Neil Goulden, head of the Responsible Gambling Trust (RGT) in the UK, has been called away by Britain’s Guardian magazine for an obvious conflict of interests.

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

The positions were held simultaneously 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 certainly much a public face of the gambling industry.

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

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

But because of its affiliations, does it avoid asking the really tough questions to the industry, and it is its research program entirely separate of industry passions?

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 gaming industry] would not need released data or have taken the actions it continues to take prevention of harm without my individual influence and urging,’ he stated. ‘we have constantly advised the industry to do more to protect at-risk customers and to fairly share most readily useful practice and to better communicate what they actually do and its effect.

‘True damage minimization can only be fully effective if it engages with the industry and that the 100,000 people employed in the industry simply take their social responsibilities really,’ he continued.

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

FOBT Criticism

But, the RGT has been criticized by anti-gambling groups for the failure to condemn the UK’s notorious fixed-odds terminals that are bettingFOBTs), prevalent in high-street bookmaking shops across the united states.

These devices have actually been dubbed ‘the crack cocaine of this street that is high because they enable clients 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 due to their addictive characteristics,’ complained a representative for the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, of an RGT research on the subject, published in 2013 whenever Goulden was chair of both the RGT and ABB.

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

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