Responsibility for our own actions

well if you're an example of the "caring professions" then god help us all !!People dont set out to get addicted to anything ..be it food ,drink,drugs or gambling ..circumstances cause the addiction.They may have a drink to make them feel better and after a while that one becomes a bottle and spirals out of control.They may have lost their job and put on a bet to try to win enough to pay that unexpected bill ,have beginners luck and think its the way out of all their financial problems...alas it seldom is but they didn't set out to be an addict and once they are and need help that help SHOULD be available for the...even if its just the betting companies having to take some of the responsibility for aiding the "habit"As you were in those "caring professions" you must be aware that there are countless numbers of people who find it very difficult to care for themselves they are often at the bottom of the list ...or not on it at all .There is a distict lack of compassion for addicts ..unless they're famous ones like Amy Winehouse or Ant McParlane ,the rest are talked about as if they're the scum of the earth ,when in fact they are no worse than their famous counterparts ...just poorer

I suppose what I've described could just as easily be called a physical illness as a mental one. I'm not keen on the distinction between physical and mental illness anyway because our brains and how they work are just as physical and anything else.

Good post, radical, reflecting my general feeling.

I also take on board what eloethan says about my comments on addiction and mental health. I regard addiction as, if not an illness, then a kind of disability. For example, not everyone who smokes gets addicted to nicotine so it seems to me that those who do become addicted to that particular drug have a condition (in their genetic makeup, perhaps) that puts them at a disadvantage compared to the people who don't become addicted. I feel this probably applies to other addictions too, so that there is what might be called an addictive personality.
I like this way of looking at it because a person's genetic makeup is clearly not their fault and perhaps one day we will find direct medical treatment (gene modification) as opposed to indirect (counselling).

It's called 'data mining'. They were targeting people who had blocked themselves from gambling.
They inundated people and typically made an offer for a free bet for £10, then £20, then £50, then started charging knowing that if someone is addicted, once they had bet three times they were hooked again.
This is much more than people just randomly coming across their sites.

Being a victim is an industry now. We did not have the levels of addictions, debt, and minor illness being inflated to the point here people are unable to function until there was money in it for someone.

Where there's a victim, there is someone making a nice living out of exploiting them, selling them whatever they crave, making excuses for them and padding out their caseload, until they retire, encouraging legal actions, and flogging worthless cures.

Too many people now are encouraged to be inadequate.

Going bankrupt is a rite of passge for some, drugs are commonplace, alcohol cheap, gambling, you don't even have to walk to the bookies you can do it all on line and blame someone else when you come unstuck.

Gone are the days when you felt ashamed for bringing disgrace and worry to your loved ones, no, instead you are encouraged to consider them unsporting when they try to sort you out. You can tell your counsellor your version of events and get some comfort for being a total arse.

We have created a culture dominated be atificial needs and now we find can't fund it all.

I spent 40 years in the 'caring' professions and can only say that until people start to care for themselves, they will always be the victims of someone, even if that is just paid helpers.

Before we judge we should ask ourselves why many ( not all) people gamble ? Why the poorest of towns have the most betting shops etc. Why the lottery is so popular ?

It's easy for people to sit in judgement but these evil betting sites and betting offices pray on the vulnerable and those who have a feeling of hopelessness in their lives that only a windfall or big win could change .

I think the point of this story was that a large number of the people involved had asked to be banned from gambling on the site in order to help them tackle their addiction. The site had banned them from some parts but not others when it should have been a complete ban. One person was reported as having £1m debt - 99% of people would find that difficult to pay back! A dealer supplying drugs to addicts is more responsible than the addict in the eyes of the law, tobacco companies have been held responsible for smokers addiction and now many food manufacturers are being accused of our food addiction and obesity, so surely this is no different and the company has some responsibility.

Betting and gambling are serious additions that can ruin family life. I understand that gambling addicts can ask to be blocked from gaming sites or barred from betting shops, at their own request.
If a company then still targets them in any way, is that right?

Betting companies use psychological techniques to reinforce potentially addictive behaviour. My understanding is that the company failed to comply with a code of practice that is laid down to enable gambling addicts to indicate to a company that they wish to be denied future access to betting in order to try and beat their addiction.

Is it being said that all people with addictions are intrinsically mentally unstable/ill, as baggs seems to be suggesting, and therefore require mental health services? If so, I'm not sure I agree with that. The fact is, we are all to some degree vulnerable to psychological manipulation (the basis of virtually all modern advertising), and have an inbuilt propensity to respond to carefully structured positive reinforcements (as various experiments have shown). Everybody's brain is physiologically different - and some people are more vulnerable to addiction/risk.

If someone with a growing credit card debt is offered an increase in their credit limit, I would describe that as "irresponsible lending". The fact is this country is increasingly reliant on personal debt to keep it afloat, and people are encouraged to incur debt - and then blamed when they do so.

Ambridge not a real place? Don't be silly Monica - it's in Borsetshire
On a serious note - I'm uncomfortable with the general increase in the use of the term "addiction" to cover all sorts of damaging compulsive behaviour such as overeating, shopping, gambling. Are these behaviours really an addiction?

I had a neighbour who was 'living in the community' with a mental health difficulty. She was notified by a 'this is how it will be' directive that her allowances would change from a weekly pension cashed at the post office (which she was managing) to a monthly payment into a bank account. She had no capacity to be able to budget and got into a financial mess very quickly. The bank called her in to 'discuss the situation' and gave her an overdraft to pay off her outstanding debt. She promptly went out and bought presents for friends and family as the bank had 'given' her this money. She deteriorated rapidly with the worry caused by final demands etc and the last I heard of her she'd been placed in a secure unit a hundred miles away from family and friends. She cut herself off, even from her mother and sister, not wanting people to know what a mess she was in. Fingers could be pointed in several directions but it seemed that no-one was prepared to take responsibility for the situation they'd imposed on her.

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/31/gambling-industry-third-party-companies-online-casinos

It's hardly a level playing field is it? Gambling industry vs gamblers? Maybe that's why a bit of state control/regulation is not entirely a bad thing

I don't think gambling is a relatively new problem, one of our relatives would meet her husband outside his work every pay day and get money for food and rent, before he blew the lot gambling. That was in the 1920's and 30's.
I suspect like so many other addictions (drugs/alcohol/food/porngraphy) it's a growing problem. So many things are accessible via the internet, money, gambling, porn and even dial a drug delivery.

Maryeliza54 I can't add to the topic as all I would have said you have done already in several posts.

I have just had an email from an organisation I support (for the moment) congratulating themselves on running a successful campaign against supermarkets using fake farm names for their products because some consumers believe that the products really come from the farm brand name on the product.

My jaw dropped. Food manufacturers have been branding food with farm names since time began. I can certainly remember it happening in my childhood, but it never occurred to me anyone could be daft enough to believe it was anything but a trade mark.

Now we have to be protected from being fools. The next thing is The Archers will have to be fronted by a statement saying that Ambridge is not a real place and the farms mentioned on it do not actually exist.

and what about all those jams and chutneys with names with brand names like 'Mrs Appleyard's'

It seems to be how the world is, nowadays. That sounds so 'elderly' to say, but its true, I think. Almost everything is available the minute it enters your mind.

Well - obviously the online betting is relatively new. And the FTOB are also relatively new and take money which is grossly disproportionate to someone's weekly income and can do it in a few minutes. Also I believe the number of betting shops per head of population is denser than it used to be

Gambling as an example - would people say it is a relatively new problem?
Obviously I was a kid, so nobody would have told me, but I really can't remember anyone my parents knew having a problem with the bookies or fruit machines.

Interestingly, there is an NHS gambling addiction clinic - the only one nationally I believe. I hope income from fines are ploughed back into the treatment sector a vain hope.

But if we want the discuss the concept of personal responsibility and the role of the state, its wider than betting and credit card limits isn't it? Could there really be an election in which the main issue was limiting bets? Our system doesn't work like that surely? What happens is that something becomes an issue, like excessive betting, and people lobby for changes. The government of the day then decides whether or not it will make changes. Underpinning that is attitudes towards personal responsibility and where we draw the line. Do people think it was wrong that banks were ordered to repay PPI or should people who were stupid enough to buy it without working out it was unnecessary lose the money they paid out? How about the Unfair Terms legislation that protects the stupid against the fine print they haven't read?

Technically, I suppose we could scrap them if we wanted to by voting in politicians who think everything should be provided by private business.

That's absolutely disgusting, riverwalk! They should have their licences revoked!

Were the schemes for pensions and health care set up without our consent int the first place, maryeliza? I thought we had voted in people who would set these things up because we wanted them.

That puts a different slant on it. Thank you, river.

I heard the item on the Today programme. I understood that the big fine for one particular company was because many addicts who were trying to take control and had signed-up to a scheme whereby they would be barred from further gambling were then contacted by a different branch of the same business to continue gambling.

Along the lines of alcoholics/drug addicts being offered drink and drugs from a different supplier, but owned by the same business.

A well-deserved fine in my opinion.