Neil Goulden, mind of the Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT) in the UK, has been called down by Britain’s Guardian newspaper for an apparent conflict of passions.

As chair of the RGT, Goulden presides throughout the country’s leading charity specialized in minimizing issue gambling, and yet he is additionally a former chair of this Association of British Bookmakers ABB), an industry lobby group.

The positions had been held simultaneously between 2012 and mid-2014.

Goulden’s affiliations to both groups are no secret, of course; as a board that is former of Ladbrokes and former chairman of the Gala Coral Group, he is certainly much a public face of the gambling industry.

But, while the Guardian opined this week, the reality that RGT is chaired by way of a doyen of the industry and funded by donations from gambling businesses raises questions about its integrity and also the nature that is balanced of research.

As well as funding 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 separate 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 have released information or have taken the actions it continues to take in prevention of harm without my individual influence and urging,’ he stated. ‘I have constantly urged the industry to do more to protect at-risk customers and to fairly share most readily useful practice and to better communicate what they are doing and its impact.

‘True damage minimization can only be fully effective if it engages aided by the industry and that the 100,000 people used in the industry simply take their social duties seriously,’ he continued.

‘The recent RGT research has given clear pointers to anyone committed to reducing harm and the subsequent actions taken by the federal government, the regulator and the industry have considerably reduced volumes through the band of at-risk customers.’

FOBT Criticism

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

These machines have been dubbed ‘the break cocaine for the street that is high because they enable customers to bet up to £100 ($146) every 20 seconds on digital casino games like roulette.

‘RGT refused to address the question that is key of FOBTs cause gambling related harm as a result of their addictive characteristics,’ reported a spokesperson for the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, of a RGT research regarding the subject, published in 2013 when Goulden had been 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 announced. This needs to be looked at.’

Goulden responded that the extensive research questions of this 2013 study were developed by the UK Gambling Commission and the Minister for the Department of society, Media and Sport, and included he previously no impact on the commissioning, presentation, or interpretation of the findings.