The first idea is purely selfless in nature and is universally regarded as "good" by all peoples. And that is the fairness of casino games, the fairness of online casino games and gambling sites, and the prevention of gaming fraud – whether it is from customers attempting to defraud legitimate casinos and operators, or from unscrupulous entities attempting to run casinos, casino games, or UK online casinos in general.
However, the second notion is neither as appealing nor as useful to the general public, the casino sector, or its players. And this is sometimes referred to as the industry and its participants "over-regulating" or "over-regulating."
On the one hand, excessive regulation makes it impossible for operators to operate and offer all of the precautions that such regulations, and their predecessors, need. On the other side, such over-regulations frequently obstruct players' ability to play responsibly, as well as operators' ability to make these games and online casinos available to them in a fair manner.
For a long time, internet casinos have been legal in the United Kingdom (unlike in the US where the majority participate in offshore online casinos). And, for the most part, the partnership between the UK government and its regulatory agencies has been fruitful. However, as laws have become more stringent, they are beginning to have a detrimental influence not just on the business as a whole, but also on players of UK online casino games and those in other countries where such gambling is permitted. That's because the UK government – and governments throughout the world – perceive the gaming sector as a cash cow that can be milked indefinitely, yielding apparently infinite sums of money to governments and police agencies.
A model with serious flaws
Allowing runaway rules to continue to strangle the sector and its participants is essentially starving the cash-cow to the point of near collapse, while simultaneously demanding that it generate ever-more "milk" for the government coffers. And that is not just unpatriotic, but also plain stupid.
The only people who will lose money if these government laws kill the cash cow, or continue to starve it as they appear to be doing now, is the government itself. Once legal internet gaming is suffocated by overregulation to the point that it can no longer function in any way that gamers would accept, the entire sector will simply go underground, becoming organized crime's main cash cow once more. The government will then get nothing, and both the players and the government will be screwed, while organized crime will profit.
The newly announced 3-year strategy by the UK governing body to "assist" players "from killing themselves" is under doubt. A not-so-subtle attempt to revive the already-debunked concept that gambling is some kind of "addiction" that requires "medication."
Injustices like those perpetrated on math prodigy Alan Turing, who led code breakers in WW II to construct the first computer that cracked the German Enigma encryption machine, abound throughout Britain's recent history. Turing was a homosexual, and being a gay in Britain at the time was considered "ill" and "curable."
The same rationale is being employed today by UK online gaming authorities, who are ecstatic about their current three-year plan to "rescue" and "treat" so-called "gaming addicts" from their "disease." Never mind that the name "3-Year-Plan" is eerily similar to Stalin's infamous "5-Year-Plans," which forced millions of people in Stalin's Russia to labor on collective farms for nothing more than a slow death by poverty and starvation, while Stalin and his cronies, and their government, grew rich and fat from their "regulations."
The online gambling sector in the United Kingdom, as well as its government regulators, can and will only survive if they recognize their mutual need – but not to the point where one over-regulates the other to the point of inability to operate. Alternatively, over-regulate the players by assuming they are "sick" and "need a cure," to the point that UK gamers will just say "ta-dah, buddy," and go play on unregulated off-shore web sites where no one will stop them or tell them they "need a cure."
Alan Turing was assassinated by the British government, which claimed that his homosexuality was a "disease" that required a "cure" and forced him to undergo chemical sterilization as a result. Instead of continuing with this bizarre invasion of his being – which is plainly NOT a "illness" — Turing committed suicide.
As a result, the UK government and its enforcement departments, as well as governments throughout the world, appear to be attempting the same approach that led to Alan Turing's death.
Is gambling a "disease" or just a "personal preference"? Is it anyone's business, other than the person's, or – more significantly – is it the person's business? Or is it herself?
The quick answer is, without a doubt, no.
Before committing its population to rules that aren't human at all, the UK government should take a careful look at its own biased past.