ONLINE NEWS
Sharp rise in UK mobile problem gambling
T
he number of people being treated for gambling addiction on mobile phones and tablet devices has jumped significantly in recent years, according to a new report by the National Problem Gambling Clinic (NPGC).
Published by the BBC, the study shows that while 24% of NPGC patients in 2012-13 were struggling with mobile gambling, this has risen to 63% in 2016-17. The total number of addicts referred to the NHS-supported clinic increased from 632 in 2012-13 to 778 in 2016- 17, despite ongoing efforts in the UK industry to tackle such issues. Of this total, 59% were treated for problems related to the much- criticised fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs), while 59% were also
said to have struggled with sports betting in land-based sites. In addition, 8% of NPGC patients reported problems related to bingo. Dr Neil Smith consultant clinical psychologist and service manager at the NPGC, said: “The use of mobile phones as platforms to gamble on over the preceding five years is not surprising given their ubiquity in society.”
A spokesperson for the UK’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has also called for the industry to take further action over such issues. “There is clearly more work needed in this area,” the spokesperson said, continuing: “We are currently undertaking a review of the gambling sector that includes looking at social responsibility measures across the industry, including protections around gambling advertising.” However, a spokesperson for the Remote Gambling Association has said that the “technological advantages of remote gambling” means that operators have more power to encourage responsible gambling. It was also highlighted that a number of major software companies working on apps to block gaming sites from the phones and tablets of problem gamblers. The revelation comes after the Local Government Association (LGA), formed of local councils in the UK, issued a call for “greater restrictions” on betting-related advertising, in order to help minimise the risk of young people from developing gambling problems.
Easy Payment Gateway partners with Colossus Bets
O
nline payment specialist Easy Payment Gateway has entered into a partnership with Colossus Bets. Under the deal, Easy Payment Gateway will
provide the sports betting operator with its suite of payment processors and services. Colossus Bets will gain access to over 220 different payment acquirers, solutions and wallets, with support from the Easy Payment Gateway real-time reporting and transaction routing services. “Easy Payment Gateway offers a vast array of
processors and wallets, which will strengthen the payment options we provide our players,” Colossus Bets’ chief operating officer David O’Reilly said. “The backend management of our customer payments will also be streamlined and simplified through our EPG integration.”
The news comes after Easy Payment Gateway in July announced that it had been able to generate £5.5m (6.2m Euro/$7.3m) in a funding round.
UK councils call for curb T
he Local Government Association (LGA), formed of local councils in the UK, has said betting-related advertising needs “greater
restrictions” in order to minimise the risk of young people developing gambling problems. In a statement on its website, the LGA cited research that said almost one in nine children aged 11-15 are “following” gambling companies on social media, adding that the second-highest rates of problem gambling lie in the 16- 24 age category.
The LGA also highlighted figures from Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator, which show that gambling advertising soared by 5,000% between 2007 – when betting firms were first allowed to advertise on television – and 2012. Cllr Simon Blackburn, chair of the LGA Safer and Stronger Communities
Board, said: “Gambling advertising on television has rocketed since the Gambling Act came into force in 2007, which is a major concern for councils who are aware of the personal harm that problem gambling can cause. The rise in both televised sporting events, such as Premier League football, and gambling advertising means viewers, particularly children, are being exposed to increasing amounts of gambling brands and betting messages. “While the Gambling Act was intended to position gambling as an acceptable leisure activity, we are concerned that the volume of gambling advertising goes beyond what can be deemed the right balance between socially responsible growth and protecting individuals and communities. The
60 OCTOBER 2017
Government should seriously consider tighter restrictions on gambling advertising that is easily accessible to, and seen by children.” The LGA has also backed calls for the government to lower the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs). The machines have been the subject of debate, with campaign groups and many MPs wanting the top stake to be cut from £100 (114 Euro/$134) per spin to just £2. In its Budget submission, the LGA has declared its support for this move, adding that cumulative impact tests should also be introduced to “enable councils to reject applications for new betting shops where there are already existing clusters of shops when government announces its imminent review of gaming machines and social responsibility measures”. Blackburn added: “Councils are increasingly frustrated over their lack of powers to curb the proliferation of FOBTs – which currently exceed 34,000 in the UK – and the concentration of betting shops on high streets. Lowering maximum FOBT stakes to £2 in line with other gaming machines would help protect those at risk of problem gambling from incurring higher losses. “Councils are not anti-bookies, but a new cumulative impact test would give them the power to veto new betting shops – and FOBTs - in places where there are already existing clusters. Problem gambling can lead to spiraling debt, deteriorating mental health and wellbeing, and a toll on society – and taxpayers - through crime and disorder, family breakdown and homelessness. It’s vital that improved social responsibility measures are implemented to help to reduce this.”
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 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78
