Gambling Act Review

[Lukeslaw]

Hello all,

 

I am still plugging away in the hope that the Gambling Act review white paper will make some important changes to Gambling laws and make it safer. 

 

The whitepaper has been delayed, again, and I am hoping that once released, so called 'free bets' will be banned as well as some restrictions on Gambling Advertising. 

 

There is a letter that you can now send to your MP 

https://cleanupgambling.com/lobby

That is the last plea to our government to do the right thing. 

 

It takes less than a minute to complete but could make a huge difference to help protect against Gambling harm and future suicides, like my husband's, Luke. 

 

Hope you do not mind me posting and you are not to fed up of me asking you to sign things. 🙂 I do appreciate all of your support 💙💙💙

 

Annie Ashton 

[Zear0]

13 minutes ago, Lukeslaw said:

Hello all,

 

I am still plugging away in the hope that the Gambling Act review white paper will make some important changes to Gambling laws and make it safer. 

 

The whitepaper has been delayed, again, and I am hoping that once released, so called 'free bets' will be banned as well as some restrictions on Gambling Advertising. 

 

There is a letter that you can now send to your MP 

https://cleanupgambling.com/lobby

That is the last plea to our government to do the right thing. 

 

It takes less than a minute to complete but could make a huge difference to help protect against Gambling harm and future suicides, like my husband's, Luke. 

 

Hope you do not mind me posting and you are not to fed up of me asking you to sign things. 🙂 I do appreciate all of your support 💙💙💙

 

Annie Ashton 

Thanks for posting and keep it up! 

[davieG]

Sent.

[FoxesDeb]

Done, I sent it to Neil O'Brien who was my MP before I moved abroad. He's replied to me before when I emailed him about something else, @Lukeslawdo you want us to post replies if we get one?

 

Good luck, and we'll never get fed up with you posting 

[Lukeslaw]

Yes, please! If you get one. 

 

Thank you so much. 💙 

[Collymore]

Fired it off to my local MP Ian Levy (he was the shock at the last election when he took Blyth Valley out of the blue)

 

The area is just bustling with bookies preying on the vulnerable so let's see if I get a response. 

[FoxyPV]

11 hours ago, Lukeslaw said:

Hello all,

 

I am still plugging away in the hope that the Gambling Act review white paper will make some important changes to Gambling laws and make it safer. 

 

The whitepaper has been delayed, again, and I am hoping that once released, so called 'free bets' will be banned as well as some restrictions on Gambling Advertising. 

 

There is a letter that you can now send to your MP 

https://cleanupgambling.com/lobby

That is the last plea to our government to do the right thing. 

 

It takes less than a minute to complete but could make a huge difference to help protect against Gambling harm and future suicides, like my husband's, Luke. 

 

Hope you do not mind me posting and you are not to fed up of me asking you to sign things. 🙂 I do appreciate all of your support 💙💙💙

 

Annie Ashton 

Done

[Collymore]

Received this off Ian Levy today. 

 

 

Dear

 

Thank you for your email. 

 

It is right that the Government review the operation of the Gambling Act 2005 as the nature of gambling has changed enormously since its passage. At that time, online gambling was in its infancy and the Act therefore contains no measures to protect online consumers who may be vulnerable to gambling addiction. I expect these to be one of the main areas of recommendation from the Gambling Review.

 

The Gambling Commission already require operators to take account of affordability. However, I welcome the fact that their proposal that there should be mandatory checks of customers who spend over £100 has been withdrawn. I fully understand the view that a requirement on customers to provide evidence that they can afford to place a bet represents an unacceptable intrusion into individuals’ privacy which does not apply to any other kind of purchase. I also recognise that it carries a real risk of forcing customers to go to the black market where no controls exist at all. 

 

I understand that the Gambling Commission is looking at the role technology and data can play in preventing harm from arising and I will follow developments closely. Furthermore, the Gambling Commission will soon publish its enhanced requirements for customer interaction, thereby making sure gambling operators are doing proper checks, and the Government is looking at this in their review too.

 

With best wishes 

 

 

 

Ian Levy 

[Big Dave]

Sent to my local MP - Philip Hollobone.

[grobyfox1990]

Dear XX,

 

Thank you for getting in contacting regarding our review of the Gambling Act 2005. You have raised a number of interesting points which I have considered carefully.

 

Please be assured that, as former Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, protecting people from the risks of gambling harm is a key priority of mine. We already have a strong track record of introducing tough measures to protect people from the risk of gambling harm - banning the use of credit cards, launching tighter age verification checks and cutting the maximum stake on fixed odds betting terminals.

 

I know that the Gambling Act must be updated for the digital age, and gambling regulation must keep pace with the sector. The comprehensive review of gambling laws we launched in 2020 will ensure we are tackling problem gambling in all its forms to protect children and vulnerable people, while helping those who enjoy placing a bet to do so safely.

 

With regard to the specific points you raise, I would like to reassure you that the scope of the review is wide and we will consider these areas closely.  

 

Online restrictions are a key area which the review will tackle, with protections for online gamblers such as stake and spend limits, advertising and promotional offers, and whether extra protections for young adults are needed all explored.

 

I absolutely appreciate the points you make regarding gambling advertising. Gambling advertising is already subject to strict controls set out in the advertising codes of practice issued by the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice and the Committee of Advertising Practice. Rules on content mean that these adverts must never seek to exploit or appeal to children or vulnerable people, and rules on placement mean that they must never be targeted at these groups. Both the Advertising Standards Authority and the Gambling Commission can take action where gambling advertising is found to be in breach of these rules.

 

However, I understand your call for further action, and you will be pleased to know that this is another key area which our review will cover. Our Call for Evidence included questions on the benefits or harms of allowing operators to advertise and engage in sponsorship arrangements across sports, esports and other areas.

 

With growing public concern about the relationship between sport and gambling, we are seeking evidence on the positive and negative outcomes of this relationship to make sure we can strike an appropriate balance in developing policy. Separate to this review, we are also assessing the broader regulatory system for online advertising through the Online Advertising Programme.

 

We take extremely seriously as well the quality of research into gambling. In July 2020, we secured a commitment from leading operators to increase tenfold their donations to gambling research, education and treatment, with £100 million earmarked for treatment over the next four years. We also announced the opening of up to 15 new specialist clinics in the NHS Long-Term Plan to expand the geographical coverage of NHS services for people who experience serious gambling problems.

 

Moreover, our Call for Evidence included questions pertaining to the barriers to high quality research which informs regulation or policy making, and how can these be overcome. I know as well that the Department of Health is already working with the NHS and GambleAware to ensure the best use of available funding, and to align and integrate the expansion of treatment services across the system so patients get the right treatment at the right time.

 

I appreciate the points you have made regarding a mandatory levy on gambling companies. We have always been clear that should the industry’s voluntary system for supporting projects and services related to problem gambling fail to deliver the level of funding necessary, we would look at the case for alternative funding mechanisms and all options would be considered, including a levy.

 

Ensuring the Gambling Commission is able to regulate effectively and minimise harm is a priority for both the Review and separate ongoing work. The government is continuing to work with the Gambling Commission to respond to the recommendations made by the National Audit Office and subsequently by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), while our Call for Evidence looked at whether the Gambling Commission has sufficient investigation, enforcement and sanctioning powers to effect change in operator behaviour and raise standards.

 

I look forward to seeing the conclusions from the review in a White Paper later this year. In the meantime, I hope this response has reassured you that I take your concerns extremely seriously and that this government is absolutely committed to tackling problem gambling in all its forms.  

 

Thank you again for taking the time to get in contact.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Oliver

 

The Rt Hon Oliver Dowden CBE MP

Member of Parliament for Hertsmere

[Lukeslaw]

Dear Mrs Ashton,

 

Many thanks for your email - I do hope this finds you well.

 

I recognise that gambling is for many people an enjoyable pastime, but equally that for many people it can become a serious problem. While we all want a healthy gambling industry that makes an important contribution to the economy, we must also do everything we can to protect those that use it from harm.

 

Operators providing gambling facilities to customers in Great Britain must be licensed by the Gambling Commission and comply with the conditions of their operating licences. In recent years, the Gambling Commission has also introduced a number of licence conditions specifically in relation to online gambling to ensure the protection of children and vulnerable people. In 2019, the Gambling Commission introduced new age and identity verification rules to ensure operators verify customers’ age and identity details quickly and robustly. Furthermore, in 2020, the Government and Commission strengthened these protections further, including a ban on credit card gambling, making participation in the self-exclusion scheme GAMSTOP mandatory for online operators, as well as issuing new guidance for operators to address the potential for some customers to be at heightened risk during the Covid-19 pandemic. For further information on GAMSTOP, please search: https://www.gamstop.co.uk/.

 

I understand Public Health England’s evidence review of gambling-related harms did not find any review-level evidence that exposure to advertising is a risk factor for harmful gambling. However, I am reassured that my ministerial colleagues are aware that gambling advertising can have a disproportionate impact on some groups, such as those who are already experiencing problems with gambling, and there are aspects of advertising which can appeal to children. While rules are already in place to prevent advertising from causing harm to children and vulnerable people, the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) has recently implemented strengthened protections for adults who are vulnerable to gambling harm. A further announcement on new rules aimed at reducing the appeal of gambling adverts to children is also expected shortly.

 

I am delighted that the Government recognises that it is increasingly apparent that the Gambling Act 2005 is an analogue law in a digital age. The review of the Gambling Act 2005 was launched in December 2020 with the publication of a wide-ranging Call for Evidence. This review is examining online restrictions, marketing and the powers of the Gambling Commission. Furthermore, specifically in regard to online gambling, protections for online gamblers like stake and spend limits, advertising and promotional offers and whether extra protections for young adults are needed are also being explored. I understand that the Government aims to publish a White Paper setting out any conclusions and consulting on next steps in the coming months.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

 

Yours,

 

Alberto

 

[SpacedX]

I think it's important to periodically bump significant threads like this one - particularly since the tougher reforms that the industry is in need of clearly still aren't happening.

 

I am appalled by the notion that the government will not be enacting a statutory levy on gambling operators to compensate for the harm that they inflict. Under the present voluntary donation system the industry provides funding only to those organisations that do not challenge its stance. This absolves blame from these betting firms and directs attention away from the industry's addictive products and harmful practices and is transferred on to those who suffer as a result of them. Thereby, this voluntary system increases the risk of suicide. It needs urgent overhaul and to be replaced by a statutory levy overseen by The Department for Health and Social Care and presided over by public health professionals. The government accepted the overwhelming evidence on the scale of harm caused by gambling. It now needs to show the courage and conviction to effect purposive and direct action - prioritising the lives that this shatters over tax revenues. 

 

Gambling operators routinely 'stake factor' any player who demonstrates any inclination towards winning (or not lose enough) to amounts as low as a few pence. Punters are urged to "bet responsibly", but those that do - in particular avoid straying into the casino offerings - soon find themselves in this scenario. Consequently, the focus of the operators is rash punters that lose, winners or measured gamblers not being tolerated and thus, the maximisation of profits. The Gambling Commission is charged with the task of ensuring that gambling is conducted fairly and openly and it is quite clearly failing to do this. 

 

Reforms to protect people from the harmful impact of gambling were pledged in the 2019 Tory manifesto and yet like so many other ambitious promises of reform the government has reneged and u-turned. 

 

Even compulsive gamblers know that the old adage that the house/bookmaker always wins - evidently it is no different with gambling policy too. 

 

 

[Ric Flair]

It's disgusting but totally predictable from this disgrace of a government.

[Free Falling Foxes]

Update.

On 'Luke's Law'.

Edited 23 November 2022 by Free Falling Foxes

[Wymsey]

41 minutes ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

Update.

On 'Luke's Law'.

It's very traumatic..

Hope @Lukeslawis OK.

I remember her interview bravely discussing the gambling issues and her husband in a Paul Merson documentary earlier in in the year.

 

 

Am confident, eventually, that the betting industry will be more vigilant towards certain customers.

 

 

 

[Daggers]

The betting industry cares about as much for its customers as the tobacco industry does for smokers.

[davieG]

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/betfair-could-done-more-prevent-8562484

 

Betfair could have done more to prevent death of Leicester dad 'consumed' by gambling disorder
The Leicester man lost £5,000 in one month alone before taking his life in April 2021

Bookmark
NEWS
ByCorey Bedford
16:52, 29 JUN 2023UPDATED17:16, 29 JUN 2023

 

A gambling disorder contributed to the death of a father-of-two who took his own life after losing thousands of pounds, a coroner has ruled, and online firm Betfair could have done more to prevent it. Luke Ashton died on April 22 2021, after online gambling “consumed” him and saw him lose £5,000 in one month alone before his death.

The inquest heard the 40-year-old, from Leicester, was making up to 100 bets a day on betting websites and had previously racked up £18,000 in debts due to the “pervasive” gambling addiction. He was described as a “happy” man who had no diagnosed mental health issues, his wife Annie told his inquest.

One of the main operators used by Mr Ashton since 2012, Betfair, which is owned by Flutter UK & Ireland, was named an “interested person” in the inquest – the first time a gambling company has been involved in such proceedings. Coroner Ivan Cartwright concluded at Leicester Coroner’s Court on Thursday a gambling disorder did contribute to his death, adding betting company Betfair could have done more to help him before he took his own life.

The inquest was heard at Leicester Coroner's Court in the town hall
The inquest was heard at Leicester Coroner's Court in the town hall (Image: Getty Images)

 

READ MORE: Betfair's algorithm failed to see 'red flags' in Leicester dad Luke Ashton's betting behaviour

 

Mr Cartwright said: “Luke Ashton was assessed as a low risk gambler although his activity was more intensive in the 10 weeks prior to his death. The operator did not intervene or interact with Luke in any meaningful way.”

Mr Cartwright added that if they had, it “may have changed the outcome”.

He told the inquest that he was planning to produce a prevention of future deaths report within 14 days, and that his “greatest concern” was surrounding interaction and intervention.

Mr Cartwright added: “Luke Ashton died as a result of his own actions. At the time of his death, he was suffering from a gambling disorder that was longstanding and that contributed to the decision to take his own life.”

Three days’ worth of evidence heard at Leicester Coroner's Court between June 14-16 heard that Mr Ashton had become “consumed” by gambling and his activity on the Betfair exchange had spiked in the weeks before he took his own life.

The court heard that a number of "red flags" in Mr Ashton's betting activity which Betfair's algorithm should have flagged. Professor David Forrest, an economist and gambling expert, spoke of his findings after completing a report for the inquest.

In the coroner's court, he said he believed Betfair - a company which Mr Ashton had been a customer with since 2012 - had failed to identify that he was at risk of harm. Professor Forest said that despite the "red flags" in Mr Ashton's betting activity, including the number and frequency of bets as well as the increasing amount of money he was depositing and losing, Betfair's algorithm did not identify his as being at risk.

Instead, they deemed Mr Ashton as 'low risk' and sent off eight automated "awareness" emails. These emails ask you if you'd like to take time out from the site, as well as telling them to consider how much they are spending on bets.

 

Will Prochaska, spokesman for Gambling With Lives, a charity that supports families bereaved by gambling-related suicide, said: “The coroner’s conclusions have shown once again how the gambling industry puts profit over people’s lives, continuing to offer bets when all the signs showed a life was in danger.

“This cannot keep happening, the Gambling Commission must remove gambling operators’ licences when they breach them, and the Government must take its gambling reforms further and faster.”

In a statement, Ian Brown, chief executive of Flutter UKI, Betfair’s parent company, said: “We wish to reiterate our sincere condolences to Mrs Ashton and her family. We are truly sorry for their loss.

“Flutter UKI is committed to doing the right thing and creating an environment for customers to enjoy our products in a safe and sustainable way.

“Over the past three years we have made significant changes to our controls, including mandatory deposit limits for customers who return to our sites after a period of self-exclusion.

“We hold ourselves to the absolute highest standards in the industry and we will, of course, incorporate additional learnings from this tragic case into our systems and processes.”

Anyone who needs support can call Samaritans free of charge on 116 123, email [email protected], or visit the Samaritans website.

[Daggers]

Is everyone called Ian Brown a complete cvnt?

[Voll Blau]

Great to see a firm getting called out by name in the inquest. Hope such a precedent doesn't have to be repeated.