I thought it was quite sad for Alan Potts who spent his life as a full time punter and the âaffordability checksâ wouldnât acknowledge money made from betting.
Pp restricting accounts because you know a little on racing but allow you have a tenner on a football game is crazy.
Pubs or restaurants can end up in court if they refuse customers.
A totally independent regulator where a bookmaker could report a customer if they are giving off signs would be ok and said regulator could carry out checks would be fair.
Handing over your bank statements to god knows who in paddy power is nothing to do with helping addicts.
Whatâs app bookmakers or whatever else are so prevalent nowadays mean they donât really work anyway.
I see heâs ignored this one again when pressed for some facts
[/quote]
Thereâs no regulation in Britain either and yet thereâs affordability checks but of course you are so stupid itâs not even worth pointing out. like you know bookmakers actually saying they are carrying out affordability checks was highlighted to you and still wasnât enough for you realise they are happening so there isnât much point going any further.
So you still have no examples of it happening in Ireland then is what youâre saying? We keep asking you about Ireland and you keep talking about Britain
I posted you an example of an Irish operator discussing
Carrying out affordability checks and why he was doing so and you ignored it because youâre clueless and can never admit when you are wrong.
You havenât a breeze but it wonât stop you going around in circles clutching at straws.
Itâs well known mate that bookies have profited from criminality. People who have no employment, yet are spending 1000s in bookies, who lap it up. There are plenty of other cases where people remortgaged their houses to gamble away their only asset. Then there are people who stole from employers to fund their addiction. People who spent their life savings. People who spent their weekly wages. It has been take take by the bookies, nothing to see here and you still canât see the merit in affordability checks.
Honestly mate, youâre even more clueless than I had given you credit for. Of course the affordability checks would prevent this. Itâs quiet simple. If the legislation is enacted then the bookie will have to legally satisfy himself that their client can afford to lose. If the punter has remortgaged the house to bet, the bookie will not be allowed to accept his bets. Similarly, if someone is betting a far greater percentage of their weekly salary, then they will not be allowed place these stakes. These are good measures to prevent the ruination of gambling addicts.
Mac and I have asked you to cite what big players in Ireland are carrying out these affordability checks and youâve come up with nothing, but bluster, spoofery and insults.
Iâll post them up again when you log back into the bookinsiders account.
Insults? You were the same individual who tried to insinuate another poster had a gambling indication because he posted up a lucky 15 on your beloved equine thread.
Please list the bookmakers that are carrying out affordability checks in Ireland. I know for a fact that none of the big players do. I never insulted anyone on here about a lucky 15 and have nothing to do with these other posters, despite your protestations.
Is restricting accounts that lose x not better? If bookies restricted losing accounts with same vigour as winning acounts, it would protect problem gamblers better.
These are the same bookmakers that desperately lobbied against the removal of credit cards for online accounts and the same with limits on fobts in shops.
I think thatâs a fair point, but we all know that bookies treasure huge losing accounts, which is the reason for the 12 year delay in enacting the gambling bill, which was first mooted in 2009, drafted in 2012, but has yet to be brought into legislation.