Idiot suing casino
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
No one in Canada is responsible for their own actions. Must be the governments fault. Stupid legal system we have.
Governments control all the money makers ...Liquor , smokes , gambling ...Damned those who interfere with good revenue....
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/85240-governments-addicted-gambling-revenues-time.html - Government is addicted to casino revenues - Time for an intervention ?...Who regulates the regulators ..?
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/85240-governments-addicted-gambling-revenues-time.html - Government is addicted to casino revenues - Time for an intervention ?...Who regulates the regulators ..?
It's funny eh? the same people who complain about "big brother" are the first to go looking for him when the going gets tough. Like the 17 year old kid who wants to be independent but doesn't want to pay his room and board. :lol:
Be careful, some people have children as an addiction.
The problem is the government made an exception to
allow people to ban themselves, so they could ease their
conscience about the habit they were abusing. From the
view of common sense it would state that she should get
nothing. We are not dealing with common sense we are
dealing the the legal system and governments and that
is where problems begin. The first problem is allowing
people to bar themselves because legally it might put
the establishment on notice as being liable.
The other problem I have with society, is that when things
happen, we punish the average citizen instead of those
responsible. For example Kelowna BC lost it Regatta a
number of years ago because some drunks caused a
riot. Why not punish the rioter, and not everyone else.
In this case we are going to punish the casino, and the
people who will ultimately end up paying through higher
fees or the loss of an entertainment location.
In life you pays your money and you takes your chances,
the old saying points out. I think if she takes the casino
to court and loses she should have to pay all the legal
expenses of both sides.
The problem is the government made an exception to
allow people to ban themselves, so they could ease their
conscience about the habit they were abusing. From the
view of common sense it would state that she should get
nothing. We are not dealing with common sense we are
dealing the the legal system and governments and that
is where problems begin. The first problem is allowing
people to bar themselves because legally it might put
the establishment on notice as being liable.
The other problem I have with society, is that when things
happen, we punish the average citizen instead of those
responsible. For example Kelowna BC lost it Regatta a
number of years ago because some drunks caused a
riot. Why not punish the rioter, and not everyone else.
In this case we are going to punish the casino, and the
people who will ultimately end up paying through higher
fees or the loss of an entertainment location.
In life you pays your money and you takes your chances,
the old saying points out. I think if she takes the casino
to court and loses she should have to pay all the legal
expenses of both sides.
Actually, no. Her issue is that the casino was happy to let her gamble and lose, but when she WON, they brought out a little clause that didn't exist when she self-barred, which prevented her from collecting her winnings.
Now the fact that she won and they wouldn't let her collect should be
offset by the fact she shouldn't have been there in the first place,
regardless of the fact she got in. What should a casino do have the
photo's of self barred people put on the walls and on the big screen
outside? However the fact she was not able to collect, might be a
loop hole for lawyers to make a claim to the money. The lawyer will
end up with all the money, in the end anyway, they always do.
offset by the fact she shouldn't have been there in the first place,
regardless of the fact she got in. What should a casino do have the
photo's of self barred people put on the walls and on the big screen
outside? However the fact she was not able to collect, might be a
loop hole for lawyers to make a claim to the money. The lawyer will
end up with all the money, in the end anyway, they always do.
The more I hear the worse it gets, but that would be understandable. She barred herself from going in there and got the casino to agree to keep her out? Am I right so far? So now she "wins" when officially she isn't in there? How is that possible? So now she expects the casino to pay her after they've both agreed that she will no longer be going in there? She deserves to be paid NOTHING and probably charged with trespassing. :lol:
The government never looses ..They have all angles covered ...The fix is on ...So the cycle continues ...
The casino offers a service where, if you 'self ban' they are supposed to keep you out.
The casino welcomed her by name when she was on the banned list.
Then, when she won, they brought out a rule (that didn't exist when she signed up for the self ban) that meant she couldn't collect any winnings.
Sounds like a good system to me.
Kinda like when my father quit drinking, and his two brothers kept offering him drinks, so that if he started again, they could criticize him for drinking.
Bet they still send her offers she can't refuse..if the list doesn't work ...Pay up! ...Either Give her what she won or give her back what she lost ...
I heard this woman speaking on CBC radio a few weeks ago I think it was. It's not isolated to this one case, that is to say that the Casinos are letting chronic gamblers back in time after time. They only exercise the letter of the contract when someone wins...that's called stacking the deck in your own favour...Casino's wouldn't do that now would they? Sounds to me like the contract was voided by both parties, so she has a valid case to say that she's owed the winnings.
Hear here Tonington ..
I wonder how many addicts have beat the government at their own game?.Oh ..Zero !..
Casino's would go bankrupt if not for the repeat Gamblers and the attractive offers/advertising ...
I wonder how many addicts have beat the government at their own game?.Oh ..Zero !..
Casino's would go bankrupt if not for the repeat Gamblers and the attractive offers/advertising ...
Not as good or as gullible as the governments lawyers/courts are...
...Legaleese is a language all to themselves ..Jibbersih as far as I'm concerned...It is why "The people " always lose..Might as well be ancient latin..
Last edited:
Actually, they have photos of all of the banned people, and the staff are required to review them DAILY to ensure they don't miss them.