BETTER CHANGE
pressure. It may be that that is often the case, but I think we would be naïve to think that there is not another agenda at play. There is a rational argument that hitting an affordability check threshold, a mandatory spend limit or time limit is not necessarily a marker of harm and if we treat it as such, we are at risk of massively inflating the numbers of those at risk. It is also fair to assume that those experiencing low levels of harm due to a period of overindulgence may well drop back to safe levels of gambling. I did this myself recently during the Cheltenham festival. I spent a little more than usual and if I am honest chased losses in one race by betting on a race I was not intending to, to try and get my “revenge” on the bookie. This behaviour put me on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) in fact it gave me a score of “1” when I completed a self-assessment. Nothing to see here and
nothing to worry about I am sure but in a recent survey in the UK there was an outcome that suggested that 10 million people could be at risk of gambling harm. This figure was calculated by taking any score on the PGSI no matter how small and multiplying it by 10 to factor in those affected by another’s gambling. This for me has two serious connotations, the first being
that by overinflating the numbers and talking about millions of people instead of thousands it perpetuates its own rational for further punitive restrictions which seek to limit, block, ban and stigmatise gambling (remember my comment earlier “there would be no coming back from this”). Gambling in well- regulated environments as opposed to unregulated ones is the best way to promote safer gambling therefore the regulated market has to be competitive with the unregulated market. Secondly, gambling addiction and severe gambling harm is a serious issue, it has devastating consequences for those it affects. We should not be making them harder to find by exaggerating the numbers to prove a political point nor should we be stigmatising gambling to the point that those in need of help are too ashamed to reach out for help. I appreciate this article applies to all forms of gambling and
may not always apply to the casino industry, but I think we need to take heed of what is happening around us and stand up for an industry that I am proud to be a part of and I hope you are too. It reminds me of the very poignant passage “First they came” written by German Pastor Martin Niemöller which is often used in various ways today to warn against apathy and indifference. First they came for the online casinos, but I did not speak out because I was not an online casino. Then they came for advertising and marketing, but I did not speak out because I was not a marketeer. Then they came for sports betting, but I did not speak out
as I was not in sports betting. Then they came for me and there was no-one left to speak out for me. Food for thought.
26 APRIL 2024
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 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
