Press release: Would you buy a recycled opinion from this QC?
The Campaign for Fairer Gambling refutes the claim that labelling fixed odds betting terminals as 'the crack cocaine of gambling' is inappropriate
Any capital QC will tell you that one of the easiest ways to become a small case QC is to accuse your opponents of using Nazi-inspired public relations methods. Yet Gerald Gouriet QC, in a blog about FOBTs, brazenly invokes Goebbels to claim it is a lie to repeat that FOBTs are ‘the crack cocaine’ of gambling.
Publically funded data provided research which determined that FOBTs are the most addictive form of gambling, with problem gambler generated losses in the region of 40% of all revenue. So, unless there is a more addictive drug than crack cocaine, the analogy is quite appropriate.
The “evidence” that Mr. Gouriet relies on is that commentators in other countries have used the same phrase about other gambling products in their jurisdictions - and therefore it is not applicable in the British FOBT context.
The very first reference, as Mr. Gouriet points out, was made by Donald Trump in reference to video keno games (incorrectly identified as bingo in the blog) during the 1980s. These machines were the forerunner to the electronic gaming machines of today, including UK FOBTs, which are a hybrid version with stakes of up to £100 per spin. Incidentally, the very first game trialled on FOBTs was in fact, keno.
Mr Gouriet sourced this commentary from the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA), a think tank which does not disclose its sources of funding. It has been reported as receiving funding from the tobacco sector, whose corner they fight. The commentary they published in 2013, crafted by pro-tobacco Chris Snowden, seemed intent on discrediting our evidence-based Campaign which is supported by politicians, the media and public.
Mathew Norman explained the crack cocaine analogy perfectly in the Independent, and of Tessa Jowell, who is currently campaigning to be Labour’s candidate for London Mayor, he said: “It's a perplexing paradox that, when it comes to gambling, this ministerial Mary Poppins has been so astoundingly laissez-faire. She took her eye off the ball - the roulette ball - for a moment, and the results could well be catastrophic.” She allowed roulette, ‘the cocaine of casino gambling’, onto the streets, sped up the hits, allowed operators to push it to the vulnerable and today we are seeing the consequences.
The Campaign believes a British jury with access to the whole evidence would agree, on the civil standard of balance of probability (51% or higher), with the statement that “FOBTs are the crack cocaine of British gambling”.
There is another phrase that relates to the FOBT debate, the repeated mantra by bookies and their apologists that they are “responsible” gambling operators. Mr. Gouriet does not invoke Goebbels to question this repeated mantra. But, after all, he has represented all five of the major bookmakers.
He proudly defeated Newham Council in their bid to prevent another Paddy Power license and the 84th betting shop in the borough. This is an operator with a record of complaints to the Advertising Standards Agency and which has been shown to target areas of higher non UK born residents.
In common with other bookies, and as represented by Mr. Gouriet, Paddy Power claim that its shops are betting, rather than gaming premises, even though over 80% of “bets” struck on their premises are derived from their gaming machines – FOBTs – with less than 20% from over the counter.
It is estimated that high street gaming machines with stakes in excess of £2 attain player losses approaching £650 million per year from vulnerable and pathologically addicted gamblers. Why Mr. Gouriet decided to publish his blog on a subject he is little qualified to write on is a mystery. Coincidentally the day after he blogged, the author of the IEA commentary provided a little update to his original piece.
Mr Snowden refers to there being fewer betting shops today than in the 1960s, diverting attention from the growth of corporate bookmakers and their high street relocations to maximise FOBT revenues. The Campaign is concerned about why the IEA seems to only take one side of the FOBTs story into account.
