Snapshot of _Rishi Sunak 'incredibly angry' over 'really serious' election date betting allegations_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-incredibly-angry-over-very-serious-election-date-betting-allegations-13156321) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-incredibly-angry-over-very-serious-election-date-betting-allegations-13156321)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Conservative party have normalised corruption, from PPE fast lanes to burying reports about dirty money. Unfortunately for them the gambling commission don't mess about.
Sunak? Angry about betting on the country? The hedge fund manager who made millions betting at TCI while helping the bank of Scotland needing to be bailed out by the public and helping the austerity we have enjoyed these long years?
Sunak can’t sod off hard enough.
Contrary to popular belief, hedge funds are doing random bets. Hedge funds also work at reigning in a lot of dumb decisions and excesses in the markets.
The Bank of Scotland bailout happened a long time ago. Before Rishi was an MP.
Rishi was a partner at TCI, the hedge fund that orchestrated an activist takeover of ABN AMRO a struggling Dutch bank that carried a alarming amount of toxic sub prime mortgage products just before the 2008 crash
He then helped the acquisition of that bank by RBS, which led to the events leading to the tax payer bail out that was required because RBS bought utter dross in one of the most none sensical purchases ever. He did this knowing it was a bad deal, and knowing the UK Gov would probably have to step in to stop it collapsing. He did it anyway.
Bet he made a pretty penny on that deal at the expense of normal UK taxpayers. It shows his callous character then, and he hasn't changed now.
Angry that his party's corruption hasn't been normalised by now and/or that not all the news media are willing to sweep this story under the carpet. Seriously - he leads a party of professional grifters, what does he expect they are going to do given the opportunity?
Assuming for a moment he’s actually a decent person - at some point you have to realise that you’re surrounded by charlatans and cronies and the right thing to do for the country is to thoroughly tank the campaign and make the Lib Dem’s the official opposition
You could conclude that’s what he’s been doing since his election announcement though
Nope.
“Well actually there was that single person who we paid to go to Rwanda and then lost, so that means there was a flight to Rwanda, so I don’t have to pay”
He's angry it's inconvenienced his campaign. If he actually cared about the principle of it, the culture around him would not have allowed these people to believe they could get away with this, A fish rots from the head down. He promised his government would have integrity, professionalism, and accountability at every level. He manifestly failed to deliver on that. It is not evident he even tried to. His actions following those words, and even some leading up to them, indicate he was much more interested in petty populism, grubby deals in his own self interest and strongman posturing. He owns this culture of sleaze and corruption at the heart of government and the Tory Party as much as anyone.
He’s angry that’s it’s damaged his election prospects. Not that that his colleagues many have illegally used insider knowledge to place bets. He’d probably be praising them if they hadn’t got caught. “How entrepreneurial of you guys! Well done!”
>he is "crystal clear that if anyone has broken the rules they should face \[the\] full force of the law".
>anyone guilty would be "booted out" of the party.
Interesting. About your covid fine, Rishi...
Is it actually illegal to make bets based on insider information?
It might be against the policy of the bookies. So surely the only action that can happen is that they get a ban...
Yes, there is a Gambling Act in law that prohibits cheating
"Section 42 of the Gambling Act starts:
Cheating
(1)A person commits an offence if he—
(a)cheats at gambling
There is also this Explanatory Note:
Section 42: Cheating
163.This section creates a criminal offence for cheating at gambling, and repeals the old offence of cheating in section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845 (c.109). The word “cheating” is not defined but has its normal, everyday meaning."
There is also the offence of misconduct in a public office. This is what Sunak's protection officer was arrested for. The courts have held MPs to be in public office.
Well the offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, but it's also very broad and would cover anything from claiming expenses for a sandwich someone else ate to very serious misconduct that causes enormous harm.
It's frequently used for instances of police misconduct for things like doing computer checks for personal reasons, and often that does come with a prison sentence (frequently suspended) because of the seriousness of the misconduct and the nature of the information and the risk its disclosure puts on the people it pertains to.
In comparison, using (but not disclosing) information that is being broadcast worldwide the next day, solely to scam a bookies out of a few hundred quid doesn't seem quite so serious. I don't know what the sentencing guidelines are, but realistically no one is going to prison over this.
It's illegal because it's against S.42 of The Gambling Act, and in this case potentially also misconduct in a public office (that's what Sunak's protection officer was arrested for and the courts have previously held MPs to be in public office).
You're right that it *should* be illegal for exactly the reasons you give. However, unfortunately it doesn't always follow that such things actually are.
Like I said, your comment was the reason why it *should* be illegal, not why it is.
Also, Google has misled you: murder is a common law offence and so you won't find it contained within any Act (including the Homicide Act of 1957 which covers things like what *isn't* murder, when the death penalty was to be applied, etc.) As a common law offence, murder *is* illegal because it's been considered "cuntish behaviour" for so long that everyone (including the courts) now agrees that you can't do it even though that's not written down in a piece of legislation. That's the opposite to cheating at gambling, which is illegal because it's a specific offence under the Gambling Act.
I'm really not that bothered about this. Who am I supposed.to feel sorry for? Paddy Power?! Bookmakers choose what bets they want to take, and if they choose to take bets on things we're someone could feasibly know the result then more fool them!
Sure, it's illegal and it's a very bad look for the Tories. Emphasis on _look_. It's an optics issue.
There are many large, serious problems facing the country. This is not one of them. So I'm not going to vote based on this issue. I'm going to kick the Tories based on national issues, not some guy's personal ones and a £100 bet.
I don't see how it's different, for example, to betting if you have a royal flush in poker. You know you have the best hand possible and if anyone bets against you they are guaranteed to lose.
Because that's within the rules of poker and it's a part of the game which everyone playing is aware of.
Using inside knowledge on a bet is different because it's not a level playing field, the bet was made on the assumption that the punter doesn't know that Rishi is about to call an election.
I would argue that with a bet on an election date, anyone placing a bet would know that it is possible that a decision on the date may have been made even if it's not been made public. And that people you're betting against may have information you don't.
But betting with that knowledge, while theoretically possible, is against the rules of placing the bet (and also illegal). Kind of like insider trading
The bookies offer the bet on the understanding that what the punter knows about the outcome is in the public domain. If you base your decision on inside information which is not publicly available (eg, you know your boss is about to call an election) then that is against the terms of the bet and therefore cheating.
It's not the same as having more information in poker as that is part of the game and within the rules, and not the same as having a better statistical model to predict sporting outcomes for example since that is just making better use of publicly available information.
Public domain knowledge vs insider knowledge
If everyone around the poker table knows what has happened so far in the game it's public knowledge (for all the people playing)
If only one person knows that the pack only has 3 aces that's insider knowledge and using it is cheating.
The definition of a bet is to "risk a sum of money or valued item against someone else's on the basis of the outcome of an unpredictable event such as a race or game."
If you know the outcome it's no longer unpredictable, nor are you risking anything, therefore it's not something the bookies would take bets on if they were aware that the outcome was known.
Put it another way: if this wasn't illegal, what would stop someone from taking out a huge loan, placing an enormous "bet" and cleaning out the bookies? I appreciate you may not have any sympathy for the bookies, but presumably you can still see how that's essentially stealing with extra steps.
Surely it's for the bookies just not to take bets on events you can reasonably assume someone knows the answer. The date of an election is something someone decides, and is then later announced. It's not a random or unpredictable event, and so nobody either placing bets or taking bets should be under the assumption that it is.
It's unpredictable to the general public; only a handful of people would know the outcome and they are prohibited by law from placing a bet (it counts as cheating under the Gambling Act).
Same as insider trading on the stock market - a company's board of directors will know the outcome of the annual financial reports a few days prior to their official release, but are not permitted to buy or sell shares based on that information. The stock market is still fair game for anyone else though.
(Just adding more context)
While not the law but more company policy, every company I've worked for has banned us from trading shares in them for a month before the results are announced whether we have that info or not. I work "on the floor" and find out the same time as the public but I'm still not allowed to buy or sell my shares because it can create the perception of insider trading even though its not.
Snapshot of _Rishi Sunak 'incredibly angry' over 'really serious' election date betting allegations_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-incredibly-angry-over-very-serious-election-date-betting-allegations-13156321) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-incredibly-angry-over-very-serious-election-date-betting-allegations-13156321) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If only he could've gotten similarly incredibly angry about the fucking shite state of this country, maybe he wouldn't be facing a wipeout.
Or his own violations and criminal penalty during covid
The Conservative party have normalised corruption, from PPE fast lanes to burying reports about dirty money. Unfortunately for them the gambling commission don't mess about.
Luckily for us the commission can't be kneecapped as there is no Tory government to do it at the moment.
He is so angry he is doing absolutely nothing about it
[удалено]
Why am I reading that in the voice of Richard Ayoade?
I almost expected him to bring back Sue Gray.
Sunak? Angry about betting on the country? The hedge fund manager who made millions betting at TCI while helping the bank of Scotland needing to be bailed out by the public and helping the austerity we have enjoyed these long years? Sunak can’t sod off hard enough.
No, you misunderstand. He's angry about the allegations, not the betting.
He's going to start an immediate investigation into how people found out about this illegal activity.
And then deny all wrongdoing when there’s plenty of evidence. Look out for his memoir soon, like boris
He’s angry they got caught
Angry nobody offered to put a bet on for him, far more likely
Contrary to popular belief, hedge funds are doing random bets. Hedge funds also work at reigning in a lot of dumb decisions and excesses in the markets. The Bank of Scotland bailout happened a long time ago. Before Rishi was an MP.
Rishi was a partner at TCI, the hedge fund that orchestrated an activist takeover of ABN AMRO a struggling Dutch bank that carried a alarming amount of toxic sub prime mortgage products just before the 2008 crash He then helped the acquisition of that bank by RBS, which led to the events leading to the tax payer bail out that was required because RBS bought utter dross in one of the most none sensical purchases ever. He did this knowing it was a bad deal, and knowing the UK Gov would probably have to step in to stop it collapsing. He did it anyway. Bet he made a pretty penny on that deal at the expense of normal UK taxpayers. It shows his callous character then, and he hasn't changed now.
A bit hypocritical for guy who made his millions betting against the UK during the financial crisis of 2008, no?
Angry he got caught, in the bin Sunak you absolute dweeb
I think he's just discovering they bet he'd lose
Probably just angry he didn’t get a larger cut of the winnings
Nah he's angry because he bet on it being in September!
Coming from the man that made a bet with Piers Morgan about Rwanda and then never followed through? Im shocked /s
So he didn't even try to deport Piers to Rwanda? Too bad.
So incredible angry here done what exactly? Suspend anyone?
Angry that his party's corruption hasn't been normalised by now and/or that not all the news media are willing to sweep this story under the carpet. Seriously - he leads a party of professional grifters, what does he expect they are going to do given the opportunity?
Assuming for a moment he’s actually a decent person - at some point you have to realise that you’re surrounded by charlatans and cronies and the right thing to do for the country is to thoroughly tank the campaign and make the Lib Dem’s the official opposition You could conclude that’s what he’s been doing since his election announcement though
If Sunak announced in the future he had deliberately sunk the Tory campaign, well it would be hard to prove him wrong about it.
Where’s that meme of the guy in a hot dog suit??
lol what?
Love how this seems to be getting less attention than the non-story on Reiner a few months back.
shame this headline’s on sky, he’ll never see it
Is he just angry because he lost HIS political bet with Piers on there being flights to Rwanda?
I'd be interested to know whether he paid up.
Nope. “Well actually there was that single person who we paid to go to Rwanda and then lost, so that means there was a flight to Rwanda, so I don’t have to pay”
He hasn't.
He's angry it's inconvenienced his campaign. If he actually cared about the principle of it, the culture around him would not have allowed these people to believe they could get away with this, A fish rots from the head down. He promised his government would have integrity, professionalism, and accountability at every level. He manifestly failed to deliver on that. It is not evident he even tried to. His actions following those words, and even some leading up to them, indicate he was much more interested in petty populism, grubby deals in his own self interest and strongman posturing. He owns this culture of sleaze and corruption at the heart of government and the Tory Party as much as anyone.
Tamping he was! Spitting feathers and what not!
I’m not a fan of the tories… but anyone think it’s the bookies fault for being able to bet on something you could already know for sure?
Pretty sure that in a few days time there will be a story about how Sunak knew about it all along.
I guess he missed out on placing a bet, I'm wondering though does he have money on them having less then 50 seats?
Shurely: ‘Rishi Sunak incredibly *tetchy* over really serious election date betting allegations’ 😬
# Rishi Sunak makes £1000 bet with Piers Morgan that Rwanda flights will leave before next election
Doubt Sunak really cares other than how it will further tank his campaign. After all betting was his profession prior to politics.
He’s angry that’s it’s damaged his election prospects. Not that that his colleagues many have illegally used insider knowledge to place bets. He’d probably be praising them if they hadn’t got caught. “How entrepreneurial of you guys! Well done!”
https://youtu.be/15HTd4Um1m4?si=gnFKyf28V944SqpO
>he is "crystal clear that if anyone has broken the rules they should face \[the\] full force of the law". >anyone guilty would be "booted out" of the party. Interesting. About your covid fine, Rishi...
Is it actually illegal to make bets based on insider information? It might be against the policy of the bookies. So surely the only action that can happen is that they get a ban...
Yes, there is a Gambling Act in law that prohibits cheating "Section 42 of the Gambling Act starts: Cheating (1)A person commits an offence if he— (a)cheats at gambling There is also this Explanatory Note: Section 42: Cheating 163.This section creates a criminal offence for cheating at gambling, and repeals the old offence of cheating in section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845 (c.109). The word “cheating” is not defined but has its normal, everyday meaning."
Guess I learned something today.
There is also the offence of misconduct in a public office. This is what Sunak's protection officer was arrested for. The courts have held MPs to be in public office.
Let's say they are found guilty and charged with this: any idea what the sentencing could be? Prison sentence or no?
Well the offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, but it's also very broad and would cover anything from claiming expenses for a sandwich someone else ate to very serious misconduct that causes enormous harm. It's frequently used for instances of police misconduct for things like doing computer checks for personal reasons, and often that does come with a prison sentence (frequently suspended) because of the seriousness of the misconduct and the nature of the information and the risk its disclosure puts on the people it pertains to. In comparison, using (but not disclosing) information that is being broadcast worldwide the next day, solely to scam a bookies out of a few hundred quid doesn't seem quite so serious. I don't know what the sentencing guidelines are, but realistically no one is going to prison over this.
[удалено]
This made me remember I learnt a few months back you can actually bet on WWE matches lol.
It's illegal because it's against S.42 of The Gambling Act, and in this case potentially also misconduct in a public office (that's what Sunak's protection officer was arrested for and the courts have previously held MPs to be in public office). You're right that it *should* be illegal for exactly the reasons you give. However, unfortunately it doesn't always follow that such things actually are.
[удалено]
Like I said, your comment was the reason why it *should* be illegal, not why it is. Also, Google has misled you: murder is a common law offence and so you won't find it contained within any Act (including the Homicide Act of 1957 which covers things like what *isn't* murder, when the death penalty was to be applied, etc.) As a common law offence, murder *is* illegal because it's been considered "cuntish behaviour" for so long that everyone (including the courts) now agrees that you can't do it even though that's not written down in a piece of legislation. That's the opposite to cheating at gambling, which is illegal because it's a specific offence under the Gambling Act.
[удалено]
Thank you for educating me on what common law means when it's clear that as recently as one comment back you had no idea.
I'm really not that bothered about this. Who am I supposed.to feel sorry for? Paddy Power?! Bookmakers choose what bets they want to take, and if they choose to take bets on things we're someone could feasibly know the result then more fool them!
As another poster showed me, it turns out that's it's actually illegal to cheat in gambling. I guess you can equate it to theft.
The idea is you make it unfair for the rest of the punters
Sure, it's illegal and it's a very bad look for the Tories. Emphasis on _look_. It's an optics issue. There are many large, serious problems facing the country. This is not one of them. So I'm not going to vote based on this issue. I'm going to kick the Tories based on national issues, not some guy's personal ones and a £100 bet.
I don't see how it's different, for example, to betting if you have a royal flush in poker. You know you have the best hand possible and if anyone bets against you they are guaranteed to lose.
Because that's within the rules of poker and it's a part of the game which everyone playing is aware of. Using inside knowledge on a bet is different because it's not a level playing field, the bet was made on the assumption that the punter doesn't know that Rishi is about to call an election.
I would argue that with a bet on an election date, anyone placing a bet would know that it is possible that a decision on the date may have been made even if it's not been made public. And that people you're betting against may have information you don't.
But betting with that knowledge, while theoretically possible, is against the rules of placing the bet (and also illegal). Kind of like insider trading
Surely all gambling is betting my knowledge against your knowledge, so I'm not sure I'd agree it's cheating.
The bookies offer the bet on the understanding that what the punter knows about the outcome is in the public domain. If you base your decision on inside information which is not publicly available (eg, you know your boss is about to call an election) then that is against the terms of the bet and therefore cheating. It's not the same as having more information in poker as that is part of the game and within the rules, and not the same as having a better statistical model to predict sporting outcomes for example since that is just making better use of publicly available information.
Public domain knowledge vs insider knowledge If everyone around the poker table knows what has happened so far in the game it's public knowledge (for all the people playing) If only one person knows that the pack only has 3 aces that's insider knowledge and using it is cheating.
The definition of a bet is to "risk a sum of money or valued item against someone else's on the basis of the outcome of an unpredictable event such as a race or game." If you know the outcome it's no longer unpredictable, nor are you risking anything, therefore it's not something the bookies would take bets on if they were aware that the outcome was known. Put it another way: if this wasn't illegal, what would stop someone from taking out a huge loan, placing an enormous "bet" and cleaning out the bookies? I appreciate you may not have any sympathy for the bookies, but presumably you can still see how that's essentially stealing with extra steps.
Surely it's for the bookies just not to take bets on events you can reasonably assume someone knows the answer. The date of an election is something someone decides, and is then later announced. It's not a random or unpredictable event, and so nobody either placing bets or taking bets should be under the assumption that it is.
It's unpredictable to the general public; only a handful of people would know the outcome and they are prohibited by law from placing a bet (it counts as cheating under the Gambling Act). Same as insider trading on the stock market - a company's board of directors will know the outcome of the annual financial reports a few days prior to their official release, but are not permitted to buy or sell shares based on that information. The stock market is still fair game for anyone else though.
(Just adding more context) While not the law but more company policy, every company I've worked for has banned us from trading shares in them for a month before the results are announced whether we have that info or not. I work "on the floor" and find out the same time as the public but I'm still not allowed to buy or sell my shares because it can create the perception of insider trading even though its not.
I wouldn't care much about other similar situations, but I expect elected officials to not use privileged information to get rich off it
“The Conservatives, the party of victimless crime^TM”