Unfair Experiences Which You Have Followed Up In Writing

Noels Beard · Post by **Noels Beard** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:40 am

We have all been the victim of unfair barrings, or underhand treatment in Pubs and Arcades. Currently Parliament is in the process of reviewing the outcomes of the 2005 Gambling Act through a Select Committee. I have skimmed through the evidence submitted and I've decided to write to the members: documenting details of my treatment in specific machine locations, and the correspondence which has led from this. I hope not only that this may lead to some embarrassment for the parties I highlight, but will maybe lead to an organisation being created to safeguard the end users of the many gambling machines in the UK. If anyone has any experiences, which involve written correspondence, then please reply here.

titchno1 · Post by **titchno1** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:10 am

A thought you were banned?

Oscar · Post by **Oscar** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:29 am

It sounds a bit fanciful if you ask me. After all arcade owners and publicans have the right to ban whoever they wish. The problem is the conduct of a lot of players generally brings heat on the collective. The new generation player is generally poorly educated, lacking any manners and revels in what they do. They also most likely have a criminal record and waste no time in bragging about their exploits, what they are playing etc. You see for these people it is all about image over money, the need to feel loved and respected. Several such people post/have posted on this very site. This is the problem.

Don't get me wrong, there are some pubs you know you are guaranteed to get banned from no matter how you behave, and that is part and parcel of the game.

I'd be more inclined to pursue some form of action against the operators. I'd estimate that the amount of unpaid genuine claims runs into the millions, which is a disgrace.

Noels Beard · Post by **Noels Beard** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:39 am

Well if anyone has had experiences with operators that they think are relevant then I think this could also be included. And yes, licensees do have the right to ban whoever they wish, but if they have told you it's because you have won on the machine then it's clearly discrimination. If they asked a black person to leave without explanation they may get away with it. However, if they said "get out, we don't allow black people in here" I'm pretty sure it would run negatively to their license. Publicans especially are all too quick to explain themselves, this is a good way of exposing them.

quizard · Post by **quizard** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:08 am

Yes but it isn't genuine punters who they ban is it? I can't see the politicians or the general public having any sympthy with pro fruit players or any type of pro gamblers. They don't contribute anything in the way of income taxes and often abuse the benefits system. So why should they have any special protection as though it was proper trade? If you are fortunate enough to be able to make a living out of it just take your chances and get on with it.

Noels Beard · Post by **Noels Beard** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:21 am

Well I wasn't planning on coming at it from that angle. I was going to highlight the fact that there are no organisations whose priority it is to protect the end user. Many of us may not attract sympathy, however we still have legal rights. We also all have a right in this country to be treated without prejudice. You cannot allow a scenario in which you are only allowed to partake in gambling if you are going to lose. The only groups who have public interest in mind are the Gambling Commission, who will not deal with individual cases; BACTA, who have the industry as their priority; and GAMcare, who fundamentally would rather we all stopped gambling in the first place!

pokerpete · Post by **pokerpete** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:01 pm

Noels Beard wrote:Well if anyone has had experiences with operators that they think are relevant then I think this could also be included. And yes, licensees do have the right to ban whoever they wish, but if they have told you it's because you have won on the machine then it's clearly discrimination. If they asked a black person to leave without explanation they may get away with it. However, if they said "get out, we don't allow black people in here" I'm pretty sure it would run negatively to their license. Publicans especially are all too quick to explain themselves, this is a good way of exposing them.

You're seriously comparing a landlord kicking out a slot jockey to racial discrimination?
Are you simple?

Oscar · Post by **Oscar** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:34 pm

In any case the chances of an organisation being created to protect professional fruit machine players (the end users) are far, far less than the chances of major players in the Pub Industry being able to implement a policy where they can ban anyone they suspect of using the premises for reasons other than its intended purpose, ie to eat or drink. This concept may be unpalatable to you, but it is the stark reality.

Why? Because its Big voice v little voice, and there can only be one winner.

Being manhandled out of a pub is one thing, being banned is another, and I used to just pass it off as an occupational hazard.

I suggest you do the same, as while you have a nice idea surely dwelling on it when you could just move onto your next hit is letting the organisations win?

Noels Beard · Post by **Noels Beard** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:37 pm

If these are two genuinely distinct questions then:

1: Yes. Both are examples of prejudice. Another might be that you don't want Chinese DVD salesmen in your pub. Or Country and Western fans. As I've said, they don't have to give a reason but will usually provide one without provocation.

2: Simple as in straightforward? Well I try to be.

pokerpete · Post by **pokerpete** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:41 pm

For someone clearly well educated, you can be a bit thick sometimes.

Noels Beard · Post by **Noels Beard** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:43 pm

Oscar wrote:In any case the chances of an organisation being created to protect professional fruit machine players (the end users) are far, far less than the chances of major players in the Pub Industry being able to implement a policy where they can ban anyone they suspect of using the premises for reasons other than its intended purpose, ie to eat or drink. This concept may be unpalatable to you, but it is the stark reality.

Why? Because its Big voice v little voice, and there can only be one winner.

Being manhandled out of a pub is one thing, being banned is another, and I used to just pass it off as an occupational hazard.

I suggest you do the same, as while you have a nice idea surely dwelling on it when you could just move onto your next hit is letting the organisations win?

It's not about creating an organisation to protect the interests of professionals, of any category. It's about creating an atmosphere of transparency, and legislation & regulation which compliment this. If winning on fruit machines is not a genuine activity within an establishment then neither should losing be. For this reason the pub should remove the machine from its premises. It should never be the licensees decision who wins and loses on their machines.

Oscar · Post by **Oscar** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:47 pm

Some good points there, and I agree with what you are saying.

maverick69 · Post by **maverick69** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:50 pm

black Greg has used the race card more than once lol

Noels Beard · Post by **Noels Beard** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:53 pm

If you make a complaint to the Gambling Commission you will likely receive a response like this:

Dear Mr xxxx

Thank you for your email regarding an amusement arcade

If you have a complaint about the way a gambling business is being run or about a gambling transaction, that is, disagree with an operator about whether you won, or how much you have been paid, you should follow the process below.

All licence holders must have a clear policy on dealing with complaints, including disputes. This policy must include the process to follow in raising a dispute and should be readily available to you in writing:

• Disputes can be expressed orally or in writing and may occur in person, over the telephone, by letter, by email, or via online support. We do recommend written forms of communication, however.
• Complain, to the licence holder concerned providing as much detail as possible. Ideally, you should keep a full record of the dispute.
• The licence holder should investigate the dispute, escalating as necessary, following their internal complaints procedure and informing you of the outcome.
• If you are not satisfied with the outcome, ask the licence holder to refer the dispute to their appointed independent third party for investigation.
• The independent third party should then contact you in the course of their investigation.

So that your dispute is handled as quickly as possible, you should always follow the licence holder’s complaints procedure in the first instance.

If you feel that a licence holder does not have a proper complaints procedure, they have ignored your complaint, or they have not passed on your details to an independent third party, you can complain to us about their failure to operate a proper complaints process. If we think your complaint is reasonable then we may take this up with the licence holder concerned. We will not investigate the facts of the complaint, but we will check that there is a complaints procedure in place and challenge the licence holder to follow that procedure fully.

In general, we will not be able to help you recover any money that you may have lost. We do not assist in obtaining a refund of stakes placed, or put into a gaming machine.

Further details of the advice we can offer about complaints can be found here

Paul Kemble
Licensing Administrator

Gambling Commission
Victoria Square House
Victoria Square
Birmingham B2 4BP

I frankly just do not think this is good enough. And I will be asking how many disputes the commission actually has resolved adequately? I am willing to wager very very few.

Drpepper · Post by **Drpepper** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:00 pm

A more useful topic would be to discuss the social impacts of machine games duty which comes in on February 1st 2013. When it does, forget about the differences between the AWP and SWP, as quiz machines are now classed under the same restrictions as AWP's and will be able offer things like compensated roulette machines at a much lower payout percentage than 97.2%.