Gamblers Rights to sue...

[justine]

Came acrros this story and think its mad.....I know that when you have a compulsive gambler they cant say no to a flutter but is it right that he should be able to do this..It opens up a lot of holes for the likes of drinkers, druggies and the likes.....
Madness is what this is.We are starting to get like America,lets find out who we can sue next.........

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080216/tod-britain-gambling-court-6058bda_1.html

[Dusty]

I think the bloke is just a chancer.

Can a bookmaking chain ensure that a punter who has requested not to be allowed to bet is known to all employees in all their branches. I doubt it.

Maybe punters should be required to "join" a Bookmaking chain before betting, then their membership could be revoked on request to prevent them placing further bets at that chain.

I don't buy the "I've been let down and Duty of care to me" angles.
He's just trying to get his next ante together.

[Highland Laddie]

He gambled, he lost --- get a job

[scorrie]

Like most problem gamblers, the guy was caught out by greed. Anyone who placed £347,000 on the USA to win the Ryder Cup, at very short odds, was clearly trying to "buy" money. Of course, the USA got well and truly thrashed. Selfish and greedy. No sympathy for him.

[nanoo]

He gambled, he lost --- get a jobCould'nt have put it better myself Highland laddie. A chancer or what?[evil]

[gillian17]

Wait for the screams from Northern Rock shareholders.
"But i have lost my life savings."
Unlucky you gambled and lost
"But its a bank and you cannot lose on banks, they pay on average 5% in dividends and their share price goes up."
It is not a bank its a wholly owned subsiduary of Gordon Brown, (I wonder, since making the Bank of England independent ha ha Did he always want another to rape.
Prepare yourselves for a cluster of suicides around Newcastle.

[Geo]

Apparently he had gone to the bookies, told them he has a problem and can't control his habit and asked them not to accept any more money from him. They agreed and then took money from him knowing he was an addict. Some guy on the radio said that they had broken their own company policies so maybe the guy has a point.

[gillian17]

What has Company policy got to do with anything?
I work for a company, (a multi-billion, multi-site, multi-national company) which insists "It is against the law to smoke in these premises." (sic). When it actually means one cannot smoke on these premises. That is the law, the law does not cover (no pun intended) open spaces.
They also announce periodically that cars are parked illegally. On a private car park?

[percy toboggan]

Another victim of the 'excuse' culture. I'm not to blame...I was led astray Guv.....they made me do it.

Garbage...get a job (as someone said) and get a life whilst you're at it.
Or cut yer losses and check out...just keep it non-messy.

[Geo]

What has Company policy got to do with anything?
I work for a company, (a multi-billion, multi-site, multi-national company) which insists "It is against the law to smoke in these premises." (sic). When it actually means one cannot smoke on these premises. That is the law, the law does not cover (no pun intended) open spaces.
They also announce periodically that cars are parked illegally. On a private car park?

In this instance the company policy is to do with acting responsibly and not encouraging excessive gambling or something like that. Not sure of the details, I'm just stating that the radio guy said they seem to have ignored that and took the money from this guy knowing he had an addiction and after he had asked them not to serve him any more.

I'm not saying the guy is right or wrong for suing just that there is two sides to it. I guess the court will decide who is right.

[mccaugm]

What has Company policy got to do with anything?
I work for a company, (a multi-billion, multi-site, multi-national company) which insists "It is against the law to smoke in these premises." (sic). When it actually means one cannot smoke on these premises. That is the law, the law does not cover (no pun intended) open spaces.
They also announce periodically that cars are parked illegally. On a private car park?

If a company states that you may not smoke on their premises that includes their land if they so wish. Raigmore did this and it was the best thing ever. I disagreed with patients being allowed to smoke and I think they have outlawed that too.

Re the point of this thread - he may be able to sue in England but Scots Law would not take on his case as it does not view gambling as being within its remit.

[j4bberw0ck]

In this instance the company policy is to do with acting responsibly

Please don't be silly. He had an account. He barred himself on that account. Two months later, he opened another account entirely. Then he lost the money.

The man is an idiot. A complete moron. He sacrificed any protection he might have had when he opened a new account. He needs to lose this case, and lose badly - carrying not just his debts, but his legal costs and the bookies legal costs, too.

[Geo]

Please don't be silly. He had an account. He barred himself on that account. Two months later, he opened another account entirely. Then he lost the money.

The man is an idiot. A complete moron. He sacrificed any protection he might have had when he opened a new account. He needs to lose this case, and lose badly - carrying not just his debts, but his legal costs and the bookies legal costs, too.

He opened another account after having told them he was an addict and not to open any more accounts for him. As such I feel they have a "measure" of responsibility.

The man sounds like an addict i.e. he has an illness, not an idiot.

He might be trying it on, he might be an addict. As such I'll sit on the fence but most seem to think he is trying it on without giving any thought to the guy's mental state and the fact he made the bookie aware of it.

[j4bberw0ck]

I meant he's a moron and an idiot expecting everyone else to bail him out. Who pays? The other punters, and the shareholders, of the bookmaker. Why should they? It's a shame he's an addict, but addiction doesn't - or shouldn't - absolve anyone of responsibility. After all, he knew he had a problem if for no other reason than he barred himself. Then he started again.

For me, the crunch point is that he terminated one account (for which read, relationship) with the bookie. OK so far. If they accepted further business on that account there might possibly be some sort of negligence on their part.

He then opened another account (i.e. a whole new legal relationship, which is his right in a free society - well, free-ish) and lost money. Ergo, the bookie's off the hook.

[scorrie]

I found this opinion from a legal expert:-


"Greg Gordon, an expert in the law of delict at Aberdeen University, said that while the test case would prove "fascinating", he believed its chances of success were remote.

"My sense is that it has too many hurdles to overcome," he said. "It may very well be that a duty of care is owed, but I think the case will struggle on the basis of causation."

He drew parallels with the case of Margaret McTear, from Ayrshire, who failed to win compensation following the death of her husband, Alfred, from smoking. She argued that Imperial Tobacco's addictive product led to his premature death.

Mr Gordon added: "The cigarette case failed on causation. It was ruled Mr McTear had voluntarily behaved in such a way as to cause his own injury. It wasn't accepted on the basis that other people can stop smoking.

"In the same way it could be argued compulsive gamblers can stop gambling. It's very difficult to try to hold people accountable when you caused the problem. Even if the gambling case were successful, there could be a plea of contributory negligence which would reduce any damages awarded.""

[sphinx]

a chancer or what is rite there no other words for it he is the resposible for putting himself there in the first place eh.......

[hails4]

once worked for ladbrokes once and customers can request to be barred from their premises and it can be rolled out nation wide, however, imagine the amount of people who do this in the city, its ok for us up here where the population is much smaller, however i have no sympathy for these kind of people, as a guy who bets weekly i know the risks, i know the loses and i am in control of what i bet when i bet, the same applies for everyone, a sore loser imo, and i would jail him for making these kind of claims.

[Cazaa]

I've got a bet on at the moment that he doesn't win his case.

If I don't win (ie that he wins his case) then I'm going to sue him.

[gillian17]

Does anyone know what the actual outcome of the case was?

[gillian17]

Is anyone running a sweepstake on when I get banned again?

[Bad Manners]

i'm not supposed to eat cream cakes as they are bad for my health should I go round all the bakers shops and tell them not to sell me any NO it is my problem and I have to deal with it. he had a gambling problem he has to deal with it you cant blame someone else for your own lack of willpower.
as for me just have to keep looking in the bakers window.

[scorrie]

Does anyone know what the actual outcome of the case was?

Unsurprisingly, he lost his case. He appealed but lost that as well. He incurred hundreds of thousands of pounds in costs, he lost his wife. He is now serving a two year prison sentence for possession of firearms and cocaine.

Cue the music:-"Always look on the bright side of life, de-de,de-de,de-de,de-de,de-de"

[gillian17]

Cream cakes are the best thing you can eat because they contain sugar etc which you need for energy. Walk to the shop for them, do not send someone else for them. That is the trick.