Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Wednesday, 20 January 2016

Guido Fawked - Dissing His Own Friends

A strange “Sponsored Postappeared yesterday on the Guido Fawkes blog, domain of the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble, entitled “Cameron’s Former Speechwriter Slaps Down Tory MP Over FOBTS”, that acronym meaning Fixed Odds Betting Terminals, the subject of much controversy due to their being alleged to contribute a strongly addictive element to High Street gambling.
Feared. But only by dodgy furniture

Therese Coffey MP went out to bat for the bookmakers once more, after David’s Cameron’s former speechwriter Clare Foges delivered a scathing attack on fixed odds betting terminals in the Daily Mail” began the post, clearly having a go at a Tory MP in a most un-Fawkes like way. After all, The Great Guido is also the great libertarian, and if bookies want to install FOBTs on their premises, why would he object?
And it isn’t only Ms Coffey getting the stick: the Select Committee “included Therese Coffey, who enjoyed a trip to Macau, yet only found the time to visit one betting shop on a chaperoned visit. It later emerged that Philip Davies had not declared hospitality from Ladbrokes before he quizzed the CEO of Ladbrokes during the committee inquiry, as well as a ‘subscription’ of almost £5,000 a year from a company linked to BetFred”.
The Fawkes blog kicking tell-it-like-it-is Philip Davies? It certainly is. And it gets yet more un-Fawkes like: “The bookies aren’t afraid of underhand lobbying tactics. The Guardian last week revealed that the head of the Responsible Gambling Trust at the time Ms. Coffey was helping draft the Select Committee report was also lobbying for the bookmakers as well as taking charge of research into yes - you guessed it - FOBTs”.

Citing the hated Guardian? Then there was more on Ms Coffey: “She is also a member of the Free Enterprise Group, which is supported by the Institute of Economic Affairs - a ‘think tank’ funded by the tobacco industry, and which does not declare who their donors are. In 2013 the IEA produced a report downplaying the capacity of FOBTs to induce addiction. Could this have been the fruits of a donation from the bookies?
The IEA getting stick from the Fawkes blog? The same IEA that in February 2014 approvingly quoted the Fawkes folks in a press release? The same IEA whose front man Ryan Bourne was praised by Staines in June 2014 as he Tweeted “BOURNE SUPREMACY: IEA Wonk Slaps Down Wife-Beater Piketty”? The same IEA at which Staines spoke to an event only last October?
Why would the Fawkes rabble suddenly decide to stand inside the tent and start pissing in? But then, this is another of those “Sponsored Posts”. And the Fawkes blog has not been too proud about where the money comes from in the past, notably the Russian state for one, as Zelo Street noted at the time. The IEA, though, might have thought they were pals with The Great Guido, and thus immune to such underhand tactics.

One might conclude that Staines is so desperate for the dosh that he’ll willingly crap all over those pals - if the price is right. Another fine mess, once again.

11 comments:

Jonathan Wilson said...

Interestingly it and you don't say who sponsored the post, or I've missed it? (I do have add-blocking installed, which might be why?)

However, there may be a clue in the comments...

>>>> copy from page <<<<<
Backwoodsman • a day ago

Ban the fucking things and the adverts for betting companies on TV. It's patently obvious that the suckers who bet are the least able to afford to.


reevoguido NotModBot Backwoodsman • a day ago

Thank you for a pertinent and relevant contribution to the debate.
>>>> end copy from page <<<<<<

Now to me, that (backwoodsman) post is relevant... although it goes on to expand into the TV/On-line betting world and the moderator didn't like that TV was mentioned.

I'm guessing the sponsor was a TV/On-line betting company, who didn't take kindly to being implicated in the comment. Obviously they are not part of the problem, oh no - not them.

To be honest, all advertising for betting should be banned - but especially the annoying TV adds that (on the occasion when I've caught TV at a mates) seem to be blasted between every program all the fecking time, 24/7.

Tim Fenton said...

@1

I couldn't find any mention of who sponsored it. That was what made it look even more strange.

Anonymous said...

This is the fourth FOBT bashing "sponsored post" on Geedo in 3 months. It appears that the Campaign for Fair Gambling is the sponsor. CFG argue they are altruistically campaigning to save people from the evils of FOBTs. This may be the case. But some suggest that what is actually happening is a turf war between different elements in the gambling world http://www.markxdavies.com/2013/05/09/whats-with-the-threats/

Geedo is probably being very well paid by the CFG to the extent he can afford to diss others who have also sponsored posts in the past e.g. Ladbroke, Paddy Power and the IEA.

But then again he hasn’t had any cash from Ladbrokes for over 8 months http://order-order.com/2015/05/07/nigel-homing-in-on-ukips-number-1-target/

same with Paddy Power http://order-order.com/2015/04/17/damian-mcbride-my-201-solution-to-the-three-pipe-problem-that-is-the-next-dpm/

Jonathan Wilson said...

@tim I'm glad it wasn't just me who couldn't see who sponsored it. I really didn't want to turn off my ABP - why give the feckers any advert revenue.

That said, he's a shill for Murdcock so it wouldn't surprise me if it was a well known satellite transmission company who also put their name to an on-line betting company.

rob said...

And they wonder why tere is a lot of spot bet and the occasional match fixing going on in professional sport?

It used to be mainly horse racing and boxing but now with mobile phone technology virtually any match in any televised sport is open to betting abuse and the betting firms just serve to exacerbate the problem witn their incessant advertising campaigns drawing the punters in.

Anonymous said...

Ban all gambling ads.

You wouldn't advertise drugs for the same reason.

Anonymous said...

I would like a law introduced where maximum levels are placed on betting for any 1 person.

Although, I have a sneaky suspicion that gambling could stop all together.

Ah well!

Unknown said...

Daddy, see that man in the picture.
Yes, dear, what about him.
Daddy why are his eyes at different levels?
Well dear, someone must have given him a heavy blow when he was small.

Anonymous said...

Skybet I can guess who is behind it...

Control it said...

Don't talk to me about that fucking crap.
I know somebody - a young person in fact, who became addicted.
Even the bank manager was asking if everything was OK.
This is the first time I have ever had respect for a bank manager.

Bob said...

Hello