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

B1118 – Legalised Games of Chance and Skill Control Commission (Formation) Bill 2017 Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    B1118 – Legalised Games of Chance and Skill Control Commission (Formation) Bill 2017, TSR UKIP




    Legalised Games of Chance and Skill Control Commission (Formation) Bill 2017



    A
    BILL
    TO



    Form a committee with the legal power to control chance games at sites around the United Kingdom.



    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    1 Legalised Games of Chance Control Commission (LGCCC)

    (1) The LGCCC shall be formed as a division of the Home Office to monitor the operation of chance games.
    (2) The LGCCC shall employ officers to inspect the use of chance, and skill games.

    2 LGCCC officers and duties

    (1) A LGCCC officer shall be tasked with inspecting at random games to ensure each game offers a fair chance of winning.
    (2) If an LGCCC officer judges a chance game to not offer a fair chance of winning the game may be closed until rectification of the fault discovered.
    (3) All LGCCC visits will be conducted at no warning by an undercover LGCCC officer who has the power to look over all aspects of a game.
    (4) If an owner wishes to appeal against a ruling by an LGCCC officer, the owner of the game, or an individual nominated by the owner, must be able to complete the game in the same conditions as the public in one hundred (100) attempts under the supervision of the LGCCC officer.
    (5) Failure to complete the game will see the game judges as not having a fair chance of winning.

    3 Repercussions

    (1) The owner of game found to not offer a fair chance of winning will be fined £3000 fine on their first offence.
    (2) All subsequent offences will be fined at the the fine rate of the previous offence multiplied by 1.25.
    (3) After three offences the game owner may be jailed for a maximum of 5 years for each offence.
    (4) Any persons who have participated in a game found to not offer a fair chance of winning are entitled to a refund equal to the fee of participating in the game, provided;
    a. It can be proven participation took place when the game had no fair chance of winning.

    4 Interpretations

    (1) A chance game in this Act is defined as a game where the outcome is determined by a randomised factor, or device.
    (2) A skill game in this Act is defined as a game where the outcome is determined by the skill of the participant.
    (3) A fair chance in this bill is defined as game where there are no controllable factor working against the participant to reduce the participants success rate.

    5 Commencement, short title and extent

    (1) This Act shall come into force after Royal Assent.
    (2) This Act may be cited as the Fair Gaming Act 2016.
    (3) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.

    Notes

    At fair grounds, in arcades, and in theme parks lots of games are offered where prizes can be won, for example, throwing darts to burst balloons, firing corks to knock tins of a shelf, throwing basketballs through basketball hoops, throwing balls in a bucket, using pneumatic claws to pick up objects, and picking up rubber ducks using a stick. These games are popular with lots of people but are easy to rig against the participants, for example, basketball hoops can be too small, or set at a slight angle to make it harder for the ball to pass through; the darts can be blunt or missing fins to prevent smooth flight; the bucket can be at an angle so a thrown ball will always bounce out; and claws can weak to prevent objects offered as prizes from being picked up.

    The inspiration for this bill comes from a Youtube video about a similar organisation in the USA tasked with monitoring chance games.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNbD_rc_TNI
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    A tentative aye.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I like the premise of the Bill but your definitions in s4 are sorely lacking. Most games contain elements of both skill and chance. Also, after having read 4(3) three times I'm still none the wiser as to what a 'fair chance' is.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    This sounds ridiculous to me.

    I do not believe that the government should interfere in the running of attractions like this.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I do like this bill, but one question:
    Will there be standards for an officer to call a game unfair on first ruling?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I like the idea behind this bill also, but I do have concerns with regards to the way an officer would declare a game 'unfair', as LifeIsFine says… would there be a standard to follow in order to reach this conclusion?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    I do like this bill, but one question:
    Will there be standards for an officer to call a game unfair on first ruling?
    In an ideal world there would, however, as there are lots of different games with lots of different variants of those games, it would be left to the individual officer to decide if a game is rigged with the appeals process being the opportunity of the game owner to complete the game under supervision in the same circumstances a participant does. If the game's owner cannot complete the game in 100 attempts, I am doubtful it is possible for the game to be completed with no changes made to the way the game works.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting. I was unsure at first but having thought about it, charging people to play an unwinnable gambling game is fraud.



    PS. The Short Title should be 'Kobayashi Maru Act 2017'
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I like the premise of the Bill but your definitions in s4 are sorely lacking. Most games contain elements of both skill and chance. Also, after having read 4(3) three times I'm still none the wiser as to what a 'fair chance' is.
    I could not think of a clearer way to define a fair chance but a fair chance is supposed to be a game where there are no external, uncontrollable factors working against the participant. As an example, a game where a ball needs to be thrown through a hoop is fair but the introduction of a slanted hoop which works in the same way as decreasing the size of the hoop, or weighted items which cannot be knocked off the shelf with the light balls provided would be seen as a rigged game.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I could not think of a clearer way to define a fair chance but a fair chance is supposed to be a game where there are no external, uncontrollable factors working against the participant. As an example, a game where a ball needs to be thrown through a hoop is fair but the introduction of a slanted hoop which works in the same way as decreasing the size of the hoop, or weighted items which cannot be knocked off the shelf with the light balls provided would be seen as a rigged game.
    I understand the purpose of the Bill, I'm simply not sure it does what you mean it to. I'd possibly add something about alterations intending to deceive?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    In an ideal world there would, however, as there are lots of different games with lots of different variants of those games, it would be left to the individual officer to decide if a game is rigged with the appeals process being the opportunity of the game owner to complete the game under supervision in the same circumstances a participant does. If the game's owner cannot complete the game in 100 attempts, I am doubtful it is possible for the game to be completed with no changes made to the way the game works.
    The 100 attempts to complete the game is fine.
    However, could you not add that another individual officer decide if the same game is rigged and agree with the first officer before going to the appeals?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Nay.

    People voluntarily pay to play these games, the state shouldn't interfere to stop stupidity, most of the time it's obvious that a game is rigged simply by watching others attempt it, if an imbecile willingly pays to lose their money regardless of these obvious signs, then that's their problem.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Nay.

    People voluntarily pay to play these games, the state shouldn't interfere to stop stupidity, most of the time it's obvious that a game is rigged simply by watching others attempt it, if an imbecile willingly pays to lose their money regardless of these obvious signs, then that's their problem.
    Does an efficient free market not rely on consumers being fully informed as to the nature of what they are purchasing? :holmes:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Does an efficient free market not rely on consumers being fully informed as to the nature of what they are purchasing? :holmes:
    Indeed it does, but when a consumer that has a modicum of common sense can easily determine what they are purchasing by their own prerogative, then there is no need to take it further.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Indeed it does, but when a consumer that has a modicum of common sense can easily determine what they are purchasing by their own prerogative, then there is no need to take it further.
    Meh, perhaps you're right.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I don't yet see the point in this but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Meh, perhaps you're right.
    What, Ray agreeing with me?

    This isn't supposed to happen...
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    What, Ray agreeing with me?

    This isn't supposed to happen...
    I dare say there would be quite a few things we agree on - did we not just agree that consumer's need information to make rational decisions in an efficient free market?

    On the question of whether or not we never agree - I'm afraid I disagree.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Interesting. I was unsure at first but having thought about it, charging people to play an unwinnable gambling game is fraud.



    PS. The Short Title should be 'Kobayashi Maru Act 2017'
    Surely only a gambling game which purports to be winnable? Surely roulette is not fraud?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Surely only a gambling game which purports to be winnable? Surely roulette is not fraud?
    Of course it must purport to be winnable (though why anyone would knowingly bet on a scenario that cannot occur is beyond me). Isn't roulette 'winnable'?
 
 
 
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: February 25, 2017
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • 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.