- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
Spotted on Twitter this morning:
Players' Rights and the use of unfair T&Cs by gambling operators
- Thread starter maxd
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Location
- Northants
well worth a listen, You can find abit about it here
And you guys out the country can find the player here
Hope links ok BBC4 live radio
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
And you guys out the country can find the player here
Hope links ok BBC4 live radio
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Location
- UK
Cheers Max
Shall tune into that, will be interesting to see what they say.
Shall tune into that, will be interesting to see what they say.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
And if anyone calls in, make sure you mention Casinomeister. 
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
Bryan sent this out to the forum faithful:
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Location
- Northants
Already signed up to sister site and had duplicate accounts?
He was paid this morning so thats a good thing,
Same old story's
He was paid this morning so thats a good thing,
Same old story's
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
The Guardian has been championing this guy's case for a while, also that Paul Fairhead guy on Twitter. Good to hear he got paid.
Damn short piece on the radio show though, few minutes and boom, done.
Damn short piece on the radio show though, few minutes and boom, done.
That was rather brief lol.
I agree with much of what was said. The terms that operators present in this context can be misleading. However, speaking as a body performing the same role as IBAS, with regard to legal rights the UKGC have very clear requirements that ADRs inform complainants that their legal rights are not in any way diminished by submitting a complaint.
That this is contradicted by operator terms is an issue that should be addressed, but I don't think this is the issue creating most problems at the present moment. That's reserved for groups not making clear where self-exclusions apply at point of sign-up. Simply enforcing that would dramatically diminish the number of complaints generated. If they then started forcing operators to enforce max bet/game restrictions automatically complaints would drop to a fraction of their current levels.
TP
I agree with much of what was said. The terms that operators present in this context can be misleading. However, speaking as a body performing the same role as IBAS, with regard to legal rights the UKGC have very clear requirements that ADRs inform complainants that their legal rights are not in any way diminished by submitting a complaint.
That this is contradicted by operator terms is an issue that should be addressed, but I don't think this is the issue creating most problems at the present moment. That's reserved for groups not making clear where self-exclusions apply at point of sign-up. Simply enforcing that would dramatically diminish the number of complaints generated. If they then started forcing operators to enforce max bet/game restrictions automatically complaints would drop to a fraction of their current levels.
TP
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Location
- UK
No one from Gambling Commission or IBAS could be bothered to join the debate, good work guys!
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
I did mention the other day the ADR/IBAS's conclusion isn't legally binding. It never can be as only an Ombudsman or court can have those powers, government QUANGOs and their subsidiaries don't have those powers and can't ever have unless backed by a specific act of Parliament.
I like the way those terms quoted in the programme stated (because the betting sites know damn well that however crap their terms are IBAS will agree mostly) that the dispute cannot be taken to court after the IBAS/ADR ruling. As I said to Max recently that's complete misleading tosh and designed to make you believe you are relieved thereafter of your statutory rights...
P.S thePOGG - how many times have I said that on here? The license holders do NOT usually exercise due diligence and spot duplicate accounts at the point of sign up as the ridiculous UKGC-endorsed system makes it pay them not to with effectively no-lose deposit. WIN? then FU, have your deposits back. LOSE? well we'll keep 'em....
I like the way those terms quoted in the programme stated (because the betting sites know damn well that however crap their terms are IBAS will agree mostly) that the dispute cannot be taken to court after the IBAS/ADR ruling. As I said to Max recently that's complete misleading tosh and designed to make you believe you are relieved thereafter of your statutory rights...
P.S thePOGG - how many times have I said that on here? The license holders do NOT usually exercise due diligence and spot duplicate accounts at the point of sign up as the ridiculous UKGC-endorsed system makes it pay them not to with effectively no-lose deposit. WIN? then FU, have your deposits back. LOSE? well we'll keep 'em....
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Location
- UK
Yep, couldn't agree more. How this is even allowed to happen is just wrong.
geordiecolin
Sporney eyed parrot faced wazzock
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2015
- Location
- Novacastrian
That was very salty of them. I guess they did not want to be caught saying anything that they can not back track from?
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
Good program, but way too brief. I would have liked to have heard something from Befred, but as expected, they can't be bothered.
And those terms sounded rather ominous and pompous being read aloud. I think a lot of this is a Playtech carry-over. I believe that many of those terms originated from Playtech. I could be wrong, but a couple off Google searches and delving into the WayBack machine could clarify that. Playtech is infamous for having blustery terms and conditions.
I'm glad that IBAS has more or less gone on record that they will disregard terms and conditions that are either unfair or breach the consumers' rights act.
I think this is very important. This is something I'm sure will be considered within our arbitration service. And it should also be made very clear that draconian terms stating that players have no recourse after arbitration are absolute nonsense - as stated by one of the guests on the show. It was someone from Justice for Punters I think:
And those terms sounded rather ominous and pompous being read aloud. I think a lot of this is a Playtech carry-over. I believe that many of those terms originated from Playtech. I could be wrong, but a couple off Google searches and delving into the WayBack machine could clarify that. Playtech is infamous for having blustery terms and conditions.
I'm glad that IBAS has more or less gone on record that they will disregard terms and conditions that are either unfair or breach the consumers' rights act.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
I think this is very important. This is something I'm sure will be considered within our arbitration service. And it should also be made very clear that draconian terms stating that players have no recourse after arbitration are absolute nonsense - as stated by one of the guests on the show. It was someone from Justice for Punters I think:
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Location
- Northants
Well it was short but sweet, At least its getting heard, Hopefully does not take another 20 years to get on watchdog,
Just hope that theses casino groups start putting things in place, As it will not belong before there is lots of small claims, T.V programs that are showing this type of behaviour, At the minute people are at a lost end, There must be 10's of thousands of players that have been stiffed with the S.E, singed up to sister sites etc, & are at a dead end.
The more programs that are shown than thats when the complaints will start rolling in, As it will show what people can do and how to do it, This is when the casino's will get a bollocking and will have to listen up, Alot of theses casino's coming on to the market are doing things right, Chance hill / all British just to mention a few, But still they are running of a bigger back end where most rules are set.
Of topic abit, here is on you want to watch, george galloway's movie, (THE KILLING$ OF TONY BLAIR) It has just hit a few small screen in London but will be out in a few weeks, This will give you an insight of our corrupt government and our old M.P Tony Blair xxx.theblairdoc.com/
Just hope that theses casino groups start putting things in place, As it will not belong before there is lots of small claims, T.V programs that are showing this type of behaviour, At the minute people are at a lost end, There must be 10's of thousands of players that have been stiffed with the S.E, singed up to sister sites etc, & are at a dead end.
The more programs that are shown than thats when the complaints will start rolling in, As it will show what people can do and how to do it, This is when the casino's will get a bollocking and will have to listen up, Alot of theses casino's coming on to the market are doing things right, Chance hill / all British just to mention a few, But still they are running of a bigger back end where most rules are set.
Of topic abit, here is on you want to watch, george galloway's movie, (THE KILLING$ OF TONY BLAIR) It has just hit a few small screen in London but will be out in a few weeks, This will give you an insight of our corrupt government and our old M.P Tony Blair xxx.theblairdoc.com/
I'm afraid I'm a fence sitter on this issue. I just don't see it as all that significant. It's a technical problem and absolutely should be addressed, but most players will say that they don't read all the terms anyway and as ADRs are required to make the statutory rights of player very clear I have significant doubts that this is really confusing players on a large scale basis.
I do think it's an issue that should be addressed - these terms ARE intended to make the player feel as if they have next to no rights - I just think there's far more significant issues that could have received this type of attention that would have been of far greater benefit to the general gambling population.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With regard to your point Dunover, the UKGC are never going to enforce pre-registration checks. It's not going to happen. I understand why many players feel that this is done cynically to let operators only catch things at the point where it benefits them not to pay, but the truth is there's a FAR more significant incentive for operators not to do this.
Simply put, pre-registration is not only a huge time sink, it's massively off-putting to players. I'll break this into the 2 factors:
1) You're talking about likely over doubling the number of accounts that would need verification as every single player now needs to be investigated before they're allowed to play. That figure's a guess and it could actually be far far higher than that. Going by our affiliate stats we see a huge number of players that don't stick around across all online casinos we refer to. An educated guess would be that many of these players that deposit only a few times never reach the point of having to verify their account.
To give some context, at one of our better listed venues (though not top) we have a total of 254 referred players. Of that 245 129 have made either 1 or no deposits. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that at least 90% of those accounts never went through verification. 90% of 129 is 116. Even if we assume that EVERY other account was verified that's still almost doubling the workload for the risk department right there. That's an unrealistic assumption though. Another 40 accounts have less than 10 deposits - would you like to take a guess as to how many of them remain unverified to this day?
Increasing the workload for the risk department this significantly, who are for obvious reasons more expensive than standard customer service reps as they require more training and carry more responsibility, creates a very large additional overhead. This overhead is likely to dwarf the additional gains from genuine self-exclusion misses.
The above said, it's actually still the lesser factor in why registration point verification won't be enforce.
2) Gambling is fundamentally an impulse activity. If operators were to start locking accounts at sign-up, when players are confronted with this what happens is they go elsewhere. Barry Boozo on a Friday night doesn't want to be told that he can't play until Monday when his account is verified. Even if we dramatically increase the number of risk personnel and have that department open 24/7, Bazza isn't going to want to wait the couple of hours it takes for his documents to be verified, he wants to bet now. He goes elsewhere to an operator that doesn't carryout checks before play.
Even if the UKGC were to force all licensed operators to do pre-play checks so that the playing field was levelled, all that happen is they drive players to any of the multitude of unlicensed operators that are still happily accepting UK players. Just like everyone else, getting on top of these dodgy operators functioning in nowheresville is a huge challenge even for the UK government.
And none of this takes account of the fact that verification would then be required again at the point of withdrawal as many of the indicators that lead to identification of multiple accounting and other term breaches can only be seen after deposits/play have taken place. So in fact registration verification wouldn't be instead of the current verification system, it would be an addition on top of the current system.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regulation is a delicate process. Consumers need to be protected. However, if the regulator goes too far and makes the rules too harsh for businesses it makes the market unattractive and not profitable enough as a whole to encourage growth and sustainability.
While I would actually agree with registration point verification on principal, enforcing this would be such a significant blow to the bottom line of UK licensed operators that it would cause a large scale push back from industry. This isn't a fight I think the UKGC are likely to want to have and to be completely honest, in their position, I don't think I would either.
TP
I do think it's an issue that should be addressed - these terms ARE intended to make the player feel as if they have next to no rights - I just think there's far more significant issues that could have received this type of attention that would have been of far greater benefit to the general gambling population.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With regard to your point Dunover, the UKGC are never going to enforce pre-registration checks. It's not going to happen. I understand why many players feel that this is done cynically to let operators only catch things at the point where it benefits them not to pay, but the truth is there's a FAR more significant incentive for operators not to do this.
Simply put, pre-registration is not only a huge time sink, it's massively off-putting to players. I'll break this into the 2 factors:
1) You're talking about likely over doubling the number of accounts that would need verification as every single player now needs to be investigated before they're allowed to play. That figure's a guess and it could actually be far far higher than that. Going by our affiliate stats we see a huge number of players that don't stick around across all online casinos we refer to. An educated guess would be that many of these players that deposit only a few times never reach the point of having to verify their account.
To give some context, at one of our better listed venues (though not top) we have a total of 254 referred players. Of that 245 129 have made either 1 or no deposits. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that at least 90% of those accounts never went through verification. 90% of 129 is 116. Even if we assume that EVERY other account was verified that's still almost doubling the workload for the risk department right there. That's an unrealistic assumption though. Another 40 accounts have less than 10 deposits - would you like to take a guess as to how many of them remain unverified to this day?
Increasing the workload for the risk department this significantly, who are for obvious reasons more expensive than standard customer service reps as they require more training and carry more responsibility, creates a very large additional overhead. This overhead is likely to dwarf the additional gains from genuine self-exclusion misses.
The above said, it's actually still the lesser factor in why registration point verification won't be enforce.
2) Gambling is fundamentally an impulse activity. If operators were to start locking accounts at sign-up, when players are confronted with this what happens is they go elsewhere. Barry Boozo on a Friday night doesn't want to be told that he can't play until Monday when his account is verified. Even if we dramatically increase the number of risk personnel and have that department open 24/7, Bazza isn't going to want to wait the couple of hours it takes for his documents to be verified, he wants to bet now. He goes elsewhere to an operator that doesn't carryout checks before play.
Even if the UKGC were to force all licensed operators to do pre-play checks so that the playing field was levelled, all that happen is they drive players to any of the multitude of unlicensed operators that are still happily accepting UK players. Just like everyone else, getting on top of these dodgy operators functioning in nowheresville is a huge challenge even for the UK government.
And none of this takes account of the fact that verification would then be required again at the point of withdrawal as many of the indicators that lead to identification of multiple accounting and other term breaches can only be seen after deposits/play have taken place. So in fact registration verification wouldn't be instead of the current verification system, it would be an addition on top of the current system.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regulation is a delicate process. Consumers need to be protected. However, if the regulator goes too far and makes the rules too harsh for businesses it makes the market unattractive and not profitable enough as a whole to encourage growth and sustainability.
While I would actually agree with registration point verification on principal, enforcing this would be such a significant blow to the bottom line of UK licensed operators that it would cause a large scale push back from industry. This isn't a fight I think the UKGC are likely to want to have and to be completely honest, in their position, I don't think I would either.
TP
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Points accepted but you went off on a tangent to what I actually meant - I mean cross-referencing. In other words if I try to open a dupe account at Coral it will instantly freeze and invite me to contact CS. I didn't mean FULL KYC verification. This will happen at Gala too, if any of my details match the Coral SE one or closed one. It will happen at many other licensees too, Betsafe/Mr.Smith and bet-at/Slotty Vegas. It can be done easily, it's automated and any similar detail like a mobile no. or e-mail will automatically void/suspend your registration. So although the UKGC may not be keen, it already happens at the better-organized groups.
All the licensee needs to do is automatically run the application details against their database, a relatively simple bit of code that would flag identical mobiles/phone numbers/e-mails/addresses etc. Any one matching, account suspended.
As for depositing at these bent Cup-o'-cocoa and Montenegro licensed sites, that's really a matter for the UKGC along with the banks and payment processors. These sites simply couldn't exist aside from prepay vouchers or shitcoins if processors and banks were kept up to date with sites that shouldn't be played from the UK. Yes, the payment processors like Skrill/Neteller are greedy and will readily assist you in losing cash to rogues. Again, there is no dialogue between the UKGC and banks/processors so the parasites will exist and breed until their lifeblood is cut off.
Agree on that point up to a point. Most groups are applying some sort of automated system with regard to auto checking for duplicate accounts. There is one major group I can think of that doesn't seem to be at the moment and to me that's become a huge black mark on their reputation.
However this isn't always as straight forward as "relatively simple code". Pre the UKGC deciding that ADRs weren't to manage self-exclusion issues there was a strong theme amongst many of the SE complaints I looked at, that being that certain key pieces of data were being change between the duplicate accounts. The player's used a different email address, the player's changed their phone number, the player's switched the first and middle name around, the player's given their name as a double barrel rather than a separate first and middle name. For instance, the names Kerryann, Kerryanne, Kerry-Ann, Kerry-Anne, Kerry Ann and Kerry Anne would all be interpreted as different by an automated system. And this is where the real problem occurs. It seems perfectly reasonable that someone might make these types of changes, but programs have to become increasingly more sophisticated to catch the variations.
There are certain fields that on registration should be auto lock if they match. I'd completely agree that phone number or email address would be 2. Matching payment accounts should be an immediate lock. Other than that though, things start to get murky. Loads of people share names and DoB. Same with address, people move house all the time and the same issue I highlighted above with the formatting of a personal name can quickly manifest in a physical address. The phone number/email address fields have standard formatting making them easy to lock down, but they're still subject to the SE player changing their phone number/email address.
To be complete you need to start comparing multiple fields and grading points of concern - for instance, a new account with a name the same as another account might not be worth auto-locking and even if there's a matching DoB it may not be worth auto-locking, but if it also resides at an address that you already have registered or within a certain geographical area of an account with a matching name/DoB then this would be high risk and needs to be locked for manual review.
It's not quite as straight forward as that - the banks/processors are often not UK companies and are not beholden to the UKGC in any official manner. Ultimately this is a matter that the UK government do have to deal with, I'm just pointing out that it's not an easy one to address and it's likely there's never going to be an entirely robust solution. What the UKGC don't want to do is put in place policies that are actively going to drive UK players towards non-licensed operators and imo that's likely to happen if they were to put in place registration point verification.
TP
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
Why not allow a new player to deposit up to a low value, e.g. 200EUR/£/$ and withdrawals to the same amount. After that the account doesn't need to be locked, just deposits and withdrawals deactivated.
Western Union, Entropay, Neteller, they all do it. Seems to work there as a genuinegenuine customer will do the KYC asap, should be the same for casinos.
As for cross referencing to find duplicate or SE'ed accounts I just can't believe that in this day and age that it is not instantly possible without security personnel getting involved. We have most complex software systems, face recognition, you name it...... all the KYC could be fully automated and done within seconds of receiving the uploaded docs.
Western Union, Entropay, Neteller, they all do it. Seems to work there as a genuinegenuine customer will do the KYC asap, should be the same for casinos.
As for cross referencing to find duplicate or SE'ed accounts I just can't believe that in this day and age that it is not instantly possible without security personnel getting involved. We have most complex software systems, face recognition, you name it...... all the KYC could be fully automated and done within seconds of receiving the uploaded docs.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Because the amount is irrelevant - whether the player deposits 10 quid or 500, should he/she win they'll be caught under the dupe a/c rule (I refer to the non-disclosure of sister sites not with the same casino) and then the FU term will come into play. Same aggro, same BS.
What I can say with the UTMOST CONFIDENCE is that should anyone win on one site and then be FU'd because they were SE at another site under the same license AND the casino had failed to list the relevant sites in their terms/bonus ad terms at the time you joined and deposited then regardless of any IBAS ruling to the contrary you WILL win in a civil court:
Terms must be 'complete, comprehensive, fair and relevant' and therefore the onus is NOT on the player to click a link to an outside body or business that contains information that is vitally important and therefore should have reasonably been expected to have been included at the point of sale.
If you heard the R4 article today even IBAS agreed (although this may have been due to the publicity).
So if you win a decent amount, live in the UK and were FU'd by any casino that did NOT have sister sites included or present in the terms when you joined, sod IBAS - just go straight to County Court and summons them. The casino is in breach of basic consumer law and this will always be upheld and have 10x more clout than any ADR/IBAS decision - the loser can give the middle finger to either of those if they wish. If these casinos even try and contest your case it's bordering on the vexatious as your argument is essentially outlined in statute.
That's a reasonable middle ground - I don't have any specific thoughts on this. Perhaps some Casino Reps could chime in here?
I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying it's not as straight forward as many people would like to imagine. It requires specialist programming and a lot of careful consideration as to how you weight the grading system to not impede/put off players where there's no reason to while at the same time catching any account that is genuinely duplicate.
And it's got to be remembered that a significant number of the complaints that ultimately turn up will still turn up as the player has changed information enough that the automated system won't detect the duplicate account. Sometime that's innocent and other times it's intentional. At the end of the day the impression I've come away with is that while there are unquestionably cynical attempts to manipulate the system by changing info but there are also some players who self-exclude and re-register with details different enough to get through the system for fairly innocent reasons. They've just decided they want to play again and want to play with their favourite operator. They're not allowed, but they don't see why that should be the case. So they change some details and register again. Then the win comes along, or the big loss and that's when the problems occur. Gambling addiction isn't a rational condition and it can do huge damage to lives. So when things go wrong people will panic and rationalise their actions, even when they know that they've specifically taken action to circumvented the systems that are their to protect them. It becomes the operator's fault that they were allowed to play.
All the above said, I've spent days on end highlighting the issues with SE policies to the UKGC. To me the first thing that should be implemented as a quick fix (while working to longer term more robust strategies) is a check box on the registration page that stipulates that you cannot register if you've previously self-excluded at [BRAND] or any of the operators found on this page [LINK TO THE LICENSE PAGE]. This quickly shows the player what operators are on the same license and would make a significant difference.
And as much as I've spoken about player's circumventing automated systems, there are operators that are unquestionably abusing the current system. I'm aware of one operator who refused a payout because the player had SE at another operator that shared a payment processor. There was simply no way what-so-ever that the player could have possibly known that their SE would apply at this operator. It was a disgraceful case and all I could do was highlight the issue to the UKGC and hope that they took it forward.
In another case an EM operator refused a payout and claimed that the player didn't get detected as SE because they changed one field, that being their first name and it was a switch between 2 common variants of the same name.
I'm again fence sitting - I see the difficulties that the industry has with players who are manipulating the system and I see the genuine problem gamblers that the system is letting down. More work needs to be done in this area, but as stated a couple of paragraphs above there are some quick and simple solutions that could be implemented relatively easily across the industry that would start us moving in the right direction.
TP
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Location
- Northants
The way I look at it its not very hard, Like its been pointed out, We have so much now days in the way of technology, Yes emails change, phone numbers change, IP's change, Address change, But very rare a name gets changed and Nether I heard of an D.O.B being changed,
Whats stoping a casino group, Lets say E.V Every site that is under them they have a pre sign up form, Name & D.O.B canot be that many with the same two, click to continue, Sorry name and D.O.B is recognised as excluded,
Its been going on sinse the internet arrived, Sorry this user name has been taken, Whats so hard to incorporate a name and D.O.B into that?
Whats stoping a casino group, Lets say E.V Every site that is under them they have a pre sign up form, Name & D.O.B canot be that many with the same two, click to continue, Sorry name and D.O.B is recognised as excluded,
Its been going on sinse the internet arrived, Sorry this user name has been taken, Whats so hard to incorporate a name and D.O.B into that?
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
It isn't hard as many do. It may be expensive though, hence the minor operators not doing it.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Location
- Northants
Thats the trouble, Its not the minor operations that are really having this trouble, There the ones that seem to be doing something about it,
To me its not a problem, I nether exclude or take a break, Only thing is if they changed that you can only sign up to one of there sites in the group than I would be in the shit house, Luckily most operations let you sign up to more than one, There is a few that do not alow this,
The 888 group and there knocking on 1 million bingo sites do state only one bonus alowed per group, Now that is some complicated shit, Reason being, They have groups whiten groups, Such as the costabingo has sites such as wishB, fancyB, Than another group which has, LoneyB, SilkB, SugerB, I nether had a problem using bonus or what they call it, Bonus abuse, I think JonM got stinged by it,
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
Because the amount is irrelevant - whether the player deposits 10 quid or 500, should he/she win they'll be caught under the dupe a/c rule (I refer to the non-disclosure of sister sites not with the same casino) and then the FU term will come into play. Same aggro, same BS.
What I can say with the UTMOST CONFIDENCE is that should anyone win on one site and then be FU'd because they were SE at another site under the same license AND the casino had failed to list the relevant sites in their terms/bonus ad terms at the time you joined and deposited then regardless of any IBAS ruling to the contrary you WILL win in a civil court:
Terms must be 'complete, comprehensive, fair and relevant' and therefore the onus is NOT on the player to click a link to an outside body or business that contains information that is vitally important and therefore should have reasonably been expected to have been included at the point of sale.
If you heard the R4 article today even IBAS agreed (although this may have been due to the publicity).
So if you win a decent amount, live in the UK and were FU'd by any casino that did NOT have sister sites included or present in the terms when you joined, sod IBAS - just go straight to County Court and summons them. The casino is in breach of basic consumer law and this will always be upheld and have 10x more clout than any ADR/IBAS decision - the loser can give the middle finger to either of those if they wish. If these casinos even try and contest your case it's bordering on the vexatious as your argument is essentially outlined in statute.
Sorry, unfortunately i missed the program on R4, read the thread too late. Well, finally IBAS saying something in favor of the player. I agree the ONUS has to be with the casino, fail to detect then pay up, simple.
The reason I see this happening at all is because the casino/gambling lobby, being afraid/scared to lose business, had too much influence on the RG regulations, be it UKGC or Malta.
Secondly, the UKGC/Malta firstly focused on getting the casinos registered to make sure the tax money is rolling in, RG was only much further down the list.
Thirdly, the RG regulations have so many loopholes, as mentioned in the ONE thread, my lawyer laughed when he went through it.
Proper RG regulations wouldn't care if a casino is losing a few customers because they are put off by the KYC procedure. They would focus on protecting the players first, casino second.
You will always have hard core addicts/fraudsters that will try to circumvent possible detection of duplicate accounts, SE rules etc. Well, in this case it would be clear for me --> deposits/winnings confiscated.....BASTA. Do that a few times and they will think twice before trying to do it again, the addict because he will be afraid of losing more without having the kick of winning and the fraudsters because they only stop when they see that there is no profit to be made. You could even agree with the casino operators to donate the confiscated deposits to charity organizations who help fight addiction.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
E.g. with WU you register and are allowed to transfer/receive up to 500$ before KYC needs to be done, Entropay the same amount.
It would not solve the problem in itself, but having a limit of e.g. 200$ would limit the damages to both sides, player and casino. And if the winnings are higher than the 200$ limit then the casino can hold on to it until a satisfactory KYC is completed.
At WU you get a pop-up at registration stating the 500$ limit, the reasons behind it and a link to the KYC procedures. How well thought through and simple is that!! The new customer is fully informed and makes his/her decision based on that.
The system as it is, can and is abused by players and casinos alike. That is why i think the above strategy with just a low amount before KYC would work best. Fraudsters will stay away because the possible profits will diminish. Addicts will realize that they can't just open 100's of accounts with ever changing details to circumvent SE rules/duplicate account detection.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2008
- Location
- Ontario
It was many years ago, and I don't know if the same procedure is still in place.
But Bet365 allowed me to make a first deposit, (which I lost), and the second deposit required me to enter a code that that was snail-mailed to me.
Seems like a pretty reasonable compromise to me.
Last name and DOB should be a lock IMO until other details are verified. Both to prevent duplicate accounts and those SE'd. While I personally know 4 Robert Roberts, and 3 Doug Smiths, all in my relative small city, none of them share a date of birth. I did know two people with my last name, my grandma and my brother, with the same birthday, but it was separated by 70 years.
There have been a couple of casinos that offered a small incentive to verify your account. Think that's pretty attractive to the average low-rolling punter, which really is the bread and butter of the casino operators.
But Bet365 allowed me to make a first deposit, (which I lost), and the second deposit required me to enter a code that that was snail-mailed to me.
Seems like a pretty reasonable compromise to me.
Last name and DOB should be a lock IMO until other details are verified. Both to prevent duplicate accounts and those SE'd. While I personally know 4 Robert Roberts, and 3 Doug Smiths, all in my relative small city, none of them share a date of birth. I did know two people with my last name, my grandma and my brother, with the same birthday, but it was separated by 70 years.
There have been a couple of casinos that offered a small incentive to verify your account. Think that's pretty attractive to the average low-rolling punter, which really is the bread and butter of the casino operators.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
This type of software exist already in the mainstream, casinos certainly won't have to reinvent the wheel.
The main reason behind this reluctance from the casinos to implement working tools is rather their thought of losing business, nothing else.
Let's be honest, in essence casino operators give a flying monkey whether a player loses his last dime, is an addict or whatever as long as the dollar keeps rolling in. You are probably one of the few who has insight at how much lobbying from the industry has been done against regulation, be it licensing, RG or taxes.
Just over a decade ago, KYC was hardly done, unless you won a huge amount of money. I played sometimes for years at a few casinos before they asked me for KYC docs and that was mainly because i had my first bigger withdrawal. Countless deposits and small cashins before that, amounting to tens of thousands were possible without any KYC whatsoever.
It was only later that some KYC and RG regulation was implemented, still nothing firm or clear.
What i am trying to say is that online casinos had nearly 2 decades to develop and introduce clear and straightforward KYC and RG procedures, yet all the time they did only just the absolute minimum required by regulations/legislation, not a "iota" more. At the end of the day they want every possible dollar from a player and as long as that is the main driving point we will never see complete, simple and easy to understand and adhere to T&C's, KYC and RG procedures, which are the same across all online casinos.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
Admin Note: thread title changed
Changed from "Today on BBCR4 at 12.15..." To "Players Rights..." since it's not today anymore.
Changed from "Today on BBCR4 at 12.15..." To "Players Rights..." since it's not today anymore.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Location
- Northants
If you click the 1st link in my post on page one, it takes you straight to it where you can still listen, Click play and its just after the 1st minute,
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
I can't agree with you at all on that. Lots of technology exists, yet it's not as simple as cookie cutter, copy and paste into what's already there.
I run a fairly sizeable network of sites - I can say that regardless of the technology already existing, when I want a new feature I need to either get a programmer in to build it from scratch or pay to buy something in.
When you are looking to buy something in there are 3 potential barriers - 1) the software you are looking for actually being on sale (just because it's been developed by someone else doesn't mean that they're looking to sell it) 2) the cost and 3) where a program isn't custom built for you it generally only approximates what you're looking to do rather than matching your needs exactly. This creates no end of problems.
The perfect examples for this are WordPress and forum softwares - I'm strong considering moving off of the 'one size fits all' platforms and looking towards customized interfaces in the future. In every situation to date I can find additions to these type of platforms that kinda do what I want, but still fail to achieve the specific required goals.
The alternative is building the tool from scratch. This means sourcing programmers that are not only skilled enough to build the required system (and what we're talking about isn't no WordPress plugin here) but understand the purpose of the tool and your system well enough to anticipate potential problems and plan ahead for them. Alongside this, the more complicated you make your system the more sensitive it becomes to any changes and the more vulnerabilities inherently turn up that can be maliciously exploited (talking hacking not playing here).
The long and short of this is that each platform provider has developed and runs their own system. Buying in some turnkey package isn't going to work specifically because they need it to run perfectly. In most situations within online gambling it's a PR disaster to say that your technological system failed. It's better to say you can't do it and not do it than say you can and be seen to fail or half arse the job.
I do and I don't agree with this. There is unquestionably incentive for operators not to fix this and I entirely agree that more needs to be done. This is an industry that is based on greed and it cannot function without regulation. We all see how operators in weakly regulated jurisdictions behave. The industry won't do the right thing on its own. However for most operators I think the primary incentive not to change is less about the extra money coming in and more about the outlay to properly develop, test and implement the required systems.
That said, I would openly say that some groups are far more willing and are doing a far better job than others at moving in the right direction. Some groups are simply stringing people along and twisting the spirit of the rules to suit themselves. And that's the real problem at the moment - you have groups that genuinely try to do the right thing, look at the rules and think about what they're intended to do and other groups looking at the rules and trying to figure out the best ways to get round them (the irony is that the groups taking the latter approach are often the ones most offended by smart players that figure out loop holes in their rules). There's not enough consistency and my personal opinion is that the UKGC is still trying to figure out how to enforce consistency without alienating the very people they need to get cooperation from.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
I understand that it won't be simple but if you just look at the tools companies like Google can and have on offer, which are used even by some government agencies, then i cannot comprehend that it would be so complex/difficult to implement them within the existing CRM software casinos are using. Google goes as far as to offering even the implementation, certainly costs money but it is absolutely doable.
Since KYC is handled by the back end of the casino software it would not impact their front end at all.
As to your second part, i have been surprised lately by some operators which have implemented RG tools that give a player full control of their gaming experience, something unthinkable just 2 or 3 years ago.
Worth mentioning here are the WITHDRAWAL LOCK function recently introduced by Rizk which together with their self - set RG console is absolutely commendable.
Videoslots as well have a fully self-set RG console where you can even set a maximum bet size to avoid overbetting.
So there is progress, although not industry wide yet but it is a start. The huge success of the likes of Videoslots and Rizk, who have risen to well known and liked brands within a relatively short period, shows that you can combine proper RG with a successful casino operation.
What i have seen though as well is that established brands started degrading their RG offers down to the absolute minimum regulations are asking for. That i cannot welcome, to be honest.
HBKK - on this we couldn't be more in agreement. There's progress in the industry but it's happening slowly and with those groups that care most about their reputation (it's not hard to see why these groups end up well placed on certain affiliate sites).
There's still a lot to be done and if the rest of industry followed the likes of the Guts group and Video Slots thing would get better quickly. There's a need for a stronger push from a regulatory angle to make this happen though.
The BBC4 radio show highlighted a problem issue - that being operators trying to misrepresent the legal rights of their consumers. I'm not totally sold that this is confusing loads of players, but at it's core it's fundamentally wrong. It's an intentional attempt to convince players that they don't have rights that are legally enforceable regardless of terms and conditions. That's not okay.
There's still a lot to be done and if the rest of industry followed the likes of the Guts group and Video Slots thing would get better quickly. There's a need for a stronger push from a regulatory angle to make this happen though.
The BBC4 radio show highlighted a problem issue - that being operators trying to misrepresent the legal rights of their consumers. I'm not totally sold that this is confusing loads of players, but at it's core it's fundamentally wrong. It's an intentional attempt to convince players that they don't have rights that are legally enforceable regardless of terms and conditions. That's not okay.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
Most definitely. The majority of casino operators will not do anything until regulations/laws force them to.
Sorry, still no had time to listen to the BBC4 show. They'd wish, would be my answer. No T&C's are legally enforceable if they unfairly disadvantage one party and lately courts have taken more to the side of the consumer. Hence, any casino operator trying to convince a player that he forgoes his legal rights, just because he ticked a box at registration agreeing to the T&C's, is laughable at best.
But i can see many unwary punters falling for the trick and stop pursuing their claims.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
And will attempt a lot of hinky shit in the meantime. If it was just a matter of dragging their feet until they're forced to do the right thing it would be bad enough but the fact that a shocking number of operators will happily lie, cheat and steal until someone makes it impossible -- or too expensive -- for them to continue is where a good bit of player's agony originates.
I'm coming up on 10 years of PAB work and I've observed that players largely think that casinos are out to cheat them and casinos largely feel the same way about players: the great truth here is that both are 100% right! I know it's pretty much a truism in this business but there is and always has been a serious amount of dirt being done on both sides of the line. Standing in the middle as an arbitrator my "golden rule" is that proof keeps everything friendly.
On the one hand that is not particularly encouraging, and it is what it is. On the other hand there are a good number of totally decent people running casinos and the same is true for the player community. Both parties would do well to make a point of recognizing, embracing and championing the good guys. I dare say the annual Casinomeister Awards are a pretty fair example of doing just that, if I may toot our own horn a wee bit. Certainly endless mutual suspicion and mistrust is no way to run a business nor enjoy one's pastime.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Location
- UK
It is surprisingly difficult to get a workable way to share self exclusion info to block deposits up front as we all want. Ok the smallest firms don't get many duplicates or people going to the same site whereas the biggest ones with dozens of brand names get plenty, all with different legacy systems from firms they have aquired.
The new multi-operator self exclusion scheme that will apply to all UKGC licencees and was/is due next April came in with an estimated setup cost of £2m and annual running costs of £1.5m and that seemed to be for UK players only using a UK government Gateway ID. To give you a sense of scale the entire UKGC regulatory operation for everything is about £12m a year.
The RGA is supposed to be leading on this now and I have not heard about their progress but it really is not that simple to have a low cost check on first deposit to ensure self excluders are properly identified before fairly immediate access - which is what the rest of the consumers want. It's a while back that they were recruiting for the project so maybe there will be news soon.
The other trouble of this change for both the UKGC and the operators is that many of the issues with SE coming up now at operators with many brands/sites should be reslved via this new system so duplicating the cost by sorting it out themselves now is just seen as extra cost that in a few months wil be wasted, indeed the national scheme could beat them to rollout (or reliability) as it is a new scheme not messing with multiple legacy systems. The google type options aren't really the ticket s they would miss many, no unique identifier and have too many false positives.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Location
- Balcony
Of course it would be wasted money NOW. But for the past years they happily accepted deposits without having the risk to pay out winnings and decided to stay put until something is forced on to them or the regulations are tightened.
Nobody, and i mean absolutely nobody can convince me that with today's technology it is either not easily possible or too costly to automatically and instantly compare within a group database an email address, first & last name, DOB, address, ID number on registration of a genuine new player.
Cheats, fraudsters etc will always find a way of circumventing a system, no matter if it is localized in a casino group or central with the UKGC.
But I am talking here about the genuine player having SE'ed at one casino and is now registering with another one, not knowing, not thinking, too lazy to read xxx amount of pages to find out that the casino is a sister site of the one they previously SE'ed. Most didn't even know about this SE "spiel" until they had the first time problems to get a cashin paid. Just by the amount of players we had here on CM i suspect there must have been 1,000's, if not 10,000's, who were caught out by this and never received neither their winnings nor their deposits back. And i am not even counting those who made and lost their deposits without submitting a withdrawal and never went back to the casino in question, hence went completely undetected and the casino just kept the money without even checking the account for SE.
Most casinos wouldn't do the check until the player submitted a withdrawal request. That in itself is a huge failure in fraud detection as some people would deposit thousands before managing to make a withdrawal. So the casinos never question where the money is coming from but after a good win for the player...VOILA, they jump into action. How convenient.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Given that most casinos will ONLY accept passport or driving license through the normal KYC channels, they had a solution all along, the driver number and passport number. These would uniquely identify UK players for life, regardless of how they wrote their names, DoB, or changed email address or moved house. A check against driver number and passport number for duplicates in the system as well as validity with external databases would not hold players up who want to deposit and play "right now". This would at least ensure that a valid and unique identity was being used to register the account, and should catch many problem players before they even get as far as depositing. As players continue the process, further instant electronic checks can build credibility for the player without holding up their experience. When they make their first deposit, electronic checks can be made to ensure the deposit method is held in the name of the player who has just registered, and that it has not been used before by another player, nor for anything questionable in the past. In a matter of seconds, this can either allow the player to continue or lock the account for manual review.
Having players upload their ID document at the same time as giving it's unique number will allow a basic and automated verification of the document by optical character recognition software checking that the details on it match what has been supplied during registration. Again this can be used to lock a suspicious account for manual review or allow the player to continue playing on the first deposit.
It won't screen out the determined fraudster, but it should screen out many players who have made innocent mistakes so that matters don't get to the stage where they end up being denied payment, or lose money where they could never have won.
These checks can be done in seconds via electronic databases, they will not have an impact on the impulse nature of the player wanting to play now, rather than the following Monday.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Location
- Northants
You have to remember its also easy to obtain a drive licence (fake but real), not so much pass ports but will not say nothing on that,
Any way it should of been simple for U.K players when the U.K regs came into effect, What they should of done is hold a data base them selfs, I am sure it would of been pretty accurate considering what the gov holds on us, I think if my memery serves me right it was Nicola mentioned such things when she said she was starting up a site,
Upload your docs to the gaming commission then the casino can just go by there, It did not happen for a few reasons, 1st they have not got a scobby, 2nd all there interested in is the income it brings,
I know casino go overboard now days but there only trying to protect them selfs, Not only due to the regs but so you can reverse
(little joke)
In any case when they do not know what they are anyway ? Take the casumo thread the other day and players getting excluded instead of taking a break, Most of this goes back to CS (live chat) that do not know what a casino is let alone sorting probs out. (repeat not all but most)
I had a chat with a casino the other day about my new card, I have had about 4 since I been playing there, each time I been asked for a copy of card, This time I was not? It may of been as I approached them to say that its not letting me change my name when enter a new card, My names not change and did not relies that where it states (name on card) it has always been my full name that was on there site but on card its my first initials than last name, They stated let me speak to some one and get back, I was told its fine and they probs maked it as ok, I do not know as I am unsure how it works there end but I was not asked,
It boggles my mind how people say its not so easy? and cost money? Yes it most probs cost money but so does every thing else, I no expert but I bet I could bodge a program, I say bodge as thats what I normally do but we are not talking about a few minor fish here, We are talking great whites with plenty of change kicking about,
Only way this casino industry is going to survive is if the big operators / providers put there hands in there pockets, Look how many times we have been told there is no direct link to chat to suppliers of the games? when theres a problem? I guess they can get hold of them some how but if there as bad as most casino CS than no wonder we are constant deleting cookies and errors none stop.
Go go back to casino will not last, Well most will not but the operators / providers are not bothered, as long as they are getting there revenue they could not be bothered if casino went out of businesses, Reason being there is many more that will try there luck and pay them and when they need help? No as we have many more casino that wants our machines,
We put alot of blame on the casino it selfs when in reality they do there best to give us a good experience , Take the good reps that sweet blood trying to help us out on here, I think thats the only thing that keeps alot going, These good forums, Some do not bother due to heavy in the market, Others do not as there dodgy or just not bothered about players ,
I respect the reps that come on here, help us out
Sorry guys if a bit confusion, Doing a VWM special l
Any way it should of been simple for U.K players when the U.K regs came into effect, What they should of done is hold a data base them selfs, I am sure it would of been pretty accurate considering what the gov holds on us, I think if my memery serves me right it was Nicola mentioned such things when she said she was starting up a site,
Upload your docs to the gaming commission then the casino can just go by there, It did not happen for a few reasons, 1st they have not got a scobby, 2nd all there interested in is the income it brings,
I know casino go overboard now days but there only trying to protect them selfs, Not only due to the regs but so you can reverse
(little joke)In any case when they do not know what they are anyway ? Take the casumo thread the other day and players getting excluded instead of taking a break, Most of this goes back to CS (live chat) that do not know what a casino is let alone sorting probs out. (repeat not all but most)
I had a chat with a casino the other day about my new card, I have had about 4 since I been playing there, each time I been asked for a copy of card, This time I was not? It may of been as I approached them to say that its not letting me change my name when enter a new card, My names not change and did not relies that where it states (name on card) it has always been my full name that was on there site but on card its my first initials than last name, They stated let me speak to some one and get back, I was told its fine and they probs maked it as ok, I do not know as I am unsure how it works there end but I was not asked,
It boggles my mind how people say its not so easy? and cost money? Yes it most probs cost money but so does every thing else, I no expert but I bet I could bodge a program, I say bodge as thats what I normally do but we are not talking about a few minor fish here, We are talking great whites with plenty of change kicking about,
Only way this casino industry is going to survive is if the big operators / providers put there hands in there pockets, Look how many times we have been told there is no direct link to chat to suppliers of the games? when theres a problem? I guess they can get hold of them some how but if there as bad as most casino CS than no wonder we are constant deleting cookies and errors none stop.
Go go back to casino will not last, Well most will not but the operators / providers are not bothered, as long as they are getting there revenue they could not be bothered if casino went out of businesses, Reason being there is many more that will try there luck and pay them and when they need help? No as we have many more casino that wants our machines,
We put alot of blame on the casino it selfs when in reality they do there best to give us a good experience , Take the good reps that sweet blood trying to help us out on here, I think thats the only thing that keeps alot going, These good forums, Some do not bother due to heavy in the market, Others do not as there dodgy or just not bothered about players ,
I respect the reps that come on here, help us out
Sorry guys if a bit confusion, Doing a VWM special l
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
You have to remember its also easy to obtain a drive licence (fake but real), not so much pass ports but will not say nothing on that,
Any way it should of been simple for U.K players when the U.K regs came into effect, What they should of done is hold a data base them selfs, I am sure it would of been pretty accurate considering what the gov holds on us, I think if my memery serves me right it was Nicola mentioned such things when she said she was starting up a site,
Upload your docs to the gaming commission then the casino can just go by there, It did not happen for a few reasons, 1st they have not got a scobby, 2nd all there interested in is the income it brings,
I know casino go overboard now days but there only trying to protect them selfs, Not only due to the regs but so you can reverse
In any case when they do not know what they are anyway ? Take the casumo thread the other day and players getting excluded instead of taking a break, Most of this goes back to CS (live chat) that do not know what a casino is let alone sorting probs out. (repeat not all but most)
I had a chat with a casino the other day about my new card, I have had about 4 since I been playing there, each time I been asked for a copy of card, This time I was not? It may of been as I approached them to say that its not letting me change my name when enter a new card, My names not change and did not relies that where it states (name on card) it has always been my full name that was on there site but on card its my first initials than last name, They stated let me speak to some one and get back, I was told its fine and they probs maked it as ok, I do not know as I am unsure how it works there end but I was not asked,
It boggles my mind how people say its not so easy? and cost money? Yes it most probs cost money but so does every thing else, I no expert but I bet I could bodge a program, I say bodge as thats what I normally do but we are not talking about a few minor fish here, We are talking great whites with plenty of change kicking about,
Only way this casino industry is going to survive is if the big operators / providers put there hands in there pockets, Look how many times we have been told there is no direct link to chat to suppliers of the games? when theres a problem? I guess they can get hold of them some how but if there as bad as most casino CS than no wonder we are constant deleting cookies and errors none stop.
Go go back to casino will not last, Well most will not but the operators / providers are not bothered, as long as they are getting there revenue they could not be bothered if casino went out of businesses, Reason being there is many more that will try there luck and pay them and when they need help? No as we have many more casino that wants our machines,
We put alot of blame on the casino it selfs when in reality they do there best to give us a good experience , Take the good reps that sweet blood trying to help us out on here, I think thats the only thing that keeps alot going, These good forums, Some do not bother due to heavy in the market, Others do not as there dodgy or just not bothered about players ,
I respect the reps that come on here, help us out
Sorry guys if a bit confusion, Doing a VWM special l
If you think it's "easy to get a driving license", try having Epilepsy or Diabetes, it's simply not allowed!!!! Even when you are allowed, what is issued is a provisional, but many casinos won't accept this, they want a full, which means learning to drive and passing the test, not simply having your ID documents verified by DVLA. It costs over £700 for a 1 week intensive course to learn to drive, and you still have to pass the test at the end.
Passports are also not "easy to get", there is a fee of over £100, and you have to travel for a face to face interview if it's your first one. It then takes 6 weeks or more to arrive after this, there is no "fast track" allowed for the first passport any longer. When I got my passport, I was asked what I wanted it for, so it looks like it can be denied if you are deemed to want it for the wrong reason. Fortunately, I didn't have to lie, I needed it because I had just won a trip to Berlin. If someone is only getting a passport because a casino says they need it, they face a dilemma when asked this question as the truth could present a real problem, so they would have to say something vague about wanting it in case they want to go abroad at short notice, even though they had no specific trip booked at the time of application. They must NEVER say "because xxxxxx online casino says this is the only document they will accept to verify my ID", at least not until they have got the passport.
Neither offers an "ID verification only" option, applicants need to be serious about actually wanting to drive or wanting to go abroad.
Most other countries issue citizens with "ID verification only" cards, and they are in addition to passports and driving licenses. As they are issued as a matter of course, no one should be in the position of not having one when it's needed.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
I think he was talking about getting them from non legitimate sources
and would agree with him, getting them isn't hard unfortunately.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Location
- Northants
I think he was talking about getting them from non legitimate sources
I didnt want to realy go into illegal stuff
but @VWM a pro licence is no different than a full one, things have probably changed from your days, All sites have accepted mine without fuss, Yes you have to sign a declaration about any things such as blindness or fits, But whats a small whit lie as you will not be using it to drive, lso I didnt know you have to have a one to one when getting a PP? Some country's maybe to get a visa,Who wouldn't want to accept that I.D with my ugly mug
but its a good few years ago
I didnt want to realy go into illegal stuff
Who wouldn't want to accept that I.D with my ugly mug
View attachment 69969
Prison Break are still casting for the new season I heard
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Location
- Northants
Prison Break are still casting for the new season I heard
LoL I love prison break untill the end it turned shit, I wonder if casino would accept prison I.D
LoL I love prison break untill the end it turned shit, I wonder if casino would accept prison I.D
View attachment 69970
You have to make that your profile pic!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
I think he was talking about getting them from non legitimate sources
I see, yet casinos think these are cast iron proofs, but reject the birth certificate because it's so easy to get hold of.
A Panorama program once showed how easy it was to trick DVLA into issuing a "fake" driving licence, they got one in the name of David Blunkett, the BLIND home secretary at the time. Along with diabetics and epileptics, blind people also cannot hold a driving licence. This one should have been easy for DVLA to spot, but what about the more mundane issue of getting driving licenses in the name of a stolen ID, and these would be legitimate licenses, not fake, and they would verify if checked with the DVLA. It is stressed that such documents are not "proof of identity", and it's the same with passports, although it's much harder to trick the system into issuing a passport for a stolen identity, but fakes are available.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Location
- Northants
Yes and there was another one when somebody had about 20 licence all with the same picture, It only took 20 times to spot it was the same person even thou I am sure it was getting sent to the same address
What they should have is face detect really, even if its not 100% a curate as Its serious with all the wars and that going on and illegals,But most casino I am sure if they know you are a genuine than I am sure there noit going to go over any I.D with a tooth pick, They just need to say that there going by the rules, Just like if you went into a pub under age and they knew you was not 18 as long as you had some sort of I.D
Did I mention I went to tesco the other day to change some Erous back up for mys sister, I will not go into the terrible exchange rate but man in front bought aload of $ & the women wanted I.D and card being used, Not only that but she actually scanned took pictures of both, I think thats illegal as she didnt tell him she was taking the picture
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Location
- Northants
Just for you, Unfortunate I changed but not showing, I actually sorted my hard drives out the other day so I will actually put a half decent one on, that pic already is been on too long, I had about 6 lose hard drives all filled up ranging from 80gb to 1TB & took some bloody time to sort them
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
LoL I love prison break untill the end it turned shit, I wonder if casino would accept prison I.D
View attachment 69970
thats a legit prison ID isn't it?
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Location
- Northants
thats a legit prison ID isn't it?
100% not proud of my past but I do not mess about/, As you guys know and every one that knows me, I will help any one out and give my last pennys, If the casino sites not took the change
- Joined
- May 13, 2014
- Location
- Wolverhampton
Sorry If I make ya blush, but your a good bloke Tez, I will vouch for that any day
Similar threads
