02GF74
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:22 PM |
|
|
Is this for real?!?!?!
Graham Calvert is suing William Hill for £2m he claims he lost on bets after asking
the bookmaker not to let him bet again.
Eh?
I cannnot believe this is going to court.
Then don't bet then.
And I would find him £ 10 K for wasting everyone's time. 
[Edited on 14/2/08 by 02GF74]
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:24 PM |
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7244115.stm
what a nut case
[Edited on 14/2/08 by Mr Whippy]
|
|
|
Guinness
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:24 PM |
|
|
What odds are Ladbrooks offering on the outcome of the case? 3-1? 
Mike
|
|
|
nib1980
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:25 PM |
|
|
believe me as a reformed gambler, that is so much easier to say than do. it never leaves you.
if life was that easy, we'd have a lot happier place
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nib1980
believe me as a reformed gambler, that is so much easier to say than do. it never leaves you.
if life was that easy, we'd have a lot happier place
I'd have to say I simply don't see the attraction in gambling, perhaps that's a good thing. I'm totally against the national
lottery, a planned scam right from the beginning to turn Britain into a nation of gambling addicts.
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:29 PM |
|
|
If you're 2.1M down its got to be worth a punt in the courts to cancel the losses.
BTW you seem to be implying that the addicted can just say no and get over it with a bit of willpower. That isn't my experience from watching a
friend kill himself with booze - he knew what it was doing to him but couldn't stop himself.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
saigonij
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:30 PM |
|
|
i understand it must be difficult for people with addictions, but come on - whats he gonna do with the 2m if he is sucessful - 100% gurenteed to go
and spend it on betting - why? cause even now he can not accept that its his own fault and is blaming someone else for his lack of ability to handle
the problem. If he cant accept its his problem then he will never get out of his victim state.
he does not seem to be taking responsiblilty for his own actions and is wanting to say "look , them - its their fault - they should have stopped
me".
i think he would be better off getting help for it rather than pointing the blame finger
[Edited on 14/2/08 by saigonij]
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by saigonij
i understand it must be difficult for people with addictions, but come on - whats he gonna do with the 2m if he is sucessful - 100% gurenteed to go
and spend it on betting - why? cause even now he can not accept that its his own fault and is blaming someone else for his lack of ability to handle
the problem. If he cant accept its his problem then he will never get out of his victim state.
he does not seem to be taking responsiblilty for his own actions and is wanting to say "look , them - its their fault - they should have stopped
me".
good point
|
|
|
DarrenW
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:34 PM |
|
|
Maybe William Hill should agree to an out of court settlement. They could stick £1M on account, drawable as £10K per week as long as he stakes 10% of
his own money each week.
That way everyone is a winner.
|
|
|
onzarob
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:35 PM |
|
|
The thing I don't get. Why is it that failure, in his case to win. Is now considered to be someone else fault.
I'm sure he wouldn't of been upset if he had won. I wonder if William Hill could of refused a winning payout as he was a banned
customer!
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:35 PM |
|
|
When you put a 14 year old on the front page having won 1.4 million playing poker, you know society has a problem. How many suicides of problem
gamblers, were there in this province alone, over the past few years? Several. The government wouldn't publish that til recently.
|
|
|
eznfrank
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:37 PM |
|
|
I'm a bit of a fat knacker so I might go sue McDonalds for all the Big Macs they forced me to eat - oh wait, that's already been done
too!!
|
|
|
saigonij
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:40 PM |
|
|
by the looks of it, he has already eatten a lot of mac donalds.....
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:41 PM |
|
|
But don't think of suing over spilling their notoriously bad coffee all over yourself either, because that's been done too; they have
warnings about that on every cup. I'm sure you can sue your parents for bad genetics, therefore you may be predisposed to put on unnecessary
weight. Also, don't forget the town council where you live, because I am sure the sidewalks are too narrow to safely start a running regime.
[Edited on 14/2/08 by RK]
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:45 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by onzarob
The thing I don't get. Why is it that failure, in his case to win. Is now considered to be someone else fault.
I'm sure he wouldn't of been upset if he had won. I wonder if William Hill could of refused a winning payout as he was a banned
customer!
The alleged failure, in this case is with their identity checking. It seems that he told them he had a problem and they agreed not to let him bet.
They failed to pick up when he re-registered under another name.
So it's all down to how much due diligence they are they expected to use when opening an account. I really don't have a view on that -
but that's why we have judges.
A bookie can always refuse to pay out IIRC, don't even have to give a reason.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
Paul TigerB6
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:45 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr WhippyI'm totally against the national lottery, a planned scam right from the beginning to turn Britain
into a nation of gambling addicts.
Noooooo - it was a planned scam to earn the government yet more millions in tax from us mugs!!
Really cant believe he's taking this to court claiming the bookies have a "Duty of Care"!!! So if i buy a Ferrari and then get
caught speeding at 180mph, can i therefore sue Ferrari for making a car that allowed me to go so fast?? Maybe they have a duty of care too in not
allowing me to go over 70mph!! Sounds ridiculous - but in this country where half the criminals caught claim its society's fault and wont take
responsibility for their own actions it really doesnt surprise me.
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 01:54 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RK
But don't think of suing over spilling their notoriously bad coffee all over yourself either, because that's been done too; they have
warnings about that on every cup.
that's a point, NEVER DRINK THEIR COFFEE!! it is unbelievably bad, no seriously it just horrendous and I love coffee.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 02:40 PM |
|
|
the point is, they have a process to help people addicted to gambling, he asked for help, they agreed. He then opened another account (i thought it
was in his name) and they let him.
They do share some responsibility. How about if Ferrari said, its impossible to hurt yourself crashing in our car and you did - would you sue Ferrari
then?
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 03:06 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
the point is, they have a process to help people addicted to gambling, he asked for help, they agreed. He then opened another account (i thought it
was in his name) and they let him.
They do share some responsibility. How about if Ferrari said, its impossible to hurt yourself crashing in our car and you did - would you sue Ferrari
then?
My mistake, I read the clumsy wording as if he previously was registered under another name.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
r1_pete
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 03:12 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
the point is, they have a process to help people addicted to gambling, he asked for help, they agreed. He then opened another account (i thought it
was in his name) and they let him.
Surely they upheld their responsibility by suspending hs account, the fact he opened another with the presumed attemt to deceive them! Not knowing the
details of the accounts its not possible to say, but any computerised system would not enable two accounts with the same person details....
[Edited on 14/2/08 by r1_pete]
|
|
|
trogdor
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 03:41 PM |
|
|
william hill might give it to him because if he is that addicted he will just give it all back to them.
when i used to work in a bookies you would see if all the time, you didn't mind paying out some customers loads of money as you knew you would
have it back before the day was out.
There was one guy who would bet loads, he had a chain of Chinese restaurants, he started selling them to finance his gambling, one weekend for
instance he gave us £75,000.
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 04:30 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
They do share some responsibility. How about if Ferrari said, its impossible to hurt yourself crashing in our car and you did - would you sue Ferrari
then?
Not a very good analogy though, no one was physically injured in this case. A much closer analogy would be if you went into a Ferrari dealership and
said "Please don't sell me a Ferrari", but you went back the next week and bought a Ferrari from them.
As much as I hate gambling, and can't see the attraction, this is simply another case where it's easier to blame someone else rather than
take any personal responsibility.
|
|
|
Paul TigerB6
|
| posted on 14/2/08 at 06:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by r1_pete
Surely they upheld their responsibility by suspending hs account, the fact he opened another with the presumed attemt to deceive them! Not knowing the
details of the accounts its not possible to say, but any computerised system would not enable two accounts with the same person details....
[Edited on 14/2/08 by r1_pete]
I agree ^^^, there are probably hundreds of Graham Calvert's in this country so they cant block an account simply by name alone - especially if
he went to a different branch so wasnt known by staff. If he used a different address for example, or added a middle name etc then how could William
Hill be held responsible for their computer system not flagging it up.
As far as i understand they opperate a voluntary system in order to block accounts in order to help the gambler quit - but I cant see how this could
be construed as a legal obligation which i would have thought would be required to prove a failure on duty of care.
|
|
|
