Gladys Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 That is not the argument I am putting forward and you certainly can't equate it with arms dealing where the only purpose is to kill or maim. It can be a murky business, but if the IOM has adequate regulation then that should remove most of the murky side of things. Gambling, like many other moral issues, is more to do with hearts than minds. But, as I have said before, if people want to spend their money on gambling, providing it is regulated to protect the vulnerable and to exclude criminal activity, why shouldn't they? Why is on-line gambling any worse than any other form? IMO, to become a blue-chip, well regulated and respectable provider of such a service rather than recoil in horror, indicates that the IOM is a confident, responsible and mature jurisdiction. Perhaps someone in the industry can explain how regulation will provide the safeguards that we all would like to see. The hope would be that any punter would see that the gambling site they intend to play on is regulated in the IOM (or similarly regulated jurisdiction), will be assured by that and eventually the other less regulated sites would dry up. A bit like the bucket travel shops versus ABTA member travel agents. I may be a bit naive, but perhaps the IOM can succeed in taking on this thorny area effectively and rationally, and turn it to the general good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 bucket shops used to be provided with tickets by the reputable airlines (eg BA who had a special section that would offer a batch of unfilled seats around the industry ) - the bucket shops bought low but took the risk that they would not sell all the batch - the 'reputable' travel agents, at that time earning a good commission, didn't want to be seen in this market (tho I suspect they may well have aquired tickets thro bucket shops).. It is accepted that gambling can be a problem for a minority (rather like alcohol) - if the advertising is aimed at this vulnerable minority (rather like much cigarette advertising was aimed at children/youung adults) then that too needs careful regulation, including sponsorship deals - my own take is that gambling should not be promoted but that's my own opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Bucket shops used to 'gamble' on off-loaded seats (i.e. they would sell something that may or may not exist, because the seats weren't exclusive to any bucket shop; they had, at best, an option to buy those seats) and had no bonding; they did not take the risk, the customer did. However, I do agree that advertising of gambling sites should be carefully regulated .... isn't this where we came in? Frankly, advertising isn't going to be the route that most people use to find a site. It will be word of mouth or even a quick Google. The regulation needs to be aimed at who is permitted to use the sites and how, not the advertising. During a trip to Port Sunlight, the video presentation gave the original Lord Lever's attitude to advertising: 'yes, 50% of the expenditure may be wasted, but who knows which 50%?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twisted Colon Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Gambling is an illness and an addiction. (Certainly online gambling, precious few people do that for "fun".) Those who wish to profit from such an affliction are themselves, by definition, twisted. We tolerate alcohol and tobacco because they are long-established, the same goes for gambling - that doesn't mean that it's right. People go to jail for wanting to do nothing more than smoking a few spliffs with their friends. And yet as an island we glowingly embrace our "golden opportunity" to systematically fleece people the world over, in the name of "entertainment." Pass me the sick bucket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twisted Colon Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 And our 'neighbour' has accepted the quality of our regulation of this industry. I wouldn't trust "our neighbour" to wipe the arse of my worst enemy with a wire brush. Gambling isn't an "industry" - an industry produces something, it creates something worthwhile, it serves a purpose. Yeah there might be a few jobs in it, but at what cost? There's jobs in getting impoverished Asians to make Nike trainers at £1 per pop which can be sold over here at £50 a go, woohoo, way to go, global capitalism! Organised gambling is an evil force in our society, we embrace it at our peril. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Thankfully, gambling does not entail children working in sweatshops. However, you are absolutely correct. Far better the wrath be pointed towards the multinationals who really know what exploitation is; and we buy their products every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Gambling is an illness and an addiction. (Certainly online gambling, precious few people do that for "fun".) May I ask how you know that? I think it's rather the other way round - for most it's simply a recreational activity. Gambling isn't an "industry" - an industry produces something, it creates something worthwhile, it serves a purpose. A lot of people seem to be quick to make such a statement - they do, however, tend to overlook that the gaming industry has brought along with it a lot of the technological advances we take for granted today - out of commercial thinking, yes, but gaming (and adult entertainment, to be fair) have always been at the absolute forefront of online development. Yeah there might be a few jobs in it, but at what cost? There's jobs in getting impoverished Asians to make Nike trainers at £1 per pop which can be sold over here at £50 a go, woohoo, way to go, global capitalism! The industry employs thousands of people all over the globe these days, directly and indirectly, so it's more than just "a few jobs". I failt to see the relevance of your Nike statement. As Gladys said - it's well regulated over here - much better than in many other jurisdictions, which is a good thing. It adds to our economy and provides employment for a growing number of people. I can only assume that the "ethical", "moral", and "evil force" comments are based on a lack of knowledge of how the industry works these days. The law actually requires operators to protect potentially vulnerable consumers and all operators have to contribute towards a problem gambling fund. Betting, gambling, or whatever else you want to call it, does not comply with the mental image of smoke filled back rooms anymore... It appears as soon as the G word is mentioned, everyone immediatley thinks of addiction, financial ruin and social problems - yet in reality, it is simply a recreational activity like many others. A lot of people win at it, too, and the number of professional punters is growing, especially in the age of Betfair. Operators do not only win money by making people lose anymore - the game has changed substantially over the last years, and unless you have a deeper insight into its workings, it would be completely incorrect to simply see it as something generally negative. Yes, I may appear defensive of the industry as I work in it, but I also have a bit of a better insight on how things work these days. Of course, it's not all roses and sunshine, and there are people that become addicted to it, just like people become addicted to other things, but at least in the online industry this can be regulated to a certain degree. The fruit machine in your local pub can't, and I have a way bigger problem with them than online gaming - in fact, I dislike them deeply. When you place a bet online, you have a legitimate chance to do your homework and get the edge over the bookie - with a bleeping, coin swallowing plastic box you haven't. If you want to contribute towards research into the sector, then fill in the Gambling Survey of Oxford University: http://www.oxfordgamblingsurvey.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I'm with Twisted C. Ignoring the military baseline, Porn drove online development. The point about Nike is valid. People can be and are exploited in many ways including being gullible. All for the mighty buck. Well regulated? Roflmao. The phrase well regulated and the IOM don't gell in my mind. Qui Custodes Custodiat? I believe I brought up the ethics question. BTW, my other half is also in the industry. Things that are in law legal may or may not necessarily be ethical but that's perhaps down to an individuals judgement. I remember the great promise of ethical government across when TB got in. That didn't last long.......... As the Wail pointed out, the US have banned a certain company now based here. So are all the various predictions of increasing gambling related problems being so noisily promoted these days by various organisations and individuals are just moral panic? Out of interest, just how are people who gamble online protected from themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Qui Custodes Custodiat? The market, the electorate, the international community, and those that have accepted our level of regulation (i.e. the UK). But you could reel out the same question for just about any other area that the IOM has control over and, probably, get the same answer. As for the US taking action against an unnamed, but we all know who, gaming payment site (note, payment site, not gambling site)? Well, I suspect there is more than one thread to that particular story, very few of which will have the moral integrity of US citizens at their hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 (note, payment site, not gambling site)? I've just taken a look at the site of the company named in the Wails article. It has software to download. It appears to my untrained eye to be a gambling site - not a mere payment site. In fact it states that it is home to the world's largest online poker tournaments and qualifies more players for World Series of Poker Satellites, the World Poker Tour, and the European Poker Tour than any other internet poker site. ( BTW A correction to my previous post, the Wail article states that the company operates illegally in the US ) Again at the risk of repeating myself, Out of interest, just how are people who gamble online protected from themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karellen Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 why are people [who must be adults to have credit cards] not responsible for their own actions? why must they be "protected" from themselves? why do people think they know better, and believe that a nanny state is a good thing? K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 I'll quote Amadeus above The law actually requires operators to protect potentially vulnerable consumers and all operators have to contribute towards a problem gambling fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 why are people [who must be adults to have credit cards] not responsible for their own actions? usually because of implications for others connected with the family (spouse, children etc eg by loss of house) and the wider community (eg re drink/drugs society (in form of medical services) usually has to pick up the pieces of a wrecked life (and the rest of us for the street violence, vandalism and crime indulged in) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith brief Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 When so much rubbish is manufactured in sweatshops and then sold in High Street stores to an all-embracing, unthinking consumer, one does wonder at some folk's hysteria involving certain activities which are, personality disorders aside, personal choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 Personal choice. Indeed. One might also consider the question of personal choice when a p*ssed up moron rams his ( or her ) car into a wall and expects to be cut out and taken to hospital and treated when after all, it was his ( or her ) personal choice to get drunk and drive. One might also like to consider why time and resources should be expended on a lardarse who stuffs junk food then finds his ( or her ) heart needs a bypass. After all just a question of personal choice and responsibility. Smoking, drinking, drugs, armchair atheletes - in fact all unhealthy lifestyles; personal choice. Hysteria? This topic has in the main produced interesting debate with valid points on both sides. all-embracing, unthinking consumer That's changing slowly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.