Responsibility for our own actions

I didn't say paid for at all - the fact that money is taken from us without choice and given back to us as health care and pensions takes away from us the responsibility of saving up ourselves to provide for those needs. Is this being a nanny state? And if not, isn't it set up like that to protect us from ourselves as so many wouldn't save and make provision?

Have we...

Have told the state to boss gambling businesses around?

paid for

State pension and health care are not paid by the state. They are paid for by us, citizens of the state. The state oversees their provision because we, the voters, told them to via our elected politicians.

As I implied earlier, I think there are degrees of personal responsibility - a balance to be established between throwing people to the wolves and giving them complete freedom of choice and the state being responsible for establishing checks and balances in what can be very unequal relationships. I wonder if those of you who believe you in complete personal responsibility think that there should never be a state pension and that we should all be responsible for making basic provision for our own old age? Then again, we could say the same about the provision of health care.

I know of somebody who works in a betting shop, and she was issued with instructions on how to make women feel more comfortable in the shop, which she felt was questionable, morally.
She was told to make them a cup of tea, and generally be as helpful as possible in explaining how bets work, and 'getting them started'.

Like the bank in my example, the gambling sites won't block addicts because they make money out of them.

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

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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 about the principle, maw.

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

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.