'Addicted' gambler sues bookmaker!

Osem · 14-02-2008, 09:45

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7243656.stm

Apparently he's given up gambling having lost everything but this High Court action looks like just one more very big gamble doesn't it?

peanut · 14-02-2008, 10:14

Strange one, part of me says 'tough luck' and only himself to blame, but if he closed the account and was self excluded for 6 months but managed to re-open the account again within that time and continue to gamble, then some blame has to go to the bookies in question.

But what if he won big time after re opening the account, could that mean the bookie could in effect claim all his winnings back? How crazy would that sound then? How would he like it?

Osem · 14-02-2008, 10:16

If this guy's broke how's he paying for a High Court action? Borrowing the money possibly or maybe he just has generous mates....

nomadking · 14-02-2008, 10:30

If that one bookie turned him down, he would have just bet with a different bookie instead. So how can William Hill be blamed?

superbiatch · 14-02-2008, 10:42

Its like any addiction and as someone else said he could have gone and opened an account anywhere. Even if he did open the account in a moment of weakness, why did his guilt not kick in until he'd lost everything? I feel he's trying to recoup some of his losses, when he has to take some responsibility for the mess he's in himself.

tweetypie/8 · 14-02-2008, 11:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7243656.stm

Apparently he's given up gambling having lost everything but this High Court action looks like just one more very big gamble doesn't it?

its a sickness [a bad one ] but the bookie wasnt dragging him round by the throat to make bets,and as pea has already said he would have found another bookie to take his bets,also on the slim chance that should he win his court action and be awarded a sum of money where do you think that would be spent ? no guesses ! the guy has to reconise his problem and do something about it ie- self help,sorry but i cant sympathise with this guy.

14-02-2008, 13:45

Just watched it on the BBC News, one time he put Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£350,000 on the USA winning the Ryder cup and lost, he was placing bets for Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£100,000 and Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£200,000, if you were a bookmaker would you turn him away??? How can anyone take a bookmaker to court because they let them place bets?????? The reporter said that he had his own business training and racing greyhounds, he was earning Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£30,000 a month, all of a sudden he's got no money left so he decides the court route against William Hill, I hope William Hill wipe the floor with him.

BBKing · 14-02-2008, 13:50

I bet he doesn't win. What are the odds?

**Hugh** · 14-02-2008, 13:52

Will you take an each-way bet?

lostandconfused · 14-02-2008, 13:54

300k that he loses.

14-02-2008, 16:33

While addiction can be a terrible thing this guy is taking the urine. I hope he loses and loses quick or we will be deluged with people looking for something else to blame other then themselves for whatever problems.

Osem · 12-03-2008, 11:09

Well it appears our addicted punter has lost his biggest gamble of all...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/7291597.stm

AntiSilence · 12-03-2008, 11:11

I wonder if I can sue the pubs for making me spend my money on beer?!

superbiatch · 12-03-2008, 11:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Well it appears our addicted punter has lost his biggest gamble of all...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/7291597.stm

I've not got much sympathy for him tbh and ended in the right outcome IMO.

Maybe if he stopped blaming other people for his addiction, he might be able to move on.

boroboi · 12-03-2008, 11:27

Gambling disorder's are a mental illness, with lack of any other discription.

I used to work for a bookmaker btw.

He's right that the company failed in their duty of care. Whats the point in being able to self exclude yourself if the exact same company is going to let you open yet another account under your own details to spend money on bets during the exclusion period?

While i do agree he was trying to recoup losses, William Hill should also have to face the consiquences for their far less then abysmal ability to stand by their own rules.

Fair enough, he could of gone to another bookmaker, but he didnt. William Hill were irrisponsible in taking an ill man's money.

And as its a signed agreement that the company will no longer allow the customer to place bets for the 6 months in question, they are clearly in breach of that and are taking advantage of someone with a gamblind disorder.

You can look at it both ways, but something should be done about this and i believe Hills should come under some scrutiny and possibly punishment.