Supercasino &quot;dead in the water&quot;

Shaun39

It is certainly worthwhile to ask why people gamble.
...

The earlier explanations for gambling, where either of them are held and considered to be the motivation for the majority are justification for permitting it on a large and organised scale.

I did read the rest of the post, but individual reasons for gambling shouldn't inform a law which will affect everyone. So the argument that psychologically, gambling perpetuates desperation and sustains the poverty trap might be true for some people, but it certainly isn't for others.

Shaun39

This isn't a massive infringement of liberty - it's not as if the government is spending other people's money for them or stopping them from gambling altogether. Putting a bit of geographic distance between the council estates and areas of concentrated deprivation on the one hand, and casinos and bookies on the other though, can only create some disincentive to poor people frittering a hell of a lot more than their money away.

It is a 'massive infringement of liberty' precisely because the government wants to put 'a bit of geographic distance between the council estates and areas of concentrated deprivation.' It is utilitarian - I don't dispute that placing a casino away from poor estates may reduce the likelihood of poor people spending money in casinos - but the government violates the property of the land owner who wants to build a casino. Indeed, his ownership of the land is only nominal if the government may dictate to what use he can put it (or, by extension, exclude certain uses). And if the government can take away his right to organise gambling on his own property, why can't they take away the right to do anything else? Locke explains precisely this argument in the Second Treatise on Government:

"This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief... because using force, where he has no Right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not when he had me in his power take away everything else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him, as one who has put himself into a state of war with me [by violating absolute property] ie. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war and is an aggressor in it."

The government should not be thought of as anything more than an aggregation of individuals, and thus, not endowed with a special capacity to violate property for its own selfish ends.

Reply 23

Cage

It is the responsibility of central government to protect the people against the potential effects of gambling. That applies to both the crime aspect and the gambling addiction problem.

I disagree. Should the government stop people gambling online because it is in their best interests to do so?

Cage

It's all very well to cry 'nanny state', which in some policy decisions I would accept

You ignored my precise question. Could you explain according to what principle you decide something is 'nanny statism' or not.

Cage

but gambling has never been a part of Britain, it doesn't need to be a part of Britain.

You're proposing the abolition of the national lottery, then, and village fete raffles, because they "don't need to be a part of Britain"?

Cage

Once gambling become entrenched in your economy and culture, it is very difficult to get rid of them again when they begin to have nasty effects.

I would substitute 'gambling' in this sentence with another 'g'-word: Government.

Cage

it is a good decision to cut our losses and stop it from going ahead.

Cutting 'our losses'? You seem to ignore the fact that 'we' (ie the government) haven't spent any money on subsidising super casinos - it's private companies who own the land and the building.

Reply 24

2026

OP

Is it possible that Gordon Brown's religious background played a part in this U-turn?

Reply 25

Music_Enthusiast

-1984-

Is it possible that Gordon Brown's religious background played a part in this U-turn?

Yes. He's a terrorist.

Reply 26

2026

OP

Shreerac27

Yes. He's a terrorist.

:wtf?:

Reply 27

Life's so much better when the government lives it for you. It allows you to concentrate on the important things, like work.

Reply 28

Mikesev

10

Cage

but gambling has never been a part of Britain, it doesn't need to be a part of Britain.

Gambling isn't part of British culture? Do you think the Grand National is so popular because people just like horses?

Reply 29

I really, really dont see the attraction in gambling. Every time ive gone to a casino ive ended up in the nearest pub instead. Its just boring, plus it has to be one of the most pointless hobbies going. You have so little control on the outcome of what your doing and requires next to no skill. Playing cards, probably the best of all gambling activities, bores the **** out of me.

Reply 30

-1984-

Is it possible that Gordon Brown's religious background played a part in this U-turn?

Suggesting that he thinks he's Oliver Cromwell reincarnate, with a God-given mission to crack down on any instance of fun that violates his mean-spirited self-flagellating personal austerity? No, I don't think so.

Reply 31

2026

OP

thermoregulatio

Suggesting that he thinks he's Oliver Cromwell reincarnate, with a God-given mission to crack down on any instance of fun that violates his mean-spirited self-flagellating personal austerity? No, I don't think so.

Everyone in Whitehall is aware of Browns religious convictions. I just find it weird that after the long consultation process and millions of pounds spent in bidding for the super-casino, the decision is overturned just like that. Tax-payers are going to have to pick up the tab for all that process.

So much for the Brown rhetoric of going back to Cabinet style governing.

Reply 32

im a bit uncomfortable that the PM is governing in part via a religious compass, if that's true.

Reply 33

Consie

I really, really dont see the attraction in gambling. Every time ive gone to a casino ive ended up in the nearest pub instead. Its just boring, plus it has to be one of the most pointless hobbies going. You have so little control on the outcome of what your doing and requires next to no skill. Playing cards, probably the best of all gambling activities, bores the **** out of me.

But you appreciate that's irrelevant, right?

Reply 34

well not entirely. If they were being touted as urban regeneration tools, how do they know the majority of people will take to them for pleasure and use them for pleasure and not addiction?

Reply 35

They don't, but that's not what I asked. Surely you appreciate that whether you personally enjoy casinos or the idea of casinos should have absolutely no baring on whether they should be legal or not?

Reply 36

oh, of course. Im talking about the point of the thread, i.e. their original goal as a tool of urban renewl being abandond. What nutcase is saying they should be illegal? *displays ignorance of the last 10 posts*

Reply 37

No, that's not their original goal. that's what the government's selling it as, though i've no idea why. They goal is to make money, like any business.

And sorry, I wasn't really referencing you - I just meant the people who're saying it should be banned (illegal, not allowed, whatever) shouldn't do so just because they don't like casinos.

Reply 38

yeah, for the companies themselves. I agree the government saw the possibility for some extra corporate tax, but if only one of these things was getting built, its not as if its gonna make any difference in that respect. I think perhaps you could argue they wanted to regenerate the area in order to get more tax revenue and take people off benefits, which is fine really since its a win win situation for the govt and the people. If it was just to make money, the original 16 would have been built.

Reply 39