PDA

View Full Version : Gambling bill


Groundbased
2nd Nov 2004, 12:12
The gambling bill looks like it will go through with minimal modification.

Is this a good or a bad thing?

Let me first admit to my bias. We have a problem gambler in my family.

I can understand people who ask why the government should nanny us even further, if some people are stupid enough not to know when to stop then that is their problem. However, I've got a few problems with this bill:

1. If you want to gamble you can. There are quite a few casino's around, and all you have to do is join as a member and you're off. Open some more if you like but keep the membership requirements and regulations as they are.

2. The repeated mantra about removing slot machines from places like taxi offices and other places seems more like a move to eliminate competition for the operators than anything else.

3. I have no confidence in the suitability of planning decisions when huge sums of money are being dangled in front of local authorities.

4. The amount that the industry is required to put into helping addicts seems miniscule in comparison with the profits they will make.

5. Some people recognise that it's not good for them to go to gambling establishments. The temptation will be that much greater if they are greater in number and more visible to those individuals.

6. Personally I don't think government should be influenced by business to this extent.

All in all I'm not in favour, but maybe that's just because of my experience. Discuss.

One rider. I'm not interested in who operates these facilities or where they come from. I don't care. I just want to debate the issue of whether we should change the law or not.

Stockpicker
2nd Nov 2004, 12:31
5. Some people recognise that it's not good for them to go to gambling establishments. The temptation will be that much greater if they are greater in number and more visible to those individuals.

That's the key point for me, Groundbased - I have every sympathy with you over the family aspect, but I struggle to see how changing the nature of gambling establishments will make any difference to that problem (as a matter of fact, I believe a key concern is that smaller operators will be forced out of the market, so there could in fact be fewer, not more such venues). Surely someone who is hooked on gambling can gamble on which raindrop runs to the bottom of the window first - changing the number and nature of places they can go to indulge their habit won't make any difference.

Parapunter
2nd Nov 2004, 12:31
Bet you a fiver it goes through...

Well, should we legislate against the majority to protect the susceptible minority? In some areas yes, child protection for example, but with gambling, one is speaking of grown ups.

There will always be chain smoking alcoholic punters, but the vast majority of us can cope with a beer, a fag here & there & a flutter on the national.
Me, I think it's another revenue raiser for Gordon driving the bill. But personally, I have only ever once been to a casino & I didn't understand how the games work & I think that's a good thing for me. After all, you don't see Shergar in Ladbrokes having a tenner on Scholes to get the first goal do you?:rolleyes:

tony draper
2nd Nov 2004, 12:31
Tony Soprano and his ilk will be rubbing their hands.
Someone on Telly said the International Gambling industry has spent 120 million greasing the right palms,obviously a few of them in Government, dunno if its true or not but it sounds par for the course, as it looks like a vigerous lobbying industry is yet another pastime we are importing from the States.
Tiz positivly Orwellian,trouble with binge drinking and its associated social problems?, extend the drinking hour of coure,kids out of control, stopping parent wacking the little buggas is a good idea, criminality rife? water down all the legal system so the crims all have get out of jail cards, not that many of them ever see the inside of a cell.
:suspect:

Groundbased
2nd Nov 2004, 12:55
Stockpicker, I agree that for those who are hooked there will be little difference. The ones I was thinking of are those who choose not to go because they recognise they could quite easily get hooked if they did go. Increasing the number and visibility of venues will make it harder for them to avoid it. A fine distinction I know, and there is no telling how many of these people there may be.

Mr Chips
2nd Nov 2004, 13:27
I'm with Ms Stockpicker on this one. I keep on reading how the whole country is going to become a mass of addicts if we allow more casinos, but at the moment one can have a bet at a betting shop, in a pub on a fruit machine, at the fairground - good grief, even at motorway service stations! What difference is there if these facilities are provided in casinos?

Personally I like casinos - Blackjack is my game of choice - and I am looking forward to the possibility of having one nearer to me.

Bournemouth has two casinos (I am a member of both) and yet I have never heard of Bournemouth having a major gambling problem...

Once again, we can't have something that may be bad for us.... nanny state etc. Hounslow (where I live) has no nightclub, just in case it causes trouble. This is despite the fact taht it has plenty of fights and plenty of fights!

Casinos? Bring 'em on