'What gives them the right to decide just how much I can spend on gambling?'

When we asked for your views on the Gambling Review's proposed 'affordability' tests on punters we expected a strong response. What we did not anticipate was the avalanche of emails we received, an unprecedented number which underlines the vehemence of your views that this imposition would be an intrusion into your personal finances and one which would cause many of you to curtail or cease betting.

There was a sensitivity to the desperate situation that those who are suffering from gambling addiction face and a real desire to find ways that genuinely help those who are in need, rather than a scattergun approach which will blight the enjoyment of so many but is simply a distraction from the real problem.

So there was much constructive analysis in your letters and plenty of useful suggestions that could make a system of assessing 'affordability' workable, practicable and sensible.

It was heartening to see how many of you are finding racing a solace through this troubled year and are punting either profitably or at least enjoyably. Long may that continue.

The Gambling Commission's consultation closes on Tuesday so there is still time to submit your thoughts online.

Meanwhile, here is a selection of your emails.

Customers should set the amounts they can lose

I have replied to the Gambling Commission’s survey and some comments I made were as follows:

1. The proposals require unaccept­able levels of intrusion into the financial privacy of individuals placing bets.

2. Has there ever before been this proposed level of control on the freedom of an individual to legally spend their disposable income? In a free country, such ‘nanny state’ measures are surely to be avoided and resisted.

My proposal: problems seem to arise when the gambler, knowing full well how much they can afford to lose, goes beyond that limit.

This issue can be resolved by the customer setting a sum they feel capable of losing in the ensuing year. When this level is reached, bets are no longer accepted.

The level the gambler sets here, in advance, would surely never be such as to create unwanted problems – what customer would set a limit that makes them destitute?

Therefore, there should be no unacceptable levels of intrusion into the financial privacy of individuals placing bets.
Roland Gronau

A major infringement of civil liberty

I totally agree with Tom Kerr's column (February 3), and have already been on to the Gambling Commission’s website and completed the survey.

This affordability check is both wrong, as it will not solve the problem but merely push it underground, and is also an major infringement of personal and civil liberties.

What gives the Gambling Commiss­ion the right to decide just how much I can spend on gambling?

I am a small-stakes punter. The biggest single bet I have ever had is £20 and I only ever bet what I can afford to lose. That assessment is made by me and I do not need the state doing it for me.

Tom’s point as regards the major festivals is also true. I am a regular at Cheltenham and it can be the case that I am well over £100 down after two days, never mind four. However, I budget my gambling spend beforehand so I do not lose more than planned.

The Gambling Commission does not understand any of this and is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

There is no way I will comply with the accountability checks should they become law and, since they will be easily circumvented, I will go back to the old ways of cash bets in shops, on the Tote, or with on-course bookies.

These people also do not appreciate the difference between punting on horses, which involves form and skill, and casino-style betting which is just luck with no skill. Perhaps they should differentiate between the two.

Since racing's finances are already in a parlous state due to the Covid-19 outbreak, we can ill afford more loss of revenue and the ­collateral damage to livelihoods that this would bring.

I urge the Racing Post to continue to fight against this ­infringment of civil liberties in the hope we can make these people see sense.
Terry Simmons
Owner

Betting brings joy to many people across society

The topic of affordability checks has dominated the news in recent weeks and I wish to bring my position on the matter to your attention, as a stakeholder within the sports of horse and greyhound racing.

As an owner, I have a number of horses and greyhounds in training. However, I am also a punter, and while gambling can be destructive to some, it is an important fact to recognise it also brings joy to many. That many is made up of a cross-section of society, from all classes, genders and races.

Further to this, the checks are based on the fallacy of ‘discretionary income’. But what some people might not understand is that the majority of bettors spend their discretionary income on betting because they enjoy it. What is wrong with that? If someone spends their discretionary income down the pub does this make them an alcoholic?

Surely if you limit the amount a single person can gamble, you should limit the amount of pints a single person can buy in a pub or the number of cigarettes a single person can purchase in a shop

That just covers the ethics of these checks, but let’s talk about the impact what they will have on our sports. Racecourses such as Ascot, Epsom, ­Cheltenham and Aintree may not be affected, as whatever happens, punters will save their betting allowance for the big meetings. However, courses like Lingfield, Wolverhampton and Chelmsford will see a marked decrease in betting activity as will secondary sports such as greyhound racing and darts (both rely heavily on funding and ­sponsorship from gambling firms as do the smaller horseracing tracks).

On Wednesday (February 3), there were three meetings in the UK. Most of Warwick’s race sponsors were non-gambling, but both Lingfield and Kempton had their whole cards supported by Unibet and Betway.

If you limit gambling, you limit the revenue streams of these bookmakers and therefore meetings such as the two mentioned would suffer hugely.

My son Lewis has worked at Ling­field and Nottingham greyhounds; these are places which could be in danger of closure due to these proposals and such jobs would not be available for the youth of tomorrow.

My daughter Amberley attends Hartpury College where she studies equine management, but while she wishes to pursue a career in horse­racing, would this be possible with affordability checks?

If you can confidently tell me that gambling addicts cost the UK more than the money pumped into the economy through taxes, jobs etc by all sports that will be affected by these affordability checks then I would be markedly surprised.

Greyhound racing has been sold out by local and national governments for decades now. I have seen many a community crushed by stadium closures, and I fear these new proposals will worsen the prospects of both the equine and canine racing communities.

While these checks seek to help the few they will also harm many others.

Britain prides itself on self-­responsibility. It is up to an individual on the choices they make with their money.
Mathew Sharp
Caterham, Surrey

Leave the established ­accounts alone

I have bet and been in and around the bookmaking business for 60 years and find this development ludicrous.

Last year I received a request for my bank statements from the a firm with whom I had had a few football bets, despite there having been no unusual fluctuation in stakes or pattern of behaviour.

I bet with about 20 firms and it was no loss to me to tell them to withdraw the request or I would close the account. They didn’t so I did.

Apart from a miniscule absence of interest after the 88th minute in football matches, it made no ­difference to me but it cost them a punter betting in ponies or fifties.

My suggestion is this: leave ­established accounts alone and don’t invade the privacy or civil liberties of customers already in relationships with reputable operators.

By all means introduce a new regime for those applying for accounts in future. Ask them there and then for their financial details and what they can afford. Those who choose to then proceed need have no fear unless they stray out of their zone. Otherwise punters will desert bookmakers who ask and firms will suffer just as much as has been predicted.
Patrick Murphy
Bristol

Uproar if shopping on credit cards was limited

While there is no doubt there are problem gamblers, they form a small percentage of the people who gamble on a daily or weekly basis.

Yes, some people are in need of assistance, but for goodness sake, does it require the Gambling ­Commission to decide what the majority of ­responsible adults can have as spending money each month?
Like every other gambler I have good runs and bad runs, and when on a bad run I may lose a few pounds, but I also make it back on the good runs.

Over a year, my net winnings or losses may be a few hundred pounds either side of even which makes it a very affordable hobby.

In comparison, my wife buys clothes, shoes etc online and over a year will spend a lot more than I do when having a bet as there is no possibility of getting a return for the money laid out when buying such items.

I don't see the government bodies up in arms about online shoppers, but I can guarantee there will be many a person who is maxed out on their credit cards through online shopping.

Can you imagine the uproar if it was decided to limit the general public’s spending based on what some quango thinks we can afford?
Mick Holden
Blackburn, Lancs

Will the government stop me getting a good return?

I am retired and have some savings which are useless in the bank. I only bet ante-post on specials such as jockeys’ and trainers’ championships. I have very good knowledge of racing and can make money on these markets, and if I can show a return of say ten per cent, I am very happy.

So is the goverment going to prevent me from betting say £15,000 to make a good margin rather than one per cent in the bank?

Problem gambling is to do with slots and casino gambling on the internet. As you well know, depositing money in your bookmaker account has to come via a debit card. If you do not have the money in your current account, you can’t do the transaction.
David Machen
Ripon, North Yorkshire

The final nail in the coffin of the gambling industry

This proposed intrusion into people’s finances and the possible control of said monies would be the final nail in the coffin for the gambling industry.

I don’t smoke and hardly drink yet I could be limited to a couple of lucky 31s a week if some get their way. I’m in shock this is even a consideration.
Simon Bailey
Hull

Read more:

MP warns of 'devastating impact' affordability checks could have on racing

Racing warned of dangers after report claims black market has doubled in a year

Haggas warns of 'disaster' if affordability checks extend to betting on racing

Affordability checks are even worse than you might think – and here's why

Affordability checks a bigger threat than Covid impact, warns Jockey Club chief

Affordability checks: what is happening and how can you have your say?

Affordability checks could see some gamblers turn to black market operators

Download the free Racing Post app for cards, form, tips, in-app betting and to watch live races. Download for free at racingpost.com/mobile or search Racing Post app