Responsibility for our own actions

I absolutely agree MawBroon We were brought up to take responsibility for our actions.
My grandmother always muttered 'consequences, consequences " when we acted irresponsibly.
We have become a Nanny State there is no doubt.
It has become the norm to blame others for your position in life.

I don't see how an online betting firm would know what its customers could afford.

Compulsive gambling is an addiction. I don't think that betting firms can be held responsible for "failing vulnerable customers" - that would be like fining pubs for serving alcohol to alcoholics.

And I meant to add that once someone crosses the line into addiction/compulsive drinking or gambling, they are no longer capable of rational choice in the matter.

I don't think it's a simple dichotomy - Nanny State vs talking responsibility for your own actions. Re betting, I think there is a real issue with the FOBT which are now the biggest money spinners for betting shops. There is real evidence that betting shops are much more common in very economically deprived areas. I don't see anything wrong with limiting the number of betting shops in a particular area ( not banning all of them) or limiting how much money the machines can be fed per minute ( again without banning them).

Re credit cards limits, banks should always lend responsibly for all our sakes - look what happens when they don't - e.g. sub-prime mortgages.

Nanny state can bugger off re protecting adults from themselves as far as I'm concerned. How about addressing the problems some people have with addiction (drugs, gambling, whatever) by providing more mental health support?

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/888-online-gambling-website-fine-8-million-fail-vulnerable-customers-addicts-a7921316.html

This was the judgement
It is the principle of blaming others for our actions which worries me.
Social responsibility is of course a good thing, but it seems to me that too many take refuge in "blaming" others (whether their upbringing, housing, economic circumstances, Health and Safety, their parents, the State) for their own actions.
But the more the State interferes in our freedoms, the harder it seems to me to see this as wrong or irresponsible.

How would "lend responsibly" be defined?And how would a lender know that a responible lend to one person would be irresponsible to another?

I totally agree about the principle, maw.

I agree 100% too .
But I admit I once rang the bank when DD1 was a student and borrowing++ from them, and asked them to stop lending to her. They said sorry can't do that.

I totally agree Maw and you can add a shed load of other things to that too !!

We have grown into a blame society - its never the person's fault its always someone else's . Nothing is ever an accident .

Its a sad sad state of affairs.

I think that the nanny state is destroying common sense.

With regard to gambling. I'm always surprised that the online betting companies are allowed to advertise on TV.

Ultimately we are all responsible for the choices we make and the consequences that follow. However there will always be folk who, for all sorts of reasons, are more vulnerable than others. I don't think a commercial company should be held responsible for choices it's customers make. However I do think advertising that seems designed to target vulnerable people should be curbed.- similarly locating betting shops or even casinos in poorer areas. Those struggling financially can always be tempted to reach for something that offers hope of a quick fix financially. "If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is" springs to mind, but sadly people often have to discover that the hard way.

Sadly, it's not just the poorer section of society who are ripe targets for gambling. Friend's son is at least £20K in debt due to online gambling. I don't know if its an addiction yet but it's causing serious concern to his parents.

The gambling companies make most of their money from the addicted gamblers. Of course they don't want to help them. Legislation is needed.

When someone asks to be blocked from a gambling site because they are in despair through their addiction, that should happen. It doesn't.

Yes oriel, fair point., it can happen to anyone. A young man known to me developed a gambling addiction initially starting from slot machines but it spiralled out of control and soon it was casinos etc. It cost him his marriage and a promising future with a lovely young wife.

I think I'm responsible for my own actions, but there are very many vulnerable people out there, who may be tempted, I suppose, to gamble more than they can afford.
I'm sure too, that there are those who will capitalise on the 'vulnerable' label when it suits. I don't know what the answer is. Wish I did.

But it extends further than gambling. The papers are full of stories of people doing stupid things and then complaining because nobody told themthat water was wet, or cars needed petrol in the tank or some other blindingly obvious fact.

I expect that's why bags of peanuts now contain a warning : may contain nuts.

I agree Notme especially about the blocking. Addiction affects whole families not just the addicted person. Yes of course we are all responsible for our actions but not everyone is able to make the right choices and they are targeted by gambling companies.

yes, there's a real need for personal responsibility in all sorts of issues. I do think though there is also a need for proper financial education and also adequate mental health provision for those with an addiction of any kind.

Oriel "... at least £20K in debt ..." and you're not sure whether it's addiction?!