Racing Post readers on affordability checks: 'To my complete dismay, I find myself frozen out of my favourite pastime'

I am 70 years of age and have been gambling since the days of bookies’ runners. I left school at the age of 15 and went on to work for 17 years in my local shipyard. Upon leaving there, I started my own business and went on to achieve a personal Royal Warrant by Appointment to HM the Queen. Upon retiring, I felt I had served my country well; paying tax and insurance, and employing many people, who also paid tax and insurance over many decades.

I recently sold my home and now rent a flat. I have no dependents, have never married, and do battle every day with painful cancer, heart disease and arthritis. My only two pleasures in life are watching Liverpool matches and betting on horseracing.

Now, to my complete and utter dismay, I find myself constantly being frozen out of my favourite pastime, because the government considers me incapable of managing my own finances.

I would very much like you to take up the cudgel on my behalf, and ask the government ministers responsible for this insane affront to my civil liberties and human rights, to address my queries.

Firstly, after working all of my adult life until retirement age, why should I have to tell anyone details of my personal finances and financial commitments in order to do with my own hard-earned money exactly what I wish to?

Secondly, why has gambling been singled out as the evil above all evils? Or can I assume that the next item on the agenda will be showing my bank balance to the bartender to prove I can afford my next pint?

How insane that I can plod around my neighbourhood and buy a million lottery tickets, or lose every penny I have on the stock market, but I cannot indulge myself in the pastime I love dearly, which gives me hours of pleasure win or lose, all because of government policy that is supposedly going to protect a tiny minority of gamblers.

Peter A Byrne
Wirral

How to respond to the Gambling Commission consultation: Views can be provided at this page. After completing the introductory questions, select 'Remote gambling: financial vulnerability and financial risk' from the 'Consultations contents page'. You may choose to answer as many or as few questions as you wish. Further Racing Post guidance on responding to the consultation can be found here.

A basic freedom

Freedom of speech is part of our culture. “I don’t agree with what you say but I respect your right to say it.”

Freedom to live our lives the way we want to, providing it is within the law, without government interference, is just as important.

How we spend our own money, having paid our taxes, surely falls within this freedom.

If there are consequences arising from how we spend our money, they are for us to consider and weigh up. Not for others to do so.

I have enjoyed a ‘flutter’ for 50 years or so, with plenty of ups and downs. I will not tolerate anyone questioning whether it is “affordable” for me to do so, especially when metrics are to be used that display total ignorance of the subject. I can easily stop or find alternatives.

Nigel Lindsey
Farnham, Surrey

Intrusive overkill

I haven’t had an affordability check yet, but I’m concerned under the new proposal I will, and for no good reason. It feels like nannying.

My background is that I’m a middle manager on a good wage, aged 56, and I’ve been gambling since age 18.

My betting ‘could’ look out of control. I have put bets on to the value of £35,899.26 in the last 12 months.

However, my winnings amount to £35,869.26. So in 12 months, my losses amount to £30 exactly. £2.50 a month. 57p a week.

This calendar year, I have paid £2,070 into the account. And I have withdrawn £2,531.

So I think you’ll agree, I have a good handle on my betting. But if I find myself a couple of grand up in a given month and decide to use the money to try to build, would that mean I’d then risk an affordability check because my outlay over a fixed period was more than it was perceived I could afford?

The proposed  system seems overkill. And intrusive for someone on a good income, who has a long track record of good, sensible, financial control.

Dave Rossall

Dangerous days

Let’s start with a couple of unquestionable facts.

Are there people who lose more money than they can afford? The answer is yes.

Does anyone have the right to tell me how I spend my money? The answer is a definite no.

What I do with my money and how it affects my life is nobody’s business but my own. I am responsible for my own life and I am not responsible for how other people choose to live their own lives. Everybody must take personal responsibility for their own lives.

If the government carries through with their plans to make intrusive financial checks on people spending money on gambling, the future implications of this decision will change our lives and our society forever. Make no mistake about this.

Who is next? Will smokers have to produce their bank statements at the corner shop once they have spent £2,000 on cigarettes in a set period of time? Will everyone who books a holiday costing more than £2,000 need to supply their financial documents to the travel agent when booking their holiday? What happens when I reach a £2,000 spend on eating out or takeaways throughout the year? Will I need to go through a financial questionnaire before I can tuck into my doner kebab?

These are dangerous days and this will not end well.

Nick Robshaw

Unfair restrictions

I am disappointed that a Tory government could restrict people’s right to choose to gamble.

Most of the major bookmakers have lowered my loss limit to £500 per month. Considering that I bet in amounts sometimes a lot bigger than this and have done so for many years, they are basically saying “you cannot gamble with us anymore, unless you lower your stakes”.

In a free society this should not be allowed. Punters who have gambled for years (in my case 54 years) without having any financial problems should be able to place a bet of any amount we choose in a free society.

Mike Bolton

Checks an affront

The concept of ‘affordability checks’ is an affront to me. We are being treated like children who are supervised by the ‘adults’ to make sure we don’t squander our pocket money. 

I would suggest that levels of personal debt in the UK, driven by people living beyond their means as a result of ­over-ambitious mortgages, leased cars, holidays on credit and impulse buying, is a far greater danger to the health and wellbeing of the nation but there is no suggestion that we start to protect people from these damaging behaviours.

Despite being debt free and solvent, I must apparently have my discretionary spending on my hobby monitored as I can’t be trusted to make rational decisions on how much I spend.

Colin McCarthy 

Read more here:

Tell us about your experience of affordability checks 

The Gambling Commission is waging a war on punters, and this is our last chance to fight back   

No BHA support for 'blanket' affordability measures as checks should reflect interdependency of racing and betting 

Affordability checks explained and how to respond to the Gambling Commission consultation  

The Front Runner is our unmissable email newsletter available exclusively to Members' Club Ultimate subscribers. Chris Cook, a four-time Racing Reporter of the Year award winner, 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.