The report has been criticised by the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB). Its chief executive, Malcolm George, said the report amounted to little more than the view of a tiny group of anti-betting-shop MPs. He also said that behind the report were the vested interests of those who would benefit should the reports recommendations be implemented. <\/p>\n
Despite claiming to be evidence-based, it is clear the report is driven, in the main, by the precautionary principle namely, that in the absence of knowing future risks or harms, we should act just in case. So the report recommends lowering the maximum stake from 100 to perhaps as low as 2, on a precautionary basis until sufficient evidence is presented that the high stakes on these machines do not cause harm. <\/p>\n
If these MPs were really concerned about the cost of gambling, the one thing they could do is to lower the minimum stake on betting, so people who enjoy gambling get more for their money. Not that that would appeal to the MPs in the APPG. They dont want to make gambling cheaper. Rather, their underlying objective is to interfere in and regulate peoples everyday lives, to, as the report puts it, protect the most vulnerable in our society. <\/p>\n
This move against FOBTs and betting shops sets a dangerous precedent. It treats us all as if we are vulnerable and need to be saved or prevented from doing harm to ourselves. In effect, these MPs are seeking to save us from ourselves. <\/p>\n
But there really is no need to do so. There is already help available for anyone who thinks they have a gambling problem. Funded by voluntary contributions from the gambling industry, GamCare, an advice and support service for problem gamblers, is advertised everywhere, including in casinos and betting shops. Better still, one can always turn to ones friends and family for help and advice. As I often say to friends and family who are starting out playing poker, lessons can be expensive, and sometimes you dont know youre being taught a lesson until its too late. As in many areas of life, we sometimes need to learn those lessons ourselves. <\/p>\n
The MPs report shows just how negative and condescending is their view of human beings and our ability to make choices for ourselves. The word vulnerable appears 27 times in the report. With the exception of perhaps a small percentage who have real problems with gambling and money, I doubt that there are any gamblers who would refer to themselves as vulnerable. <\/p>\n
This moralising assault on FOBTs is unlikely to go down well in the communities the MPs are saying they want to help. The vote for Brexit last year should have taught them the dangers of assuming that a small group of politicians knows what is best for us. Lets hope that the government doesnt listen to this report and leaves us to make choices for ourselves. <\/p>\n
Jon Bryan lives and works in Newcastle, is treasurer of the Great Debate and regularly plays poker. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
For permission to republish spiked articles, please contact Viv Regan. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
View original post here: <\/p>\n
Gambling with people's autonomy | Liberties | Risk | spiked - Spiked<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The report has been criticised by the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB). Its chief executive, Malcolm George, said the report amounted to little more than the view of a tiny group of anti-betting-shop MPs. He also said that behind the report were the vested interests of those who would benefit should the reports recommendations be implemented. Continue reading