The Power of Your Opinions on Affordability Concealed in Gambling Commission’s Diplomatic Language

The response to the document published on Wednesday lacks the strong emotions typically seen in letters to the Racing Post. The opposition to affordability checks is not adequately conveyed, and the document offers little beyond presenting opposing viewpoints. The Gambling Commission reported on responses from various types of respondents, but did not include those who have worked in the gambling industry.

Respondents argued that the proposed financial checks would impact their freedom to spend money and referred to other unregulated industries. The commission acknowledged these concerns but did not directly engage with them. It clarified misconceptions about its proposals acting as a default gambling cap and affecting bettors’ credit ratings, promising they are not true.

Some Racing Post readers expressed strong hostility towards the idea of bookmakers considering job or address when assessing wealth. The commission ultimately backed off this suggestion, citing feedback that such data could be potentially misleading.