Strength of your views on affordability is hidden away under Gambling Commission's diplomatic verbiage

The mildness of bureaucratic language coupled with an apparent determination to represent opposing views on every question means there is little excitement to be got from reading the Gambling Commission's report on the response to its consultation last summer. Strong emotions were undoubtedly expressed in that response, as any reader of the Racing Post's letters page would know for sure, but there is little flavour of that in the soporific document published on Wednesday, nor of the scale of opposition expressed to affordability checks.

Instead, what we get is "on the one hand this, on the other that" before the commission tells us what it's going to do, whether we like it or not. "Many respondents disagreed with the overall principle," we are told. Goodness! You don't say.

Evidently, there were 1,965 responses to the questions about checks, a lower number than might have been expected, given that a petition against those checks soared past 100,000 signatories and triggered a debate in parliament. The commission gives us numbers on various types of respondent except for "people responding in a personal capacity who have worked in a gambling business".

The Gambling Commission has reported on the response it received to its affordability checks consultation last summer

It's odd that they seem to have gone uncounted, given that their number can be intuited from other published details at around 250. Hopefully this isn't a sign the commission does not weigh their responses equally with others, given their grasp of the subject would generally be a lot stronger than that of many decision-makers.

There's some satisfaction in seeing proof the commission has taken note of one or two of the lines of attack which have gained popularity among bettors. "Respondents shared examples of other purchases they make that equate to the same amount [such as a daily cup of coffee costing more than the thresholds which had been set out for the light-touch financial vulnerability checks]."

Naturally, respondents were concerned "about the impact on their freedom to spend their money on what they like, often referring to other industries that are not regulated in this way".

Then comes the frustration of realising that, while the commission is content to report that these points have been made, it does not intend to engage with them directly. Does it see validity in these and other points? If not, why not?

• Watch: Gambling minister Stuart Andrew on plans for affordability checks

But the commission does correct what it sees as two false impressions, that its proposals may act as a default cap on gambling and that the credit ratings of bettors could be affected. Neither is true, it promises, and we must all make sure they are held to that.

When I asked Racing Post readers to talk me through their responses to the consultation last year, there was unbridled hostility to the idea that bookmakers might consider your job or your address when trying to guess at your wealth. "Codswallop!" was one reaction, representative of the general feeling that this suggestion was both impractical and offensive.

So it's no surprise to see the commission now backing off this idea. It omits words like 'codswallop', of course. Apparently, bettors did their best Humphrey Appleby impression in telling the commission that such data was "potentially misleading and therefore unhelpful".

Read more . . .

New code on affordability checks is a hard-won victory, but concerns remain 

Explainer: how the new interim code for affordability checks will work in practice 

BHA chief Julie Harrington encouraged by interim gambling code but stresses concern over levy review uncertainty 

The Front Runner is our unmissable email newsletter available exclusively to Members' Club Ultimate subscribers. Chris Cook, the reigning Racing Writer of the Year, provides his take on the day's biggest stories and tips for the upcoming racing every morning from Monday to Friday. Not a Members' Club Ultimate subscriber? Click here to join today and also receive our Ultimate Daily emails plus our full range of fantastic website and newspaper content.