Dulcis Nex
said
:
Probably because I pay a lot of attention to news in the UK.
Would you like a list of scandals? They were criticised for their stance on lootboxes, but that is nothing compared what they let high street bookmakers get away with. I can dig up a list, just ask.
Firstly, I said allegations of corruption... As with every bit of rot in the UK government it is under a layer of polish. They let large companies get away with unethical and questionably legal practices (but as the regulatory authority they write the definitions, it is also their choice to pursue legal action... or not), but how do they benefit? I expect a parent company of a parent company of an investment company holding shares in a company (that profits from poorly-regulated gambling) in an invisible trust of a civil servant or ex-civil servant who just happens to work in...
Of course there is never any proof as trusts do not have to declare anything, least of all their trustees.
But I'm getting off topic.
You mean you cherrypick definitions from one of the few national gambling regulatory bodies that backed up your view. OK.
Also here is more recent statement from the UK Gambling Commission... and 15 others.
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf/international-gaming-and-gambling-declaration-2018.pdf
Of course this "declaration" is nothing but hot air, but it seems they realised they cannot pretend lootboxes and similar are not gambling.
Don't you realize on this page, post 5, I already told you the verdict of the UKGC among the 15 other countries regarding loot boxes?
Probably because I pay a lot of attention to news in the UK.
Would you like a list of scandals? They were criticised for their stance on lootboxes, but that is nothing compared what they let high street bookmakers get away with. I can dig up a list, just ask.
Firstly, I said allegations of corruption... As with every bit of rot in the UK government it is under a layer of polish. They let large companies get away with unethical and questionably legal practices (but as the regulatory authority they write the definitions, it is also their choice to pursue legal action... or not), but how do they benefit? I expect a parent company of a parent company of an investment company holding shares in a company (that profits from poorly-regulated gambling) in an invisible trust of a civil servant or ex-civil servant who just happens to work in...
Of course there is never any proof as trusts do not have to declare anything, least of all their trustees.
But I'm getting off topic.
You mean you cherrypick definitions from one of the few national gambling regulatory bodies that backed up your view. OK.
Also here is more recent statement from the UK Gambling Commission... and 15 others.
https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf/international-gaming-and-gambling-declaration-2018.pdf
Of course this "declaration" is nothing but hot air, but it seems they realised they cannot pretend lootboxes and similar are not gambling.
Don't you realize on this page, post 5, I already told you the verdict of the UKGC among the 15 other countries regarding loot boxes?
"We've not in any way, in the survey, referred to it (loot box) as exposure to gambling," a Gambling Commission spokesperson told GamesIndustry.biz."
15-Feb-2019 17:02:41
