Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2024 10:45:29 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. When you are an elected politician there to serve the interests of your electorate, using inside information to enrich yourself in ways that are actually against the law, I struggle to see how that can be anything other than immoral. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2024 14:30:53 GMT
TSM - OK the Fraud Act 2006 replaced the Theft Act 1968 for that.
I haven't kept up with all laws since I left the realm!
There's been far too many.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2024 14:40:00 GMT
Crime of the century for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 25, 2024 6:36:07 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. When you are an elected politician there to serve the interests of your electorate, using inside information to enrich yourself in ways that are actually against the law, I struggle to see how that can be anything other than immoral. For a start none of them have even been charged with anything let alone found guilty. Until then no crime has been committed. Secondly those under suspicion are not politicians. Thirdly your opinions are plainly ridiculously biased if you think Starmer's beer and curry bash at a hired venue was legal (under covid legislation) while Boris's 5 minute "ambush" by a cake at a work meeting in his work place (Number 10) was illegal. Barking. As for "immorality" I don't think the law makes any sense on this issue. The bottom line appears to be that if you know more than the bookies you're not allowed to bet. Unfortunately the wide variety of things that you can now be bet on means that there are many situations where there are people who know better than the bookies. I don't see why they should voluntarily disqualify themselves from betting. The only way to make money from gambling is by having inside knowledge anyway. The only guy I ever knew who made money out of betting on horses had loads of contacts in racing. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 26, 2024 6:35:41 GMT
A question came up about how the bookies knew who was betting. After all when you bet you just hand over your money and get a betting slip so it's anonymous. I suppose if you have an account the bookie will know who it is, but you can easily bet anonymously.
It occurs to me also that when you're arranging an election there are a vast number of people who need to know about it in order to make all the necessary arrangements. I wonder if they're being investigated. Also the betting industry will know pretty quickly the date of the election when all these bets come in - so they will have slashed the odds to make it not worth betting on.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 26, 2024 7:11:00 GMT
It also looks like the Gambling Commission is trying to make a land grab for more powers. They're investigating Kevin Craig for betting against himself in an election in which he is/was standing. And that twat Starmer has suspended him. He hasn't broken any rules - or done anything "immoral".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2024 11:10:43 GMT
When you are an elected politician there to serve the interests of your electorate, using inside information to enrich yourself in ways that are actually against the law, I struggle to see how that can be anything other than immoral. For a start none of them have even been charged with anything let alone found guilty. Until then no crime has been committed. Secondly those under suspicion are not politicians. Thirdly your opinions are plainly ridiculously biased if you think Starmer's beer and curry bash at a hired venue was legal (under covid legislation) while Boris's 5 minute "ambush" by a cake at a work meeting in his work place (Number 10) was illegal. Barking. As for "immorality" I don't think the law makes any sense on this issue. The bottom line appears to be that if you know more than the bookies you're not allowed to bet. Unfortunately the wide variety of things that you can now be bet on means that there are many situations where there are people who know better than the bookies. I don't see why they should voluntarily disqualify themselves from betting. The only way to make money from gambling is by having inside knowledge anyway. The only guy I ever knew who made money out of betting on horses had loads of contacts in racing. You are not really persuading anybody. The fact that you see nothing wrong with it on the grounds that you'd do it yourself is hardly a compelling argument, but the kind of argument that a benefits cheat or a tax evader might trot out. The fact that even their own party is not attempting to defend them speaks volumes. And of course insofar as criminality is concerned we all know innocent until proven guilty and all that, though suspension pending an outcome in the meantime is rightly standard. But immorality does not rest on criminality alone. Many things widely believed to be immoral are not actually criminal offenses, eg cheating on your wife. Nevertheless, using inside information gleaned from your position as a public servant paid for by us to enrich yourself is obviously going to be seen as morally dubious by most people. And their party recognises that. That you cannot says more about you than it does them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2024 11:12:32 GMT
Crime of the century for sure. Unlike beergate for which prison sentences were clearly in order, lol |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jun 27, 2024 12:04:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 28, 2024 6:55:19 GMT
For a start none of them have even been charged with anything let alone found guilty. Until then no crime has been committed. Secondly those under suspicion are not politicians. Thirdly your opinions are plainly ridiculously biased if you think Starmer's beer and curry bash at a hired venue was legal (under covid legislation) while Boris's 5 minute "ambush" by a cake at a work meeting in his work place (Number 10) was illegal. Barking. As for "immorality" I don't think the law makes any sense on this issue. The bottom line appears to be that if you know more than the bookies you're not allowed to bet. Unfortunately the wide variety of things that you can now be bet on means that there are many situations where there are people who know better than the bookies. I don't see why they should voluntarily disqualify themselves from betting. The only way to make money from gambling is by having inside knowledge anyway. The only guy I ever knew who made money out of betting on horses had loads of contacts in racing. You are not really persuading anybody. The fact that you see nothing wrong with it on the grounds that you'd do it yourself is hardly a compelling argument, but the kind of argument that a benefits cheat or a tax evader might trot out. The fact that even their own party is not attempting to defend them speaks volumes. And of course insofar as criminality is concerned we all know innocent until proven guilty and all that, though suspension pending an outcome in the meantime is rightly standard. But immorality does not rest on criminality alone. Many things widely believed to be immoral are not actually criminal offenses, eg cheating on your wife. Nevertheless, using inside information gleaned from your position as a public servant paid for by us to enrich yourself is obviously going to be seen as morally dubious by most people. And their party recognises that. That you cannot says more about you than it does them. I see nothing wrong with it because there IS nothing wrong with it. As I said on another thread the planning needed for an election involves a vast number of people - so a lot of people know what the date is. But the betting industry has its own way of handling this - namely, if a lot of people bet on a particular result they reduce the odds to the point that it's not worth betting on. So they still make a profit. So who cares. This is just, as I said, politicking. The only people interested in this nonsense are the politicians and left wing media who are using it to try to discredit the Tories. If Sunak had any balls he'd stand up and say he isn't bothered about it - but I expect that would just encourage them. My bet is that NOBODY gets prosecuted for this. It's too hard to prove. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2024 15:08:29 GMT
You are not really persuading anybody. The fact that you see nothing wrong with it on the grounds that you'd do it yourself is hardly a compelling argument, but the kind of argument that a benefits cheat or a tax evader might trot out. The fact that even their own party is not attempting to defend them speaks volumes. And of course insofar as criminality is concerned we all know innocent until proven guilty and all that, though suspension pending an outcome in the meantime is rightly standard. But immorality does not rest on criminality alone. Many things widely believed to be immoral are not actually criminal offenses, eg cheating on your wife. Nevertheless, using inside information gleaned from your position as a public servant paid for by us to enrich yourself is obviously going to be seen as morally dubious by most people. And their party recognises that. That you cannot says more about you than it does them. I see nothing wrong with it because there IS nothing wrong with it. As I said on another thread the planning needed for an election involves a vast number of people - so a lot of people know what the date is. But the betting industry has its own way of handling this - namely, if a lot of people bet on a particular result they reduce the odds to the point that it's not worth betting on. So they still make a profit. So who cares. This is just, as I said, politicking. The only people interested in this nonsense are the politicians and left wing media who are using it to try to discredit the Tories. If Sunak had any balls he'd stand up and say he isn't bothered about it - but I expect that would just encourage them. My bet is that NOBODY gets prosecuted for this. It's too hard to prove. Most people do detect rather a bad smell about this. That you apparently cannot is your problem. You do not reflect the views of the people who can recognise something a bit fishy when they see it. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jun 30, 2024 6:16:51 GMT
If "most people" detect a "bad smell" then that's a comment on most people's intelligence, However I don't think most people give a monkey's about this nonsense. It's just a bit of politicking stirred up by the Left and the BBC. Basically there is no "morality" surrounding betting - it's every man for himself. I don't think bets are even legally enforceable.
And no one will even get charged with anything over this storm in a teacup. It's just another irrelevance that the police will waste their time on.
|
|
