FOBTs

Where did you read the final decision?

It's not a final decision. I read it in The Times yesterday. Use Google and type something like - fobts stakes. Quite a few articles.

It sounds promising but I can hear the sound of bank notes being stuffed into brown envelopes as we speak! I will reserve judgement but we can only hope.

Oddly, despite being a (recovering) compulsive gambler, I am generally against too much regulation and government interference. I genuinely believe in market forces and free will and the idea that we tax, legislate or 'ban' things out of existence because they cause certain people problems doesn't sit particularly comfortably with me. HOWEVER, the correnlation between FOBTs, gambling addiction and associated social issues is SO strong and SO well documented that I would support any legislation to reduce this damage.

I guess we watch this space...

Great post Phil and I agree with much of what you say.

Looks like £2 limit will come into effect, however I see it's been kicked into the long grass as it won't come into force until 2020. Still, better than nothing I guess.

Whilst I agree with the poster above about too much legislation, etc, this change has been a long time coming. I for one am sick of seeing 4-5 bookmakers on almost every high street. If the only affect of this change is to reduce the number of bookmakers then it's at least a partial victory.

Yeh heard this on the news this morning

The max stake at the moment is £100 and the bookies were hoping it would just be reduced to 30 or 40. However the decision to lower it to 2 is monumental. I want to be careful not to enjoy the ruling too much as apparantly 1000s will lose their jobs- but the highstreet will change rapidly- can only be a good thing.

Yes 1000's could lose their jobs and whilst I do feel sorry for them if they do let's remember that these jobs were created off the back of others misery and simply as a means to circumvent the 4 FOBT per shop rule. People can find new jobs but people can't always put their broken families and lives back together casued by gambling problems of which FOBTs are a big factor.

Phil83 wrote:

It sounds promising but I can hear the sound of bank notes being stuffed into brown envelopes as we speak! I will reserve judgement but we can only hope.

Oddly, despite being a (recovering) compulsive gambler, I am generally against too much regulation and government interference. I genuinely believe in market forces and free will and the idea that we tax, legislate or 'ban' things out of existence because they cause certain people problems doesn't sit particularly comfortably with me. HOWEVER, the correnlation between FOBTs, gambling addiction and associated social issues is SO strong and SO well documented that I would support any legislation to reduce this damage.

I guess we watch this space...

I do find this kind of reasoning curious. Each to their own of course.

But I presume you would object to, say, asbestos, thalidomide, lead water pipes, the burning/drowning of 'witches', or human sacrifice making a comeback. It was only thanks to regulation, based on a scientific understanding of what is good for people, which led to these things being outlawed.

Is it really bad that tobacco companies can no longer sell to children nor promote via sports?

You might even think it's a good thing that steps are taken to reduce Co2 emmissions, to try and stop people exterminating endangered animals, or to consider how to control self-replicating artificial intelligence.

Future generations will look back at smoking with disbelief. De-regulated gambling will be seen with exactly the same public health considerations as any of the above. If this doesn't happen then it can only be because big-industry has completely taken over and we're living in some scary state without any sense of decisions being taken for the public good (democracy).

Note that for any of the above issues, parties with vested interests have rallied hard against regulation, usually under the banner of the free-market. When industries' play the free market card, they pretend that wider issues are at stake and that society at large will suffer from being a 'nanny state' (ironic given that addiction reduces real world opportunities and choice), but it's actually just self-interest, aka profit.

**standard disclaimer applies - whilst all of the above is undoubtedly true, this all comes from the big-picture, societal level. It's also true that on the individual level, it is all about personal responsibility. And if you're blaming, without accepting, your deflecting.

You can't really group gambling (an, albeit potentially harmful, occupation/vice/hobby) with your examples above:

Asbestos - Nobody would choose to be exposed to asbestos and I've never known anyone who treats construction work as a leisure activity. The same could be said for thalidomide and lead pipes which were replaced with alternatives when the dangers were proven. Pipes, ceiling etc. still exist, they're just made of different materials so it's like closing the bookies but directing people online (which, as a side note, is what I forsee happening with bookies basically becoming internet cafes so players can log online and play 'remotely'. I guarantee there are teams of lawyers ironing out the legalities as we speak!).

As for human sacrifice and witch burning, I don't believe that either of these were voluntarily entered into. Even as a gambling addict, if I knew someone would set me alight if I walked in a bookies, I think I'd stay away.

You can, however, compare gambling to the likes of smoking, alcohol and recreational drug use (the difference with the latter, of course, is that it is already illegal). The big question then is where to draw the line and it's one which I don't have a proposed solution to. In a country which introduces a 'sugar tax', there is a balance to be had between regulation and complete state control.

My point was that, although I oppose state control and limiting of free-will, that regulation in the case of FOBTs would have such significant benefits socially that, in this instance, I believe it is worth the sacrifice.

Phil83 wrote:

You can't really group gambling (an, albeit potentially harmful, occupation/vice/hobby) with your examples above:

Asbestos - Nobody would choose to be exposed to asbestos and I've never known anyone who treats construction work as a leisure activity. The same could be said for thalidomide and lead pipes which were replaced with alternatives when the dangers were proven. Pipes, ceiling etc. still exist, they're just made of different materials so it's like closing the bookies but directing people online (which, as a side note, is what I forsee happening with bookies basically becoming internet cafes so players can log online and play 'remotely'. I guarantee there are teams of lawyers ironing out the legalities as we speak!).

As for human sacrifice and witch burning, I don't believe that either of these were voluntarily entered into. Even as a gambling addict, if I knew someone would set me alight if I walked in a bookies, I think I'd stay away.

You can, however, compare gambling to the likes of smoking, alcohol and recreational drug use (the difference with the latter, of course, is that it is already illegal). The big question then is where to draw the line and it's one which I don't have a proposed solution to. In a country which introduces a 'sugar tax', there is a balance to be had between regulation and complete state control.

My point was that, although I oppose state control and limiting of free-will, that regulation in the case of FOBTs would have such significant benefits socially that, in this instance, I believe it is worth the sacrifice.

Yeah but to say 'nobody would choose to be exposed to asbestos', misses the point. Obviously no one NOW would choose that. But plenty of people DID choose it back in the day, when they fancied a good loft insulation, or whatever. People chose lead piping, perhaps cos it was effective, or cheap.

This was really in response to the notion that regulation is bad and that you just let market forces do their thing. If you do so, you will get lethal consequences.

This, and the burning of witches, were also examples of how we can get things really wrong, but then become better educated as a society, and change our practices.

It seems pretty clear to me that the whole gambling industry is based on a destructive model - financed by addicts, contributing to the stripping away of town centres, draining benefits, hitting poorer people, leaving people with no money to buy stuff, destroying relationships. Generally providing little and taking a lot. Obviously, there are smoke and mirrors around the true nature of the industry, but once this is stripped away and seen for what it is, then it's days will be numbered, - and the signs are there already.

For the record, I would welcome any sugar tax. Why on earth should multinational companies make billions while their products are cynically targetting children, causing chronic obesity, diabetes, cancers etc. Yes, in some ideal world people would just stop drinking this stuff. But this isn't happening, or if it is the rate of change is too slow.

I just don't see the problem in rules being made to protect people. By doing so it's hardly the slippery slope to North Korea. The nanny state argument was used against smoking, drink driving, the reduction of maximum FOBT stakes.

Companies use this argument when their ability to profiteer is at risk. They try hard to convince affected members of the public that it's against them too - the very people who suffer. Some people bite.