Part truths and scaremongering over gambling machines

The recent open letter to MPsfrom the so called “Campaign for Fairer Gambling” was yet another twist and turn in the ever increasing attempt to demonise the betting industry. The objective of course is to effectively drive a policy of prohibition of the gaming machine product; a policy which suits the funders of that campaign (who have made their millions in the casino industry) and those whose politics leads them to be anti-business; or supportive of the nanny state. The consequences of success for the CFFG would mean thousands of job losses in the betting industry.

That is why the CFFG commissioned the Landman Economics report to essentially devalue the nature of betting shop jobs. This report is flawed in one very fundamental respect. It makes the assumption that if betting shop customers were denied the B2 gaming machine product that they would substitute into non –gambling products or services or alternative gambling products.

We would encourage MPs and others to read the report. We are certain that once you engage with it and apply some cynical intellectual rigour to the findings it will be seen for what it is.

Whilst research into problem gambling in the UK is sparse, what we do know is that problem gamblers use 5/6 different gambling products; therefore removing a particular product (with no evidence that it is anymore harmful than any other product) would be nothing more than ineffective gesture politics; with the consequence of driving significant unemployment.

If the demand for regulated gaming machines were choked by legislative change then there would be a very significant migration of machine players to the illegal gaming machine market.

Finally the CFFG letter raises again the old chestnut of betting shop security; presumably to make the point that betting shop colleagues would be better off without employment! The reality again is discussions with the likes of Community Union and other third party stakeholders gave rise to the industry self regulatory code on betting shop safety and security “the Safebet Alliance”. Most major operators have embraced the principles of the code; which was agreed with, amongst others, Community Union.

Once again we see the unions trying to circumvent the statutory recognition rules by inaccurate scare mongering about an industry which takes safety and security of colleagues very seriously. Now they seem to have entered into an unholy alliance with the CFFG. The commonality is that both organisations deal in part truths and anything but the truth when it comes to dealing with the betting industry.

Andrew Lyman, Head of Public Affairs
William Hill