Graham Calvert

Hi Bob,

The Bookmaker does share some of the responsibility as it makes little or no effort to provide a sensible, rational self-exclusion option for people who don't want to gamble anymore.

The problem is that there are 46 Bookmakers in a 12 mile radius from me - not all of them will offer self-exclusion and you can almost guarantee that I could walk back into over half of them and they would serve me. Even then, I could jump on a train and in fifteen minutes, be in another place with another 30 Bookmakers within a short distance.

The Bookmakers will never make it easy for compulsive gamblers to stop because three out of every five pounds come from someone with a gambling problem but everyone should have the right to say enough is enough - what they also don't realise is that people may resort to violence, vandalism and bad language to bar themselves if they can't get a sensible, sane solution.

I proposed a password system where the gambler can choose a month, six months, 1 year or life ban from a Bookmaker. It's very simple and easy to set up - every time someone places a bet, they give their password (which is set up initially with photo ID and address details) and if they ban themselves, they ban themselves. Very, very similar systems are in place with reward cards etc. so it can be done.

I won't say any more about it but this proposal has been discussed by senior members of parliament and it may bear fruit, even though the betting industry will fight it all the way, even though they have no grounds to do so.

JamesP

Thanks for the reply james,

you make a very good point in what you are saying as the reason the guy apparently lost his case is because he could have just have easily lost his money with another bookies. what he was arguing tho was that he has self excluded himself yet he was still allowed to place massive bets. i agree that bookies makea token effort at best to prevent problem gamblers from usiung their services. bookies should be made to do more to stop problem gamblers just the same as a pub or shop would decline a sale of a substance to someone they believe will abuse it(eg alcholics or glue sniffers)

i didnt know that 3 out of every 5 pound comes from a problem gambler it just shows the extent of the problems we are having with gambling in this country. yet as i am typing this i have already seen 2 gambling adverts in the space of 5 minutes on the tv its shocking.

a password system sounds like a great idea but as you said all too well james it will never happen because too much money is being made from it much the same as cigarettes are.

Extending from James idea I think all bookies doors should be locked and access granted by use of a membership card and when your self excluded your card is de activated and you can no longer get in. It would also help staff with abusive and violent customers as once there banned there cards would be de activated also. Same with underage gamblers you'd have to sign up to become a member - with sufficient ID therefore no more underage bets. But I don't think I should get my hopes up on that one.

[quote=bob20032]Im sure some of you will have read this story in the newspaper about a compulsive gambler by the name of Graham Calvert tried to sue a well known bookies for £2.1 million in losses

in the end the guy lost the court case and didnt get a penny of his money back but it did raise a good question about responsibility the customer.

just wondering what you guys think about this, does the bookie share some responsibility or is totally down to the gambler to decide to lose it all?
I am of the strong opinion ( after 5ish years of fobt addiction ) that it is the responsibility of us all to shun all gambling. Before I got hooked at the age of 45 i had no interest or opinion on gambling. Luckily it didn't destroy my life, probably because i could remember life before gambling. When i don't gamble i feel more cheerful and in control. When i am gripped by gambling i become grumpy distracted prone to tantrums, easily irritated etc. It is an immoral addictive vice and we should all spread that message loud and clear. We should not be polite or kind to self satisfied non-addicts ( or denialists ) who don't know what they are talking about.
Judgemental yes but without decisions or morals we can't protect ourselves.

We all don't operate by the same "moral code" though. What you see as immoral is fine to someone else.