More casulaties - more to lose than just money.....

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
Unfortunately stories like Nifty's are becoming almost daily in the UK. If you assume all the unreported cases and take into account bad debt and bankruptcy I wonder what the real cost to the nation and the economy is??


Today: Man stole 1.8 millions pounds.

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


Last Thursday:

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


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


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

243 lines=daft

Dormant Account
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Location
Scotland
What is staggering about that top story is that he managed to gamble away/ steal 20 percent of the company's turnover, when they knew were already aware of his failings

'Having learned that Doss had served a 15-month prison sentence for stealing £300,000 from a previous employer in similar circumstances, the company forgave his failure to reveal his criminal past, accepted his assurances he no longer gambled, and gave him another chance.'

Giving someone a second chance is one thing, (and can work out in some cases), but no monitoring when he was accessing that much capital!? Unreal
 

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
I don't think it's much different from any vice really, the potential for addiction and ruination will always be there (see also, alcohol and drugs).

Prohibition doesn't work (the USA already tried that and failed on a biblical scale with alcohol), and the 'war on drugs' is probably the most destructive war in the history of mankind where one side simply refuses to accept that it's already lost and lost massively.

As such, whilst gambling can undoubtedly cause serious problems for a small subset of people who partake of it (as it did for me in the past), I'm not sure banning or excessively restricting it will solve anything.

Let people do what they want to do as long as they're not hurting anyone else is my take on this sort of thing.
 

dunover

Unofficial T&C's Editor
Staff member
webmeister
PABnonaccred
PABnononaccred
CAG
mm3
Joined
May 22, 2012
Location
the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
I don't think it's much different from any vice really, the potential for addiction and ruination will always be there (see also, alcohol and drugs).

Prohibition doesn't work (the USA already tried that and failed on a biblical scale with alcohol), and the 'war on drugs' is probably the most destructive war in the history of mankind where one side simply refuses to accept that it's already lost and lost massively.

As such, whilst gambling can undoubtedly cause serious problems for a small subset of people who partake of it (as it did for me in the past), I'm not sure banning or excessively restricting it will solve anything.

Let people do what they want to do as long as they're not hurting anyone else is my take on this sort of thing.

Unfortunately keeping stoned or drunk is cheaper than feeding a gambling addiction. I can see the stoner by his eyes, the drunk by his smell and demeanour, but can you walk down the street and spot the neatly dressed guy dying inside and putting his wife and kids through hell because he's bankrupted the family? There's only so much drugs and drink a man can consume before passing out or dying, but the amount of money he can consume is limitless. Therein lies the issue and probably the argument for regulation.
 

dionysus

Good(w)ill Ambassador
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Location
the land of snow and maple syrup
Unfortunately keeping stoned or drunk is cheaper than feeding a gambling addiction. I can see the stoner by his eyes, the drunk by his smell and demeanour, but can you walk down the street and spot the neatly dressed guy dying inside and putting his wife and kids through hell because he's bankrupted the family? There's only so much drugs and drink a man can consume before passing out or dying, but the amount of money he can consume is limitless. Therein lies the issue and probably the argument for regulation.

i humbly disagree..you can see the mild mannered man on the stree, but not know he has a few too many and goes home and beats his wife
Lord knows there's enough snazzy dressed coke-heads
You dont have to be a gambler to bankrupt your family, moreso the drugs than booze.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Unfortunately keeping stoned or drunk is cheaper than feeding a gambling addiction. I can see the stoner by his eyes, the drunk by his smell and demeanour, but can you walk down the street and spot the neatly dressed guy dying inside and putting his wife and kids through hell because he's bankrupted the family? There's only so much drugs and drink a man can consume before passing out or dying, but the amount of money he can consume is limitless. Therein lies the issue and probably the argument for regulation.

Where was the regulation in some of these cases. What about the woman that lost $8 Million at William Hill. Surely this level of play should have raised some questions as to whether this was some very rich high roller or someone who was gambling away money they don't own, or may have obtained from illegal sources.

Surely they would have verified her ID, and from this information, been able to judge roughly what her net worth might be. Someone who has $8 Million to piss away at the casino is hardly likely to be living in a standard residential property, more likely an expensive pad in a gated estate, with all the trappings to match someone with the level of income necessary to "responsibly gamble" with that kind of money.

Quite a few of these big losses have come about because a player has been able to embezzle funds from their workplace to feed the addiction.

Where players have bankrupted themselves and their family, the net losses have been smaller, the kind of money the average person is able to save or borrow, which is likely to be limited by how much they can raise on their home without the banks seeing them as a bad credit risk.

One very useful change would be a ban on gambling with credit, and with online gambling, this would be a ban on the use of credit cards for making deposits. It would at least cut out the easiest route for spending what you don't own.

eWallets are useful in this respect as they decline any attempt to deposit more than is in there. The downside is that they provide a back door means of using a credit card to raise gambling funds, something that would also have to be banned if credit cards were to be banned at casinos.
 

Balthazar

The Governor
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Location
Woodbury
Unfortunately keeping stoned or drunk is cheaper than feeding a gambling addiction. I can see the stoner by his eyes, the drunk by his smell and demeanour, but can you walk down the street and spot the neatly dressed guy dying inside and putting his wife and kids through hell because he's bankrupted the family? There's only so much drugs and drink a man can consume before passing out or dying, but the amount of money he can consume is limitless. Therein lies the issue and probably the argument for regulation.

Sure, gambling can be devastating but people are going to be people and need to be set free. If they commit a crime, they go to jail, period. Last things we need in this society are more laws and regulations. I don't need the government to protect me against myself and neither should you.
 

nisosbar

Ueber Meister
PABnonaccred
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Location
Right here
Sure, gambling can be devastating but people are going to be people and need to be set free. If they commit a crime, they go to jail, period. Last things we need in this society are more laws and regulations. I don't need the government to protect me against myself and neither should you.

Completely agree.

Most people who drink can probably think back to times when they overdid it, or even maybe long periods of time when they drank to excess repeatedly - i.e., college, periods of depression, unemployment, holidays, etc. No doubt, many well-intentioned observers could have noted, 'oh, you're an alcoholic!' When in fact, drinkers graduate college, moods lift, people find jobs, and thus, the drinking takes a place in the drinker's life of moderation - at meals or once in a while, no more.

Really, the same applies to almost any 'addictive' behavior.

People have brains; they think and reason. They make choices. They are not lab rats, responding reflexively to the bells and whistles that form the backbone of casino slot machines. Doesn't mean those triggers aren't still fun, but to draw an analogy to heroin with every dysfunctional human behavior is, in my humble opinion, quite intellectually lazy. And to an extent, simply wrong. I realize my view is a minority view, but it is what it is.
 
Top