[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
His claim is that online makes more problem gamblers. This would be a powerful argument so it is important to be able to refute it - fortunately the research he quoted did not show what he claimed at all! In fact it showed that between 1999 and 2007 FOBTs, spread betting and Internet gambling became much more widely available and much more widely used but the number of problem gamblers remained the same.

He abused the research by cherry picking a couple of bits of data that showed that a higher proportion of those involved in spread betting, FOBTs and Internet gambling have a problem - what he failed to mention was that these have relatively low participation rates. Problem gamblers are a bit like early adopters in other industries, they seek out the new opportunities of the new technology and so make up a higher proportion in these areas solely because they are used by relatively few. Problem gamblers bet on anything and everything - the new technology DOES NOT increase their number or make new addicts. That is what the research showed instead he makes up an increased threat via the Internet and mumbles of crack cocaine.

Now I don't know much about FoFs inteligence or morals but as the research headlined with the number of problem gamblers in the UK and highlighted the no change since 1999 I doubt this mistake was due to a lack of intelligence, it does after all only require the ability to read so I must assume that the FoF rep deliberately lied and that somehow this is acceptable in his moral framework.

Seriously it is important to know that internet gambling may be used by problem gamblers, even loved by problem gamblers but it does not make more problem gamblers (even if it has compromised the morals of at least one FoF spokesman-liar).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the Foe of Fun guy really showed himself to prefer arguing his cause more than any regard for anything else.

You are absolutely correct that we need to show unemotionally and sciencetifically exactly how he is willing to distort the facts.

This is also true in the legal claims made by Catherine, as she has a bad habit of "over playing her hand". She has done this politically through out her life. She lost her newly won Speaker position by attempting to "take over" MO politics by trying to move everone up a notch way too soon. She lost he bid to become Sec of State by over reaching IMO.

John has indicated that there is an agreement to have questions submitted to the pannelists for the record. We have members willing to submit them if we do the work.

I am not equiped to take on Catherine in her current position but might be able to help shape the way the questions are asked of her from my knowledge of her, but I do not posses the legal background.

I am willing to help in the presure on Valerie Abend, on the propose regulation questions as needed.


D$D