Online betting

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

You want to trade "evidence"?

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...iew-summary--2

in particular the following, submission to the committee;

https://committees.parliament.uk/wri...%20year%5B8%5D.

I did say that what I suggested, returning to the more traditional betting shop scenario, wasn't likely. Doesn't mean that if we did, it might not be such a bad thing.

You really are a numpty sometimes - why do you want turn so many threads into a binary agree with everything. I say or you are wrong argument.

If you actually read what I post and exercised the grey matter you might appreciate the nuance but why would you bother to do that.

There is a minority for whom it is problem for a significant majority it isn’t such a problem.

Do I gamble no. Do I want to fetter and overly regulate other people (as opposed to the operators) do without reason - equally no.

Should the sector be subject to appropriate regulation - yes. Some might say it is others might disagree - thank god you are not a decision maker.

[WTF11]

You really are a numpty sometimes - why do you want turn so many threads into a binary agree with everything. I say or you are wrong argument.

If you actually read what I post and exercised the grey matter you might appreciate the nuance but why would you bother to do that.

There is a minority for whom it is problem for a significant majority it isn’t such a problem.

Do I gamble no. Do I want to fetter and overly regulate other people (as opposed to the operators) do without reason - equally no.

Should the sector be subject to appropriate regulation - yes. Some might say it is others might disagree - thank god you are not a decision maker.

So I'm a "numpty" as a result of pointing out (to you and anyone else who seeks to read the information accesed via the links I provided) that there are factual sources that would support the notion that gambling generally and online gambling in particular is harmful to a significant number of the UK population. Such harm can culminate in the most devastating results when it's borne in mind that there is at least one suicide per day resulting from gambling-related harm.

I read what you posted. Essentially "steady as you go", otherwise we risk the nanny state.

Not everyone has your strength of will, either to not get at all, or like Orgs to do so in a casual, light-hearted context. Those who legislate care more for those who have deep pockets and expert lobbyists than those less able to exert such self-control, for shame.

I genuinely hope you never have to deal with the consequences of your "laissez faire" outlook.

[spaldy]

Orgs,

Sounds like you and I are similar. My stock trading is limited to large caps with dividends. I’ve done OK over the years. The reality is that the crony capitalist companies will always do OK until the economy totally collapses.

The problem with WTFs position is that he pre supposes that some government regulator knows better than I do how to live my life. With freedom comes responsibility. However, living without freedom is worse to some than being protected by the nanny state. They rarely, if ever, do it for the common persons good. They do it for power and money. I’ve found I do a whole lot better living my own life than depending on them for anything more than providing basic infrastructure and defense from other power crazed countries that “ look out for their people”.

[WTF11]

Orgs,

Sounds like you and I are similar. My stock trading is limited to large caps with dividends. I’ve done OK over the years. The reality is that the crony capitalist companies will always do OK until the economy totally collapses.

The problem with WTFs position is that he pre supposes that some government regulator knows better than I do how to live my life. With freedom comes responsibility. However, living without freedom is worse to some than being protected by the nanny state. They rarely, if ever, do it for the common persons good. They do it for power and money. I’ve found I do a whole lot better living my own life than depending on them for anything more than providing basic infrastructure and defense from other power crazed countries that “ look out for their people”.

As with Orgs and HO (and myself), you can "take it or leave it" when it comes to gambling (and of course trading is a form of gambling, with truly remarkable winnings for some). Some can't, particularly the younger generation, and the way they in particular are bombarded via the very technology they flock to and use almost without question makes the trawling by the online betting providers a guaranteed success.

My "position" isn't to fall back in legislation but to limit the degree to which online providers can access their victims. We used to be similarly bombarded by ads for alcohol, particularly beer. There are still ads of that sort, but limited in number and frequency (and the brand's they relate to, my own favourite, an IPA has never been advertised in any broadcast media I aware of).

No such marketing limitations apply to online betting, despite the evidence suggesting it would reduce the demand from under-age victims and their attempts to bypass the minimum age restrictions.

I'm NOT trying to turn the clock back. As with a great many "advances" the genie is out of the bottle, damage limitation is the best that can be achieved now, if only there was an appetite even for that, which there isn't.

[WTF11]

Orgs,

Sounds like you and I are similar. My stock trading is limited to large caps with dividends. I’ve done OK over the years. The reality is that the crony capitalist companies will always do OK until the economy totally collapses.

The problem with WTFs position is that he pre supposes that some government regulator knows better than I do how to live my life. With freedom comes responsibility. However, living without freedom is worse to some than being protected by the nanny state. They rarely, if ever, do it for the common persons good. They do it for power and money. I’ve found I do a whole lot better living my own life than depending on them for anything more than providing basic infrastructure and defense from other power crazed countries that “ look out for their people”.

And whether in "the land of the free" or elsewhere where supposed democratic government holds sway, you think you are free?

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

So I'm a "numpty" as a result of pointing out (to you and anyone else who seeks to read the information accesed via the links I provided) that there are factual sources that would support the notion that gambling generally and online gambling in particular is harmful to a significant number of the UK population. Such harm can culminate in the most devastating results when it's borne in mind that there is at least one suicide per day resulting from gambling-related harm.

I read what you posted. Essentially "steady as you go", otherwise we risk the nanny state.

Not everyone has your strength of will, either to not get at all, or like Orgs to do so in a casual, light-hearted context. Those who legislate care more for those who have deep pockets and expert lobbyists than those less able to exert such self-control, for shame.

I genuinely hope you never have to deal with the consequences of your "laissez faire" outlook.

So you cite one report and you are an expert? Pointless trying to discuss with you and once again you speak to my outlook when you know nothing about it and extrapolate from one post - genius.

[WTF11]

So you cite one report and you are an expert? Pointless trying to discuss with you and once again you speak to my outlook when you know nothing about it and extrapolate from one post - genius.

At one point in the none too distant past I actually thought you were worth exchanging views and opinions. No more.

I didn't suggest I was any expert, at any time nor under any condition, you prize f00kwit. Neither (look back in the posts and prove otherwise) have i done anything than replay what you posted.

I said, quite honestly and genuinely, that I hoped you were never required to deal with the consequences of your "open market" views. That open market attitude and the policies that have emanated from it killed someone very close to my wife and I, something that will stay with me forever.

You're ignored.

[hopelesslyoptimistic]

At one point in the none too distant past I actually thought you were worth exchanging views and opinions. No more.

I didn't suggest I was any expert, at any time nor under any condition, you prize f00kwit. Neither (look back in the posts and prove otherwise) have i done anything than replay what you posted.

I said, quite honestly and genuinely, that I hoped you were never required to deal with the consequences of your "open market" views. That open market attitude and the policies that have emanated from it killed someone very close to my wife and I, something that will stay with me forever.

You're ignored.

Finally

[Orgoner]

Finally

I wouldn’t bet on it….

(Couldn’t help myself. Sorry!)

[WTF11]

I wouldn’t bet on it….

(Couldn’t help myself. Sorry!)

Try harder.