|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 22, 2024 6:40:08 GMT
I don't understand why anyone is bothered about this nonsense. Sunak has said he is "very angry". Who cares. The betting industry deliberately sets the odds to make sure that they turn a profit virtually no matter what happens. If there's suspicious betting on a particular result they're well aware of it and can either adjust the odds as they like or refuse to take the bets. Anyone who bets does their best to make sure that they maximise the chances f winning - obviously. If that involves getting inside information then fair enough IMO. It happens all the time in horse racing.
It's been compared to insider trading on the stock market but there are fundamental differences in that the stock market isn't manipulated. It prices shares strictly on market value as determined by the number of people buying or selling. Insider dealing is when, say, a director sells shares in his company before a profit warning is made public. But even in this case it's arguable that buyers have been cheated, in that the people who lose money are those buying the shares - but they were buying the shares anyway and will have got them cheaper because of extra selling taking place. Insider trading is very rarely prosecuted anyway.
I'm afraid this "scandal" about Tories making a few bob on the election is something that's only of interest to Labour or the Lib Dems. It's just being blown out of proportion by the Left to attack the Tories - just like Partygate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 22, 2024 6:51:15 GMT
The thing is that using inside knowledge when placing a bet is illegal under the Gambling Act. For a politician to do that in the middle of an election is stupidity on steroids.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 22, 2024 6:59:24 GMT
It was certainly stupid of those who did it. But my point is that it's a completely inconsequential crime - and I wonder why it is even illegal. The betting industry are big enough to take care of themselves without the law wasting its time getting involved. I wonder if any of the people who bet will be found guilty. I doubt it. There's a bit of a grey area on how much knowledge you're allowed to have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2024 9:52:29 GMT
It was certainly stupid of those who did it. But my point is that it's a completely inconsequential crime - and I wonder why it is even illegal. The betting industry are big enough to take care of themselves without the law wasting its time getting involved. I wonder if any of the people who bet will be found guilty. I doubt it. There's a bit of a grey area on how much knowledge you're allowed to have. It's both illegal and immoral and is an example of some Tories using politics for their own ends. I don't support immoral actions like that. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 22, 2024 11:02:56 GMT
It was certainly stupid of those who did it. But my point is that it's a completely inconsequential crime - and I wonder why it is even illegal. The betting industry are big enough to take care of themselves without the law wasting its time getting involved. I wonder if any of the people who bet will be found guilty. I doubt it. There's a bit of a grey area on how much knowledge you're allowed to have. It's both illegal and immoral and is an example of some Tories using politics for their own ends. I don't support immoral actions like that. I don't think it's in any way "immoral" to use absolutely every bit of information you have to make a decision - whether that decision is about a bet or anything else. If the betting industry want to make money out of when the election will be they have to expect that there are some people who will have a better idea of the date than others. That's the way it goes. The betting industry is still making vast amounts of money from rigging the odds so that they almost always win. I used to spend a bit of time betting on horses (many years ago) and I knew a few people who made a living out of it (just) and they had loads of inside information about which horses were going for a win or just being entered to raise their odds. Who knows what info these Tory spads (or whatever) got about the election date. And why should the courts waste their time trying to work it out. It's just bollocks. I still can't get over casinos trying to ban people for "card counting". Of course you do that to maximise your chances. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2024 15:42:07 GMT
It's both illegal and immoral and is an example of some Tories using politics for their own ends. I don't support immoral actions like that. I don't think it's in any way "immoral" to use absolutely every bit of information you have to make a decision - whether that decision is about a bet or anything else. If the betting industry want to make money out of when the election will be they have to expect that there are some people who will have a better idea of the date than others. That's the way it goes. The betting industry is still making vast amounts of money from rigging the odds so that they almost always win. I used to spend a bit of time betting on horses (many years ago) and I knew a few people who made a living out of it (just) and they had loads of inside information about which horses were going for a win or just being entered to raise their odds. Who knows what info these Tory spads (or whatever) got about the election date. And why should the courts waste their time trying to work it out. It's just bollocks. I still can't get over casinos trying to ban people for "card counting". Of course you do that to maximise your chances. You must be joking, or have lost your moral compass, if you ever had one. Placing a bet on something you have prior privileged or secret knowledge of - is deceiving the bookmaker. That is immoral and probably a criminal offence. I think it is obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. I think the whole gambling industry is immoral. Which is why gambling debts are not enforceable in law. moneyplusadvice.com/blog/tips-advice/are-gambling-debts-enforceable/ |
|
LL
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by LL on Jun 22, 2024 16:46:34 GMT
This just epitomises the last 14 years of selfservative rule. They clearly think the rules don’t apply to them so much so they were willing to make relatively small punts on something that they were sure to win. Sooner the tories are thrown into the dustbin of history the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 23, 2024 19:20:03 GMT
If you think this isn’t a problem why shouldn’t the chancellor and aides use prior knowledge of budgets to make a killing apart from the fact it is criminal behaviour it epitomises why politicians have lost the trust of the electorate.
I this ok then so is shoplifting any sort of theft and burglary.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 24, 2024 6:34:07 GMT
If you think this isn’t a problem why shouldn’t the chancellor and aides use prior knowledge of budgets to make a killing apart from the fact it is criminal behaviour it epitomises why politicians have lost the trust of the electorate. I this ok then so is shoplifting any sort of theft and burglary. My point is that gambling should be judged by different rules from insider trading and the like. I think insider trading should be illegal (as it is) because it's effectively theft from the stock market. But using "privileged" information to take money from a gambling firm is different IMO because the "bookies" (and casinos etc) have rigged the odds so that they always win. And you can bet your life that they use every bit of knowledge that they have (no matter how they've acquired that knowledge) to set the odds so that anyone betting on the winner makes as little as possible, while those who get it wrong lose their money. It's always spooky how accurate the odds are. In any case attempting to police the betting industry is virtually impossible and pretty pointless because the industry protects itself from people who win too often by simply refusing to take their bets. But the other point is that this "gamblinggate", as it's being called, is just another way to bash the Tories - just as Partygate was just a way to bash Boris and hound him out of power. After lengthy investigations Boris was issued with an FPN of £50 for being "ambushed by a cake" from his wife, yet the BBC had led with Partygate at the head of the news for about a year. And they're doing the same with this betting "scandal". Who cares. So a few people have made a few hundred quid - or not, as the bookies almost certainly won't pay up - by using privileged information. No doubt the Gambling Commission and the police will waste huge amounts of time investigating this "crime" and at the end of the day no one will be convicted. This is just "politicking". |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jun 24, 2024 6:42:17 GMT
Governments come and governments go. Labour needed the boot in 2010, the Tories need it now.
Saying that, Labour? Urgh.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 24, 2024 7:07:47 GMT
I don't think it's in any way "immoral" to use absolutely every bit of information you have to make a decision - whether that decision is about a bet or anything else. If the betting industry want to make money out of when the election will be they have to expect that there are some people who will have a better idea of the date than others. That's the way it goes. The betting industry is still making vast amounts of money from rigging the odds so that they almost always win. I used to spend a bit of time betting on horses (many years ago) and I knew a few people who made a living out of it (just) and they had loads of inside information about which horses were going for a win or just being entered to raise their odds. Who knows what info these Tory spads (or whatever) got about the election date. And why should the courts waste their time trying to work it out. It's just bollocks. I still can't get over casinos trying to ban people for "card counting". Of course you do that to maximise your chances. You must be joking, or have lost your moral compass, if you ever had one. Placing a bet on something you have prior privileged or secret knowledge of - is deceiving the bookmaker. That is immoral and probably a criminal offence. I think it is obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. I think the whole gambling industry is immoral. Which is why gambling debts are not enforceable in law. moneyplusadvice.com/blog/tips-advice/are-gambling-debts-enforceable/I think that you've just contradicted yourself.
And btw, pecuniary advantage went out with the Ark.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 24, 2024 7:10:49 GMT
This just epitomises the last 14 years of selfservative rule. They clearly think the rules don’t apply to them so much so they were willing to make relatively small punts on something that they were sure to win. Sooner the tories are thrown into the dustbin of history the better. 'Kin 'ell, dafty. Here we stand on the brink of electing the most corrupt government ever (which you support) and you're quibbling about this nothingness.
If you can't see that then you really shouldn't leave the house without your carer.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jun 24, 2024 9:11:39 GMT
If you think this isn’t a problem why shouldn’t the chancellor and aides use prior knowledge of budgets to make a killing apart from the fact it is criminal behaviour it epitomises why politicians have lost the trust of the electorate. I this ok then so is shoplifting any sort of theft and burglary. My point is that gambling should be judged by different rules from insider trading and the like. I think insider trading should be illegal (as it is) because it's effectively theft from the stock market. But using "privileged" information to take money from a gambling firm is different IMO because the "bookies" (and casinos etc) have rigged the odds so that they always win. And you can bet your life that they use every bit of knowledge that they have (no matter how they've acquired that knowledge) to set the odds so that anyone betting on the winner makes as little as possible, while those who get it wrong lose their money. It's always spooky how accurate the odds are. In any case attempting to police the betting industry is virtually impossible and pretty pointless because the industry protects itself from people who win too often by simply refusing to take their bets. But the other point is that this "gamblinggate", as it's being called, is just another way to bash the Tories - just as Partygate was just a way to bash Boris and hound him out of power. After lengthy investigations Boris was issued with an FPN of £50 for being "ambushed by a cake" from his wife, yet the BBC had led with Partygate at the head of the news for about a year. And they're doing the same with this betting "scandal". Who cares. So a few people have made a few hundred quid - or not, as the bookies almost certainly won't pay up - by using privileged information. No doubt the Gambling Commission and the police will waste huge amounts of time investigating this "crime" and at the end of the day no one will be convicted. This is just "politicking". I understand the point you’re making but the fact that gambling is policed by yet another toothless regulator doesn’t detract from what those people have tried to do,yes I’ve seen where people have legitimately won large amounts and bookies have tried every trick in order to evade coughing up till the press get involved and so instead of just bowing to press pressure they should receive huge fines. As far as the stock market it is little different from gambling imo and reminds me of that **** Blunkett and his attempts to fill his boots,doesn’t matter which party they should pay the price,this article on that particular affair quite rightly points out the attempts to play it all down and how Profumo had to atone for a lifetime whilst the corrupt like Blunkett and Archer others too get to sit in the HoL and why the public who are not as gullible or stupid as is made out decline to vote. Well worth a read and reminder of war criminal Blair’s govts dying days. link |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 24, 2024 9:53:21 GMT
Wapentake says: "As far as the stock market it is little different from gambling".
The difference is that the stock market isn't rigged against you - as betting is. It's a straightforward market where shares are bought and sold (albeit with a commission being paid to cover transaction costs). Gambling is manipulated by those who run it to maximise their own profits. And I don't see much effort expended in making sure that the gambling industry is scrupulous about where it gets its own information from. They're the guys who really know what's going on - if a few political insiders, on occasion, know more than they do then that's just the way it goes. Suck it up, as they say.
What annoys me is that the politicians are using it to gain political advantage - and the BBC are running it in all their news bulletins, like Partygate. And the opposition parties are calling for the people involved to be suspended. Bollocks. Innocent until proved guilty. Angela Rayner clearly broke far more important laws but has got off scot free. Starmer held a big curry and beer bash in a venue (not a work location) and got away with it. But Boris was found guilty for just attending a meeting in No 10 - which is where he works FFS. If the talk is of one law for some and another for others, then the Tories get far harsher treatment than Labour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2024 10:42:43 GMT
It was certainly stupid of those who did it. But my point is that it's a completely inconsequential crime - and I wonder why it is even illegal. The betting industry are big enough to take care of themselves without the law wasting its time getting involved. I wonder if any of the people who bet will be found guilty. I doubt it. There's a bit of a grey area on how much knowledge you're allowed to have. It's both illegal and immoral and is an example of some Tories using politics for their own ends. I don't support immoral actions like that. It definitely displays a tendency on the part of those concerned to take advantage of their positions for personal gain. However much a few apologists might dismiss this as no big deal - often the same people who thought Starmer having a beer and a curry was a massive problem - it will rightly not sit well with the public. And even most Tories know that which is why not one of them is attempting to defend such conduct. |
|
