Gambling

@sharongooner wrote:

Its a bit like suing the pub landlord for serving the alcholic.

There is only so far you can go before you have to admit the problem is yours and you need help.

Suing the bookies will not help his recovery for his illness, and will take the focus of his illness away from himself. This is Not what an addict actually needs.

If he wins the case that makes him seem he was right, when clearly he wasnt.

Why does someone with an income of 30k plus per month gamble? Because he is ill and that is what he should be addressing, rather than trying to cream back some of his money.

Apparantly the Ryder Cup was the deciding factor in this case. Had the outcome been the opposite would he have given his winnings back because he was on a “ban”? Course he would :wink:

i once had a very animated discussion with the wife of a customer in my pub. she came in and started shouting and swearing at me for selling beer to her husband every tea time. she said i was a family wrecker and a scum bag. she ranted about the fact that he was a drunk, and the fact that he couldnt help himself, he just had to drink every day, and as i served him beer it was. in her opinion, my fault that he went home every night pi$$ed as a fart . [her words]. when i asked her why she blamed me for the fact that her hubby was always drunk. she stated that i was the one with the pub, and it was my job to take his money off him when he should be spending it on his family. so in essence i was taking money from her and her children.
she simply couldnt grasp the fact that it was he, who had the problem. it wasnt my fault that he got drunk every day. yes he called for a couple of pints. but i wasnt responsible for the fact that he went to 5 other pubs before he came to mine.
having an addiction to anything is useually because you are an addictive person. some are, some arent. how many people do we know who cant just have one pint ? they have to get legless. ? how many people do we know who cant have one bet. ? they chase their losses until they lose everything ? even people who go to the gym can become obsessive. whatever the addiction is, they and they alone are responsible for deciding where the cut off point is. and somepeople sadly just dont know when to give up.

@waspish wrote:

@sharongooner wrote:

Its a bit like suing the pub landlord for serving the alcholic.

There is only so far you can go before you have to admit the problem is yours and you need help.

Suing the bookies will not help his recovery for his illness, and will take the focus of his illness away from himself. This is Not what an addict actually needs.

If he wins the case that makes him seem he was right, when clearly he wasnt.

Why does someone with an income of 30k plus per month gamble? Because he is ill and that is what he should be addressing, rather than trying to cream back some of his money.

Apparantly the Ryder Cup was the deciding factor in this case. Had the outcome been the opposite would he have given his winnings back because he was on a “ban”? Course he would :wink:

i once had a very animated discussion with the wife of a customer in my pub. she came in and started shouting and swearing at me for selling beer to her husband every tea time. she said i was a family wrecker and a scum bag. she ranted about the fact that he was a drunk, and the fact that he couldnt help himself, he just had to drink every day, and as i served him beer it was. in her opinion, my fault that he went home every night pi$$ed as a fart . [her words]. when i asked her why she blamed me for the fact that her hubby was always drunk. she stated that i was the one with the pub, and it was my job to take his money off him when he should be spending it on his family. so in essence i was taking money from her and her children.
she simply couldnt grasp the fact that it was he, who had the problem. it wasnt my fault that he got drunk every day. yes he called for a couple of pints. but i wasnt responsible for the fact that he went to 5 other pubs before he came to mine.
having an addiction to anything is useually because you are an addictive person. some are, some arent. how many people do we know who cant just have one pint ? they have to get legless. ? how many people do we know who cant have one bet. ? they chase their losses until they lose everything ? even people who go to the gym can become obsessive. whatever the addiction is, they and they alone are responsible for deciding where the cut off point is. and somepeople sadly just dont know when to give up.

You are aware I take it Waspy, that you are in fact responsible. It does state under licensing laws, that one of the pple you shouldn’t serve with alchohol along with policemen, firemen etc., in uniform, is someone who is clearly already drunk. So if this man had visited 5 other pubs before coming to yours, and drank 2 pints in each, it was up to you not to serve him in yours :wink: so in a way, she did have a point! :wink:

@cas wrote:

@waspish wrote:

@sharongooner wrote:

Its a bit like suing the pub landlord for serving the alcholic.

There is only so far you can go before you have to admit the problem is yours and you need help.

Suing the bookies will not help his recovery for his illness, and will take the focus of his illness away from himself. This is Not what an addict actually needs.

If he wins the case that makes him seem he was right, when clearly he wasnt.

Why does someone with an income of 30k plus per month gamble? Because he is ill and that is what he should be addressing, rather than trying to cream back some of his money.

Apparantly the Ryder Cup was the deciding factor in this case. Had the outcome been the opposite would he have given his winnings back because he was on a “ban”? Course he would :wink:

i once had a very animated discussion with the wife of a customer in my pub. she came in and started shouting and swearing at me for selling beer to her husband every tea time. she said i was a family wrecker and a scum bag. she ranted about the fact that he was a drunk, and the fact that he couldnt help himself, he just had to drink every day, and as i served him beer it was. in her opinion, my fault that he went home every night pi$$ed as a fart . [her words]. when i asked her why she blamed me for the fact that her hubby was always drunk. she stated that i was the one with the pub, and it was my job to take his money off him when he should be spending it on his family. so in essence i was taking money from her and her children.
she simply couldnt grasp the fact that it was he, who had the problem. it wasnt my fault that he got drunk every day. yes he called for a couple of pints. but i wasnt responsible for the fact that he went to 5 other pubs before he came to mine.
having an addiction to anything is useually because you are an addictive person. some are, some arent. how many people do we know who cant just have one pint ? they have to get legless. ? how many people do we know who cant have one bet. ? they chase their losses until they lose everything ? even people who go to the gym can become obsessive. whatever the addiction is, they and they alone are responsible for deciding where the cut off point is. and somepeople sadly just dont know when to give up.

You are aware I take it Waspy, that you are in fact responsible. It does state under licensing laws, that one of the pple you shouldn’t serve with alchohol along with policemen, firemen etc., in uniform, is someone who is clearly already drunk. So if this man had visited 5 other pubs before coming to yours, and drank 2 pints in each, it was up to you not to serve him in yours :wink: so in a way, she did have a point! :wink:

not once does it say that i ever served him while he was obviously drunk. he was useually well past it when he got to mine, and i chucked him out many a time. but he is a character, and his wife is a frost faced harridan who thinks she should be the mayoress..[ya know the type.. how very dare you.it is an offence to do so. as is serving an officer in uniform as you say, and its also an offence to serv a known prostitute. but hey, wether you are a married woman. or a drunkard of a man, we are all prostitutes of a fashion and we are all drunk at different levels. i would personally never serve a copper be he/she drunk or sober.[not knowingly anyway. if i knew there was a copper waiting to be served, id take his/her order and then make em wait for a day or so, or till id dealt with more important customers, you know. like working folk or people who walk about while at work. :wink: :wink:

Since yesterday (and the ”tabloid” approach to this matter) the more serious press have picked up the story.

This is William Hill’s ‘Self Exclusion Policy’:

Whilst most customers are able to enjoy their gambling, William Hill recognises that for a very small number of customers gambling ceases to be fun. For those customers who wish to restrict their gambling, William Hill provides a self-exclusion facility enabling customers to close their account or accounts for a minimum period of six months up to five years as requested. Unless you request self-exclusion, any account that is simply ‘closed’ can be re-opened at any time. If you require information relating to this facility please contact Customer Services on 0800 085 6296.

The gambler, a Mr Graham Calvert aged 28, specifically asked William Hill to close his account with them under the terms of the above ‘self exclusion policy’ for a minimum period of 6 months so as to enable him to begin to control his gambling addiction.

JustChat promotes socially responsible gambling …… because we care !!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I can see the attraction of legal action for him, after all it is also a form of gambling, with financial implications depending on whether he wins or loses.

hardly the best way of treating that particular addiction