Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TIL 1010

Labour Would Ban Betting Logos On Kits.

Recommended Posts

Guest
Labour Would Ban Betting Logos On Kits

I think they are gambling on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Baldyboy"][quote user="TIL 1010"]Note i said would not will. [:D]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41172425?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_match_of_the_day&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport[/quote]

Oh look another thread about gamblingšŸ˜ƒ[/quote]The article was published today and i am surprised you have not come up yet with a negative slant on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
https://www.racingpost.com/news/comment/racing-s-image-needs-guarding-but-should-not-be-shaped-by-the-public/299434

This is an excellent piece by Alastair Down. Illustrates beautifully how the general public don''t understand the betting or racing industries but latch on to apparently "right on" causes because it''s trendy to do so. This Labour thing is simply another cynical ploy to enhance their "for the people" image. It''d be interesting to see if they actually followed it through.

Power to the punters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="keelansgrandad"]Labour Would Ban Betting Logos On Kits

I think they are gambling on that one.[/quote]

I''ll lay odds they don''t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Baldyboy"][quote user="TIL 1010"]Note i said would not will. [:D]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41172425?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_match_of_the_day&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport[/quote]

Oh look another thread about gamblingšŸ˜ƒ[/quote]The article was published today and i am surprised you have not come up yet with a negative slant on it.[/quote]

Surely it could have gone on the LeoVegas thread? After all we know how you feel about multiple threads on the same topics hey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps a Labour government would also ban these firms from owning football clubs? But would they have to give Peter Coates all that money back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Labour are continuing to develop a populist left wing agenda capturing a whole raft of policies seeking to address inequality and exploitation of vulnerable people.

How on earth could they omit the gambling industry from that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Labour won''t see power again so don''t worry.......  but even if they did..... remember this !!http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/3179722/The-Ecclestone-Affair-Labours-first-funding-scandal.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Baldyboy"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Baldyboy"][quote user="TIL 1010"]Note i said would not will. [:D]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41172425?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_match_of_the_day&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport[/quote]

Oh look another thread about gamblingšŸ˜ƒ[/quote]The article was published today and i am surprised you have not come up yet with a negative slant on it.[/quote]

Surely it could have gone on the LeoVegas thread? After all we know how you feel about multiple threads on the same topics hey?[/quote]The thing is Baldyboy it was not specifically about LeoVegas now was it but a party political statement about gambling connected with football involving other companies as well ?Please don''t wear yourself out before our game this weekend because heaven forbid if we lose i would not want you to be unable to summon the energy to start a few negative threads which is the norm following a bad result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Duncan Edwards"]https://www.racingpost.com/news/comment/racing-s-image-needs-guarding-but-should-not-be-shaped-by-the-public/299434

This is an excellent piece by Alastair Down. Illustrates beautifully how the general public don''t understand the betting or racing industries but latch on to apparently "right on" causes because it''s trendy to do so. This Labour thing is simply another cynical ploy to enhance their "for the people" image. It''d be interesting to see if they actually followed it through.

Power to the punters.[/quote]I hadn''t had much of an opinion on this but I have just read that piece. It is far more about racing (and how the public doesn''t understand that horses like to be punched in the head) than it is about betting as such. As for the latter the writer doesn''t deny that there is a problem with something called Fobts, whatever that is or are, but seems only worried that a crackdown will hurt financially racing, as opposed to claiming that there is no justification for such a crackdown. Nor does the writer claim the fine that seems associated with Fobts was unjustified. The complaint is only that it got publicised:The ''record'' fine on 888 would have generated much less publicity were

it not for news editors and columnists finding themselves a cause in

protecting problem gamblers, the young particularly, who are seen as

victims of Fobts and their capacity to empty pockets at an alarming

rate.
That is a paragraph that really shouldn''t have been written by anyone hoping to sway undecideds to their cause. Nor should this one:
The Russell incident [that is the punching  a horse on its head] is grist to the mill of animal welfare groups who

have long been fighting a guerrilla war against racing. It was a stupid

act, but let''s not pretend that the same thing or worse does not occur

in scores of racing yards every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Molly Windley"]Labour rid all their policies of "logos" many years ago.As for logo`s, then that white cart horse one deeply offends me, can we ban that?[/quote]
Or give it a Suffolk punch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As someone wrote in the comments :-   So what does lefty Corbyn recommend? Save the whale or maybe support

terrorism like he did with the IRA in the past. Food advertising is a

big no no due to the rise of obesity in the UK. I suppose the sex

industry could sponsor football clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Formula 1 banned the cars advertising cigarettes a while ago, and that sports industry is still thriving. Perhaps it should be The FA or Fifa who decide to introduce the ban on gambling sponsorship not the labour party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Duncan Edwards"]https://www.racingpost.com/news/comment/racing-s-image-needs-guarding-but-should-not-be-shaped-by-the-public/299434

This is an excellent piece by Alastair Down. Illustrates beautifully how the general public don''t understand the betting or racing industries but latch on to apparently "right on" causes because it''s trendy to do so. This Labour thing is simply another cynical ploy to enhance their "for the people" image. It''d be interesting to see if they actually followed it through.

Power to the punters.[/quote]I hadn''t had much of an opinion on this but I have just read that piece. It is far more about racing (and how the public doesn''t understand that horses like to be punched in the head) than it is about betting as such. As for the latter the writer doesn''t deny that there is a problem with something called Fobts, whatever that is or are, but seems only worried that a crackdown will hurt financially racing, as opposed to claiming that there is no justification for such a crackdown. Nor does the writer claim the fine that seems associated with Fobts was unjustified. The complaint is only that it got publicised:The ''record'' fine on 888 would have generated much less publicity were

it not for news editors and columnists finding themselves a cause in

protecting problem gamblers, the young particularly, who are seen as

victims of Fobts and their capacity to empty pockets at an alarming

rate.
That is a paragraph that really shouldn''t have been written by anyone hoping to sway undecideds to their cause. Nor should this one:
The Russell incident [that is the punching  a horse on its head] is grist to the mill of animal welfare groups who

have long been fighting a guerrilla war against racing. It was a stupid

act, but let''s not pretend that the same thing or worse does not occur

in scores of racing yards every day.[/quote]Oh my goodness! That last paragraph...what on earth was the author thinking?! "Yeah it''s FINE to punch a horse in the head, because in racing yards they''re doing it regularly. They also poke them in the eyes with sticks and other horrid things...."Ps. FOBT is a Fixed Odds Betting Terminal. Machines with roulette, slots etc. that are found in most gambling shops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="djc"]Formula 1 banned the cars advertising cigarettes a while ago, and that sports industry is still thriving. Perhaps it should be The FA or Fifa who decide to introduce the ban on gambling sponsorship not the labour party.[/quote]Yeah, but they were one of the last industries to do it as Labour in 1997 took a backhander to give them immunity.  Good ol'' honest Labour... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Yeah, but they were one of the last industries to do it as Labour in 1997 took a backhander to give them immunity. Good ol'' honest Labour...

They probably took it off your mate Max Moseley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Duncan Edwards"]You''re making his point for him.[/quote]Me?Don''t be a douche, mate. I explained what a FOTB was didn''t I?Now, crawl back into your shell. There''s a good lad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you draw the line on advertising though?

Can''t advertise gambling companies because it''s bad.

Can''t advertise cigarette companies because they''re bad.

You can advertise alcohol companies though, despite it quite probably being the cause (I''m not a statistician so making a sweeping statement here) of more deaths, more domestic violence, more violent behaviour, and more crime overall than the others put together. But don''t put it on the kiddies shirts because it might promote them to drink.

I can''t help but feel it''s a futile exercise to try and tell people what they can and can''t advertise in an attempt to try and tell people what they can and can''t buy or do with their lives.

If you want to try and protect people, focus your attentions on supporting those with issues, and making it much more accessible to get help, not trying to stop companies advertising their poisons. There are millions of people that gamble and it''s not an issue, there are millions of people that can have a drink without becoming addicted.

Having a LeoVegas sponsor hasn''t made me gamble any more, I haven''t opened an account, I just don''t like it because the logo looks like a child''s design.

I don''t see why anybody should be able to tell a football club what they can and can''t be sponsored by when you can have billboards for anything.

I''d love to go back to a time where you didn''t have a shirt sponsor but that''s never going to happen. If they let people have sponsors, who are they to dictate what they want to sponsor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="keelansgrandad"]Yeah, but they were one of the last industries to do it as Labour in 1997 took a backhander to give them immunity. Good ol'' honest Labour...

They probably took it off your mate Max Moseley.[/quote]It was definitely Bernie Eccleston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BobLoz3"][quote user="Duncan Edwards"]You''re making his point for him.[/quote]Me?Don''t be a douche, mate. I explained what a FOTB was didn''t I?Now, crawl back into your shell. There''s a good lad.[/quote]

Yes. You.

Is FOTB wrath of the barclay''s sister site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to expand, the point Mr Down was making is that while visually abhorrent, the actions of Davy Russell wouldn''t have hurt the horse. When he talks of "..and worse" I took it to mean other correctional actions that a jockey may take such as digging their heels into the ribcage/midriff of the horse which it most certainly would feel yet would probably pass unnoticed because it doesn''t look anywhere near as drastic.

These horses are fed properly, exercised properly, groomed properly, get the best veterinary care available and they really aren''t getting a showing off the stable lad or being beaten with a cat o''nine tails by their work rider, but I suspect you know that.

However, your comment about punching horses all the time, poking them with sticks etc is precisely the sort of comment that he is talking about the bloke on the Clapham omnibus making. It''s clear you were being deliberately flippant but people DO actually think, write and publish things like that which the wider public then allow to taint their impressions of the sport further.

So that''s what I meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
It was definitely Bernie Eccleston.

Was his Dad a blackshirt as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The gambling industry really is preying on and targeting vulnerable people, it''s about time this was exposed and dealt with.

Freedom of choice is an underlying principal of our democracy but the way the industry targets vulnerable groups is a disgrace and I applaud the Labour Party for any policy it develops to deal with this cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...