this bloke suing william hill

[Matchworn Shirts]

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

[Simon Pieman]

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.

[dell boy]

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.

[red macca]

Im gonna grass you up dell

[Arriba]

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

[dell boy]

Im gonna grass you up dell

I wish you would - I need help

[genf_stfc]

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 !

[red macca]

Im gonna grass you up dell

I wish you would - I need help

I am fully aware of that dell

[flammableBen]

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.

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.

[red macca]

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

[Simon Pieman]

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.

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.

[Jamiesfuturewife]

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

[dell boy]

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.

[Simon Pieman]

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.

[dell boy]

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.