It's Catching....

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-candidate-suspended-as-gambling-commission-launches-investigation-13158716

 

[douglas9401]

You bet.

[Atheist]

And Labour have immediately dumped him and returned a donation he made. That's the right thing to do, isn't it?

[naomi24]

Not what you'd call an optimist then.

[Atheist]

Naomi; No he wasn't, and if he betted against himself, then he could do the usual and take a dive. Stupid on the candidate's part, and very well dealt with by Starmer's efficient team. A good sign for a better future.

[naomi24]

Or an exercise in self-preservation.  😂

[ToraToraTora]

perhaps he didn't fancy his chances, like Lewis Francis when he fought Tyson.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comments/4q08vo/til_boxer_julius_francis_sold_the_bottom_of_his/

 

[naomi24]

Starmer's efficient team ... if they don't change their minds.  

[ToraToraTora]

Actually you'd need 12. Lets assume a 40 hour 5 day week for simpilicty then you'd need 6 per day to be working so. Stagger the days to cover week ends.

[ToraToraTora]

wrong answer oops

[sp1814]

Oh dear...it would've been better to keep away from this one becuase it highlights the difference between Labour - immediate suspension and the Conservatives - immediate doing nothing.

Spot on Athiest.

Do you remember when Sunak became PM and pledged to lead a government with “integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level”. 

We're still waiting.

[drmorgans]

 

And not using "insider information".

 

[DTCwordfan]

surprise suprise ....

can we bet on the French election now.....

[sp1814]

Tories are back with another name!!!

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/25/election-betting-fifth-tory-investigated-in-growing-scandal
 

You can criticise the Conservatives but at least they're consistent.

[jno]

the Tory crime, if such it was, is as drmorgans says - using inside information.  Craig's gamble can't have involved that. Betting on himself to lose was a dumb thing to do but they'll have some difficulty showing it was illegal.

And now of course he'll win his bet.

[drmorgans]

 

Unless he's elected, despite not being the sanctioned candidate.

 

[jno]

true, he might win but I suppose it would have to be as an independent. (I'm not sure what the exact wording of the bet was.) But he gets his £100,000 donation back from Starmer, so he'll come out ahead regardless..

[youngmafbog]

The big difference here is the proof.

In his case it is clear, he placed the bet on an outcome what he could have control over.

The others you need to prove they knew first.

Remember this is a general election, what if I and a couple of mates started accusing labour candidates of something, should they all be suspended, possibly until after the election? 

No, they should not until suffiecient proof, if any, is produced.

[Gromit]

No really the same though is it?

He has not received privileged information that confirms the bet he is making.  
The voters haven't cast a vote yet, and the result is not known.  
There is no suggestion that he has acted illegally unlike the Tories who clearly had insider knowledge.

[ToraToraTora]

Yes quite right gromit I was just pointing out that the betting thing is taking on a life of its own and spreading in all directions. I think it's partly because a lot of people don't realise that it is quite ok to bet on yourself. eg Jimmy White regularly put loads of money on himself, of course it would be wrong to back the opponent which in a way this guy was doing, a bit iffy I suppose as he could throw the game but I agree not the same as actually betting on a known result. That's the wire from The Sting.

[Old_Geezer]

There's much more incentive to act on a candidate who bet they were going to lose. No matter how obvious the result may be, it is a direct conflict of interest with their loyalty to the party they are standing for.