Grand Parker casino closed my account

[dunover]

With all due respect spoton, you're heading squarely into fruitcake land with that last comment.

It's ridiculous to compare "Players from the USA, UK and Australia etc" with "Homosexuals, Gypsies, Jews, etc". Completely different kettle of fish. In Australia, there are lotteries where you can only play in certain states, and coupons from Hungry Jacks where you can only redeem them in a certain geographical area, and even clubs where only certain people can be members (gosh...imagine that eh?).

Business can choose to whom they offer their services. Even if a business DOES discriminate against a gay person for instance, they aren't stupid enough to actually SAY that....they will just use another excuse, and the result will be the same. All of this is in a highly-regulated over-governed PC-obsessed country like Australia too! Clubs don't HAVE to accept you as a member. Pubs don't HAVE to allow you to drink a their bar. Why, then, would you expect a higher standard from Cowboy Town or wherever most casinos are licenced?

I'll also say that last comment of yours is ill-considered and equally ill-conceived. I mean, how exactly does the casino ascertain that the player is homosexual or Jewish? Sorry, but IMO it is just barrel-scraping of the highest order.

Yes, that's completely off-tangent, firstly because they are races/sexual and secondly bear no relevance to a geographical nation. This I'm afraid is the typical tactic of people of spoton's ilk, to dramatize what is essentially a far more banal point of debate, to throw in the 'RACIST!' blockbuster shot, that all-victorious and all-triumphant hysterical repartee.

Spoton: This is futile. I will take a punt that you are quite a young person. Maybe you need to learn what real discrimination is. Signs in windows 'NO Blacks or Irish'. Common here in the UK 50 years ago, not illegal at the time. Colour segregation in southern US States, and bussing children to segregated schools. Apartheid in S.Africa, enforced with police and bullets. Racially offensive flags and songs at UK football matches common until the 1990's. And you want us to feel guilty because we provide a security/business rationale as to why a dodgy online casino licensed in an old Dutch colony off of Central America may exclude (copying practices of far better and more experienced operators) players from certain countries??
Get some perspective pal, get real.

 

[spoton]

Yes, that's completely off-tangent, firstly because they are races/sexual and secondly bear no relevance to a geographical nation. This I'm afraid is the typical tactic of people of spoton's ilk, to dramatize what is essentially a far more banal point of debate, to throw in the 'RACIST!' blockbuster shot, that all-victorious and all-triumphant hysterical repartee.

And why do you feel its more OK to discriminate people because of what country they were born in, rather than what religion their parents had?

Spoton: This is futile. I will take a punt that you are quite a young person. Maybe you need to learn what real discrimination is. Signs in windows 'NO Blacks or Irish'. Common here in the UK 50 years ago, not illegal at the time. Colour segregation in southern US States, and bussing children to segregated schools. Apartheid in S.Africa, enforced with police and bullets. Racially offensive flags and songs at UK football matches common until the 1990's. And you want us to feel guilty because we provide a security/business rationale as to why a dodgy online casino licensed in an old Dutch colony off of Central America may exclude (copying practices of far better and more experienced operators) players from certain countries??
Get some perspective pal, get real.

Aha now I get you. What you are telling me that old fashioned discrimination is bad, but that the people getting discriminated should cope with a little.
I guess you have a point. We would free up alot of police resources legalizing a "little" discrimination, a little theft, a little sexual abuse.

Sorry pal, but what you are telling me is that you feel the world should stop evolving in 2014 because things were far worse back in the old days. I prefer to fight on to make a even better and more equal world than the one we live in today. But suit yourself. I guess you won't care before the discrimination hurts yourself.

 

[dunover]

And why do you feel its more OK to discriminate people because of what country they were born in, rather than what religion their parents had?



Aha now I get you. What you are telling me that old fashioned discrimination is bad, but that the people getting discriminated should cope with a little.
I guess you have a point. We would free up alot of police resources legalizing a "little" discrimination, a little theft, a little sexual abuse. Sorry pal, but what you are telling me is that you feel the world should stop evolving in 2014 because things were far worse back in the old days. I prefer to fight on to make a even better and more equal world than the one we live in today. But suit yourself. I guess you won't care before the discrimination hurts yourself.

??????

 

[spoton]

??????

I guess you finnaly understood how f*cked up your train of thoughts were, defending discrimination with the argument that it was worse before. And it was sarcasm if you didn't understand that

 

[dunover]

I guess you finnaly understood how f*cked up your train of thoughts were, defending discrimination with the argument that it was worse before. And it was sarcasm if you didn't understand that

I understand sarcasm when used properly. As for your abusive trolling, if anything is 'f*cked-up' it's the person so irrational, so defeated that in their desperation they bring ridiculous false analogies concerning criminal offences into a discussion regarding an offshore licensed casino that only 'discriminated' in the mind of one zealot. One thing that is true however is that invariably when a person starts throwing their dummy out and swearing, they know they lost the argument, so I will leave it there before you get yourself into trouble. QED

 

[spoton]

I understand sarcasm when used properly. As for your abusive trolling, if anything is 'f*cked-up' it's the person so irrational, so defeated that in their desperation they bring ridiculous false analogies concerning criminal offences into a discussion regarding an offshore licensed casino that only 'discriminated' in the mind of one zealot. One thing that is true however is that invariably when a person starts throwing their dummy out and swearing, they know they lost the argument, so I will leave it there before you get yourself into trouble. QED

You shouldn't throw rocks when you live in a glasshouse pal. And try write a post without the namecalling once in a while. It doesn't make you appear very old, and if you are, not very educated.

 

[vinylweatherman]

We get arguments like this because some people feel it's OK for the online casino business to operate a different moral and legal code to any other business.

We did have "no Irish" back in the 1960's, and the claim was that it wasn't racist because the Irish were not a race, just a geographical location. No pub or restaurant would get away with a "No Poles" sign in the window, yet people are defending the right of Grand Parker to have a "no Poles" policy among it's UK player base, one which they don't want to even mention in the terms.

There is also the issue that they were more than happy to accept a Polish player BEFORE they won, but are now using his place of birth as a reason to weasel out of paying. The law has also evolved the principle of "indirect discrimination", which is designed to address the issue of businesses trying to hide the fact that it is discriminating by applying an indirect criterion that would disproportionately rule out one group.

Whilst discrimination is still rife due to the determination of people and businesses to circumvent the rules, getting caught has been made very expensive indeed, partly designed to be a punitive deterrent to discourage others.

The job application experiment shows just what lengths one has to go to in order to uncover the sneakier kinds of discrimination.

The individual does NOT have the absolute right to discriminate against whomsoever he likes in law, and hasn't had this since the end of the 1960's when the anti discrimination laws began to be implemented. In fact, businesses who are hiring have to keep records such that they can prove they are NOT discriminating, even indirectly, against any groups. Similar laws apply to businesses that are deemed "open to the public" such as shops, restaurants, pubs, and casinos. Even the "private members clubs" are no longer immune, and they too could be faced with a discrimination suit if they vote not to let someone join and cannot show that it wasn't down to them being of a certain race, religion, sexuality, etc.

 

[Nifty29]

We get arguments like this because some people feel it's OK for the online casino business to operate a different moral and legal code to any other business.

We did have "no Irish" back in the 1960's, and the claim was that it wasn't racist because the Irish were not a race, just a geographical location. No pub or restaurant would get away with a "No Poles" sign in the window, yet people are defending the right of Grand Parker to have a "no Poles" policy among it's UK player base, one which they don't want to even mention in the terms.

There is also the issue that they were more than happy to accept a Polish player BEFORE they won, but are now using his place of birth as a reason to weasel out of paying. The law has also evolved the principle of "indirect discrimination", which is designed to address the issue of businesses trying to hide the fact that it is discriminating by applying an indirect criterion that would disproportionately rule out one group.

Whilst discrimination is still rife due to the determination of people and businesses to circumvent the rules, getting caught has been made very expensive indeed, partly designed to be a punitive deterrent to discourage others.

The job application experiment shows just what lengths one has to go to in order to uncover the sneakier kinds of discrimination.

The individual does NOT have the absolute right to discriminate against whomsoever he likes in law, and hasn't had this since the end of the 1960's when the anti discrimination laws began to be implemented. In fact, businesses who are hiring have to keep records such that they can prove they are NOT discriminating, even indirectly, against any groups. Similar laws apply to businesses that are deemed "open to the public" such as shops, restaurants, pubs, and casinos. Even the "private members clubs" are no longer immune, and they too could be faced with a discrimination suit if they vote not to let someone join and cannot show that it wasn't down to them being of a certain race, religion, sexuality, etc.

Blah blah blah "in law" blah blah "the laws apply" blah.

Honestly. When are you going to accept that you aren't even close to being a lawyer, and hence have basically no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the law and it's application and interpretation?

Private members clubs ARE immune....here at least. Just because a law MIGHT exist in the UK, doesn't mean the rest of the world is bound by it.

If you read the terms of any casino, you will see that certain countries are excluded. Some say why, and some don't.....but none of them HAVE to. It's just absolute horseshit to say that online casinos HAVE to accept ALL players from ALL countries.

Discrimination in employment is totally different. Are you now saying that all casinos should have their records checked to ensure they have an equal number of players from each country? Pppfffffflolol.

You should lay off the Law and Order boxset for a while and join the real world. Perhaps you and spoton could catch up at the "Anti Segregation Society Of London England" conference where you could advocate for the rights of rural Mongolians to play Immortal Romance or something.

I suggest you both immediately boycott all online casinos. If you don't, then you obviously don't believe your own arguments, or alternatively you're willingly involved in blatant discrimination on the basis of race/nationality/favorite toothpaste.

When you have the courage of your own convictions, then I'll take you seriously.

 

[paul7388]

Got to agree about the bit where private member clubs are exempt. Just got to look at st Andrews golf club which is a private members club. Only recently they were voting whether or not female members should be allowed. If they weren't exempt theyd have been sued for discrimination long ago.

 

[dunover]

Blah blah blah "in law" blah blah "the laws apply" blah.

Honestly. When are you going to accept that you aren't even close to being a lawyer, and hence have basically no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the law and it's application and interpretation?

Private members clubs ARE immune....here at least. Just because a law MIGHT exist in the UK, doesn't mean the rest of the world is bound by it.

If you read the terms of any casino, you will see that certain countries are excluded. Some say why, and some don't.....but none of them HAVE to. It's just absolute horseshit to say that online casinos HAVE to accept ALL players from ALL countries.

Discrimination in employment is totally different. Are you now saying that all casinos should have their records checked to ensure they have an equal number of players from each country? Pppfffffflolol.

You should lay off the Law and Order boxset for a while and join the real world. Perhaps you and spoton could catch up at the "Anti Segregation Society Of London England" conference where you could advocate for the rights of rural Mongolians to play Immortal Romance or something.

I suggest you both immediately boycott all online casinos. If you don't, then you obviously don't believe your own arguments, or alternatively you're willingly involved in blatant discrimination on the basis of race/nationality/favorite toothpaste.

When you have the courage of your own convictions, then I'll take you seriously.

Priceless.

 

[spoton]

Blah blah blah "in law" blah blah "the laws apply" blah.

Honestly. When are you going to accept that you aren't even close to being a lawyer, and hence have basically no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the law and it's application and interpretation?

Private members clubs ARE immune....here at least. Just because a law MIGHT exist in the UK, doesn't mean the rest of the world is bound by it.

You see, the private gentlemen clubs are really what confirms the rule. A privately owned travel company forexample wouldn't get away with it without having good reasons to just take one gender/nationality/race. This

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

confirms that private companies can't deny whoever they want, even in Australia.

If you read the terms of any casino, you will see that certain countries are excluded. Some say why, and some don't.....but none of them HAVE to. It's just absolute horseshit to say that online casinos HAVE to accept ALL players from ALL countries.

If you try reading what I have told you 10 times already, its nothing wrong with banning players residing in a nation from a casino. The point is when they ban a player living in the UK just cause hes Polish.

If they banned him cause he was residing in Poland Fine, him and all the other players in the UK fine. When they ban him, living in the UK it is not.

You should lay off the Law and Order boxset for a while and join the real world. Perhaps you and spoton could catch up at the "Anti Segregation Society Of London England" conference where you could advocate for the rights of rural Mongolians to play Immortal Romance or something.

No, Nifty, you should stop being a useful idiot for Grand Parker and all the other rogues out there. You defend discrimination just cause the law in Curcao might say its ok. There was a time when Germany was full of useful idiots like yourself, and then their fuhrer decided to make it legal to discriminate jews. I guess we all know the outcome. I guess it just shows what can happend, if a country is to full of people without morale, that can't think for themselfes either..

I suggest you both immediately boycott all online casinos. If you don't, then you obviously don't believe your own arguments, or alternatively you're willingly involved in blatant discrimination on the basis of race/nationality/favorite toothpaste.
When you have the courage of your own convictions, then I'll take you seriously.

Weird. The last casino I played at is BGO, and they don't have discriminating terms. Neither do MrGreen as I can see, or Redbet.

 

[Nifty29]

You see, the private gentlemen clubs are really what confirms the rule. A privately owned travel company forexample wouldn't get away with it without having good reasons to just take one gender/nationality/race. This

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

confirms that private companies can't deny whoever they want, even in Australia.



If you try reading what I have told you 10 times already, its nothing wrong with banning players residing in a nation from a casino. The point is when they ban a player living in the UK just cause hes Polish.

If they banned him cause he was residing in Poland Fine, him and all the other players in the UK fine. When they ban him, living in the UK it is not.



No, Nifty, you should stop being a useful idiot for Grand Parker and all the other rogues out there. You defend discrimination just cause the law in Curcao might say its ok. There was a time when Germany was full of useful idiots like yourself, and then their fuhrer decided to make it legal to discriminate jews. I guess we all know the outcome. I guess it just shows what can happend, if a country is to full of people without morale, that can't think for themselfes either..



Weird. The last casino I played at is BGO, and they don't have discriminating terms. Neither do MrGreen as I can see, or Redbet.

Your arguments were already as bare as Mother Hubbard's cupboard.

You proved it beyond doubt by inferring/stating I am a Nazi and would happily allow the holocaust to happen. The suggestion is disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I refuse to debate such individuals as yourself. Consider yourself ignored.

 

[spoton]

Your arguments were already as bare as Mother Hubbard's cupboard.

You proved it beyond doubt by inferring/stating I am a Nazi and would happily allow the holocaust to happen. The suggestion is disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I refuse to debate such individuals as yourself. Consider yourself ignored.

Says the man ruined the debate talking about me an VWM attending your conference to defend some Mongolians.

Just for the record: I didn't say you were a Nazi. I just said it wouldn't have happened without ignorants like yourself obeying whatever the law says.

It's a compliment to be ignored by you. It's not like you provide this forum with anything useful, beyond for the usual "You should have read the terms"-phrase.

 

[Nifty29]

FTR from BGO Terms

Residents of the USA, US/GB Virgin Islands, US Minor Outlying Territories, Spain, Italy, France, Afghanistan, Libya, Sierra Leona, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Mali, Sudan, Belgium, Greece, Israel, Turkey, Switzerland or the UAE may not place financial transactions, nor win any prize w the game.

Well thats another argument put to rest.

 

[spoton]

FTR from BGO Terms

Residents of the USA, US/GB Virgin Islands, US Minor Outlying Territories, Spain, Italy, France, Afghanistan, Libya, Sierra Leona, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Mali, Sudan, Belgium, Greece, Israel, Turkey, Switzerland or the UAE may not place financial transactions, nor win any prize w the game.

Well thats another argument put to rest.

Yeah, a argument that haven't existed in this thread. You see, those terms are targeting residents of those countries, not nationalities.
No one has claimed that banning residents of a country the right to use a service are discrimination...

 

[The Dude]

Ok guys, enough of the insults and flame-like posts. Keep it civil and try to keep Nazis out of it. We have quite a number of Germans here who take comments like that quite seriously. It's not something you ought to be tossing around offhandedly. Thank you.

 

[dunover]

Says the man ruined the debate talking about me an VWM attending your conference to defend some Mongolians.
Just for the record: I didn't say you were a Nazi. I just said it wouldn't have happened without ignorants like yourself obeying whatever the law says.

It's a compliment to be ignored by you. It's not like you provide this forum with anything useful, beyond for the usual "You should have read the terms"-phrase.

And there spouts the man who a few posts back accused me of 'not understanding sarcasm'.......

Your posts are inflammatory and hysterical. You dig yourself in to one hole, then another and become abusive and insulting when you realize it.

It is pointless trying to debate with someone who has lost their reason. I'm away from this waste of bandwidth. Enjoy the last word, people like you usually do. Bye.

 

[maphesto]

Why continue this slander party when Bryan already has stopped it?

Give it a rest, I can't see any good replies to your post from spoton which makes it useless unless you don't want him to reply in a bad manner to get him warned.