Gambling Review White Paper update

[firlandsfarm]

The excellent Yes Minister and then the not too bad follow up, Yes Prime Minister, shows us all we need to know on how things are seen within the halls of Westminster, and that was nearly 40 years ago!

On a seperate note, I'd like to see on-line voting being used in the next 10 to 20 years. The tech is already there, but it doesn't suit the agenda of existing parliament as they know the younger generation are more likely to use it and vote for either Lib-Dems or the Green Party.

Yes (Prime) Minister should form the basis of every political qualification. Even now I see events that are straight out of the series. Take HS2 for example, I'm sure Sir Humphrey would agree that if you want a project to be accepted you put forward a very low estimate of costs and then increase the required budget at intervals by an amount that is not sufficient to warrant the cancellation of the project. The only mistake they made was to build the expensive sector first. The overspend was sufficient to bring a cessation to the cheaper per mile northern extensions. If they had started with the cheaper per mile sectors first the whole of the proposed system would have been built!

Can't agree on the online voting issue ... voting should be made available to all in as many forms as required for the whole population to join in. I agree with online voting but not in isolation, in person and by post should still be made available.

[conduirez]

It's probably been posted already, here's the petition if anyone still wants to sign it.


Petition.png



https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/649894

That, in a nutshell, is why we should have stayed in Europe. British politicians are arseholes who just tow the party line when it comes to voting in bills. They don't even bother reading it. We need Euro legislation to reign them in and stop the mindless discrimination.

Even with Euro legislation/control, the British MP's will still be arseholes.

Proven time and time again, the power goes to their heads, and the original reason of representing their constituencies gets lost, as they discover that they are just a warm body in Westminster to be manipulated by the cabinet office and their interests...(not the electorate)

The excellent Yes Minister and then the not too bad follow up, Yes Prime Minister, shows us all we need to know on how things are seen within the halls of Westminster, and that was nearly 40 years ago!

On a seperate note, I'd like to see on-line voting being used in the next 10 to 20 years. The tech is already there, but it doesn't suit the agenda of existing parliament as they know the younger generation are more likely to use it and vote for either Lib-Dems or the Green Party.

Wearthefoxhat makes a good point about MP's towing the party line and forgetting about their constituents.

Not many people realise that there are two MP's who's constituencies cover Newmarket racecourse, we have all heard of Matt Hancock who's constituency covers the Rowley mile, the July course however is in the constituency of Lucy Frazer, which I might add also includes the National stud.

Ms Frazer in one of her first roles as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, stood up in parliament and introduced the the white paper setting out government's plans for major reform of gambling laws, (in other words sod a large portion of her constituents), her exact words are in the link below.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... igital-age

I personally do not care if someone has an addiction problem, I do however feel extremely sorry for their family and close friends, who the addicts life has affected, but I do not want restrictions imposed on my life by the weak woke nanny state, because someone cannot control themselves.

I live in Matt 'bring out your dead' Hancock's constituency but at least he is now sticking up for racing, but it would be better if Lucy Frazer went back to Yorkshire and represented the good folk where she came from, as she truly does not care about a large amount of people in her own constituency, who rely on racing for a livelihood.

Talking about Matt Hancock this clip sums up his contribution to the covid pandemic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEmfsmasjVA

[Derek27]

That, in a nutshell, is why we should have stayed in Europe. British politicians are arseholes who just tow the party line when it comes to voting in bills. They don't even bother reading it. We need Euro legislation to reign them in and stop the mindless discrimination.

Except for Independents and the odd rebel all politicians whether British, European or anywhere in the world tow the party line ... especially the EU ones, they don't want to lose the gravy train! Basically EU MP's have to be a member of a big party to become an MEP. Each country has an allocated number of seats in the EP and those seats are allocated to each party in proportion to the number of votes they receive and the party decides who will be an MEP. So if you 'upset' your party the chance of being granted one of the seats is zero! It's probably as undemocratic as a Chinese or Russian election. The European legislation you call for would make MP's of all parties tow the line even more than they do now! Of course if you prefer the undemocratic European system you could always apply to move there ... you probably wouldn't need a work visa!

When Steven Crapp became Secretary of State for Work & Pensions, somebody vandalised his office and sprayed "Why do you hate the sick and disabled".

I don't condone that, but what was shocking was his response, that ESA is not for sick people but people required to look for work. Thus, it was clear that he didn't know the difference between ESA and JSA and was voting to cut benefits for sick people without even knowing it.

It was the same when his predecessor Iain Duncan Smith gave a speech at Tory conferences. People like myself who were on benefit and kept up to date with the proposed legislation knew he was lying through his teeth about what he was putting through but the Tories at the conference were completely clueless and trusted what he said. Europe at least had laws to protect the vulnerable.

[angelmike]

I read this earlier today(dated 5th November 2023) -
https://greyhoundbet.racingpost.com/#ne ... _id=600105
It posits an existing widely used alternative to intrusive financial checks.

[Derek27]

Personally, I'd like to see credit agencies abolished. I just accept errors on my credit report. Couldn't even be bothered to keep correcting them.

[jamesedwards]

I read this earlier today(dated 5th November 2023) -
https://greyhoundbet.racingpost.com/#ne ... _id=600105
It posits an existing widely used alternative to intrusive financial checks.

This describes almost exactly what the proposed gambling bill wishes to obtain. They want bookmakers to work with a credit bureaux to produce an affordability score for any customer that reaches a set threshold of losses. Bank statement requests should become a thing of the past except in exceptional circumstances.

The main concerns of the gambling industry is the low loss thresholds proposed, and the criteria that a credit bureaux may use to produce their score. eg should occupation and postcode affect an affordability score? Because it probably will...

[conduirez]

I read this earlier today(dated 5th November 2023) -
https://greyhoundbet.racingpost.com/#ne ... _id=600105
It posits an existing widely used alternative to intrusive financial checks.

My biggest fear with this is, that checks by bookmakers might eventually be logged on to your credit report and then be seen by lenders, which could affect peoples ability to access cheap credit.

[jamesedwards]

I read this earlier today(dated 5th November 2023) -
https://greyhoundbet.racingpost.com/#ne ... _id=600105
It posits an existing widely used alternative to intrusive financial checks.

My biggest fear with this is, that checks by bookmakers might eventually be logged on to your credit report and then be seen by lenders, which could affect peoples ability to access cheap credit.

It's a 'soft' check so not seen by anyone else. Just you.

Bookmakers already 'soft' check credit files as part of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) requirements.

[conduirez]

I read this earlier today(dated 5th November 2023) -
https://greyhoundbet.racingpost.com/#ne ... _id=600105
It posits an existing widely used alternative to intrusive financial checks.

My biggest fear with this is, that checks by bookmakers might eventually be logged on to your credit report and then be seen by lenders, which could affect peoples ability to access cheap credit.

It's a 'soft' check so not seen by anyone else. Just you.

Bookmakers already 'soft' check credit files as part of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) requirements.

I am totally against any credit reference agency checks, I understand about soft checks but they are stored on credit report for 12 months, and only visible to the person the report is about.

However AML is one thing, affordability checks is totally another.

I am always weary of the future and things change, it may happen in the future that these soft searches from bookmakers may no longer be classed as soft searches on your credit report, maybe they might say there is a limit of 12 soft search checks from bookmakers a year and then they record it on your main file who knows. I do know if I was a bank lending money, I would dearly love to know about someone's gambling habits and be pushing credit reference agencies for information, it may not totally affect the banks decision of allowing the loan, but in the banks risk assessment algorithm it may not allow anyone that gambles to have the lowest interest rates the bank offers to service the loan.

If these credit checks come about lets see what exactly is in the small print.

[firlandsfarm]

That, in a nutshell, is why we should have stayed in Europe. British politicians are arseholes who just tow the party line when it comes to voting in bills. They don't even bother reading it. We need Euro legislation to reign them in and stop the mindless discrimination.

Except for Independents and the odd rebel all politicians whether British, European or anywhere in the world tow the party line ... especially the EU ones, they don't want to lose the gravy train! Basically EU MP's have to be a member of a big party to become an MEP. Each country has an allocated number of seats in the EP and those seats are allocated to each party in proportion to the number of votes they receive and the party decides who will be an MEP. So if you 'upset' your party the chance of being granted one of the seats is zero! It's probably as undemocratic as a Chinese or Russian election. The European legislation you call for would make MP's of all parties tow the line even more than they do now! Of course if you prefer the undemocratic European system you could always apply to move there ... you probably wouldn't need a work visa!

When Steven Crapp became Secretary of State for Work & Pensions, somebody vandalised his office and sprayed "Why do you hate the sick and disabled".

I don't condone that, but what was shocking was his response, that ESA is not for sick people but people required to look for work. Thus, it was clear that he didn't know the difference between ESA and JSA and was voting to cut benefits for sick people without even knowing it.

It was the same when his predecessor Iain Duncan Smith gave a speech at Tory conferences. People like myself who were on benefit and kept up to date with the proposed legislation knew he was lying through his teeth about what he was putting through but the Tories at the conference were completely clueless and trusted what he said. Europe at least had laws to protect the vulnerable.

Fair enough (possibly) but I can't see the connection to my comment other than he voted with his party. The rest of your content is just political embellishment! My comment was why he and all others (yes including those from the Labour Party) would do so. it was party neutral. I can't be bothered to pick out specific examples from Labour or any other party but whenever the Party Whip makes a vote 3 line it means they are expecting some rebels to not vote so then my explanation comes in to play ... vote with us or lose the Whip and consequently lose your seat as we will have a candidate standing against you!

[firlandsfarm]

I read this earlier today(dated 5th November 2023) -
https://greyhoundbet.racingpost.com/#ne ... _id=600105
It posits an existing widely used alternative to intrusive financial checks.

My biggest fear with this is, that checks by bookmakers might eventually be logged on to your credit report and then be seen by lenders, which could affect peoples ability to access cheap credit.

The spin-off from this could be the death of Exchanges! Why? The obvious way to beat the checks for bookmaker accounts (unless they are forced to contribute to a central database to keep summed totals of customer losses with all bookmakers) is to spread your back bets around many different bookmakers but there aren't that many Exchanges to do likewise.

[Derek27]

Except for Independents and the odd rebel all politicians whether British, European or anywhere in the world tow the party line ... especially the EU ones, they don't want to lose the gravy train! Basically EU MP's have to be a member of a big party to become an MEP. Each country has an allocated number of seats in the EP and those seats are allocated to each party in proportion to the number of votes they receive and the party decides who will be an MEP. So if you 'upset' your party the chance of being granted one of the seats is zero! It's probably as undemocratic as a Chinese or Russian election. The European legislation you call for would make MP's of all parties tow the line even more than they do now! Of course if you prefer the undemocratic European system you could always apply to move there ... you probably wouldn't need a work visa!

When Steven Crapp became Secretary of State for Work & Pensions, somebody vandalised his office and sprayed "Why do you hate the sick and disabled".

I don't condone that, but what was shocking was his response, that ESA is not for sick people but people required to look for work. Thus, it was clear that he didn't know the difference between ESA and JSA and was voting to cut benefits for sick people without even knowing it.

It was the same when his predecessor Iain Duncan Smith gave a speech at Tory conferences. People like myself who were on benefit and kept up to date with the proposed legislation knew he was lying through his teeth about what he was putting through but the Tories at the conference were completely clueless and trusted what he said. Europe at least had laws to protect the vulnerable.

Fair enough (possibly) but I can't see the connection to my comment other than he voted with his party. The rest of your content is just political embellishment! My comment was why he and all others (yes including those from the Labour Party) would do so. it was party neutral. I can't be bothered to pick out specific examples from Labour or any other party but whenever the Party Whip makes a vote 3 line it means they are expecting some rebels to not vote so then my explanation comes in to play ... vote with us or lose the Whip and consequently lose your seat as we will have a candidate standing against you!

My main point was that they tow the party line without reading the bill. I realise bills can be getting on to 1000 pages and are the most boring read in the world, but simply voting with your party without caring what's in the bill is unacceptable. Perhaps if more MPs knew what they were voting for there would be more rebels, but you wouldn't get Europe passing legislation to take away tents from homeless people.

[firlandsfarm]

My main point was that they tow the party line without reading the bill. I realise bills can be getting on to 1000 pages and are the most boring read in the world, but simply voting with your party without caring what's in the bill is unacceptable. Perhaps if more MPs knew what they were voting for there would be more rebels, but you wouldn't get Europe passing legislation to take away tents from homeless people.

Yes but it's significant that while you now take a party neutral line I was responding to the anti-Conservative comment you made because of your bias. If your comment had been party neutral there would have been no need for me to comment. Blatant bias (like lies) should not go unchallenged because if they are repeated often enough they become the truth!

[Derek27]

My main point was that they tow the party line without reading the bill. I realise bills can be getting on to 1000 pages and are the most boring read in the world, but simply voting with your party without caring what's in the bill is unacceptable. Perhaps if more MPs knew what they were voting for there would be more rebels, but you wouldn't get Europe passing legislation to take away tents from homeless people.

Yes but it's significant that while you now take a party neutral line I was responding to the anti-Conservative comment you made because of your bias. If your comment had been party neutral there would have been no need for me to comment. Blatant bias (like lies) should not go unchallenged because if they are repeated often enough they become the truth!

I said "British politicians are arseholes", I took a party neutral line to begin with.

[jamesedwards]

Capture6.PNG