Supercasinos not best regeneration option - government statement expected 26 Feb 2008

The government is expected to continue backtracking on gambling in a statement today which will officially scrap the supercasino which had been planned for Manchester.

Unfortunately, in my view, plans for 16 regional casinos will also be confirmed.

Culture secretary Andy Burnham is expected to confirm the smaller projects in a statement to MPs, while repeating the prime minister's opinion that regeneration is not best achieved by supercasinos.

Hazel Blears, communities secretary, is also expected to outline an alternative regenerative package for Manchester where the supercasino was expected to be built.

According to the prime minister's spokesman:

"As we said in July, there is a huge difference in scale in terms of gambling opportunities in a supercasino and smaller casinos."

"What we said was we would work up alternative regeneration packages which did not rely on a supercasino."

Personally, I cannot see the difference between a big building that takes money from people and a small building that takes money away from people.

The false promise that gamblers can actually win is the same. The damage to the lives of their families is the same. The deliberately psycho-addictive qualities of gambling are the same. The harm to many individuals is the same.

Personally, I think the truth is that the government sees now that gambling liberalisation was a really bad policy and would like to drop the policy without losing too much face.

However, saving governmental face is not a good enough reason for permitting the smaller casinos to go ahead.

Letting the smaller casinos go ahead will hurt too many people and the government should officially admit that now.

Bye for now

Rob Hopcott

UK Government's gambling legislation liberalization changing lives

Last night, I had the opportunity of revisiting a pub where I used to regularly play music with some other local musicians. It's a bit like a traditional folk karaoke but without the amplification and pop songs.

I got to chatting with one of the regulars.

"How are you doing these days? Are you still playing with computers?"

"No I've found something much more interesting!"

"Ooops! Is there something I should tell your wife about?"

"I've discovered poker. It's great, I spend most of my days playing poker, got to a final and won some chips to gamble online."

I changed the subject. I was there to entertain the locals not reform them. But the conversation chilled me to my bones.

A thoroughly decent man who hitherto had once spent his days pursuing his hobby of computing was now spending his days gambling.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown should be advised that big changes are occurring in ordinary people's lives as a result of his Government's gambling legislation liberalization.

I hope my friend in the pub doesn't find gambling a slippery slope to financial problems.

Those who profit from persuading people to part with their money on games of chance are very clever at making the 'games' addictive.

It has always been the Government's claim that only a small percentage of gamblers become 'problem gamblers'.

But is gambling all day a good use of a person's life, even if he manages to keep his losses within his income?

The truth is that gambling is designed to be highly addictive by an industry that earns huge profits from promoting that addiction.

The UK Labour Government has been heavily complicit in promoting the interests of the gambling industry.

Evidence is now becoming obvious of the damage caused to ordinary people by the UK Labour Government's liberalization of gambling and the way the gambling legislation is changing people's lives.

By for now

Rob Hopcott

UK Gambling Changes hinted by New Prime Minister Gordon Brown

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown stunned community leaders seeking large scale expansion of gambling in their areas by hinting at a new ethically based policy direction on supercasinos during Prime Minister's question time yesterday (11th July 2007).

The UK P.M. stated there was a need for "reflection" over the summer about the introduction of supercasinos.

The UK gambling lobby immediately swung into action with appearances on television by community leaders claiming a loss of regeneration opportunities.

Personally, I believe gambling offers little to individuals and communities and takes much where it becomes entrenched.

Fundamental to the gambling lie is that individuals who gamble can come out ahead.

In reality, the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against this outcome.

Communities are made up of individuals. When individuals lose, so does the community.

Community leaders who support the introduction of gambling organisations into their areas should think again.

Gordon Brown has shown the way and community leaders who care about their communities should put their thinking hats on and find other ways to achieve regeneration of deprived areas.

If community leaders can't think of any better way to regenerate their areas apart from gambling, they should give up their posts to those that can.

Bye for now

Rob

Concern about gambling in Australia

Concern is growing about the adverse effects of gambling in Australia and people are beginning to speak up.

Obviously, banning gambling won't work but there are simpler ways of reducing gambling's corrosive effects.

In every day life, sellers are normally held to account for their promises. If their products don't live up to the promises they have made, they have to refund or compensate.

How strange it is that governments don't apply the same rule to the promises made by gambling organisations.

'You can win' is trumpeted from every advert. Where do they equally say 'BUT you will probably lose'?

Let's force the gambling operators to tell the truth.

'Winning odds 5%
Losing odds 95%' (or whatever) - product designed to be addictive

at every point of gamble.

It wouldn't stop the addicts but it might make the world a more truthful place.

Surely that would be a good thing.

What do you think?

Rob

What value conscience?

Although there seems to be a general unease amongst the public about the growth of gambling, few seem willing to speak out against the industry and even Governments quickly put aside their consciences when increased tax revenues beckon.

The TrueTalk blog put me onto an interesting article by Elizabeth Doty which reveals that individual values are often compromised in the world of business:

There is always some tension between our values as individuals and the compromises that we must make for our organizations. Being “professional” requires that we learn to reconcile these tensions. But when does the willingness to go along go too far?

Is it a small problem?

More than half the people I spoke with described a state of creeping uneasiness and loss of faith as their roles forced them into untenable situations. As I listened, I was reminded of Chris Argyris’s description (in his famous article “Skilled Incompetence,” Harvard Business Review, September 1, 1986) of a double bind: a mixed message or contradiction that is undiscussable and whose undiscussability is undiscussable.

In her excellent article Elizabeth Doty, identifies ways people deal with the issues their consciences raise. Sadly, some who refuse to compromise their values are the one's who are most hurt.

It's too easy to say we can solve these issues with more laws.

An intensive-care nurse described having daily panic attacks on her way to work, terrified that someone would die on her shift because managed-care policies had tripled her patient load.

Perhaps it's time we started looking at morality and conscience as an important study in it's own right and one that can have a direct impact on our personal happiness and collective happiness.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia finishes it's excellent survey of conscience by discussing the concept of world conscience:

World conscience is the idea that with global communication we as a people will no longer be estranged from one another, whether it be culturally, racially, or geographically. Instead, we will approach the world as a place in which we all live, and with newly gained understanding of each other we will begin to make decisions based on what is beneficial for all people.

It seems conscience gives value to our human society and it can make all our lives better.

Perhaps we should listen to our consciences a little bit more.

What do you think?

Bye for now

Rob

If the Emperor really has no clothes will all gamblers eventually lose their shirts?

Sometimes I do wonder whether the Emperor really has got clothes and gambling is more harmless that I tend to believe.

When all around you are pushing a point of view - even the Government - one has to consider the possibility of being wrong.

Yet, even at my lowest moments, it has seemed so blindingly obvious that there are unique dangers in gambling for everybody who is tempted to participate.

How refreshing it is, then, to read about Jim Orford who is a psychologist who sees nothing but trouble in the rise of casinos and internet betting. He interviews very convincingly and is able to make his case without any reference to moral viewpoints.

So my thanks go to David Hallam and turbulent cleric for bringing this item from the Guardian to my attention.

In particular, what struck me like a kipper across the forehead was the following quote:

Does he [Jim Orford] believe, then, that certain people have addictive personalities?

"On the whole, no. We're all vulnerable if we happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If booze is cheap and everybody around you is drinking, then the chance of developing an alcohol problem is higher."

'We're all vulnerable', as Jim Orford says, and it's a human behavioural issue that can be tested.

If gambling eventually is proved to be an activity that is addictive to all who gamble, what sort of a world will we look forward to in a society where even Government promotes gambling?

I would suggest it will be a world where the majority of our population will have a lot less money to buy the things they need to nourish them and their families.

Whereas, a small minority of the population consisting of the gambling organisations will be immensely rich.

Perhaps the Government will finally admit that the Emperor has no clothes only when they see large numbers of people, addicted to the expensive habit of gambling, who can no longer afford to buy them.

If gambling really does become endemic, how difficult, and possibly dangerous, will it be for the Government to curb the gambling organisations who, by then, will have so much wealth, power and very little desire to lose it?

.

Point missed on Gambling Health Warnings claimed inadvisable

Suggestions in the media that gambling health warnings may be inadvisable seem to miss the point, in my humble opinion.

Certainly, if the warnings are merely that gamblers are putting their money at risk, the warnings could be ignored in the same way that smokers ignore the prominant warnings on cigarette packets.

Instead, the warnings I would advocate are specific and informational. The warnings should state clearly and unambiguously the precise risk being taken and the probabilty of loss.

For example, slot machines should state, next to the coin entry point, the exact amount of money repayed by that slot machine to players over a period of time such as ninety cents in the dollar or whatever.

'Win Big' is usually the prominant message.

'999 times out of 1000 you will lose' should be the message.

It's all a question of telling the truth not just of trying to scare the punter.

What can be so bad about telling the truth?

Bye for now

Rob

more on gambling advertising

Where does gambling lie in the continuum between good things and bad?

David Hallam, Methodist local preacher has some nice information on his blog about the pittance the gambling organisations are contributing, under new UK Government legislation, compared with the problems they are likely to cause.

Religion is not popular these days, at least in the UK, and I have to confess personally to being a thorough going atheist but David Hallam's blog is well worth a read.

Personally, I firmly believe that people have a sense of morality, irrespective of religion, which tells them that some things are just plain bad for people whilst others are beneficial.

In my experience, there are some very good people out there and there are also some very bad one's. The rest of the world comes somewhere in between.

Very good people tend to give and want little in return. Very bad people tend to want to take everything and give little or nothing in return.

I wonder where most people would believe gambling exists in this scale between good and bad.

The UK Government has decreed that Local Authorities, when they are licensing local gambling organisations, cannot take into account issues of morality.

But, surely the greatest question of morality is the degree of hurt brought about by a person or their organisation's actions.

How can the UK Government not be concerned with people getting hurt?

Could it be that those who may have decided against the existence of any God or Gods are therefore assuming that morality doesn't exist either and can be ignored?

Perhaps, ultimately, it is all a question of baby and bathwater.

Bye for now

Rob

(online author who firmly believes gambling hurts people)

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

The privacy of our visitors to gamblinggoodorevil.blogspot.com is important to us. At gamblinggoodorevil.blogspot.com, we recognize that privacy of your personal information is important. Here is information on what types of personal information we receive and collect when you use visit gamblinggoodorevil.blogspot.com, and how we safeguard your information. We never sell your personal information to third parties.

Log Files

As with most other websites, we collect and use the data contained in log files. The information in the log files include your IP (internet protocol) address, your ISP (internet service provider, such as AOL), the browser you used to visit our site (such as Internet Explorer or Firefox), the time you visited our site and which pages you visited throughout our site.

Cookies and Web Beacons

We do use cookies to store information, such as your personal preferences when you visit our site. This could include only showing you a popup once in your visit, or the ability to login to some of our features, such as forums.

We also use third party advertisements on gamblinggoodorevil.blogspot.com to support our site. Some of these advertisers may use technology such as cookies and web beacons when they advertise on our site, which will also send these advertisers (such as Google through the Google AdSense program) information including your IP address, your ISP , the browser you used to visit our site, and in some cases, whether you have Flash installed. This is generally used for geotargeting purposes (showing Cavite real estate ads to someone in Philippines, for example) or showing certain ads based on specific sites visited (such as showing cooking ads to someone who frequents cooking sites).

You can chose to disable or selectively turn off our cookies or third-party cookies in your browser settings, or by managing preferences in programs such as Norton Internet Security. However, this can affect how you are able to interact with our site as well as other websites. This could include the inability to login to services or programs, such as logging into forums or accounts.

UK Super Casinos held up by House of Lords revolt

At last some common sense. Yesterday, 28th March 2007, the House of Lords kicked out the recommendations for the new batch of casinos and super casinos that are being promoted so heavily by the UK Labour Government through their Gambling Act 2005.

Unfortunately, it will probably only mean a delay until after the Local Government Elections in May 2007 before the Government has another attempt at getting them through.

It seems that the House of Lord's motivations for kicking out the recommendations were quite diverse. Some, in the opposition, just wanted to bloody the nose of the Government. Others were batting for their particular area, being associated with Blackpool instead of Manchester. Whilst others, who just don't like the idea of more gambling and see it as harmful, took the opportunity of sticking an oar in the works.

Personally, I have grave reservations when I see an unelected body of, mainly extremely elderly people, preventing the will of the elected body of the House of Commons. My vote would be for their abolition as soon as is possible. However, it is hard to keep this conviction when I see them protecting the British people from an industry that will ultimately be more harmful to many as a result of the implementation of the Gambling Act 2005.

I have to say that it was particularly unedifying to see Rt Hon Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, posing as a croupier on a roulette table today on the television news. I hope one day she will feel ashamed of that particular bit of public relations for gambling, but I won't be holding my breath.

One person from the Lords, I think it was Baroness Kennedy, said on the radio this morning that she had visited areas in the USA where super casinos were located and had seen evidence of deprivation and crime associated with these casinos.

When Britain gets it's super casinos and other casinos and we begin to see evidence of associated deprivation and crime, I wonder how many of the Members of Parliament who voted to liberalise gambling and for the super casinos will be brave enough to stand up and carry the can.

The evidence of how gambling impacts decent ordinary people is out there. The Members of Parliament in the House of Commons should take this opportunity to rethink their support for this bad legislation and find some way of reversing it.

Bye for now

Rob

(Rob Hopcott - online author who believes gambling hurts people and should not be promoted by Governments)

News from Rob Hopcott

.

Truth is the ultimate weapon but are Governments gambling with it?

Funnily enough, speaking the truth clearly and loudly is a simple and powerful solution to limiting much of the harm caused by gambling and other addictions, including those described by Eliezer Yudkowsky in Superstimuli and the Collapse of Western Civilization.

'It could be you' isn't a lie but a better truth would be 'It probably won't be you'. The whole truth is that gamblers don't win, over a series of transactions, and gambling organizations should state this truth to their customers, not the one they prefer, which only focuses on winning.

'Delicious' is not the whole truth 'Delicious but fattening with little food value' gives a much more truthful and balanced view on the side of a candy bar.

'Exciting and addictive' when applied to advertising online war games should really be 'Exciting and addictive virtual entertainment best enjoyed as a complement to a full and active real world life'. Perhaps this whole truth might help avoid people skipping meals to enable them to keep playing and then dying of starvation, as mentioned by Eliezer Yudkowsky in his article above.

Either we believe that we have an obligation to speak the truth in our society or we condone half truths and plain lies.

But why speak the truth? Is a society that seeks truth more likely to survive and thrive than one that fibs?

The answer seems obvious. Surely common sense suggests that the outcomes of people's actions arising from a belief that is wholly true are more likely to be sensible and beneficial than decisions made on half truths?

'I can win back the money I've lost' is a half truth which should be expanded to 'but I probably won't'. Let's make this clear on the front of gaming machines and tell the whole story.

A society who have a philosophy that believes praying to a Sun god will solve all it's problems is less likely to come up with a sensible agricultural solution which will prevent millions starving.

A society that wrongly believes the other side has nuclear weapons is more likely to make a preemptive attack and kill a lot of ordinary people than one that has worked to find out the truth and is therefore able to seek out other more time consuming options.

The truth is that many laws do not solve the problem for which they are enacted, they simply get Governments off the hook.

Prisons don't work, proved by the re offending rate, social rehabilitation does. People with great lives don't need to steal or kill people. The truth is that, if people have lousy lives, some of them will kick back. Let's help people sort out their lives and save much of the cost of running the prisons. Unfortunately, it takes a lot more effort to help people sort out their lives than to build more prisons and Governments, with little commitment to truth but a big interest in holding power, seem to prefer the easy lie.

In the UK, the Government has thrown it's weight behind increasing temptation to punters with the Gambling Act 2005 which makes gambling more accessible, including online gambling.

If the UK Government truly wanted to make our society better, they could have been more truthful about the measures needed to manage the dangers to all gamblers, not merely the few who are 'vulnerable', arising from their liberalization of the gambling regulations.

This would have required the true nature of each gambling transaction to be clearly stated at the point of gamble.

By focusing on the particularly vulnerable, and introducing a few sticking plaster measures to protect them, the UK Government is telling a half truth. Yes children and addicts are particularly vulnerable but the truth is that each transaction has the capability of hurting any gambler that takes part.

Arguably, our ethics come from a desire to create a society that is better for all of us and therefore better for each of us?

Surely it is common sense that running a society on half truths and lies must hurt people in our society and ultimately mean that we are hurting ourselves.

Truth may be the ultimate weapon but are the Government and ordinary people willing to commit to telling it?

If we don't, all our lives will be the poorer.

Bye for now

Rob Hopcott - online author who believes truth matters

Now it's official! Britain aims to become world leader in field of online gambling under Labour! But who will be the winners and the losers?

According to the Sunday Times Business section (Oct 8th 2006), the UK government's wish to take the lead in the online gambling sector is spelt out in a briefing note obtained under the Freedom of Information Act which says:

"It is government-wide policy, and that includes HMT [Her Majesty's Treasury], that Britain should become a world leader in the field of online gambling, in order to provide our citizens with the opportunity to gambling [sic] in a safe, well-regulated environment."

Incomprehensibly, it seems, Prime Minister Tony Blair and his government don't seem to understand the fundamental gambling concept of 'winners' and 'losers'?

Yet the logic behind organised gambling is relatively simple. It goes like this. The public hand money over to the gambling operators or 'winners' and over a period of time, usually quite short, the public receive back less or none so the public are the 'losers'.

To claim that the fundamental nature of this transaction can be made 'safe' is, arguably, the same as saying that smoking can be made 'safe' for your health.

The simple fact is that a gambling transaction is not the same as a normal fair trading transaction. In a normal trading transaction one party exchanges something of value with another party for an agreed sum of money. The outcome is agreed and clear.

However, in a gambling transaction between a gambling organisation and a member of the public, money is handed over by the public and, over a number of transactions, less is received back or nothing at all. In this case, the outcome of receiving back less money is fundamentally not what the member of the public hopes for and expects (however irrationally).

In a proper trading environment, regulations exist to ensure that the description of the service or goods being traded are accurate and the nature of the transaction is not misrepresented to help the customer make a rational decision.

Investors are therefore told that the value of investments they are considering may go up or down.

What then is the belief of a member of the public when they engage in a gambling transaction with a gambling organisation? Surely the fundamental, underlying representation is that the member of the public can actually come out ahead. It is the belief that, over a number of transactions, they can actually win. Yet the gambling 'odds' are set so that over a number of transactions, the member of the public will lose.

Just as with cigarettes, Joe Public may get away with one or two smokes but the cigarettes will get him in the end and his health will be damaged until he stops.

However, gambling does not need to be banned. To do so would make matters worse as was proved during early 20th century attempts at prohibition.

All that is needed is to make it a legal requirement for the nature of the gambling transaction to be crystal clear immediately prior to the gambling transaction taking place.

The gambling operator knows the odds and so should the public at the point of decision.

Gambling transactions should, by law, carry a similar warning to cigarettes that makes the transaction outcome, as one of a number of transactions, crystal clear.

Try putting the following on real world or online gambling tables and slot machines, for starters:

'Odds have been mathematically calculated to ensure that, over a number of transactions, you will LOSE your money.'

No doubt, some amongst the general public will nevertheless still hand over their money to gambling organisations just as others buy cigarettes despite current extremely explicit health warnings.

The social costs of gambling for those that become addicted and their families are well documented.

Apart from the belief that anybody can 'make a quick buck', which surely will only act to blight our society, it appears Britain will gain little from this Labour government sponsored increase in gambling.

It is time for Prime Minister Tony Blair and his supporting Members of Parliament (MPs) to remember their social conciences and act quickly to mitigate the effect of the gambling policy described in the briefing note above by requiring accurate and informational warnings at every point of gambling transaction.




Post this article to . . . Reddit Digg del.icio.us






Related topics:

gambling uk

Prime Minister

England, UK, united kingdom, Great Britain, Wales

gambling, Gambling Act 2005, legislation, legal system, gambling policy, Gambling Act, gambling laws, laws, Members of Parliament, MPs, MP
.
.

My online contribution to the West Somerset District Council under the Draft Statement of Gambling Policy Consultation

Below I have placed the contribution I made online relating to the West Somerset District Council consultation on the Draft Statement of Gambling Policy at http://www.westsomersetsays.com/

I am strongly opposed to the liberalisation of the gambling laws under the Gambling Act 2005.

I believe that the West Somerset District Council should use the Statement of Licensing Policy to restrict gambling locally in any way that can be legally identified.

Gambling is like cigarettes. Cigarettes are legal but everybody knows that they do people harm. Gambling is legal but, because it does harm in every gambling transaction to one of the parties, responsible effort should be directed towards restricting the harm gambling does.

A gambling transaction is not like a normal economic transaction where both parties make an acceptable exchange.

Each gamble produces a winner and a loser. Somebody gains and somebody is hurt. Normally the loser is the ordinary member of the public and the winner is the gambling organisation.

The British Gambling Prevalence Study published in 2000 calculated that 0.6% of adults in the UK are problem gamblers. But, according to Gamcare which is an organization that addresses gambling problems in the United Kingdom, for each problem gambler 15 others are affected.

I must emphasise that I have no religious faith and am not 'a problem gambler'.

My view is simply based on the amount of hurt that will be done to the people in the West Somerset area by the increase in gambling which is expected to occur as a result of the Gambling Act 2005. I do not like people to be hurt.

PROPOSAL:

I propose that the Statement of Licensing Policy should contain a requirement for each gambling establishment to display a 'health warning education notice' at the gambling point similar to the one displayed on cigarette packets.

The statement should clearly educate the user of the gambling establishment that the odds are always constructed so they will, on average, lose their money.

For example, there should be a sticker prominantly displayed on each 'fruit machine' that for every £1 put into the machine, on average, only, say, £0.60 will be returned.

According to 5.1 of Guidance to Licensing Authorities:

The licensing objectives are:

* preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime;
* ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way; and
* protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

I strongly consider that the 'health warning education notice' is required to satisfy the requirement of 'protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling'.


FURTHER ACTION:

I regret very much the method of consultation on this issue. It allows for no form of dialogue or discussion between participants in the consultation or between the Authority and participants.

I would very much prefer the dialogue and debate of an online discussion board.

On pressing the submit button, the online consultation system gave no assurance my consultation had been received but fortunately I had made a screen copy of the details I had entered which I then sent to the West Somerset District Council by email with the following message

I have completed the online form for the consultation on Gambling but on pressing the submit button was merely given the same screen without the details I had filled in.

I was not given any message that the details had been recorded and so far have not received any email to say my consultation has been received.

I have spent a considerable amount of time researching this important issue and do not wish my time to be wasted so I would ask you to accept my submission below

Subsequent Good News. The West Somerset District Council emailed me the next working day to say that there had been a glitch with the online system which was now being dealt with and thanking me for my submission. I appreciate them getting back to me - as they say, 'it's good to talk!'

Letter about Gambling Act 2005 to my MP

I have still not received any reply from the Member of Parliament for Bridgwater relating to the letter I sent to him requesting his assistance and advice on this matter (see post below).

However, I believe this matter is so serious that I must proceed with submitting my contribution to the consultation without any further delay.

If the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bridgwater replies to my letter, I will record it here.

Additional note 22 Jan 2007:

The Member of Parliament for Bridgwater still hasn't replied to my letter. In my opinion, he should not be an MP. I believe it is rude not to reply to letters that have taken considerable time to draft. He is a Conservative. Thank goodness the Conservative Party are not in power. They did enough damage when they were in power in the 1990s by destroying the UK economy. I would rather my web sites emphasized the positive rather than the negative so I will say no more about him.


Related topics:

gambling uk

gambling, gaming, lottery, lotteries, raffles, raffle, bingo, games, game, chance, sweepstakes, England, UK, united kingdom, Gambling Act 2005, Licensing Authority, Licensing Policy, Local Authorities, Statement of Licensing Policy, legislation, legal system, District Council, liberal, state intervention, government consultation, local government consultation, local government consultations, local government, government, uk gambling commission, gambling commission, gambling policy, councils, Great Britain, beliefs, religious, ethical, moral, gambling facilities, Gambling Act, gambling laws, local authorities, licensing, moral objections, licensing objectives, casino, crime, disorder, protecting children, vulnerable persons, England, Wales, laws, regeneration, Backbench, Members of Parliament, MPs, MP, Westminster, psychologists, councillors, district councillors
.
.

Gambling hurts people - please support my letter to my UK Member of Parliament

I have just sent this letter to my MP because recently there has been a significant increase in gambling advertisements on the UK television which I believe will lead to more people gambling and more people being hurt.

The UK government has just liberalised gambling legislation under the Gambling Act 2005 and there is no doubt that this will lead to an even greater increase in gambling in the months and years to come.

If you care about stopping bad legislation that hurts people, please support my letter by bookmarking it.

If you care and are also a UK citizen, please write to your local Member of Parliament asking for an immediate review of this bad legislation.

My letter is as follows. I have removed the name of the MP for the moment. If he doesn't reply in two weeks, I will make his name public.

Dear My MP,

Re: Gambling Act 2005

Please tell me what can be done to stop the unpleasant and harmful increase in gambling advertising on television. It will lead to more gambling and gambling hurts people - always.

I presume this is as a result of the liberalisation of the gambling law under the Gambling Act 2005

The local government consultation, in which I am participating, seems to give each Local Authority little scope for restricting gambling locally. Ethical or religious considerations are expressly excluded as valid grounds for objection.

I am repulsed by gambling on ethical grounds because it hurts people. I have no religious beliefs.

From my researches I see, in the UK, something like 85% of the people gamble, including the national lottery, or about 50% excluding the national lottery. I accept that I may have a minority view but most people used to smoke until common sense and government intervention reduced this harmful activity.

I must stress that I have no personal problem with gambling. I never have gambled and I never will.

But then I've never murdered anybody or hit anybody in the face

Gambling always involves a loser and a winner. The winner wins and the loser gets hurt. A normal economic exchange doesn't work like that as participants both benefit from the exchange.

Gambling panders to the 'get rich easy' temptation we all have. The psychologists say that self actualisation is the fastest way to true happiness ie. we work hard and then achieve the goals we set ourselves. Even winners in gambling get little satisfaction because all they have done is roll a dice and got lucky, there is therefore no feeling of achievement, just the urge to spend the winnings on winning more which usually means they lose in the end.

It's really only the cold hearted offshore companies that are the winners.


I strongly believe that Parliament has passed a very bad law in the Gambling Act 2005 and I feel very let down by my Parliamentary representation.

Please advise me:

(1) What I can effectively do about it

(2) What you can do about it

(3) Whether there are public campaigns that are taking place (other than religious) where I can participate in an active resistance to this unpleasant and harmful gambling legislation.

Thank you for your time

Yours sincerely,

My signature

I have to confess that it is a scary thing to stand up against the the enormously powerful gambling lobby that has so persuaded the UK Parliament

Please help by supporting me. Thanks :-)


To write to your local Member of Parliament - click here (UK citizens)


Related topics:

gambling, gaming, lottery, lotteries, raffles, raffle, bingo, games, game, chance, sweepstakes, England, UK, united kingdom, Gambling Act 2005, Licensing Authority, Licensing Policy, Local Authorities, Statement of Licensing Policy, legislation, legal system, District Council, liberal, state intervention, government consultation, local government consultation, local government consultations, local government, government, uk gambling commission, gambling commission, gambling policy, councils, Great Britain, beliefs, religious, ethical, moral, gambling facilities, Gambling Act, gambling laws, local authorities, licensing, moral objections, licensing objectives, casino, crime, disorder, protecting children, vulnerable persons, England, Wales, laws, regeneration, Backbench, Members of Parliament, MPs, MP, Westminster, psychologists, councillors, district councillors
.
.

Religion, Morality and Ethics are Irrelevant under UK Government's New Gambling Guidelines for Local Authorities

Guidelines have now been issued by the new Gambling Commission to local Councils in Great Britain in their role as licensing authorities to expressly exclude beliefs, religious, ethical or moral, as a ground for objecting to the licensing of local gambling facilities under the new Gambling Act 2005.

The stage may now be set for this controversial legislation to receive renewed opposition from ordinary people who will be directly affected by the liberalisation of the gambling laws of Great Britain and who are now being invited to participate in consultation over the 'Statement of Licensing Policy' required to be produced by all licensing authorities by 31st January 2007.

These guidelines are available in the document 'Download Guidance to Licensing Authorities.pdf' which is available from http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/

In 5.27 the guidance states:

'Local authorities should be aware that moral objections to gambling are not a valid reason to reject applications for premises licenses. This is because such objections do not relate to the licensing objectives. An authority's decision cannot be based on a dislike of gambling, or a general notion that it is undesirable to allow gambling premises in an area (with the exception of the casino resolution powers). In deciding to reject an application, a licensing authority should rely on reasons that demonstrate that the licensing objectives are not being, or are unlikely to be met.'

According to 5.1 of the same document:

The licensing objectives are:

• preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime;
• ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way; and
  
• protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

But is this a step too far? Are the general public of England and Wales ready to accept laws that take no account of local opinion and moral beliefs?

Local government authorities seem untroubled by any possible moral objections and are already lining up to apply for casinos in their areas, perhaps because they see it as an opportunity to negotiate regeneration funding. It is therefore likely that they will be equally relaxed about licensing gambling generally.

Backbench members of Parliament seem to be more sensitive to possible public aversion as they strongly opposed many aspects of the original Bill which was only passed through following extensive modifications and reassurances. Limitations won included the number of large casinos being drastically curtailed, at least in the short term. But the liberal essence of the Bill remained the same.

The British Gambling Prevalence Study published in 2000 calculated that 0.6% of adults in the UK are problem gamblers. But, according to Gamcare which is an organization that addresses gambling problems in the United Kingdom, for each problem gambler 15 others are affected. Every time a gamble is executed, there is a winner and a loser. Somebody gains and somebody is hurt. Normally the loser is the ordinary member of the public and the winner is the gambling organisation.

Liberalisation of gambling in the UK quite simply means more gambling therefore more problem gamblers and, in consequence, a whole load more of close family and friends who suffer too.

The industry naturally encourages punters to think about huge jackpots. 'It could be you!' But only a small percentage of players can ever be winners. The chances of a substantial kill, whether at horse racing, the lottery or dice table, are very small. Lightening is more likely to strike you than for you to win a big one! Simple arithmetic proves this: the industry systematically works on the basis of the greater the potential payoff, the smaller the odds of winning.

Psychologists argue that true happiness comes from a sense of personal fulfillment from achieving challenging objectives. What satisfaction can there be from obtaining something merely from the roll of a dice?

Judging from declined attendances in churches, formal religion is attractive to few people in the UK.

But could it be that our morality never really came from religion but instead has been developed by evolution as a means of fostering the growth and security of our species through avoiding activities harmful to our community.

Could it be that many of us instinctively believe that gambling is simply a bad thing and that gambling brings very few winners and even the winners gain little in the way of permanent benefit. Perhaps we genuinely feel gambling creates many many losers with 'problem gamblers' only being the tip of an ice-berg of harm and that the reality is that many other losers are also counting a significant cost.

It is true that many people gamble in the UK in many different ways and that the numbers have greatly increased as a result of the Government initiated National Lottery. But many people take drugs too and the harm to them is more than adequately documented. Just because a lot of people do something doesn't necessarily make it a good thing.

In the rarefied atmosphere of Westminster perhaps activities that hurt people are not seen as immoral.

Over the next few months, during which local government councils will be consulting on their Statement of Licensing Policy, it will be interesting to see if any genuine public debate is visible amongst the district councillors and also whether the ordinary public can effectively make their voice heard.

The sad thing is that local authorities probably already have their hands tied by the guidance from the Gambling Commission. Furthermore, the councillors, already seduced by promises of regeneration money from allowing a growth in local gambling, know that the old fashioned system of government consultation in the UK means that dissenting voices from the public can safely be ignored which is probably what will happen.

Sadly, consultation with the public over the Statement of Licensing Policy is likely to lead to little change and Britain will be the poorer for it.

Ordinary people who feel this outcome is unacceptable must act now. If they feel the law of England and Wales should be about more than just the weighing up of alternative financial outcomes, they must give their views in writing to their local government authority and participate in the consultation process before it is too late.

Related topics:

gambling, gaming, lottery, lotteries, raffles, raffle, bingo, games, game, chance, sweepstakes, England, UK, united kingdom, Gambling Act 2005, Licensing Authority, Licensing Policy, Local Authorities, Statement of Licensing Policy, legislation, legal system, District Council, liberal, state intervention, government consultation, local government consultation, local government consultations, local government, government, uk gambling commission, gambling commission, gambling policy, councils, Great Britain, beliefs, religious, ethical, moral, gambling facilities, Gambling Act, gambling laws, local authorities, licensing, moral objections, licensing objectives, casino, crime, disorder, protecting children, vulnerable persons, England, Wales, laws, regeneration, Backbench, Members of Parliament, MPs, MP, Westminster, psychologists, councillors, district councillors
.
.

Why Gamble

If the definition of gambling involves handing hard earned money over to somebody else in the expectation that less or none will be handed back but in the hope that more will be handed over, why on earth would anybody want to do this thing?

And lots of people gamble. According to the Gambling Commission,

The latest British gambling Prevalence Study, published in 2000, suggested that almost three quarters (72%) of the population took part in some sort of gambling activity within the past year. Excluding the National Lottery 46% of people participated in gambling activities.

And it has been going on for a long time. People rolled dice in 'Ancient Times' and even The Bible mentions the casting of the lots.

Gamcare suggest that the reasons why people gamble (apart from the unlikely hope of winning more than their 'stake') includes

• the adrenalin rush of risk taking
• escapism to a glitzy world that 'stimulate and arouse our senses'.
• advertised as 'sexy', 'glamorous' or 'fashionable'
• provides 'social' benefits as is widely participated in

My humble addition to this would be that many people seem to believe that they can 'beat the system'. Here's an example advertisement taken at random from a search engine:

Proven gambling systems and roulette strategy the casinos don't want you to know. Tips to beat the casino on your next betting trip. Guaranteed.

Too good to be true? The gambling industry has a turnover over £42 billion per year - over £115 million a day according to GamCare. My guess is that the gambling industry really does know what they are doing and that automatically means the punters don't.

Here I feel I must add my own personal bit of gambling evidence. A close relative of mine gambled away a considerable amount of equity and eventually his house on horse racing and other gambling and my mother (now deceased) sent thousands or pounds to direct mail operators who unsolicited said she had won £1,000,000 or some other large sum and all she had to do was send some money to collect her winnings.

I and the rest of my family put enormous effort into trying to persuade these close relatives against these activities - all to no avail.

Both these people had successful lives in other ways and were manifestly not unintelligent people. Why then did they succumb so heavily to these illogical risks that led them to lose so much?

Related Links:

Why Gamble, gambling
.
.

Definition of Gambling

People instinctively seem to have a view on gambling - for or against. But what exactly do we mean by gambling.

GamCare, a registered charity, has become the leading authority on the provision of information, advice and practical help in addressing the social impact of gambling. Their definition includes the following:

the activity involves two or more persons
the outcome involves a chance element
it involves money or value that is paid from the loser to the winner
it is a voluntary activity

Here is my humble definition:

Gambling is an activity whereby one person passes money or other value to another person in the hope of receiving back a greater amount of money or value than that 'staked' but in the rational expectation, over a period of time, of receiving back less.

Related Links:

Definition of Gambling, Gambling Definition
.
.

Gambling - research into social benefits or harm from gambling, gaming, lotteries, games of chance and the UK Gambling Act 2005

This blog is about gambling, gaming, lotteries, raffles, sweepstakes and any other games of chance where money exchanges hands.

Across the UK, in preparation for becoming a Licensing Authority under the Gambling Act 2005, Local Councils are obliged to prepare and publish a "Statement of Licensing Policy" by 31st January 2007. Draft versions of this policy are currently available for consultation and views on it are being welcomed.

When I was asked to submit my views to my Local District Council, I reviewed my position and found that the whole issue of gambling in England and the United Kingdom is a highly complex one.

I therefore decided to carry out some research to identify whether my long held instincts that gambling is a bad thing are justified by reasonable arguments.

I hope that my researches and analysis are useful to others who are similarly trying to resolve the question of whether gambling is a force for good or evil that should be supported or curtailed.

Because I have no religious beliefs, all argument will seek to look at the practical benefits or harm caused to people by these activities.

Also my views are generally liberal so I prefer as little State interference in human liberty that is compatible with preventing harm to individuals in our society.

Lastly, I am resident in the United Kingdom and, although reference may be made to evidence from other countries or jurisdictions, my remarks will be made in the context of the English legal system.

Related links:

gambling, gaming, lottery, lotteries, raffles, raffle, bingo, games, game, chance, sweepstakes, England, UK, united kingdom, Gambling Act 2005, Licensing Authority, Licensing Policy, Local Authorities, Statement of Licensing Policy, legislation, legal system, District Council, liberal, state intervention, government consultation, local government consultation, local government consultations, local government, government