No more gambling front of shirt sponsorship

Should ban advertising on gambling.

How many people commit suicide due to massive amounts of debt accrued in gambling.

Copied
'A study found that 37% of male respondents who had attempted suicide in the previous year had links with problem gambling.'

How many companies offer you free cash, by enticing you with free money. To engage with em.

I would say banning smoking advertisements has had a massive effect on reducing smoking (and the price admittedly) and to bettering health of the nation.

I've known/seen families torn apart.

An addiction can be beat with a big positive affect on the pocket. Not gambling debts as they tend to be chased.

I'm not against gambling. If controlled.
Just the blatant attempt to get people involved by offering enticements.

Mi dad gambled every day of his life. Loved his horses. 10p round Robin (£1). Less than a packet of fags even 15yrs ago. Better for his health. And his pocket. And didn't affect the family.

A different family member nearly lost everything due to the spouse hiding all the debts accrued and had to be bailed out to keep the home.

Sporting clubs/Sports stars. Should hang their heads in shame. They don't give a toss about the damage it can do to folk.

It's usually the poorest in society that are worst affected.
Well done bookies

 

If you have a rug addiction. Shaw Carpets have an app. "Control your Rugs".

 

I never said that other forms of advertising are necessarily acceptable. I just think it's lazy to use whataboutery as a defence/deflection. Other forms of advertising should be regulated as well, but the fact that they aren't as regulated at present is an argument to regulate them as well, not an argument against regulating gambling ads.

 

21% of Britain’s gambling outlets are in the poorest tenth of the country, with 2% in the most affluent tenth.

 

Means nothing, an 8 x 4 bookies in Hoyland is counted the same as 3 storey casino in Chelsea , at the end of the day addictions target everyone & whilst you can compare the number of establishments & come to a conclusion the problems are generated from thousands of living rooms & peoples mobile phones, online betting & gambling is a major cause of the problem .

 

OK, if we just talk betting shops then the figures are 18% and 2% respectively.

 

We are not though, I mentioned casino"s as an alternative to betting shops but the real problem is online gambling etc.

 

Any burns?

 

You were suggesting that the numbers were a misrepresentation because a massive casino was counted as one establishment, same as a betting shop and that wasn't evidence they targeted deprived areas. But the numbers for betting shops show they do.

And even in terms of online betting etc - how many gambling ads do you see on Sky Arts or during Peston compared to daytime trash tv?

 

I agree with you. Where do you draw the line? Should we not have Athletic on our shirts because non alcoholic beer gets people started before they drink beer with an alcohol content, much like people think vaping leads young people to cigs?

 

I havn"t a clue what you are on about , I do not watch sky arts or Peston , what I do know that if I am reading a thread on Facebook for example on a Barnsley match then there are numerous occasions when the thread gets hijacked by someone offering betting facilities etc , it does my crust in , I am not interested in gambling & want to talk about the reds but the internet seems to be the easiest vehicle to throw advertising etc .

 

I'm not sure it being difficult to decide where to draw the line is really an argument for drawing no line.

Plus comparing non-alcoholic beer to gambling is a bit daft.

 

You were saying they don't target particular income demographics. They definitely do.

 

What I said is that everyone is targeted but you seem to want to argue , well I am not arguing , it is quite simple who ever you are , where ever you are from , just dont bother gambling , then you won"t have a problem .

 

My interest in betting lies almost exclusively with betting on horseracing. I have never been other than clear that when I bet, in reality I bet against other punters, with the bookmakers acting as middlemen. I have no problem with that. That is what the game is all about. I use my skill and judgement (such as they are) to make my selections. Sometimes I am right. Sometimes not. That goes for all who bet on horseracing. Some will make a profit; some will not. Those who bet on 'machine' games such as casino-based products can not win in the long run. The machine (or the setup of the games) is statistically slanted against them - even if only by a small amount. They can not make a profit on those products in the long term. Do the profits on this type of gambling subsidise any bookmakers' losses on horseracing? I do not think so. Mrs Coates, et al are too smart for that. Can people get into bother betting too big on horseracing? Absolutely. But I suspect it is the more addictive fast-play games that cause a disproportionate amount of problem gambling. There should undoubtedly be some regulation of betting and gaming, but if that regulation is overly heavy-handed such as to ensure that punters can not lose, or lose very little, then the concept of betting will be finished. Some would think that a good thing. I do not. On the same logic, alcohol and the driving of private motor vehicles would be banned due to the harm they cause each year.

 

It really isn't that simple though.
Someone on minimum wage or unemployed struggling to pay their heating bill is far more likely to gamble their wages/benefits because frankly they're more desperate than a £100k a year toff is. That's why betting companies 100% do target the poor both in terms of physical outlets and in TV/online ads.

 

All this demonising of the betting industry is all well and good, but say all forms of gambling are banned tomorrow.

Shops, online, lottery, bingo, everything.

Including all the back office and subsidiary employees, in the U.K. alone that’s about 120,000 people out of work straight away.

You also aren’t killing gambling by getting rid of the regulated industry. You just push it underground. Blokes in boozers and backstreets taking a book on anything.

Debts ran up with unscrupulous and nasty people, sold on to loan sharks, or folk in the alternative pharmaceutical industry. People will always bet.

Let’s be completely honest. I have a horse in this race. My Mrs manages a Paddy Power shop. Before she worked for the company I had no idea how much restriction there is on taking money from people. The amount of checks, refused bets.

I fully understand the enormity of the effect of gambling addiction. It costs families their homes, people their lives. I know that. But that impact is not greater than the effects of alcohol, tobacco, weight related health conditions. So if we ban advertising gambling, then presumably the same moral compass points to also banning fast food, chocolate firms, alcohol companies etc from advertising; much as they did tobacco. So then what next? Who is actually allowed to sponsor sports teams and events?

My not agreeing that banning sponsorship isn’t belittling the effects of gambling addiction. It is just a recognition of my view that regulated establishments with safety measures and rules are a much better outlet for gambling than the alternative, and who are we to say who is or isn’t allowed to advertise their business?

Taking bet365 and dafabet et al from the front of shirts is also all well and good - they will just then spend their marketing budget by other means. Probably targeting punters online even more than they do now.

All this achieves is shifting a problem, not solve one.

It’s a moral high ground stance from football clubs who can afford to take one, to gain plaudits for being so moral and socially aware - and that might force clubs who can’t afford it to do similar to save face.

I’m no Stoke or Derby fan but can you imagine them backing this? And why should they?

 

I mean it as in some people think drinking non alcoholic beer leads to beer with alcohol in it, much like the narrative about vaping is it leads to smoking.

 

Like it or not, one reason gambling companies advertise on football kits and around football is because it advertises their company to kids. As for "who are we to say who is or isn't allowed to advertise their business?" - are you seriously suggesting all advertising should be free from any regulation? What about porn websites or alcohol companies advertising outside schools? Should we have the Pornhub stand? The Marlborough Lights "smoking is cool" Family Area?