Thetownend.com

... thoughts?

Should take responsiblility for his own actions. Idiot (him not you).

Linkaaaaagge?

I don't think that "this bloke suing william hill" would give me much from a google search!

Basically BR some greyhound trainer from Sunderland is taking legal action against the bookies 'cos he gambled away about 2 million notes, which has cost him his job, house and wife. The major issue is that he allegedly took action to 'ban' himself from the establishment so he couldn't bet, but rather than action this exclusion they just carried on taking his money.

Losing his home etc... that's a pretty rough deal but I can't help the feeling it's his own fault.

its like people suing mcdonalds, because they eat so much it makes them fat. Its their own fault, take some responsibilty. I used to think it was only americans who would sue for anything, but worringly this is in england..

What if he kept on winning then, to the point that the Bookie became bankrupt. Could William Hill then take this chappie to court to get their money back.

A few casinos in Poi Pet (Cambodia) have taken a pretty penny from me, and if this guy wins his case then without doubt I will be at the back of a very very VEYR long cue to get my money back.

It's not quite the same as the cases with McDonalds and cigarette companies because there was a technicality involved. I.E.: not properly displaying the RDA's of the food or sufficient enough health warnings for ciggies. ect ect blah blah.

In gambling there IS NO technicality, no fucking grey area whatsoever, it goe's one of two ways: You win, or you lose..... THATS IT and EVERY cunt who has ever stepped foot into a bookies, casino or bought a fucking lottery ticket knows that.

I have no sympathy for him whatsoever and there is no way that he should be rewarded anything from this case. I do however feel for his family.

Yep, it would set a dangerous precedent if this came through.

Bill Hill have had loads of my money, bastards built the one in Devizes next door to the Pelican which is a reasonable boozer. All too easy to slide between the 2  8)

And hang on a sec.

The cunt is gambling again!!!!!, I may stand to be corrected but for him to take William Hill to court privately then the costs will come out of his own pocket right??? Therefore he is basically going all or nuffink on a court case and hoping that is horse comes in. (Now there's an argument for the defence)

This guy would be better off spending whatever money he has left on a shrink and pulling his life back together.

The irony is he earned nearly 8 grand a week through his dogs.

i think it's an absolute joke to be honest. i feel sorry for him but it's ultimately his responsibility, nobody else can cure you of an addiction.

nevertheless, bookmakers ought to show some sensitivity and a degree of responsibility when individuals are in a difficult situation and they're all too happy to take the money, knowing full well that person X is placing significantly large bets on a more than regular basis.

IF, for the sake of argument this guy actually wins this case. I wonder what he will do with that money??  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:

Bet you a tenner he doesn't win the case.

well then he is a bit of a thick cunt then isnt he ?

I believe the problem is he asked them to stop or ban him from betting with them and they didnt act properly.Whilst it is indeed the chaps own fault he is clearly addicted to gambling and thats a sickness and William Hill should have frozen his account when asked.They do have a duty of care to their customers the same as places that sell alcohol shouldnt sell it to obvious alcoholics.

This scale of addiction is a sickness simple as that,the question is did Willy Hill take advantage of a sick man?

He signed a form with William Hill banning himself from betting with them.
You have to supply a photograph and this should be circulated to all shops nationwide and it doesn't matter how much he pleads to have a bet he cant.
Major snag here of course, he made his bets on the telephone, so no mug shot. What should have happened as soon as he tried to re-open an account with William Hill his name should flag up and say no son, sorry you banned yourself.

He actually has a chance of winning this case because of our quirky justice system. At the end of the day the guy is knob.

He is an idiot, show some self-control for god sake.
What next somebody sues McDonalds because their food tastes like shite?

It's not a quirky judical system - William Hill have a 'self-exclusion' policy. The issue is whether they breached their own terms of this policy i.e. were negligent.

William Hill have set themselves up for the fall if they did not follow their own procedures - the moral obligation they have created will possibly be deemed a legal one.

Personally I feel thebloke is a big chump with an even bigger problem. I think half the battle of getting over addictions is realising your own mistakes. Unfortunately I can't see this bloke learning anything if he wins the case. In a way I almost hope he loses and buries his demons and becomes better for it, rather than win his money back. It's not a gamble if you have some sort of fall back option and I doubt it would change his perspective should he win.

All betting organiations have the same 'self exclusiion policy'. How the hell do you monitor it though, certainly not through one betting organisation it should be across the industry. At present you are asking a couple of girls behind a counter who are paid £6 ph, or a control centre bod taking thousands and thousands of calls per hour to monitor all situations. Remember he is not only betting with William Hill he is an impulsive gambler, but wont help himself. Working in an industry that is heavily gambling orientated (dog racing) isn't going to help, what stops him betting with a William Hill bookmaker at the track. Now he has lost everything he cries wolf and wants his money back because William Hill for one have not looked after him after he signed a sheet of paper and stuck his photo on it.
Only in England and America would this guy have a chance of winning this case, quirky was probably the wrong word, 'claim cultures' was probably better.
Regarding getting over his betting addiction, he never will, he will always be a gambler. If you are a alcoholic you take away the booze or the temptation and obtain help, as I said before he works in the industry and while he does he will continue to gamble.

I am banned from Ladbrokes and have been for many years, not by my choice may I add, but I still bet with Ladbrokes when I think the price is right and have never been refused my bet.

Im gonna grass you up dell

ufck th daft twat for blowing his dosh.i bet the cunt killed countless dogs once they were past their running days

I wish you would - I need help :soapy tit wank:

to be fair, if you've lost 2 million quid, what do you have to lose ?  Win the case and your laughing; lose declare yourself bankrupt and the court can shove their claims for cost up their arse.

Besides, if he wins I reckon will hill would be getting all that money back about 5 minutes after he's left the court room !

I am fully aware of that dell

Disagree a bit. If it really is a case of William Hill not enforcing their own self banning system then isn't it them failing to keep up their side of a contract with the dude?

I'm definitely any sort of lawyer (past a mess of Judge Judy and helping one of my housemates revise for her law degree a few years back) but I thought that most countries had pretty similar contract laws in place?

Not saying he's in the right or the wrong but it's a bit immaterial if the bookies has offered to do something and failed.

I agree Ben its a bit like when Pubs carry on selling drink when your too drunk legally they shouldnt but im always to fucked to remember who i should be suing

But it is alleged he set up an online account. If he used the same details it should have flagged in a database. It should be automatic, it's not hard. The other thing he alleges is that he went into the bookies with sacks of cash. At one point in his self-exclusion he lost a few hundred thousand on the Ryder Cup. How on earth alarm bells didn't start ringing is beyond me. It's not like he was sticking the odd grand on a couple of races at the tracks.

I'm not saying he is right or I want him to win, just that if you're going to make things like self-exclusion policies then you have to make them work, otherwise they are nothing more than a token gesture. It could turn out that this bloke is lying and may have deceived Will Hill. Or Will Hill followed their procedures and he worked around them. If that is the case then the bloke is an even bigger fool.

to be fair William Hill probably rubbed there hands with glee when they saw how much he was betting and took it regardless - Im with the "need to take resposnsibility for your own actions" camp

Si Pie, I have online accounts, dont use my real name though, for example betting under the name of 'Dell Boy with 365 and then giving my registered account number with some companies you just give your personal registration number when you phone up to bet', they cant trace through their database bank accounts of persons who have signed self exclusions and if he is using a deposit account then it would be impossible to flag up.

The self exclusion bit is a total load of rubbish, you sign yourself off for ONE YEAR not life, and going into a William Hill shop 10 miles away from your normal shop, well they wouldn't have a clue who you were and you certainly dont have to leave your name and address when you place your bet or show proof of identity.

If he wins this case just think of the impact on the betting industry.

I'm not siding with the bloke, I'm just saying the way the story has been portrayed, he did not go out of his way to beat the exclusion.

I know your not; but saying he didn't go out of his way is like saying to a reforming alcoholic who has sort help, 'its not your fault for drinking that bottle of vodka you found the shop shelf'.

Whilst there is temptation he will still do it and no one and nothing will stop him, the only way he will change is to get out of the environment he is in, the racing industry = gambling.

If William Hill can show they didn't accept a request to be banned or if they did then they still took reasonable steps to prevent him from placing bets from him then fair enough.

Otherwise they shouldn't be offering the "self-banning" service if they're not going to carry out their side of the agreement.

The behaviour of the bloke, how much of an idiot he was etc. is pretty much irrelevant I'd have thought. Unless it can be shown he was going out of the way to disguise himself to place bets.