Bloomberg article sure to cause confusion?

[CompatiblePoker]

Anyone else read this article and find it somewhat confusing at first? Those who don't follow the industry very much will probably get confused imo.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...I&refer=uk

First paragraph...

Britain's new gambling law comes into force at midnight, legalizing U.K. advertising campaigns for the first time and licensing online casinos that can accept bets from gamblers worldwide including the U.S.

We know what it means but, as a good thing for us people will probably infer that they are licensing casinos to be allowed to take bets from the US.

Fourth paragraph direct quote..

``We aren't banning people from using Web sites based in the U.K.,'' Julia Smith, a spokeswoman on gambling for the U.K.'s Department for Culture, Media and Sport, said in a telephone interview. ``It is up to the consumer what they do.''

I like this quote...

[Legislurker]

I just emailed the reporter asking that Q. If its a London based reporter, probably won't get an answer before business tomorrow.

[Skallagrim]

Maybe they (the UK) aren't "banning" them per se, but I doubt they would do anything to protect anyone indicted.

Also, this may have more than a little to do with posturing for the WTO negotiations.

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

Posturing perhaps or just an outright challenge.

Remember, two U. S. companies recently entered the U.K. market, YAHOO! Poker and AOL Sports Betting using their UK offices.

Perhaps they will or are going to back them up. That would be a major development. Or, are they setting up their own WTO challenge incase the trade talks do not get what the E.U. wants.

obg

[questions]

So does this mean we'll be able to play on party or william hill again?

[davmcg]

[ QUOTE ]
So does this mean we'll be able to play on party or william hill again?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't think so. Party are not regulated in the UK and WH had to settle with US authorities for taking sports bets several years ago, so I can't see them taking that risk again.

The only interesting aspect of this story is that it was thought that there would be a list of banned countries, but this now doesn't appear to be the case.

The UK has an incredibly one-sided extradition treaty with the US and it would be easy for the US to extradite anyone accepting US business on probably money laundering charges, so sorry but I can't see this helping in the near future (unless the CEO of one of these companies has always wanted to have a friend called Bubba)