Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
bet365 & Labour
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
This would play to both camps... the general public who want rid of the FOBTs, and the online gaming sponsors of the Party.
I see your point John, but is this not quite cynical?
I continue to believe that Mr Milliband's proposal about FOBT's is the best thing he's said all year.
However, the recently revealed bet365 connection, calls into question the motives. It appears that, in effect, Mr Milliband favours one part of the gambling industry, over another part of the industry.
Tackling FOBTs (that I would welcome) would impact the business of a [High Street] competitor of a big party funds donor [exclusively, a giant on-line operation].
Is it moral to favour a gambling operation that may be slightly less socially damaging, over a gambling operation that is more socially damaging?
-
Permalink Reply by Finsbury Park Ranger on
-
What's the proposed policy ? the devil is in the detail, a reduction of the minimum spend by 80% still wouldn't affect most gamblers as most don't gamble more than £20 a minute. This would also have the perverse effect of protecting the rich gamblers and not the poor.
An 80% reduction of shops without casino machines would however make quite a considerable difference but would batter the tax made from the industry and therefore would be a no go I imagine because it would actually make a difference.
ID card systems in all shops to allow customers to self ban themselves ( and protect 16 a 17 year olds) would be hugely effective but again, effect the tax too much so I imagine another no go ?
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
Will you please consider not linking to Daily Mail articles?
There has been a lot of grief caused by the type of journalism they produce. They will only continue if they are popular. The only way to send a message of disapproval is to try to hit them where it hurts - their profits.
Liverpool's disgust at the Sun has had an effect on that newspaper.
So, unless you support the Daily Mail, find other sources to cite if possible please.
-
-
>>There ought not to be any more stigma attached to Daily Mail links than to any other mainstream media outlet.
What about page 3?
-
-
I think the Daily Mail had the equivalent of the Sun's page 3, along with the other 'red tops'. The 'broadsheets' don't have page 3s. Do you still claim that all the mainstream media outlets are the same? There's a scale here - the DM degrades women more than some other newspapers - avoid newspapers that degrade women.
You seem to think that, because we know what bias each newspaper has, we can get the news from reading any one of them, as, filters applied, they all deliver the key facts. It's like saying that you can ignore sexism if it comes from a known sexist. It's still crap.
I am saying that the Daily Mail bias does us harm - it is their choice of stories, what they do to get them and the way they present them that causes more problems than it solves. If we don't like the Daily Mail and do nothing, we only have ourselves to blame.
People who cite Daily Mail articles, implicitly endorse the Daily Mail and it's bias and I'm asking them not to.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Instant Godwin -
Hitler wanted to stop us reading material that he didn't approve of
-
-
Indeed. A stopped watch does tell the right time twice a day. Always best to play the ball, not the man.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Read the article and came to what really is the only conclusion - boycott Emmerdale.
-
-
THE Mail puts its own spin on things of course, but I too thought the article to be informative.
Not only as questioning the motives for the new gambling policy and as an historical background for one of the last government's biggest mistakes—their Gambling Act.
The article also serves as a useful background to the behaviour of the DCMS Parliamentary Select Committee on gambling, which has been under pressure (from high street operators) incredibly, to slacken further the laws on gambling, in order better to compete with the free-range on-line operators (i.e. bet365 and its ilk).
This (craven) Committee of MPs suggested that consideration be given to allowing an increase of the number of FOBTs per shop, as a means of reducing the proliferation of betting shop premises.It could take a generation to undo the damage caused by the Gambling Act 2005.
-
-
Fixed odds betting terminals. Machines where you decide how much to stake and then press the button. Sort of electronic roulette.
-
-
With you on that one!
-
-
Good morning TBD and a happy new year!
To Michael's definition, I would add that FOBT's have been described as gambling's crack cocaine and that they make up roughly half of betting shops' total profits.
It'll be a long time before any party's efforts to fix the Gambling Act bear fruit on the Green Lanes gambling strip.
Meanwhile, Mr Milliband's new gambling policy could be regarded as a (positive) contribution to the debate, rather than as a genuine plan to rectify problems.
IMO, The Mail is perhaps more entitled than the Conservative Party, to make the charge (as they have) of "hypocritical" about the new policy. After all – and to their credit – The Mail campaigned against the slackening of the laws on betting shops whereas, when in Opposition, the Conservatives supported the enactment of the previous government's flawed Bill.
I think the new policy is a step in the right direction. However, it surely comes with caveats. Any talk about giving councils "more power" (to curb the slick of betting shops) is foolish, shows unfamiliarity with the Act and does not deal with the source of the problem.
Council Licensing Committees have long been at liberty to reject gambling premises Applications. They are then also equally free to defend the inevitable Appeals against any such decisions.
Our own Council has several times tried to do the right thing.
The only difficulty is that Courts have to abide by the betting industry's trump card: the Gambling Act. The industry wins each time.
Without deep reform of the heart of this Act, any adding of little bits of law would be no more than idle tinkering. The (national) Labour Party need to face up fully and squarely to what they wrought with their Act. Followed by the rest of the body politic.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
