The waiting goes on to discover what, if anything, the Government proposes to do next about the addictive, high-stakes roulette and gaming machines which have created several thousand mini-casinos on our high streets. The pushers, however – they used to be called "bookmakers" – appear to be trying to get their retaliation in first.
In addition to the sound of a virtual roulette ball dropping into a slot every 20 seconds, and the occasional disturbance caused by a player cursing or even attacking a machine after it has sucked in their last pound, betting shop customers have had to put up with another distraction. A petition organised by the Association of British Bookmakers appeared overnight in shops across the country, and many shop managers – no doubt suspecting that their area manager will be totting up numbers and reporting back to head office – have been actively encouraging their customers to sign.
The petition, headed "Enough's Enough", squeezes an impressive mixture of fantasy, paranoia and half-truth into its 205 words. For one thing, it does not actually mention Fixed Odds Betting Terminals. Instead, it includes a claim, without any detail on substance or timing, or evidence to back it up, that "recent Government announcements have put more than 10,000 jobs and 2,300 shops at immediate risk".
There is mention too of a punter's "right to have a bet", though strangely this basic freedom does not seem to appear in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Which is a pity, because if it did, the right to have a decent bet accepted at the advertised price without restriction might be in there as well.
But the laager mentality which now grips the high-street gamblingindustry on the FOBT issue is perhaps best summed up by this sentence: "As long as our customers gamble responsibly," the petition says, "we [the ABB] believe you should be free to enjoy your leisure time as you choose without being demonised."
Since when has anyone been demonising the punters? It is the gaming machines and the businesses which use them to extract easy, risk-free cash from local communities, often those that can least afford it, that are loathed and despised. The politicians and civil servants who between them decided to replace the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act with a one-size-fits-all Gambling Act should be ashamed of themselves too. It was this gross stupidity which allowed roulette out of the casino and on to the high street in the first place. Punters being demonised? Are they serious?
In a sense, the ABB's petition is encouraging, since it suggests that eight years mainlining easy cash has addled their brains. They do not seem able to understand the opposition to their move from traditional betting into hard gaming, never mind mount any credible defence. They were delighted to sow the wind when the politicians handed them a licence to print money. Now here comes the twister. This has the potential to be a moment of weakness which racing could exploit to the full.
The sport has been insisting it wants a commercial replacement for the statutory Levy system pretty much since the Levy arrived in the 1960s. Under such a system, the bookmakers would not be partners, but the hired help that processes the income from betting and takes a commission for doing so.
Severe restriction of the stakes on FOBTs or, better still, banishing roulette back to the casinos altogether would focus the minds of both CEOs and shareholders on getting their slice of the action from of the best betting medium ever devised. That would bring the significant and growing revenue from offshore betting, which is beyond the reach of the Levy, into play.
Sadly Paul Bittar, the British Horseracing Authority's chief executive, seems to have studied the landscape and the gambling industry's circled wagons, and decided that inside firing out is the best place to be. It would be in the better long-term interests of both the racing and bookmaking industries if Bittar and the BHA remained outside, offering instead a possible route towards an honourable surrender.