Neil Goulden, head of the Gambling that is responsible Trust) within the UK, has been called away by Britain’s Guardian newspaper for an obvious conflict of passions.

As seat associated with the RGT, Goulden presides on the country’s leading charity dedicated to minimizing problem gambling, and yet he could be also a previous seat regarding the Association of British Bookmakers ABB), an industry lobby group.

The positions were held concurrently between 2012 and mid-2014.

Goulden’s affiliations to both groups are no secret, of course; as being a previous board member of Ladbrokes and previous president of the Gala Coral Group, he is very much indeed a public face of the gambling industry.

But, once the Guardian opined this week, the fact that RGT is chaired with a doyen of the industry and funded by donations from gambling organizations raises questions about its integrity and the nature that is balanced of research.

As well as money education, prevention, and treatment solutions for issue gamblers, RGT commissions research devoted to broadening the understanding of problem gambling problems.

But because of its affiliations, does it avoid asking the actually tough concerns to the industry, and it is its research system entirely independent of industry interests?

Goulden Responds

When contacted by the Guardian, Goulden insisted that his position as an industry insider, and the participation of the industry as whole, is, in fact, integral to researching and ultimately understanding problem gambling.

‘[The video gaming industry] would not need released information or have taken the actions it continues to take prevention of damage without my personal influence and urging,’ he said. ‘we have continually advised the industry to do more to protect at-risk customers and to talk about most readily useful training and to better communicate what they are doing and its impact.

‘True harm minimization can simply be completely effective he continued if it engages with the industry and that the 100,000 people employed in the industry take their social responsibilities seriously.

‘The present RGT research has offered clear pointers to anyone committed to harm that is reducing the subsequent actions taken by the government, the regulator and the industry have dramatically reduced volumes from the number of at-risk customers.’

FOBT Criticism

However, the RGT has been criticized by anti-gambling groups for the failure to condemn great britain’s notorious fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs), prevalent in high-street bookmaking shops across the united states.

These machines have been dubbed ‘the split cocaine of this high street’ because they enable clients to bet up to £100 ($146) every 20 seconds on digital casino games like roulette.

‘RGT refused to address the key concern of whether FOBTs cause gambling related harm because of their addictive characteristics,’ reported a representative for the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, of a RGT study in the subject, published in 2013 whenever Goulden ended up being chair of both the RGT and ABB.

‘We are worried that the seat of the trust had been busy devising strategies that are lobbying the bookmakers to enhance their image when this research was first established. This has to be regarded.’

Goulden reacted that the research questions of the 2013 research were devised by the UK Gambling Commission plus the Minister for the Department of society, Media and Sport, and included he’d no impact on the commissioning, presentation, or interpretation of the findings.