UK Mp's are coming after online casinos

[electronictonic]

1/100 that Prickslots moves to Malta when it is enforced and the rest of them.

Nickslots, Chipmonkz, Jimboslots and Fruityslots I think reed and manpower are recruiting at the moment looks like the gravytrain is derailing and your constant sign up spamming days are dying.

 

[samdog21]

In Ontario the only limit to gambling is if your credit card will give you more limit lol fuck they have shuttle bus service from markham to portperry casino free return plus 10$ free slots. I don't go to landbased casinos much anymore wife like bingo I like online no crowds and go home when I want but every week I get freebies in mail food free slots gift vouchers. They screaming for your money.

 

[Moom]

Sorry I dont believe the figure of 430,000 problem gamblers.
Who counted them,since bookies are closing and waning interest in horse racing , bingo halls
almost wiped out, are they saying its all down to online gaming,I cant see it with the operators crapping themselves having massive
fines hanging over them if they dont adhere to SOW and KYC regulations.
Wouldnt be suprized if the level of gambling in the country is the lowest its been for decades.

Problem gambling is a very big issue among the younger generation. I really don't have much doubt of that figure based on what I have seen among the 18-35 age group.

I always find there is alot of trivialisation from people on this forum regarding gambling issues. Yes, problem gamblers exist, and it is far more common than you think. I honestly cannot tell if some of the posts in here are sarcasm or not.

 

[EkJR]

Sorry I dont believe the figure of 430,000 problem gamblers.
Who counted them,since bookies are closing and waning interest in horse racing , bingo halls
almost wiped out, are they saying its all down to online gaming,I cant see it with the operators crapping themselves having massive
fines hanging over them if they dont adhere to SOW and KYC regulations.
Wouldnt be suprized if the level of gambling in the country is the lowest its been for decades.

It's actually far higher if anything. GA have reported record numbers of attendees for example in recent times. A big concern for the younger generation as well, particularly with these free slot apps grooming them for online slots for real.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

"RANT ALERT"

Slowly the UK is becoming a communist state. Makes my blood boil all this over-regulation and prohibition!!

I rarely play slots at even £1 a spin, but if I want to spunk £100 in 10 spins because I feel like it and want the thrill of hitting a mega win, then why shouldnt I be allowed to.

Well, let's have a think, probably for the same sort of reason that you can't go into a chemists and buy 100 paracetamol tablets all at once any more, because it represents a clear and present danger to some people.

'Communist state' - sheesh!

 

[interlog]

Well, let's have a think, probably for the same sort of reason that you can't go into a chemists and buy 100 paracetamol tablets all at once any more, because it represents a clear and present danger to some people.

'Communist state' - sheesh!

But you can make 5 separate visits instead to buy those 100 tablets and overdose.

The point being that no matter the regulation, if somebody is set to do something there is ways and means to do so.

As L&L Jan mentioned, unregulated casinos may well benefit from any new regulations. How is that good for the punter?

 

[steveh35]

Well, let's have a think, probably for the same sort of reason that you can't go into a chemists and buy 100 paracetamol tablets all at once any more, because it represents a clear and present danger to some people.

'Communist state' - sheesh!

You can't even buy more than 12 actually as it is two boxes maximum per customer.

When it was brought it in 1997 I worked in a shop and they used to bring the regional manager into the shop to go through the till recepits to check you hadn't given out more than 2 boxes, what a waste of time for a manager to have to do and you had to watch to make sure people didn't go out and come back in straight away.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

But you can make 5 separate visits instead to buy those 100 tablets and overdose.

The point being that no matter the regulation, if somebody is set to do something there is ways and means to do so.

So we should just have a total free-for-all and not even try to reduce harm through regulation and rules, and leave everything to 'personal responsibility'?

If someone wants to kill themselves with a paracetamol overdose they'll probably find a way to do it anyway, so let's just make it as easy for them as possible?

Oh wait, hang on, deaths by paracetamol overdoses were reduced by 43%.

They found there were 765 fewer deaths after the legislation was introduced in 1998 than would have been predicted based on trends dating back to 1993.

This equated to an average of 17 fewer deaths every three months after 1998.

The study also found that patients registered for a liver transplant because of a paracetamol overdose had reduced by 61% following the legislation. This was equivalent to 482 fewer registrations over 11 years.

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

 

[interlog]

So we should just have a total free-for-all and not even try to reduce harm through regulation and rules, and leave everything to 'personal responsibility'?

If someone wants to kill themselves with a paracetamol overdose they'll probably find a way to do it anyway, so let's just make it as easy for them as possible?

Oh wait, hang on, deaths by paracetamol overdoses were reduced by 43%.

They found there were 765 fewer deaths after the legislation was introduced in 1998 than would have been predicted based on trends dating back to 1993.

This equated to an average of 17 fewer deaths every three months after 1998.

The study also found that patients registered for a liver transplant because of a paracetamol overdose had reduced by 61% following the legislation. This was equivalent to 482 fewer registrations over 11 years.

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

It would have helped if you quoted my post in full...... namely the last bit where unregulated casinos may well benefit from this over regulation whilst the genuine casinos that are complying with all of the other recent regulations are going to suffer once more.

Because that is the problem with over regulation.... it will create a black market elsewhere.

 

[Scott1baird]

Well, let's have a think, probably for the same sort of reason that you can't go into a chemists and buy 100 paracetamol tablets all at once any more, because it represents a clear and present danger to some people.

'Communist state' - sheesh!

No wrong you can only buy three packets per chemist meaning you can go to many chemist's and buy 3 at a time. Same with gambling say you have a £100 max per day at max bet £2 won't take long to loose. What do you do? You go to your next casino play your £100 at £2, then the next and so on. Its the free will that's being stopped here. Its going to force these so called problem gamblers to rouge casinos that won't pay winnings. After the max bet they will then probably attack the bonuses you get per casino then on towards capping your max win to £500 per game. Then they will probably start taxing us. This isn't about the players or the casinos. It's all about money the problem is the amount of casinos that are not based in the UK getting all this money from UK players and the government not getting some off it back. I don't know if these casinos, Leo Vegas, videoslots and the like have to pay tax to the UK government or not maybe someone could tell me. But this is about money pure and simple. When they start to go after the people who shop in asda, tescos and lidl for max prices items then that it.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

It would have helped if you quoted my post in full...... namely the last bit where unregulated casinos may well benefit from this over regulation whilst the genuine casinos that are complying with all of the other recent regulations are going to suffer once more.

Because that is the problem with over regulation.... it will create a black market elsewhere.

With all due respect interlog I didn't quote the last line because it's a blatant straw man argument. (Unsurprisingly, put forward by a casino rep.)

Unregulated casinos are an entirely separate issue, are already against the law, and should be dealt with on their own terms.

Saying, 'we shouldn't regulate casinos too much because criminals will prosper' isn't a great debating position, in fairness.

 

[The Dude]

Well, I'm old school where we were taught to think for yourself and take responsibility for your own actions, and not rely on someoen else - especially the government - to monitor or control your activity. It's a shame to see that society is so frail that all these regulations are necessary.

 

[EkJR]

Didn't know there were so many free market economists on here! Milton Freidman would be so proud. If you need a reason to legitimise more legislation you need look no further than Investment Banks and the banking sector. Much the same as the fact that we all know casino operators had a free for all for so long and it cannot continue at detriment to society.

 

[The Dude]

The UK is becoming over regulated - and over regulation will just bolster the non-licensed UK accepting casinos. It's a fact: ban something and folks will figure out how to still do it.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

No wrong you can only buy three packets per chemist meaning you can go to many chemist's and buy 3 at a time. Same with gambling say you have a £100 max per day at max bet £2 won't take long to loose. What do you do? You go to your next casino play your £100 at £2, then the next and so on.

Yes, I know that, the point is that it removes the impulse element from a potential suicide attempt. Buying a bottle of 100 paracetamol from a single chemist and consuming them in a short period of time is a very different proposition to trudging around several chemists, over an extended period of time, to purchase enough paracetamol to make a serious suicide attempt. It gives pause for thought, and introduces the distinct possibility of a 'second chance' mentality setting in, and ultimately the suicide attempt not being made at all, or the person deciding to call a friend or family member to ask for help. This is a change that literally saved lives.

So it is with online casinos, a player could get dangerously 'in the zone' at a single casino, making big bets, redepositing multiple times, losing track of what and how they're spending. Add the layers of abstraction of depositing at multiple casinos, that 'pause for thought' as to what they're doing, and that same player may well be protected from a gambling binge that could cause them and their families serious financial harm.

 

[The Dude]

The last time I checked, most UK casinos had deposit/wagering limits that you have the choice to use. You're given a choice - use it.

 

[interlog]

With all due respect interlog I didn't quote the last line because it's a blatant straw man argument. (Unsurprisingly, put forward by a casino rep.)

Unregulated casinos are an entirely separate issue, are already against the law, and should be dealt with on their own terms.

Saying, 'we shouldn't regulate casinos too much because criminals will prosper' isn't a great debating position, in fairness.

But the reality is that it is already happening. Just look at the number of casinos that have withdrawn from the UK market because of over regulation.

Gamblers will be gamblers.

The majority will have to suffer because of the minority and Government is aiding with it like it always does.

As CM said, what happened to taking responsibility for your own actions. Maybe I am just too old.

 

[EkJR]

Yes, I know that, the point is that it removes the impulse element from a potential suicide attempt. Buying a bottle of 100 paracetamol from a single chemist and consuming them in a short period of time is a very different proposition to trudging around several chemists, over an extended period of time, to purchase enough paracetamol to make a serious suicide attempt. It gives pause for thought, and introduces the distinct possibility of a 'second chance' mentality setting in, and ultimately the suicide attempt not being made at all, or the person deciding to call a friend or family member to ask for help. This is a change that literally saved lives.

So it is with online casinos, a player could get dangerously 'in the zone' at a single casino, making big bets, redepositing multiple times, losing track of what and how they're spending. Add the layers of abstraction of depositing at multiple casinos, that 'pause for thought' as to what they're doing, and that same player may well be protected from a gambling binge that could cause them and their families serious financial harm.

It's the "I'm all right Jack" type shit on here that really irritates me. Gambling is highly addictive and a lot of people when it's openly available will not be able to control themselves. That's why regulation is needed.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Well, I'm old school where we were taught to think for yourself and take responsibility for your own actions, and not rely on someoen else - especially the government - to monitor or control your activity. It's a shame to see that society is so frail that all these regulations are necessary.

The thing is Bryan, there's an implicit suggestion there that anyone in favour of strict regulations and rules governing (for example), online casinos, is neither capable or in favour of, the concept of critical thought, self-determination and responsible behaviour.

Seems to be rather an unfair assertion to me.

 

[EkJR]

The last time I checked, most UK casinos had deposit/wagering limits that you have the choice to use. You're given a choice - use it.

It's not difficult then to make setting a limit mandatory is it?

 

[interlog]

It's the "I'm all right Jack" type shit on here that really irritates me. Gambling is highly addictive and a lot of people when it's openly available will not be able to control themselves. That's why regulation is needed.

But there are control measures.... deposit limits, loss limits, self exclusion, global self exclusion.

But that is not good enough for some.

 

[Scott1baird]

Yes, I know that, the point is that it removes the impulse element from a potential suicide attempt. Buying a bottle of 100 paracetamol from a single chemist and consuming them in a short period of time is a very different proposition to trudging around several chemists, over an extended period of time, to purchase enough paracetamol to make a serious suicide attempt. It gives pause for thought, and introduces the distinct possibility of a 'second chance' mentality setting in, and ultimately the suicide attempt not being made at all, or the person deciding to call a friend or family member to ask for help. This is a change that literally saved lives.

So it is with online casinos, a player could get dangerously 'in the zone' at a single casino, making big bets, redepositing multiple times, losing track of what and how they're spending. Add the layers of abstraction of depositing at multiple casinos, that 'pause for thought' as to what they're doing, and that same player may well be protected from a gambling binge that could cause them and their families serious financial harm.

Gotta say through self experience. If your heads in such a state you will go from chemist to chemist to chemist to chemist to off license to offlicense.

 

[steveh35]

Gotta say through self experience. If your heads in such a state you will go from chemist to chemist to chemist to chemist to off license to offlicense.

Chopley unfortunately is one of those lefties who thinks if one person is affected by something then everyone else has to suffer, that is why we have the awful sugar tax which has made Ribena taste like Benylin, you cannot get a bag in a shop for your purchase without paying for it, you soon won't be able to buy two items for a reduced price in a supermarket and why you can't buy more than 2 boxes of paracetamol in a shop.

Lefties love to tell everyone else how to live it's just their nature.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

But the reality is that it is already happening. Just look at the number of casinos that have withdrawn from the UK market because of over regulation.

Gamblers will be gamblers.

The majority will have to suffer because of the minority and Government is aiding with it like it always does.

As CM said, what happened to taking responsibility for your own actions. Maybe I am just too old.

OK so let's replace 'gamblers will be gamblers' with 'suicidal people will be suicidal'.

In the example cited above, a change was made to the legislation in the UK to make it much harder to buy sufficient paracetamol to make a suicide attempt. Lives were saved.

So when it comes to 'gamblers will be gamblers', we're talking about regulation changes designed to protect addicts and vulnerable people from engaging in reckless and dangerous gambling behaviours. The regulations might not be perfect, (in the same way the paracetamol legislation isn't perfect), but its overall goal is to improve player safety.

'Cause hey, guess what, people get ill sometimes, their mental health might be in a bad place, they might be suffering with addiction, and in those times the idea of 'taking responsibility for your actions' becomes difficult if not impossible, and that's where society steps in to help.

There's a fucking coldness and astonishing lack of empathy and compassion to some of the posts in this thread (that always crop up in threads like this) that I find positively chilling.

 

[interlog]

OK so let's replace 'gambler will be gamblers' with 'suicidal people will be suicidal'.

In the example cited above, a change was made to the legislation in the UK to make it much harder to buy sufficient paracetamol to make a suicide attempt. Lives were saved.

So when it comes to 'gamblers will be gamblers', we're talking about regulation changes designed to protect addicts and vulnerable people from engaging in reckless and dangerous gambling behaviours. The regulations might not be perfect, (in the same way paracetamol legislation isn't perfect), but its overall goal is to improve player safety.

'Cause hey, guess what, people get ill sometimes, their mental health might be in a bad place, they might be suffering with addiction, and in those times the idea of 'taking responsibility for your actions' becomes difficult if not impossible, and that's where society steps in to help.

There's a fucking coldness and astonishing lack of empathy and compassion to some of the posts in this thread (that always crop up in threads like this) that I find positively chilling.

But there is enough regulation already..... you can set your deposit limits, loss limits, self exclude, globally self exclude, take a break, set max bet size at certain casinos etc.

Plenty of tools available to control your gambling.

But that is just not good enough for some. They demand more regulation to the point where more and more casinos will just withdraw from the UK market meaning less choice for the consumer. Less choice usually equals less competition which is never good.

There is no coldness (fucking or otherwise) on my part.

 

[Scott1baird]

The UK is becoming over regulated - and over regulation will just bolster the non-licensed UK accepting casinos. It's a fact: ban something and folks will figure out how to still do it.

Thats what I said basily. It's going to make players and not just problem players but most players think about using these rogue sites. It's easy sign up spin loose. I mean really how many of us deposit into a casino expecting to walk away with ten grand from a tenner deposit.

 

[steveh35]

The problem with views like Chopley's is it only take one person to be affected by something for everyone to have to change, so let's take another example, someone slips on a discarded wrapper on a platform at a tube station today and falls in front of a tube train.

In most people's minds it would be a simple accident where fate happened it is rare we all get on with our lives, in someone like Chopley or people who share his view's mind that would instigate a full investigation, tube platforms are not safe, fine people for dropping the wrapper, bring in barriers to stop people falling off the platform, fine TfL for lack of safety, make wrappers less shiny so they are no slippery, ban anything with a shiny wrapper from tube platforms, launch a full health & safety investigation....

If Labour get into power expect more of the above

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I hereby award you the Supreme Gold Medal for Most Overblown Straw Man Argument of the century.

 

[steveh35]

I hereby award you the Supreme Gold Medal for Most Overblown Straw Man Argument of the century.

View attachment 117438

Thank you so much I reward you with a Casinomeister shield for the biggest snowflake and funtaker of the year, do you ever have fun or do you just look for problems in every situation in life.

 

[mack341]

Perhaps a better route in the first instance would be to try to beef up the self control options/systems available at casinos, maybe have an option to set a stake limit yourself which then can't be changed for a set period of time [7-120 days]. Gambling wouldn't be gambling without inherent risk/danger, how much do we want to go down the route of government imposed rules which limit personal freedom to gamble how you wish.

I have a lot of sympathy for addicts and anyone in dire straits from gambling to excess, and we do have a responsibility to the next generation of gamblers coming through, as I think that's where the suicides and most harm will come, with youngsters getting themselves into deep water, too embarrased to seek help/ talk to family or there is, in reality, no easily accessible practical help out there for them.

I think the issue of banning credit card funded deposits was mooted before and IIRC chopley [not wishing to pick on him personally] was against this move because he uses his safely without any debt building up and it's convenient for him, but others will be racking up debts and getting into danger I'm sure, so there are grey areas for even those strongly in favour of greater govt imposed restrictions.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

For the record I said I sometimes use a credit card to deposit but immediately pay the deposit amount over from my bank account

I've stopped doing that now though due to the fees, so just use my debit card.

Either way though, I wouldn't object to deposits with credit cards being banned, as it's clearly going to cause problems for some folks.

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

 

[mack341]

For the record I said I sometimes use a credit card to deposit but immediately pay the deposit amount over from my bank account

I've stopped doing that now though due to the fees, so just use my debit card.

Either way though, I wouldn't object to deposits with credit cards being banned, as it's clearly going to cause problems for some folks.

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

Glad you cleared that up Chop, I too would be in favour of banning credit card deposits as on balance despite the convenience factor for some the danger to many others is greater, but I don't think I would be in favour of a mandatory £2 limit stake.

You can lose a heck of a lot at £2, £500 in an hour probably and thousands in a day, so if we want to eliminate as much harm as possible, logically 20/40p limits would be required. And even though I play at roughly those stakes on many games, the option to venture upwards is exciting for a low roller. I think somebody said recently [reelsoffun?] that raising your stake increases volatility, and Chop a few times, at the end of your vids, you've gone to Immortal romance on £3 stake to try to get a recovery. [I've done the same many times on rhino] do we want to take this option away and never have those recovery wins?

Maybe casinos should check in more on players regularly playing above £2, just to make sure they can afford it, especially if their losses are mounting up.

 

[trancemonkey]

The sensible solution (and therefore the one least likely to be implemented) is to have a soft-cap at some value (£2?) and then if you want more than that, you must provide proof you can afford it in order to unlock those bet sizes. I don't see why someone who can afford to be at £10 a spin should be stopped in an environment where it is possible to do a SOW check (in bookies, this was almost impossible).

It's true that some people should be protected from themselves, but it's also true that there are people who can afford to bet high, and should not have to go underground to do so. Over-regulation can cause just as many problems as under-regulation.

As others have said, and i have said, casinos that are actively promoting irresponsible gambling (@homerbert - your casino is guilty of this) through affiliation with people like Roshstein, are a huge catalyst for over-regulation and knee-jerk reactions.

You may not operate in the UK (i'm not sure if you do or not) but you should take a long hard look at yourselves. The FOBT operators would have, in my opinion, avoided the £2 max stake being imposed if they had self-imposed a £20 max stake when it was clear the UKGC and government was looking at it - but they didn't. They ran the risk and it back-fired massively.

Now we have totally irresponsible casinos promoting streamers on 5 euro and up bets - and this is simply asking for trouble. In fact, it's not even asking for trouble - it's basically demanding it. And (sorry to pick on you, but you are part of the problem, not the solution) the casinos @homerbert works for don't give two shits about the damage they do in pursuit of selfish interests - or at least that's how it seems from my point of view.

 

[Moom]

For the record I said I sometimes use a credit card to deposit but immediately pay the deposit amount over from my bank account

I've stopped doing that now though due to the fees, so just use my debit card.

Either way though, I wouldn't object to deposits with credit cards being banned, as it's clearly going to cause problems for some folks.

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

It very clearly should be banned, but there are easy ways around it that everyone who uses a credit card will know. Revolut comes to mind. I assume most who gamble on credit cards already use revolut to avoid fees.

 

[LordSilver]

It's like putting a cap on alcohol % just because some are addicted, totally the wrong way to solve a problem. In my view, those who have problems should have help easily available and there should be some structure to help them (checks etc) but I've never been a believer of banning something for the majority who doesn't have a problem with it as a solution.

 

[shadow123]

Problem gambling is a very big issue among the younger generation. I really don't have much doubt of that figure based on what I have seen among the 18-35 age group.

I always find there is alot of trivialisation from people on this forum regarding gambling issues. Yes, problem gamblers exist, and it is far more common than you think. I honestly cannot tell if some of the posts in here are sarcasm or not.

No way did I trivialise problem gambling, I would not do that as I could write the book on the subject from my younger days,
I just asked how they arrived at the number of problem gamblers and was interested to know what form of gambling was
causing the problem bearing in mind that the opportunity to gamble has been reduced due to closures and decline of establishments.
I think my comments were perfectly valid

 

[slot_zombie]

The limit is £5 a spin in UK brick and mortar casinos so it shouldn't be any less online.

 

[EkJR]

The sensible solution (and therefore the one least likely to be implemented) is to have a soft-cap at some value (£2?) and then if you want more than that, you must provide proof you can afford it in order to unlock those bet sizes. I don't see why someone who can afford to be at £10 a spin should be stopped in an environment where it is possible to do a SOW check (in bookies, this was almost impossible).

It's true that some people should be protected from themselves, but it's also true that there are people who can afford to bet high, and should not have to go underground to do so. Over-regulation can cause just as many problems as under-regulation.

As others have said, and i have said, casinos that are actively promoting irresponsible gambling (@homerbert - your casino is guilty of this) through affiliation with people like Roshstein, are a huge catalyst for over-regulation and knee-jerk reactions.

You may not operate in the UK (i'm not sure if you do or not) but you should take a long hard look at yourselves. The FOBT operators would have, in my opinion, avoided the £2 max stake being imposed if they had self-imposed a £20 max stake when it was clear the UKGC and government was looking at it - but they didn't. They ran the risk and it back-fired massively.

Now we have totally irresponsible casinos promoting streamers on 5 euro and up bets - and this is simply asking for trouble. In fact, it's not even asking for trouble - it's basically demanding it. And (sorry to pick on you, but you are part of the problem, not the solution) the casinos @homerbert works for don't give two shits about the damage they do in pursuit of selfish interests - or at least that's how it seems from my point of view.

Which is what I suggested earlier in the thread, albeit £5 stake

 

[trancemonkey]

Which is what I suggested earlier in the thread, albeit £5 stake

Sorry mate .. didn't see it. Apologies.

 

[EkJR]

Sorry mate .. didn't see it. Apologies.

No problem, as least we have the same idea here!

 

[Slottery]

Would it be big difference if players would need to have mandatory net loss limit instead of max bet? If somebody would have limit of £500/month and want to play with £20 spins, there wouldn't be more lost than with £2-5 max bet.

 

[goatwack]

Again, stake size is almost moot as most mortals will bet between £0.20 - £5, so what does it matter in terms of social responsibility if I lose £100 in 20 spins or 50.

The issue is I could 'irresponsibly' burn through several hundred £££ on Fast Play using menial bets. But that's ok because the UKGC can pat themselves on the back for capping amounts to sub-£5 levels, and proclaim themselves advocates of Responsible Gambling

The entire system is flawed and based on risk-taking, however much one agrees or disagrees with certain aspects. If they want to kill gambling and sterilize the risk factor then it's not gambling really. I partially agree with Sweden at least trying to get players to think about it, however annoying.

There's also nothing preventing someone walking into a bookies or placing singular high bets is there? Our local feral drunkard does this without fail every couple of weeks, where's the UKGC on that? Oh that's right they don't give a shit

Politicians and self-promoters will just keep banging this drum until there's virtually nothing left of the industry

THERE IS NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL SOLUTION

 

[mina1929]

All this kind of reminds me of another country I know, don't we just love our government

 

[goatwack]

 

[mina1929]

View attachment 117463

How did you guess lol