UK Gambling Laws

Petunia

Dormant account
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Location
Woman lives in London
:D let's hope they adjust the settings a bit though, else my bank roll is going to suffer!!!
 

gfkostas

Ex-Bonus Whore
Joined
Sep 3, 2003
Location
London
I hope they will introduce new rules for BJ like doubling on any 2 cards and hit when splitting aces :D.
Btw which casino you visit most in london Petunia? I would recommend the Palm beach in Mayfair.
 
Last edited:

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
England
There is no good and only bad can come of this, which is all about Tony Blair reaping the rewards of huge taxation increases on the back of the obvious increase in problem gambling and general suffering and absolutely NOTHING about increased "regulation". UK gambling is very well regulated in its current state. Casino membership requirement and the 24 hour waiting period is an excellent disincentive to any old hobbledyhoy from walking in and losing money - only people who actively want to gamble and are prepared to apply and then wait are the ones who can enter under the current laws. Under the new "deregulated" format, those kids, dropouts and junkies who currently play the fruit machines for reasonably low stakes and "relatively" limited losses are going to be exposed to unlimited stakes and the obvious disaster that'll lead to in the casinos. Bookies are pretty unregulated free-for-alls, but at least casinos are not immediately accessable to the masses under the current rules.

This is a recipe for increased misery, increased crime and increased state-dependency. There is nothing remotely positive in it. Tessa Jowell is totally full of shit in every word she says, she's clueless and dangerous and I hope she gets her come-uppence in hell sooner rather than later. The corruption potential in these otherwise ordinary-looking human beings like you and me leaves me flabbergasted. They KNOW the awful consequences to this, and yet they'll go ahead because of the Mighty Pound.

FWIW - not much, I know - this should be opposed at all costs.
 

gfkostas

Ex-Bonus Whore
Joined
Sep 3, 2003
Location
London
Nice post.

I believe that if someone wants to gamble it doesnt matter if there are casinos or not and how regulated are they.He will find something like dogs,football etc. to lose his money.The thing is that with casinos i believe is more heartfull when you lose than with dogs or so I say.I feel worse when i lose on roulette compare to losing on dogs.I believe that its a society problem more than casinos problem.If you know what you doing and you are matture enough in your brain it doesnt matter how many casinos your city has.
 
Last edited:

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
England
Knowledge of the facts doesn't shield you from the indirect effects of the problem. I am not personally going to become a crackhead roulette junkie as a result of this. I MIGHT nonetheless fall victim to an assault / burglary from someone who DOES. Gambling and social problems (crime, drugs etc) are inseperable - the government cannot have their cake and eat it, hard as they will no doubt try. They will get their tax pennies, but the burden on the national budget / welfare system will also increase. In those areas which are already stretched in those departments the pressure will become excessively severe. You will be either directly or indirectly affected, one way or the other. If not you, your mother / brother / cousin / nephew. Do you want that?

That people should be "free to please themselves" in an old, irrelevant argument. If this were so, hard drugs would be legalized - I can sniff / inject what I want, correct? Firearms would be legalized. I'm allowed to choose my own means of self-defence, correct? Euthanasia would be legalized - I can choose the time of my own death and make decisions, in dire circumstances, for those of my loved ones, correct? I'm a mature, intelligent adult, correct? The reason none of this is legal is that it's all either socially irresponsible, politically incorrect or both. It is absolutely nothing to do with the utopian "individual's freedom of choice".

If they wanted to "regulate" gambling more efficiently they would give the sports betting industry a makeover, provide gambling INFORMATION for the public and MAINTAIN the controls on casinos. As it is, the SB industry will be practically untouched (get those video roulette machines, eh?) and there will be an EXPLOSION in casino development. This is about "protection" and "regulation" in gambling? Gimmeafuckinbreak.

This starts and ends with tax revenue. Labour has seen a vast, untapped market and they want a slice of it.

Be under no illusion about the motivation for this.
 

oldman

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Location
New York, man :)
Blair: Gambling Bill is about better regulation, protection for children

Yesterday Blair has backed plans to deregulate gambling laws, as reports had arisen on ministerial misgivings over proposals. Also he said, that Ninety percent of the Gambling Bill is about better regulation, better protection for children. Also he stated: Whether we like it or not, we have gambling in this country, but with a series of rules and restrictions which are completely out of date. How objective, isnt it?!! And expansion of the US gambling giants will settle the problem.
Fortunately, Conservatives are against the Gambling Bill
Just consider the statistics:
Research conducted by NetValue, an Internet usage monitoring company, shows that UK Internet users are primarily interested in porn and gambling websites.
Over a third of Internet users in the U.K. 3.6 million people visit adult websites and 40 percent of the top 6, 000 sites are X-rated, according to The Register.
Elsewhere, the research showed there are ten million home Internet users in Britain an increase of 15 percent over the previous six month.
Whats more, theyre spending even more time on online up from nine minutes a day in December 1999 to 12 minutes a day in May

Otherwise, as was stated in some article, satisfaction of gamble and sex cravings will be taking less time than heating up a meal. :oops:
 
Last edited:

Petunia

Dormant account
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Location
Woman lives in London
Public rejects Blair's casino plans

"A majority of voters, especially women, are opposed to the governments plans to allow new generation of mega casinos to open in Britain, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today" - From this morning's paper.

Now let me put in my 2c here.

I get my knickers in a COMPLETE twist when these pple all have something to say about this bill. The ONLY reason, in MY OPINION, for them screaming "NO" is because the government might just make rules they don't like.
BUT, now let Mr. Blair say. "Fine, have it your way, NO MORE CASINOS" then it would be these VERY SAME concerned MOTHERS who are screaming "HOW dare you put my husband/father/me/ out of work!!!"

Casuso said: "Gambling and social problems (crime, drugs etc) are inseparable - the government cannot have their cake and eat it, hard as they will no doubt try."

Yeah? And I MIGHT die because of someone else's smoke. And yeah, for SURE, drugs are illegal, but hey, IT STILL HAPPENS.

I get infuriated when suddenly what was a good idea, became a bad idea when pple realise that a) YOU are now forced to take responsibility
b) Regulating means that the casinos will be FORCED
to take responsibility!
c) As much as we don't like the bloody watchdog, it is like big brother, just knowing he is there, makes you feel a little better.

Common, be realistic. I have worked in a casino, I have had woman screaming at me that I stole her money (btw, the casino was right next to the supermarket). It is about choice. You have the choice to pay up, play fair and put up OR NOT. If you don't like it, YOU teach your child. YOU lead by example and YOU don't support the industry.

I have a problem with fence straddlers too. You are IN or OUT. Because you don't get everything, you cannot want the good for yourself only and blame everyone else !!

Common. This is a catch 22. Be responsible. I am a mother too. My child is EDUCATED, but in the end, she still has to make that CHOICE. It is NOT up to the GOVERMENT to baby-sit her!

JUST my opinion.

*blowing off steam. *
 

oldman

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Location
New York, man :)
What kind of gambler Blair would be ?

Oct 26 : British Prime Minister Tony Blair has revealed that although he is not against gambling per se and also has plans to make the London gambling scene similar to Las Vegas, he never gambles with his money.

Instead to him it is politics, which is a big gamble because he is forced to take risks all the time, reports The Sun.

"Gambling goes on, people gamble. I am not a gambler myself, actually. Politics, maybe. You have to have risks in this job, but there it is," the report quoted him as saying. (ANI)

At least he admitted that politics and gambling walk close. :D I wonder what kind of gambler he would be? lucky one? or loser?

P.S.
And what do you think about a secret deal that had been done to cut the tax paid by casinos in return for major investments in the UK ? is that information reliable? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Petunia

Dormant account
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Location
Woman lives in London
Blair- Bonus hunter!

-- Old man, I think mister Blair might just be a bonus hunter! Besides, what is wrong with that?! hehehe
 

gfkostas

Ex-Bonus Whore
Joined
Sep 3, 2003
Location
London
Personally i wouldn't mind having a Ceasars Palace in London :oops:
 

oldman

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Location
New York, man :)
Well, I think such a person can't be a gambler at all. He said that he never gambles with his money...
And don't you think that being a "political" gambler he would not love to gamble with your money...?
Sorry, have no time to eleborate, but feel really interesting to dispute with you on this issue... Let's continue tomorrow ;)
 

Petunia

Dormant account
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Location
Woman lives in London
--- Oldman: Is that not what gambling is about? A political, clever way to wangle your money out of you? THeoretically, he gambles already... with lives, so effectively, I would much rather him gamble with money. WHich, btw, he is doing too. I do however think he would be a bonus hugger/hunter. He would do what he can to get as much as he can and then scream and point if he did not get ALL he COULD GET. Yeah, I am too tired too. It's a date. We speak on the morrow!
 

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
England
I'm sick of hearing the old "freedom of choice" chestnut dragged up EVERY time these matters arise - it is NOT relevant. A utopian world in which all people may be subjected to all possible temptations - drugs, gambling, prostitution, alcohol, firearms, etc etc - and never indulge to excess may be desirable, but the evidence catagorically refutes the scenario a hundred percent. Look at Australia. If you expose the unbalanced masses to these mediums you will create problems. You CANNOT shelve responsibility by saying "we're all adults"; we are not. If you deregulate gambling - and that's what this is, be under no illusion about that, this is nothing whatever to do with regulation - you can only accept that you are directly adding to the social problem.

Does anybody seriously claim that this is anything other than fistfuls of tax revenue? Gimme a break. Blair needs money badly to balance the books and there is nothing he won't stoop to to achieve that end. That is all this is about - tax, tax and more tax. If there was anything remotely edifying on the other side, such as social BENEFIT, it would be worth considering, but de-regulation of gambling is only socially destructive.

This should be opposed at all costs.
 

Simmo!

Paleo Meister (means really, really old)
Joined
May 29, 2004
Location
England
Nothing like a good debate...

I kind of agree with Caruso in principle. I also agree that the government here just loves to tax people so i can see why they like it. However, its the business, not the gambler they are taxing as winnings from gambling in the UK is tax free.

Anyway - my main point is: anyone can go online and gamble at an online casino - in fact, its far more convenient for many than a land casino and probably worse in that its there 24hours a day with no need to make an effort where your time in a land based casino is usually limited.

So on that point, a land casino creates no more of an issue than an online casino.

I also agree with the statement earlier that someone pointed out: if someone has a gambling problem, they'll find a way and there are plenty of opportunities whichever way you turn.
 

GrandMaster

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
caruso said:
Does anybody seriously claim that this is anything other than fistfuls of tax revenue?
Yes. It is claimed that it will be tax neutral, the tax rates on casinos will be cut.
 

oldman

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Location
New York, man :)
Winners and losers

The proposals include the relaxation of rules on the construction of casinos and sweeping away player restrictions. Players would no longer have to join casinos 24 hours before gambling and would be allowed to drink alcohol at the gaming table. New rules on fruit machine prizes could also result in million-pound jackpots being offered.

Some newspapers, opposition MPs and prominent members of the Labour Party, including former deputy leader Lord Hattersley, have condemned the plans.

The Salvation Army said the reforms could lead to problems for gambling addicts.

"There are only two real winners that will benefit from the liberalisation of gambling laws: the gaming industry through massively increased profits, and the government through increased taxation," a spokesman said.

"The big losers will be the vulnerable people whose lives are ruined by gambling addiction."
 

Slotster!

I predict a riot.
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Location
Location, Location!
Does anyone have any statistics for the levels of gambling addiction in Nevada and Atlantic City, in comparison to the UK currently?

As a recreational gambler who enjoys the occasional trip to Las Vegas, I think I'm in favour of the plans. I mean, if someone decides to slit their wrists, do you blame the manufacturer of the kitchen knife? Adults should be allowed to make their own choices and decisions. I don't think we can expect a third party to legislate what adults should and shouldn't be allowed to do.

It's easy enough to become addicted to gambling in the uk with internet casinos, bookmakers, fruit machines etc anyway. I don't think bigger jackpots and more exciting gaming will make an enormous difference.

More importantly though - we just haven't got the weather!!!! There's nothing like sliding out of Ballys on a balmy summer evening, and wandering over to Ceasars Palace.... before taking a stroll up the strip.

Blackpool just doesn't seem to compare somehow :D

EDIT: On an entirely unrelated note, just read the Tomb Raider announcement up there, and just to let you know that 32RED are launching it on the 28th too!
 
Last edited:

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
England
"Adults should be allowed to make their own choices and decisions."

***SNOOOORE***

Change the record PLEASE. That point was made about 200 years ago. Repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make it any less irrelevant.

It is claimed that it will be tax neutral, the tax rates on casinos will be cut.

GM - are you saying you've read a claim that tax levels will be maintained unchanged, notwithstanding an INDETERMINATE increase of casinos? This is impossible to achieve. For each new casino they'd need to slice the overall tax rate to maintain the balance. Then, for those that may fold they'd have to UP the percentage again.

If you have a link, please post it.
 

GrandMaster

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
caruso said:
GM - are you saying you've read a claim that tax levels will be maintained unchanged, notwithstanding an INDETERMINATE increase of casinos? This is impossible to achieve. For each new casino they'd need to slice the overall tax rate to maintain the balance. Then, for those that may fold they'd have to UP the percentage again.

If you have a link, please post it.

I read somewhere (sorry, I can't remember where) that tax rates on casinos will be cut from 40% to 15%-20%, so that the total amount of tax raised from the casinos will stay roughly the same. Obviously, the tax rates won't be adjusted every time a casino opens or closes.

The cynical in me thinks that the Labour Party's finances must benefit from it somehow.
 
Last edited:

nafanny29

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Location
London, England
Just typed out a long post with my humble opinions on the subject then it vanished when I hit to "back" key accidently GRRRR

Summary of my long post is:

1. Labour WILL DEFINATELY benefit from it
2. The reform WILL go through
3. I tend to agree with Caruso re promblem gambling getting much worse
4. Hope they have single deck 21 and 10x odds on craps at the Wembley casino :D :D
 

KasinoKing

WebMeister & Slotaholic..
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
MM
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Location
Bexhill on sea, England
My 1c worth!
I totally 100% agree with everything caruso said.

Even though I am a daily gambler myself, and personally would love it if they finally opened a casino in Hastings, I can only see a lot of misery for a lot of people.
When I started gambling, I did crazy, foolish things - and I was addicted. I could very easily have got into serious debt problems. I don't want to make it sound like I'm better than anyone else, but I think I have much better self control than a lot of other people I have seen in betting shops, casinos and anywhere else where gambling machines are sited. (Almost everywhere these days!)
In the UK, people almost get credit cards & bank loans rammed down their throats! Getting into debt is just far too simple, and millions of Britons have done just that. I don't know the current figure, but I remember hearing on the news a while back that the average brit owes something like 14K on just credit cards & bank loans alone!
I am just an office 'pleb' on less than 25K/an - I owe 200 to one credit card, and have no bank loans. But getting here was bloody hard work!
Saying people are adults and can use their own brain is easy to say - and may well apply to Americans and others!
But far too many Brits seem incapable of controlling their actions, or being sensible. Just look at the trouble we have with football hooligans, and mass binge drinking leading to all sorts of crime & violence in every large town centre up and down the entire county each and every weekend of the year!
As for parental education of their youngsters - paah! I'm not a parent myself, but the vast majority of others I've seen have as much control and authority over their offspring as I do over the rising of the sun each morning!

OK, that's enough soap-boxing for today - back to my lowly job! :(

PS: I don't like generalising and knocking Britains - I am very proud to be British myself. But you can't ignore the facts.
 
Last edited:

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
GrandMaster said:
I read somewhere (sorry, I can't remember where) that tax rates on casinos will be cut from 40% to 15%-20%, so that the total amount of tax raised from the casinos will stay roughly the same. Obviously, the tax rates won't be adjusted every time a casino opens or closes.

The cynical in me thinks that the Labour Party's finances must benefit from it somehow.

You're possibly thinking of the following comment which received quite a lot of attention, GM:

QUOTE: A memo written by Nick Bent, Ms Jowell's special adviser, says the Gambling Bill "will be revenue neutral for HM Treasury". Leading tax analysts say for this to happen the tax rate would have to drop from the current level of 40 per cent to between 15 and 20 per cent.UNQUOTE
 

Petunia

Dormant account
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Location
Woman lives in London
caruso said:
I'm sick of hearing the old "freedom of choice" chestnut dragged up EVERY time these matters arise - it is NOT relevant. .


Let's agree to disagree. Freedom of choice is relevant to every and any situation. Being sick of it does not change the matter. So you would have Gambling outlawed then, like in America, have publishers threatened for taking even Advertising money?!

Either way. Let's agree, you and I, to disagree. This can become petty pretty fast, and frankly I am not the petty kind. Call me a hippy, I believe in freedom of choice. I have only ONE thing that I don't have a choice about. Dieing. The rest. THERE IS ALWAYS choice.

I would like to CHOOSE for myself if I will or will not spend my money with an establishment of MY CHOICE. --- Is my point and I am not about to change it. So, Let's agree to disagree. The 'right thing' to do. IMHO.
 
Top