James Noyes X isn't expansive enough for me to argue why 'The Duty To Differentiate' and some of your collective evidence in this latest round of debate have left me concluding that this isn't scientific but ideological. I'm more than happy to email or write if you'd like that dialogue.

To the Treasury Select Committee: You have a responsibility to look at ALL the evidence, not just the evidence that fits your narrative. The Netherlands failed. France is failing. The data is PUBLIC. Dismissing this as “scaremongering” isn’t brave. It’s reckless.

Maybe Theo Bertram and the committee could listen to the Dutch regulator: “A financially driven measure like gambling tax is at odds with the policy objective of offering players more protection” Or is the KSA “industry scaremongering” too?

Black market gambling | Velvet Glove, Iron Fist velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2025/11/black-…

Imagine a country where a Government could double the tax on regulated gambling, whilst its gambling regulator hasn't the slightest idea how much gambling has moved to the illegal market and doesn't properly know how to measure it. Welcome to the UK. igamingbusiness.com/legal-complian…

The Gambling Commission is a regulatory body that has managed to lose the confidence of the gaming companies, the gambling harm charities and people who bet. The only reason it’s left in place is that the government wants a scape goat in case the increased gambling taxes go wrong

It’s Gambling Commission policy… racingpost.com/news/gambling-…

c) is the same as claiming b) don’t know It’s ok to not know James Noyes It’s not ok to subsequently find out, and turn a blind eye. A basic review of company accounts will show your position (no closures) is horribly wrong. Not amending your recommendations suggests dishonesty

Geoff Banks Pure snobbery. I had a betting shop for more than twenty years, the grandest of people, from all walks of life frequented it . For many it was part of a daily social routine, buy the newspaper, pick their horses, do their bets and keep an eye on results through the afternoon.

Why was this information not requested BEFORE the Social Market Foundation made their recommendations and were invited to give evidence to the Treasury Committee on gambling tax? Extraordinary given the number of jobs and amount of revenue at stake if the wrong policy is adapted.

You, and pretty much all critics have been treated respectfully for a long time. That is what you need to do your job effectively - no push back. And to be honest, placating those that seek to see gambling annihilated is why the industry is in the position it is. Your policies

This is pretty much accurate. No shops are viable at 25/50% so racing would lose the c£140m coming from shops. Not to mention the 46,000 direct jobs in retail and associated taxes These recommendations are deeply flawed, built on bogus assumptions, and are irresponsible

👀

DOCTOR James Noyes (Dr of Theology, which goes hand in hand with gambling, the father of affordability checks, explains his recommendations for tax levels on bookies A thread ''the 50% rate on remote gaming is in line with the top rate of tax on land-based gambling in casinos

Ahead of tomorrow’s publication of the Young People and Gambling Survey 2025, a guide to common misconceptions about what these data actually show (and what they do not)…danwaugh.substack.com/p/true-or-fals…

This new report makes it clear that higher taxes don’t make gambling less appealing, it just moves that demand to the black market James Noyes Theo Bertram should retract their reports before irreversible damage is done, creating greater gambling harm bettingandgamingcouncil.com/uploads/Impact…

Quite right. Any increase in gambling taxes will hurt punters and racing.

Where to begin? The tax is on revenue, not profit. The industry pays an effective tax rate is 60-70%, higher than nearly anything. If the tax was 99%, they would all go bust. They don’t have to be based in the UK. Many of them are in Malta and Gibraltar, and the rest will