Owe someone some money? Sue them!

[rynnor]

He tried to beat the system using a different name and suceeded. Its a betting shop, not a passport application, they shouldn't demand to see 20 different types of ID.

No - didnt you read the story? He used his own name again to open the second account - that to me gives him a reasonable case for negligence on their part.

 

[rynnor]

Seems to me it's too easy to run up debts, get in to trouble etc and lay the blame somewhere else and even sue these days, hence all these people having 30 holidays a year on the credit card then claiming themselves bankrupt to wipe the debts and blaming the credit card companies for letting them spend money, they need to take responsibility, fuckers

Yes people should take responsibility for their actions but it is true that credit is available constantly now.

The financial sector is guilty of irresponsibly lending out money - in the old days it was a lot harder to get credit - seems to me pretty straightforward that if the banks lend to all and sundry youll get a lot more people who are financially hopeless getting into debt and that is indeed what we see nowadays.

If the banks were more responsible then these people wouldnt have the means to get into debt and would thus live within their actual means but ofc. this would hit consumer spending...

 

[bob269]

No - didnt you read the story? He used his own name again to open the second account - that to me gives him a reasonable case for negligence on their part.

I'm no internet wizz but am i right in saying whatever the website and situation (even forums like this) that you need a username to log in which is unique, his name however is not unique and there could be thousands of Mr Calvert's in the UK

So he simply re-registered with a new username

 

[rynnor]

So he simply re-registered with a new username

Thats my guess but with the same details behind it so they should have noticed.

 

[Dukat]

Amazing the way the world has gone that we're even having the discussion.

Well, not we're. you're, but you know what I mean.

Was thinking exactly the same thing.

Its quite amazing how there are so many different ways of looking at things, I dont think I ever realised how people can take what seems to be an open and shut "what a twat" situation and turn it in to a debate until I started posting on FH

You lot should all be defence laywers tbh!

 

[bob269]

Also isn't it a little ironic that he was earning 30k per month from other peoples gambling addictions.

Everybody who bet and lost on his greyhounds should sue him

 

[mank!]

Was thinking exactly the same thing.

Its quite amazing how there are so many different ways of looking at things, I dont think I ever realised how people can take what seems to be an open and shut "what a twat" situation and turn it in to a debate until I started posting on FH

You lot should all be defence laywers tbh!

but it isn't an open and shut situation at all

 

[rynnor]

Its quite amazing how there are so many different ways of looking at things, I dont think I ever realised how people can take what seems to be an open and shut "what a twat" situation and turn it in to a debate until I started posting on FH

I think its funny that you and Throd think this is so black and white - theres a whole world of grey out there guys and 99% of situations fall into the grey rather than black and white.

 

[Dukat]

but it isn't an open and shut situation at all

Its quite amazing how there are so many different ways of looking at things, I dont think I ever realised how people can take what seems to be an open and shut "what a twat" situation and turn it in to a debate until I started posting on FH

It might not be a total 'open and shut' situation. On the other hand it isnt far off.

I think its funny that you and Throd think this is so black and white - theres a whole world of grey out there guys and 99% of situations fall into the grey rather than black and white.

The truth is never grey. People hear two sides of a story and automatically assume the truth lies somewhere in-between, while sometimes - maybe even 'often' - true, this is lazy thinking, the truth is the truth no matter where it lies.

Alot of it depends on your point of view I guess.

To me it seems to be an open and shut situation, if other people want to discuss it thats fine, I just find it funny how people can take something like this and turn it into a full on debate. The same happens in the OT section, so many different ways of looking at the same thing, I never realised it was possible until I started posting here.

I'm not going to discuss it though, because to me there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Tilda]

No - didnt you read the story? He used his own name again to open the second account - that to me gives him a reasonable case for negligence on their part.

But if they had closed his previous account under his fake name, and then blocked his fake name. How were they to know it wasn't his real name unless all betting shops should ask to see ID before creating accounts?

 

[WPKenny]

How about the fact that he's said that when betting shops went by his wishes and told him he could nolonger bet there, he simply found other places to bet? Surely the fact he's admitting this that no matter how supposedly negligent a betting agent is, he would still have found an alternative route to gambling.

 

[bob269]

Also if Will Hill had the best system in the world and it blocked all his usernames, alias's and no shop would take his bet then wouldnt he simply walk in to ladbrooks and start again

 

[nath]

How about the fact that he's said that when betting shops went by his wishes and told him he could nolonger bet there, he simply found other places to bet? Surely the fact he's admitting this that no matter how supposedly negligent a betting agent is, he would still have found an alternative route to gambling.

Also if Will Hill had the best system in the world and it blocked all his usernames, alias's and no shop would take his bet then wouldnt he simply walk in to ladbrooks and start again

This is why it's grey - clearly no one is saying this guy should get all his money back, he's done nothing wrong. The only point anyone sensible is arguing is whether William Hill did enough to stop him gambling when he requested to be blocked. Jesus, why are people so against corporate responsibility?

The truth is never grey. People hear two sides of a story and automatically assume the truth lies somewhere in-between, while sometimes - maybe even 'often' - true, this is lazy thinking, the truth is the truth no matter where it lies.

Quite the contrary, I think it's lazy thinking to assume that the world is so simple. It's not unfortunately.

 

[bob269]

Should fat people sue Mr Kipling for making exceedingly good cakes?

 

[nath]

Should fat people sue Mr Kipling for making exceedingly good cakes?

No of course not - but why are you completely ignoring the fact that he (appears to have) acknowledged that he had a problem and self-excluded himself. Then he relapsed and their self-exclusion policy didn't stop him from gambling.

Sure he could have gone elsewhere if it had, and a central register would probably help a lot but ultimately it sounds like William Hill didn't do enough. Why is it people only seem to think in black and white - either he's right, or they are. Neither are the case here, he fucked up and so did they.

 

[bob269]

No of course not - but why are you completely ignoring the fact that he (appears to have) acknowledged that he had a problem and self-excluded himself. Then he relapsed and their self-exclusion policy didn't stop him from gambling.

But we are missing the facts, the story says he opened a new account in his own name, it doesnt mention if he used the same address, same debit card etc.

He admitted he had a problem but didnt get help, simply suspending his account isnt enough, same with any addiction, you may tell yourself you wont have anymore and even prevent yourself from access to the addictive product but if you have a problem you will always find away to get hold of your fix.

 

[Tilda]

nath can you explain how will hill could have done more if we work on the presumption that all the details on each of the accounts were different?

 

[nath]

If all the details on each of the accounts were different they couldn't have done more. This is why I'm saying it's not black and white. The beeb article says that it was opened in his name. More than that we don't know so perhaps he did stuff to beat the system, or maybe the system is shit.

Bob you're right he probably would have gone elsewhere, but the fact is I'm not arguing whether he's right or they are... I'm saying they could both be at fault.

 

[MYstIC G]

Amazing the way the world has gone that we're even having the discussion.

Well, not we're. you're, but you know what I mean.

Somebody else post something worthwhile, I'm fed up of no longer being able to give TdC and throd extra reputation points!

 

[rynnor]

nath can you explain how will hill could have done more if we work on the presumption that all the details on each of the accounts were different?

All I can find says his details were the same - heres the lawyers opinion from 'The Times'

"Jason Chess, a partner at Wiggin and Co agrees that much will hinge on the distinction between Mr Calvert placing bets through a new credit account and his bets made over the counter. “Under the licensing regulations you have to offer punters the right to exclude themselves from gambling. If someone self-excludes you have to take what steps you can to prevent them from gambling. Keep a record of credit card number, email and all the rest. If he has done that and then come back with the same name and credit card then you would have expected them to weed him out.”

It would be interesting to know just how this thing went so badly wrong. It’s the ultimate nightmare that all modern gambling legislation is designed to prevent. "

Edit: Oh and because you dont like this guy doesnt mean an important principle isnt at stake :

"Sue Mottram’s son Alex, 39, had suffered severe brain injuries during a cycling race when he was 16. Having gambled away most of the compensation money he received for the accident, he had signed six-month self-exclusion agreements with a number of bookmakers in the area, his mother said. He was subsequently allowed to gamble during the six-month period, she said.

The Gambling Commission, which regulates the industry, said at the time that since September 1, 2007 licensed betting operators were required to promote “socially responsible gambling” under the Gambling Act 2005. This included an obligation for licensees to “put in place procedures for self-exclusion and take all reasonable steps to refuse service or to otherwise prevent an individual who has entered a self-exclusion agreement from participating in gambling". "

 

[Ch3tan]

Somebody else post something worthwhile, I'm fed up of no longer being able to give TdC and throd extra reputation points!

Not at all, I usually agree with Throd, but you cannot paint everything black and white. Nath has hit the nail on the head here.

 

[Kryten]

Theres holes in all laws, period.

Fact is a simple one. That bloke is a retard.

 

[nath]

Nice to see such compassion there mate. Real nice.

 

[DaGaffer]

Nice to see such compassion there mate. Real nice.

Sorry, but I'll save my compassion for where its warranted. Even if its partially William Hill's fault, and it is, a bit, penalising them sends out the wrong message to society; that it's always someone else's fault. Corporate responsibility is all well and good, but the courts need to send some clear messages about personal responsibility.

 

[Kryten]

I was offered free legal help and a promise of removal of some of my debts because of my disability, yet I declined - I may be disabled, not all there, not quite the full deck etc, but I know enough to understand personal responsibility. In hindsight I do sort of wish I did take those folks up on their offer but not to worry.

I know what I'm doing now is right.

Me having a problem doesn't make it the fault of Lloyds TSB, Egg, Virgin etc that they lent me money

 

[Dukat]

Quite the contrary, I think it's lazy thinking to assume that the world is so simple. It's not unfortunately.

Exactly where did I say that the world was simple?

 

[nath]

Sorry, but I'll save my compassion for where its warranted. Even if its partially William Hill's fault, and it is, a bit, penalising them sends out the wrong message to society; that it's always someone else's fault. Corporate responsibility is all well and good, but the courts need to send some clear messages about personal responsibility.

I never said what I think should be the result of the proceedings, all I was saying is that it's not as clear cut as many are saying. Plus I don't believe in making examples/sending messages. I think they should analyse the case and do what's right. I don't know that he should win, I'm not convinced he should get any of his money back at all. I do think that William Hill should be punished in some way if it turns out their self-exclusion policy doesn't actually work (to a reasonable degree.

I was offered free legal help and a promise of removal of some of my debts because of my disability, yet I declined - I may be disabled, not all there, not quite the full deck etc, but I know enough to understand personal responsibility. In hindsight I do sort of wish I did take those folks up on their offer but not to worry.

I know what I'm doing now is right.

Me having a problem doesn't make it the fault of Lloyds TSB, Egg, Virgin etc that they lent me money

The only point that I've been arguing happens to be the point where your comparison fails - he appears to have acknowledge his problem and tried to block himself from gambling more. He relapsed and the self exclusion didn't work - this is where something needs to be done. The article didn't have enough information to decide but if he didn't attempt to circumvent the system and was allowed to go back then something needs to be done. As I said, I don't think that means giving back all the money he lost, maybe not even giving anything back to him at all. The fact is they have a system put in place to help prevent exploiting addicts, it doesn't appear to work.

Exactly where did I say that the world was simple?

You did when you said "The truth is never grey".

 

[Dukat]

You did when you said "The truth is never grey".

Saying the truth is never grey is not the same as saying that everything is simple.

The truth is never grey - what happens happens, no one may know for sure, or it may be common knowledge, but the truth is always the truth. There may be obscurities, but that doesnt change the truth at all. People's opinions or perceptions may be grey, but the truth itself is never like that.

Things can be complex, but at the heart of the matter there is always only one real "truth".

 

[Ch3tan]

But by not discussing things how will you ever know what that truth is? The only options offered up seem to be he is wrong or he is right. How about naths options that they are both wrong? The coments by Kryt, you, and Throd do not consider that.

 

[Jupitus]

The guy is and was a stupid twathead