I don't agree. It's the regulators that aren't doing enough.
2015/2016 I believe, UKGC stepped up on exclusions. 2018 Gamstop(useless imo). In the same hear, the EU, MGA, UKGC were.more worried about gambling as a source of funding for terrorism. Problem gamblers are on the back burner. This is of course.....in my opinion only
Useful until it's realised that it's so easy to circumvent that there is no point of it. It needs to be 4 out of 5 as opposed to 3. It's long been argued that it's only going to be effective in that case alongside the new rules.I think Gamstop is extremely useful... interested to hear why you don't
Considering his role at Skybet surely he could have started this, maybe they could have used the money they stole from affiliates. See stars are slowly starting the affiliate programme back up too.
I was making 20pound bets before self exclusion then I betted 1000 on 1 bet. After I told them they never followed the procedure they lock my account and since that day they have kepted my balance.
UKGC new rules are taking action...but only if a player is also on Gamstop(and that it's working) or excluded already.
It will 100% end with affordability assessments for players because it's been mismanaged for so many years. Casinos have been at the heart of this though, some offering obscene bonuses to "VIP" players to keep gambling etc. Casinos need to get better at identifying signs of problem gambling or at least have the conversation earlier in their relationship.
This is what I take issue with. Why the hell should any player be subject to affordability checks. Why should any player have to submit financial information because they fancy a flutter on the slots?
Problem gambling is an issue, I admit, but then so is drug use, alcoholism, smoking etc. At the end of the day people need to have autonomy and make decisions for themselves. It's their life. If someone realises they need help for an addiction, they'll reach out themselves... But it has to be their decision and they have to want to stop.
When you go down the route of manually enforcing things on people, it's a slippery slope.
Just an after thought whist reading this thread. I am by no means at all 100% clued up over these matters, however scenario post more than anything else, stranger things and all that......
If affordability ever does come into it, then could we ever be looking at a similar situation which happened recently with these pay day loans and cheque cashing centres?
Numerous PDL companies have after YEARS in some cases been told by the FCA "XYZ could never afford that loan" and they've had to wipe out any outstanding debts, refund interest of settled loans AND compensate. Most have after this situation ended up with the receivers in and ceased trading.
Now I appreciate the bodies that govern casinos and these PDL companies are nowt to do with each other, not related etc, however 'affordability' holds the same definition.
Not something I'd wish on casinos as I've always held the "lost fair and square" stance but thoughts that may lead to something or nothing and my take why mandatory and strict affordability checks may never fully surface.
As I say just thinking random possibilities, happy to be shot down in flames