HILARY Douglas of the Association of British Bookmakers (ABB) claims (Letters, March 24) that the £160m cited in your report ("Scots problem gamblers losing tens of millions on controversial fixed odds machines", The Herald, March 290)relates to the turnover on fixed odds betting terminals (FOBTs) in Scotland and not the total losses.
This is incorrect; £160m is in fact an estimate of the total losses, which has been derived from Gambling Commission data, operator annual reports and research carried out by the Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT). We note that Hilary Douglas does not provide an alternative figure.
Estimates derived from the Health Survey have been used by the Gambling Commission to derive the number of FOBT gamblers. The Campaign for Fairer Gambling's estimates are based on this figure. Ms Douglas then uses the Health Survey to claim that problem gambling rates are low, at 0.4 per cent.
But whole population prevalence rates tell us very little about FOBTs, unlike research carried out by the RGT which found that 37 per cent of FOBT users gambled on them problematically, a much higher proportion than the 0.4 per cent that applies to the whole population.
The Campaign for Fairer Gambling has been completely transparent with its methodology, and we would welcome the same from the ABB with regard to how its supposed "harm minimisation" measures will help reduce gambling related harm.
Ms Douglas states that FOBTs "are not the single cause of problem gambling" but secondary studies on previous British Gambling Prevalence Surveys have shown them to be the most addictive form of gambling, and the activity on which the most is lost by problem and at-risk gamblers - more than several other leading gambling activities combined.
If the ABB wishes to minimise gambling related harm, we suggest that it convinces its members to reduce the maximum stake to £2 per spin to reduce the harm that this highly addictive product causes.
Derek Webb, Adrian Parkinson, Matt Zarb-Cousin,
The Campaign for Fairer Gambling,
88-90 North Sherwood Street,
Nottingham.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article