All bets are off
Back on the 24th of August I offered true believers of Helen the chance to make some money from the evil right, by betting that the pledge cards would be found legal by the High Court.
A flurry of bets were placed, strangely very few betting that the cards would be found legal despite 9:1 odds.
Alas all bets are off. The state has detected this little bet as a threat to public order, and the Department of Internal Affairs has advised me the sweepstake is illegal. Their letter is after the break.
Incidentally I had checked out the legality, and believed it was a Class 1 type of gambling, as it was under $500.
So why is it illegal? Because I did it over the Internet!! You see the Lotteries Commission and the TAB have a legislative monopoly over Internet gambling. The details are over the break in the e-mail from DIA. So the bets would have been legal if I had done it within an office or just amongst friends. But by doing it over the Internet it is illegal. I knew there was a reason state monopolies are a bad thing!
So once again, all bets are off as unlike Labour I can’t choose which laws apply to me on any given day. However I am sure we will still await the outcome of the court case with interest!
Hello Mr Farrar
I am writing to you regarding your weblog and a particular entry “Place your bets” posted by yourself on 24 August 2006. You are inviting people to place bets on the outcome of a court case and the entry shows that there have been bets placed.
(See attached file: Web blog Place your bets.doc)
You may not be aware that this is in breach of the Gambling Act 2006, Section 9 (2) (b).
The Gambling Act 2003 (the Act) was passed by Parliament in September 2003 and came into force in gradual steps, the final of which was on 1 July
2004. The Act repealed the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1977 and the Casino
Control Act 1990 and for the first time addressed the issue of gambling through the Internet and other forms of Remote Interactive Gambling (RIG).
The Gambling Compliance Group (GCG) of the Department of Internal Affairs (the Department) administers the Act.
The purpose of this letter is to outline the issues of conducting Remote
Interactive Gambling in New Zealand. As people may not be aware that what
they are doing is in breach of the Act, my intention is to educate in the first instance and request that the gambling cease. Please find below the following documents and extracts from the Act for your information:
Extract of Section 5 – Meaning of Conducting Gambling
Extract of section 9 – Gambling Prohibited
Extract of section 19 – Offences
Fact sheet 27 – RIG and Overseas Gambling Advertisements
Remote Interactive Gambling
Section 9 of the Act outlines prohibited forms of gambling including RIG.
The only organisations allowed to conduct RIG are the New Zealand Racing Board (“TAB”) and the Lotteries Commission.
Section 19 sets out other offences including:
Conducts illegal gambling
Promoting illegal gambling or assists in doing so
Advertising illegal gambling
These offences carry a maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding $50,000 for a corporate body.
It is hoped that this information will help operators of websites and others using the medium of the internet so they can make informed decisions about their responsibilities under the Gambling Act.
Where the website is operated from a server based outside of New Zealand we will endeavour to contact the owner or operator to explain the situation.
If advertisements or links remain and there is a New Zealand address then we will take steps to have the New Zealand address blocked.
I would suggest that you stop taking bets and you may want to amend the weblog entry to let people visiting your log that gambling is no longer
taking place. I note in the entry you ask bettors to email you to confirm
their bet, this will allow you to contact those persons and refund any money that may have been handed over and explain the reasons why.
If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact the writer.
Yours sincerely
(Name deleted by DPF)
Senior Gambling Inspector
5 Meaning of conducting gambling
In this Act, conducting gambling includes any of the following activities:
(a) organising, using, managing, supervising, and operating (but not
playing) gambling or gambling equipment:
(b) distributing the turnover of gambling (for example, by paying
prizes, meeting costs, or making grants):
(c) selling tickets to participate in gambling:
(d) promoting gambling:
(e) assisting in activities described in paragraphs (a) to (d).
9 Gambling prohibited
(1) Gambling is prohibited and illegal unless it is—
(a) authorised by or under this Act and complies with this Act and
any relevant licence, game rules, and minimum standards; or
(b) authorised by or under the Racing Act 2003 and complies with that
Act and any regulations made under it; or
(c) private gambling.
(2) The following types of gambling are prohibited and illegal and are not authorised by and may not be authorised under this Act:
(a) bookmaking:
(b) remote interactive gambling.
19 Offences
(1) A person who does any of the following things commits an offence:
(a) participates in illegal gambling:
(b) is, without reasonable excuse, at a place where illegal gambling is occurring:
(c) conducts illegal gambling:
(d) offers or provides credit if the person knows or ought to know
that the credit may be used to commit an offence under paragraph (a)
or paragraph (c):
(e) accepts credit from a person with the intention that it be used
to commit an offence under paragraph (a) or paragraph (c):
(f) makes a direct or indirect pecuniary gain from illegal gambling
other than as a direct participant:
(g) promotes illegal gambling or assists in doing so:
(h) causes or permits a place to be used for illegal gambling:
(i) advertises illegal gambling—
(i) to inform the public of places where illegal gambling takes
place or will take place; or
(ii) to invite the public to participate in illegal gambling or
to seek information about opportunities to do so; or
(iii) to invite the public to commit money for illegal gambling
or to seek information about opportunities to commit money for
illegal gambling:
(j) provides or installs gambling equipment if the person knows or
ought to know that it is intended to be used for illegal gambling.
(2) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(a) or (b) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.
(3) Every person who commits an offence against subsection (1)(c) to (j) is liable on summary conviction,—
(a) in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 1 year or to a fine not exceeding $20,000:
(b) in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $50,000.
remote interactive gambling—
(a) includes gambling by a person at a distance by interaction through a communication device; but
(b) does not include—
(i) gambling promoted by the Lotteries Commission; or
(ii) gambling authorised under the Racing Act 2003; or
(iii) gambling by a person in New Zealand conducted by a gambling
operator located outside New Zealand; or
(iv) a sales promotion scheme that is in the form of a lottery and is
conducted in New Zealand
publish means—
(a) insert or publish in a newspaper or other periodical published or distributed in New Zealand; or
(b) send to a person by any means; or
(c) deliver to a person or leave at a place owned or occupied by a person; or
(d) broadcast; or
(e) include in a film or video; or
(f) include on a disk for use with a computer; or
(g) convey by electronic medium; or
(h) distribute by any means; or
(i) display by way of a sign, notice, poster, or other means; or
(j) store electronically in a way that it is accessible to the public; or
(k) bring to the notice of the public in New Zealand in any other manner
September 12th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Fuck, this country is turning into a banana republic.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Without the bananas!
Actually, it’s always been full of busybodies.
Maybe the TAB is taking bets though.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Not surprised your legal advice was ‘dated’. Anything for free is often about as valuable. Does the possibility of being wrong on other things now appear feasible? . A $50,000 penalty, when will you be paying ? . Since you have admitted a prima facie case exists, there is no shred of doubt about your guilt. Such high standards you set are so laudable. But of course that enables you to sit comfortably on your high horse.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Section 1
Rule 1
It is an offense under this rule to criticise Helen Clark.
Offenders will have government departments crawl up their ass with a microscope to shut them down and if that doesn’t work the law will be altered to put a stop to this pesky free speech thing.
Anyone want to join me at parliment to ask for an explaination. Bring an overnight bag and something for your new roomie, Tim Selwyn.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Oh you are a little turdish wanker McPhee. Piss off.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Actually you can take bets by post. If this was the US you would be in handcuffs allready. Internet gambling is banned there too, plus they are going after the heads of business that work offshore but are foolish enough to actually transit US airspace.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/technology/18gamble.html?ex=1310875200&en=86d23b44d0868c0e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
September 12th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Fair call re. McPhee.
Not convinced about the need for the law but fair do to the DIA for simply writing and advising rather than getting silly about it.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
It’s an unenforcible threat David. All you need to do is have the same wager but just done on an offsite webserver by someone else. Pretty easy. There’s a bunch of people out there trying to say they have ownership of the internet… but of course they don’t.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Who is the victim in this “Crime” – after all its between consenting adults.
Another Member of the DIA trying to justify their existance.
Drugs, Prostitution (well its legal now) and Gambling.. shit, the government just loves to regulate the fun out of life!
What about Centrebet in Aussie?
September 12th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
How about you replace dollars with Jellybeans? Will that be acceptable for her Majesty’s government?
September 12th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Such a pity we don’t have milk tokens any more eh Zutroy?
September 12th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Spector, an offsite web server ? Which country would that be. David does want to go back to the US. and not join this guy from British based BetonSports.
“Federal authorities arrested the chief executive, David Carruthers, late Sunday as he was on layover at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport on his way from Britain to Costa Rica.”
That only leaves Canada the land of the free.
Oh read the fine print at Centrebet
Centrebet Poker and Centrebet Casino are NOT available to residents of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Cyprus, Estonia, Israel and Netherlands Antilles. We exclude residents of these countries for legal reasons. Naturally Centrebet is located in the Northern Territory for legal reasons as well.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
This is Alice in Wonderland stuff. Lets have the name of the public servant or servants behind this so we can name and shame them.If they want to waste our money like this then at least we get some satisfaction from the retards.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
After reading Mcphee’s comments I now see how this pack of wankers has been put into Govt 3 times.
I know it isn’t good form labelling a female prime minister a WANKER, but when she acts like one, talks like one and gets around with them on a daily basis I think she qualifies!
Besides DPF told us we aren’t allowed to call her an inhabitant of the planet “LESBOS” on his blog, so I won’t. Wanker will have to do, and Mcphee qualifies also.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
McPhee, did you watch the Office? Remember the IT guy? Was the character based on you?
September 12th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Bet you ( oh sorry not allowed) its one of Klarks little helpers who dobbed DPF in. Never mind the day of reckoning is coming soon and all those Socialist retards are going to get their just deserts.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Who set the dogs onto me? . Can I wave my checkbook at them.
Really it does astound be , the US prohibits internet gambling and will arrest the CEO of a foreign based company who dares transit US airspace (it must be those watch lists for terrorists have other uses?). But not a word of complaint.
NZ does the same and they bay for someones blood. I used to pay via a website for a Heart Foundation lottery. This has been stopped and now you have to provide credit card details via mail.
Silly boys the government is protecting its revenue via the existing forms of regulated gambling.
DPF should have got proper advice and gave a PO box to send bets rather than a ‘website’ -dpf@ihug.co.nz.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
OK… odds are 3:1 that DPF walks. Should we use Paypal?
September 12th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Shh… we’re using Whitcoulls book vouchers now, did you not get the memo Juha?
September 12th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
McPhee –
If DPF goes ahead with the sweepstake against this advice he has received, and then when threatened with prosecution takes the attitude that “the rules have changed”, “the rules are confusing”, “its OK because the TAB have been supported for years by rich corporates” and “the wacky cult supports them through Bingo” as his ‘defence’, immediately prior to forcing legislation through parliament to retrospectively make his sweepstake legal, along with supporting legislation to ban people from betting via the TAB, then, and probably only then, I will agree that you have a point.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Hello, David Farrar, I am after your help! (or anyone else that could help me!) I came across this blog kind of by accident (as Im not exactly sure what a blog is) but it sounds like you might know a thing or two!
I want to make a leaflet! I guess like the ex Brethren one. To remind NZers of all the lie and corruption this labour govt has fed us. But I (like most of NZ) tend to forget about these things! Things Im outraged about at the time I forget afew weeks later, which I guess is how Helen is still here! If you have any ideas on good sites or people I could talk to or what I should include pls could u either post on here or my email is squeaky_bone@hotmail.com. Thanks so much
Scosha
September 12th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Get CK to take new bets!
September 12th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
I doubt that the gambling laws have anything to do with this. Should you ask under the OIA for information on any beehive involvement in this. (Not that the govt obeys that or any other law though)
September 12th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
people should listen to Pete Hodgson on Nine to Noon this morning – he is fascist cunt and wants to make it ILLEGAL to criticise the government!
September 12th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Anon thinks there a conspiracy involving the beehive to catch DPF out as a internet gambling criminal. After all its not that David gets invoved in anything that parliament does about the internet. Its plain to see he did some legal checking so its not like its really his fault, and the fact that hes liable for a $50,000 fine unless HE PAYS IT ALL BACK VERY QUICKLY is just a coincidence??
Havent had such a laugh since Don said he hadnt read the memo!
September 12th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Pays what all back, McPhee?
September 12th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
So we can now take it the senior gambling inspector is on Dear Leaders payroll, no doubt a nice little bonus will be handed out for suppressing this insurrection.
ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTLY.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Kimble : from DPF 24th August
CURRENT BETS:
Illegal $265
Legal: $30
September 12th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Let me see: prostitution is legal, you can divorce and marry as much as you want, and pretty soon with your dog, using tax payers funds for political advertising is legal, divulging MP’s private life’s is legal, but betting isn’t.
I’m lost.
DPF, did you tell you were actually female, gay, black, invalid, and a Pacific Islander, so there were some different laws for you?
September 12th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
He didnt collect any money McPhee.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Does anyone want to lay the odds on McPhee actually making a comment that is not only on-topic but bears any relationship whatsoever to objective reality?
September 12th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
I’ll put a fiver down. I can’t lose, McPhee has already mouthed off and looked foolish on this blog, what twice, three times recently?
September 12th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
McPhee wrote “Spector, an offsite web server ? Which country would that be. David does want to go back to the US. and not join this guy from British based BetonSports.
“Federal authorities arrested the chief executive, David Carruthers, late Sunday as he was on layover at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport on his way from Britain to Costa Rica.”
Yeah, in NZ we tend to go by New Zealand law rather than American law. You must have noticed how we drive on the left hand side of the road and not the right, even though that is against the law in America. Have a look next time you catch a bus and you will see that i’m right about this.
And under New Zealand law (which, just to point out again is different from American law) you will see that:
remote interactive gambling—
(b) does not include
(iii) gambling by a person in New Zealand conducted by a gambling operator located outside New Zealand.
Of course, I suppose this law can be changed retrospectively by Labour so that David can be found to have committed an offense at a later date.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Seems like a simple matter of accidental law breaking, due to inaccurate legal opinion.
Not really something to make a fuss about on either side. In fact, making a fuss is probably the only way of getting prosecuted in a case like this. A bit like ragging on a copper for pulling you over for having a broken tail light. Better to go ‘oops, sorry, will fix that, thanks for telling me (and not busting me)’.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:01 am
The fuss that deserves to be made is how something utterly victimless (nobody is forced to gamble) is a crime, and some simpering little mini-Hitler had nothing better to do with his or her time but to send DPF a letter telling him off.
Why do so many people find this acceptable, acceptable that some adult is paid to police what other consenting adults do? Why is this anybody else’s business? I don’t understand – I really don’t understand the head prefect mentality of those addicted to regulatory fixes to protect people from their own stupidity. After all who was DPF hurting?
September 13th, 2006 at 12:04 am
SLIGHT DISTRACTION – please someone, just watched Willie Jackson’s “nose to Ass” question is how the bloody hell did Kieth Locke get into parliament, he single handedly makes Trevor Mallard look semi intelligent!
Ben – you are living in the past son, cop pulls you over for a broken tail light, you are screwed and also part of his “Quota” end of story.
PS – I do realise you are speaking figuratively.
September 13th, 2006 at 6:26 am
Just listened to Hodgson on RNZ’s nine to noon archive. The guy is criminally incompetent, displays a complete lack of understanding and Gerry Brownlee keeps going up in my estimation. Worth listening to.
September 13th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Culma, yes, true, last week is the past, when the incident I figuratively described happened to me. Cops don’t always let you off, but sometimes they do if you are nice. And if you’re a wanker, they never do.
LibertyScott, the simple fact of the matter is, like it or not, what DPF did is illegal in a really minor, busted-for-overparking kind of way.
The liberal part of me agrees with you about gambling, that it should be allowed. But the practical part doesn’t agree that gambling is victimless. Many people’s lives, and their families’, have been destroyed by gambling addictions. It seems every bit as serious as an alcohol or other drug addiction, and state control over at least some aspects of it is prudent.
That observation puts DPF’s offence into the same category as someone selling, say, home brew, on the net. As in, very minor, so long as it stops.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:10 pm
hehe – I was looking for a clue as to how to run a sweepstake for Melbourne Cup Day and found this. Bit of a win I think. Interesting blog.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
It very interesting http://portaldiscount.com/unsecured-debt-consolidation/
June 21st, 2007 at 5:42 am
Nice site. Thanks.
http://www.auditmypc.com/web-master-tools.asp web master tools