so a man loses 2 million quid through gambling and it's the fault of the bookmaker?

[wannaBe]

here

Personally I think people should take responsibility for their own actions.

I've heard everything now.

but gambling is an addiction

he tried to take steps provided by the industry but they let him down

they have safeguards for a reason - gambling is an illness and people often go loopy because of it

the guy had tried and tried to put stops in place, he seems to have tried very hard, and those stops should have stayed in place

I agreed on first hearing but then as Cappuccino said, he had asked William Hills to block his account.

I agree that the gambling industry has some responsibility in this, but I can't help but see this fella as a whining spineless wet end who is throwing his toys out of the pram.

He wouldn't be sueing if he'd won £2million, would he?

Yes, he has an illness.
Yes, it's awful for him.
That doesn't make it someone else's problem.

It's like me sueing Mr Kipling for the state of my arse, and demanding he start making exceedingly mediocre cakes.

he's not saying it is 'someone else's problem'

he is saying that William Hill went back on their own safeguards

they are put there to protect addicted gamblers but William Hill abandoned them in order to make a buck

they are a big company in an industry which can ruin lives and they have a duty of care as well as a duty to make a profit, and if they promise something they should keep that promise

The biggest irony is that he made all his money (a fortune) training greyhounds.

Doesn't he get that?????

but he didn't re-open that account, he opened another one.

And according to the artacle, he went into betting shops with cash - you don't have to have a betting account to place a bet with cash - in fact I don't even think you have to give your name to do that.

If he was so determined to beat his addiction why wasn't he seaking professional help? why wasn't he attending gamblers anonomous meetings? He was relying on the industry to take the responsibility for his gambling away from him - he wasn't actually doing it himself.

I don't know on this.

I think William Hill had a responsibilty to not allow him to open another account. But does that make them liable for his gambling? If he had tried to open an account with them and they had refused, would he have found somewhere else to gamble? I think probably yes, so maybe WH shouldn't be liable?

But then if you look at it from this POV, if someone owed £20,000 to various credit cards and bank loans, if they then apply for another bank loan, which goes through, and then they find they can't pay it, does it make the bank responsible?

I think perhaps WH shouldn't have been so ready to get their hands on his cash, and should have pointed him in the right direction for some sort of help with his gambling problem, but I don't think that makes them liable for his betting, as I said, he'd have only gone elsewhere to gamble anyway.

It was his choice and free will to continue to gamble, addiction or not. I know that addiction is a terrible for those affected, but the bookmakers are not responsible for his actions. It actually sounds a bit fishy to me, block the account and then set it up again with the same company? There are loads of other companies he could have gone with.

He won't cure his addiction by sueing William Hill.

I mean, he won't cure his addiction at all, it's a case of learning how to live with it. A windfall of a few million in compensation sounds like a dreadful temptation to me.

I have a lot of sympathy for addicts, but this guy's a bit of an twonk imo.

I don't disagree that the guy is a bit of a twonk

but there have to be cases like this to force organisations in this industry to have a bit more responsibility towards their customers

what I mean is, it's important to look at the principle of how a big business in this industry should take steps to make sure it is doing right by its customers, rather than at whether the bloke has fucked up or not

PMSL Wandering Trolley! Well I found your post of 10:06 very droll anyway...

[goes away to consider sueing cadbury]

I think the credit card annalergy is slightly different though. If you take out 20 credit cards and then apply for another one then that credit card company should look at your credit history, should know how much you're paying to each credit card and how much you earn and can see whether you're in a position to make repayments on yet another loan.

With betting you put money into a betting account. you only bet the money you have, so if there's no money, you can't bet. So how is the gambling industry supposed to know that you're borrowing money in order to feed your habbit? or should people be forced to have a credit check before they gamble?

I have sympathy for his addiction.

I also believe that William Hill had some responsibility to see that he couldn't easily open an account again.

But ultimately I feel the responsibility was on Graham Calvert to get help for himself, not expect a bookmaker, of all places, to help him.

Cadbury, Mr Kipling, Thorntons ...let's sue the lot!

OK, facetiousness aside, I do agree with you Cappuccino - I think all industries and business in gambling/alcohol/any other addiction do have some responsibility toward their customers. I think the big question is how to put controls in place.

What I know about addicts is that they will find the holes in the system. I have friends who are alcoholics, who should have worked for MI5, such was the level of their deception and ingenuity.

But if this case highlights the lack of controls in the system then yes, that can only be a good thing. I really hope he doesn't get a big payout, though.

WanderingTrolley - owwww - i have just laughed so hard that hot coffee shot out of my nose. My first MN inflicted injury .

Message withdrawn

I think maybe they should make it so you have to have money in your betting account to bet, and the highest bet you can place must be with a view of you losing, so (I have never actually placed a bet on anything before so I don't know how it works so these numbers are just off the top of my head to show what I mean!) say you had £100 in your betting account, if you wanted to bet on a horse that had the odds of 1 to 2 to win (remember, I don't know how these odd's thing works!) if that meant that if the horse loses you would owe the bookmakers 120, you wouldn't be able to place the bet.

Is that clear? I really have no idea how all the odd's and number's work...

On a serious note - i also have sympathy for addicts of any kind - addictions can be debilitating.

But (and it's a big but), i also believe in personal responsibility and that it is getting too easy to blame others for every problem encountered. The place to have dealt with this issue is Gambling Anonymous and not William Hill.

can I sue mn? for damages which would allow me to hire a cleaner because my addiction to mn means I never do any housework?

or microsoft for loss of time spent with my dh while he is playing on his xbox?

This man made his money from other peoples' addictions. He trained greyhounds so that others could gamble... and now he expects that industry to be responsible for his downfall. I'd hazzard a guess that if he gets a payout he'll head down to the nearest bookies with it.

Holly please don't sue me for your scalded nose.

I am beginning to want to rant about personal injury claims ("I fell over a piece of wood wot shouldn't of been there." "Look where you're going, you fkwit, and learn some grammar!") so I have to go and eat some cake now, to calm me down.

lol at wannaBe

nj no that's not how it works. the only money you can bet is the money you have in your account. terms like "3 to 2 on" simply mean that that the odds on a horse/dog/match... whatever are such that for every £3 you place, you will get £2 back, or similarly "3 to 2 on" means that for every £2 you put on you'll get £3 if you win, so if you put £10 on a horse at 2 to 3 on you'll get £6 back plus your steak, so a £10 bet would give you back £16, but if the horse loses you just lose your steak.

Not sure if I've explained it very well, but basically you don't go into debt with the gamblers.