|
Yesterday the LATimes.com published an article about the upcoming debate in the House of Representatives regarding the anti-internet gambling legislation. I've been writing about this legislation all week so far and it seems like the closer we get to the rumored debate date of July 12th the more the media perks up it's ears. I know why I'm obsessed with HR 4777 and HR 4411, my job is on the line. I don't understand why so many major news outlets are interested, unless their journalists like to gamble online. Perhaps the fact that it's a $12 billion dollar industry worldwide, with most of the money coming from US players, makes it newsworthy. I do know that internet gambling stocks were going nuts yesterday. Neteller fell by 10%, which I know I should have bought once I saw it, but didn't. If HR 4777 and HR 4411 get put together in a well written bill that doesn't make anything currently legal illegal, and somehow there's enough time in the House to get the bill to go through to a debate in the Senate, there is a chance that it will pass. A strong chance. This is why I am so nervous and obsessed with these bills. Together they will make it possible for the estimated 2500 internet casinos, poker rooms, and sports books to be blocked by the Internet Service Provider. While analysts and owners of internet gambling establishments are saying that there's no way to stop internet gambling, it's just too big, that simply isn't true. Just look at Italy, they blocked over 600 internet gambling establishments based in Malta by having their ISP's block them. Financial institutions are saying that it would cost too much to filter out every transaction, again not true. Most credit card companies in the United States already block internet gambling establishments from usage. However, they wouldn't be forced to block Neteller deposits according to the legislation, as they are not an online gambling establishment, so there is a way around it. Of course, if the ISP is blocking the online casino then there's no way for the casino to be loaded and as such no deposits could be made. It's the ISP blocking which is the key to this legislation. Without it there is a way around everything. There has yet to be a sound serious study regarding internet gambling and its effect on gamblers. While "experts" say that internet gambling creates more addicts there is no actual proof to back up that claim. Instead they use examples of people who have gone too far, but examples don't give us actual statistics. They just give us a sad tale to tell, like the tale of an idiot named Bryan Benjafield from Britain. Bryan Benjafield is part of the reason why the United States wants to ban internet gambling. Benjafield is a 23 year old account administrator at a construction company who is a gambling addict. He's also a filthy liar and thief who gambled away more than £1 million of his company's money in online casinos and betting shops. This person stole a tenth of his company’s annual turnover. This money was held in a secure account in order to pay the taxman. Because of Benjafield's selfish and stupid actions the business collapsed and three people lost their jobs. I don't believe in micromanaging employees. I can understand why one would want to place trust and care in their employees so that they will live up to a higher standard. However, where money is involved there should always be some sort of checks and balances. Benjafield made £16,000 a year and was spending more than his annual salary daily at the height of his addiction to internet gambling. The company only realized the money was gone once a tax inspector telephoned about an outstanding bill. I'm sorry that the company was closed and the owners lost everything. I'm sorry that three people lost their jobs. I have a hard time believing that Benjafield didn't have any sort of erratic behavior which should have sparked some interest. I do not understand at all why someone who only earns £16,000 a year should have access to so much money with no one watching what he does with it. According to the timesonline.com article, "Over an 18-month period he spent a total of £1,047,550. Using his privileged position in the company he was able to transfer the funds into his Ladbrokes account." Mike Jones, 45, the managing director of Charminster Ltd, Benjafield’s former employers, said: “I feel like I have been betrayed because I have known Benjafield since he was 17. He used to work as a part-time barman when I owned a pub and when I set up Charminster in 2002 I took him on as an accounts administrator." He added, “I had absolutely no idea he was doing this and it is quite ironic because at the end of the month he was the one always asking to borrow money. He used to tell me he was too busy to do stuff and he had a lot of work on, but in reality he was spending all his time on internet betting sites, gambling away our money.” My goodness, always asking to borrow money and they had him in charge of accounts. What's wrong with that picture? People like this are given as examples of why internet gambling should be banned. Here's the thing, dishonest people embezzle money from companies all of the time. It is a terrible disgusting thing to do, but not all of them do it to fund their internet gambling habit. They could be addicted to shopping, that doesn't mean we're going to close down the shops. They could be funding an expensive lifestyle with expensive restaurants and clubs every night, we're not going to close those restaurants or clubs. They could be addicted to drugs and embezzling money to fund their habit and that is already illegal. My point being, internet gambling is not the problem and banning it is not the solution. Related Links: Posted on: July 11, 2006
Back to July 2006's archive |
||||||||||||
|
|
Del.icio.us
Digg
Google
Spurl
Furl
Simpy
Y! MyWeb
