This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/7244115.stm
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 1 | Version 2 |
---|---|
Call for problem gambler database | |
(about 2 hours later) | |
A gambling charity is calling for a UK-wide database which would give better protection to problem gamblers. | |
It comes as Graham Calvert, 28, from Wearside, is suing William Hill for £2m he claims he lost on bets after asking the bookmaker not to let him bet again. | |
Responsibility in Gambling Trust said details of gamblers who asked to be "self-excluded" from one betting chain should be available to all firms. | |
William Hill denies it can be legally liable for Mr Calvert's losses. | |
'Too easy' | |
Responsibility in Gambling Trust said a problem gambler could ask to be barred from using the services of one betting chain but taking such action was not enough to deter them. | |
The trust's Ron Findlay said it was currently trying to develop such a database of "self-excluded" gamblers and has asked for voluntary donations from the industry. | |
He told BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast it would mean all outlets could be aware of an individual in any area who had decided to self-exclude themselves. | |
Mr Calvert, who would often place bets of more than £25,000, is accusing William Hill of negligence by continuing to take his bets after agreeing to bar him. | |
The High Court will decide at a hearing next week whether William Hill - which strongly denies any wrongdoing - can be held legally liable. | The High Court will decide at a hearing next week whether William Hill - which strongly denies any wrongdoing - can be held legally liable. |
In June 2006 - when he had an account with William Hill - Mr Calvert told them it was too easy to gamble and took self-exclusion. | |
But a couple of months later he opened a new account with them in his own name and subsequently lost more than £2m. | |
His lawyers say William Hill should be held responsible for the loss because it did not implement its own self-exclusion policies. | His lawyers say William Hill should be held responsible for the loss because it did not implement its own self-exclusion policies. |