Nanny state behavior or sensible?

[punky]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/18/gambling_block/

Two major credit card companies have taken steps to prevent their punters from using their cards to gamble online. American Express and Citigroup took the decision to block the use of their cards because of concerns over fraud and fears that people might run up debts.

Bit undecided on this one. Credit card companies are free to do what they want I guess, but should they be telling people what they can and can't spend their money on?

Seems a bit pointless because they can get a card with someone else and use it... so should they be congratulated for putting people's lives before their own profit?

[Kliro]

I don't think they did this in the public interest, more likely they are making huge losses through people obtaining credit card details, and using them to gamble.

[SlackDad]

Probably got more to do with the fraud element than the debt I would imagine.

[Hom3r]

I think its a good idea, think what could happen if your card was used your looking at roughly £7000 depending on your limit.

[BBKing]

Scarcely nanny state, as there's no state involved!

Presumably they're just covering their respective asses financially. I'd settle for a credit card that didn't let my girlfriend near it, personally.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Scarcely nanny state, as there's no state involved!

Exactly what I was thinking, unless the government ordered them to do this it's a private decision by a private company.

[Chris T]

Originally Posted by punky

should they be telling people what they can and can't spend their money on?

But it isn't their money. It's a credit card; it's the card company's money!

[punky]

Originally Posted by Chris T

But it isn't their money. It's a credit card; it's the card company's money!

true...

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by punky

true...

Blair could order them to let people gamble . It would help the economy.

Would that be nanny state or crazy uncle state?

[BBKing]

crazy uncle state?

Crazy Uncle Joe state, possibly. Blair says jump, Blair says grin like a muppet, Blair says 'please spend us out of this embarrassing hole in the public finances...'

[NitroNutter]

Its only recently that gaming laws have been reformed. Prior to this credit cards were not allowed to be taken by those that provided gaming, due to the fact that a gambling debt is not a legally honourable debt. Now punters can relay the dishonour to the CC, instead of the gaming house. A credit company has every right to choose where there cards are admissible, just like a shop owner has every right to restrict entrance to their premises.

In fact before the NL began, gambling advertising on mainstream TV was also not permitted. Its only because they cannot have a law for one and a law for another and want most of the UK to gamble weekly on the lottery and buy many scratch cards daily, that we have gambling adverts today.

Did you also know that prior to the lottery scratchcards were considered amongst the most addictive form of gaming along side fruit machines ? Funny how laws and attitudes can be swayed when theres money involved. Morally scratch cards were considered one of the lowest of the lows, but now its a big feather in the lottery and governments nest egg so its OK.

[Chris T]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

now its a big feather in the lottery and governments nest egg so its OK.

But was the Lottery Act not passed on a free vote in the Commons? If you're making a comment on the morality of it (which is no bad thing to make IMO), you can't lay it at the door of any Government past or present. It was the whole lot of them.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Chris T

But was the Lottery Act not passed on a free vote in the Commons? If you're making a comment on the morality of it (which is no bad thing to make IMO), you can't lay it at the door of any Government past or present. It was the whole lot of them.

And as history has shown in the past that the party that has the house changes between the two biggest, its likely that it will do so in the future. Therefore future nesteggs will be just as useful to a party not currently in power.
And with a good 2billion plus sat idle most of time theres some interest being earnt there aswell, which of course will also be taxed. In our current social stature there is no such thing as a politician who is there for the benefit of the people in main. And many politicians goal is to get into the HOL eventually as its money for old rope.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by punky

Bit undecided on this one. Credit card companies are free to do what they want I guess, but should they be telling people what they can and can't spend their money on?

Seems a bit pointless because they can get a card with someone else and use it... so should they be congratulated for putting people's lives before their own profit?

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised society, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant"

John Stuart Mill - On Liberty, (1859).

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Graham

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised society, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant"

John Stuart Mill - On Liberty, (1859).

But this issue isnt about power off oppression. Its the right to restrict and or refuse to serve certain industires. Just as you may reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone, for whatever reason from your business.

They are not saying you cannot gamble, they are just saying you cannot use their product to do it. That statment by the UK online gaming industry has to be the biggest pile of utter junk ever uttered from anyone ever representing the gaming industry, and yes I have read plenty of statements from these people, I was in the industry.