The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Betting regulation

LeicsDom

JUB Addict
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Posts
7,199
Reaction score
997
Points
113
Location
Leicester UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v3y426v4qo

In the UK a man appears to have committed suicide after running up debts gambling.
His widow is calling on the Gaming regulator to censure the betting company.
My feeling is that the nobody put a gun to his head to force him into debt. He has to take responsibility for his own actions.
The betting company is in business to make a profit, not police his addictions
 
It's a tricky one. Yes, as an adult, he should have taken some responsibility. But gambling addiction is a recognised disorder and he may not have had full control over his actions.

It would seem that Betfair has a legal obligation to protect its customers from harm, under UK gambling regulation (as I'm understanding it) under the Gambling Act 2005 and regulated by the Gambling Commission through its License Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP).

That the Gambling Commission initially decided not to take further action against Betfair after the inquest raises serious questions about its role in holding operators accountable. Regulatory bodies are meant to protect the public and enforce standards that prevent harm. Their actions seem to be not a very effective application of their regulatory obligations. If the Gambling Commission has a role to play under law and the codes of practice, then it seems that they should take stronger and more immediate actions to enforce best practices across the industry.

Hopefully this tragedy can lead to some better outcomes - those battling gambling addiction can get some help to take responsibility for themselves, and for the Gambling Commission to more rigidly enforce laws and its License Conditions and Codes of Practice.
 
Just as bartenders have a responsibility not to serve more alcohol to someone who is already drunk, the betting company has a responsibility not to serve more bets to someone already deeply in debt and out of control.
 
People are always looking for someone to blame. The betting company shouldn't have accepted that last bet, the barman shouldn't have served him that last drink, the mobile phone company should've stopped a child from accessing adult content, the police should have caught that murderer sooner. I could go on, but my point is that people need to be responsible for their own actions and for the actions of their minor children.

If a betting shop refuses a bet, a person can go to the next shop on the High Street or go online (to the likes of Betfair) and carry on. If a person is too drunk to be served, they can go home and open a bottle of whiskey. If parents don't want their children viewing porn, they shouldn't give them access to the internet or at least supervise them properly if they do. Most police officers aren't very bright, so what do you expect?

I feel sorry for the woman in this case who has lost her husband. Should Betfair have spotted that he was in difficulty? Should she? Was her husband a grown man who was responsible for his actions? Who knows. He wasn't the first and won't be the last.
 
I thought this all worked based on your gaming account balance. If you deposit £1,000 into a Betfair account your potential losses can only exceed your account balance by a regulated rate scale. In other words, your account balance determines when you can place a bet and for how much. But that's not what happened to Luke Ashton.
 
People are always looking for someone to blame.
This. 1,000 times this.

Our litigious societies have resulted in a great deal of increasing sloth and the attendant disaffection of the working populace. Senator Romney was roundly criticized for his comments about the numbers of non-working people when he ran for president, but he was more right than not.

Between sometime workers, dropouts, the intentionally underemployed, single moms, gangbangers, dopeheads, basement dwellers, early "retirees", and disability pensioners, a very large percentage of the country is living on the backs of the working people, and it's growing worse every year.

And the problem is not only the trend that lawyers are the scions of upwardly mobile middle-class parents who want their kids to be rich more than happy, and more than productive. It is also the gradual moral corruption of sloth, of people telling themselves that they arer entitled to a lifetime of indolence because someone once hit them in a car accident and shattered their femur, or caused a concussion, or whatever. Never mind that they can work.

The same is true of those who have various disabilities that they claim warrant goverment or lawsuit compensation. Because lawyers need someone to sue, and therefore need to validate "victims" in order to justify excessive compensation and lawsuits. And because the lawyers continue to breed and reproduce, they've created an environmentt where businesses, and the the goverment itself, plans on paying settlements as a lesser cost than trials.

Social Security has become such a fiasco. Lawyers get all sorts of undeserving recipients through that it has bloated under the weight of many who are both liars and lazy. And it is impossible to fight the rot because the media will pick some singular example of injustice and employ The Green Mile propaganda principle where ALL prisoners are innocent because one was. And politicians cannot rectify the abuse because they get attacked as monsters and the media participates in the lynching because of the two-party divide in the county.

All that to say, people who began smoking in the 20th century or later knew it was unhealthy. They never gave a thought to what caused any kind of cancer, nor did they care. People who worked in asbestos knew since ancient Greek times that they were in an enterprise where people died young. They took the jobs anyway. Kids sneaking liquor when they were 12 and later drinking hard at 15 and becoming alcoholics in their late teens never thoughtt it was safe or wise, and they were not self-medicating. Like their pot-smoking and pill popping and coke-snorting peers, they just wanted to be badass and impress their friends and act like grownups.

But, social justice warriors need to add supporters, so they made exuses for every vice known to man. And because the media parrots everyone withtout offering statistics or fact-checking except when it is from the other side of the political spectrum, many people are deceived by the lies.

We make choices. When we choose the easy and lazy options, but then disown the consequences, we should be denouced as cowards and rounders and leeches on society rather than rewarded with settlements and guaranteed miminum incomes.
 
Most people would assume that the gambler is motivated by the desire to win. That seems obvious but it is not how it works.
The motivation is the dopamine hit, the same bodily response that powers all kinds of fun things. The biggest hit is not the one you get from a win but the one you get from a near win.

Suppose you are playing computer roulette. You bet on 22, the ball spins round, then slows down as it approaches 22. You go "yes, yes, its got to win" And then it bounces over the wire and lands on the next number. That is not bad luck, the game is designed that way, to create non-win near-wins which are scientificaly calculated to maximise addiction.
I have, to my shame, spent too long doing jobs in betting shops where I watch the punters and see how it works. Logicaly, when you get a big win, you would walk away, knowing that you wont get another win like that. They never do. They always keep going until all the money is gone. Every time. The money is not the point, it is only a means to an end, the end is the dopamine high.
Some lucky men can enjoy porn by edging, getting so close to cumming again and again for 2 hours or more.
That is the same mechanism at work, the pattern of almost orgasms feels so good it is almost a shame when you do fully cum. Porn addiction is harmless, except for when you dont get any work done coz you're too busy wanking all day. Gambling addiction is far from harmless. However much money you start with, you will not stop until every penny is gone.
It is easy to say that these people deserve all they get for being such fools. That may be true but a civilised society has a responsibility to protect the weak from the strong when the strong use their power to harm others. The wealth of the gambling industry buys them great power, that power is never used to do anything but harm. It would be no loss to the world if the whole industry, with its bosses and owners, just ceased to exist, right now.
 
Pretty much this.

I had an employee who was both an alcoholic and a gambling addict.

The problem we have is that governments have no incentive to create stronger guardrails. They are as addicted to gambling as the schmucks who lose their shirts, their families, their jobs and sometimes their own lives.

But people in gambling addicted countries shouldn't expect much soo, if ever.

 
What about project 2025, dont they want to ban it, they want to ban everything else.
 
Back
Top