We’re all heading to hell in the Daily Mail’s handbag according to some interpretations of new UK gambling laws. But, as Nick Leeson points out, if round-the-clock gambling is the route to Gomorrah, the doom-sayers are too late.
I really can’t see what all the fuss is about over the new gaming laws. So far the Parliamentary debates have boiled down to assorted MPs donning their party political blinkers to do battle over the moral and social implications, while the culture secretary back-pedalled so fast she surely has little chance of saving her political career. But all you really need to know about the bill can by summarised like this: if you want to gamble, you can.
With the massive boom in internet gaming sites you can pretty much bet on whatever you like, whenever you like, and in any size that you want. The only regulation is self-regulation and the government is doing little to either accommodate or dissuade any of the parties involved in these sorts of enterprise.
I’ve been to Vegas, Macau, Sun City and a few Caribbean islands that have these super-resort type casinos in abundance. Such places are usually built in highly desirable locations and have plenty of things in the plus column if you’re thinking about a holiday. Except maybe Colombo, Sri Lanka, where casinos are far more numerous than bars but are drab grey edifices with all the allure of a dentist’s.
Which brings me neatly to places like Hull and Sheffield. Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve visited both cities and, while they no doubt have a certain prosaic charm, the addition of even one new super-casino is hardly likely to have me hopping on the next plane to place a few bets.
Sun City, Macau and Vegas have a certain sexy feel about them. Strange as it may seem to half the country’s panicked MPs, Hull does not. Facing a backlash from her own backbenchers as well as those of the opposition, Mrs Jowell has (quite rightly) backed down and suggested that of the 175 casinos proposed by the operators only a handful of applications are likely to succeed, and those in places such as Wembley and Blackpool. Which, in fact, just represents pure commercial common sense.
Something fishy about Hull
Who can honestly see a super-casino surviving very long in Hull unless a fortuitous earth tremor should shift the city to the Caribbean or the local economic situation dramatically improves? The United Kingdom lacks the attraction and the tourist traffic to support such a massive increase in the number of casinos. Pilot projects in one or two sensible locations make sense, but then commercial viability will start to restrict the number of future applications.
Many MPs also voiced concern at the risks of epidemic gambling addiction and an influx of organised crime. Politically correct hogwash – I’d suggest they’ve been watching too much television.
Anyone can place a bet on the internet, on horses, on poker, on roulette or pretty much anything that takes their fancy. Unfortunately anything that gives you pleasure is addictive and people will always seek ways to overcome any obstacles to receive that pleasure.
But the internet already gives a ready alternative to feed the habits of those with a punting persuasion. So it seems unlikely to me that an increase in the number of casinos will result in an equally proportionate increase in the number of gambling addictions.
The way some see it a gambler is a gambler is a gambler. But, in truth, everyone has a different approach: many are extremely disciplined if they gamble, others are not (no prizes for guessing which category I fit into after my experiences in Singapore.) Many people place bets regularly but there’s a significantly larger number that don’t – easier access to bricks-and-mortar casinos when gambling can already be accessed online without 24 hours notice is unlikely to change this. Self-righteous newspapers opposing the bill are pedalling piffle about the woes of a gambling free-for-all. They should open their eyes – it’s already here and happening over the internet.
No-show blow
When I was in Singapore in 1994 and betting fairly heavily on the World Cup at the time, I had a call from someone connected to one of the larger betting rings in Malaysia with the most ridiculous bet that I had ever heard. There was a rumour, emanating from Malaysia, that after reaching the semi-finals the Bulgarians weren’t going to turn up in protest. Even money, whatever size I wanted! Ridiculous as it was, the size of the bet on offer scared me and I really had to think about it. Needless to say I took a piece of it.
Now whatever you think of my gambling discipline, the real point is this: people will bet on whatever they want and there’s little anyone can do to stop it. The internet has a law of its own that defies efficient regulation and continually reinvents itself in order to avoid it. In short, where there’s a will there’s a wager. MPs debating the gaming bill would be wise to remember this.
