Pub gaming is under control

Rather like those coin-pushers in seafront arcades, however much you put in, nothing ever seems to land up in the payout tray!

I am moved to re-visit this subject by the recent news that the Gambling Commission is consulting on a revision of what is snappily called the Code of practice for equal chance gaming in clubs and premises with an alcohol licence.

This, you may remember, is the document advising licensees to ensure “a good atmosphere” while the gaming takes place, presumably to stop some of the more violent practices I might have been thinking of last week when I mentioned Wild West saloons!

One has to give the Commission A for Effort, I suppose, but it is yet another example of petty rules and regulations which have generally no relevance to the major issues concerning gaming which Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) minister Jeremy Hunt referred to last week when he appeared before the Culture and Sport select committee in the House of Commons.

Why has pub gaming suddenly become a dangerous activity? As I recall, under the licensing justices you had dominoes and cribbage as of right, you had low-stake one-armed bandits and you could apply to the bench for other equal-chance games, after which no-one bothered you unless the police were concerned about too many fivers on the table.

These days, there is the addition of low-stake poker and bingo to the mix, but nothing, one would think, that would call in Gamblers Anonymous. Yet there is a full-scale code of practice for ‘allowing’ gaming on the premises — not just running it — including a requirement to keep the playing pieces (and the marked decks of cards!) under lock and key when not in use.
I am sure there are readers who laugh at this and who will continue happily to allow their customers to play the traditional games in their own way. But it is indicative of the current system of law-making that we can leave nothing alone. Everything has to be ringed round with regulation, even when it has very little of a dangerous nature about it.

This is why I have grave doubts about whether the DCMS will get away with its idea of deregulating entertainment under the Licensing Act. It is a radical proposal, and these days we don’t do radical. I am sure that already there have been dire warnings issued about the mayhem which will be unleashed if the proposals go through.

There will be a suggestion that a lack of control will be a recipe for disaster, but there are already any number of controls in place over noise nuisance and disturbance, including the serious matter of an abatement notice, which once in place just sits there waiting for you to step over the line, whereupon you are hauled before the magistrates for a major punishment.

But that is seen as being wise after the event. Far better, say the detractors, to lay down rules and restrictions beforehand, just in case you had the stupid idea of doing something entertaining without the necessary piece of paper.

This is precautionary legislation, based on the theory that licensing needs to cover every eventuality, however far-fetched. It leads to situations where compliance with the rules takes precedence over the nature of the offence — or indeed over simple common sense.

There is, I fear, no way back. We have invented too many rules and we now have computers on which we can look them up. Ignorance of the law is no defence, my friends!