Bookies forced to pay for help programmes for problem gambling

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on January 7, 2009 at 14:44

Thanks for this link, Liz. Though I read it a couple of times and pinched myself in case I was daydreaming.

So 'Culture Secretary' Andy Burnham (i.e. Minister for betting and lotteries) has finally 'lost patience' with the 'Gambling industry'. Why? Because it won't donate up-to £300 quid a year per shop to research "problem gambling".

Oh, gosh. I'd bet there are several other 'problem' local 'industries' which would be more than happy to donate this amount if it meant they were free to do as they please.

Predictably, Russ Phillips Chief Executive of the Association of British Bookmakers protests that due to the credit crunch: "The whole industry has been hit and we have to be realistic about how much can be raised."

Perhaps we should also blame the credit crunch for the increase in fixed odds betting terminals (FOBTs)?

In May 2005 another news item in the Independent described FOBTs as "virtual roulette machines" and reported they were then the second most common gambling addiction (after fruit machines). The FOBTs had "delivered massive profits for bookmakers".

Can I suggest that other people join me in writing to Andy Burnham expressing loss of patience in his failure to recognise and take action on the impact of unrestrained expansion of betting shops and the FOBT machines.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by marc garrett on January 7, 2009 at 15:14

Personally, I think ti would be nice to have a gallery replacing these venues, offering some culture for a change. Do we always have to have shops everywhere?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on January 7, 2009 at 15:13

Agreed Alan, he seems utterly out of his depth in dealing with the gambling industry, see this post as to how he taketh with the one hand then giveth straight back with the other.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on January 7, 2009 at 16:54

I missed this grim news, Liz. And I owe everyone an apology for my previous flippant posting. Please scratch my last suggestion!

I simply had not realised just how bad things were for this important sector of the Artistic and Cultural community.

Plainly, as profits plummet, there is a potential meltdown scenario here. Should all FOBT machines pay out at once; at the same time as customers demand payouts for outsiders winning with successful accumulator bets, we could have a disastrous run on the bookies local Speculative Forecast stores!

It would surely make Northern Rock and Lehman Brothers look trifling. So obviously the Government needs to protect this vital sector by making billions available. How about we all email Andy Burnham praising him to the skies for speaking up for the Gambling Probabilities Professionals, and suggesting he offers them a tax-holiday?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on January 7, 2009 at 17:06

Perhaps if dear old Woolies had put a few FOBT in their stores, we wouldn't have lost one of my fave shops on the High street. I fail to see why this industry need 'protecting' or indeed why it ever need boosting in the first place. Here we are with not a single super casino, but instead high streets groaning with opportunities to lose all your money at the press of a button.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on January 7, 2009 at 16:57

THIS licenced "industry" has, in common with other commercial activity requiring licencing, the notable feature that a proportion of their patrons will abuse the service or product and become addicted to it. This "industry" is deeply cynical and contributes nothing to local communities except negligible local employment.

They basically suck net cash out of the punters who are too dull-witted to realize what mugs they are. And some become compulsive about it.

Liquor and tobacco contain warnings to the punters on the product and at the point of sale, warning either of the risks to health or exhortations to use responsibly.

Belatedly, tobacco has seen increased and sorely needed increases in regulation but, on the other hand under this government, liquor licencing and gambling have seen much de-regulation.

In the case of gambling, the effects are seen in our Borough principally along Green Lanes. In the new climate, certain forces on our council wanted to see a casino in our Charitable Trust Alexandra Palace. The council have even established a precedent for a casino in future, by awarding themselves a "permanent premises" gambling licence last year in our Charity.

Why do would-be gamblers see no warning on the outside of bookies, about the overall odds they face and the potential losses they may suffer, in the same way that the law mandates warnings to cigarette users?

• ▶ Reply