Announcement from the GRA concerning Hilo and ReelDeal games

[Richas]

No I can't. I'm not upset or disappointed so to speak, it's just one less tool with which to try for a solution. I quite understand why readers may have chosen not to sign.

I don't think that is the issue. Remote gamblers are a remarkably diverse group and also a small minority. The firms spend fortunes on marketing and advertising to contact us and get us to do things. They give up huge proportions of their revenues to affiliates who try to get remote gamblers to do what they do, gamble online. The sites offer bonuses and incentives all to do the core thing that unites the group remote gamblers.

Trying to get such a group to do something else, without incentive, without thrill....sign a petition.... requires two steps, first getting the information that it exists to them and then motivating a signature. Given the time since inception and how few know of its existence the small number is no shock.

Meanwhile those that matter will see the awful response. The UKGC, their legal team and those GRA licenced sites considering wasting half a million in legal fees to defend the GRA as equivalent or better protectors of consumers than the UKGC will see the statements. It is at that senior level a small incestuous world, you could probably find all their email addresses and make sure they see the statement with a brief commentary about how it destroys GRA credibility.

Frankly once the statement was released we did not really need to win some populist campaign, the GRA had already done itself irrevocable harm.

 

[Jasminebed]

ThePogg: first pass through this thread, I didn't really have time to go and read and sign the petition. Tonight, I began to read their privacy policy, and haven't even tackled the site's Terms of Service.

Yeah, there are those of us who read software licencing agreements first too.

I've never provided false data to a casino, and I know I wouldn't be all that difficult to figure out for more than a few people. Some here I do know.

It's late, I'll revisit it tomorrow when I have a little more time.

For those of us who wish to retain some internet privacy, maybe a form letter we could print and mail? Signed with my real name of course (and I can give Mr. Brear my dead mother's gravesite number, in case he'd like to have a seance and ask her opinion too).

Whether incorrect pay tables were by design or oversight isn't even completely relevant, the casino should not be allowed to profit from misinforming players.

To say I'm disappointed in the statement from the GRA is being gracious.

 

[binshakindown]

I don't think that is the issue. Remote gamblers are a remarkably diverse group and also a small minority. The firms spend fortunes on marketing and advertising to contact us and get us to do things. They give up huge proportions of their revenues to affiliates who try to get remote gamblers to do what they do, gamble online. The sites offer bonuses and incentives all to do the core thing that unites the group remote gamblers.

Trying to get such a group to do something else, without incentive, without thrill....sign a petition.... requires two steps, first getting the information that it exists to them and then motivating a signature. Given the time since inception and how few know of its existence the small number is no shock.

Meanwhile those that matter will see the awful response. The UKGC, their legal team and those GRA licenced sites considering wasting half a million in legal fees to defend the GRA as equivalent or better protectors of consumers than the UKGC will see the statements. It is at that senior level a small incestuous world, you could probably find all their email addresses and make sure they see the statement with a brief commentary about how it destroys GRA credibility.

Frankly once the statement was released we did not really need to win some populist campaign, the GRA had already done itself irrevocable harm.

Couldn't agree more.

I will say that even though I am smart enough to know Phil was not speaking about of me directly, the way he communicated his anguish towards the players who didn't agree with his informal thought processs really offends me. I felt he was saying I was posing as my mother and that I am a scammer, just because I might want to voice my opinion through a petition. Now I am too scared to sign the petition.

But then I realized that Phil is actually very scared himself and that is why he won't post his informal thought process through his own account at Casinomiester. He is kinda hiding behind the Casinomeister and the GRA, and is sort of, but not really representing himself either. He sounds confused, and may need a nap.

 

[jetset]

First off, thanks to Bryan for taking time off from his trip to pursue this further with the head regulator for Gibraltar, and in so doing eliciting at post #61 another shocking example of this man's inability to comprehend the scale and seriousness of the problem; why players are enraged and his apparent inability to communicate in a professional and measured manner that does not exacerbate the issues.

Then I have to agree with Elliot's comments at post #75 - there is evidence here of a profound ignorance of gambling math as well as a grating arrogance and disrespect for the player community in general. This guy just does not seem to get it despite repeated and patient explanations from people who are clearly better informed and experienced in the field than he.

A reasonable and perhaps less self-important man reading this thread would, one would think, be given pause for thought and perhaps consideration of a more thorough review of the problem with people who really understand the technicalities that the GRA has apparently ignored or missed. Unfortunately, with the present attitude displayed by Mr. Brear, that does not appear likely to happen.

I have to agree with Webzcas here, too - this so-called regulator has only exacerbated the situation further with his latest attempt to intimidate and argue his position, and he has further damaged the regulatory authority he is supposed to be leading in a professional and unbiased manner.

If these responses are not the official report, when may we expect the official publication of such a document, and dare we hope that it will be clear, professional and fairly reasoned?

 

[Balthazar]

Good article on the current situation (hope I'm allowed to post the link)

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[mrmark21]

Good article on the current situation (hope I'm allowed to post the link)

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Great find I'd be interested to read more articles concerning this situation.

 

[pokeraddict]

I am the author of that article. I also wrote two of them back in January and contacted the Nevada Gaming Control Board when GTECH applied for an interactive license. I will continue to let the online poker community know about this issue as it unfolds.

 

[mrmark21]

I am the author of that article. I also wrote two of them back in January and contacted the Nevada Gaming Control Board when GTECH applied for an interactive license. I will continue to let the online poker community know about this issue as it unfolds.

Very good I'm glad to see this issue is being spoken about on other places than just on this forum. Means more pressure on the GRA to actually take responsibility

 

[jetset]

Congratulations on both your January 2013 reportage and now this update, John - I hope that players everywhere will post links to these articles, along with one to this thread.

Kudos also for referring the matter to the Nevada regulator.

This issue has definitely not been satisfactorily dealt with by the GRA and needs further airing.

 

[chayton]

I didn't see the link to the petition til just now, it's a little buried in the rest of the thread. I'd suggest maybe starting a new thread with just the gist of the information and the link on the first post so people would be more likely to see it.

 

[MisterBJ]

I am very proud of everyone stance on this. I would like to say thank you to every single one of you. You are taking this issue to heart and not allowing it to be swept under the rug. I am really really proud of you all. I'm really am...

 

[cpdnd31]

After reading this thread multiple times. I sat for 2 days on how I would like to word my response.

Unprofessional is the first word that comes to my mind. Now that being said I like to take a moment and really think of the damage this man has done. See there are legit casinos out there. He has in my opinion tarnished all. Knowingly or not he has.

So many are now thinking well how can we trust this place now or how do we know ? Those are some of the first thoughts. I'm from USA so believe me I understand in the blind faith questions that are now entering some gamblers thoughts.

Blind faith is the only answer to those questions. I guess the sad part is you will never know. Without people like Bryan and Max. Great casinos like 3 Dice and 32 red (I do not play there but many friends I have made online do and can never speak enough of 32 Reds integrity). awesome affiliates that look out for their customer base, that's all we/you really have. Will it be enough I don't know- Blind faith my friends is all I can say.

If I was a manager at a casino- I be pissed at all hell for this man talking about casino/slot operations. Weighting of games and the attitude of hey their casinos not all win. This man just took the whole mystic quality out of online casinos. ( It's kinda like going to Disney World and Mickey mouse undresses in front of you and your kids).

If I was an affiliate I be just as pissed - you now have people questioning your integrity of every casino you have listed on your site. This is your bread and butter. Not good.

If I was a customer - I would play where you know your customer service has been top notch. Play there and repay them for the fact they have been a great casino like 3 Dice or 32 Red.

When it rains sometimes you look for a rainbow after. I'm afraid this is a storm and there is no rainbow to look for.

Just my thoughts on this thread.

 

[Jasminebed]

You make some very valid points cpdnd. But 32Red IS a GRA licencee. While they've never offered the gaffed games, this is their regulator. Do I boycott a favourite casino who has always acted with integrity because of a flawed regulator?

Other trusted casinos offered this game, but pulled it when the issue came to light. Casinos not under GRA licences.

When it comes right down to it, I trust my government lottery regulator less than I trust the online casinos I play at.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

What this entire sorry saga has taught me as a player is to trust the software provider and trust the casino and rely on that, because when it comes to the crunch the regulator may well be worth absolutely nothing. (Or indeed, actually worse than nothing, because it seems to me that the GRA is openly hostile to players.)

So for example, 32Red are licensed out of Gibraltar, and as far as I'm concerned the GRA are as much use as a gambling regulator as a fart in a spacesuit is to clean air.

BUT - I trust 32Red, so I'll continue to play there.

3Dice, you know, I honestly couldn't tell you where they're licensed out of, but I trust 3Dice as a casino, I trust 3Dice's software, so I'll continue to play there.

Jackpot Party are licensed out of Alderney, I don't have strong opinions either way about Alderney as a jurisdiction, but I trust WMS, I trust Jackpot Party, so I'll continue to play there.

And so on.

It's dreadful to have to conclude that in many cases, 'regulation' may just be a meaningless word, but fortunately we have communities such as that which exists here at CM to instruct us to make smart playing choices - although you do have to worry about folks who aren't aware of such resources, and are thus easy prey for the rogues.

 

[cpdnd31]

You both make a valid point, does one choose his sides to support others and hurt a good brand at the same time. Or does one stay faithful to the brand that DID NOT have the games involved?

3 Dice is out of Spain --

which brings us back to Blind Faith -

 

[ThePOGG]

Do I boycott a favourite casino who has always acted with integrity because of a flawed regulator?

The decision to play, or not to play, with any online casino has to based on a range of factors. Would you have made the decision to play with a casino prior to this simply because they held a GRA/GGC license? I suspect the answer to that would be no, you would have included other information in your decision. Likewise, the decision to stop playing with other venues not affected by this issue should be based on more than just being unhappy with the regulator. The regulator is only one part of the picture and while it should factor into where you decide to play, shouldn't be the sole piece of information that your decision is based on.

 

[jetset]

To my way of thinking one of the principal values of a decent regulator from a player perspective is its ability to function as a fair and impartial arbitrator when a player has a problem with one of its licensees.

In the case of the GRA, that has now been called into serious question by the responses of its leader, imo.

 

[Jasminebed]

For me personally, licencing jurisdiction is a big factor in where I play. When CM was revamping the accredited list, being able to sort by licencing jurisdiction was a feature I requested as it's a big consideration. There are some jurisdictions where I won't play at all. GRA used to mean a degree of trust for me.

It is unlikely I'll close my 32Red accounts over this issue. If enough of the community wanted to band together in a boycott, I would consider supporting it though. (Sorry Pat and Mark, I'd miss you so).

Any new (to me) casino would go one step down in the trust department because of that licencing. Not only did they fail to provide adequate auditing of the games in question, they've totally failed to address an exposed issue.

 

[MisterBJ]

Every GRA backed casino needs to be avoid. Until this thing is straighten out. It doesn't matter if some GRA are A-Okay or not. The reason being. If a select # of people says this GRA casino is good, and this GRA casino is good. Then another select # of people says a different set of GRA casinos are good, and so on. You would still have players playing at pretty much all the same GRA casinos. Boycott all of them, draw the casinos in on your side. Don't play dress up with this situation. As the saying goes, 1 bad apple spoils a dozen.

 

[Webzcas]

Every GRA backed casino needs to be avoid

That is akin to saying every online casino should be avoided. As I am afraid there is not one remote gaming jurisdiction where it would on the surface anyhow, appear to be perfect.

Sure Mr Brear has shown by his comments that Gibraltar has handled this situation extremely poorly. Actually he comes across to me anyhow as the 'Baghdad Bob' of the online gambling world.

But that said, decent operators who are licensed by Gibraltar should not be tarred with the same brush as the GRA.

I expect if anything, the decent operators in Gibraltar are privately seething at the comments made by Mr Brear.

 

[binshakindown]

Prior to the unraveling of this whole affair,

I didn't pay attention to who regulated the casino I signed up to. I may be naive, but I still don't see any reason why I would now either. Instead of the casinos paying that money to the GRA, they should move out and just up the RTP. I know, they still have to pay the jurisdiction but.....

Knowing that Casinomeister and it's members have been keeping a watchful eye on the industry is actually all I need when making my decision to play at a casino.

Since the on-line community is global who really thinks that any one regulation, jurisdiction, or otherwise will have the power to truly regulate the industry? It might be possible under a "one world government" but no thank you. I'll take my chances with the way things are now, any day.

 

[hakapuku]

That is akin to saying every online casino should be avoided. As I am afraid there is not one remote gaming jurisdiction where it would on the surface anyhow, appear to be perfect.

Sure Mr Brear has shown by his comments that Gibraltar has handled this situation extremely poorly. Actually he comes across to me anyhow as the 'Baghdad Bob' of the online gambling world.

But that said, decent operators who are licensed by Gibraltar should not be tarred with the same brush as the GRA.
I expect if anything, the decent operators in Gibraltar are privately seething at the comments made by Mr Brear.

That is a common mistake: trying to predict future actions based solely on the past performance. Those decent operators are good until one day they become rogue. There were so many great casinos that turned evil suddenly. And that is why we, players, need any casino we play at to be properly REGULATED in the first place. If the casinos are not properly regulated then they are NOT really decent, are not really safe and are dangerous to use.

 

[dunover]

The fact that casinos use Malta or Gibraltar for licensing is neither here nor there. The fact is that they must be licensed somewhere. Which flag of convenience they use, whether for ease, licensing cost or taxation is irrelevant; the integrity of the casino is the bottom line. It's what matters to us. We know the LGA's are rubber stampers for the businesses and have little clue about the minutiae of online gaming. The licensees pay for their 'services'. We don't, directly.

The industry isn't developed enough to have similar stringent protections usually enjoyed by customers of financial services for example. These take many year, even decades to develop and get right. Until this day, inepts will continue to staff LGA's, and legal protection for players will be next-to-none.

This is why it's so important to learn from sites like this one. As has been said, we can feel the pain for the 'rogue fodder' who don't have our awareness and continue to provide income to the shysters who themselves will make hay until the whole damn system is cleaned up by those with a proper understanding of both sides of the issue.

 

[Richas]

That is a common mistake: trying to predict future actions based solely on the past performance. Those decent operators are good until one day they become rogue. There were so many great casinos that turned evil suddenly. And that is why we, players, need any casino we play at to be properly REGULATED in the first place. If the casinos are not properly regulated then they are NOT really decent, are not really safe and are dangerous to use.

I am hugely in favour of rigorous regulation that has consumer protection at its heart. Now in the non remote sector we can see that this has been done, Nevada, Canada, UK there are many examples. Even the monopolistic state providers so common in Europe were and are tightly controlled and offer essentially fair games.

The remote sector though has been plagued by scandal after scandal and regulatory failure after failure. Frankly the lit i too long to bother with, just pick the one you found most egregious, in poker maybe it was UB and the superuser accounts, FTP and the stolen player funds or the numerous other sites that just stole player monies as they went bust. The regulation of remote gambling has failed because the sites, even respectable sites run by honest people, get to choose their regulator and they choose by the least demanding in terms of "red tape" or "consumer protection, the least demanding in terms of tax and only a small premium for credibility with new and existing customers.

Having sites choose their own regulator is the root of the failure.

Fortunately this is about to end. Shortly any selling into the UK market will need a UK licence, that may be in addition to another licence but they need to comply with the UK regulator. they don't get to cherry pick the regulator best for them any more and the regulator does not face competition from others in appealing to sites to get the veneer of a licence. Soon the regulator focus can stay on consumer protection, safe and fair games that also offer some help and protection to problem gamblers instead of a regulator focussed on appealing to the sites and meeting their needs first, driven by competition for sites and tax revenues/licence revenues from them.

 

[binshakindown]

I am hugely in favour of rigorous regulation that has consumer protection at its heart. Now in the non remote sector we can see that this has been done, Nevada, Canada, UK there are many examples. Even the monopolistic state providers so common in Europe were and are tightly controlled and offer essentially fair games.

The remote sector though has been plagued by scandal after scandal and regulatory failure after failure. Frankly the lit i too long to bother with, just pick the one you found most egregious, in poker maybe it was UB and the superuser accounts, FTP and the stolen player funds or the numerous other sites that just stole player monies as they went bust. The regulation of remote gambling has failed because the sites, even respectable sites run by honest people, get to choose their regulator and they choose by the least demanding in terms of "red tape" or "consumer protection, the least demanding in terms of tax and only a small premium for credibility with new and existing customers.

Having sites choose their own regulator is the root of the failure.

Fortunately this is about to end. Shortly any selling into the UK market will need a UK licence, that may be in addition to another licence but they need to comply with the UK regulator. they don't get to cherry pick the regulator best for them any more and the regulator does not face competition from others in appealing to sites to get the veneer of a licence. Soon the regulator focus can stay on consumer protection, safe and fair games that also offer some help and protection to problem gamblers instead of a regulator focussed on appealing to the sites and meeting their needs first, driven by competition for sites and tax revenues/licence revenues from them.

I have been hearing a lot about the UK protection that will soon be in force. How will this new regulation be more better and offer more protection to the player? I don't know the numbers, but I suspect even with all the restrictions in place to prevent US players from playing (the confiscation of domains by the lawyers and state government in US, DOJ seizures of payment processors and on and on) the US still represents a large amount cash to the online casinos. How will this regulation stop on-line casinos from offering their games to folks in the UK illegally? If people think it will magically go away, well......

Sorry for the derail.

 

[jetset]

We have yet to see how effectively the UK Gambling Commission deals with illegal online gambling operators once the p.o.c. taxation and licensing regime is implemented, and that is definitely going to be watched with great interest.

First off, I suspect that the Commission will be quite demanding in requiring the applicants to provide full details so they can be tracked down in the event of any incidents of non-compliance, but that's perhaps the easier part of the problem - how to keep unlicensed operators out will be more difficult (they have lots of experience at ducking and diving from other jurisdictions!)

Looking at examples in other 'proper' countries that have embraced regulated internet gambling may give us an idea of how effective weapons like financial transaction and ISP blocking can be, or how active and heavily punitive police activity influences events...that's a little harder to assess, but it looks as if Denmark and Belgium are having some success in keeping outsiders out and making sure licensees behave themselves.

I think that much will depend on how effectively enforcement is applied - good industry intelligence, the collaboration of UK licensees and a very high profile, energetic enforcement strategy consistently applied could work IMO.

I hope that player expectations of the Gambling Commission are realised in terms of consumer protection, which as Richas says above should be at the heart of regulation (although I fear that in most cases the real reason for governments to get involved is money, money, money!)

One thing I really do hope is that the UK authorities show more professional knowledge and consumer sensitivity than the head of the GRA!

 

[Nifty29]

We have yet to see how effectively the UK Gambling Commission deals with illegal online gambling operators once the p.o.c. taxation and licensing regime is implemented, and that is definitely going to be watched with great interest.

First off, I suspect that the Commission will be quite demanding in requiring the applicants to provide full details so they can be tracked down in the event of any incidents of non-compliance, but that's perhaps the easier part of the problem - how to keep unlicensed operators out will be more difficult (they have lots of experience at ducking and diving from other jurisdictions!)

Looking at examples in other 'proper' countries that have embraced regulated internet gambling may give us an idea of how effective weapons like financial transaction and ISP blocking can be, or how active and heavily punitive police activity influences events...that's a little harder to assess, but it looks as if Denmark and Belgium are having some success in keeping outsiders out and making sure licensees behave themselves.

I think that much will depend on how effectively enforcement is applied - good industry intelligence, the collaboration of UK licensees and a very high profile, energetic enforcement strategy consistently applied could work IMO.

I hope that player expectations of the Gambling Commission are realised in terms of consumer protection, which as Richas says above should be at the heart of regulation (although I fear that in most cases the real reason for governments to get involved is money, money, money!)

One thing I really do hope is that the UK authorities show more professional knowledge and consumer sensitivity than the head of the GRA!

So will these new UK laws actually make it illegal for UK residents to play at foreign and/or unlicensed casinos?

I'm interested in how they can prosecute these illegal casinos out of the UK also if they have no business interests or banking facilities there.

I'm totally in favour of government regulation.....I wish we would do it here....but, like you, I suspect an underground operator might find ways and means to reach UK players, and without the 15% turnover (or profits?) tax being able to offer much sweeter deals.

 

[Webzcas]

So will these new UK laws actually make it illegal for UK residents to play at foreign and/or unlicensed casinos?

Not heard that this is the case. But if our government tried to force something like this through, I would like to see them try. The UK is not the US and we would not stand for this, as this would be akin to limiting our freedom of choice. Plus you have the small issue of the animal that is the 'EU'.

 

[Richas]

Not heard that this is the case. But if our government tried to force something like this through, I would like to see them try. The UK is not the US and we would not stand for this, as this would be akin to limiting our freedom of choice. Plus you have the small issue of the animal that is the 'EU'.

No they will not be criminalising the UK punter foolish enough to go to a non UK site. Even in the US it is only Washington State that made online gambling a felony and they have never charged anyone. it is not illegal for a US player to wager - hence why the DOJ is organising a refund for Full Tilt players not prosecuting them.

The first big power for the UKGC is that offering such a game to a UK punter will become a criminal offence, punishable by up to 51 weeks in gaol and a fine.

The second is that advertising such a site, even online to UK customers will be an offence. The grey market will have a huge disadvantage to the legit sites with their licence, shirt sponsorships, tv adverts etc. No magazine, tv company, radio station or even online ad space seller will put out an illegal advert to Uk customers for an unlicenced site. They may still try but I can't see many UK punters going into the grey market which will be harder to find and clearly non legitimate/dodgy.

 

[GOCC]

Does anyone know when Bryans back?

Cant wait for his reply on this one.

 

[The Dude]

Does anyone know when Bryans back?

Cant wait for his reply on this one.

I got back in last night and am extremely busy - but saying that...

...when I posted the GRA's first comment, I was literally going out the door catching a flight to the UK. I hadn't read it fully - but I knew that a lot of people were waiting for this so up it went. During the week (last week), I had on and off Internet access and was able to upload Mr. Brear's follow up statement - again with just a glance over.

Now I'm back and am digesting the statements being made, and like many of you, I am not satisfied with this at all. I will be downgrading the GRA's ratings at CM shortly here: https://www.casinomeister.com/rating-system-explanation/ and making a statement later.

 

[The Dude]

I, like most of you, was expecting an objective report on the whole Finsoft/Spielo game fiasco. I anticipated a brief synopsis of what happened, why it happened, how it happened, what has been done to prevent this from happening again, and what compensations were planned or had been made.

I did not expect the commissioner to address this forum - or anything about the red herring of a fraudulent player - or someone using their mother's ID to open accounts (shame on you if you are), I expected the commissioner to provide a public report that would reinforce our confidence in a solid and effective licensing jurisdiction. I also believed strongly that compensation for all affected players was in the works. I am very unsatisfied with this.

And when I say "our confidence" I mean the entire industry as a whole - not just those happy few who visit these pages.

The GRA has been demoted on our ratings which has negatively affected the ratings of GRA licensed casinos listed here.

32Red
Bet365
Betfred
Coral Casino
Dash Casino
Gala Casino
Golden Lounge
Nedplay

I also don't understand why more members have not signed ThePogg's petition. There are many people here who are known publicly and should not fear putting their name down for something for which they feel is right. I've signed it, the moderators have signed it, if you feel that the GRA should do more, please go here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[dionysus]

I, like most of you, was expecting an objective report on the whole Finsoft/Spielo game fiasco. I anticipated a brief synopsis of what happened, why it happened, how it happened, what has been done to prevent this from happening again, and what compensations were planned or had been made.

I did not expect the commissioner to address this forum - or anything about the red herring of a fraudulent player - or someone using their mother's ID to open accounts (shame on you if you are), I expected the commissioner to provide a public report that would reinforce our confidence in a solid and effective licensing jurisdiction. I also believed strongly that compensation for all affected players was in the works. I am very unsatisfied with this.

And when I say "our confidence" I mean the entire industry as a whole - not just those happy few who visit these pages.

The GRA has been demoted on our ratings which has negatively affected the ratings of GRA licensed casinos listed here.

32Red
Bet365
Betfred
Coral Casino
Dash Casino
Gala Casino
Golden Lounge
Nedplay

I also don't understand why more members have not signed ThePogg's petition. There are many people here who are known publicly and should not fear putting their name down for something for which they feel is right. I've signed it, the moderators have signed it, if you feel that the GRA should do more, please go here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Just being Devil's Advocate, but SHOULD the GRA's report and downgrade impact the rating of solid casinos? I mean, the GRA is not doing its job, but 32Red is 100% solid; isn't that rather like saying a land based casino's less 'good' because the city's mayor's a dick?

 

[The Dude]

Just being Devil's Advocate, but SHOULD the GRA's report and downgrade impact the rating of solid casinos? I mean, the GRA is not doing its job, but 32Red is 100% solid; isn't that rather like saying a land based casino's less 'good' because the city's mayor's a dick?

It's a rating for the jurisdiction regardless of casino property. It's like saying a landbased casino loses points because their licensing jurisdiction could be doing a better job. It has nothing to do with a mayor, so your analogy is invalid

 

[dionysus]

K, analogy sucks, lol, fair enough. So any casino licensed in the area should pull out then, and move shop?

 

[Eliot Jacobson]

I, like most of you, was expecting an objective report on the whole Finsoft/Spielo game fiasco. I anticipated a brief synopsis of what happened, why it happened, how it happened, what has been done to prevent this from happening again, and what compensations were planned or had been made.

I did not expect the commissioner to address this forum - or anything about the red herring of a fraudulent player - or someone using their mother's ID to open accounts (shame on you if you are), I expected the commissioner to provide a public report that would reinforce our confidence in a solid and effective licensing jurisdiction. I also believed strongly that compensation for all affected players was in the works. I am very unsatisfied with this.

Thank you.

Bryan, do what you can, please, to send the strongest possible message that this type of unprofessional, incoherent and incompetent conduct is simply not acceptable.

 

[bigjohn]

Just being Devil's Advocate, but SHOULD the GRA's report and downgrade impact the rating of solid casinos? I mean, the GRA is not doing its job, but 32Red is 100% solid; isn't that rather like saying a land based casino's less 'good' because the city's mayor's a dick?

A fall from grace for an establishment like 32Red may seem like a distant possibility but possible none the less. If it ever did happen, without a solid, responsive regulating body just think how many players could be left without answers or hope of a resolution.

 

[chayton]

Bryan, add a link to the petition on Facebook too.

 

[mrmark21]

A fall from grace for an establishment like 32Red may seem like a distant possibility but possible none the less. If it ever did happen, without a solid, responsive regulating body just think how many players could be left without answers or hope of a resolution.

Scary thought.

 

[Balthazar]

I wish 32Red would make a statement. They didn't react to all this mess.

 

[mattsgame]

I, like most of you, was expecting an objective report on the whole Finsoft/Spielo game fiasco. I anticipated a brief synopsis of what happened, why it happened, how it happened, what has been done to prevent this from happening again, and what compensations were planned or had been made.

I did not expect the commissioner to address this forum - or anything about the red herring of a fraudulent player - or someone using their mother's ID to open accounts (shame on you if you are), I expected the commissioner to provide a public report that would reinforce our confidence in a solid and effective licensing jurisdiction. I also believed strongly that compensation for all affected players was in the works. I am very unsatisfied with this.

And when I say "our confidence" I mean the entire industry as a whole - not just those happy few who visit these pages.

The GRA has been demoted on our ratings which has negatively affected the ratings of GRA licensed casinos listed here.

32Red
Bet365
Betfred
Coral Casino
Dash Casino
Gala Casino
Golden Lounge
Nedplay

I also don't understand why more members have not signed ThePogg's petition. There are many people here who are known publicly and should not fear putting their name down for something for which they feel is right. I've signed it, the moderators have signed it, if you feel that the GRA should do more, please go here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I have signed the petition, I think some people maybe a bit hesitant because of Mr Brear threats, his threats in this thread are not the first. He has threatened to go to the police and all sorts of rubbish before because of things said about him and the GRA. The whole thing has been rather disappointing really.

 

[jetset]

It is frustrating to see this so-called regulator ignoring the central issues in this case and apparently letting the perpetrators get away with it, setting a dangerous industry precedent.

That being the case I believe a downgrading of the GRA's rating here is appropriate and should remain until someone sensible and knowledgable at that body reopens the case and assesses it more impartially and professionally.

 

[jetset]

No they will not be criminalising the UK punter foolish enough to go to a non UK site. Even in the US it is only Washington State that made online gambling a felony and they have never charged anyone. it is not illegal for a US player to wager - hence why the DOJ is organising a refund for Full Tilt players not prosecuting them.

The first big power for the UKGC is that offering such a game to a UK punter will become a criminal offence, punishable by up to 51 weeks in gaol and a fine.

The second is that advertising such a site, even online to UK customers will be an offence. The grey market will have a huge disadvantage to the legit sites with their licence, shirt sponsorships, tv adverts etc. No magazine, tv company, radio station or even online ad space seller will put out an illegal advert to Uk customers for an unlicenced site. They may still try but I can't see many UK punters going into the grey market which will be harder to find and clearly non legitimate/dodgy.

Good points with which I agree; allied to effective enforcement this could provide a major disadvantage to illegal operators. And there are precedents among EU governments.

 

[Webzcas]

The second is that advertising such a site, even online to UK customers will be an offence.

This is worrying to me, as a webmaster with a company incorporated in the UK ( England and Wales ) which runs several gambling portals. Does this mean I will not be able to advertise casinos which do not come under the UKGC's umbrella?

Or by continuing to do so, my company and myself in turn will be committing an offence?

Another question, in that what about sites which are owned by non UK residents but are hosted in the UK?

Also as a footnote, currently most of the programs we work with are outside the EU with regards to VAT. Hence if operators had to move to the UK, payments for affiliates would be then made within the EU, thus making many affiliates who reside in Europe having to become registered for VAT or the sales tax equivalent, who currently do not have to ( as payments made within the EU currently do not push their earnings over the VAT/Sales Tax threshold over a rolling 12 monthly period ).

 

[Richas]

K, analogy sucks, lol, fair enough. So any casino licensed in the area should pull out then, and move shop?

They should be moaning like mad that their regulator has messed up, reducing their credibility.

A certain Mr Brears head on a platter may be what they need first. Then a proper report and action from the GRA.

These firms were about to sue the UK government for unnecessary regulation solely for tax purposes and then their regulator proves spectacularly that they are not up to the job leaving them with no chance in the courts. He has harmed the Gibraltan economy, the tax revenues and these firms as well as letting players down.

The UK system of having a third party arbitrator deal with individual player disputes/complaints is different to the way that the GRA deals with them directly. Unfortunately this experience seems to have left the GRA soured and cynical about all players and willing to ignore real failures by suppliers and licencees.

 

[chayton]

I wish 32Red would make a statement. They didn't react to all this mess.

That's probably because they never carried the suspect games. And even if they had, they would probably have done the right thing and spent the time necessary to look after any of their players that were affected without the 'regulator' ever having to be involved in the first place.

 

[dionysus]

That's probably because they never carried the suspect games. And even if they had, they would probably have done the right thing and spent the time necessary to look after any of their players that were affected without the 'regulator' ever having to be involved in the first place.

but theyre still getting dinged in rating

 

[manfreid88]

Signed

I think ThePOGG' initiative is praiseworthy and deserves us to help him to give it wings. :notworthy

Since this is something that must be performed by an English native person/group, I expect those members in such "category" to produce that document and thence, to go ahead with this matter - a massive complaint.

I'm ready to sign that final document.

already signed the document however, there are just around 35 signatures on that petition so.... it is a long way ....

 

[mrmark21]

That's probably because they never carried the suspect games. And even if they had, they would probably have done the right thing and spent the time necessary to look after any of their players that were affected without the 'regulator' ever having to be involved in the first place.

Unlike Betfred.

 

[Stovetopp]

How does one sign the petition?
I dont play thwere but its a disgrace and am willing to PROTEST
Thanks