A safe bet

I seem to agree with Tessa Jowell on something, which is surprising. But then, only nannying busybodies and religous lunatics could object to the government plans to descabbify Britain’s casinos.

Laws on alcohol shouldn’t be structured around stopping alcoholics from drinking too much. Laws on food shouldn’t be structured around stopping gluttons from eating too much. Laws on shopping shouldn’t be structured around stopping shopaholics from shopping too much.

If you disagree with the propositions above, then you certainly fall into the nannying busybody or religious lunatic category. If you don’t, is there any coherent way you can say that being a gambler is worse than being a pisshead, a fatso, or owing £75K on your credit card?

Update: probably ought to add, Ms Jowell’s suggestion that casino opponents are motivated chiefly by anti-Americanism is extremely silly. For a start, outside of Nevada, Atlantic City and Indian reservations, gambling is far less legal in the US than it is in the UK…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by John B. Bookmark the permalink.

One thought on “A safe bet

  1. more americanisation, how great :(,whats next more liberal gun laws?,as long as they can use em sensibly hey.
    seriously some people need nannying.if we allowed peole to drink 100% alcahol off the self, you can guarentee some idiot is gonna do it,or if u had the ability to loan 2 mill with out the ability to repay somone would.we either have controls for people like that(and the majority suffer) or society on the whole would suffer.cleaning up after the idiots who needed to be nannied.

Comments are closed.