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

B936 - Betting and Gaming Duties Bill (Second Reading) Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Nay - this will not help anyone except the rich corporate owners.


    DRINK!!!
    I'd say read the notes and the debate, there's not any justification for that statement.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    That would be a conservative position and a sensible one. However, the best way to make sure that the poor and society isn't too harmed by the gambling industry is through measures such as the one I've just put forward and ones I intend to put forward in future. I would also say that the gambling industry is a multi billion pound one and as such it's success means a stronger NHS, better funded schools, etc. So it's in the national interest to make sure that it remains strong but at the same time is regulated to a point whereby the people are sufficiently protected.
    I don't belive that we should pander to an industry just because it has money. The illegal drugs trade in the uk is worth £8bn a year but that doesn't mean we try to keep it going. Also without gambling either the people who would have gambled do other things or they save money for cars or houses. But this isn't a dabate about wether gambling should be banned but rather should the industry get more money. My answer is that if they are already worth billions then they don't need more so no I will not vote to put more money in the back pockets of the rich by exploiting the poor and nieve and destroying our society.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I'd say read the notes and the debate, there's not any justification for that statement.
    Let's see...
    You're lowering the duties, and since the casinos earn more than any of their customers win from their spending, they will now earn even more.


    DRINK!!!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Let's see...
    You're lowering the duties, and since the casinos earn more than any of their customers win from their spending, they will now earn even more.

    DRINK!!!
    Casinos and betting shops earn money because when people lose, they lose, but when people win, what do they do with their winnings? This isn't a major reform to the betting industry, but the lower gaming duties mean that companies can put in place more measures to ensure that responsible gambling. Gambling is a form of entertainment, after all, and that's how it should stay, with more money, more investment can be made by the betting industry to ensure more safeguards for consumers.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Casinos and betting shops earn money because when people lose, they lose, but when people win, what do they do with their winnings? This isn't a major reform to the betting industry, but the lower gaming duties mean that companies can put in place more measures to ensure that responsible gambling. Gambling is a form of entertainment, after all, and that's how it should stay, with more money, more investment can be made by the betting industry to ensure more safeguards for consumers.
    Safeguards they probably need telling to implement

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Gambling is currently causing some serious harm in the UK and I will not encourage the industry growing any further, though I respect that most gamble responsibly and should have the right to do so.

    Nay.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Safeguards they probably need telling to implement

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nothing to stop us enshrining it in law. But I know that Coral had been testing facial recognition to prevent crime and highlight those who'd been self excluded, but it was later dropped for being too expensive to implement.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    Gambling is currently causing some serious harm in the UK and I will not encourage the industry growing any further, though I respect that most gamble responsibly and should have the right to do so.

    Nay.
    I'd say that this bill refers to betting shops and casinos and those fruit machine places you see sometimes. These are actually more desirable, and if we could get people gambling in these places rather than online it would be a massive step forward.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I'd say that this bill refers to betting shops and casinos and those fruit machine places you see sometimes. These are actually more desirable, and if we could get people gambling in these places rather than online it would be a massive step forward.
    Totally disagree. The machines in betting shops are INCREDIBLY addictive, and the warnings that are now compulsory which show up every now and then are useless. I know from family experience how pathetic yet crippling an addiction it can be.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    Totally disagree. The machines in betting shops are INCREDIBLY addictive, and the warnings that are now compulsory which show up every now and then are useless. I know from family experience how pathetic yet crippling an addiction it can be.
    I know first hand in my job managing a shop, however, even despite how bad FOBTs are, it's better that people are using them in a betting shop than playing the games on their phones or laptops or something. In a shop, if someone spends an excessive amount of time or money on a machine we have a legal obligation to speak to them about their problems. However, if they're spending hundreds of pounds a spin playing roulette on their phones without anyone to stop them, then that's by far a much worse problem.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I know first hand in my job managing a shop, however, even despite how bad FOBTs are, it's better that people are using them in a betting shop than playing the games on their phones or laptops or something. In a shop, if someone spends an excessive amount of time or money on a machine we have a legal obligation to speak to them about their problems. However, if they're spending hundreds of pounds a spin playing roulette on their phones without anyone to stop them, then that's by far a much worse problem.
    People with an addiction won't stop just because a shop assistant suggests they should. Legislation and Government action should help those suffering and punish shops which fail to ban excessive gamblers, IMO.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    People with an addiction won't stop just because a shop assistant suggests they should. Legislation and Government action should help those suffering and punish shops which fail to ban excessive gamblers, IMO.
    And I agree. However, the self exclusion process is almost completely unenforceable, and any meaningful change isn't possible because the industry is being taxed left, right and center. Somewhere along the way people felt that taxing stuff helped the situation, I used the think the exact same way myself, but by cutting the duties, we make sure that the companies have the funds available to put forward measures like facial recognition software.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    And I agree. However, the self exclusion process is almost completely unenforceable, and any meaningful change isn't possible because the industry is being taxed left, right and center. Somewhere along the way people felt that taxing stuff helped the situation, I used the think the exact same way myself, but by cutting the duties, we make sure that the companies have the funds available to put forward measures like facial recognition software.
    I don't mean self exclusion, I mean forced exclusion by either the shop itself or through court order.

    I also think that facial recognition should be made compulsory without lowering taxes. The big firms make plenty of profit at our expense, so the least they can do is fork up some cash to protect the vulnerable.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    I don't mean self exclusion, I mean forced exclusion by either the shop itself or through court order.

    I also think that facial recognition should be made compulsory without lowering taxes. The big firms make plenty of profit at our expense, so the least they can do is fork up some cash to protect the vulnerable.
    We have a legal obligation to bar people who are offered self exclusion but continue to gamble, but any kind of exclusion is unenforceable.

    Then we have betting shops going out of business and their former customers resorting to online gambling (which isn't a preferable alternative)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    We have a legal obligation to bar people who are offered self exclusion but continue to gamble, but any kind of exclusion is unenforceable.

    Then we have betting shops going out of business and their former customers resorting to online gambling (which isn't a preferable alternative)
    Betting shops go out of business because of the likes of Coral, Ladbrokes, WH etc, and the big chains are flourishing, not struggling.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    Betting shops go out of business because of the likes of Coral, Ladbrokes, WH etc, and the big chains are flourishing, not struggling.
    I work for Coral.

    We have some shops that barely make anything, some shops that run at a loss, and some shops that rake it in. A few of our shops only exist because of the FOBTs, but even then it's preferable to people betting online. Take the other day for instance, I was managing a shop, and there was a customer who made three debit card withdrawals (when someone does that, we have a legal obligation to stage an interaction) so I had a chat with him asking if everything was alright, told him not to chase his losses and everything, he seemed perfectly fine, but instead of withdrawing £100, he instead withdrew £50 after having a think and then left when he spent it. Had I not staged that interaction he could have potentially carried on until going bust. With online gambling, there is no interaction that can be staged, which is why betting shops are still preferable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I work for Coral.

    We have some shops that barely make anything, some shops that run at a loss, and some shops that rake it in. A few of our shops only exist because of the FOBTs, but even then it's preferable to people betting online. Take the other day for instance, I was managing a shop, and there was a customer who made three debit card withdrawals (when someone does that, we have a legal obligation to stage an interaction) so I had a chat with him asking if everything was alright, told him not to chase his losses and everything, he seemed perfectly fine, but instead of withdrawing £100, he instead withdrew £50 after having a think and then left when he spent it. Had I not staged that interaction he could have potentially carried on until going bust. With online gambling, there is no interaction that can be staged, which is why betting shops are still preferable.
    Perhaps, but a drastic reduction in betting all together sounds much more agreeable to me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wellzi)
    Perhaps, but a drastic reduction in betting all together sounds much more agreeable to me.
    Perhaps, but unfortunately I don't see that happening and until I do, I think it's much better to take the pragmatic approach that I'm advocating here.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Nothing to stop us enshrining it in law. But I know that Coral had been testing facial recognition to prevent crime and highlight those who'd been self excluded, but it was later dropped for being too expensive to implement.
    Preventing crime and preventing problem gambling are not the same thing. At the end of the day responsibility harms their bottom line, they will do what they need to to try to prevent being forced to do more and nothing more.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Preventing crime and preventing problem gambling are not the same thing. At the end of the day responsibility harms their bottom line, they will do what they need to to try to prevent being forced to do more and nothing more.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But the technology can be used the same way. For example, we prevent fraudsters and con artists and the under-aged from entering our shops in the same way that we prevent the excluded and self-excluded, through looking at pictures and seeing if we recognise them, which is massively open to errors and facial recognition technology would amend that.
 
 
 
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: March 7, 2016
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • 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

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