Hello people. I am reading about Graham Calvert, a 28 years old guy who lost more than $4 million dollars because of gambling addiction. If you want to learn more just google the words "Graham Calvert" and all the news talk about him.
I'm trying to see on the net when his appeal gonna be because I really would like to get updated with his story, however the reason I open this thread is to discuss about his case.
Basically, this 28 years old guy has self-excluded himself from betting over the phone with one of the biggest bookmakers (bookie) in UK. Self exclusion means you can't bet anymore, and you use this option to prevent yourself from going from bad to the worse. This feature is by all means good to stop a person from getting addicted or to stop addicted person with his addiction.
The problem is that even though the bookmaker has self-excluded Graham, he opened another account with them, placed more bets with them and lost more money. He sued the bookmaker about 2 weeks ago and lost the trial, however the judge gave him the right to appeal the case through a very fast procedure (compared to other cases that can take you months to appeal)
I think the common sense needs to let him win the case. The bookmaker failed to self-exclude Graham from betting more over the phone. "Successful punters" are being ejected from bookmakers without the option of having a 2nd account, but in a case the person losing it seems like the bookmaker, as always and not very surprising, cares more about the money than the person himself.
I think people should encourage Graham and the media to "vote" for this guy, his addiction caused the loss but if he tried to get out of it then he did what's needed to be done. Saying "he could do it somewhere else" isn't reflecting what happened, and if the judge thinks he could do it somewhere else then as long as there are no evidences this claim is void.
That's only my opinion but you're more than welcome to share yours.
I'm trying to see on the net when his appeal gonna be because I really would like to get updated with his story, however the reason I open this thread is to discuss about his case.
Basically, this 28 years old guy has self-excluded himself from betting over the phone with one of the biggest bookmakers (bookie) in UK. Self exclusion means you can't bet anymore, and you use this option to prevent yourself from going from bad to the worse. This feature is by all means good to stop a person from getting addicted or to stop addicted person with his addiction.
The problem is that even though the bookmaker has self-excluded Graham, he opened another account with them, placed more bets with them and lost more money. He sued the bookmaker about 2 weeks ago and lost the trial, however the judge gave him the right to appeal the case through a very fast procedure (compared to other cases that can take you months to appeal)
I think the common sense needs to let him win the case. The bookmaker failed to self-exclude Graham from betting more over the phone. "Successful punters" are being ejected from bookmakers without the option of having a 2nd account, but in a case the person losing it seems like the bookmaker, as always and not very surprising, cares more about the money than the person himself.
I think people should encourage Graham and the media to "vote" for this guy, his addiction caused the loss but if he tried to get out of it then he did what's needed to be done. Saying "he could do it somewhere else" isn't reflecting what happened, and if the judge thinks he could do it somewhere else then as long as there are no evidences this claim is void.
That's only my opinion but you're more than welcome to share yours.
