RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING The problem with polarisation Duncan Gavie
Denying the obvious reality that gambling can and does cause social harm is an ‘the emperor has no clothes’ type approach
T
he industry is coming under increased oversight and there is a growing expectation that gambling businesses will ensure that appropriate support services are available for the communities that they market to.
UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUES Research in and around the field of gambling behaviours (both harmful and non-problematic) is rapidly accelerating. This ensures that our understanding of how to manage and minimise the negative consequences of the vastly increased access to gambling that the world has gained with the invention of the internet and smart phones is advancing daily.
Over the last few years, major strides have been made in the safer gambling space. A growing number of jurisdictions have recognised the societal damage that unchecked gambling harm can cause, and are prioritising support for harm minimisation efforts, according to Duncan Gavie, trustee and founder of safer gambling charity BetBlocker.
10 APRIL 2026 GIO
A lot of progress is being made, and things can and will improve over the years to come. However, for all the positive progress that is being made, a core of distrust amongst the various stakeholders is impairing our capacity to deliver the best outcomes for the people that we all aim to support.
For us to deliver the best standards of support – and that is critical, as remote access to gambling is not going away – we need to work together. We need to understand that there are very deeply held and passionate views amongst sector participants. We need to understand that there are financial incentives that do not align well with the welfare of vulnerable people. We need to be able to hear all sides of the conversation, without trying to silence any of them, and engage everyone to support harm minimisation efforts. This means that the industry needs to understand, and accept, that their suggestions about the best approach to harm minimisation are going to be viewed through the lens of acknowledging that their profit maximisation priorities can, and at times very evidently do, undermine the integrity of what they propose. But it also means that the rest of us should strive to view industry recommendations
critically, but not cynically. We should subject them to reasonable and rigorous examination, without defaulting to the assumption that any suggestion the industry makes is compromised by self-interest.
It means that those of us who have not experienced gambling harm first hand should seek out, and listen to, the perspectives of those who have. And that we should work to build systems that would better support the real-world experience of those impacted by compulsive gambling disorder. But it also means that those passionate campaigners, whose real-world experience drives them to fight for positive societal change, must temper their expectations that regulation should bend to their world view. The reality is that the proportion of consumers that experience gambling harm is small, and regulation needs to strive serve the best interests of all consumers.
WORKING TOGETHER
I would consider myself a centrist. I have friends on both sides of this conversation, and I see the positive efforts that are being made by both. But the never-ending squabbling and positioning for influence is actively harming outcomes for the people who need our support. The two camps, whilst publicly signalling otherwise, are prone to positioning themselves to try and exclude, or ignore, the other. You’re seeing this play out in the real world in the UK right now, where the harm minimisation systems have deployed rules that create a hard wall around support services interacting with the industry, whilst the industry recently refused to recognize that their activities caused any social harm.
Both policies are extreme in their nature. Both positions are maximalist in their ideological stances. And both will hurt vulnerable people.
Restricting/discouraging cooperation with the industry may limit industry influence over support services, but it also eliminates the most effective channel that we must communicate the people that need support. The first point of contact for people experiencing problems is a gambling business. Denying the obvious reality that gambling can and does cause social harm is an ‘the emperor has no clothes’ type approach that through its denial of the obvious, reinforces the perception that the industry cannot be trusted, and will lead to the industry not engaging with support services because they refuse to recognise the problem.
And when we don’t talk to each other, and won’t work with each other, that’s when the people we serve really lose.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34
