What are you really gambling with…
Gambling had become a problem significant enough for the English Parliament to pass the Gaming Act 1664 which attempted to cap punter’s losses at £100 in a single day.
If you lost more than £100 on credit, you could not be legally compelled to pay the amount above £100.
If the winnings had already been paid, the 1664 Act imposed a penalty on the bookie or winner: three times the amount won above £100. That penalty could be received by legal action, with the proceeds divided equally between the Crown and the plaintiff.
The loser received nothing unless the loser also happened to be the plaintiff. The act was interesting because it crowdsourced the problem. Any old ambulance chaser could sue.
The Gaming Act 1664 was repealed by the Gaming Act 1845. It made all gaming and wagering debts unenforceable in the courts.
The consequence was that collection often depended on reputation, social pressure or outright thuggery.
The 1845 Act was repealed in 2007 when the government finally realised how much tax they were collecting from bookies. It seemed reasonable to offer these tax paying companies the same legal protections afforded to all other companies.
But now the same govt is campaigning against these companies. If you collect the tax you should be banned from such hypocritical behaviour, especially when very recently they repealed a perfectly decent guardrail legislation on the industry.
My view is that a national constitution should prohibit governments from deriving revenue from conduct they regulate on the stated basis that it is harmful.
offshore westerly 