Paddy Power guilty of encouraging problem gambler to bet more

razorblunt · 01-03-2016 12:49PM

mansize wrote: »

Great if you're 16...

"lad" I think is the term best used to describe that Twitter account

I don't think it falls under "lad", you'd have been more accurate using "bants" to be honest.

kfallon · 01-03-2016 12:50PM

muppetkiller wrote: »

My life was more or less ruined by gambling
I've lost more money than I can imagine and only just managed to get out about 6 months ago. I actually banned myself from the shops in town and online but still can see ways to gamble. It's everywhere in all forms of media so impossible to avoid. I really think there has to be restrictions on advertising. Especially in sport. This betting in play nonsense advertised during live matches is now the norm.

You only have to walk into a bookies to see it's no longer old men putting on the twenty €1 bets for the day, It's kids in tracksuits having their lunch in there. And watch as the pens are thrown at the screens in anger/panic as their horse or virtual race loses.

I feel so relieved now when I walk past the ladbrokes and Paddy Powers shops now...and think to myself I'm finally winning ....but it'll be a battle for life

I hope you win that battle my friend, it'll be the greatest 'winner' you've ever had!

stefan.kuntz · 01-03-2016 12:52PM

kfallon wrote: »

I hope you win that battle my friend, it'll be the greatest 'winner' you've ever had!

I see what you did there. Very good.

mansize · 01-03-2016 01:11PM

razorblunt wrote: »

I don't think it falls under "lad", you'd have been more accurate using "bants" to be honest.

Two words I equally despise

suicide_circus · 01-03-2016 01:21PM

Seen a guy lose his home and run out on his wife and kids over gambling. I feel lucky in that I get absolutely no buzz out of it whatsoever.

BrokenArrows · 01-03-2016 01:29PM

bubblypop wrote: »

It's an offence for a pub to serve alcohol to a drunk person!!
Believe it or not

Should be fairly easy to get fired from a bar job then and then sue for unfair dismissal.
If you follow the law and don't server drunk people then a pub will never make any money.

MarinersBlues · 01-03-2016 01:32PM

Pedro K wrote: »

I posted this on another thread about gambling and the industry. I've worked for more than one bookies. I don't anymore.

I worked in shops and as a complier and a trader for years.

I loved the job but am delighted to be out of the business.
It is EXACTLY as Pedro described.
The closer you get to the top the more cynical it becomes.

I would have argued that there was a social aspect and even an aspect of morals to the shops and betting rings but there are NO mitigating factors for the business in the form it has taken now. Online has ruined any good there was in betting.

It needs to be stopped.
I don't think there is any concept of the level of problem gambling out there.

cdeb · 01-03-2016 01:35PM

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

So if someone is "believed" to be drunk but maybe due to a medical condition or medication the patron is taking what then?

I presume you mean what if they appear drunk, but actually it's just a side-effect of medication they're on? (I think you've left out a couple of words)

Firstly, a lot of medication comes with instructions not to drink. Antibiotics obviously, but plenty of other stuff too. Aspirin, GTN, etc.

Secondly, if someone appears drunk but isn't, it could be an indication of something potentially serious like hyperglycaemia. Head injuries can also give symptoms similar to drunkenness. Needless to say, at that stage, they need medical attention, not another pint. So if someone who appears drunk but isn't asks for more drink, you should refuse.

Would fully support stricter controls on gambling - though not sure what the best controls would be? Daily limits are easily circumvented by different accounts/bookies. Banning apps - which make it almost too easy to gamble - seems a bit of overkill. A life-tally (up or down) on the screen - might help I guess.

Hulk Hands · 01-03-2016 01:44PM

It looks like a single employee cock up where they probably thought a high value customer was betting elsewhere instead of there, and failed to heed the warnings on his problems. To be fair to PP, theyve owned up as a company and given 280k to a good cause. There's incompetence in the odd employee in every company. The entire industry does need to tighten up on the problem gambling aspect alright, although they've been doing a lot more in the last 2 years

mansize · 01-03-2016 01:46PM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

It looks like a single employee cock up where they probably thought a high value customer was betting elsewhere instead of there, and failed to heed the warnings on his problems. To be fair to PP, theyve owned up as a company and given 280k to a good cause. There's incompetence in the odd employee in every company. The entire industry does need to tighten up on the problem gambling aspect alright, although they've been doing a lot more in the last 2 years

It was a case of being caught rather than owning up tbf.

They were FINED it wasn't an altruistic gensture on their part

Hulk Hands · 01-03-2016 01:53PM

mansize wrote: »

It was a case of being caught rather than owning up tbf.

They were FINED it wasn't an altruistic gensture on their part

How is the company supposed to own up to something they didn't know was happening in a shop when the issue is that a shop manager didn't report it. They've owned up as a company rather than through the rouge manager under the bus is what I mean. And it's not a fine, it's been an agreed fee which is unprecedented in its size for a case like this which is actually quite common with UK bookies

osarusan · 01-03-2016 02:04PM

Do bookies have some obligation to identify potentially vulnerable/addicted customers for the purposes of helping them in some way?

mansize · 01-03-2016 02:10PM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

How is the company supposed to own up to something they didn't know was happening in a shop when the issue is that a shop manager didn't report it. They've owned up as a company rather than through the rouge manager under the bus is what I mean. And it's not a fine, it's been an agreed fee which is unprecedented in its size for a case like this which is actually quite common with UK bookies

It would be Naieve to think it's a "Rogue Manager" I've working in bookmakers, exploitation is the name of the game

mansize · 01-03-2016 02:13PM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

It looks like a single employee cock up where they probably thought a high value customer was betting elsewhere instead of there, and failed to heed the warnings on his problems. To be fair to PP, theyve owned up as a company and given 280k to a good cause. There's incompetence in the odd employee in every company. The entire industry does need to tighten up on the problem gambling aspect alright, although they've been doing a lot more in the last 2 years

The Irish gambling group – which merged this year with Betfair – has been slammed by the UK’s Gambling Commission for its failings, and voluntarily agreed to pay £280,000 (€357,000) to a “socially responsible cause” In lieu of a financial penalty.

It's like contributing to the poor box instead of a fine... They were facing a fine- this just saves some face

Hulk Hands · 01-03-2016 02:18PM

mansize wrote: »

It's like contributing to the poor box instead of a fine... They were facing a fine- this just saves some face

So you now agree it's not a fine then? Also for accurate reflection, perhaps try get your article from industry sources rather than drivel from the Independent UK

Your Face · 01-03-2016 02:19PM

What are the odds?

KomradeBishop · 01-03-2016 02:20PM

Why not force such companies to, prior to every bet, display their overall odds of the average person winning against them? Then followed by the total losses their customers have made in the last year.

Kind of like cigarette packet warnings in a way.

It's an industry based on pure exploitation of the worst kind - where they actively want people to ruin their lives, so that they can provide all of their money.

kfallon · 01-03-2016 02:23PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Why not force such companies to, prior to every bet, display their overall odds of the average person winning against them? Then followed by the total losses their customers have made in the last year.

I'm confused by the bolded part tbh

Also any online account will have a record of how much somebody has lost/won as you can go in and look at your betting history!

cdeb · 01-03-2016 02:27PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Why not force such companies to, prior to every bet, display their overall odds of the average person winning against them?

They do display the average odds. You can even work out their margin in stuff like football matches (where there's three possible outcomes, adding up to 110%)

You can't tell someone what the odds are that they'll win their specific 5/1 stake on Cork City to win the LoI because nobody knows that - it's based on a future event.

But every gambler knows they're better than average, so I don't think that would be too effective to be honest.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 01-03-2016 02:33PM

I've seen grown men (and in some cases women) attack gaming machines, cry

Hardly that extreme.I used to react like that when I lost a game of football manager and there wasn't even any money at stake.

cdeb · 01-03-2016 02:33PM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Also for accurate reflection, perhaps try get your article from industry sources rather than drivel from the Independent UK

For accurate reflection, ask the industry about its own actions rather than an independent newspaper?

How would that help?

smash · 01-03-2016 02:33PM

Ice Maiden wrote: »

"exactly"? A line. Not deliberately making a point of suckering back in a specific individual who's in a bad way.

I am a personal responsibility nazi usually but when an organisation uses unethical tactics outside of their business mandate the line is crossed.

Why so you assume their tactics fall outside their business mandate? I'd say that targeting those with an addiction IS their business mandate!

Dirty Dingus McGee · 01-03-2016 02:35PM

brevity wrote: »

I ****ing hate gambling ads. Any sporting event and the ad breaks are full of them. They should be banned IMO.

"'ave a bang on that" **** off you prat.

Paddy Power and their ilk are on par with those Wonga type companies, praying on the poor and ignorant.

**** the lot of em.

As Marge Simpson said to Snake "How dare you prey on the greedy and stupid like that"

Hulk Hands · 01-03-2016 02:40PM

cdeb wrote: »

For accurate reflection, ask the industry about its own actions rather than an independent newspaper?

How would that help?

That makes no sense. Industry sources in the journalism sense who actually understand what they're talking about (and are the bookies biggest critics day to day). I'm not advocating going onto the PP blog

Corholio · 01-03-2016 02:40PM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

So you now agree it's not a fine then? Also for accurate reflection, perhaps try get your article from industry sources rather than drivel from the Independent UK

Are you really arguing that it wasn't 'technically' a fine?

It was a fine in all but official wording. Like a sport contracts 'mutual agreement' spiel.

cdeb · 01-03-2016 02:42PM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

That makes no sense. Industry sources in the journalism sense who actually understand what they're talking about (and are the bookies biggest critics day to day). I'm not advocating going onto the PP blog

What parts of the article do you take issue with? Where do you suggest we read the opinions of these not-at-all-biased industry people?

You can't just dismiss a leading newspaper's comments on the matter as "drivel" with no reason whatsoever.

mansize · 01-03-2016 02:42PM

Corholio wrote: »

Are you really arguing that it wasn't 'technically' a fine?

It was a fine in all but official wording. Like a sport contracts 'mutual agreement' spiel.

He strikes me as an industry insider- very much spinning

awec · 01-03-2016 02:43PM

MarinersBlues wrote: »

I worked in shops and as a complier and a trader for years.

I loved the job but am delighted to be out of the business.
It is EXACTLY as Pedro described.
The closer you get to the top the more cynical it becomes.

I would have argued that there was a social aspect and even an aspect of morals to the shops and betting rings but there are NO mitigating factors for the business in the form it has taken now. Online has ruined any good there was in betting.

It needs to be stopped.
I don't think there is any concept of the level of problem gambling out there.

Has it?

This thread seems to focus on the few that have a problem, and ignore the thousands that actually do gamble responsibly.

mansize · 01-03-2016 02:44PM

awec wrote: »

Has it?

This thread seems to focus on the few that have a problem, and ignore the thousands that actually do gamble responsibly.

It has to be kept in check, and making gambling easier and less responsible isn't the way to do it

diomed · 01-03-2016 02:46PM

Gambling is only an addiction if you are losing.

Paddy Power guilty of encouraging problem gambler to bet more

Comments