Snapshot of _UK to lift ban on debit card use on gaming machines_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/c6b6a36d-30d5-4795-856b-e4a207589524) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/c6b6a36d-30d5-4795-856b-e4a207589524)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Stuart Andrew, the minister for sport, gambling and civil society,
Register of interests:
>Name of donor: Power Leisure Bookmakers Ltd ~ Ticket to England v Germany at Wembley Stadium, value £1,961 ~ 2021.
> If you want to see what he went for, see where he ends up after the next election.
The fact that so many people don't understand this is what I consistently find so surprising.
We see it in the USA and call it out for the obvious institutional capture that it is. But when it comes to the UK, suddenly people fail to imagine that the promise of future rewards is even possible.
Not to mention the possibility of shell companies within shell companies within shell companies giving money to a relative of those in power, or donating to a Trust Fund they like, or providing insider trading knowledge to them to help their stock trades, etc.
They didn't say that they think that slot machines should or should not exist, they explained why people are pushing for the change. Hume's Fork, innit?
We dont want them banned, gambling is an important leisure activity. It does need to be harder to spend on gambling, and easier to see the spend. Putting cash in is enough for some ppl to recognize the volume and ease back.
Agreed, but I don't respect this kind of 'stealth legislation'.
If you want to ban something then propose a ban, not allowing an industry to keep up with changing market conditions just leads to 'innovation' in new and exploitative ways.
If they put a daily spending cap on the debit cards then sure I’ll believe it, otherwise the increasing disuse of cash doesn’t really factor in when any gambling addict will just head next door or across the street to withdraw cash if they really want it.
Most banks have a £200-300 withdrawal limit so this feels more like a way for the bookies to circumvent that by allowing the unlimited use of card payments.
Im tired of this “oh, but they’ll just…” argument for putting barriers in the way of addiction. Yes, some will. Also, some won’t. Some won’t become addicted in the first place. Some will think more clearly in the fresh air. It’s just another “we can’t do perfect so why do anything” cop out.
Yeah, I've dealt with an issue that has similar debate and legislation (suicidal thoughts). Sure, making me walk to 10 different shops to get enough drugs to overdose isn't going to stop \*everyone\*, but the extra effort vs just going to one shop? That's almost certainly saved \*some\* people's lives, at the cost of stopping some people buying 2+ packets for legitimate use with their weekly shop.
Same with addiction. Some people will overcome almost any hurdle to get their fix. Some will fail at one of the hurdles and not succeed.
I've seen it a lot with minimum alcohol prices in Scotland - "Oh, you'll never stop a hardened alcoholic getting a drink" - sure, but maybe you can save a few binge drinkers from liver disease.
All we need to stop problem gambling is to allow people to put universal bans on themselves every gambling again. Unfortunately, problem gamblers are one of the biggest profit centres for gambling companies.
But this article isn’t talking about putting barriers in the way, it’s talking about removing barriers and making it easier for addicts to sit in the bookies all day using their cards, never going out for fresh air or having an opportunity to walk away.
My point to the original commenter was that society becoming increasingly less dependant on cash is irrelevant because if someone wants cash they can easily get it.
> Most banks have a £200-300 withdrawal limit
I'm sure this is obvious but I've seen some who don't know.
Banks have that limit at third party machines. But at the counter or sometimes even the machines *inside* actual branches, they have no limit.
Debit card is probably better anyway. All debit cards now have an option to turn off payments for gambling which have a cooldown if you try and allow them again so if anything they should only allow debit card use so people can activate that setting and then be less able to be tempted.
Having to walk to the cashier/cash machine to take out more money gives a cooling down period and acts as a “firebreak” so to speak in my experience. I don’t agree with this decision.
I think the debit card cooldown is 24 hours which i think acts as a better blocker as you can't really hang around waiting for it to clear (also you could turn it off, get clear, and in a moment of clarity turn it on again and reset the timer)
It can also ruin your streak and/or cause you to miss your luck changing as someone else goes on the machine and wins all the money you've put into it.
Whose card is it, and whose money is it?
Just need some help with this one because I'm certain they're both mine.
BUT, while we're supporting what can be banned or not banned, surely we can then ban debit cards being used on other stuff? perhaps when someone who mostly receives benefits? Surely we can block the card from working when certain products are being bought?
Restrict the freedom of people a little bit, and then we can restrict them even more without question.
Edited post
There are so many downvotes and little to no logical thinkers.
Should we ban alcoholics from being able to buy alcohol via their debit card? Could make it illegal for pubs to have card readers, Logically speaking, it would make sense to but be a pain to those who are responsible.
If someone wants to gamble, they'll go to the ATM that's likely just outside.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69021352
They're supposedly doing it to help the economic prospects of physical gambling machines as opposed to online ones. They're not trying to increase your freedom.
>But Gambling with Lives, a charity that supports families bereaved by gambling-related suicide, said slot venues were "taking over our high streets" and card payments would make machines "even easier" to play.
>"Anything that increases access to highly addictive machines cannot be seen as a positive," co-founder Liz Ritchie told the BBC.
What would we expect to hear from such an organisation? It's like asking Greenpeace if we should build more nuclear reactors and then taking their answer as some sort of authority. The same thing for the opposing view, the betting and gaming council. Of course they say it's a good thing.
So, again we have two completely opposing views and that's where the journalist leaves it. So, who are we supposed to believe here? Neither side offered any solid facts to support their view and the lazy journalist didn't bother to push them for it.
Hmm? No, we have a specific explanation as to why the ban is being lifted. We might have one for why the ban was put in place but I didn't look for it. I added that specific quote because op didn't seem aware at all of the serious dangers of gambling addiction and because their comment was kind of irritating.
My comment wasn't so much to you but to BBC who made the news. Their news was that the gambling lobbying organization says that it's good that the ban is removed and the anti-gambling lobbying organisation says that it is bad. Neither provide any quantitative data to support their view and the journalist doesn't seem to be bothered by that and just reports the views as they are.
Might be your card, but it might not be your money.
Have you never heard of someone going into severe debt through gambling?
I think the major concern here is that this is going to severely impact those who are prone to gambling addiction. If people have to physically go and draw out cash to then gamble with it, this helps create a set limit on how much they're going to gamble at a time, and also creates a soft barrier which can help people cool off if they want to spend more.
A policy which makes it easier to spend on something that is highly addictive and potentially highly destructive is not going to be helping society as a whole. Particularly when public services for help are in the state they're currently in.
Though I don't think this is a totally black and white issue. If more real life casinos are closed, more people are going to go online, where physical cash is not used either.
Yeah my old flatmate had a gambling problem/probably still does. He takes out payday loans to pay for it. Honestly imo credit and debit cards make it far easier for people to gamble as a couple of clicks and away we go no need to step outside withdraw money and have a think about your situation. After seeing what gambling has done to people I know, I genuinely think it should be banned except in state owned betting shops like in some countries. Odds are fairer and they keep a better track of your financial stability and it's not as predatory. Never play for cash kids.
Little things like giving people with low self control no awareness of how much they are spaffing?
Sounds like a capital idea chum. Wonder if they’ll add logins next, really incentivise that impulse with stored card details, more time to spin again and again. Heck, that way they can sell their personal data to make a couple of extra bucks.
Little things like modernising gaming machines by allowing cashless. You can put a deposit limit like they’ve done and do other measures to help protect people. That does not mean we should keep them stuck in the past by not allowing cards.
Rubbish, this is done for one reason and one only, keep that gamblers bum on that seat, having zero thought time between each transaction.
Also measures are usually “self-exclusion”, which is likely done when someone realises they’ve lost it all. It’s also not as effective as a deterrent as you will make out because it defaults 1KM (I know because I was part of the development of one), meaning gambler can get their fix with a short walk.
No it’s done to modernise them and not keep penalising brick and mortar gambling.
Then we need protections as the dcms committee said not just self exclusion
If it's a bigger gambling center, could you put £100 (or whatever the limit is) on _each_ machine? Maybe they should be required to communicate to do a total limit.
You're not wrong, but the end of the day, its moot. I still don't see the point in removing the ban.
Not all gambling companies are going to volunteer, and people will suffer as a result.
If I want to sink all of my cash on the pokies, I am limited because I can only withdraw £200 or so a day.
I am not limited at all on debit card payments, I could quite literally go from £10k positive to overdraft-maxxed in a day if I wanted it.
Sir Phillip "Give me the Money" Davies had nothing to do with this, it's just a coincidence he has a job for £500 an hour at a gambling firm.
The reason for the change is public opinion, tons of surveys, polls, and even marches in London demanding the change.
Casinos and gambling frims are really struggling they are closing down all over the place, and some have to register in tax havens to stay afloat. Imagine your local high street with no Coral or Ladbrokes. Devastating.
With a contribution of 0.1% of total income for the gov, I doubt that even covers the commission, compliance, and the inevitable levels of fraud for accepting cards.
One of the last acts of a dying government: to make sure more of its citizens can suffer from gambling addictions. They are trying to take as many people out with them as they can and its disgusting.
Ha.. keep up.. they've cornered and control that market already..
Philip May, husband of former PM Theresa, is an employee of Capital Group, which owns a significant share in GW, one of the biggest cultivators of cannabis in the world.
Remember when Theresa May was prime minister and she refused to allow an exemption for a woman to import medical cannabis for her son who has MS I think..... May's husband profits from the sale and export of the product she wanted to bring in... it is manufactured by British Sugar in London and shipped out and sold in the US.
Labour are as complicit in the loose gambling laws. It was the single worst domestic policy of the last Labour government to relax laws around gambling imo. I hope that they redeem themselves if they win the election and address this harmful, parasitic industry.
They're already cosying up with gambling industry figures. I live in a strong labour borough too, and they've done fuck all to stop the high road being saturated with betting shops and 24 hour 'casinos' . There was a resident protest against it a few years ago. Which did nothing.
You've commented a few times without a reply and tbh I don't know why wouldn't, not really anyways...
But gambling becomes a habit and to curb a habit you have to block out something thst enables thst habit. Sure, credit card exists (actually don't think you can use these neither?) and you can just withdraw money but the former you often need to have a good credit history or at least showcase you are good with money and the latter is less convenient. So by banning debit cards you make it less convenient and thus less likely to develop an addiction.
That being said, allowing credit cards allows for a better understanding of how much money is spent on gambling as a country and so it isn't used fraudulently by the casino (maybe drug smuggling, tax evasion etc. If they're cash only)
Just a guess tho, I ain't no expert chief.
Probably. From someone who has had a problem, and that being said very minor in the past, requiring me to self regulate this is hard.
More similarly I fucking love me some cake and I often say "no you aren't allowed it you're getting fat, your teeth are gonne rot and you're gonna die" .... only to stuff myself with it everyday.
Suits tough 😆 we need something more serious to help us curb some addictions, particularly the more serious they become.
Would it not be easier to not help the industry and hopefully let high street gambling shops just die out?
I don't see the downside, gamblers will still have places to gamble but the High street get given a boost by not being full of betting shops (which realistically noone likes except gamblers)
In the same way it would be easier to let any industry die out. That does not mean we should.
Betting shops are on the decline anyway. The downsides are that a they ma not be replaced with anything and if they are replaced by charity shops which could hurt the high street economy. It would also lead to loss of jobs. With people mainly switching too online it’s already declining so we don’t need to let it die
We let lots of industries die out. We didn't change the law to help stop vhs rental going bust, we just accepted it wasn't needed any more.
Jobs were lost and went elsewhere and the stores were taken over.
The difference being vhs was a way of sharing creativity and not feeding poverty so it was much more deserving of saving
And we save lots of industries too see all our farming subsidies and the amount we are putting into the steel makers in wales to build an arc furnace. Bruh it’s not as easy as just go elswhere for a job. People often can’t find other jobs and sometimes if they do it does not pay enough or give enough hours.
If done right many enjoy gambling. That’s why you need protections. It also brings money into the economy so while it can be trrrible it can have benefits which is why it needs regulation not us letting my it die
VHS died because of dvd and the internet iirc irl gambling is already struggling against internet
It's not the case of it just being "debit cards". It's about how easy it is for someone with a problem to get themselves in to real trouble.
Quick tap here, quick tap there and a few hours later you have lost a grand.
It's enabling people with an issue to get themselves in to real trouble.
You have taken the time to comment a lot on this thread, a lot. It's like you have a vested interest in them putting debit card readers in the machines.
Why are you so for this? The negatives (making it easier to destroy lives) far outweigh the positives (more profit for gambling companies).
That’s why you add protections to the machines.
You can add spending limits.
I have no vested Interest. It just seems to be a logical changed and it baffled me that Reddit is so against it. Even the dcms committee supported this after lord of evidence.
As stated in the dcms report it needs protections alongside it and with those protections you can make it so it does not destroy lives. It surely had to be possible to modernise an industry and protect peoples lives
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here:
> Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account.
For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
Just in case anyone here finds it helpful, some banks allow you to block gambling transactions. Hopefully it is extended to include these machines for the people that need it.
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/public-and-players/page/i-want-to-know-how-to-block-gambling-transactions
I’d love to hear the reasoning on this. I would imagine society going cashless, can’t have those book makers missing revenue.
Surely reducing money spent on gambling is good for economic activity. Get the money spent in restaurants and shops instead.
Fucking madnesss
The reasoning is the lobbyists from gambling companies will have bought enough tories to get it made government policy through "donations", hospitality or promises of cushy directorship after they leave office.
The only reason that they don't call an election is the tories want to loot as much as possible before getting kicked out.
Gambling should be fully illegal. Alcohol is a lot more complex but gambling has never done any good. I would revel in seeing all the heads of gambling companies roll.
At lower stakes gambling is just paid entertainment really. Nothing wrong with a friendly game of poker with a £10 buy-in for the night's entertainment.
But the machines that take £1 off you every few seconds for a spin are absurdly overpriced, and having them around drunk people is exploitative.
Or lottery tickets. I don't drink or smoke. Therefore is there anything actually wrong with me spending £3 a week buying a single ticket?
Yeah I'm probably never gonna win but that very small chance is there.
IMO there's a big difference between lottery tickets (which are like buying a ticket to see the draw happen and being involved, as entertainment with the occasional small prize) and _scratchcards_. Scratch cards can be exploitative, with people buying dozens desperately searching for a win.
Trading (if you're doing it professionally) is making money off the misconceptions others have about the correct price of something. You do better the more information you have.
Some forms of gambling are closer to that than others - poker being an example.
But FOBT? They're rigged.
They legally have to pay out a certain fraction of their input, averaged over a period of time.
My dad (a statistician by training), used to clean up by watching some poor mug shovelling coin into the fruit machine in the pub while it was "down" and then jumping on it when it was due to pay out again.
The owner of the machine literally can't lose though, because the software inside the machine will adjust the odds so that they don't.
Unlike trading, there's no situation in which the deal goes sour for them - if you gamble for a long enough period on a FOBT, you'll always lose, and the only way to come out ahead is to exploit someone else's misfortune.
Not as exciting as your dad , but years ago myself and a few mates would do this with "who wants to be a millionaire" machines , we were pretty good at trivia\* , and the trick was wait until a few people had played and lost , it would drop the 'collect money' questions to a low level (like 2-3 questions in ) so we generally made a bit of cash .
(except being in Ireland , if cricket based questions came up we were screwed , it was automatically a guess ..and there was a LOT of them)
Nope. Slot machines/ poker etc are only allowed in certain places , but the likes of Wwtbam are based on 'skill and luck' so would crop up all over the place.
I'd love to see the labour party make the economic argument against gambling. They're always trotting people out to say how many people the industry employs or tax it generates, and no one ever talks about what else that money would be being spent on if it wasn't on gambling.
What the explosive growth of gambling amount to in practice is a massive cash transfer from the bank accounts of working people (often destroying their lives) and into the account of offshore tech companies who hoard it and employ fewer people in the UK every year.
When you see American YouTuber documentary makers fret about the arrival of "British Style Gambling Laws" then you know how badly we've gone wrong.
It will definitely benefit the gambling companies for the pub style machines. Machines in bookmakers can already be loaded with a card by going to the counter and paying through a cashier. This would be a barrier for some gamblers especially if they have lost a chunk already.
I’m not sure we should be punishing gambling companies like that to get them into other places. Irl gambling machines are going out of fashion anyway without punishing them
You work for William Hill or something? Not many people are defending this, and for good reason.
Gambling addiction ruins many lives, why make it easier for people to throw themselves into debt?
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here:
> Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account.
For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
No and I don’t gamble. It was agreed by a committee in parliament and the industry and the gov. I’m not sure why Reddit dislikes it. Then do as the committee recommended and make sure safeguards are in place. You don’t need to keep them out the modern era for that.
There is also a liberal argument about freedom to sue whatever payment method you wish
We dislike it because I think the general agreement (here at least) is the committee isn't working in the best interests of people, it's working in the best interest of gambling companies and that's not what governments meant to be for
I really doubt the committeee was doing that. A lot of their recommendations were geared towards helping people. And how many people were saying that have read the committees report?
I'm not super fond of gambling in general but FBO machines are actually evil. I don't know how anyone who has seen the numbers, and the demographics can think they're good for society or even for individuals.
Frankly I'd rather they stay in the past. The last thing we need is people able to run up debts on them.
The safeguards we have now don't work. There's no reason to think they will in the future.
> FBO machines are actually evil.
In order to be fixed-odds, they literally have to be rigged (so they pay out the legally mandated percentage of their input, on average).
In polite society, cheating at games of chance is frowned upon. In rip-off Britain, it's legally mandatory.
I would be interested in hearing the stats on other countries in terms of increased use before casting judgement on this one. Intuitively, however, I think a much better approach would be to ban advertising for gambling and any offers (free spins, free money when you deposit x amount, etc) that draw people in. I'm a big believer in not banning activities, but push factors? No problem. It's the same with booze or unhealthy food or drugs: let the people have what they want, but don't let companies push it via advertising, packaging, or offers.
As a pub landlord with a gambling machine this could be very disastrous. I see enough people on a weekly basis throw £50+ in and end up winning the same or just a little more out.
Or even worse losing £50 and coming back later with another £50 just to win their own money back.
If the banks had any sense they would automatically disable the use of debit cards for gambling, and the one way to unlock it would be to complete a course of safe gambling. Would probably include this for online use too.
Genuinely an amazing suggestion in my book.
"They knew what they were getting into" never cut it. At least let's make sure that people are aware of the dangers before getting into it.
I'd love to see the numbers on how effective "when the fun stops, stop" etc ads are. I would imagine that if you are already addicted, getting this info is pointless.
Imho, you shouldn't be able to advertise gambling, even if you slap a warning on it. We don't allow ads for other addictive and harmful things. I'd ask why they were still allowed but others have put forward plenty of reasons around here.
Great Britain. Will let you gamble your life savings away on slot machines, football matches and what ever else the lower classes fancy.
But... want to invest in a company at an early stage? Own something that might actually make you rich.
NOOOOOOO!! We can't be having that.
You need to earn over 100k a year or be a sophisticated investor to do that.
Can't be having people gambling away money they can't afford to lose. You know... they might just get lucky and become actual millionaires.
That never made sense to me.
The plebs need to know their place. It's like people who write wanky articles in the Telegraph saying fewer kids should go to university - they mean *your* kids, not theirs.
It’s actually more than 100k or have scaled a company to over a million in revenue I believe.
You cannot invest as an angel investor unless you pass some serious tests. They say it’s because you’re not a sophisticated investor and you’ll love your money.
Which is why it’s hilarious gambling is legal
They have:
- included all UK revenue spent with online bookmakers as taxable in the UK (which was an innovative piece of legislation and absolutely should be copied for large online shopping)
- increased and mandated the betting levy, rather than the previous voluntary arrangement that has some online-only bookmakers paying a nominal tenner.
- reduced the maximum stake on FOBTs from £100 per spin
I actually think this is a good piece of legislation that will further reduce the opportunity to launder money through betting shops, and would be in favour of further KYC measures in retail stores.
Bear in mind that online-only outlets have been taking debit card payments for over 20 years in the UK for all transactions.
Also, the ban on using credit cards in betting shops remains.
I enjoy a bit of gambling horses football etc. However this is a terrible idea. I can spend a tenner and physically see it going, so I’m mentally aware I’m losing money, as such I’ll stop.
What’s next for the Conservatives before they get kicked out? Any more back handers coming? Can we expect the return of a box of 5 cigarettes for children, smoking at work, cigarettes ads on the TV again and promotional girls handing out free cigarettes at events? How is this government so corrupt and not one MP is being held accountable for anything they have done…
Shocked i tell you,
[https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/08/tory-mp-philip-davies-takes-500-an-hour-job-at-slot-machine-company?CMP=Share\_iOSApp\_Other](https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/08/tory-mp-philip-davies-takes-500-an-hour-job-at-slot-machine-company?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)
Well, not that shocked.
Of course this will be countered by the fact that banks will only allow £5 per day, up to £20 per week in all gambling related businesses right?
Right?
I don’t use these machines but presumably right now people just take money out of the pub ATM (for a fee) to play the games? Will this change have any effect other than removing the need for ATMs in pubs and casinos?
So yet more addicted gambling ?
This is bad for the community and individuals and that should be obvious to anyone.
This is a bad faith ruling.
Unless you also want to make banks liable for any personal losses involved….
(They would instantly ban credit cards for being used in this way then)…
You can already do this in a bookmakers albeit with the additional step of getting the counter staff to transfer your money onto the machine. My wife works in a bookmakers. The (limited by license to) 4 machines take more than otc betting. Except for the Grand National, otc betting is now mainly (in value terms) people laundering cash at a pace that doesn’t trigger staff intervention or proof of earnings thresholds.
By allowing direct use of cards this will remove the opportunity for trained staff intervention for addicts, remove the age monitoring in non-bookmaker premises, and is generally a social shit show waiting to happen.
The chance of abuse seems too high - particularly using family members cards without their permission.
I would like the ability to say that no matter what my debit card cannot be used on such machines. Or at least any attempt to do so blocks the transaction for fraud until
Is this possible?
Actually, no I don't care if it is possible, I would suggest this law is not enacted until it is an option for all card holders to manage types of permitted use (and that includes online).
Obviously this opens the door to other purchase type blocking. But having too many of them would basically weaken to protections and the care people take over managing their blocking.
Didn't Labour open the gambling floodgates? Perhaps Starmer will have the balls to close them before any more serious harm is done to the economy, we'll see...
So - i'm one of the more 'laisse-faire' posters on here when it comes to gambling. I believe that it's a past time that the vast majority engage with in a reasonably healthy way and that you shouldn't remove individual freedoms because a very small minority have a problem. I'm still against the £2 limit on machines in bookies as I used to enjoy putting £20 in a roulette machine and increasing the stakes if I won. All that's happened is the problem gamblers now blow through their wages a bit slower.
However . . . I do believe that fruit machines are a particular problem, especially given that they are situated in pubs where alcohol is a contributing factor and they are deliberately programme to keep you playing. It's not just the natural addictive element of gambling - the slots maker deliberately programme their games in the same way that mobile games are designed to trigger psychological responses. It's an exploitative practice that has honestly gone too far. Back in the days me and my mates might stick a fiver or at most tenner in each and then walk away - but it got to a point where I was putting in £20 notes at a time.
Covid got me out of that habit and I now deliberately avoid taking cash with me when I go to pubs. The government should have really just let the practice of having them in pubs die out. These new machines are in no way about having a quick bit of fun with the change in your pocket - they're about draining you until you're dry. This debit card change is a mistake.
The bookies got round the £2 limit right away anyway. All they did was add the ‘chance’ spin bar on roulette so you could try for a £20 spin with your £2 stake. If anything you can burn through your wage just as quick without ever seeing the ball go round the wheel.
With the rise of online gambling and the shit controls over if your Saturday night involves a fruity then using your card at the machines probably better than lying in bed with nothing to do on a Sunday morning after the first 3 wanks.
There’s a ban? In honesty I’m not sure I see why when in your hand you have a virtual casino/gaming machine where you can use your debit card non stop for the most part.
Sod the tories to hell and back but I’m not going to scoff at increased independence with which I’m able spend my own money. I mean it’s a huge eat shit to anyone suffering from a gambling addiction, didn’t expect a graceful delivery from the ‘rt. honourable gentlemen’ but I think the chief political focus should be on combatting & regulating the grossly predatory advertising being shoved in your face 4 times whenever you watch a 2 minute YouTube video etc
Seems reasonable (the ban on credit cards is staying). Heaven forbid that adults can take responsibility for themselves and do what they want with their own money.
This is the same government that is introducing lifetime bans on people buying cigarettes (another harmful addiction). There is no consistency or logic to them.
Snapshot of _UK to lift ban on debit card use on gaming machines_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/c6b6a36d-30d5-4795-856b-e4a207589524) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/c6b6a36d-30d5-4795-856b-e4a207589524) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Stuart Andrew, the minister for sport, gambling and civil society, Register of interests: >Name of donor: Power Leisure Bookmakers Ltd ~ Ticket to England v Germany at Wembley Stadium, value £1,961 ~ 2021.
It’s unbelievable how brazen it is, isn’t it?
Pfft, that's the bit we can actually see. The rest of the iceberg is under the water.
Is that how cheap he went for? Embarrassing.
No. That’s what it cost to get him alone for 2 hours. If you want to see what he went for, see where he ends up after the next election.
> If you want to see what he went for, see where he ends up after the next election. The fact that so many people don't understand this is what I consistently find so surprising. We see it in the USA and call it out for the obvious institutional capture that it is. But when it comes to the UK, suddenly people fail to imagine that the promise of future rewards is even possible. Not to mention the possibility of shell companies within shell companies within shell companies giving money to a relative of those in power, or donating to a Trust Fund they like, or providing insider trading knowledge to them to help their stock trades, etc.
He’s my MP and he’s fucking useless.
[удалено]
Is it really such a shame if slot machines die out? Are they an essential part of society?
Other than Barbers shops. What else are we spose to put on the high street? :)
Charity shops
There is a row of three shops where I live that consists of a Betting Shop, pay day loan shop and charity shop. Total synergy.
That's a complete highstreet.
And food banks
They didn't say that they think that slot machines should or should not exist, they explained why people are pushing for the change. Hume's Fork, innit?
[удалено]
We dont want them banned, gambling is an important leisure activity. It does need to be harder to spend on gambling, and easier to see the spend. Putting cash in is enough for some ppl to recognize the volume and ease back.
Agreed, but I don't respect this kind of 'stealth legislation'. If you want to ban something then propose a ban, not allowing an industry to keep up with changing market conditions just leads to 'innovation' in new and exploitative ways.
If they put a daily spending cap on the debit cards then sure I’ll believe it, otherwise the increasing disuse of cash doesn’t really factor in when any gambling addict will just head next door or across the street to withdraw cash if they really want it. Most banks have a £200-300 withdrawal limit so this feels more like a way for the bookies to circumvent that by allowing the unlimited use of card payments.
Im tired of this “oh, but they’ll just…” argument for putting barriers in the way of addiction. Yes, some will. Also, some won’t. Some won’t become addicted in the first place. Some will think more clearly in the fresh air. It’s just another “we can’t do perfect so why do anything” cop out.
Yeah, I've dealt with an issue that has similar debate and legislation (suicidal thoughts). Sure, making me walk to 10 different shops to get enough drugs to overdose isn't going to stop \*everyone\*, but the extra effort vs just going to one shop? That's almost certainly saved \*some\* people's lives, at the cost of stopping some people buying 2+ packets for legitimate use with their weekly shop. Same with addiction. Some people will overcome almost any hurdle to get their fix. Some will fail at one of the hurdles and not succeed.
I've seen it a lot with minimum alcohol prices in Scotland - "Oh, you'll never stop a hardened alcoholic getting a drink" - sure, but maybe you can save a few binge drinkers from liver disease.
All we need to stop problem gambling is to allow people to put universal bans on themselves every gambling again. Unfortunately, problem gamblers are one of the biggest profit centres for gambling companies.
But this article isn’t talking about putting barriers in the way, it’s talking about removing barriers and making it easier for addicts to sit in the bookies all day using their cards, never going out for fresh air or having an opportunity to walk away. My point to the original commenter was that society becoming increasingly less dependant on cash is irrelevant because if someone wants cash they can easily get it.
> Most banks have a £200-300 withdrawal limit I'm sure this is obvious but I've seen some who don't know. Banks have that limit at third party machines. But at the counter or sometimes even the machines *inside* actual branches, they have no limit.
Quelle surprisé, Raquelle.
You can really tell the government cares about the population.
Debit card is probably better anyway. All debit cards now have an option to turn off payments for gambling which have a cooldown if you try and allow them again so if anything they should only allow debit card use so people can activate that setting and then be less able to be tempted.
Having to walk to the cashier/cash machine to take out more money gives a cooling down period and acts as a “firebreak” so to speak in my experience. I don’t agree with this decision.
I think the debit card cooldown is 24 hours which i think acts as a better blocker as you can't really hang around waiting for it to clear (also you could turn it off, get clear, and in a moment of clarity turn it on again and reset the timer)
It can also ruin your streak and/or cause you to miss your luck changing as someone else goes on the machine and wins all the money you've put into it.
I mean a gov needs to do little things and big things
Whose card is it, and whose money is it? Just need some help with this one because I'm certain they're both mine. BUT, while we're supporting what can be banned or not banned, surely we can then ban debit cards being used on other stuff? perhaps when someone who mostly receives benefits? Surely we can block the card from working when certain products are being bought? Restrict the freedom of people a little bit, and then we can restrict them even more without question. Edited post There are so many downvotes and little to no logical thinkers. Should we ban alcoholics from being able to buy alcohol via their debit card? Could make it illegal for pubs to have card readers, Logically speaking, it would make sense to but be a pain to those who are responsible. If someone wants to gamble, they'll go to the ATM that's likely just outside.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69021352 They're supposedly doing it to help the economic prospects of physical gambling machines as opposed to online ones. They're not trying to increase your freedom. >But Gambling with Lives, a charity that supports families bereaved by gambling-related suicide, said slot venues were "taking over our high streets" and card payments would make machines "even easier" to play. >"Anything that increases access to highly addictive machines cannot be seen as a positive," co-founder Liz Ritchie told the BBC.
What would we expect to hear from such an organisation? It's like asking Greenpeace if we should build more nuclear reactors and then taking their answer as some sort of authority. The same thing for the opposing view, the betting and gaming council. Of course they say it's a good thing. So, again we have two completely opposing views and that's where the journalist leaves it. So, who are we supposed to believe here? Neither side offered any solid facts to support their view and the lazy journalist didn't bother to push them for it.
Hmm? No, we have a specific explanation as to why the ban is being lifted. We might have one for why the ban was put in place but I didn't look for it. I added that specific quote because op didn't seem aware at all of the serious dangers of gambling addiction and because their comment was kind of irritating.
My comment wasn't so much to you but to BBC who made the news. Their news was that the gambling lobbying organization says that it's good that the ban is removed and the anti-gambling lobbying organisation says that it is bad. Neither provide any quantitative data to support their view and the journalist doesn't seem to be bothered by that and just reports the views as they are.
I kind of like that, but some more data would be good.
Might be your card, but it might not be your money. Have you never heard of someone going into severe debt through gambling? I think the major concern here is that this is going to severely impact those who are prone to gambling addiction. If people have to physically go and draw out cash to then gamble with it, this helps create a set limit on how much they're going to gamble at a time, and also creates a soft barrier which can help people cool off if they want to spend more. A policy which makes it easier to spend on something that is highly addictive and potentially highly destructive is not going to be helping society as a whole. Particularly when public services for help are in the state they're currently in. Though I don't think this is a totally black and white issue. If more real life casinos are closed, more people are going to go online, where physical cash is not used either.
Yeah my old flatmate had a gambling problem/probably still does. He takes out payday loans to pay for it. Honestly imo credit and debit cards make it far easier for people to gamble as a couple of clicks and away we go no need to step outside withdraw money and have a think about your situation. After seeing what gambling has done to people I know, I genuinely think it should be banned except in state owned betting shops like in some countries. Odds are fairer and they keep a better track of your financial stability and it's not as predatory. Never play for cash kids.
I presume you are also in favor of unrestricted access to firearms and drugs?
I agree about drugs, but firearms aren't really an appropriate analogy since they provide you with the means to kill other people.
This government really does have the right priorities.
I mean a gov should always be able to do little things like this as well has big things
True, but in general we prefer if the little and big things are good things. I can't think of a single benefit to rolling back this legislation.
Little things like giving people with low self control no awareness of how much they are spaffing? Sounds like a capital idea chum. Wonder if they’ll add logins next, really incentivise that impulse with stored card details, more time to spin again and again. Heck, that way they can sell their personal data to make a couple of extra bucks.
Little things like modernising gaming machines by allowing cashless. You can put a deposit limit like they’ve done and do other measures to help protect people. That does not mean we should keep them stuck in the past by not allowing cards.
Rubbish, this is done for one reason and one only, keep that gamblers bum on that seat, having zero thought time between each transaction. Also measures are usually “self-exclusion”, which is likely done when someone realises they’ve lost it all. It’s also not as effective as a deterrent as you will make out because it defaults 1KM (I know because I was part of the development of one), meaning gambler can get their fix with a short walk.
No it’s done to modernise them and not keep penalising brick and mortar gambling. Then we need protections as the dcms committee said not just self exclusion
If it's a bigger gambling center, could you put £100 (or whatever the limit is) on _each_ machine? Maybe they should be required to communicate to do a total limit.
Yeah that’s an option
There's a recipe for disaster if ever there was one I say
Best settle in for the grind, the 70 cooking requirement is a killer early on.
Didnt expect to find this comment here but its made my day!
Fishing lvls
12
Nice
65
Why? What reason is there to ban debit card use?
Way easier to blow tons of money with a card than with cash. At least cash is physical and requires effort to get more.
Also some atms have withdrawal limits
Thanks for the answer. Tho I’m sure you can put protections on the machines even with cards
Unless it's legislated, that won't happen
It could happen on a voluntary basis but legislated would be fine too and My preferred way
Voluntary? Trolling or extremely naive?
As said in the dcms committee’s report, there have been multiple occasions of voluntary arrangements by the gambling industry
The gambling industry is known for its altruism, after all.
They have done several things in a voluntary basis if you look at the dcms committee report
You're not wrong, but the end of the day, its moot. I still don't see the point in removing the ban. Not all gambling companies are going to volunteer, and people will suffer as a result.
If I want to sink all of my cash on the pokies, I am limited because I can only withdraw £200 or so a day. I am not limited at all on debit card payments, I could quite literally go from £10k positive to overdraft-maxxed in a day if I wanted it.
They don't call it double or nothing for no reason
You put spending limits and deposit limits and other protections then
Doesnt the politician that runs the gambling commission also have a job for one of the gambling companies?
By this point I'd be shocked if this *wasn't* true.
No, it's real. He's paid £500 per hour.
Shouldn't they be paying them by the spin!?
Can you post a link/evidence confirming this?
[relevant article](https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/08/tory-mp-philip-davies-takes-500-an-hour-job-at-slot-machine-company?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)
A tory using their position to benefit their own self interests?! I am SHOCKED.
Doesn’t mean this isn’t a good change
For the benefit of the doubt, why do you think this is a positive?
Sir Phillip "Give me the Money" Davies had nothing to do with this, it's just a coincidence he has a job for £500 an hour at a gambling firm. The reason for the change is public opinion, tons of surveys, polls, and even marches in London demanding the change. Casinos and gambling frims are really struggling they are closing down all over the place, and some have to register in tax havens to stay afloat. Imagine your local high street with no Coral or Ladbrokes. Devastating. With a contribution of 0.1% of total income for the gov, I doubt that even covers the commission, compliance, and the inevitable levels of fraud for accepting cards.
Well sarcastically put.
One of the last acts of a dying government: to make sure more of its citizens can suffer from gambling addictions. They are trying to take as many people out with them as they can and its disgusting.
I love this country, I'm allowed to drink myself to death , gamble myself into destitution but sitting back with a joint is still a crime.
Why not get your dealer to donate a large sum of money to the Tory party?
Good point, I'll get on that today.
Ha.. keep up.. they've cornered and control that market already.. Philip May, husband of former PM Theresa, is an employee of Capital Group, which owns a significant share in GW, one of the biggest cultivators of cannabis in the world. Remember when Theresa May was prime minister and she refused to allow an exemption for a woman to import medical cannabis for her son who has MS I think..... May's husband profits from the sale and export of the product she wanted to bring in... it is manufactured by British Sugar in London and shipped out and sold in the US.
Labour are as complicit in the loose gambling laws. It was the single worst domestic policy of the last Labour government to relax laws around gambling imo. I hope that they redeem themselves if they win the election and address this harmful, parasitic industry.
They're already cosying up with gambling industry figures. I live in a strong labour borough too, and they've done fuck all to stop the high road being saturated with betting shops and 24 hour 'casinos' . There was a resident protest against it a few years ago. Which did nothing.
This is the problem with them being so far behind, they’re just doing whatever
Huh? Surely gambling machines can help people without banning my debit cards?
> Surely gambling machines can help people X to doubt
You doubt it’s possible for them to help people?? Technology has come a long way
You've commented a few times without a reply and tbh I don't know why wouldn't, not really anyways... But gambling becomes a habit and to curb a habit you have to block out something thst enables thst habit. Sure, credit card exists (actually don't think you can use these neither?) and you can just withdraw money but the former you often need to have a good credit history or at least showcase you are good with money and the latter is less convenient. So by banning debit cards you make it less convenient and thus less likely to develop an addiction. That being said, allowing credit cards allows for a better understanding of how much money is spent on gambling as a country and so it isn't used fraudulently by the casino (maybe drug smuggling, tax evasion etc. If they're cash only) Just a guess tho, I ain't no expert chief.
Tbf credit cards aren’t allowed only debit cards. Surely you can add protections in place to make up for the convenience? Thanks for the response tho
Probably. From someone who has had a problem, and that being said very minor in the past, requiring me to self regulate this is hard. More similarly I fucking love me some cake and I often say "no you aren't allowed it you're getting fat, your teeth are gonne rot and you're gonna die" .... only to stuff myself with it everyday. Suits tough 😆 we need something more serious to help us curb some addictions, particularly the more serious they become.
Yeah self regulating would be hard which is why protections would be needed like spending limits.
Would it not be easier to not help the industry and hopefully let high street gambling shops just die out? I don't see the downside, gamblers will still have places to gamble but the High street get given a boost by not being full of betting shops (which realistically noone likes except gamblers)
In the same way it would be easier to let any industry die out. That does not mean we should. Betting shops are on the decline anyway. The downsides are that a they ma not be replaced with anything and if they are replaced by charity shops which could hurt the high street economy. It would also lead to loss of jobs. With people mainly switching too online it’s already declining so we don’t need to let it die
We let lots of industries die out. We didn't change the law to help stop vhs rental going bust, we just accepted it wasn't needed any more. Jobs were lost and went elsewhere and the stores were taken over. The difference being vhs was a way of sharing creativity and not feeding poverty so it was much more deserving of saving
And we save lots of industries too see all our farming subsidies and the amount we are putting into the steel makers in wales to build an arc furnace. Bruh it’s not as easy as just go elswhere for a job. People often can’t find other jobs and sometimes if they do it does not pay enough or give enough hours. If done right many enjoy gambling. That’s why you need protections. It also brings money into the economy so while it can be trrrible it can have benefits which is why it needs regulation not us letting my it die VHS died because of dvd and the internet iirc irl gambling is already struggling against internet
For sure! We need something I think
Yeah
We need less incentive to gamble not more! I fucking hate this government so fucking much!!!!
You hate them because they allow debit cards?
It's not the case of it just being "debit cards". It's about how easy it is for someone with a problem to get themselves in to real trouble. Quick tap here, quick tap there and a few hours later you have lost a grand. It's enabling people with an issue to get themselves in to real trouble. You have taken the time to comment a lot on this thread, a lot. It's like you have a vested interest in them putting debit card readers in the machines. Why are you so for this? The negatives (making it easier to destroy lives) far outweigh the positives (more profit for gambling companies).
That’s why you add protections to the machines. You can add spending limits. I have no vested Interest. It just seems to be a logical changed and it baffled me that Reddit is so against it. Even the dcms committee supported this after lord of evidence. As stated in the dcms report it needs protections alongside it and with those protections you can make it so it does not destroy lives. It surely had to be possible to modernise an industry and protect peoples lives
So that's per machine, cool. Are they linked across the country? Or could someone just move to the next one and have a new £x limit?
Can be per machine or per shop. I mean they could do that now or just go online to gamble
[удалено]
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator. Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here: > Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account. For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
Just in case anyone here finds it helpful, some banks allow you to block gambling transactions. Hopefully it is extended to include these machines for the people that need it. https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/public-and-players/page/i-want-to-know-how-to-block-gambling-transactions
I’d love to hear the reasoning on this. I would imagine society going cashless, can’t have those book makers missing revenue. Surely reducing money spent on gambling is good for economic activity. Get the money spent in restaurants and shops instead. Fucking madnesss
The reasoning is the lobbyists from gambling companies will have bought enough tories to get it made government policy through "donations", hospitality or promises of cushy directorship after they leave office. The only reason that they don't call an election is the tories want to loot as much as possible before getting kicked out.
They only need to buy the one with the most dirt on the others
Gambling should be fully illegal. Alcohol is a lot more complex but gambling has never done any good. I would revel in seeing all the heads of gambling companies roll.
At lower stakes gambling is just paid entertainment really. Nothing wrong with a friendly game of poker with a £10 buy-in for the night's entertainment. But the machines that take £1 off you every few seconds for a spin are absurdly overpriced, and having them around drunk people is exploitative.
Or lottery tickets. I don't drink or smoke. Therefore is there anything actually wrong with me spending £3 a week buying a single ticket? Yeah I'm probably never gonna win but that very small chance is there.
IMO there's a big difference between lottery tickets (which are like buying a ticket to see the draw happen and being involved, as entertainment with the occasional small prize) and _scratchcards_. Scratch cards can be exploitative, with people buying dozens desperately searching for a win.
> Gambling should be fully illegal. Going to have to ban speculating on the stock exchange as well then
Trading (if you're doing it professionally) is making money off the misconceptions others have about the correct price of something. You do better the more information you have. Some forms of gambling are closer to that than others - poker being an example. But FOBT? They're rigged. They legally have to pay out a certain fraction of their input, averaged over a period of time. My dad (a statistician by training), used to clean up by watching some poor mug shovelling coin into the fruit machine in the pub while it was "down" and then jumping on it when it was due to pay out again. The owner of the machine literally can't lose though, because the software inside the machine will adjust the odds so that they don't. Unlike trading, there's no situation in which the deal goes sour for them - if you gamble for a long enough period on a FOBT, you'll always lose, and the only way to come out ahead is to exploit someone else's misfortune.
Not as exciting as your dad , but years ago myself and a few mates would do this with "who wants to be a millionaire" machines , we were pretty good at trivia\* , and the trick was wait until a few people had played and lost , it would drop the 'collect money' questions to a low level (like 2-3 questions in ) so we generally made a bit of cash . (except being in Ireland , if cricket based questions came up we were screwed , it was automatically a guess ..and there was a LOT of them)
Aren't they illegal in Ireland/NI?
Nope. Slot machines/ poker etc are only allowed in certain places , but the likes of Wwtbam are based on 'skill and luck' so would crop up all over the place.
You are right, of course, but the commenter didn't specify FOBT
I'd love to see the labour party make the economic argument against gambling. They're always trotting people out to say how many people the industry employs or tax it generates, and no one ever talks about what else that money would be being spent on if it wasn't on gambling. What the explosive growth of gambling amount to in practice is a massive cash transfer from the bank accounts of working people (often destroying their lives) and into the account of offshore tech companies who hoard it and employ fewer people in the UK every year. When you see American YouTuber documentary makers fret about the arrival of "British Style Gambling Laws" then you know how badly we've gone wrong.
Every high street has a betting shop and there are fruit machines in pubs. It’s really jarring if you didn’t grow up here
Probably an extra gram for the weekend
It will definitely benefit the gambling companies for the pub style machines. Machines in bookmakers can already be loaded with a card by going to the counter and paying through a cashier. This would be a barrier for some gamblers especially if they have lost a chunk already.
I’m not sure we should be punishing gambling companies like that to get them into other places. Irl gambling machines are going out of fashion anyway without punishing them
You work for William Hill or something? Not many people are defending this, and for good reason. Gambling addiction ruins many lives, why make it easier for people to throw themselves into debt?
[удалено]
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator. Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here: > Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account. For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
No and I don’t gamble. It was agreed by a committee in parliament and the industry and the gov. I’m not sure why Reddit dislikes it. Then do as the committee recommended and make sure safeguards are in place. You don’t need to keep them out the modern era for that. There is also a liberal argument about freedom to sue whatever payment method you wish
We dislike it because I think the general agreement (here at least) is the committee isn't working in the best interests of people, it's working in the best interest of gambling companies and that's not what governments meant to be for
Indeed, this is my take
I really doubt the committeee was doing that. A lot of their recommendations were geared towards helping people. And how many people were saying that have read the committees report?
Sounds like there are 500 reasons an hour this might have happened.
This is something most people would refer to as a Very Bad Idea.
Why? It seems alright to me as long as you put other protections in place
I'm not super fond of gambling in general but FBO machines are actually evil. I don't know how anyone who has seen the numbers, and the demographics can think they're good for society or even for individuals. Frankly I'd rather they stay in the past. The last thing we need is people able to run up debts on them. The safeguards we have now don't work. There's no reason to think they will in the future.
> FBO machines are actually evil. In order to be fixed-odds, they literally have to be rigged (so they pay out the legally mandated percentage of their input, on average). In polite society, cheating at games of chance is frowned upon. In rip-off Britain, it's legally mandatory.
I would be interested in hearing the stats on other countries in terms of increased use before casting judgement on this one. Intuitively, however, I think a much better approach would be to ban advertising for gambling and any offers (free spins, free money when you deposit x amount, etc) that draw people in. I'm a big believer in not banning activities, but push factors? No problem. It's the same with booze or unhealthy food or drugs: let the people have what they want, but don't let companies push it via advertising, packaging, or offers.
Clearly all the lobbying worked. It should not be allowed these sorts of things are preying on addicts.
What a fucking disaster this is going to be. If overdrafts can be used as well as the card balance then shiiiet
Real progress being made by this government again. Real tangible progress.
As a pub landlord with a gambling machine this could be very disastrous. I see enough people on a weekly basis throw £50+ in and end up winning the same or just a little more out. Or even worse losing £50 and coming back later with another £50 just to win their own money back. If the banks had any sense they would automatically disable the use of debit cards for gambling, and the one way to unlock it would be to complete a course of safe gambling. Would probably include this for online use too.
Genuinely an amazing suggestion in my book. "They knew what they were getting into" never cut it. At least let's make sure that people are aware of the dangers before getting into it. I'd love to see the numbers on how effective "when the fun stops, stop" etc ads are. I would imagine that if you are already addicted, getting this info is pointless. Imho, you shouldn't be able to advertise gambling, even if you slap a warning on it. We don't allow ads for other addictive and harmful things. I'd ask why they were still allowed but others have put forward plenty of reasons around here.
Great Britain. Will let you gamble your life savings away on slot machines, football matches and what ever else the lower classes fancy. But... want to invest in a company at an early stage? Own something that might actually make you rich. NOOOOOOO!! We can't be having that. You need to earn over 100k a year or be a sophisticated investor to do that. Can't be having people gambling away money they can't afford to lose. You know... they might just get lucky and become actual millionaires. That never made sense to me.
The plebs need to know their place. It's like people who write wanky articles in the Telegraph saying fewer kids should go to university - they mean *your* kids, not theirs.
What's stopping people investing in companies at an early stage if they're not on £100k a year?
It’s actually more than 100k or have scaled a company to over a million in revenue I believe. You cannot invest as an angel investor unless you pass some serious tests. They say it’s because you’re not a sophisticated investor and you’ll love your money. Which is why it’s hilarious gambling is legal
I still think the price should be set to 99p in exact change.
I hope they are taxing gambling companies more now the profits are higher. I won’t hold my breath.
They have: - included all UK revenue spent with online bookmakers as taxable in the UK (which was an innovative piece of legislation and absolutely should be copied for large online shopping) - increased and mandated the betting levy, rather than the previous voluntary arrangement that has some online-only bookmakers paying a nominal tenner. - reduced the maximum stake on FOBTs from £100 per spin I actually think this is a good piece of legislation that will further reduce the opportunity to launder money through betting shops, and would be in favour of further KYC measures in retail stores. Bear in mind that online-only outlets have been taking debit card payments for over 20 years in the UK for all transactions. Also, the ban on using credit cards in betting shops remains.
They raised Corporation Tax by almost 33%
This would have utterly fucked me as a proto-adult. I ended up in enough debt as it was...
I enjoy a bit of gambling horses football etc. However this is a terrible idea. I can spend a tenner and physically see it going, so I’m mentally aware I’m losing money, as such I’ll stop.
What’s next for the Conservatives before they get kicked out? Any more back handers coming? Can we expect the return of a box of 5 cigarettes for children, smoking at work, cigarettes ads on the TV again and promotional girls handing out free cigarettes at events? How is this government so corrupt and not one MP is being held accountable for anything they have done…
This sounds like a great idea for society.
There will be a gamble aware sticker on the machine so everything is going to be alright
I work in a bookies, this is an unbelievably stupid idea.
Shocked i tell you, [https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/08/tory-mp-philip-davies-takes-500-an-hour-job-at-slot-machine-company?CMP=Share\_iOSApp\_Other](https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/08/tory-mp-philip-davies-takes-500-an-hour-job-at-slot-machine-company?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other) Well, not that shocked.
I’m going to go and win a bajillion dollars
They are getting on with the people's priorities.
Politician acts in a self serving immoral manner shocker!!!
Of course this will be countered by the fact that banks will only allow £5 per day, up to £20 per week in all gambling related businesses right? Right?
How do these machines benefit society at all? All they do is take money from people who often cannot afford it
Governments and big companies are slowly trying to phase out cash, worldwide.
I don’t use these machines but presumably right now people just take money out of the pub ATM (for a fee) to play the games? Will this change have any effect other than removing the need for ATMs in pubs and casinos?
So yet more addicted gambling ? This is bad for the community and individuals and that should be obvious to anyone. This is a bad faith ruling. Unless you also want to make banks liable for any personal losses involved…. (They would instantly ban credit cards for being used in this way then)…
You can already do this in a bookmakers albeit with the additional step of getting the counter staff to transfer your money onto the machine. My wife works in a bookmakers. The (limited by license to) 4 machines take more than otc betting. Except for the Grand National, otc betting is now mainly (in value terms) people laundering cash at a pace that doesn’t trigger staff intervention or proof of earnings thresholds. By allowing direct use of cards this will remove the opportunity for trained staff intervention for addicts, remove the age monitoring in non-bookmaker premises, and is generally a social shit show waiting to happen.
The chance of abuse seems too high - particularly using family members cards without their permission. I would like the ability to say that no matter what my debit card cannot be used on such machines. Or at least any attempt to do so blocks the transaction for fraud until Is this possible? Actually, no I don't care if it is possible, I would suggest this law is not enacted until it is an option for all card holders to manage types of permitted use (and that includes online). Obviously this opens the door to other purchase type blocking. But having too many of them would basically weaken to protections and the care people take over managing their blocking.
Didn't Labour open the gambling floodgates? Perhaps Starmer will have the balls to close them before any more serious harm is done to the economy, we'll see...
So - i'm one of the more 'laisse-faire' posters on here when it comes to gambling. I believe that it's a past time that the vast majority engage with in a reasonably healthy way and that you shouldn't remove individual freedoms because a very small minority have a problem. I'm still against the £2 limit on machines in bookies as I used to enjoy putting £20 in a roulette machine and increasing the stakes if I won. All that's happened is the problem gamblers now blow through their wages a bit slower. However . . . I do believe that fruit machines are a particular problem, especially given that they are situated in pubs where alcohol is a contributing factor and they are deliberately programme to keep you playing. It's not just the natural addictive element of gambling - the slots maker deliberately programme their games in the same way that mobile games are designed to trigger psychological responses. It's an exploitative practice that has honestly gone too far. Back in the days me and my mates might stick a fiver or at most tenner in each and then walk away - but it got to a point where I was putting in £20 notes at a time. Covid got me out of that habit and I now deliberately avoid taking cash with me when I go to pubs. The government should have really just let the practice of having them in pubs die out. These new machines are in no way about having a quick bit of fun with the change in your pocket - they're about draining you until you're dry. This debit card change is a mistake.
The bookies got round the £2 limit right away anyway. All they did was add the ‘chance’ spin bar on roulette so you could try for a £20 spin with your £2 stake. If anything you can burn through your wage just as quick without ever seeing the ball go round the wheel.
Ah, I didn't realise that. I pretty much stopped going into bookies the day that the £2 limit came in.
Yeah that’s the next election in the bag then. /s
How much did coral et al donate to the tories…
With the rise of online gambling and the shit controls over if your Saturday night involves a fruity then using your card at the machines probably better than lying in bed with nothing to do on a Sunday morning after the first 3 wanks.
There’s a ban? In honesty I’m not sure I see why when in your hand you have a virtual casino/gaming machine where you can use your debit card non stop for the most part.
Just so the banks can track you even more.
Sod the tories to hell and back but I’m not going to scoff at increased independence with which I’m able spend my own money. I mean it’s a huge eat shit to anyone suffering from a gambling addiction, didn’t expect a graceful delivery from the ‘rt. honourable gentlemen’ but I think the chief political focus should be on combatting & regulating the grossly predatory advertising being shoved in your face 4 times whenever you watch a 2 minute YouTube video etc
Seems reasonable (the ban on credit cards is staying). Heaven forbid that adults can take responsibility for themselves and do what they want with their own money.
This is the same government that is introducing lifetime bans on people buying cigarettes (another harmful addiction). There is no consistency or logic to them.