If you get a bet on in a shop 2 secs after a race goes off and the staff take it and you ask if it is on in time, they say yes and then you try and get your stake back when it gets humped becaused it was on late then you will be politely told to get fucked. Reason being you cant lose. This looks like exactly the same sort of thing to me.
The exclusion thing can be done in shops as well but its not realistic. If the staff in the shop are different one day they wont realise etc. He most likely shouldnt have been allowed to open another account but the fact that someone tries to make the bookies responsible for the gambling problem really cracks me up.
Personally I'd love to see Hill being turned over in this one for the reason above re them being happy top take any amount of cash from serial losers but quickly curtailing the bets of habitual winners.
I would agree that this guy’s chances aren’t probably as bad as made out but if he wins this would be a disaster both for the bookmakers and for the punters ultimately. Anything taken of the bookies bottom line will eventually be lumped onto the punter in some shape or other. In the unlikely event he wins the bookies will appeal this to the gates of hell.
On the continent you can be excluded by your own request from casinos by a self exclusion order. Your ID card will be made invalid and any licensed casino will turn you away. There’s an interesting French movie about this about a compulsive gambler who asks for himself to be barred for live after a particularly bad physical and financial beating only to regret it the next day and he spends the rest of the movie trying to catch a lottery cheat for the police to win his rights to gamble back.
The guy is a chancing knob but outside the gambling community he probably has a lot more sympathy than he merits. Gambling is stil viewed as socially and morally wrong in some quarters. Problem is that if a judge with thgat viewpoint gets the case then anything can happen especially if the judge knowing that Hills will appeal decides to make a few waves in the initial case.
If he'd have chosen illegal drugs to spend his money on and ruin his life he would have had no comeback in a court of law.
I hope he dies in agony.
This man lost his money though a lawful pursuit though, not illegal drugs. That comparison is frankly bollocks.
In order to achieve more lenient gambling laws in this country, bookies and casino owners have waxed lyrical about how they will help those addicted to gambling. Self exclusion was introduced so they look like they care and look like they are committed to helping out those that are out of their depth.
The bookies then ignore this self exclusion, when it suits them.
A compulsive gambler who is suing William Hill for more than £2 million in the High Court is on bail for firearms and drugs charges.
Greyhound trainer Graham Calvert, 28, from Tyne and Wear, claims the bookmakers allowed him to place bets when he had twice asked them to close his account - a process known as "self-exclusion" - as he battled with gambling addiction.
A spokeswoman for Northumbria Police said Mr Calvert is currently on bail awaiting trial.
"Graham Calvert, 28, of Sedgeletch Road, Sedgeletch, in Houghton has been charged with firearms offences and associated drugs offences and is scheduled to appear at Newcastle Crown Court on a date to be fixed," she said.
Mr Calvert wants William Hill to pay back the £2.1 million in losses he accrued between June and December 2006 on the grounds that they failed in their "duty of care".
During that period he alleges the bookies allowed him to open two new accounts and to make bets totalling around £3.5 million.
He lost around £347,000 on one bet alone when he backed the USA to win the 2006 Ryder Cup.
His solicitors, Newcastle-based Ward Hadaway, say the case is a crucial test of the betting industry's social responsibility policies.
"It goes to the issue of how bookmakers treat people who have gambling problems via their self-exclusion policy and whether they can be held responsible when they advertise themselves as offering self exclusion and promoting socially-responsible gambling," said lawyer Peter Hornsey. William Hill will defend the case "vigorously".
Graham Calvert also sought personal injury damages
A compulsive gambler has lost his bid at the High Court to force bookmaker William Hill to repay his £2m losses.
Greyhound trainer Graham Calvert, 28, from Houghton-le-Spring, near Sunderland, said the company failed in its "duty of care".
But Mr Justice Briggs ruled on Wednesday that William Hill was not liable for the losses.
He ordered Mr Calvert, who has borrowed money to fight the case, to pay about £336,000 in legal costs to the firm.
The judge said he would only pay 80% of the estimated £420,000 bookmakers costs after the late disclosure of key evidence.
He ruled that although the company failed to take "reasonable steps" to stop Mr Calvert from telephone gambling, Mr Calvert's "pathological gambling" would still probably have led to his financial ruin.
In summary of his ruling the judge said: "William Hill's failure to take reasonable care to exclude him from telephone gambling... did not therefore cause Mr Calvert any measurable financial or other loss."
New accounts
Mr Calvert had also sought further compensation after he claimed he had not only lost money but also his wife, health and livelihood.
William Hill was accused of manipulating his gambling disorder to gain as much revenue as possible by letting him place bets after asking it to close his account under a self-exclusion scheme.
It was alleged the bookmaker allowed Mr Calvert to open two new accounts and to make bets totalling about £3.5m between June and December 2006. During this period he lost a total of £2.1m.
The company denied any wrongdoing and said it could not be held legally liable for Mr Calvert's losses.
David Hood, spokesman for William Hill, said: "We stated from the outset that there was no case to answer to Mr Calvert.
"The judge found that no general duty of care is owed to problem gamblers and that Hills handling of Mr Calvert's calls did not cause his loss."
The judge refused Mr Calvert permission to appeal, although he will be able to take his case directly to the Court of Appeal.
A man is suing William Hill for more than £2m
.GIF "Thumb(1)")
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 1
