UK licence query

[citizenx]

So, as a British citizen, if I decide to spend my money with an organisation which doesn't have the express permission of my government to do business with me then that it my right.

I.may have little protection or recourse if there are issues but as an adult that is my problem.

So, what right does the government have to restrict which overseas casinos I play with? What sanctions can they apply to those which serve me without a UK licence?

Just curious and as a libertarian, not really keen on my government dictating the choices I can make.

 

[winbig]

So, as a British citizen, if I decide to spend my money with an organisation which doesn't have the express permission of my government to do business with me then that it my right.

I.may have little protection or recourse if there are issues but as an adult that is my problem.

So, what right does the government have to restrict which overseas casinos I play with? What sanctions can they apply to those which serve me without a UK licence?

Just curious and as a libertarian, not really keen on my government dictating the choices I can make.

Not sure about the current UK situation, but indeed it's starting to look a lot like what we've faced every day for the past several years here in the states...

 

[conker]

I think you can take your chances with whoever will accept your money.

Very recently many casinos turned their back on the UK following the introduction of a 15% gaming tax.

I guess the more deeper you want to hide your casino play the more likely you are to run into the rogue element of this industry.

 

[spintee]

I do not think its the government stopping you but more like government stopping the casino,

The way I see it is that if a casino is offering play to U.K than the Gov wants there share of the pie, I do not no what actions they will take towards casino's that not paying there share but good luck trying to find them ~

I not being told what to do by a bunch of toffee nose plonkers, Most have been caught trying to cheat there tax avoidance any away, They govern them selfs, Look at all rich that was caught putting money in of shore banks & puting some to charity so there tax can be wiped, xxx.channel4.com/news/tax-avoidance-george-michael-melua-arctic-monkeys-liberty

It started of a few years back when they was trying to tax Google, Amazon, Starbucks:

xxx/news/magazine-20560359[/url]

Our country has gone to ruins,

 

[KasinoKing]

My opinion is, it is exactly the same situation as USA players have been facing since 2006: The ONLY reason the government want to "regulate" online casinos is so that they can tax them like everything else we spend our hard-earned money on. End of story.

Yes, I agree that having them UK regulated does give the players added protection - but do they really need to take 15% just to cover that? I think not. It's all about the extra tax money.

KK

 

[winbig]

I do not think its the government stopping you but more like government stopping the casino.

Is there any difference?

 

[KasinoKing]

Is there any difference?

Yes, a big difference!
The government are not going to go after the individual players - but they WILL go after any casino based in the EU who are not licensed.

KK

 

[winbig]

Yes, a big difference!
The government are not going to go after the individual players - but they WILL go after any casino based in the EU who are not licensed.

KK

But in the end, it's the players that suffer

 

[jetset]

I believe it is all about the money...for all governments' rather hollow assurances that the intention is to protect the consumer.

And TBH I don't see that much evidence that the UK Gambling Commission has been that effective in protecting the consumer...the latest debacle with 666Bet and MetroPlay hardly covered them in glory; they pulled the licence but seemed to be repeatedly caught left-footed as the crisis developed and the management ducked and dived around their obligations to players.

Now the company has been forced into liquidation, and the only advice the Commission has for players is to contact the liquidator.

So I guess we will soon see how effective the regulations are on separation of player deposits from casino operational funds, and whether management adhered to them.

As a general observation I believe governments generally are becoming far too intrusive in every aspect of our lives in areas where the decision and the risk rests with ourselves.

 

[citizenx]

I do not think its the government stopping you but more like government stopping the casino,

The way I see it is that if a casino is offering play to U.K than the Gov wants there share of the pie, I do not no what actions they will take towards casino's that not paying there share but good luck trying to find them ~

I not being told what to do by a bunch of toffee nose plonkers, Most have been caught trying to cheat there tax avoidance any away, They govern them selfs, Look at all rich that was caught putting money in of shore banks & puting some to charity so there tax can be wiped, xxx.channel4.com/news/tax-avoidance-george-michael-melua-arctic-monkeys-liberty

It started of a few years back when they was trying to tax Google, Amazon, Starbucks:

xxx/news/magazine-20560359[/url]

Our country has gone to ruins,

The way I see it is that its my money and if I want to spend it offshore that is between me and the person or company I'm paying.

The govt have no business taxing overseas spend of private individuals.

Consider it like this - you fly out to Vegas and spend in their casinos. You get home and HMRC ask you to pau tax on that - what would you say?

My response would be rather impolite to say the least!

 

[citizenx]

I believe it is all about the money...for all governments' rather hollow assurances that the intention is to protect the consumer.

And TBH I don't see that much evidence that the UK Gambling Commission has been that effective in protecting the consumer...the latest debacle with 666Bet and MetroPlay hardly covered them in glory; they pulled the licence but seemed to be repeatedly caught left-footed as the crisis developed and the management ducked and dived around their obligations to players.

Now the company has been forced into liquidation, and the only advice the Commission has for players is to contact the liquidator.

So I guess we will soon see how effective the regulations are on separation of player deposits from casino operational funds, and whether management adhered to them.

As a general observation I believe governments generally are becoming far too intrusive in every aspect of our lives in areas where the decision and the risk rests with ourselves.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[spintee]

The way I see it is that its my money and if I want to spend it offshore that is between me and the person or company I'm paying.

The govt have no business taxing overseas spend of private individuals.

Consider it like this - you fly out to Vegas and spend in their casinos. You get home and HMRC ask you to pau tax on that - what would you say?

My response would be rather impolite to say the least!

I agree, Before long we will have to have written permission to take a shit,

Have you heard the latest? There trying to add extra tax on fizzy drink as making kids fat and losing there teeth, Its becoming a big joke, 1st there trying to save the heritage of U.K Pubs ect, So what do they go and do! Ban smoking in them, Which clever dick thought of that idea, Pubs are not youth clubs full of kids its where people go relax and enjoy, Than they sky rocket the price of them, They tried doing this to alcohol as well but so far that's not worked,

 

[citizenx]

I agree, Before long we will have to have written permission to take a shit,

Have you heard the latest? There trying to add extra tax on fizzy drink as making kids fat and losing there teeth, Its becoming a big joke, 1st there trying to save the heritage of U.K Pubs ect, So what do they go and do! Ban smoking in them, Which clever dick thought of that idea, Pubs are not youth clubs full of kids its where people go relax and enjoy, Than they sky rocket the price of them, They tried doing this to alcohol as well but so far that's not worked,

Indeed. Don't get me wrong even as a smoker (well, vaper these days) I was initially against the ban but now don't mind even if it does mean many pins stink. That said don't go to many these days.

As for "fizzy drinks" I did hear that and kept thinking that not all.have sugar in them so it's a bit simplistic. Ultimately it boils down to personal responsibility and parents doing their jobs properly.

We should have to pay just because their little fat brat can't control itself or they're too lazy to look after them properly.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The first signs of how are now showing. The curious matter of the Neteller "geolocation error" when UK players deposit (mostly) at casinos that will accept them, but that don't have a UKGC licence. We have Neteller blaming the merchant, and the merchant blaming Neteller, but the result is a curb on UK players' freedom to take the risk and play without protection. One report is of a VISA deposit attempt suddenly encountering a "security issue" and failing.

The persuading of financial institutions to block deposits to non UKGC licenced casinos was mooted as one measure that could be taken should casinos insist on ignoring the new rules.

As for the tax on farting (the fizzy drink tax), this is another example of using the tax system for social engineering, the theory being that if you want people to stop doing something, you make sure it's taxed heavily, and if you want to encourage people to do something, you tax it less, or even offer rebates and grants.

There is, however, a fundamental flaw in this system. The British citizen has now been conditioned to accept tax rate changes as a stimulus intended to change their behaviour, so when the government has to raise tax, but the citizens are not misbehaving sufficiently, they end up applying a stimulus that has the effect of deterring desired behaviours. The EU for example, has just ordered the UK to increase the tax on energy conservation measures by 15%. This will have an unintended consequence, UK citizens will think the urgency is over, and this is no longer a behaviour the government want to encourage, yet the truth is the complete opposite, people have not been doing enough despite the lower tax regime, so the correct stimulus would have been an even further lowering of the tax from 5% to zero, coupled with targeted grants and rebates.

The tobacco tax is also a problem, as the government want to bring down the level of smoking, but they NEED the revenue generated by tobacco taxes, so are very reliant on smokers refusing to be swayed through higher taxes. Increasing the tax does mean that the revenue falls less due to people quitting than it would otherwise, but eventually there will be a point at which the tax is so high that reluctant smokers are forced to quit, and revenue will plummet.

I worry that they might one day decide to apply a tax to gambling winnings, now that WILL hurt even though my best games have been "taxed into non existence" by Microgaming.

 

[interlog]

If they tax the winnings on gambling, then surely you should be able to offset the losses against your tax too. I believe that is the only reason why the Government in the UK hasn't taxed gambling winnings as yet.

 

[spintee]

@vinylweatherman, If they keep putting tax on shit than its going to end up like a few yeras back of some African countrys One day you can buy a car and the next day you could not even buy a loaf of bread with the same amount of money, It was useless,

Before long the starling note is not going to be worth the paper its printed on, Greece was nearly wiped out and soon will not be long before others follow Including here,

 

[dunover]

At the moment smokers pay more than enough tax via their products to cover the cost of treating their ailments on the NHS.

Now big porkers who consume too much crap food and sugar have NO tax to cover their ailments which are accepted as costing the state far more than those of smokers.

Therefore because some people DO eat bad food but are still healthy as they brush their teeth and do exercise so don't end up as bloaters it would be unfair (unlike in the case of smokers) to tax their products.

The answer is we should tax THEM - the fairest way. Each year they should have an appointment with their GP and if they are still excessively fat then their tax-free allowance (or benefits as is often the case) should be reduced for that year. If their BMI has gone down a level on the chart then they get their benefits put back up or tax-fee allowance increased a level.

Basically the GP's would have a chart that starts at 'normal' (full benefits/tax allowances) up to 'craned out of bed' (hugely obese - starvation benefits) and therefore the issue would slowly be resolved.

Everyone attacks smokers, who have now been forced by law to indulge their habit outside together in the cold or in isolation so they don't affect you. Fair enough, but no measures have been taken against bloaters and their effects, which can include:

Excessive sulphurous flatulence.
Taking 2 seats on trains, planes and buses.
Barging into you or slowing you down when entering places as you can't pass.
Bad driving of motability scooters on pavements.
Excess sweat.
Producing fat children.

So financial penalties may indeed work in this case, as they have reduced smoking. But unlike tobacco which is only consumed by smokers, bad food is consumed by healthy people so can't be fairly taxed.
If this fails they could be put in a modern equivalent of the mediaeval 'stocks' where they are pelted with old fruit and vegetables, a far healthier diet.

 

[goatwack]

I agree, Before long we will have to have written permission to take a shit,

Have you heard the latest? There trying to add extra tax on fizzy drink as making kids fat and losing there teeth, Its becoming a big joke, 1st there trying to save the heritage of U.K Pubs ect, So what do they go and do! Ban smoking in them, Which clever dick thought of that idea, Pubs are not youth clubs full of kids its where people go relax and enjoy, Than they sky rocket the price of them, They tried doing this to alcohol as well but so far that's not worked,

Pretty special isn't it.

Should've seen the report I read earlier today, according to the Royal College of Surgeons, parents ought to brush their kids' teeth, because the lazy little fat rotters can't do it for themselves.

My morning coffee shot up via my nose when reading this

 

[cncas2123]

At the moment smokers pay more than enough tax via their products to cover the cost of treating their ailments on the NHS.

Now big porkers who consume too much crap food and sugar have NO tax to cover their ailments which are accepted as costing the state far more than those of smokers.

Therefore because some people DO eat bad food but are still healthy as they brush their teeth and do exercise so don't end up as bloaters it would be unfair (unlike in the case of smokers) to tax their products.

The answer is we should tax THEM - the fairest way. Each year they should have an appointment with their GP and if they are still excessively fat then their tax-free allowance (or benefits as is often the case) should be reduced for that year. If their BMI has gone down a level on the chart then they get their benefits put back up or tax-fee allowance increased a level.

Basically the GP's would have a chart that starts at 'normal' (full benefits/tax allowances) up to 'craned out of bed' (hugely obese - starvation benefits) and therefore the issue would slowly be resolved.

Everyone attacks smokers, who have now been forced by law to indulge their habit outside together in the cold or in isolation so they don't affect you. Fair enough, but no measures have been taken against bloaters and their effects, which can include:

Excessive sulphurous flatulence.
Taking 2 seats on trains, planes and buses.
Barging into you or slowing you down when entering places as you can't pass.
Bad driving of motability scooters on pavements.
Excess sweat.
Producing fat children.

So financial penalties may indeed work in this case, as they have reduced smoking. But unlike tobacco which is only consumed by smokers, bad food is consumed by healthy people so can't be fairly taxed.
If this fails they could be put in a modern equivalent of the mediaeval 'stocks' where they are pelted with old fruit and vegetables, a far healthier diet.

But what if they arent fat, just " big boned" !!!!!!!

 

[spintee]

Everyone attacks smokers, who have now been forced by law to indulge their habit outside together in the cold or in isolation so they don't affect you. Fair enough, but no measures have been taken against bloaters and their effects, which can include:

Excessive sulphurous flatulence.
Taking 2 seats on trains, planes and buses.
Barging into you or slowing you down when entering places as you can't pass.
Bad driving of motability scooters on pavements.
Excess sweat.
Producing fat children..

That shits funny but true,

 

[spintee]

But what if they arent fat, just " big boned" !!!!!!!

I do not see any skinny boners with execs weight,

But no where your coming from,

I was skinny as a kid, soon as I got to about 17 Ive weighed about 13 - 14 and half stone (max) I am 5 - 9 foot height, Always had a little flump, Always try and eat good, Cook my own dinners, But I guess the drink did not help, Used to love a beer thats probs why, Saying that not had one in over 2 weeks but just cracked a can, Ment to meet a mate later and soon as I drink rain pissis down ~,

Also signed up to a gym what opened, over 3 months ago was ment to be open a week later, 3 months down the line and just opend the doors, Been twice and woke up yestoday and felt like been run over by a tank, I not really goping there to lose any waeight but more to put some strength back in me and get the muscles up again, I could cheat and take some roids but I panic when filling my in cartridges up let alone injecting things in my body

 

[goatwack]

At the moment smokers pay more than enough tax via their products to cover the cost of treating their ailments on the NHS.

Now big porkers who consume too much crap food and sugar have NO tax to cover their ailments which are accepted as costing the state far more than those of smokers.

Therefore because some people DO eat bad food but are still healthy as they brush their teeth and do exercise so don't end up as bloaters it would be unfair (unlike in the case of smokers) to tax their products.

The answer is we should tax THEM - the fairest way. Each year they should have an appointment with their GP and if they are still excessively fat then their tax-free allowance (or benefits as is often the case) should be reduced for that year. If their BMI has gone down a level on the chart then they get their benefits put back up or tax-fee allowance increased a level.

Basically the GP's would have a chart that starts at 'normal' (full benefits/tax allowances) up to 'craned out of bed' (hugely obese - starvation benefits) and therefore the issue would slowly be resolved.

Everyone attacks smokers, who have now been forced by law to indulge their habit outside together in the cold or in isolation so they don't affect you. Fair enough, but no measures have been taken against bloaters and their effects, which can include:

Excessive sulphurous flatulence.
Taking 2 seats on trains, planes and buses.
Barging into you or slowing you down when entering places as you can't pass.
Bad driving of motability scooters on pavements.
Excess sweat.
Producing fat children.

So financial penalties may indeed work in this case, as they have reduced smoking. But unlike tobacco which is only consumed by smokers, bad food is consumed by healthy people so can't be fairly taxed.
If this fails they could be put in a modern equivalent of the mediaeval 'stocks' where they are pelted with old fruit and vegetables, a far healthier diet.

Too true, it really is tax-free allowance.

All joking aside, these apathetic fat individuals are also amongst the most self- pitying groups found in society. No doubt they will feel that their human rights are being violated as their main vices are being demonized.

Unfortunately it is everybody that suffers because of this, so a can of coke will soon become a luxury at this rate.
.
Dealing with the existing problem is one thing, but far more worrisome is these people's passing on their terrible dietary habits onto their brood. So in effect they are producing fat children which will burden the NHS even further.

And although smokers are constantly pelted and have been singled out for what seems like ever, tobacco, although consumed by the individual, has got the government up in arms over the associated costs to our national health service due to passive smoking. So with smoker taxation I agree in part, but like you stated we will all be paying because of these gluttonous few with food- related taxation.

 

[dunover]

We are fast becoming like the United States of Cartman.

It's bad as looking unhealthy affects job chances, so benefits then fund a sedentary lifestyle in which food is the only affordable vice so they get even more unhealthy, then being unhealthy becomes an excuse not to actively seek employment and a reason not to work, then the depression and diabetes come - it's a vicious circle. Parents who let minors become obese should be hauled over the coals for it, it's a form of child abuse IMO.

I sat with my mouth hanging open when I saw at Disney in Florida the electric carts being hired out to people who were so grossly obese they couldn't walk around the place. It was horrific, like some sci-fi nightmare vision of the future collapse of Western Civilization.

 

[spintee]

We are fast becoming like the United States of Cartman.

It's bad as looking unhealthy affects job chances, so benefits then fund a sedentary lifestyle in which food is the only affordable vice so they get even more unhealthy, then being unhealthy becomes an excuse not to actively seek employment and a reason not to work, then the depression and diabetes come - it's a vicious circle. Parents who let minors become obese should be hauled over the coals for it, it's a form of child abuse IMO.

I sat with my mouth hanging open when I saw at Disney in Florida the electric carts being hired out to people who were so grossly obese they couldn't walk around the place. It was horrific, like some sci-fi nightmare vision of the future collapse of Western Civilization.

Its bad, People may not afford healthy, We are in a tight squeeze, (excuse the punt) But no excuse for excess weight, Especially for kids, I apologies if any person is in this category, I not here to knock any person or put any one down, & verry difficult in this tax nightmare,

But I can honestly say I went shopping with my mum today, Yes with my mum (got make sure she is ok) and the amount of over weight kids getting drooped of at school was unbelievable, Not only that the parents was pulling up in bus lanes and cutting of others just to drop them of, Now if I was over weight like that, My dad would of said get you lasy arss in gear, & would not of dream of dropping me off

 

[winbig]

How about this case?

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

And that's only one of many cases of this sort...

key sentence here:

Nevertheless, the lawsuit claims kids and their parents didn't know how fattening the food was.