-
HELP US - Become a Patron - Fat Jockey is a horse racing community focused on all the big races in the UK and Ireland. We don't charge users but if you have found the site useful then any support towards the running costs is appreciated ... a small donation each month would be a huge contribution. Become a Patron!
Must read - Petition
- Thread starter germanshepherd
- Start date
doctorwu
Previous Lurker
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,946
- Reaction score
- 168
- Points
- 0
charlie
Fat Jockey Patron (est. March 2021)
Johnoman66
Fat Jockey Patron
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2020
- Messages
- 469
- Reaction score
- 103
- Points
- 43
Block 205
Fat Jockey Patron (est. Jan 2021)
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2021
- Messages
- 200
- Reaction score
- 76
- Points
- 28
archie
Fat Jockey Patron
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2017
- Messages
- 4,882
- Reaction score
- 1,286
- Points
- 83
I don't and won't do petitions. This (and most) governments just ignore them but make a note of the agitators.
I do, however, urge everyone to complete the survey as this is far more likely to have an effect.
I do, however, urge everyone to complete the survey as this is far more likely to have an effect.
jono
Fat Jockey Patron (est. Jan 2021)
Bumping this one again.
There's a survey that closes today, like archie says it may come to nothing.
But it's worth doing everything we can to possibly stop this.
https://consult.gamblingcommission....ling-companies-interact-w/consultation/intro/
There's a survey that closes today, like archie says it may come to nothing.
But it's worth doing everything we can to possibly stop this.
https://consult.gamblingcommission....ling-companies-interact-w/consultation/intro/
Lostinleith
Fat Jockey Patron (est. Jan 2021)
The short survey doesn't take long. I also took part in the longer survey. I found the following quite sinister - the highlighting is mine. The text is from page 13 of this document.
Remote customer interaction - Consultation and Call for Evidence - Page 13 of 18 - The Gambling Commission - Citizen Space
"A key risk of introducing the affordability measures set out in the consultation is that consumers might decide to open more accounts to keep their spending under these levels with any one operator, or move to other forms of gambling.
We consider that these risks would be outweighed by the benefits of introducing consistent realistic threshold levels at which operators should be understanding more about their customers. This should build a culture whereby it is accepted that operators assess how affordable gambling over a certain level.
A key opportunity is that activity to avoid thresholds for affordability could also be used as a red flag by the financial sector which often has greater visibility of gambling across operators. This then would allow the financial sector the ability to take action to address gambling harms through programmes of activity which align with the expectations of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to address consumer vulnerability.
Furthermore, measures to protect consumers from unaffordable online gambling would be most effective in a ‘single customer view facility’ to allow an individual’s total online gambling to be assessed through a central system. We recognise that keeping a customer safe where operators currently only have a partial view of a customer’s behaviour is a challenge. That is why we brought together experts from outside and within the gambling industry in February to explore how technology could create a single customer view, as it has the potential to significantly improve customer protection."
Remote customer interaction - Consultation and Call for Evidence - Page 13 of 18 - The Gambling Commission - Citizen Space
"A key risk of introducing the affordability measures set out in the consultation is that consumers might decide to open more accounts to keep their spending under these levels with any one operator, or move to other forms of gambling.
We consider that these risks would be outweighed by the benefits of introducing consistent realistic threshold levels at which operators should be understanding more about their customers. This should build a culture whereby it is accepted that operators assess how affordable gambling over a certain level.
A key opportunity is that activity to avoid thresholds for affordability could also be used as a red flag by the financial sector which often has greater visibility of gambling across operators. This then would allow the financial sector the ability to take action to address gambling harms through programmes of activity which align with the expectations of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to address consumer vulnerability.
Furthermore, measures to protect consumers from unaffordable online gambling would be most effective in a ‘single customer view facility’ to allow an individual’s total online gambling to be assessed through a central system. We recognise that keeping a customer safe where operators currently only have a partial view of a customer’s behaviour is a challenge. That is why we brought together experts from outside and within the gambling industry in February to explore how technology could create a single customer view, as it has the potential to significantly improve customer protection."
Hurricane fly
Fat Jockey Patreon Est. March 2022
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2017
- Messages
- 4,808
- Reaction score
- 844
- Points
- 83
I wonder how antepost backers will be affected by this.
let’s say you are restricted to the infamous 100 pound.If you lose ?50 in a month and lay down ?50 on antepost from a net deposits side you are ?100 down for the month
let’s say you are restricted to the infamous 100 pound.If you lose ?50 in a month and lay down ?50 on antepost from a net deposits side you are ?100 down for the month
Kautostar
Fat Jockey Patron
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2018
- Messages
- 1,743
- Reaction score
- 482
- Points
- 83
There’s so many grey area’s with betting that something like ante post would be completely lost on your average politician. What about actual betting shops? I presume you’ll only be able to bet if you have one of those betting cards that they can track your bets with?
What about on course bookmakers ?
How do you apply a maximum stakes per customer, are on course bookies required to perform credit checks if you want 50 quid on a 6/4 shot and will they need you to confirm you haven’t staked more than 50 quid yet this month and will they need to go round the ring and ensure you haven’t already lost more than 50 quid on previous races.
It’s a total nonsense, would end the on course betting industry, the current SP system, TOTE and just about the entire existing set up, it simply can’t happen...
Just on my previous post, I know on course bookmakers were hit hugely when exchanges arrived and the value of pitches bombed, but rails and top Tatts pitches at places like Cheltenham, Ascot, York, Goodwood, Newbury amongst others are still worth substantial sums, any restriction applied will effectively render these pitches, and the businesses that own them, worthless...
How are they expecting to judge what you can afford to lose, and over what time period?
I know 100 a month if you "don't", is there a figure in mind?
I know 100 a month if you "don't", is there a figure in mind?
Lostinleith
Fat Jockey Patron (est. Jan 2021)
The consultation is aimed at 'Remote customer interaction', so just on line rather than in shop or on course (for now anyway!). Thinking seems to be that it is easier to spot and deal with a problem in person.
To answer Kev's point, they have done extensive research on disposable incomes (covered in the paper). In theory they can look at your income and regular outgoings and make a call. I think the term is your 'discretionary spend'. Quite apart from the concerns about privacy and data security, I don't think it is that easy. There is a hell of a difference between, say, a young person wtth a discretionary spend of ?500 a month and a ton of student debt and someone who is older with the same discretionary spend but significant savings. The latter has much more capacity to deal with a bad run.
To answer Kev's point, they have done extensive research on disposable incomes (covered in the paper). In theory they can look at your income and regular outgoings and make a call. I think the term is your 'discretionary spend'. Quite apart from the concerns about privacy and data security, I don't think it is that easy. There is a hell of a difference between, say, a young person wtth a discretionary spend of ?500 a month and a ton of student debt and someone who is older with the same discretionary spend but significant savings. The latter has much more capacity to deal with a bad run.
Just going to invest me life savings,prat now fuck off!
