General Election 2024 Page 25

Quote: lofthouse @ 20th June 2024, 11:50 AM

Seems a few of them in the know bet on the election date (Illegal)

View original

Not sure it's illegal. Immoral perhaps; contrary to Parliamentary rules certainly; but illegal? We are not talking "insider trading" here, which comes under the The Insider Dealing (Securities and Regulated Markets) Order 2023 within the Criminal Justice Act 1993. Gambling offences come under the separate Gambling Act 2005 of which Section 42 states:

(1)A person commits an offence if he--
a) cheats at gambling, or
b) does anything for the purpose of enabling or assisting another person to cheat at gambling.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether a person who cheats--
a) improves his chances of winning anything, or
b) wins anything.

(3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with--
a) the process by which gambling is conducted, or
b )a real or virtual game, race or other event or process to which gambling relates.

So, to be guilty of "cheating", which is the potential offence in question, he would need to be guilty of actual or attempted deception or of interference in the process.

It is unlikely that there was deception involved. As I understand it, the bets were made on on-line accounts and the bookmakers clearly knew who were placing the bets, which is why they raised the red flag. So they weren't trying to deceive anyone. And I wouldn't think that there was interference in the actual decision to call the election on the date in question.

Probably the only thing he was guilty of was knowing something that very few other people (including the bookies) knew. If that were illegal, then horse racing stable staff all over the country would be in the dock every day for backing their charges after a scintillating secret morning gallop.

Lofty loves to sensationalise - he gets off on it, which arouses him

Yup

Tory misery and humiliation is my porn

Can't get enough

Luckily there's a seemingly never ending supply

P.s.

The Gambling Commission has the power to prosecute cheating offences, which carry a maximum prison sentence of two years and a fine.

The Conservative party - corrupt criminal sleaze merchants, right to the very end...

Quote: lofthouse @ 20th June 2024, 4:58 PM

P.s.

The Gambling Commission has the power to prosecute cheating offences

View original

Which is exactly what I said of course.

Quote: chipolata @ 20th June 2024, 11:44 AM

but they didn't, they were too busty in-fighting.

View original

Has no one giggled and pointed out that he said busty? I am disappointed in you all.

Penny V Ang. I'd pay money for that.

Quote: Billy Bunter @ 20th June 2024, 4:04 PM

Not sure it's illegal. Immoral perhaps; contrary to Parliamentary rules certainly; but illegal? We are not talking "insider trading" here, which comes under the The Insider Dealing (Securities and Regulated Markets) Order 2023 within the Criminal Justice Act 1993. Gambling offences come under the separate Gambling Act 2005 of which Section 42 states:

(1)A person commits an offence if he--
a) cheats at gambling, or
b) does anything for the purpose of enabling or assisting another person to cheat at gambling.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether a person who cheats--
a) improves his chances of winning anything, or
b) wins anything.

(3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of actual or attempted deception or interference in connection with--
a) the process by which gambling is conducted, or
b )a real or virtual game, race or other event or process to which gambling relates.

So, to be guilty of "cheating", which is the potential offence in question, he would need to be guilty of actual or attempted deception or of interference in the process.

It is unlikely that there was deception involved. As I understand it, the bets were made on on-line accounts and the bookmakers clearly knew who were placing the bets, which is why they raised the red flag. So they weren't trying to deceive anyone. And I wouldn't think that there was interference in the actual decision to call the election on the date in question.

Probably the only thing he was guilty of was knowing something that very few other people (including the bookies) knew. If that were illegal, then horse racing stable staff all over the country would be in the dock every day for backing their charges after a scintillating secret morning gallop.

View original

Using confidential information to obtain an unfair advantage when betting is most definitely illegal.

Quote: zooo @ 20th June 2024, 6:25 PM

Has no one giggled and pointed out that he said busty? I am disappointed in you all.

View original

I was making reference to the bitter feud between pillowy Penny and bosomy Boris.

Quote: Chris Hallam @ 20th June 2024, 7:29 PM

Using confidential information to obtain an unfair advantage when betting is most definitely illegal.

View original

Well, you'd better explain that to all the bookmakers, racehorse owners and stable lads at Ascot this week then. And explain where, in the Gambling Act 2005, it actually says that.

Quote: Billy Bunter @ 20th June 2024, 7:45 PM

Well, you'd better explain that to all the bookmakers, racehorse owners and stable lads at Ascot this week then. And explain where, in the Gambling Act 1985, it actually says that.

View original

I don't think your argument would stand up in court.

Quote: zooo @ 20th June 2024, 6:25 PM

Has no one giggled and pointed out that he said busty? I am disappointed in you all.

View original

Yes - I was reading through before I commented on that.

Quote: Chris Hallam @ 20th June 2024, 7:52 PM

I don't think your argument would stand up in court.

View original

You may well be right - that's what the courts are for of course. But I have given the reasons for my interpretation and backed it up by quoting the relevant part of the Act. Whereas you have given no basis whatsoever for your opinion. So it's more likely, if that were the two counter-arguments with which the courts were presented, that they would come down in favour of the former.

I dealt with a lot of interpretation of legislation when I worked for the Inland Revenue and the mistake most laymen make is to go by what they believe the legislation ought to say or what they believe those who drafted it wanted to say. And ignore what it actually says.

Apparently sunak is VERY ANGRY that after he told his chums when the election will be they all nipped down the bookies and piled on

VERY ANGRY

Furious!

🤣🤣🤣

The Thick of It was never this f**kin funny

Quote: Billy Bunter @ 20th June 2024, 8:12 PM

You may well be right - that's what the courts are for of course. But I have given the reasons for my interpretation and backed it up by quoting the relevant part of the Act. Whereas you have given no basis whatsoever for your opinion. So it's more likely, if that were the two counter-arguments with which the courts were presented, that they would come down in favour of the former.

I dealt with a lot of interpretation of legislation when I worked for the Inland Revenue and the mistake most laymen make is to go by what they believe the legislation ought to say or what they believe those who drafted it wanted to say. And ignore what it actually says.

View original

No offence intended. You've made reasonable points here.
However, surely the 2005 Gambling Act is the relevant one? Not the 1985 one?

Also, to quote The Independent:
"Rules around placing bets on the basis of so-called "inside information" are set out in the Gambling Act.

A Gambling Commission policy position paper dated August 2018 clarified that inside information is information known by an individual or individuals as a "result of their role in connection with an event and which is not in the public domain".

If the greedy and wealthy bookmakers didn't have odds on every little thing going then this couldn't happen. They encourage those with inside knowledge to chance their arm then cry foul and call the police in when they do! They should be more responsible at these events, not invite these things to happen and take no blame for it.