An undercover investigation conducted by the BBC has found a number of AGCs are failing to enforce self-exclusion schemes, with journalist Greg Clark able to play undisturbed at 13 out of 14 venues he visited in the city of Portsmouth, despite being on the exclusion register.
A BBC report has claimed that self-exclusion schemes are “not being properly enforced” in UK high street gaming venues, after an undercover investigation saw a reporter denied entry to just one in 14 AGCs he visited after self-excluding.
As part of a File on 4 investigation, journalist Greg Clark extended his exclusion zone to a 40,000 metre radius of the city of Portsmouth, but reportedly found he was able to play undisturbed in the majority of locations.
“He entered premises in London Road, aiming to play on slot machines for a minimum of 20 minutes, and ensuring he was in full view of the staff,” stated the article. “He visited three venues in one morning – none turned him away. A fourth, Game Nation, checked his ID and discovered he had self-excluded. He was asked to leave.”
“According to the Gambling Commission, details of anyone who has tried to breach their self-exclusion should immediately be shared with other nearby venues, putting them on high alert. However when the reporter went to another AGC on London Road, he was welcomed in.”
Responding to the report, the Commission’s executive director Tim MIller said he was “really concerned” by its findings, and announced the regulator would launch its own investigation.
“Where we see evidence that gambling companies are not meeting their regulatory expectations we will take really robust action against them,” said Miller. “You should be monitoring what’s going on in your premises.”
“The onus is absolutely on the gambling company and the people within it to spot that individual.”
Big on blame game, but no real solution?
The BBC’s File on 4 report raises a number of broader questions about the framework of the self-exclusion scheme.
And they will be uncomfortable for many to consider – but that probably says more about our squeamish attitude when it comes to challenging these more sensitive issues.
By its very nature, self-exclusion is a voluntary initiative at the behest of the individuals themselves.
But it is an oddity, it seems, that when an individual breaches their own ban, the only real action taken is to punish the operator.
In the case acted out by BBC reporter ‘Greg Clark’, his ‘gambling problem’ actually became a problem – everybody’s problem.
So, whilst the target of this report was on a self-exclusion scheme that clearly needs attention, what do stakeholders actually do with the very real problem of ‘Greg Clark’?
If this entire exercise by the BBC was an act of journalistic gotcha, then the broadcaster should be casting the net far wider.
The Gambling Commission will investigate, but punishing the operator isn’t actually the solution.
An intervention for ‘Greg Clark’, however, is. And a far earlier one at that.
Recognising that 14 breaches of a self-exclusion ban is extreme, it’s still not unreasonable to imagine multiple attempts by a self-excluder who is intent on playing will always find a way to breach the system.
The self-exclusion rules are clear, they won’t get their winnings, the contract is broken etc – but neither the File on 4 report, nor in fairness, the Gambling Commission itself, really address the point at which responsibility is taken away from the operator and handed back to the individual.
The dial of blame at some stage has to shift across the entire spectrum.
We obviously use the term ‘blame’ loosely here – although very few others have in this instance. But it still seems to be the case that a breach is not really regarded as ‘Greg Clark’ ’s fault, nor the circle around them, nor the third sector’s fault – it’s everyone else’s fault, as the File on 4 documentary observed but didn’t really pursue.
In reality the only one usually blamed is the unsuspecting high street arcade who doesn’t want the Greg Clarks in their venues at all.
It’s an ironic situation. But one thing is certain: it’s not one party’s fault – the shadow of blame falls on every stakeholder – as does finding the solution.
14 attempts to breach a self-exclusion ban may have been an investigative gimmick, but in real life, it’s meant to symbolise one individual’s problem.
So, here’s a question. If you’re one of those stakeholders cheering on the sidelines at an arcadian getting slapped down – well, what did you do? And more importantly, what intervention did you make to help stop a ‘Greg Clark’ reach the breaching stage?
We know this was a fake scenario, but the fact that someone self excludes is a signal, and the third sector support groups, family and friends will know about it.
So, would it be unreasonable to suggest that the arcadian was nearer to the end of the line when it comes to identifying the system’s failure? In fact, you all failed someway earlier in the process – most likely on multiple occasions.
In a real-life scenario, ‘Greg Clark’ should never have even got to that arcade – and the fact that they did poses challenging questions of the responsibilities of the individual, their third sector support groups, family and friends.
The arcade was the finishing line – there were many intervention stops along the way.
The industry will always take the hit when it makes a mistake, and it will rectify it – as it should.
But we really need to stop the Pontius Pilate blame game. File on 4 has highlighted the failures of the direct network around self-excluders as much as it has difficulties in the exacting self exclusion procedures.
Focusing solely on the arcadian is arguably the system’s biggest failure.
