Gambling - Niall McNamee's and John Hartson's troubles

Started by theticklemister, January 08, 2015, 11:18:00 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

T Fearon

My bets tend to be of a measly £1 on five or six teams accumulating returns of £30 on average if successful.I reckon I break even over a year and simply get a kick out of following the teams backed.I know I'm never going to bust the bookies.

I'm not denying gambling causes problems but our young people are more amenable to the misuse of alcohol and drugs and no amount of regulation has lessened this problem.

Certainly there is need for education etc but people with any additiction should be encouraged to seek personal help and therapy as early as possible.

yellowcard

"I should be living in a £4m mansion on the edge of the Vale of Glamorgan but I'm not because of all the money I wasted. I've got a nice house in Swansea, and it's paid for, but that's what I should have when you think about the money I earned.

I've always liked Hartson, seems like a sound fellow but that comment is a bit crass.

T Fearon

Why earning the sort of money he earned,would Hartson have become addicted to gambling?

muppet

Quote from: T Fearon on January 10, 2015, 02:45:43 PM
Why earning the sort of money he earned,would Hartson have become addicted to gambling?

Tony, normally I would take the piss but I will refrain this time.

Do you really not understand this? Or are you winding us up?
MWWSI 2017

RealSpiritof98

Quote from: T Fearon on January 09, 2015, 11:06:35 PM
Regulation will drive it into pubs,clubs etc.All addictions can be beaten with willpower and adequate support.I have been gambling modestly since the late 70s,and I think my largest ever bet was £10.Im afraid it would only take me to lose a substantial amount of money once (if I was silly enough to stake a serious amount of money in the first place) to deter me from ever doing so again.

By the way if you have online betting accounts you get bombarded with copious email/text offers so the TVs ads make no difference.

On the same subject Skybet's enhanced 5/1 on a Chelsea,Man City,West Brom treble tomorrow is well worth a fiver,but nothing larger!

A truly disgusting post in a thread most likely being viewed by those have problems with gambling.

QuoteI am a regular small gambler (rarely a day would pass without me having a wager) but it is small,

Quotebut they don't close them in fact they sent me to Man Utd V Liverpool just before Xmas just for placing a £5 bet on a premiership game ( a bet that was successful too)

No Tony them 2 quotes have no relation whatsoever and you keep telling yourself that, them bookies are lovely jubbly lads.

Quote from: T Fearon on January 10, 2015, 09:46:58 AM
Will re regulating gambling solve the problem of addiction?

Addiction is a personality trait and requires appropriate medical/social services/therapeutic intervention.It has no correlation to advertising or statutory regulation.

No it wont solve the problem, but when a flood bank bursts do you try and stem the flow? Yes of course you do.

QuoteHas advertising bans reduced the number of alcoholics or smokers? I don't think so.

You think wrong, simple research shows in many countries smoking has reduced.

Your stance here is that of a man standing in a corner with his fingers in his ears shouting 'I dont care what they say Im right, you're wrong'. Pretty much your view on pedophilia in the Catholic Church.

Some views can't be changed, everyone is entitled to an opinion but the fact that your trolling this thread speaks volumes of the person you are.

T Fearon

I am not trolling.Addiction of any sort is a personal malfunction that needs to be treated therapeutically,not by regulating the "vices", which will have no impact whatsoever.Taking the "regulation" logic why not ban alcohol,smoking and gambling altogether then?

muppet

Quote from: T Fearon on January 10, 2015, 05:43:39 PM
I am not trolling.Addiction of any sort is a personal malfunction that needs to be treated therapeutically,not by regulating the "vices", which will have no impact whatsoever.Taking the "regulation" logic why not ban alcohol,smoking and gambling altogether then?

There is certainly an argument for banning smoking altogether. 100m dead customers so far and an estimated 1BN more to come.

Alcohol, unlike smoking, has some benefits and doesn't bother most customers. However you have to weigh up the negative impact on those it does affect. Is it worth it? Balanced regulation is the obvious answer here.

Gambling is too difficult to define. For example a lot of our banks would have to close if you banned any definition of gambling and most of our economies are build on some speculation. Communism probably works without it, but is that what we want?

MWWSI 2017

T Fearon

But if the argument of regulation etc is valid then surely the best way to avoid addiction is to ban the "vice" entirely?

muppet

Quote from: T Fearon on January 10, 2015, 06:01:55 PM
But if the argument of regulation etc is valid then surely the best way to avoid addiction is to ban the "vice" entirely?

Why does 'regulation' mean 'ban altogether' to you?

We regulate the markets, we regulate driving on the road, they even have regulations in all the competitions you tell us you enter.
MWWSI 2017

T Fearon

I'm talking about so called vices.If the logic states that regulation will lead to less addiction why not follow that through and ban them altogether and have no addiction?

muppet

Quote from: T Fearon on January 10, 2015, 06:18:12 PM
I'm talking about so called vices.If the logic states that regulation will lead to less addiction why not follow that through and ban them altogether and have no addiction?

Are road deaths not 'vices'?

Are economic crashes not highly undesirable outcomes.

What you are doing is is taking a reasonable point, in this case regulation for industries known to cause harm, and are trying to move the focal point to banning it altogether. Once there you will hope to have support in arguing against that, pretending that this was what the debate was about all along. It isn't. You are the only one talking about banning everything.

It happens on most threads here Tony and everyone sees through it.
MWWSI 2017

T Fearon

But banks,road travel etc are all fundamental to our existence,gambling,tobacco or alcohol aren't.So if the point of the called for regulation of these three is to reduce addiction why not outlaw all three?

muppet

Quote from: T Fearon on January 10, 2015, 06:41:38 PM
But banks,road travel etc are all fundamental to our existence,gambling,tobacco or alcohol aren't.So if the point of the called for regulation of these three is to reduce addiction why not outlaw all three?

How is banking fundamental to our existence?
MWWSI 2017


muppet

Quote from: T Fearon on January 10, 2015, 07:00:25 PM
Er hub of economy?

If your argument is economic then scrapping the other 3 industries doesn't wash.

As for banks, the sooner we reduce their reckless influence the better.

You still haven't explained why, as usual, the argument has to be polarised into no regulation or ban altogether.

MWWSI 2017