UK Gambling Charity Under Scrutiny for Alleged Industry Ties

10

The United Kingdom’s primary charity agency has instigated an exploratory probe into GambleAware, the country’s leading non-profit organization focused on addressing the issue of problem gambling. This sweeping investigation, spearheaded by the Charity Commission, was triggered following a complaint alleging GambleAware’s distressingly intimate ties with the gambling industry.

The complainant, Annie Ashton, is a formidable voice in this complex matter. Her life was drastically disrupted when her husband tragically committed suicide following a torturous struggle with problem gambling. According to Ashton, GambleAware’s close-knit relationship with the industry it aims to regulate is a cause for concern.

Follow us on Google News! ✔️


Validating Ashton’s concerns, The Charity Commission revealed details of its initial proceedings to The i, a popular UK newspaper. The Commission has instigated what it terms a “regulatory compliance case”, dedicated to an extensive analysis of the controversial practices of the charity. The root of the complaint rests on the argument that the organization’s ideals are too closely entwined with the vested interests of its primary financier – the gambling industry itself-.

Intriguingly, GambleAware’s primary source of funding stems from voluntary contributions made by the gambling industry. During the fiscal year of 2022-2023, the charity organziation amassed a staggering £46.5 million (equivalent to approximately US$59 million) from gambling enterprises, as reflected in the official records.

Joining Ashton in her criticism of GambleAware are anti-gambling activists and the Good Law Society. The latter is a non-profit entity with the ambitious aim of using legal battles to “create a better world”.

Contained within the formal complaint is the assertion that GambleAware, due to its financial dependency on the industry, operates entirely within the industry’s portrayal of the gambling terrain. This reliance, the complainants contend, has given birth to a systemic failure to acknowledge any alternative viewpoints that critique industry practices.

A concerning anecdote within the complaint recalls a lesson plan curated for Year 10 students (or 9th graders in American education) aimed at illuminating gambling-related issues. Within this ostensibly educational lesson was a troubling stipulation for teachers: “This lesson is not to demonize the gambling industry.”

Moreover, the educative materials presented the idea that gambling operators, much like any other industry trading potentially hazardous hobbies, are merely pursuing their trade within the confines of the law. Consequently, the complaint took issue with GambleAware’s vital focus on “gambling responsibly” rather than advocating for abstaining from gambling altogether.

GambleAware’s CEO, Zoë Osmond, has categorically dismissed the complaint as devoid of basis, extremely harmful, and constructed on misleading and outdated data. Osmond remains firm in her stance that GambleAware exudes staunch independence and has persistently advocated for the enactment of a legislative funding system to secure accountability from the gambling industry.

In her response, Osmond emphasized GambleAware’s mission, stating that the treatment and support they coordinate, which includes prominent resources like the National Gambling Support Network and the National Gambling Helpline, amount to one of the few available defenses for the millions who face the damaging societal impacts of gambling each year.