view raw text
Report by Royal Commission On Gaming Popular in England Considered Realistic and * Fair to All, Although Some Elements Voice Objections By VERNON MORGAN LONDON, England, May 31. — The British public generally has been pleased with the Royal Commission on betting, lotteries and gaming. As was to be expected the Church does not look with favor on what it describes as "strange and retro-grade recommendations." Bookmakers, too, have risen in arms on the proposal of licensed betting shops as now exist in Eire. This was to be expected, as it will mean a loss of revenue to them. The reason why the report pleases is that it is considered to be, firstly, realistic and, secondly, fair to all. It is indeed true, as members of the Church quickly pointed out, that the report differs greatly from that of the Royal Commission of 1933. That report agreed with the Church on certain moral and social aspects of gambling, whereas the current one may be said to approve it, seeing that it wishes to legalize it. The Church avows the commission is even encouraging it. That is open to argument. Some say now that if betting is to be legalized and betting shops opened there will be an increase in gambling. Others J take the line that the proposals will not; increase wagering in the least and might even reduce it as far as football pool betting is concerned, with the suggestion of a maximum prize of 6,000 and the barring of abbreviated permutations. Restriction of Liberties Resented Clearly, the commission has realized two I important fundamentals. First, that the Englishman will have his "flutter" and second, that many unfair anomalies must be removed in order to make the law equal for the rich and the poor. In the past the rich man could wager freely on credit. The poor man, on the other hand who wanted to bet even the smallest sum in cash was liable to prosecution. Any attempt by the commission to stifle wagering or restrict the liberties of the British public would have been greatly resented, in gambling as in all other forms of life. This has been fully appreciated, and those who want to have a bet should in future be able to do so if they have reached the age of discretion, that is if they are over 18 years. Of course, there is the* danger that betting shops might become an evil. Disregarding what the bookmakers say, for they are clearly biased in the matterand putting aside the gloomy predictions of the churchmen who say-we are going back to the bad old conditions of the last century, there are certainly possibilities that betting shops might lure gamblers to their portals who would otherwise be working. Early Closing Held Desirable They might give those who are weak an added temptation to go chasing their losses race after race and lose much more money than they would otherwise have done. On the other hand, if the hours of opening were controlled in the same way as those for public houses for drinking it would prevent or lessen such temptation. If all wagers had to be handed in before the first race of the day for instance, punters would be denied not only the temptation to hang around the shop all day but to throw away more than they could afford on the later races, their earlier fancies having lost. While.it is true that there is probably less drunkenness -in those countries where one can get a drink at any time as against those in which the hours are restricted, the same does not really obtain in the case of betting. Shops open all afternoon would clearly mean more betting and less work done than if they were open only for a short time before racing began — say the lunch hour. Extent of Gambling Insignificant One of the most important things the report has done is to show the public and above all the church that gambling is not the social evil that so many persons make it out to be. The report shows that punters spend less on the horses, dogs, football pools and all other minor forms of gambling than they do on either tobacco or alcohol, the two other "social evils" as some describe them. The punters spend an average of 96 cents a week a person, that is to say, less than an ounce of any ordinary pipe tobacco and only just over the cost of a packet of 20 ordinary cigarettes, and the equivalent of four pints of ordinary beer in a public bar. What "social evil," therefore, can there be if a man prefers to have some wagers in preference to an extra packet of cigarettes or a few pints of beer? He at least stands a chance of getting some return for his money and there might be a case for saying that the extra beer or tobacco might not be good for his health. The wager could at the worst affect, temporarily, the punters nerves! Of course, if one does anything to excess it is harmful," even too much exercise can be injurious. That does not mean that sport should be banned. Similarly, there will always be the weak-minded punter, the drink addict and the tobacco — ~ ►~ I THOMAS RODROCK — Sent out the two-year-old Bridal Toast to register her initial victory yesterday at Delaware. fiend. But just because that is so, the Government does not close the public houses or forbid the sale of tobacco. The many are not penalized for the few. And that is how the commission on betting has obviously looked at gambling of all kinds.
