Prove it.

HAYSIE

Online gamblers should prove they can afford losses, report finds



Online gamblers should not be able to lose more than £100 a month without proving they can afford it, according to a report that will also call for betting websites that base themselves offshore to face stiffer taxes.

Proposals from the Social Market Foundation (SMF) thinktank build on growing clamour for the government to make sweeping changes to how the industry is regulated, following a string of high-profile stories about problem gambling.

Among wide-ranging recommendations due to be published on Wednesday, the SMF will call for:

A £100-per-month “soft cap” on online losses.
Tax breaks for firms that move onshore.
Limits on how much can be staked online.
A regulatory shake-up, including a new ombudsman.
A kitemarking system for firms that uphold standards.
A clearer sanctions regime for those that don’t.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/online-gamblers-should-prove-they-can-afford-losses-report-finds/ar-BB17z6R0?ocid=msedgdhp

Cammykaze

Not a bad thing Haysie. Can say nanny state etc too of course, taking responsibility for yourself through self-banning and being accountable would be a better option for most.

Only reservation is the potential blanket thing and likely lack of individualising. Not all gamblers are the same.

Gambling is a major deal in this country and things like this IMO should have been in place years ago to help "problem gamblers".

kapowblamz

£100 is still a lot and totally out of whack. There are hundreds of different online casinos you can fire up. For some people losing £10 at 20 different casinos could cause massive problems for many people, including their children. This is not the answer.

Cammykaze

Its a start?

At least a problem gambler needs to go to the effort to load up different sites to place more bets. This will at least make it harder for some to lose more money.

I don't enjoy the game gambling side of things myself and use any gambling money in poker and for the odd sports bet

kapowblamz

I think a better idea would be purely based on income. Like those on benefits are simply not allowed to bet online at all and those who are employed can't lose more than 2% of their annual salary. Atm, even in the UKs heavily regulated environment, a person who earns 30k a year is still able to spend thousands a month on online slots with ease.

HAYSIE

Cammykaze said:

Not a bad thing Haysie. Can say nanny state etc too of course, taking responsibility for yourself through self-banning and being accountable would be a better option for most.

Only reservation is the potential blanket thing and likely lack of individualising. Not all gamblers are the same.

Gambling is a major deal in this country and things like this IMO should have been in place years ago to help "problem gamblers".

I think that problem gambling is a horrible problem for those that suffer from it.

This is a small minority.

There were times when I was a youngster, when I gambled more than I should have.

I have also known a few people that have got themselves into trouble with this problem.

So I am sympathetic.

However, there is a problem bringing in rules or legislation which affect the overwhelming majority that are unaffected by this problem.

In my experience problem gamblers are a determined breed that will soon find a way around any rules.

Many problem gamblers will have a bet on anything, and there is always something to bet on.

Limiting losses on accounts will probably just mean more accounts, limiting losses in betting shops will just mean visiting more shops, or betting on line.

I cant claim to be an expert on this but I felt that limiting stakes on FOBTs was pointless, when you could still bet a couple of grand on a horse or dog at frequent intervals, and you can still lose a fortune at a casino, live or online.

Therefore limiting stakes on one particular aspect of gambling, will just mean that people with a problem will bet on something else, or take a little longer to lose all their money.

A bit like stopping someone with a drink problem from drinking gin.

Maybe they should put more effort into identifying those with a problem, and find a way of limiting their losses, or helping them in a more practical way.

HAYSIE

Cammykaze said:

Not a bad thing Haysie. Can say nanny state etc too of course, taking responsibility for yourself through self-banning and being accountable would be a better option for most.

Only reservation is the potential blanket thing and likely lack of individualising. Not all gamblers are the same.

Gambling is a major deal in this country and things like this IMO should have been in place years ago to help "problem gamblers".

I think that stopping credit card deposits was a practical solution.

Although those that are determined can still get cash on their credit cards, and deposit it in the bank to enable a debit card deposit.

tai-gar

But they seem to ignore the Stock Market where you can win or loose much more than £100 before you get up in the morning.

Toffs charter I guess whilst trying to control Joe public.

Cammykaze

kapowblamz said:

I think a better idea would be purely based on income. Like those on benefits are simply not allowed to bet online at all and those who are employed can't lose more than 2% of their annual salary. Atm, even in the UKs heavily regulated environment, a person who earns 30k a year is still able to spend thousands a month on online slots with ease.

Think this is a little too far as people on benefits need a hobby too. It's not the best hobby in the world for some, for others its an outlet and can be healthy if controlled. It's taking a joy away instead fixing the issue I feel.

Prefer the education side and being accountable for self. It's not easy and will be a big hurdle for people with gambling issues. It's worth seeking help off your own back instead of being more regulated while being further restricted. Don't matter were the help comes from.

Like a couple of other threads on forum. It's not going to be a quick process with differing opinions on what they believe is the best way to tackle this one.

kapowblamz

Trouble is the poorest are usually the hardest to educate.