gambling, that cause serious debt, then that will be far more psychological, which can then lead to physical problems, possibly through self-harm and, eventually, suicide (if the problems are bad enough).

      "Why should everyone else be punished for the sake of a small minority?" - I disagree with the premise of the question. I don't believe it is "everyone else", at all! A report by the Gambling Commission shows that, apart from the Lottery et al, only 56% of people gamble by other methods. That IS over the 50% mark, but that is by no means the vast majority (=/+ 75%). The bill is about banning the sponsorship and advertising, NOT banning gambling. Honestly, if it thought that by removing advertising is "punishing" the people, there's something terribly wrong!
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by O133)
      As far as I know (and please do correct me on this) the Postcode Lottery does not provide the funding that the National Lottery does.

      It seems to have been quite recently that gambling firms have started to provide huge amounts of sponsorship, so we would return to what we had ten years ago.

      People in general aren't being punished (tobacco advertising is banned and that doesn't 'punish' smokers) only gambling firms who make their product look unrealistically attractive and take advantage of this minority

      We had a bill that has just failed which would have banned alcohol advertising and sponsorship, tobacco advertising and sponsorship is already banned, and banning fast food advertising and sponsorship is certainly worth a look.
      Not to the same extent as the National Lottery as it's a smaller organisation but it still donates some profits for community good. Include another exemption in a third reading, maybe?

      Ten years ago sport was far less commercialised with only a few sports - namely football - dominating the commercial sports world. Blocking sponsorship will hurt sports teams who cannot afford to compete in the commercial world. My local rugby team is sponsored by Coral, it's not ideal but it's all that could be found. I can say goodbye to local football following this bill The bill needs to include provisions to increase state funding for local sports to cover the shortfalls.

      It's impossible to say smokers are not being punished. The number of smokers has declined. This could partly be due to banning advertising. The bill misses the problem. The problem is not the activities of gambling companies but more the weak mindedness of individuals who give in. Stop defending the people and educate them different instead.

      (Original post by Mattvr)
      If a person is seriously in debt, they'd be likely to have their belongings repossessed. Consequently, they'd end up on the streets, homeless, without a job and generally struggling to live. Something CAN be done to help those who are morbidly obese, and who are alcoholics. The repercussions from fast-food and alcohol are physical - the body becomes damaged. If there are addictions with gambling, that cause serious debt, then that will be far more psychological, which can then lead to physical problems, possibly through self-harm and, eventually, suicide (if the problems are bad enough).
      Your argument is strange. It's one rule for one group and another rule for another. You promote helping the morbidly obese as something can be done - Agreed. Yet you don't support helping those taken in my gambling?? Helping them would be improved counselling and societies like Alcoholics Anonymous, and not banning the companies from advertising or sponsoring. Banning sponsorship and advertisement is the easy 'solution' that does not address the root of the problem. The root being weak mindedness of individuals who struggle to cope. Why is it some individuals give in racking up loads of debt where others can act sensibly despite seeing the same amount of advertising? - ADDRESS THIS!

      (Original post by Mattvr)
      "Why should everyone else be punished for the sake of a small minority?" - I disagree with the premise of the question. I don't believe it is "everyone else", at all! A report by the Gambling Commission shows that, apart from the Lottery et al, only 56% of people gamble by other methods. That IS over the 50% mark, but that is by no means the vast majority (=/+ 75%). The bill is about banning the sponsorship and advertising, NOT banning gambling. Honestly, if it thought that by removing advertising is "punishing" the people, there's something terribly wrong!
      Your figures only quote one side of the story. How many local teams are sponsored by gambling firms? My local football team is sponsored by Coral as no one else could be found. The one down the road is sponsored by Ladbrokes. Gambling firms sponsoring local teams is incredibly common as the economics of it add up. Also, with less advertising the companies themselves will suffer with fewer clients, profits suffer and job cuts come about. No study has been done into the economic impact of this bill!
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by tehFrance)
      Habe I though? How do you know my investments are wise or that I'm utilising the best rates for saving?

      The reality is that while you wouldn't see me as reckless, I am. I spend roughly £2,000-3,000/mo on gambling, while it's true I can afford it, I'm also rather reckless in the amounts I gamble at any one time.

      No one on an average salary can afford a super car so why use that as an example?
      I assumed that you were competent enough to be able to choose the best saving scheme. If not, and you're struggling to find a good scheme, there are many organisations that are out there and can help.

      It's your choice as to how much you spend. I nor this bill are trying to stop you spending vast sums of money, but as you want.

      The Politisphere was babbling about buying things one can't afford - I merely hyperbolised the point.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by tehFrance)
      Habe I though? How do you know my investments are wise or that I'm utilising the best rates for saving?

      The reality is that while you wouldn't see me as reckless, I am. I spend roughly £2,000-3,000/mo on gambling, while it's true I can afford it, I'm also rather reckless in the amounts I gamble at any one time.
      You spend more a year than the average person earns in a year on gambling alone . I'm going to overstep my mark here with some friendly advice but...taking into account your living costs and everything else, you either have a highly paid job, rely on savings or rely on parents/family wealth. I assume you're a student so it would be the latter two in which case it's probably time you stop wasting your savings and invest them more wisely. Even if it's the former, invest your salary in something - property in Portugal is currently a good investment.

      No one on an average salary can afford a super car so why use that as an example?
      No one on an average salary can afford gambling. If they could afford it, fewer people would be in extreme amounts of debt, gambling wouldn't be as big of a problem and we wouldn't be debating this bill.
      • Offline

        15
        (Original post by Mattvr)
        I assumed that you were competent enough to be able to choose the best saving scheme. If not, and you're struggling to find a good scheme, there are many organisations that are out there and can help.

        It's your choice as to how much you spend. I nor this bill are trying to stop you spending vast sums of money, but as you want.

        The Politisphere was babbling about buying things one can't afford - I merely hyperbolised the point.
        I have news for you, I don't have a savings account, only current accounts but I do have a holding company for all investments. I know what I am doing and don't need help. I was merely saying that I can appear to manage quite well but the reality could be quite different.

        It does come across as such though which is what I don't like.
        (Original post by The Politisphere)
        You spend more a year than the average person earns in a year on gambling alone . I'm going to overstep my mark here but...taking into account your living costs and everything else, you either have a highly paid job or rely on savings. I assume you're a student so it would be the latter in which case it's probably time you stop wasting your savings and invest them more wisely. Even if it's the former, invest your salary in something - property in Portugal is currently a good investment.

        No one on an average salary can afford gambling. If they could afford it, fewer people would be in extreme amounts of debt, gambling wouldn't be as big of a problem and we wouldn't be debating this bill.
        So I earn that money and I can spend it as I wish. My living costs quite high, I'm not reliant on savings at all, I own my own business which holds all my investments, I refuse to be told by someone such as yourself to stop wasting money that I can afford to burn in the driveway if I so wished. Portugal is never a good property investment, don't offer advice on BS statements such as that.

        Debt is good at this time, the market is favoured towards spenders not savers. Gambling isn't an issue for the majority though is it? You're taking the few with issues and punishing the masses.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by tehFrance)
        So I earn that money and I can spend it as I wish. My living costs quite high, I'm not reliant on savings at all, I own my own business which holds all my investments, I refuse to be told by someone such as yourself to stop wasting money that I can afford to burn in the driveway if I so wished. Portugal is never a good property investment, don't offer advice on BS statements such as that.
        Quite, but I suppose it highlights differences between us. I gear towards making as much money as possible. Gambling doesn't make a constant stream of money so I would rather invest than spend. I was politely saying if you do more of your investing than you do spending, you get richer. Who doesn't like to get richer?

        Portugal is great, especially Madeira as the laws are different than in Spain with the horror stories. The average % sale price compared to the build price is one of the highest in Europe currently. For example, you can build a house/villa for £300,000 and easily sell it for over £550,000 - £600,000.

        (Original post by tehFrance)
        Gambling isn't an issue for the majority though is it? You're taking the few with issues and punishing the masses.
        Hence why this bill should not be passed...

        Apologies for any offence caused
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by The Politisphere)
        Your argument is strange. It's one rule for one group and another rule for another. You promote helping the morbidly obese as something can be done - Agreed. Yet you don't support helping those taken in my gambling?? Helping them would be improved counselling and societies like Alcoholics Anonymous, and not banning the companies from advertising or sponsoring. Banning sponsorship and advertisement is the easy 'solution' that does not address the root of the problem. The root being weak mindedness of individuals who struggle to cope. Why is it some individuals give in racking up loads of debt where others can act sensibly despite seeing the same amount of advertising? - ADDRESS THIS!

        I'm very grateful you've pointed this out to me! I'm clearly not articulating myself in the way I intend. If someone is in need of help, from whatever it may be - gambling/smoking/drugs/obesity etc, I believe that they should be helped, in any way the state can, to an extent! Following on from your point, why can't a bill be introduced to help people get out of times of desperation?
        Unfortunately, you've seem to overlook your finals sentences. If people are encouraged to gamble, because it is made to seem "fun", then if the people are desperate (same people as the 'weak minded'), they can be easily coerced into gambling, then continually gambling, due to the ingrained human ego of wanting to win, then they can run themselves into debt. By removing the invitation to gamble, one would hope that the 'weak minded' would become less informed of gambling, thus not spending their money on gambling, and rather saving it. The same principle can be applied to fast-food, or alcohol, or smoking etc etc.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Mattvr)
        I'm very grateful you've pointed this out to me! I'm clearly not articulating myself in the way I intend. If someone is in need of help, from whatever it may be - gambling/smoking/drugs/obesity etc, I believe that they should be helped, in any way the state can, to an extent! Following on from your point, why can't a bill be introduced to help people get out of times of desperation?
        Helping people out of depression sounds great. I would support a bill that achieves this.

        Unfortunately, you've seem to overlook your finals sentences. If people are encouraged to gamble, because it is made to seem "fun", then if the people are desperate (same people as the 'weak minded'), they can be easily coerced into gambling, then continually gambling, due to the ingrained human ego of wanting to win, then they can run themselves into debt. By removing the invitation to gamble, one would hope that the 'weak minded' would become less informed of gambling, thus not spending their money on gambling, and rather saving it. The same principle can be applied to fast-food, or alcohol, or smoking etc etc.
        I think removing temptation or limiting the effect of temptation on their lives in a way this bill describes will be ineffective whilst damaging the positives. Let's look at peer pressure. We don't remove the thing the children are being pressured to do, we tell and teach the children to stay strong and withstand the pressure. Similarly we should be teaching addicts to withstand the pressure. When people become addicted to on the shelf medicine you don't restrict the medicine, you educate and counsel the addict. When people buy items in instalments they can't afford you don't restrict advertisement of the item, you help the people to spend sensibly. It's the same here. This is becoming an ideology debate.
        • Wiki Support Team
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        This is in cessation.
        • Wiki Support Team
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        Division! Clear the lobbies!
       
       
       
      TSR Support Team

      We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

      Updated: July 16, 2014
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.