Punter sues bookmaker for million dollar losses
Much has been written about the case of Graham Calvert who is currently suing William Hill – the UK’s biggest bookies – for £2 million that he lost placing bets with them.
Mr Calvert’s case is that he asked to self-exclude when he realised he had a gambling problem, approaching addiction. Despite taking this responsible step, in an attempt to prevent further damage, he was allowed to open a new account several months later by William Hill.
He claims that William Hill was negligent and should have refused to accept further bets from him after he specifically requested self-exclusion.
However, William Hill is a business, whose aim, like any other, is to make money. Why should they refuse good business? According to the law, anyone over the age of 18 can bet. The law protects children, but adults are supposed to be able to take care of themselves.
Do we really want more nanny state restrictions interfering in our lives? What if this were extended to other areas? How would you like it if your local bakery refused to sell you a pie, on the grounds that, quite frankly you’re overweight and should get in shape? Could you feasibly ask your newsagent to refuse to sell you chocolate because you’re addicted?
Many businesses are founded on addiction – cigarettes, coffee, drugs to name a few. Even makers of video games have been accused of making their games addictive, to keep you playing for longer. Since gambling is legal in the UK – and the announcement of 16 new casinos around the country shows us that the government not only permits but positively promotes gambling – this is a legitimate way to make money.
It’s a fine line to draw between protection of the vulnerable and interference in a grown person’s life and leisure. After Alex Mottram, 39 and mentally disabled, gambled away all of his compensation money, his mother called for gambling regulations to be tightened. Mottram had also signed a self-exclusion agreement, yet was allowed to continue gambling, losing £100,000 on blackjack and roulette games.
If gamblers want to be in with a chance of fame and fortune they must be willing to take the bad with the good. It’s safe to assume that Graham Calvert wouldn’t be complaining if he’d won £2 million during his self-exclusion. Gambling is after all, by definition, an activity based on risk. Gamblers who go crying to the casinos when they lose make a laughing stock of the whole industry. Of course, casinos and bookmakers have a responsibility to the communities they serve, and this should include not taking advantage of underage or vulnerable citizens; and self-exclusions must be respected.
But a precedent must not be set whereby punters can sue the gambling provider every time they suffer a run of bad luck – or judgment.
Tags: bookies, bookmaker