William Hill to close 700 betting shops after fixed-odds betting clampdown

[robfosters]

Actually disgusted by attitudes on this thread. People with families to support are losing their jobs ffs and and people seem genuinely happy about it. What is wrong with people these days.

And there’s nothing wrong with responsible gambling. Unfortunately, too many are incapable of controlling themselves and instead of looking at them, we have to go all nanny state and start blaming everyone else. I’m utterly sick of this attitude whereby because some can’t control themselves, the rest of us must suffer and have our bit of fun taken away.

 

[FoxEye]

Actually disgusted by attitudes on this thread. People with families to support are losing their jobs ffs and and people seem genuinely happy about it. What is wrong with people these days.

And there’s nothing wrong with responsible gambling. Unfortunately, too many are incapable of controlling themselves and instead of looking at them, we have to go all nanny state and start blaming everyone else. I’m utterly sick of this attitude whereby because some can’t control themselves, the rest of us must suffer and have our bit of fun taken away.

I don't see gambling shops as any different to heroin dealers.

Not everyone who buys drugs is an addict. Bug heroin dealers aren't nice people. And neither are gambling companies.

They enable the destruction of the lives of people who just can't help themselves.

 

[robfosters]

I don't see gambling shops as any different to heroin dealers.

Not everyone who buys drugs is an addict. Bug heroin dealers aren't nice people. And neither are gambling companies.

They enable the destruction of the lives of people who just can't help themselves.

I don’t feel sorry for the company, quite the opposite. I don’t know why you think this is good news tbh. All that will happen is these punters will be driven online where there are no stake limits and no monitoring. If anything, this is actually bad news for advocates of responsible gambling in the long run. And with the money WH save on staff, rent etc, they will be able to expand their online business. Even better new customer offers to entice people, new games, new systems with bigger capacity.

It’s not good news for either the staff or the punters, so I don’t see why you are so happy about it.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Yeh, definitely not the only employer....but there isn't an abundance of work for low skilled retail staff and many will be out of work for a considerable amount of time.

Definitely agree to not feel sympathy for the William Hill bottom line, but I feel there are some despicable attitudes towards other people who are just trying to get by in this thread.

Unemployment is at the lowest level since records began, there literally hasn't been a better time to find work. I don't think it's a despicable attitude to expect people to earn their living in an acceptable industry. As previously pointed out, lots of people rely on the scam industry for their livelihood, should we protect those jobs?

Actually disgusted by attitudes on this thread. People with families to support are losing their jobs ffs and and people seem genuinely happy about it. What is wrong with people these days.

As above, I understand your train of thought but I fear you might be simplifying the argument a bit too much; when an industry causes so much misery then the employment angle becomes moot. Should we all be smoking 40 a day to safeguard people's jobs in that industry?

 

[V F]

Actually disgusted by attitudes on this thread. People with families to support are losing their jobs ffs and and people seem genuinely happy about it. What is wrong with people these days.

And there’s nothing wrong with responsible gambling. Unfortunately, too many are incapable of controlling themselves and instead of looking at them, we have to go all nanny state and start blaming everyone else. I’m utterly sick of this attitude whereby because some can’t control themselves, the rest of us must suffer and have our bit of fun taken away.

Don't fret, in 7 days time the caravan will have moved on.

Responsible gambling? It's a mugs game. I remember people saying the same things in the late 80s.

 

[robfosters]

Unemployment is at the lowest level since records began, there literally hasn't been a better time to find work. I don't think it's a despicable attitude to expect people to earn their living in an acceptable industry. As previously pointed out, lots of people rely on the scam industry for their livelihood, should we protect those jobs?



As above, I understand your train of thought but I fear you might be simplifying the argument a bit too much; when an industry causes so much misery then the employment angle becomes moot. Should we all be smoking 40 a day to safeguard people's jobs in that industry?

How do you feel about pubs and fast food shops? Are they acceptable industries to work in, despite them promoting unhealthy, addictive activities?

 

[Avenged7Fold]

'Suffer' Lol

I think it is good restrictions have finally hit the industry hard. If anything, there should be greater restrictions aimed at targeting irresponsible gambling online.

It is sad that many will lose their livelihood over this and sadder if you think how many people have lost their livelihood so that the industry can flourish and get to this point.

Every week we see chains announce mass closures and responses go something like:

Game closures - 'LOL, they are still going? Steam ftw'
High street stores - 'not surprised with online shopping'
Banks - 'Revolut/Monzo dont have branches, why do the rest need them?'


Now this closure is said to be a direct result of targeting irresponsible gambling and you are disgusted at peoples response?

 

[FoxEye]

How do you feel about pubs and fast food shops? Are they acceptable industries to work in, despite them promoting unhealthy, addictive activities?

The gambling shops made no effort whatsoever to control the spending of gambling addicts. The even encouraged it with fixed odds betting terminals.

They were making such huge profits from those machines - which existed solely to exploit problem gamblers - that they can't make ends meet without them.

So they not only enabled problem gambling - they depended on it. That's the difference. A responsible pub can refuse to serve a problem drinker. They don't set them up for a life of alcoholism just for profit.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

How do you feel about pubs and fast food shops? Are they acceptable industries to work in, despite them promoting unhealthy, addictive activities?

I understand the parallel you are drawing, however the definition of "acceptable" doesn't begin and end with personal opinion. If you look at the comparisons that I have made, those were industries that were defined as unacceptable by legislation just like FOBTs. The fast food & pub industries haven't been through that process because there are rules and restrictions in place to maintain them as acceptable within society.

 

[StriderX]

Whenever someone screams about people losing jobs i always wonder how exactly business is meant to evolve if they're forced to never fire someone or streamline.

It's just basic logic, companies fail because the customers don't exist, crying about the employees losing a job is frankly self-serving when you're literally the reason for it. Should i cry for the slavers who lost their job hundreds of years ago for equivalent reasons around a social expectation that it was fine up to a certain point?

A basic tenet of capitalism is that this is natural and that there is another job elsewhere assuming growth has continued, so there's no need at all to scream at people who find this to be a non-issue and value the reduced abuse of vulnerable people.

 

[robfosters]

Whenever someone screams about people losing jobs i always wonder how exactly business is meant to evolve if they're forced to never fire someone or streamline.

It's just basic logic, companies fail because the customers don't exist, crying about the employees losing a job is frankly self-serving when you're literally the reason for it. Should i cry for the slavers who lost their job hundreds of years ago?

William hill are not failing. Not by a long shot,

 

[MartinPrince]

William hill are not failing. Not by a long shot,

They are still doing good business on my high street from seeing the amount of punters inside.

 

[200sols]

I don't see gambling shops as any different to heroin dealers.

Not everyone who buys drugs is an addict. Bug heroin dealers aren't nice people. And neither are gambling companies.

They enable the destruction of the lives of people who just can't help themselves.

So ban everything that causes destruction of peoples lives because they just cant help themselves? Alchohol? Painkillers? Anxiety drugs? Fast food? Where do you draw the line?

 

[garnett]

So ban everything that causes destruction of peoples lives because they just cant help themselves? Alchohol? Painkillers? Anxiety drugs? Fast food? Where do you draw the line?

Where it steps over into costing society.

 

[SPG]

Where it steps over into costing society.

This is quite simple, generally society moves at the slowest pace for the slowest people, some people are really slow and get left behind.

The bookies have zero interest in your well being, partly because its mental health and is not seen to be debilitating like alcoholism. Bookies are a scourge, they should have been left as dark dingy places with the front closed up along with being intimidating to go in, not shiny glossy shops of attraction.

 

[platinum87]

Whenever someone screams about people losing jobs i always wonder how exactly business is meant to evolve if they're forced to never fire someone or streamline.

It's just basic logic, companies fail because the customers don't exist, crying about the employees losing a job is frankly self-serving when you're literally the reason for it. Should i cry for the slavers who lost their job hundreds of years ago for equivalent reasons around a social expectation that it was fine up to a certain point?

A basic tenet of capitalism is that this is natural and that there is another job elsewhere assuming growth has continued, so there's no need at all to scream at people who find this to be a non-issue and value the reduced abuse of vulnerable people.

Because people are saying its good they lost their jobs as they work for a bookies

These are two emotional viewpoints which conflict with each other, gambling destroys lives / think of their families etc. Two halves of the same coin.

Do you see that making a rational argument is entirely wasted?

 

[Thekwango]

responsible pub can refuse to serve a problem drinker. They don't set them up for a life of alcoholism just for profit.

as too can a responsible bookies surely? but you've been living in a bubble sniffing your own fart stink for too long if you think pubs, responsible or otherwise give a toss about whether someone is an alcoholic or has a drinking problem. very few, if any publicans/landlords/barstaff will say 'nope, sorry mate, i know you've got a drink problem so best i not serve you'

it's not a good thing 4500 people had to lose their jobs. well they most likely didn't have to lose their jobs, much like any company that ditches jobs to keep their profits above 'x' levels don't have to give staff the heave ho - but most companies aren't about the good of the people they are about profits. bookies don't have a monopoly on being 'evil' corporations.

i imagine a lot of these bookie shops will be in relatively deprived areas where jobs are scarce and people will work at whatever they can to earn a crust. better that than a life on the dole or worse, a life of crime.

anyways, i suppose it's a good thing these FOBT's have been limited to try and protect the more vulnerable but will these measures stop the gambling addicts? i doubt it, virtually everyone has internet access and that's all the addicts need to continue feeding their addiction.

 

[StriderX]

Because people are saying its good they lost their jobs as they work for a bookies

These are two emotional viewpoints which conflict with each other, gambling destroys lives / think of their families etc. Two halves of the same coin.

Do you see that making a rational argument is entirely wasted?

But the people working behind the counter haven't had their lives ruined... that would only be true if their circumstances are poor or the economy is in recession, it's highly likely that a significant proportion of their clientele do have poor (quality) lives due to their abuse of gambling, to the point of ruination and that likely is permanent for some of them.

If this were a recession, i'd be more inclined to sympathy, but the fact is the job figures speak for themselves and these people all have experience.

 

[FoxEye]

William hill are not failing. Not by a long shot,

Then maybe they don't have to fire all their shop workers; they could re-deploy them if they wanted.

Of course you wouldn't expect a business that made massive profits from exploiting gambling addicts to give two hoots about their staff either. Easier to fire them all.

 

[FoxEye]

Because people are saying its good they lost their jobs as they work for a bookies

I think most people said, "I'm not going to feel bad for them," vs "I'm glad they got sacked."

Quite the difference.