Self discipline/responsibility etc??

[Loosehead]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7243656.stm Are we now infested with numpties with absolutely no sense of self discipline or responsibility? Gambled 2m so it must be the bookies fault, right oh! You couldn't make it up!

[jno]

well, how do you feel about drug dealers selling to addicts? Whose fault?

[squarebear]

Yes I couldn't believe that too Loosehead. I'm sure he would have given it all back had he won though(!)

[Ice.Maiden]

The man's still at it - betting that the odds'll be in his favour to receive some sort of massive compensation. Idiot.

[Loosehead]

drug dealers are only supplying a desire, people are responsible for themselves if they did not use drugs there'd be no dealers. Same with gambling, the bookies are providing a facility it's not their problem if some of the customers cannot control themselves. I cannot see any basis for a law suit.

[Ice.Maiden]

Nor me. The man needs help for his addiction to gambling, end of. Nobody's responsible for his habit - only himself.

[jake-the-peg]

You have only read the headline not the detail haven't you?

He declared himself to the Bookies as a problem gambler and took advantage of their self exclusion scheme where a gambler asks not to be allowed to place any more bets for a period like 6 months.

Then apparently he went back and opened an account under the same name name and lost all that money.

Now presumably he's claiming that they should reasonably have known that it was him and not dealt with him.

Without knowing the ins and outs of the scheme it's hard to say but it's certainly not the open and shut case you make it sound to be.

Interesting case though

[andrea81]

I don't understand why he's trying to get 2m, is that what he lost in the time he was on this self-exclusion scheme???

[Loosehead]

I read the whole thing jake, all that about the account and self exclusion stuff is irrelevant. So they broke their own admin rules big deal. If he has a gambling problem he'll find a place to gamble end of story. It does not change the basic premise that he is responsible for himself. It's like an alcoholic sueing the pub because he changed his mind about going there.

[ludwig]

This morning I thumped myself in the head with a hammer - maybe I could sue the shop that sold me the hammer, after all I did tell them I was a f*kin idiot when I bought it so they should have known I'd do something stupid right?
Ice.maiden is right, he's just having another punt.

[Yorkie580]

everyone seems to know their rights - nowhere near as many people appreciate their own responsibilities...

[jno]

you might enjoy this, Loosehead

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27832

[Bazile]

If he has got any sense at all , he would place another bet - that he wont be succesful in his Law suit

[Oneeyedvic]

presumably then loosehead, if you smoke, you shouldn't be treated for lung cancer, if you drink alcohol you should not be treated for kidney problems, if you are obese, you should not be treated for heart disease and if you play rugby you should not be treated for any injury you receive as a result - after all it is all down to your own responsibility / self discipline.

[Loosehead]

Don't be a prat vic, you know very well what I'm getting at, why have you found it necessary ti include a leap of illogic?
If I partake in any or all of the activities you mentioned, the question is not "do I deserve treatment for any ill effects" it is "can I sue the suppliers of activity if It turns out that I suffer some loss or injury". So if I where to break a leg playing rugby should I sue the RFU? Surely you can see the point here or are you being obtuse? Or are you less intelligent than I give you credit for?

[ludwig]

That's not really a valid comparson Vic. This one is better..

If, despite all the warnings you continue to smoke and eventually get lung cancer, you should not blame the shop that sold you the fags.
If, despite all the warnings you get drunk every night and eventually get liver disease, you should not blame the pub or the brewery.
If you become obese through overeating and get heart disease you should not blame McDonalds.
If you get injured playing rugby you should not blame whoever organised the match.

Of course you should be treated for those things, that's why we pay health insurance/NI contributions.

[MrsT]

I'm just trying to figure out who is the biggest wally brain here. Oneeyedthick or jakethesmeghead. Are you two for real? I mean the guy's blown 2 million quid at the bookies and it's not his fault? yeah right and I got pi55ed last Friday and I'm sueing Stella because I had a hangover, perlease!

[Oneeyedvic]

Ok lets look at the facts here:

1) He has a gambling problem.
2) He went to the William Hill(who being a responsible company) have a policy that if he wants to exclude himself, agree not to let him take any bets.
3) He enters into this contract
4) William Hill break their contract

If you went to a company who contracted to do something and then failed to abide to their own terms would you sue?

To give you a rugby example: Would you sue the rugby club if they agreed to have but subsequently didn't have a St Johns Ambulance (or similar) available and you suffered a debilitating injury that would have been preventable if there had been a medical team close by as agreed by the club

[ludwig]

Vic, I'll continue with your rugby analogy if I may.
The accident which occurred wasn't actually an accident.
This particular 'player' did the following..
a) Noticed that there was no medical help in attendance despite what the club had agreed beforehand.
b) Having noted this, he then proceeded to charge at full speed the wrong way down the pitch and deliberately headbutt one of the uprights giving himself concussion.

He did it because he has a problem yes, but he still did it. It my not be his fault that he has a problem, but it's not William Hill's either. Also, if a contract was entered into, he was the first to break it by opening a new account and attempting to place a bet.

[andrea81]

Again I ask: Did he lose 2m in the time that he had excluded himself????

If no, why is he asking for 2m????????

[Oneeyedvic]

No he wasn't the first to break it - the contract is there for a reason - the contract states that WH will not open an account in the next 6 months. It is there to stop people who have an illness from 'harming themselves'. He can't have broken the contract since it is place to stop him opening an account.

A pretty simple contract - and my prediction will be that he will win this case (or WH will settle before hand). Bear in mind he is only suing for the losses he made since WH entered in to the contract - nothing more.