So, gambling adverts now to be allowed to be shown on TV. Even though there are various restrictions that are going to be applied to them - such as not before 9pm except during sporting fixtures - surely gambling is worse than, say, junk food, which is banned during children's shows, on children's TV channels, and on general entertainment programmes watched by a "higher than average" number of under-16 year olds? It is fair to mention, however, that in return for this, no gambling-related adverts are allowed to be printed children's replica football shirts.

The new gambling advertising code can be read here. Some of them are simple, such as no adverts before 9pm, but "[a]dverts must not link gambling to seduction, sexual success or enhanced attractiveness"? Does this mean that only ugly people can be used to advertise gambling? The trade-off that James Purnell, the Culture Secretary, "won" between allowing gambling TV ads for the removal of gambling ads from children's replica football shirts is absurd. Children certainly don't care about whose advert is on they shirt, and they are far more likely to be affected by a pro-gambling TV ad.

It is hypocritical to ban one type of TV advert because it promotes something that is bad for the individual, and then let another that can ruin entire families be shown. Personally, I think there shouldn't be all that much restriction on any non-pornographic adverts, or adverts for pornographic services. People aren't completely stupid. They know that junk food can make you fat if eaten in excess, and that gambling is a mugs game.

Source: The Times