Why are UK authorities useless?

[PAWS]

Re: Why are UK authorities useless?

I hate those machines but my real gripe is online gambling. Most of us have a flutter now and again especially if we go to the Dogs or Gee Gees but it is just the constant promise of easy money and fun in their adverts that drives me bananas. They never show the consequences.
I know that no one is forced into a betting shop but what about the argument against advertising tobacco products? Why will people all over the country drop like flies if someone bearing a faint resemblance to the Marlboro man appears on the side of a racing car? Yet every two seconds an ad for online gambling is on the telly. At least you have to make an effort to go out and get a packet of fags which gives you time to think and, well, a bit of exercise. 24/7 and without moving you’re a*** you can gamble. You do not even need cash up front to get sucked in.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Why are UK authorities useless?

A couple of weeks ago I was placing a football bet at a local Paddy Power in a - supposedly - wealthy North London suburb. As usual, there were Eastern European types playing FOTs. One of the lost quite heavily and smashed the machine.

The shop was full of broken glass. What happened next? Not much. The Paddy Power cashier just wiped the glass away as if nothing had happened!

It's obvious that the betting industry doesn't want to involve the police. At the end of the day, too many calls to the police and someone might even take notice and restrict, if not ban these machines.

The government officials keep on saying that there's no evidence that the FOTs cause problems and anti-social behaviour.

Sadly, if the police don't get called, there isn't going to be much evidence, is there?

Unfortunately, the UK is no longer the country I want to live in. I am currently making arrangements to move. At least I'm lucky to be fluent in another European language, hence not stuck here forever.

I hate those machines but my real gripe is online gambling. Most of us have a flutter now and again especially if we go to the Dogs or Gee Gees but it is just the constant promise of easy money and fun in their adverts that drives me bananas. They never show the consequences.

Yes, online gambling makes it potentially possible to lose everything you own without leaving your home, at any time of day or night. Some of us don't live anywhere hear a betting shop, but that's no longer an issue when you can play Foxy Bingo!

I know that no one is forced into a betting shop but what about the argument against advertising tobacco products? Why will people all over the country drop like flies if someone bearing a faint resemblance to the Marlboro man appears on the side of a racing car? Yet every two seconds an ad for online gambling is on the telly. At least you have to make an effort to go out and get a packet of fags which gives you time to think and, well, a bit of exercise. 24/7 and without moving you’re a*** you can gamble. You do not even need cash up front to get sucked in.

Totally agree, I guess the reason why tobacco has got such bad publicity is because of the effects of secondhand smoke, i.e. non-smokers being affected by smokers , however, the consequences of gambling, which is as addictive as tobacco if not more, can also be far-reaching and affect others, not in the same way as tobacco smoke but gambling does affect family members of the gamblers.

I know someone who got so addicted to gambling they ended up stealing money to gamble. As with all gamblers, they don't see it as stealing but borrowing, the intention is always to win, keep the profits and return the money taken. When they lose, they feel compelled to take more money to try and recoup their losses, and it just goes downhill from there.

Ever since I was a kid on another millennium and long before the word 'online' was invented, I always heard stories of people, some very wealthy, who had lost everything either on the horses or playing poker, etc. without ever setting foot in a casino. Online gambling isn't going to make things much better.

[seduraed]

Re: Why are UK authorities useless?

Prsonally I now don't gamble at all . Dogs Gee gees slots in the pub raffles or lotteries. I have moral doubts about taking part in the local tombola.
I have several objections , first gambling encourages the attitude tha you to think you will get something for nothing .
If I win then someone else has had to lose, so to my mind i've stolen their money.
Ten there are the dangers of addiction . Gambling also sets a bad example to others and I try to live according to the leading of the spirit and my principals I cannot in all conscience campaign against the relaxation in gambling but take advantage of it .

[Excel]

Re: Why are UK authorities useless?

Yet every two seconds an ad for online gambling is on the telly. At least you have to make an effort to go out and get a packet of fags which gives you time to think and, well, a bit of exercise. 24/7 and without moving you’re a*** you can gamble. You do not even need cash up front to get sucked in.

Ten there are the dangers of addiction

We now have internet celebrities like Sodapoppin gambling the donations they receive.

like this

and this

[PAWS]

Re: Why are UK authorities useless?

We now have internet celebrities like Sodapoppin gambling the donations they receive.

like this

and this

That is shocking!

[hayclan]

Re: Why are UK authorities useless?

Ha ha ha ha. Good one. x

[Crazy council]

Re: Why are UK authorities useless?

I only gamble on women..... ( and loose a lot )

But onto the original question Why are the Uk authority’s so bad

Pullmand Iron law of bureaucracy

Pournelle has suggested several "laws". His first use of the term "Pournelle's law" appears to be for the expression "one user, one CPU." He has also used "Pournelle's law" to apply to the importance of checking cable connections when diagnosing computer problems. His best-known "law" is "Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy":
In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely. He has restated it as:
...in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.

[meellis]

Re: Why are UK authorities useless?

I was talking to a customer the other day and we got onto a similar observation. This was that people who are good at their job don't get promoted but lesser people do. Probably because it is harder to replace good people than less good people who wouldn't be missed from their role.

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Why are UK authorities useless?

I was talking to a customer the other day and we got onto a similar observation. This was that people who are good at their job don't get promoted but lesser people do. Probably because it is harder to replace good people than less good people who wouldn't be missed from their role.

There may also be another reason, sometimes people in management positions feel threatened by those who are more capable than themselves and think they may end up taking their jobs away from them, or at least making them look foolish, so they'd rather not promote them. :tinysmile_hmm_t2: