You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > Betting Shop gambling Machines
April 26 2024 7.55am

Betting Shop gambling Machines

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 8 of 9 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

 

View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 23 May 18 1.16pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by paperhat

This quote does annoy me. The only reason it is becoming a problem for the high street is that the bookies have been allowed to expand at such a stupid unsustainable rate, all based on their profits from these FBT machines, as proven by them now scaremongering with the "we'll have to shut xxx branches now as they will become non-profitable"

It's not a quote, but which part annoys you specifically then?

It's not scaremongering to say:
Those shops we opened, specifically because of the half arse way you tried to regulate this previously, will now probably have to close.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 23 May 18 2.46pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

I have seen a number of comments to the effect that people should be allowed to spend their money as they like and if people want to gamble they will find a way.

Whilst I am right wing and don't like the government interfering you do have to draw a line.

If you extend the logic of the argument why can't people legally buy heroin or hand guns or cyanide. Well if you are determined you can always find a way to buy that stuff. However government sets laws which reflect the broad opinion of most people. Its why we have licensing hours, parking restrictions and why we banned hand guns after Dunblane.

Restricting these machines may not curb problem gamblers but at least we are saying we don't approve of them. If cigarettes were invented today they would be banned and I suspect one day in the future they will be.

Society has to have some rules otherwise we have anarchy. Gun laws may not stop gun crime but what is the alternative you have to send a message.

As for the bookies as I mentioned in a previous post they have over expanded so they were also going to shed jobs now they can blame the government.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 23 May 18 3.07pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

I have seen a number of comments to the effect that people should be allowed to spend their money as they like and if people want to gamble they will find a way.

Whilst I am right wing and don't like the government interfering you do have to draw a line.

If you extend the logic of the argument why can't people legally buy heroin or hand guns or cyanide. Well if you are determined you can always find a way to buy that stuff. However government sets laws which reflect the broad opinion of most people. Its why we have licensing hours, parking restrictions and why we banned hand guns after Dunblane.

Restricting these machines may not curb problem gamblers but at least we are saying we don't approve of them. If cigarettes were invented today they would be banned and I suspect one day in the future they will be.

Society has to have some rules otherwise we have anarchy. Gun laws may not stop gun crime but what is the alternative you have to send a message.

As for the bookies as I mentioned in a previous post they have over expanded so they were also going to shed jobs now they can blame the government.

That's not extending the logic, they are all illegal. Ban it or allow it, but don't fudge it with spending restrictions.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 23 May 18 3.34pm Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Originally posted by Stuk

You sound like Reverend Lovejoy's wife.

You can chase your losses in any type of gambling. If you want to make something illegal, do it. Don't set spending limits for something legal, unless you're going to do so for all their equivalents.

You sound like Gordon Gecho.

A tiny amount of people agree with your opinion, and most of them have a share in bookie profits or are employerd in a bookies opened to house 4 FOBT’s. They weren’t needed before and they aren’t now.

You cannot chase losses or waste your wages with nothing to show for it in minutes in a shopping addiction or any of the other problems you’ve mentioned.

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 23 May 18 3.43pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

You sound like Gordon Gecho.

A tiny amount of people agree with your opinion, and most of them have a share in bookie profits or are employerd in a bookies opened to house 4 FOBT’s. They weren’t needed before and they aren’t now.

You cannot chase losses or waste your wages with nothing to show for it in minutes in a shopping addiction or any of the other problems you’ve mentioned.

Who said anything about whether they're needed or not? I am arguing that restricting the amount you can spend on something that is legal is stupid.

I said you can chase your losses in any type of gambling, what are you bringing shopping into that for?

And you can still lose thousands of pounds in seconds by making a daft purchase. Retail value isn't the same as resale value. Or you could easily go and buy a property that can be condemned the week after.

You don't like FOBTs but you're not making any logical argument, you're making an emotive one hence the Lovejoy's wife comment from me.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 23 May 18 3.51pm Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Originally posted by Stuk

Who said anything about whether they're needed or not? I am arguing that restricting the amount you can spend on something that is legal is stupid.

I said you can chase your losses in any type of gambling, what are you bringing shopping into that for?

And you can still lose thousands of pounds in seconds by making a daft purchase. Retail value isn't the same as resale value. Or you could easily go and buy a property that can be condemned the week after.

You don't like FOBTs but you're not making any logical argument, you're making an emotive one hence the Lovejoy's wife comment from me.

You did. And the other fact is it will help some, hopefully many. The next target is online casinos.

God mate, you really are all heart. As I’ve said, good luck making this point of view in a real social gathering away from a desk or bar in the square mile.

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 23 May 18 4.04pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

You did. And the other fact is it will help some, hopefully many. The next target is online casinos.

God mate, you really are all heart. As I’ve said, good luck making this point of view in a real social gathering away from a desk or bar in the square mile.

In terms of you can spend more than you have, not that you are "chasing losses" which is pretty much all you've banged on about.

And it's then back to sanctimony.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 23 May 18 4.09pm Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Originally posted by Stuk

In terms of you can spend more than you have, not that you are "chasing losses" which is pretty much all you've banged on about.

And it's then back to sanctimony.

Because chasing losses on a guaranteed losing machine is a big part of it. Or just that I believe and know that government has a responsibility to its citizens and not shareholders or people who believe it’s every man for himself and screw the weak.

Anybody that doesn’t give a shoit about anybody else will have to get used to them going because they are and good riddance.

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 23 May 18 4.36pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Because chasing losses on a guaranteed losing machine is a big part of it. Or just that I believe and know that government has a responsibility to its citizens and not shareholders or people who believe it’s every man for himself and screw the weak.

Anybody that doesn’t give a shoit about anybody else will have to get used to them going because they are and good riddance.

Your attempt at debating this has been so garbled that it's ridiculous. Going off about a shopping addiction and chasing losses, when I've never conflated the two issues. I never even mentioned a "shopping addiction" at all. I have simply stated that you can easily lose as much money, as quickly, in numerous other ways which you've not once been able, or chosen, to counter.

I couldn't give a monkeys if they banned them altogether, but don't set spending limits on something legal.

Mentioning things like "heart", "conscience" and "society" over and over in a look at how caring I am way isn't debating the point. Nor is mentioning things like "shareholders" or "profits" as though they're intrinsically evil things either.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 23 May 18 4.44pm Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Originally posted by Stuk

Your attempt at debating this has been so garbled that it's ridiculous. Going off about a shopping addiction and chasing losses, when I've never conflated the two issues. I never even mentioned a "shopping addiction" at all. I have simply stated that you can easily lose as much money, as quickly, in numerous other ways which you've not once been able, or chosen, to counter.

I couldn't give a monkeys if they banned them altogether, but don't set spending limits on something legal.

Mentioning things like "heart", "conscience" and "society" over and over in a look at how caring I am way isn't debating the point. Nor is mentioning things like "shareholders" or "profits" as though they're intrinsically evil things either.

Evidently.

You’ve brought in other high spending habits, and none of them are anything like spinning your wages away in the blink of an eye.

Society and conscience has everything to do with it because that’s why they’re going (down to £2 which reduces the financial damage to very little).

We either have a society that protects its own or we don’t. I know what I’d rather have.

And there’s a smoking restriction in almost every public place apart from the pavement so maybe we should remove those restrictions so people can smoke themselves to respiratory and heart disease and lung cancer.

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 23 May 18 4.51pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Evidently.

You’ve brought in other high spending habits, and none of them are anything like spinning your wages away in the blink of an eye.

Society and conscience has everything to do with it because that’s why they’re going (down to £2 which reduces the financial damage to very little).

We either have a society that protects its own or we don’t. I know what I’d rather have.

And there’s a smoking restriction in almost every public place apart from the pavement so maybe we should remove those restrictions so people can smoke themselves to respiratory and heart disease and lung cancer.

Some of them are more expensive.

Your last sentence proves the numerous flaws in what you think is logic... They didn't bring in those restrictions to protect those who choose to smoke!

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 23 May 18 4.55pm Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Originally posted by Stuk

Some of them are more expensive.

Your last sentence proves the numerous flaws in what you think is logic... They didn't bring in those restrictions to protect those who choose to smoke!

But they do protect smokers Jim. And the controls on gambling are going to be to protect society and in particular the families and dependents of people spending all their wages and more on absolutely nothing but an inevitable debt spiral.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (23 May 2018 4.56pm)

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 8 of 9 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > General Talk > Betting Shop gambling Machines