ILX want to make lots of money? best scam ever

it's a pity you can't jail people for idiocy. (well ok not really, but, you know....)

when do breweries start paying out to both the family of the victims of DUI-related deaths and the person behind the wheel?

don't understand the analogy

The interview is hilarious "When I...in a moment of weakness...they let me bet away..."

I think he means several moments of weakness at least.

I love how he's sitting in a bare room too.

Did he actually lose £2.1million? I mean did William Hill actually get £2.1 from him?

Ok, many more details here...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/02/14/punter-sues-bookie-for-letting-him-lose-2m-89520-20318661/

He's a greyhound trainer. Who knew that was such a great paying gig?

I guess he won occasionally, then bet that away too...

I have to say, I sympathise with the guy. He realises he's got a gambling problem and in a moment of clarity tries to stop himself from betting. He then lapses (like all addicts sometimes can) and WH decided to ignore him and take his money anyway. I think he's got a good case.

Northern Rock to thread.

You have to put the / on that Mirror link incidentally.

I don't think he does have a good case at all. The clue's in the "SELF exclusion policy" i.e. it's not William Hill's responsibility to stop him gambling.

Anyway, if William Hill hadn't let him back in, is he really saying he wouldn't just have registered with Ladbrokes or Coral or someone else instead?

or even gone into their branch, lol internet-based assumptions even when I've read the story.

I don't think he does have a good case at all. The clue's in the "SELF exclusion policy" i.e. it's not William Hill's responsibility to stop him gambling.

Not entirely true - he did his bit, the "self" bit. The reason he doesn't have a leg to stand on, as far as I can tell (and not just a moral leg, i.e. he can gamble elsewhere at any time), is because the self-exclusion policy closes the gambler's account. It does NOT preclude the gambler from opening another account, as happened in this case. This may be a flaw in the policy but unless it specifically goes against the small print, I can't see how he has a case.

Yeah if they'd let him bet on the closed account somehow, that'd be a case - but this, I dont know. I'm all for the support of addictions but suing those who engender them is a terrible precedent.