Uk most deprived areas have the Highest number of gambling outlets.

[bryant.coleman]

Not only that mate but the government itself needs to find alternative to where might get additional income generating market as we knew that Gambling businesses is one of the biggest tax paying in the world.
they even generate 20% of the GDP from gambling operator itself not counting the illegal activities as well.

But regulation will do better i guess and proper implementation of laws regarding those regulations.

I just want to say one thing. There are certain sectors like gambling, weed, alcohol, porn, prostitution.etc that have existed for thousands of years. Semitic religions consider them as taboo, and try to ban them. But they have existed much before these religions came into existence, and they will continue to exist no matter who tries to ban them. Those who try to ban them are just not able to admit the reality. I can give numerous examples. Iran, which has banned almost all of the professions/hobbies mentioned above has one of the highest rates of drug abuse and prostitution in the world. The same can be said about Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and most of the other third world nations.

[1715425151]

1715425151

[1715425151]

1715425151

[haidil]

Comparing out online and offline casinos then i can say that they are still having some good share when it comes to revenue since there are still people who do gamble out on physical places
because people do much prefer on having real experience rather than playing online.So its a personal kind of preference since not all would be having the same interest.
Speaking off deprived areas on where those gambling places been placed on then its bit understandable that most of poor people residing will really be likely
to make gambling as an option to make some income which means losing is inevitable and thats a sure income to the casino owners.

the demographics of online casinos are probably quite different as well since they are not limited by place and can access people in different economic situations

there's that, the house always wins, regardless of medium

It is true that the house will be the final winner for whatever reason. Even someone who says that he has won the Jackpot, actually behind it all he does not say how much money he has spent before making a profit. Maybe 100x the deposit made for just one win. So back to the casino house that with the calculations that can be obtained, the casino is the winner.

[wxa7115]

How should they go about controlling these things? Should the government try and make laws to ban such behavior and such state? I think people should have a minimum wage for sure when it comes to gambling, what do you think ?

Do you suggest that the government should raise the minimum wages,so that more people could gamble?

Uh no, he doesn't. Pretty sure what he meant was there should be a minimum wage criterion when allowing people to gamble. E.g, a person who has an annual income of $100,000 should be the ones that are allowed to gamble (stupid sample, but it works). It's rather understandable really, with it in place it restricts a LOT of people from gambling however, this puts a pause to the possible profits a casino could get. It's literally a law that's placed to inhibit them from profiting. It's rather different from the age requirement since it's basically applied to all ages now, compared to the below 18/21 kind of law.

That is an interesting idea but one I do not think it is ever going to pass, people will immediately protest against this as it is going to seem to them as they are being discriminated against and the rich are being favored.

I know this measure if it were to be put in place will have the intention of protecting those that do not have a lot of money of losing it at the casino, but people are not going to view it that way, we need to stop with this paternalistic view of the government and think they can protect their citizens from everything bad that it could happen to them, it is better to give freedom to the people even if that means that sometimes they will make mistakes.

[Lucasgabd]

 It is not right to blame the casino for that. For every gambler who gets addicted and play irresponsibly, there will be 20 others who will be doing that in a responsible manner. So the question is whether it is right to punish the other 20 people for the fault of one individual.

The government has given these gambling casinos license not for people to get addicted and make their lives miserable, it is an income and job-generating business, besides the tax, it generates jobs and sustains business within the casinos, it is not only a place to gamble and for people to get entertained but a part that sustain the country's economy, one example is Las Vegas and Macau it's not right to blame casinos they help the economy and help people to get entertained as well.

well, generating jobs is not the best way to justify something since tobacco smoking industry also does it and we can agree that something that makes more than 60% of users addicted with no clear benefits (besides money to producers) shouldn't be incetivized, it helps the economy but hurts health and society in general

not saying the same applies to gambling but adding to the logic here

things to think about

[harizen]

I just want to say this - if someone argues that the casinos need to be closed down, then they should provide alternate employment and compensation to all those who are going to lose their job. Very few businesses would be willing to operate in these areas and The Guardian wants to close down the few that are willing. And regarding casino owners, what is wrong if they make profits from a legitimate business? No one will start a business if they are not allowed to make profits. That argument doesn't make any sense.

I agree. The anti-gambling enthusiast should understand the "positive side" of the gambling business in those deprived areas. Don't just focus on the word "gambling" but instead look at the whole. They should not look only for a single tree but on the whole forest.

It's clear that the gambling industry makes a big economic contribution to that country and we quote;

"119,000 jobs"
"£4.5bn in tax"
"£7.7bn to the economy in gross value"

That stats are a big help coming from a pandemic.

[Fredomago]

That is an interesting idea but one I do not think it is ever going to pass, people will immediately protest against this as it is going to seem to them as they are being discriminated against and the rich are being favored.

Quick thinker, that's true! People from the lower class will think that way, their freedom has been discriminated.

We all know that there are many from this class who love to gamble, and by doing this kind of rules will surely trigger them to protest.

I know this measure if it were to be put in place will have the intention of protecting those that do not have a lot of money of losing it at the casino, but people are not going to view it that way, we need to stop with this paternalistic view of the government and think they can protect their citizens from everything bad that it could happen to them, it is better to give freedom to the people even if that means that sometimes they will make mistakes.

It will never be seen that way, more on the side that the government is always favoring the rich over the poor.

even the intention is good for the best interest of those who are in the lower class, they will see it the other side.

I will agree with you, better to let them to practice their rights, which they think that equality should always be there
and let them to the point that they will see the benefits if they only realize the main concern about the problem.

[Sithara007]

I agree. The anti-gambling enthusiast should understand the "positive side" of the gambling business in those deprived areas. Don't just focus on the word "gambling" but instead look at the whole. They should not look only for a single tree but on the whole forest.

It's clear that the gambling industry makes a big economic contribution to that country and we quote;

"119,000 jobs"
"£4.5bn in tax"
"£7.7bn to the economy in gross value"

That stats are a big help coming from a pandemic.

In a way, gambling is a form of wealth redistribution (although I don't support it). It takes away money from the wealthy and the less-deserving people and then distribute it among those who need it. I have regularly heard about Arab sheikhs wasting millions of USD worth of their money in a single day in casinos. These guys have banned all forms of gambling in their own countries, and then travel to destinations like Monaco and Spain to visit the casinos. In the end, playing responsibly is the duty of the gambler. If he is not doing that, then we can assume that either he is having surplus cash, or he doesn't deserve his wealth.

[traderethereum]

Comparing out online and offline casinos then i can say that they are still having some good share when it comes to revenue since there are still people who do gamble out on physical places
because people do much prefer on having real experience rather than playing online.So its a personal kind of preference since not all would be having the same interest.
Speaking off deprived areas on where those gambling places been placed on then its bit understandable that most of poor people residing will really be likely
to make gambling as an option to make some income which means losing is inevitable and thats a sure income to the casino owners.

the demographics of online casinos are probably quite different as well since they are not limited by place and can access people in different economic situations

there's that, the house always wins, regardless of medium

It is true that the house will be the final winner for whatever reason. Even someone who says that he has won the Jackpot, actually behind it all he does not say how much money he has spent before making a profit. Maybe 100x the deposit made for just one win. So back to the casino house that with the calculations that can be obtained, the casino is the winner.

Indeed. And if that casino has been build in the poor areas while people from that place will try their luck by playing gambling, the house can still take the biggest money from them.
If that winner can calculate how much money he used to win on that big money and how long he spent to win that much money, he will realize if that is worth to do or he should not try to gamble and will try to search for the other things that can give him the money.
But the casino can still build their business in any places they want, with or without bribe the officers to open their casino and the casino can attract curiosity from people to playing gambling and test their luck.

[AicecreaME]

 It is not right to blame the casino for that. For every gambler who gets addicted and play irresponsibly, there will be 20 others who will be doing that in a responsible manner. So the question is whether it is right to punish the other 20 people for the fault of one individual.

The government has given these gambling casinos license not for people to get addicted and make their lives miserable, it is an income and job-generating business, besides the tax, it generates jobs and sustains business within the casinos, it is not only a place to gamble and for people to get entertained but a part that sustain the country's economy, one example is Las Vegas and Macau it's not right to blame casinos they help the economy and help people to get entertained as well.

well, generating jobs is not the best way to justify something since tobacco smoking industry also does it and we can agree that something that makes more than 60% of users addicted with no clear benefits (besides money to producers) shouldn't be incetivized, it helps the economy but hurts health and society in general

not saying the same applies to gambling but adding to the logic here

things to think about

Very well said.

It's an option to all of the people if they are going to play gambling or not, that's why there's nothing to be blamed if we're going to think about it. I'm just gonna add a little bit more about tobacco addiction. It's suggested retail price got doubled here in our country, the logic of the Government is to prevent people to buy it, but since people love it, they'll buy it no matter what price will it have.

It has alternative, which is e-cigarettes that is less harmful compare to tobacco smoking and you're gonna save a lot of money for long term. Same to gambling, it has also alternatives for people to be entertained, but they still prefer gambling.

[xSkylarx]

Comparing out online and offline casinos then i can say that they are still having some good share when it comes to revenue since there are still people who do gamble out on physical places
because people do much prefer on having real experience rather than playing online.So its a personal kind of preference since not all would be having the same interest.
Speaking off deprived areas on where those gambling places been placed on then its bit understandable that most of poor people residing will really be likely
to make gambling as an option to make some income which means losing is inevitable and thats a sure income to the casino owners.

the demographics of online casinos are probably quite different as well since they are not limited by place and can access people in different economic situations

there's that, the house always wins, regardless of medium

It is true that the house will be the final winner for whatever reason. Even someone who says that he has won the Jackpot, actually behind it all he does not say how much money he has spent before making a profit. Maybe 100x the deposit made for just one win. So back to the casino house that with the calculations that can be obtained, the casino is the winner.

This is something I agree with! We only saw him hit the jackpot once, but if you add up everything he spent, I believe it would be half of his winnings if we were lucky, but it was still a profit. That is how gambling works; some people lose a lot of money, while others win a lot of money. It is extremely difficult if everyone wins, and if everyone loses, then no one will play, and only the casino owners will become wealthy.

[South Park]

Exactly.

If it's possible, the only way to remove gambling addiction is to ban all of the gambling platforms, physical casinos, lotteries, and other form of gambling. Nonetheless, since it is business, there's no way it would happen. Business earns money through people's desires, and it's a cycle. The Government earn taxes from gambling, the gambling businesses earn money from gamblers, and gamblers earn money from gambling, however, not all gamblers are earning money from it.

This will not happen, not because it is a business or not a business. This approach is too totalitarian, and even those who do not think about the global relationship between the state and the individual understand this. If the sphere of gambling has been destroyed today, what will prevent the state from destroying any other one tomorrow? Or declare sex a harmful addiction and allow it on coupons? Nobody wants these options.

Agreed, the truth is that gambling can be enjoyed by the majority of the people without developing any kind of addiction so to try to forbid it just because a very small minority of the people will develop an addiction is simply not correct, and if they did it then underground casinos will appear and people will gamble there, this will reduce the revenue of the governments, add to its expenses and mafias will gain control of the industry instead of honest businessmen, so banning gambling is not the solution.

[Mahanton]

Comparing out online and offline casinos then i can say that they are still having some good share when it comes to revenue since there are still people who do gamble out on physical places
because people do much prefer on having real experience rather than playing online.So its a personal kind of preference since not all would be having the same interest.
Speaking off deprived areas on where those gambling places been placed on then its bit understandable that most of poor people residing will really be likely
to make gambling as an option to make some income which means losing is inevitable and thats a sure income to the casino owners.

the demographics of online casinos are probably quite different as well since they are not limited by place and can access people in different economic situations

there's that, the house always wins, regardless of medium

It is true that the house will be the final winner for whatever reason. Even someone who says that he has won the Jackpot, actually behind it all he does not say how much money he has spent before making a profit. Maybe 100x the deposit made for just one win. So back to the casino house that with the calculations that can be obtained, the casino is the winner.

This is something I agree with! We only saw him hit the jackpot once, but if you add up everything he spent, I believe it would be half of his winnings if we were lucky, but it was still a profit. That is how gambling works; some people lose a lot of money, while others win a lot of money. It is extremely difficult if everyone wins, and if everyone loses, then no one will play, and only the casino owners will become wealthy.

Just a common sense because not all would really be lucky and gambling industry wont really become big if players would see that they are always on losing side. A few wins could really wipe off those frustrations and
the cycle would continue until the people would really get addicted and that simply means that it is really making some revenue to casino owners.They do always have the edge and it isnt surprising.
I agree that it doesnt matter on what would be medium would be but chances or odds of winning and losing would really be just the same.It is just varying or to be different in terms of
profits on each person.

[smyslov]

Apparently according to the source people are targeting the most deprived and economically weak areas which is sad. The companies are trying to scam people away and this is not working well for the people around since they might get addicted for sure.

How should they go about controlling these things? Should the government try and make laws to ban such behavior and such state? I think people should have a minimum wage for sure when it comes to gambling, what do you think ?

It's discriminatory if they set a restriction on who can play, every one of us, have the right to play and enjoy, gambling outlets goal is for people to have a place where they can unwind and have some fun, they have reminders for people to only play what they can afford to lose, it's up to the players if they want to deposit more, I don't think the locations of the gambling outlets are for poor people, it's for everyone they want their outlets to be accessible to everyone just like all business establishment.

[Vaskiy]

Apparently according to the source people are targeting the most deprived and economically weak areas which is sad. The companies are trying to scam people away and this is not working well for the people around since they might get addicted for sure.

How should they go about controlling these things? Should the government try and make laws to ban such behavior and such state? I think people should have a minimum wage for sure when it comes to gambling, what do you think ?

It's discriminatory if they set a restriction on who can play, every one of us, have the right to play and enjoy, gambling outlets goal is for people to have a place where they can unwind and have some fun, they have reminders for people to only play what they can afford to lose, it's up to the players if they want to deposit more, I don't think the locations of the gambling outlets are for poor people, it's for everyone they want their outlets to be accessible to everyone just like all business establishment.

Every business is located on specific location where everyone have the access. The same is practiced with the gambling business, and we can't deny there are certain region that mark an exception. From the data provided by the source article it is evident to see gambling businesses are much on the most deprived areas. This isn't wrong, but as a middle class person I believe these houses weren't for the rich or the elite.

Even with the gambling we can see categorised houses for the high profile and high depositors. What we see is located on the areas where common man use a lot. As in the above quote, one should have his limits as it is clearly described about the risk with gambling. From a common man perspective it is hard to follow once you've lost. The loss makes you try and recover the loss which leads to continued loss. This isn't understood by the common man.

[molsewid]

Every business is located on specific location where everyone have the access. The same is practiced with the gambling business, and we can't deny there are certain region that mark an exception. From the data provided by the source article it is evident to see gambling businesses are much on the most deprived areas. This isn't wrong, but as a middle class person I believe these houses weren't for the rich or the elite.

Even with the gambling we can see categorised houses for the high profile and high depositors. What we see is located on the areas where common man use a lot. As in the above quote, one should have his limits as it is clearly described about the risk with gambling. From a common man perspective it is hard to follow once you've lost. The loss makes you try and recover the loss which leads to continued loss. This isn't understood by the common man.

Even putting a business a businessman really pay attention to a possible location of his business which he can generate a profit most. I do believe that these gambling establishments situated in the deprived areas are not just put up there to deprive people but because those gambling business see the potential of the location to make a good income for them. Though, we see it as a negative effect to the residence residing nearby the gambling establishments but at some point if the gambling business would allow the residence could also have a job in the establishments, however this is just my theory.

[chaser15]

Apparently according to the source people are targeting the most deprived and economically weak areas which is sad. The companies are trying to scam people away and this is not working well for the people around since they might get addicted for sure.

How should they go about controlling these things? Should the government try and make laws to ban such behavior and such state? I think people should have a minimum wage for sure when it comes to gambling, what do you think ?

It's discriminatory if they set a restriction on who can play, every one of us, have the right to play and enjoy, gambling outlets goal is for people to have a place where they can unwind and have some fun, they have reminders for people to only play what they can afford to lose, it's up to the players if they want to deposit more, I don't think the locations of the gambling outlets are for poor people, it's for everyone they want their outlets to be accessible to everyone just like all business establishment.

It's not discriminatory after all if the set is restriction is right.

For example, age limit. Establishments should set an age limit for allowed persons inside their premises. In that way, the place will only be pure of adults and mature people inside. That's not a form of discrimination because they are just taking care of other people that will expose to gambling at an early age.

Restricitions are necessary because you can't compare gambling establishment to the usual establishments where most of it are essential to operate.

[sikke]

This is quite an unfair comparison I think.

There are simply so many variables that could have gone into this conclusion. Remember that correlation is definitely not equal to causation.

It could be possible that there is some other variable that has had a causative effect on this relationship. It could be that rent is cheapest in these areas and that is why physical casinos are setting up shop here... Nobody knows.

[harizen]

This is quite an unfair comparison I think.

There are simply so many variables that could have gone into this conclusion. Remember that correlation is definitely not equal to causation.

It could be possible that there is some other variable that has had a causative effect on this relationship. It could be that rent is cheapest in these areas and that is why physical casinos are setting up shop here... Nobody knows.

On what part does it make unfair?

Try to read the article for more information or some insights about the subject.

It's not about the rent, fees, or tax-related thing but stats show that many people are really lurking on gambling establishments in those areas. There are also gambling establishments in the rural areas but revenue is not that close compare to the deprived areas.

[bryant.coleman]

On what part does it make unfair?

Try to read the article for more information or some insights about the subject.

It's not about the rent, fees, or tax-related thing but stats show that many people are really lurking on gambling establishments in those areas. There are also gambling establishments in the rural areas but revenue is not that close compare to the deprived areas.

The article doesn't mention anything about the background of the gamblers who visit these gambling joints. It automatically assumes that such businesses are bad for poor regions, when the reality is that it generates a considerable number of direct and indirect jobs. BTW, I am not surprised by the article. The Guardian is regarded as one of the most left-wing newspapers in the United Kingdom. They are doing what they are best at - destroying jobs. This pattern is repeated across the globe. Wherever you have left-wing organizations, you can witness them protesting against legitimate businesses and trying to close them down.

[ethereumhunter]

Every business is located on specific location where everyone have the access. The same is practiced with the gambling business, and we can't deny there are certain region that mark an exception. From the data provided by the source article it is evident to see gambling businesses are much on the most deprived areas. This isn't wrong, but as a middle class person I believe these houses weren't for the rich or the elite.

Even with the gambling we can see categorised houses for the high profile and high depositors. What we see is located on the areas where common man use a lot. As in the above quote, one should have his limits as it is clearly described about the risk with gambling. From a common man perspective it is hard to follow once you've lost. The loss makes you try and recover the loss which leads to continued loss. This isn't understood by the common man.

Even putting a business a businessman really pay attention to a possible location of his business which he can generate a profit most. I do believe that these gambling establishments situated in the deprived areas are not just put up there to deprive people but because those gambling business see the potential of the location to make a good income for them. Though, we see it as a negative effect to the residence residing nearby the gambling establishments but at some point if the gambling business would allow the residence could also have a job in the establishments, however this is just my theory.

At least, before the businessman builds, he needs to check the location but I guess the government needs to think about the feeling from that person from that deprived area. If they can get a job from the casino at that place, they will not have a problem, but how about people who want to gamble and finally become an addiction? It will give another problem for the government but not for the casino as they only concern with their profit. I think the casino built on the location, the casino owner, the government, and the people who lived on that location will discuss and search for the solution to prevent the negative side effect.