LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Originally Posted by LaHutti
The argument is really about whether an adult is an adult PERIOD, or whether there are certain categories of legal adult that must be treated as legal minors for their own good. CWC consider that young adult students, although legally adult, MUST be protected from their own youthful urges and prevented from digging themselves into a hole by gambling when they have no means of independent support, such as a job. This is the argument presented previously to justify this term, and it's strict enforcement no matter how unpopular.
In law, there ARE categories of adults (over the age of majority) that are granted legal protection. These include those classed as having "learning difficulties", and thus unable to manage their own affairs without help. It also includes the elderly suffering from such degenerative diseases as dementia. Courts grant a power of attourney to someone to manage the affairs of these people, and this can be done against their will. The ONKY difference is that CWC are a private business, and have taken it upon themselves to enforce such protection against one class of adult it believes to be particularly vulnerable to the pitfalls of easy access to gambling products online, which could cause them to be forced out of their studies through losing more than they can afford when they are too young to realise the damage done to their life prospects. Governments also impose regulations designed to protect certain groups of adults, and again this is done against their will.
One argument is whether this right to "nanny" should extend to private business, or be the preserve of elected governments. The only real way to settle this is for a specimen case to go before a court, where the legal arguments can be examined.
There are many anti-discrimination laws that make it illegal to "protect" certain groups, such as women, minority races, religion, gender, and more recently age. I am not aware of any such laws prohibiting discrimination on other grounds, such as occupation, income, etc. In fact, if they had a rule prohibiting over 70's from playing, they WOULD be in a heap of trouble from the UK and EU. The ONLY permitted age discrimination allowed is when it is directed at excluding minors from accessing a product intended for adults.
In terms of intent, a "high school" student gambling is WORSE than a university student gambling, as "high school" is part of the routine education that ALL children are expected to pass through on the way to adulthood, whereas university or equivalent is a choice made by a student to study further, or enter the jobs market right away.
The change to 18 as the age of majority has lead to some of these problems. It used to be 21 in recognition of the feeling that 18 was too young to take on the full responsibilties of adulthood. Social progress lead to it being dropped to 18 in many countries, but there are states in the US where it is STILL set at 21.
Recently, the UK has started moving things the other way. The legal age for buying tobacco used to be 16, but was recently raised to 18. There are also moves to require full time study in "school" to be extended to the age of 18, rather than having the option to leave at 16 and try to get work.
There are those that want some things to go back to being restricted to age 21 or over, although the businesses that make money from such services are going to resist.
Had the minimum age for gambling remained at 21, the vast majority of university students would be under age anyway, as most courses are for 3 years, and cover the ages 18 to 21.
Specifically stating "university or college" rather than leaving it as "full time student" has only allowed these arguments over whether a particular establishment is covered by the term, rather than focussing on the "full time" aspect of the studies which leaves little time to earn a living wage to fully support oneself.
CWC ignored earlier advice to simplify the term by removing this extra information, making it a very simple "no full time students under 25 years of age", regardless of the name or structure of the institution in which the studies were undertaken. After all, the aim is to stop students from gambling away their study allowance, not have them argue over whether they can dodge the rule because of the way their studies are structured.
In many ways, this is a rule that can only be enforced by consent, as the only way they can prove someone is a student is to get them to admit it. As this player failed to read the terms, they walked right into this mess by answering "yes" when asked if they were a student. Had they said "no", there is no way CWC could have proven otherwise without access to enrollment records of all institutions in the country. A student would simply use standard documents such as a passport, rather than send in their student ID card.
The previous student was only caught because they volunteered their student ID card as their photo ID, which alerted the casino to the fact they were a student. Having sent this card in, it was too late to backtrack and claim not to be a student any longer, and it didn't work.
I bet there are many students playing at CWC, but they have not been caught because they have read the terms, and have made sure CWC don't get hold of the wrong documents such as a student ID card. It would take a great deal of costly investigation for CWC to check up on every player between the ages of 18 to 25 in order to catch out those who are students. If they put EVERY such player through such detailed investigation, it will drive them away student or not, as they will feel the "hoops" they are being asked to jump through are ridiculous.
Bookmarks