Jeff Stelling on MH issues

[SecretSam]

Well said, sir

Jeff Stelling on eating disorders

[Super]

Gonna be a sad day next Sunday on his last show.

[phantom]

Very powerful and emotional watch 

[RUSSEL85]

Well said. Really going to miss Jeff, he has been a constant over the last 30 years, the ultimate professional. Those are going to be big, big shoes to fill. I hope he enjoys his retirement at 68. The infamous Jeff and Kammy moment from Fratton Park missing the red card I will never forget, it was hilarious. 

[tts_city]

 

[Midred]

Which match was it when they kept cutting back to Kamara and he'd taken another layer of clothing off?

[RedNachos]

In an era of Tv where synthetic personalities are taking over, having a genuine, skilled and passionate guy in a leading role for sky is so refreshing (regardless of how long he's been on the air). Certainly opened my eyes on a serious issue that i've been relatively sheltered on here.

Hats off Mr Stelling

[Bazooka Joe]

Will miss Jeff, his banter and wicked sense of humour.

I'm just stelling it like it is.

[cider hoss rules]

1 hour ago, TomF said:

Hats off indeed but still soccer Saturday sponsored by sky bet

I thought it was Gillette, has it recently changed?

[And Its Smith]

Powerful speech from Jeff but sadly won’t make a difference.  This inhumane government couldn’t give a shit about people with eating disorders.  

[REDOXO]

Michelle Owen in her fairwell appearance on Soccer Saturday. 
 

Brilliant

[Dollymarie]

12 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

Powerful speech from Jeff but sadly won’t make a difference.  This inhumane government couldn’t give a shit about people with eating disorders.  

Frankly this government couldn’t give a shit about most people full stop. 

[robinforlife2]

9 minutes ago, TomF said:

It is, but adverts during it are nearly wall to wall gambling.  Also: Sky Bet Championship. 

Where do you draw the line. Everything has gone way too OTT.

Tobacco adverts banned, now people want gambling adverts banned.

What's next, Drinks brands because it entices people to drink too much. Soft drinks banned because of the sugar levels, Take aways banned because it encourages junk food eating, supermarkets because it encourages people to eat too much food, pension funds and investment funds, because many turn out to be bogus and fold and people lose money!

People make their own decisions in life, and at the same time, we should  not be told how and what to spend our money on by Governments and people who want to cry foul play when things go wrong! You see no one is forced to eat junk food, intake too much sugar, invest our money badly, drink too much alcohol, or gamble more than we can afford. These are choices we make! It's funny how none of these people who cry about gambling issues they created minded it when and if they were winning. Yet when they've lost everything, they look for someone else to blame bar themselves. The same as the alcoholic who drinks all the time, its their choice, I mean it's sad when they can't get help for a 2nd or a 3rd liver, but they've made this choice.

It's sad that our own bad choices, are never considered people's own responsibilities and that those who can happily enjoy all the above are made to suffer because we are turning into a nation, that whenever there is a problem, it can't possibly be their own fault and they need someone else to blame.  

Edited May 22, 2023 by robinforlife2

[Welcome To The Jungle]

11 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

Where do you draw the line. Everything has gone way too OTT.

Tobacco adverts banned, now people want gambling adverts banned.

What's next, Drinks brands because it entices people to drink too much. Soft drinks banned because of the sugar levels, Take aways banned because it encourages junk food eating, supermarkets because it encourages people to eat too much food, pension funds and investment funds, because many turn out to be bogus and fold and people lose money!

People make their own decisions in life, and at the same time, we should  not be told how and what to spend our money on by Governments and people who want to cry foul play when things go wrong! You see no one is forced to eat junk food, intake too much sugar, invest our money badly, drink too much alcohol, or gamble more than we can afford. These are choices we make! It's funny how none of these people who cry about gambling issues they created minded it when and if they were winning. Yet when they've lost everything, they look for someone else to blame bar themselves. The same as the alcoholic who drinks all the time, its their choice, I mean it's sad when they can't get help for a 2nd or a 3rd liver, but they've made this choice.

It's sad that our own bad choices, are never considered people's own responsibilities and that those who can happily enjoy all the above are made to suffer because we are turning into a nation, that whenever there is a problem, it can't possibly be their own fault and they need someone else to blame.  

The question I'd ask you if why you need these adverts? No one is proposing bans on gambling, or fast food or drinks etc, just making it less prevalent. All of these things are hugely addictive and very hard to stop. You are clearly an advocate of personal responsibility though, so if I was an alcoholic, and decided today to kick the booze, I imagine you'd support that. After all it would make me a more productive member of society, and lessen my chances of serious health consequences. Both of which would at least and indirect benefit to you as a tax payer. Why would you want to make my journey harder by having adverts everywhere, tempting me back? 

If you like to drink, and you drink responsibly, you will still drink if you've been advertised to or not. Same if you like to gamble, or have fast food. However, if you are an addict, these adverts can easily overwhelm you back into a spiral.

[IAmNick]

37 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

Where do you draw the line. Everything has gone way too OTT.

Tobacco adverts banned, now people want gambling adverts banned.

What's next, Drinks brands because it entices people to drink too much. Soft drinks banned because of the sugar levels, Take aways banned because it encourages junk food eating, supermarkets because it encourages people to eat too much food, pension funds and investment funds, because many turn out to be bogus and fold and people lose money!

People make their own decisions in life, and at the same time, we should  not be told how and what to spend our money on by Governments and people who want to cry foul play when things go wrong! You see no one is forced to eat junk food, intake too much sugar, invest our money badly, drink too much alcohol, or gamble more than we can afford. These are choices we make! It's funny how none of these people who cry about gambling issues they created minded it when and if they were winning. Yet when they've lost everything, they look for someone else to blame bar themselves. The same as the alcoholic who drinks all the time, its their choice, I mean it's sad when they can't get help for a 2nd or a 3rd liver, but they've made this choice.

It's sad that our own bad choices, are never considered people's own responsibilities and that those who can happily enjoy all the above are made to suffer because we are turning into a nation, that whenever there is a problem, it can't possibly be their own fault and they need someone else to blame.  

These companies intentionally prey on people who are susceptible to addiction, whether that's in their nature or because they're going through difficult times, or whatever.

They use complex psychological manipulation to get people gambling more and more, and they literally destroy lives and families as a result.

They're utterly disgusting, and it's bizarre someone would then stick up for them being able to advertise on the telly. What difference to you does it make whether a crappy ad shows or not?!

Maybe when we all say "the money in football is ridiculous" we should also think about all the money around football - funded by these industries. They have no worth, they don't produce anything, they just funnel money into themselves by any means possible.

Surely we should try and protect vulnerable people (or people in general!), not just say "Well it's your choice if you utterly **** yourself and others around you over, tough luck, I'm alright though!". Normal people being left struggling or destitute but at least those poor gambling companies got to run their 30s advert

Edited May 22, 2023 by IAmNick

[robinforlife2]

It's not just about adverts, the government now impose restrictions on people to bet, want crazy intrusive checks done. This is all down to a state where everyone believes blame is not their own doing. Granted people need help. So OK, how about every alcoholic, has their bank account linked to something which means every time they go to a shop, it flashes up this person can't be served alcohol or when someone is waiting for a operation due to needing weight loss, it flags up on every takeaway if they try to buy something and therefore they can't buy a take away. There doesn't need to be practices put in place to make it more difficult more people to choose what to do with their money, if you choose to drink fine, if you choose to eat crap fine, if you choose to blow your wages on a game of chance, fine. When I earn money, I don't want governments telling me what I can spend it on, or what I can afford. If I have £500 in my bank, and choose to put it on Man City at 1/10, that is my choice, it should not be a choice of a government. 

If you make it solely accountable on the person, then there is no comeback. Now granted if someone has an addiction and SEEKS help, the help should be given, but if it is given it should come with provisos that everything done is monitored and limited, after all, they have asked for this help.

But slowly, bit by bit, all the choices we make, and should be able to make are being limited to "appease" a blame culture.

I have mental health problems and depression, I've tried to kill myself 4 times. But I have things I enjoy, because those things prevent me from making it 5th time lucky! However the way our culture is going, the little things I enjoy and make me want to live are slowly but surely being removed, to which then life becomes no enjoyment.

Imagine being told, right you can only gamble £100 a month, because you earn £2000 a month and have £1400 a month of outgoings and we deem that's appropriate, but by the same token, I could spend £50 every day on Just Eat, I could drink £100 in a pub every night if I like, I can pay £130 a month on Sky, to watch the things I enjoy, I can pay £800 a year to watch a sport live, because it's what I enjoy. What happens if suddenly people go, oh I'm depressed because going to the football every week has left me penniless, because I want to go to every game, I want to go to the pub and buy fast food there, but now because of the football, I can't pay my bills, I can't live my life. To this the Government go, OMG we have to put affordability checks on whether people can afford a season ticket, go to games etc.

This may sound far fetched, and to that extent it is, but no one should be able to tell people what to do with their money. If those who suffer from addiction can't control what they do, the help should be given, but not at the expense of those who don't have a problem, but it's a way of their life, their enjoyment.

[Welcome To The Jungle]

11 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

It's not just about adverts, the government now impose restrictions on people to bet, want crazy intrusive checks done. This is all down to a state where everyone believes blame is not their own doing. Granted people need help. So OK, how about every alcoholic, has their bank account linked to something which means every time they go to a shop, it flashes up this person can't be served alcohol or when someone is waiting for a operation due to needing weight loss, it flags up on every takeaway if they try to buy something and therefore they can't buy a take away. There doesn't need to be practices put in place to make it more difficult more people to choose what to do with their money, if you choose to drink fine, if you choose to eat crap fine, if you choose to blow your wages on a game of chance, fine. When I earn money, I don't want governments telling me what I can spend it on, or what I can afford. If I have £500 in my bank, and choose to put it on Man City at 1/10, that is my choice, it should not be a choice of a government. 

If you make it solely accountable on the person, then there is no comeback. Now granted if someone has an addiction and SEEKS help, the help should be given, but if it is given it should come with provisos that everything done is monitored and limited, after all, they have asked for this help.

But slowly, bit by bit, all the choices we make, and should be able to make are being limited to "appease" a blame culture.

I have mental health problems and depression, I've tried to kill myself 4 times. But I have things I enjoy, because those things prevent me from making it 5th time lucky! However the way our culture is going, the little things I enjoy and make me want to live are slowly but surely being removed, to which then life becomes no enjoyment.

Imagine being told, right you can only gamble £100 a month, because you earn £2000 a month and have £1400 a month of outgoings and we deem that's appropriate, but by the same token, I could spend £50 every day on Just Eat, I could drink £100 in a pub every night if I like, I can pay £130 a month on Sky, to watch the things I enjoy, I can pay £800 a year to watch a sport live, because it's what I enjoy. What happens if suddenly people go, oh I'm depressed because going to the football every week has left me penniless, because I want to go to every game, I want to go to the pub and buy fast food there, but now because of the football, I can't pay my bills, I can't live my life. To this the Government go, OMG we have to put affordability checks on whether people can afford a season ticket, go to games etc.

This may sound far fetched, and to that extent it is, but no one should be able to tell people what to do with their money. If those who suffer from addiction can't control what they do, the help should be given, but not at the expense of those who don't have a problem, but it's a way of their life, their enjoyment.

From what I can tell, the only check they need for you to gamble is ID to prove age. Can you elaborate on the unreasonable checks?

I sympathise with your mental health issues, and I'm glad you can find release in things you enjoy. I'm sorry that these are being and have been limited. Could you elaborate on the limitations imposed in the last 20 years for context? 

[robinforlife2]

3 minutes ago, Welcome To The Jungle said:

From what I can tell, the only check they need for you to gamble is ID to prove age. Can you elaborate on the unreasonable checks?

I sympathise with your mental health issues, and I'm glad you can find release in things you enjoy. I'm sorry that these are being and have been limited. Could you elaborate on the limitations imposed in the last 20 years for context? 

The government have just signed off, that Bookmakers have to do affordability checks on gamblers. Should you lose £125 on any one day or £500 in any one month, you would have to Provide them with bank statements, employment records / tax returns, undergo a soft credit check to make sure you haven't had any defaults, ccjs or anything in the last 6 years. Anyone who is self employed, retired etc, will not pass these checks, so would be limited to £100 loss limit a month.

Further to which, at any time, you have lost £2000 on an account, you are subject to a hard credit check, where they have 10 years bank statements, employment records, tax returns, details of any person who has paid £250 or more to you in the last ten years, the reasons why and for that person to send bank statements to show why funds were sent. 

The above checks are intrusive and are at breach of most peoples human rights. 

It should not be down to the Gambling Commission, Bookmaker or Government to determine how much you can afford to bet, it is your own money.

It has come about because a number of people have taken bookmakers to court over losses they have lost, saying they shouldn't have been able to gamble that money, it was money they borrowed, in many cases money they stole off employers and so on. As a result, bookmakers have been fined heavily, been made to pay back funds on occasion to the Proceeds Of Crime Agency and as a result, the government created a white paper on gambling and the affordability of it.

As someone who would bet in the region of £300/500 per day, to supplement my income (I am a layer, if you don't know what that means, I often oppose football teams, golfers, horses etc, that I believe will not win, as a result, I may be risking £150/200 per bet to win £20/50, if any bet I layed won, I would be subject to checks of the first level, which I would fail, and on a bad day, I would be subject to more scrutinizable checks which very few would ever pass). Now I only aim to make £40/50 a day. But I have a betting account with £4000 in it, and my approach is, if I lose it, I lose it, it wont be replaced, because I can't afford to replace it. 

I have a personal debt of £20,000 which I am slowly paying off, and I was out of work for a while, which meant, my betting was keeping me from being homeless. I am now an animal husbandry consultant, self employed, but my income is very modest, but enough to pay my bills and rent. The money I use to gamble, and it works for me, was money saved over 1 year and when it's gone it's gone.

It's my bit of sanity and because of increased winnings over time, I have to pay a 40% commission on bets on one exchange, so now I use another, but recently they have imposed a £400 deposit limit, unless I do checks they want done. I refused to send my bank account statements and all that, so I am limited to £400 deposit. 

With this, I can't stake as I would like to, and therefore can make considerably less, and it will take me 7-8 months to deposit my money into this account, having left the 40% commission firm. 

Under the new legislation, just one bad day would end my opportunity to do what I do, and what I do to make a living outside of my job, which enables me to have somewhere to sleep and not much else.

What I choose to do with my money, should be my choice, not that of the government. But it is now seriously affecting my own mental health the checks they want done, as it makes me unable to risk having a losing bet/day or I lose the account, and the ability to long term top up my income, as a result making me depressed further than I already am. Instead of laying for £25/40 now, I am currently doing it to £4/8 to prevent anyway of triggering their intrusive checks, but as a result what I make a day has gone from £50 to about £15, which means I am no longer able to fund going to football, going out for a day or doing things I like to do, because my ability to earn the money which paid for those things has been severely affected, because of those who can't control themselves, and when things go bad go crying that it's not their fault and now because this has become a common trend, the government has taken action which will have no affect on problem gamblers, only those who do it for enjoyment or a living.  

[richwwtk]

15 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

The government have just signed off, that Bookmakers have to do affordability checks on gamblers. Should you lose £125 on any one day or £500 in any one month, you would have to Provide them with bank statements, employment records / tax returns, undergo a soft credit check to make sure you haven't had any defaults, ccjs or anything in the last 6 years. Anyone who is self employed, retired etc, will not pass these checks, so would be limited to £100 loss limit a month.

Further to which, at any time, you have lost £2000 on an account, you are subject to a hard credit check, where they have 10 years bank statements, employment records, tax returns, details of any person who has paid £250 or more to you in the last ten years, the reasons why and for that person to send bank statements to show why funds were sent. 

The above checks are intrusive and are at breach of most peoples human rights. 

It should not be down to the Gambling Commission, Bookmaker or Government to determine how much you can afford to bet, it is your own money.

It has come about because a number of people have taken bookmakers to court over losses they have lost, saying they shouldn't have been able to gamble that money, it was money they borrowed, in many cases money they stole off employers and so on. As a result, bookmakers have been fined heavily, been made to pay back funds on occasion to the Proceeds Of Crime Agency and as a result, the government created a white paper on gambling and the affordability of it.

As someone who would bet in the region of £300/500 per day, to supplement my income (I am a layer, if you don't know what that means, I often oppose football teams, golfers, horses etc, that I believe will not win, as a result, I may be risking £150/200 per bet to win £20/50, if any bet I layed won, I would be subject to checks of the first level, which I would fail, and on a bad day, I would be subject to more scrutinizable checks which very few would ever pass). Now I only aim to make £40/50 a day. But I have a betting account with £4000 in it, and my approach is, if I lose it, I lose it, it wont be replaced, because I can't afford to replace it. 

I have a personal debt of £20,000 which I am slowly paying off, and I was out of work for a while, which meant, my betting was keeping me from being homeless. I am now an animal husbandry consultant, self employed, but my income is very modest, but enough to pay my bills and rent. The money I use to gamble, and it works for me, was money saved over 1 year and when it's gone it's gone.

It's my bit of sanity and because of increased winnings over time, I have to pay a 40% commission on bets on one exchange, so now I use another, but recently they have imposed a £400 deposit limit, unless I do checks they want done. I refused to send my bank account statements and all that, so I am limited to £400 deposit. 

With this, I can't stake as I would like to, and therefore can make considerably less, and it will take me 7-8 months to deposit my money into this account, having left the 40% commission firm. 

Under the new legislation, just one bad day would end my opportunity to do what I do, and what I do to make a living outside of my job, which enables me to have somewhere to sleep and not much else.

What I choose to do with my money, should be my choice, not that of the government. But it is now seriously affecting my own mental health the checks they want done, as it makes me unable to risk having a losing bet/day or I lose the account, and the ability to long term top up my income, as a result making me depressed further than I already am. Instead of laying for £25/40 now, I am currently doing it to £4/8 to prevent anyway of triggering their intrusive checks, but as a result what I make a day has gone from £50 to about £15, which means I am no longer able to fund going to football, going out for a day or doing things I like to do, because my ability to earn the money which paid for those things has been severely affected, because of those who can't control themselves, and when things go bad go crying that it's not their fault and now because this has become a common trend, the government has taken action which will have no affect on problem gamblers, only those who do it for enjoyment or a living.  

The trouble is, the gambling firms use very subtle techniques to draw people in and get them hooked. This can cause massive issues for people and to say "I'm able to handle it, why can't others?" is showing very little empathy for people with these issues.

The rules are there to protect the people that can't handle it, and if it's a minor pain in the arse for people such as yourself then that is a minor price to pay to try and keep on top of an industry that makes it's profits on other peoples misery.

And to claim that it affects your mental health to only be allowed to stake £125 a day when you are £20,000 in debt seems very perverse.

[robinforlife2]

1 minute ago, richwwtk said:

The trouble is, the gambling firms use very subtle techniques to draw people in and get them hooked. This can cause massive issues for people and to say "I'm able to handle it, why can't others?" is showing very little empathy for people with these issues.

The rules are there to protect the people that can't handle it, and if it's a minor pain in the arse for people such as yourself then that is a minor price to pay to try and keep on top of an industry that makes it's profits on other peoples misery.

And to claim that it affects your mental health to only be allowed to stake £125 a day when you are £20,000 in debt seems very perverse.

Debt comes from a Car Loan, on a car I had a serious crash in, it was under finance, but was only insured 3rd party and it was written off. I couldn't afford the fully comprehensive insurance as it was another 1800 a year from 3rd party. As a result of the crash, I was out of work, and without a car, but with a massive car loan, I had to pay. Not all debt is black and white. 

[Welcome To The Jungle]

1 minute ago, robinforlife2 said:

Debt comes from a Car Loan, on a car I had a serious crash in, it was under finance, but was only insured 3rd party and it was written off. I couldn't afford the fully comprehensive insurance as it was another 1800 a year from 3rd party. As a result of the crash, I was out of work, and without a car, but with a massive car loan, I had to pay. Not all debt is black and white. 

Not all addictions are black and white. 

[richwwtk]

2 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

Debt comes from a Car Loan, on a car I had a serious crash in, it was under finance, but was only insured 3rd party and it was written off. I couldn't afford the fully comprehensive insurance as it was another 1800 a year from 3rd party. As a result of the crash, I was out of work, and without a car, but with a massive car loan, I had to pay. Not all debt is black and white. 

I was not criticising the debt, I apologise if came across like that, but surely you can understand that a couple affordability checks are a reasonable check when people want to deposit larger than average sums of money? Even if it's not to avoid problem gambling, then I would imagine it stops a possible money laundering route as well?

I agree that your particular case might come up as a red flag under these checks, but then further conversations could take place for everyone to come to an agreement. I would imagine your situation is far from ordinary so would affect only a tiny percentage of people.

[robinforlife2]

1 minute ago, richwwtk said:

I was not criticising the debt, I apologise if came across like that, but surely you can understand that a couple affordability checks are a reasonable check when people want to deposit larger than average sums of money? Even if it's not to avoid problem gambling, then I would imagine it stops a possible money laundering route as well?

I agree that your particular case might come up as a red flag under these checks, but then further conversations could take place for everyone to come to an agreement. I would imagine your situation is far from ordinary so would affect only a tiny percentage of people.

I wish that was the case, but those discussions were of no interest to 2/3 accounts. You could have £1m in a savings account, but if you don't have an income with disposable amounts 20x the monthly deposit limit you want it is declined. On £600 a month disposable income I had, 2/3 of these firms were not willing allow me to have a deposit limit pcm of more than £100 a month. Despite having a savings account with just shy of £4000 in it. 

There is a difference in stopping people depositing large amounts of money. Effectively you can go in any shop and spend £20,000 or up to £42,000 (if you notify bank) before triggering money laundering checks, so money laundering couldn't be used as a reason for a check a deposit for a few thousand pounds. I agree if someone was depositing £1000 every day for a month or two, this could and should trigger checks. But checks should not be enforced on all accounts if you lost £125 a day or £500 in a month. This is very intrusive, especially when the checks are triggered at so low levels, but the level to which they want to do the checks are unjust and do not mirror the reasoning. 

I have no issues with affordability checks, PROVIDING they are sensible and not triggered by limits which will affect more normal / professional punters than a problem gambler.

No problem gambler is spending £1000 a day or £5000 a month so to speak, they are getting their wages on a friday and pumping in £200 and losing it, now this can of course escalate, but the days of credit accounts are long gone, nor can you deposit with credit cards. also there are no real checks in shops so a problem gambler could go to 5 bookmakers in town in under an hour and bet £50-100 in each one and lose it, and it wont even be noted. 

The checks planned will not lower problem gamblers, they will limit those who bet because they like to bet, bet professionally and have had many accounts limited for being successful, it will have no prevention on the addict who blows his/her wages every week. 

[richwwtk]

3 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

I wish that was the case, but those discussions were of no interest to 2/3 accounts. You could have £1m in a savings account, but if you don't have an income with disposable amounts 20x the monthly deposit limit you want it is declined. On £600 a month disposable income I had, 2/3 of these firms were not willing allow me to have a deposit limit pcm of more than £100 a month. Despite having a savings account with just shy of £4000 in it. 

There is a difference in stopping people depositing large amounts of money. Effectively you can go in any shop and spend £20,000 or up to £42,000 (if you notify bank) before triggering money laundering checks, so money laundering couldn't be used as a reason for a check a deposit for a few thousand pounds. I agree if someone was depositing £1000 every day for a month or two, this could and should trigger checks. But checks should not be enforced on all accounts if you lost £125 a day or £500 in a month. This is very intrusive, especially when the checks are triggered at so low levels, but the level to which they want to do the checks are unjust and do not mirror the reasoning. 

I have no issues with affordability checks, PROVIDING they are sensible and not triggered by limits which will affect more normal / professional punters than a problem gambler.

No problem gambler is spending £1000 a day or £5000 a month so to speak, they are getting their wages on a friday and pumping in £200 and losing it, now this can of course escalate, but the days of credit accounts are long gone, nor can you deposit with credit cards. also there are no real checks in shops so a problem gambler could go to 5 bookmakers in town in under an hour and bet £50-100 in each one and lose it, and it wont even be noted. 

The checks planned will not lower problem gamblers, they will limit those who bet because they like to bet, bet professionally and have had many accounts limited for being successful, it will have no prevention on the addict who blows his/her wages every week. 

Shouldn't your gripe be with the betting companies who cut you off for being successful? Does that not tell you everything you need to know about their ethics?

I can see your arguments that the way the checks are implemented might not be ideal, but that is a question of maybe changing the way it's done, and that will only ever happen through discussion, certainly not through ranting about them.

I'm also still not sure what your beef is with advertising restrictions for the industry?

[robinforlife2]

3 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

Shouldn't your gripe be with the betting companies who cut you off for being successful? Does that not tell you everything you need to know about their ethics?

I can see your arguments that the way the checks are implemented might not be ideal, but that is a question of maybe changing the way it's done, and that will only ever happen through discussion, certainly not through ranting about them.

I'm also still not sure what your beef is with advertising restrictions for the industry?

It started with advertising bans, which then led to government looking into affordability etc. 

My gripe isn't at all with betting companies, it's with the government who have imposed these checks through the gambling commission. The bookmakers are only following orders from above.

My gripe is simply, that companies shouldn't be told who can advertise on what and so on. We have Army adverts on all the time, which leads to a number of people dying, the adverts talk about the amazing things about joining the army, even give career talks at schools, but the masses of deaths that occur on duty are never mentioned.

You can pick holes in every industry. I don't believe advertising should be censored at all. I genuinely feel, if seeing something triggers you to want to do something you are addicted to, then that is a shame, but doesn't mean it should be banned to suit a minority it affects. 

 

[richwwtk]

4 minutes ago, robinforlife2 said:

It started with advertising bans, which then led to government looking into affordability etc. 

My gripe isn't at all with betting companies, it's with the government who have imposed these checks through the gambling commission. The bookmakers are only following orders from above.

My gripe is simply, that companies shouldn't be told who can advertise on what and so on. We have Army adverts on all the time, which leads to a number of people dying, the adverts talk about the amazing things about joining the army, even give career talks at schools, but the masses of deaths that occur on duty are never mentioned.

You can pick holes in every industry. I don't believe advertising should be censored at all. I genuinely feel, if seeing something triggers you to want to do something you are addicted to, then that is a shame, but doesn't mean it should be banned to suit a minority it affects. 

 

So you are fine with betting companies banning you just for making a profit when it's supposed to be somewhere where people both win and lose? Yet you get upset with the government when they try to stop these companies taking advantage of people who are going to just lose everything they have?

My personal view on advertising is ALL advertising should be banned, though I do realise that is impossible. I just go with Bill Hicks advice "If you work in marketing or advertising kill yourself, you serve no purpose to humanity".

 

[robinforlife2]

4 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

So you are fine with betting companies banning you just for making a profit when it's supposed to be somewhere where people both win and lose? Yet you get upset with the government when they try to stop these companies taking advantage of people who are going to just lose everything they have?

My personal view on advertising is ALL advertising should be banned, though I do realise that is impossible. I just go with Bill Hicks advice "If you work in marketing or advertising kill yourself, you serve no purpose to humanity".

 

They are operating a business, so if they are constantly losing to someone, I accept they won't want their business. This shouldn't happen on an exchange, you are paying the company a commission to use their marketplace, it's punter vs punter.

I have no gripes with the government trying to stop the bookmakers taking advantage of people with problems, but the imposed checks they are bringing forward will have no affect on problem gamblers. It affects anyone who bets who doesn't have a problem, not those with one. 

[grubby]

I had a skybet/sky poker account in 2006 ,around the time it started until April 2020 when they asked for some checks on my accounts and after a few phone conversations I was banned.  I had lost the equivalent of £60 a week in the time I'd had the account , on slots, betting and lots of late night poker. I'm a publican of 26 years who's only personal bill is council tax , the energy bills,food,drink etc all paid by our pubs. My disposable income is higher % than most peoples and yet I was banned. Now use bet365 mainly and in the last year I'm net profit of almost £2k. Suppose they'll be checking soon.

[SecretSam]

7 hours ago, Dollymarie said:

Frankly this government couldn’t give a shit about most people full stop. 

It seems to care about Tory donors, rich people, its own crooked mob...

[TheReds]

5 hours ago, Welcome To The Jungle said:

The question I'd ask you if why you need these adverts? No one is proposing bans on gambling, or fast food or drinks etc, just making it less prevalent. All of these things are hugely addictive and very hard to stop. You are clearly an advocate of personal responsibility though, so if I was an alcoholic, and decided today to kick the booze, I imagine you'd support that. After all it would make me a more productive member of society, and lessen my chances of serious health consequences. Both of which would at least and indirect benefit to you as a tax payer. Why would you want to make my journey harder by having adverts everywhere, tempting me back? 

If you like to drink, and you drink responsibly, you will still drink if you've been advertised to or not. Same if you like to gamble, or have fast food. However, if you are an addict, these adverts can easily overwhelm you back into a spiral.

Some people are shopping addicts, should we ban all advertising on anyone trying to sell anything in case someone adds it onto their credit card, overdraft or spend their weekly shop money? Sounds ridiculous, but where does the line get drawn. 

If you were a recovering alcoholic then it is down to you and you only to stay away from the booze, if an advert is going to tempt you, it is still down to yourself to not go back. Are you never going to go into a Supermarket or shop and look at a can or a bottle again, or should the alcohol not be on display?

I used to smoke for about 15 years, and kicked it. Was it easy, hell no, but I wouldn't blame an advert for B&H if I went back to it. My mate was an alcoholic for years and kicked it, he wouldn't want anything banned regarding alcohol as he knows it is up to himself to stay away from it, but he wouldn't want any advert banned.