Letter to 11 clubs (including Forest) about gambling ads

[paz1967]

Yes, gambling advertising should go the way of tobacco.

and pharma

 

[paz1967]

Ive been outspoken on this subject but rarely had much agreement from fans. I dont want gambling and drugs on the shirt and I couldnt even buy a shirt without the advertising on. Its the city of Nottingham, get more local sponsors, sod the media, help the city. If you want to go national get sponsored by carrots or apples or a fitness app, something that belongs in the wellbeing sector as sport is in

 

[mao tse tung]

So because research is funded and people get paid, none of it can be trusted?

Yes, effectively.

When was the last time a University published a paper which had findings contrary to the wishes of the people who commissioned it?

You only have to look at the colossal farce with Global Warming; for every expert on one side of the argument there is another one with opposite views.

Surely they cannot all be right.

Are any of them right?

 

[mao tse tung]

That's both true and nonsense

Well that depends on who funded JC21s post

 

[Strett]

Don't many of the clubs here, that are being asked about promoting gambling, play in the Sky Bet Championship?

 

[mao tse tung]

Doll proved the link between smoking and lung cancer in 1950.
.

And for how long was that report supressed?

"Smoking women (not that kind) were on the increase when the ban in advertising came in"

I'm sorry but I do not believe a word of that; if anything women had become a lot more health conscious than men during that 20 year period before the Ad ban came in.

I can remember a lot of women stopping smoking and drinking during pregnancy, and the campaigns which urged them to do so; that then extended to people getting upset if people smoked near their children.

People who smoked started to become pariahs in the 90's

I would say that at the turn of the Century, smokers were very much in the minority.

The thing that finished off social smoking was the ban; I was living in Ireland in 2004 when they introduced their ban, the effects of which were quite remarkable.

At first you would have 20 or 30 people stood outside smoking in all weather; within weeks that fell to the odd one or two.

I was back over here in 2007 when it was introduced in the UK; I can remember sitting in a Club a couple of weeks before it came in taking the piss out of the few who still smoked, telling them that if the lung cancer did not get them the hypothermia would.

Sure enough, the original novelty of standing outside to smoke soon wore off; thankfully I see very few people smoking these days.

I do not recall the ad ban having any material effect whatsoever; people did not stop smoking in their hoards just because Eddie Irvine and Giancarlo Fisichella had Buzzin Hornets plastered on their F1 cars instead on Benson and Hedges.

I can fully understand why a group of people, people who were in the back pocket of the smoking lobby, people who ignored the scientific evidence at the time, should want to take responsibility for the acts of others though.

You are perfectly free to read and believe the reports those people published, just like some of us are free to read other forms of fiction.

 

[radfordinlondon]

The relevant question is what it is that is on either side of the line.
On the one side, you have the harm caused by problem gambling.
On the other side, you have individual freedom to gamble. Or do you? Actually no.
Its not as contentious as say, gun control in the USA because we aren't talking about stopping people from gambling, only stopping the gambling companies from advertising.
So drawing the line isn't actually that difficult.
The plus side is you will help mitigate problem gambling to some degree.
The downside is less profit for gambling companies.

Gambling is not illegal, if you dont want to prejudice either side, drawing the line objectively is quite difficult without one side or the other calling foul.

 

[radfordinlondon]

And how do you change this?

Well, according to the following study, banning advertising is the best way to change long term societal attitudes to an issue.

https://www.begambleaware.org/media...ng-and-advertising-synthesis-report_final.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/society...me-gamblers-due-to-high-volume-of-betting-ads

Changing social attitudes is a complex process. Advertising is but one facet. Not insignificant but by no means a dominent force. If i was a legal business i would question the legitimacy of interfering with peoples attitude towards me.

 

[radfordinlondon]

You aren't wrong, but I think you are a bit too black and white about this.

You are correct that smoking comes from family and community. Working at a middle class school and then moving to a school in one of the most deprived white working class areas (and the white part was important, as I have never encountered a black student who smokes and very few asian students) you could see a huge jump in the amount of students/expectation of smoking; both tobacco and other substances.

But advertising also conveys an air of social acceptability that smoking has very much lost, especially outside of families and communities where it is common.

So I agree, a child of a family that smokes is vastly more likely to smoke. But not all of them will, and in every generation some of those kids won't. Gradually you see rapidly dropping numbers unless some take it up without parental influence. Without the advertising, and the consequent social acceptability, it is surely far less likely that "new" people will take it up and introduce it into their family.

I dont disagree. Problem reduced, but not solved. That might also be ok

 

[radfordinlondon]

You're absolutely right. It would provide no support for those people at all.

Not like u to miss the nuance

 

[radfordinlondon]

Nor Doll's other work, apparently..

We were talking about his original work into the link between smoking and cancer. Tell me mao is wrong about the commercialisation of research. As someone who has carried a good deal of social research i can tell you there is plenty of pressure out there.

 

[weejockmcplop]

Changing social attitudes is a complex process. Advertising is but one facet. Not insignificant but by no means a dominent force. If i was a legal business i would question the legitimacy of interfering with peoples attitude towards me.

There's more to it than legal/illegal though. Gambling is a regulated business, with regulations that apply specifically and only to gambling as an industry (for example, the £2 limit on FOBTs).
Funnily enough, the industry did 'question' (ie donate tons of money, make threats, lobby etc.) the decision to limit FOBTs as well, just as i'm sure they would question an advertising ban.
Make no mistake, this will happen at some point. The government is doing constant reviews into gambling harm and each one they do recommends more measures, because the situation we're in now could be described as the companies running amok.
They shouldn't be running ads when kids will be watching, ever. This includes sport.

 

[mao tse tung]

There's more to it than legal/illegal though. Gambling is a regulated business, with regulations that apply specifically and only to gambling as an industry (for example, the £2 limit on FOBTs).
Funnily enough, the industry did 'question' (ie donate tons of money, make threats, lobby etc.) the decision to limit FOBTs as well, just as i'm sure they would question an advertising ban.
Make no mistake, this will happen at some point. The government is doing constant reviews into gambling harm and each one they do recommends more measures, because the situation we're in now could be described as the companies running amok.
They shouldn't be running ads when kids will be watching, ever. This includes sport.

The Government will take very little action because they know full well that most of the actions being proposed will be counter productive.

The latest fad being affordability checks on Gamblers, a measure which will only increase the activity in the Black Market if imposed.

Not only is that market unregulated but there is also no levy paid by those who operate it; you end up then with the double whammy of loss of income and control.

Before people start to campaign for new regulations, they should be insisting current regulations imposed are implemented in full.

Bookmakers know who the problem Gamblers are and should not be taking money from them; if that regulation was rigidly enforced a lot of the problem would go away.

If Bookmakers do not comply, increase the levels of punishment so that they far outweigh the crime.

There does not appear to be the appetite in Government to upset the Bookmakers at the moment; in fact the Right Honourable member for Newmarket cosies up to them, in his attempts to get more and more money for some of constituents; and he is a big beast in the Party these days

Preventing Newcastle from having FUNBET 88 and Wolves from having MANBET X on their shirts will have zero effect on problem Gamblers in this Country.

And as for running Ads when Children are watching; it is illegal for Children to place bets.

The only way a Child can bet is if an adult places the bet for them; and then you come full circle to the real reason for problem Gambling; influences in the family.

Starting kids off with Gambling and then running round pointing the finger elsewhere when things get out of control is an abdication of responsibility; its one thing asking for help with problems like Gambling but being in denial helps no one, particularly the victims.

You can regulate the Gambling industry all you want, right up to the point where it is driven underground, and it will have little impact; you will still have problem Gamblers, only with far bigger problems.

 

[weejockmcplop]

The Government will take very little action because they know full well that most of the actions being proposed will be counter productive.

The latest fad being affordability checks on Gamblers, a measure which will only increase the activity in the Black Market if imposed.

Not only is that market unregulated but there is also no levy paid by those who operate it; you end up then with the double whammy of loss of income and control.

Before people start to campaign for new regulations, they should be insisting current regulations imposed are implemented in full.

Bookmakers know who the problem Gamblers are and should not be taking money from them; if that regulation was rigidly enforced a lot of the problem would go away.

If Bookmakers do not comply, increase the levels of punishment so that they far outweigh the crime.

There does not appear to be the appetite in Government to upset the Bookmakers at the moment; in fact the Right Honourable member for Newmarket cosies up to them, in his attempts to get more and more money for some of constituents; and he is a big beast in the Party these days

Preventing Newcastle from having FUNBET 88 and Wolves from having MANBET X on their shirts will have zero effect on problem Gamblers in this Country.

And as for running Ads when Children are watching; it is illegal for Children to place bets.

The only way a Child can bet is if an adult places the bet for them; and then you come full circle to the real reason for problem Gambling; influences in the family.

Starting kids off with Gambling and then running round pointing the finger elsewhere when things get out of control is an abdication of responsibility; its one thing asking for help with problems like Gambling but being in denial helps no one, particularly the victims.

You can regulate the Gambling industry all you want, right up to the point where it is driven underground, and it will have little impact; you will still have problem Gamblers, only with far bigger problems.

in 2018 the gambling industry was worth 14.8 billion quid.
Are you telling me that this 14.8 billion would all go into underground gambling?
Nah.
Underground unregulated gambling is a thing, but a very small thing, and even in the case that gambling is made illegal (something which once again I'll say no-one is asking for), its not going to get huge.

For reference, the estimated value of black market gambling in the US, where gambling is illegal in many places, is $1.4 billion. That's less than 10% the size of the UKs legal gambling market, and the US has 6 times the population.

However, this is once again one of the stupid arguments put forward by the marketing departments of the big gambling companies who have absolutely no idea how the real world works. Next you'll be going all bleeding heart about job losses if the gambling industry loses the revenue they get from addicts.

When you advertise things to kids, you tell them that those things are fine and acceptable. This is how advertising contributes to the long term acceptability of an idea. Kids grow up thinking gambling is fine, some of those kids will become problem gamblers, whereas without the constant stream of adverts some of them wouldn't have.

Finally, ONCE AGAIN FFS, the people who wrote this letter aren't asking for gambling companies to take their names off shirts. People are asking that they can please browse Facebook and follow their football team without being told to gamble every time they want to message their mum.

So the strawman you are using here is that people are trying to ban gambling and hate gamblers (They're trying to take our guns!). That is not real. People are asking that they are able to follow football while being left alone by gambling companies and not have their addiction deliberately triggered.

 

[weejockmcplop]

Just another point, it is perfectly legal for a child in this country to place a bet.
All you need to do is create one step of removal between the paying of money and the bet.
Let's look at loot boxes in FIFA. People often assume that this isn't 'real gambling' but it is precisely that. You pay for an in game 'credit' which you can then gamble ona loot box with a fixed odds outcome (fixed against the 'value' of the outcome).

Because you aren't directly gambling your money on this, rather in game credits (which you paid real money for) the law as it currently stands does not classify this as 'gambling'.

Interestingly, the animation for opening a loot box has all the exact hallmarks of spinning a roulette wheel on a FOBT. The same timings, the same sounds the exact same neurochemical manipulation, but aimed directly at kids with not even a 5+ age limit.

'What has this got to do with bookies?' you might ask.
I'll answer even if you weren't going to.
Take Konami. They produce a game called 'PES' or 'Pro Evolution Soccer'. This is the second biggest football game behind FIFA in the world. It has an almost identical loot box system for extracting money from the kids playing this game. Konami also produces casino gambling software for online bookies. There is a clear line you can draw between encouraging young children to gamble through video games, the legal gambling industry and the sports industry.
It is not well known about, but it should be. Its evil.

 

[Calvin Plummer]

Just another point, it is perfectly legal for a child in this country to place a bet.
All you need to do is create one step of removal between the paying of money and the bet.
Let's look at loot boxes in FIFA. People often assume that this isn't 'real gambling' but it is precisely that. You pay for an in game 'credit' which you can then gamble ona loot box with a fixed odds outcome (fixed against the 'value' of the outcome).

Because you aren't directly gambling your money on this, rather in game credits (which you paid real money for) the law as it currently stands does not classify this as 'gambling'.

Interestingly, the animation for opening a loot box has all the exact hallmarks of spinning a roulette wheel on a FOBT. The same timings, the same sounds the exact same neurochemical manipulation, but aimed directly at kids with not even a 5+ age limit.

'What has this got to do with bookies?' you might ask.
I'll answer even if you weren't going to.
Take Konami. They produce a game called 'PES' or 'Pro Evolution Soccer'. This is the second biggest football game behind FIFA in the world. It has an almost identical loot box system for extracting money from the kids playing this game. Konami also produces casino gambling software for online bookies. There is a clear line you can draw between encouraging young children to gamble through video games, the legal gambling industry and the sports industry.
It is not well known about, but it should be. Its evil.

Be fair, PES has been around for over 25 years and it certainly wasn't built with gambling in mind. They're undoubtedly a repugnant addition however.

 

[weejockmcplop]

Be fair, PES has been around for over 25 years and it certainly wasn't built with gambling in mind. They're undoubtedly a repugnant addition however.

Oh for sure, but the gambling mechanics in the game only started happening because they realised FIFA were getting away with it.
You can't deny the link between loot boxes and FOBTs (the 'crack cocaine of gambling') when there's a company who specializes in producing both of these things, and they work in identical ways.
I only bring this up because I think it needs exposing the way bookies have gotten their dirty hands into every facet of kids' lives, from their mobile phones and social media to their video games - to the point where there is barely any separation between what bookies are doing and what video game companies are doing, and often if there is no exchange of money and personnel between bookies and their contractors and the video game industry then its because they are one and the same.
They use football as the medium through which to do this. This is nothing less than a conspiracy running through multiple industries to get kids addicted to gambling. Why wouldn't they? Its legal, and generates profit. Its capitalism at its purest.

For a nice fun challenge, I'd like to challenge everyone to go find a well known football podcast that isn't taking money from bookies, and if you can't maybe go find a football podcast where they discuss gambling harm and the links between football and bookies.

 

[Calvin Plummer]

Oh for sure, but the gambling mechanics in the game only started happening because they realised FIFA were getting away with it.
You can't deny the link between loot boxes and FOBTs (the 'crack cocaine of gambling') when there's a company who specializes in producing both of these things, and they work in identical ways.
I only bring this up because I think it needs exposing the way bookies have gotten their dirty hands into every facet of kids' lives, from their mobile phones and social media to their video games - to the point where there is barely any separation between what bookies are doing and what video game companies are doing, and often if there is no exchange of money and personnel between bookies and their contractors and the video game industry then its because they are one and the same.
They use football as the medium through which to do this. This is nothing less than a conspiracy running through multiple industries to get kids addicted to gambling. Why wouldn't they? Its legal, and generates profit. Its capitalism at its purest.

For a nice fun challenge, I'd like to challenge everyone to go find a well known football podcast that isn't taking money from bookies, and if you can't maybe go find a football podcast where they discuss gambling harm and the links between football and bookies.

I agree, it's based on the gacha model of games which essentially is a skinner box...

Loot boxes are coming under parliamentary scrutiny and some countries have banned them.

I'd much rather they followed the fortnite model.

 

[mao tse tung]

Just another point, it is perfectly legal for a child in this country to place a bet.
All you need to do is create one step of removal between the paying of money and the bet.
Let's look at loot boxes in FIFA. People often assume that this isn't 'real gambling' but it is precisely that. You pay for an in game 'credit' which you can then gamble ona loot box with a fixed odds outcome (fixed against the 'value' of the outcome).

Because you aren't directly gambling your money on this, rather in game credits (which you paid real money for) the law as it currently stands does not classify this as 'gambling'.

Interestingly, the animation for opening a loot box has all the exact hallmarks of spinning a roulette wheel on a FOBT. The same timings, the same sounds the exact same neurochemical manipulation, but aimed directly at kids with not even a 5+ age limit.

'What has this got to do with bookies?' you might ask.
I'll answer even if you weren't going to.
Take Konami. They produce a game called 'PES' or 'Pro Evolution Soccer'. This is the second biggest football game behind FIFA in the world. It has an almost identical loot box system for extracting money from the kids playing this game. Konami also produces casino gambling software for online bookies. There is a clear line you can draw between encouraging young children to gamble through video games, the legal gambling industry and the sports industry.
It is not well known about, but it should be. Its evil.

It is not perfectly legal for a child to place a bet in this Country; the legal age for placing a bet is 18 years old in any licenced outlet and 16 years old for any lottery.

The rules for fixed odds betting is also quite clear; you need to be 18 years old.

The bit amount not betting with real money does not make any sense either; you do not bet with real money in a Casino, you buy Chips; whether you play with credits or chips, if there is a monetary value it is Gambling


https://www.gamblingcommission.gov....for betting,with a licensed gambling business.

 

[radfordinlondon]

There's more to it than legal/illegal though. Gambling is a regulated business, with regulations that apply specifically and only to gambling as an industry (for example, the £2 limit on FOBTs).
Funnily enough, the industry did 'question' (ie donate tons of money, make threats, lobby etc.) the decision to limit FOBTs as well, just as i'm sure they would question an advertising ban.
Make no mistake, this will happen at some point. The government is doing constant reviews into gambling harm and each one they do recommends more measures, because the situation we're in now could be described as the companies running amok.
They shouldn't be running ads when kids will be watching, ever. This includes sport.

I get where you are coming from. In my younger days i was involved as a hunt saboteur despite the fact hunting with dogs was legal at the time. I do think gambling should be regulated but ultimately if you decide gambling is a legal passtime then, imeo, you are better off targeting support to those who need it rather than a blanket rule that may generate resistance.

I have sympathy with mao's view- bookies know who the problem gamblers are since they see them every day. Start enforcing established rules before creating new ones.