• Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a 20% discount on Inform Racing.
    Simply enter the coupon code ukbettingform when subscribing here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Inform Racing so help is always available if needed.
    Best Wishes
    AR
  • Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a free 7 day trial of Horseracebase here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Horseracebase so help is always available if needed, as well as dedicated section of the fourm here.
    Best Wishes
    AR

Justice for punters org.

The RP will never publish anything that is negative about the industry mick mick no matter how true the facts may be :handgestures-thumbup:.

The companies don't like negative comment even when they are not to blame for something.
Back in 2013 they were about to ban the betfair site. Betfair were saying "nonsense nothing is going to happen".
Recently I asked bet365 why they tax winnings of over 100 to 1. They could make it 10,000 to 1 without breaking the Greek law but also 400 to 1 to make it level with the national Greek company.
I said why 100 to 1 but they did n't like it at all. They replied "no, we go by the law" and some such words.
 
Please read through the below and consider sending an e mail to the RP.If enough of us participate it just might rock the boat.

Dear Friend of J4P,

Despite the progress we’ve made in the last 20 months promoting
fairness for the punter and gambler, e.g. pushing the Gambling
Commission to establish the Competition and Markets Authority
investigation and many other things, we’ve completely failed in
getting specialist media to report on any of our work. In fact, one
media outlet has shown no interest at all from the outset, e.g. the
Racing Post (RP).

We don’t blame their front-line journalists for this; from the outset
it appears to have been an editorial decision? In the early weeks we
sent an open letter to the editor who appeared to be upset by its
content, because it challenged the RP’s coverage of sports betting
restrictions and the editor immediately blocked J4P on Twitter.
Following a number of requests asking if we could be consulted and/or
quoted on various issues this has never happened. To be fair a couple
of the younger journalists have contacted us on Twitter, but this has
led nowhere. Surely, the evidence we’ve gathered, which is already
being used by various regulators could have been useful for at least one
or two articles?

We’re not stupid and we fully recognise the challenges of consulting a
group like J4P when a media outlet has a close relationship with
gambling companies, but it does display a lack of understanding of what
J4P is about. J4P is not anti-gambling, J4P’s Charter is clear;
it’s all about fair trading. This can only be good for all parties
and one would think specialist media outlets may see this?

This email is to ask you for your help. We would like as many of you as
possible to contact the editor and/or other journalists at the Racing
Post via their automated form, email or letter asking why a voluntary
group who is helping punters (RP customers) doesn’t deserve some sort
of recognition.

Attached (and below) to this email is an example template for
communication; however it’s very important that you put your own
constructive angle about J4P in your correspondence. Please do not
include any abusive language (this is not what J4P does); try to be
challenging, but positive.

We do hope you can find the time to help us and that you decide to
contact the editor and/or other journalists at the RP.

Thanks in anticipation,

JJ

Contact email addresses:
Racing Post

For those you who prefer a letter:

Bruce Millington
The Editor
Racing Post
One Canada Square
Canary Wharf
London E14 5AP


Subject line: ‘Justice for Punters’

Dear Mr Millington (or named journalist)

I assume you’re aware of the work of ‘Justice for Punters’?

I think it’s fair to say that this group of volunteers is having an
impact on how the bettor, punter, gambler, customer, whatever term you
wish to use will be treated in the future by gambling companies, e.g.
more fairly.

Their work has been influential in the setting up of the:

1. Competition and Market’s Authority’s investigation into unfair
terms and conditions being used by online gambling companies
2. Information Commission’s Office’s review of how gambling
companies process personal and e-device data that has sometimes been
collected illegally (as defined by the ICO in a case against SkyBet)
3. Development of a new Gambling Commission customer dispute process

Their work over the last 20-months has also led to customers receiving
over 435K that was being withheld from them unfairly by gambling
companies. It’s worth remembering that this support has been provided
for free.

As the editor (or “a journalist”) of the main newspaper for sports
betting I find it amazing that your newspaper and website has not
mentioned the work of this group of volunteers once. It would be
interesting to know why. There is no other group without any conflicts
of interest working on behalf of customers who bet on a wide variety of
sports, so why not consult with or mention them?

The stance of the Racing Post has been quite different to many other
major media outlets who regularly quote ‘Justice for Punters’ or
work with them directly on the development of articles and programmes,
e.g. the BBC, Guardian, Times, Press Association, Gaming Intelligence,
etc.

I look forward to reading your response. Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours sincerely,

Your name
Contact points you wish to divulge
s.gif
s.gif
 
RE My above,i have just sent my e mail to the RP which may mean nothing but writing it helped me feel better.;)
 
mick mick Have done likewise but changed the wording completely. I just think if I got what appeared to be a semi standardised letter many times over, I would bin the lot. I expect no reply as the editor will be protecting his advertising revenue! But it is good therapy!
 
mick mick Have done likewise but changed the wording completely. I just think if I got what appeared to be a semi standardised letter many times over, I would bin the lot. I expect no reply as the editor will be protecting his advertising revenue! But it is good therapy!
Yes mate i did likewise the template was just a guide and J4P have asked participants to offer there own words on the subject.;)
 
Afternoon - Vested interest's & all that- I despair of anything other than Government pressure being successful in these endeavours - The new FOB machine rules might force a more customer friendly approach - although it will be easier to to cut in order through less high St presence with the all related staffing costs - to maintain or improve profits costs rather allow unprofitable punters back into the game - the one concern their would be 356 they no such exposure and PP (n are they the largest bookmaker) have very few actual betting shop's - so that's two massive players that the removal of high st FOB would not really effect.

The only thing that forces change is competition - so bring back the Tote in a new aggressive form that actually strives to take a large slice of the market.
 
Last edited:
Afternoon - Vested interest's & all that- I despair of anything other than Government pressure being successful in these endeavours
Hi Mark this is the frustration.I read there are currently four Million active UK punters.If i e mail my MP (have done so) this will make no difference,but if 10,000 of us did it would.! Imo the HBF have become a spent force and our only hope of achieving some collective action and changes is via supporting J4P.
 
Agreed Mick - but I doubt 100,000 would make any difference - would only be handful in each constituency - our MP was voted out last anyway so any emails he had regarding this will be a lost caused anyway - most punters will just turn their back on the game or look for better ways of betting or using the what little access they have left to the books or exchanges's.

You could see HBF was a lost cause from day one - which is a shame because they have an inside track if you like - PFJ would be better served if an alliance could be made with them.
 
You could see HBF was a lost cause from day one - which is a shame because they have an inside track if you like - JFP would be better served if an alliance could be made with them.
I suggested this a year ago to both parties, P4J where keen and made an approach but the HBF was not interested.!
 
Morning mick mick Parliament debate with Simon Rowlands as a speaker
Future Meetings
JFP will be there.:)

Hi Mick

Thanks, I'm going.

I got one of our members who lives in Philip Davies' constituency to go and see him at his local MP clinic. Philip Davies promotes bookies all the time in parliament and is the Chair of the APPG. Amazingly, he said he agreed that our member had been treated appalling (average bet £12, loads of accounts restricted) and promised he would set this up.

Our member is going as well.

Feel free to post the url ink and my reply on the public forum.
 
The minimum bet should be 1 pence and the maximum infinite.
The max takeoff percentage in all types 20% by law.
The entire system sucks.
Also they have killed exotic bets.

The idiots don't stand to lose - they will make customers.
 
Is there is a drive to do away with adjudicating services -such as the IBAS- so you can only go to courts in the event of any dispute ?
This is grapevine information.
I will try to ask the EU commission about it.
 
Back
Top