|
30th August 2010
Bluff Editorial Staff
There has been varied reaction to the recent official ban to online gambling. We'd like to hear your thoughts on the situation - email
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
and we'll post them.
This is what Jeremy Nell - South Africa's 39th Best Cartoonist had to say :
http://jeremynell.com/south-africa-bans-online-gambling-one-step-closer-to-a-nanny-state/
In a ridiculous move, the Gauteng Gambling Board has won its bid to ban online gambling in South Africa. The effect of this decision means both Internet operators who offer online gambling to South African residents for gain, and a player or punter who takes part in online betting, are guilty of breaking the law.
Persons who are prosecuted and found guilty of breach or contravention of the gambling legislation could receive a fine of R10 million or ten years in jail or both. If there is any conciliation in the ruling, then it would be that the ban targets transactions rather than addictions. The Reserve Bank, which generally doesn't favour free enterprise, is angry because it doesn't have absolute control over the movement of money where online gambling is concerned. Perhaps, if a compromise is eventually found, then this regulation could be overturned. But it seems unlikely in the near future.
Naturally, the hippies are happy. Anti-gambling organisations have welcomed the ruling, which they said would put the brakes on teenage gambling addicts who use their cellphones and parents' credit cards to flutter online. And naturally, the hippies are high. Blaming a website for a teenager's actions is like blaming a car for a road accident; it is misguided and symptomatic (instead of causal).
Online casino Piggs Peak plans to appeal Friday's North Gauteng High Court ruling which bans online gambling in South Africa,
Whether or not their TV commercials with Dolph Lundgren are annoying, I hope that Piggs Peak, this time, really does win their fight.
Fairynuff
Thu, 26 August 2010 at 15:06
It's Silver Sands that has the annoying ads.
But regardless, lets hope Piggs wins.
Jeremy Nell
Thu, 26 August 2010 at 15:16
As Fairynuff points out, I've got my casinos confused. The annoying adverts featuring our blonde friend are from Silver Sands and not Piggs Peak.
This is what happens when, like me, you suck at gambling.
Bored
Fri, 27 August 2010 at 11:20
Its about the tax. The government is not getting a piece of the online gambling cash as some sites are registered under an international company. So SARS wants to be able to milk that cow
Article & reader comments courtesy of http://jeremynell.com/
THE INDIGNANT
Ray Ray
30 Aug 17:13
Bullshit!!!
Genl. Von Moderator
Aug 24 2010
That law will have to be changed, as it is out of pace with reality. Who can argue against online gambling? It is fun and as with any gambling should be done responsibly....
Shayd
Aug 24 2010
Why don't they just license some local boys to be online operators? Put the jobs here instead of overseas.
Tom
Aug 24 2010 17:24
Why ban it - why not simply apply special taxes to online gambling houses? That way, everyone wins.
AD ABOUT
Aug 26 2010 13:00
Good grief! This is about something much bigger than ads (and NOTHING is more irritating than the infomercials in the mornings). This is about the greed of the government and the casinos. This is about the right to choose. This is about the infringement of individual rights and liberties. This is about hypocrisy. This is WRONG
Freedom, whats that?
Aug 24 2010 16:38
There are very few people who suffer from gambling addiction, apparently only 0.5% of people suffer (http://www.fin24.com/Business/Sharp-drop-in-gambling-20090824) so those that think this is to protect people are way of base. This is about money and the government feel they are not getting enough from online gamblers. I personally play online poker and also overseas lotteries. I ask, who am I hurting? This is a ridiculous law, yet another notch on the should I stay or should I go stick.
gail
Aug 25 2010 12:05
The government wants their share, that's all. That's why they closed down FNB's MAMA account which did so well, people were saving AND keeping their money AND had a chance to win a million. But Lotto/Governement was loosing big money so it was stopped. They want people to have a saving culture, but something promoting that, is stopped. Share trading is another form of gambling, peoples lives are recked by that too, is that going to be stopped too ? This is a JOKE !!
THE LOGICALLY INDIGNANT
Shericka
30 Aug 2010 17:15
Ban is utterly ridiculous, government just angry they're not getting a slice of the pie.
Fail!
24 Aug 2010 22:19
The online gambling industry in SA is estimated to be worth between R400m and R1b. Our country is losing a huge source of revenue and foreign exchange by continuing this ban on online gambling. It just doesn't make sense. Why would the courts decide to do this? It can't be because the government isn't "getting a slice of the pie", because even if it is legalised they would get more than they would if it were banned. From a moral point of view it makes even less sense! People should be able to make their own choices as to what they do with their money. Sure, this might a small portion of the already miniscule portion of the population that are addicted to or have gambling problems, while the 99.9% remaining lose out. What about all the people making a living off professional online poker? It's like playing the stock market...are they going to ban online purchases of shares next? Surely there are people who have gambling or addiction problems that bet on the stock market as well? This is just typical of the South African government and this will just further damage our economy, not to mention our international credibility as a country that is trying to make its way to first world status. WHAT A LOAD OF ABSOLUTE BS!!!!
SubXaero
Aug 25 2010 13:11
This is such a farce, but all we do is complain when are we actually going to do something to together as South Africans. If we don't want them telling what we can or cannot do with our money then we need to act. Are we happy with merely bitching about how we are treated and succumb anyway after we've vented about it. That's why we as consumers never get anything right because we're only vocal about but I'm sure that if the streets were filled with angry consumers refusing to pay for anything then I am sure things will be a little different. Ever wonder why we have always made for such soft targets, it's because we never act on anything. We're a bunch of little whiners who eventually bend over backwards, look at what happened with Eskom, it's us that have to pay for other people's electricity at the end of the day and why because those who didn't to pay went and did something about it and we're left with the tab.
GETTING CAUGHT
Murmaider
25 Aug 2010
Enforcing this is actually easy, the ISP's will have to block off gambling on their proxy servers and the banks will start looking at denying credit card transactions which are processed from known gambling sites.
If you cant browse it and you can't use your credit card to pay for it, you're a bit limited.
Yes you could vpn and use a virtual credit card and, and, and, but if you are technical enough to be able to do this, then you only make up 1% of the entire online gambling base, in which case the government doesn't care about you.
NOT GETTING CAUGHT
Mello
25 Aug 2010 12:54
Freedom Fighter asks how to fight back and I'm assuming he/she likes the odd online flutter him/herself. The simple way is to register online with the relevant online transaction processing provider for a Paypal, uKash or Moneybookers account that acts rather like an electronic wallet. Don't do it via a South African bank as they will probably be under threat from big brother. Using these or similar intermediaries, money can be transferred between a personal bank account and the eWallet account without any indication of its purpose or its origin. They are used by billions of online shoppers regularly and are perfectly legal.
AT LEAST WE STILL HAVE OUR SENSE OF HUMOUR
Bodge
26 Aug 2010 12:45
I bet they are "bluffing".....
@Dolf
26 Aug 2010 14:44
Don't you worry. Dolf says he wins his fights so there's no reason to worry.
BC
Aug 25 2010 10:46
I sense an upcoming tender ...Detection of Online Gaming System (DOGS)...Qualifying criteria could be: ministerial sibling, spouse or dependant; user level knowledge of Word 2003 or PowerPoint 2007....
ADDING TO UNEMPLOYMENT
JJ
Aug 25 2010 10:49
I play poker professionally and declare it on my tax return. Has the Government just fired me?
|
