Tim Miller's Approach to "Harmful" Gambling thats safe for 99.6%

Tim Miller’s impassioned launch of the Gambling Harms Action Lab hit all the usual notes: safety, data, collaboration, and of course, more safety. But one can’t help but wonder if he’s ever actually spoken to the millions of people who gamble safely and, dare we say, enjoy it. You know, the vast majority of folks who pop down to the bookies on a Saturday, have a quick flutter, and then go about their day without needing a lab, a survey, or a cappuccino-fuelled strategy to protect them.

Miller’s entire speech was wrapped up in a “collaborative” approach to tackling the alleged scourge of gambling, while conspicuously absent was any mention of the majority who navigate the world of gambling without falling prey to its harms. It’s a bit like launching a “Pub Harms Action Lab” and inviting only former AA members and temperance advocates to weigh in. Imagine that panel discussion: “Yes, I think we can all agree a pub is a crisis waiting to happen.” A bit of a misrepresentation, no?

The Safety Success Stories No One Asked About

What if, just once, Miller and his team of lab enthusiasts put down their anonymised data sets and actually asked the everyday punters how they manage to gamble safely? For millions of people, gambling is just part of their lives. They know the odds are stacked against them, and they don’t need a financial services executive to spell it out. They budget their betting money, walk away when they’re down, and sometimes even win.

This enormous demographic could provide a treasure trove of insights on how to gamble safely, yet they’re not exactly a demographic that interests the regulatory crowd, are they? These gamblers aren’t “problem cases,” and so, in the regulatory world, they don’t quite exist. After all, where’s the career-making policy launch in admitting that, for most people, gambling is no more a hazard than a pint and a packet of crisps?

A Skewed Consultation: Only the “Harmed” Need Apply

It seems the Action Lab is following the classic British policy playbook: find a problem (however niche), create an elaborate response, and consult only the experts who already agree with you. Every think tank, charity, and researcher involved in gambling harm has a vested interest in proving, well, harm. There’s little room in the discourse for those who don’t view gambling as a pit of moral and financial despair.

The irony is rich: while Miller’s lab gathers data from financial institutions and regulatory surveys, there’s no “Action Lab” interviewing the very people who are, quite literally, paying for the industry. The gamblers themselves. It’s not as if they’re invisible. These are people who could tell you all about responsible gambling, self-control, and maybe even how to turn £20 into a modest weekend thrill. But heaven forbid we gain insights from the successful gamblers – that might undermine the entire Action Lab operation.

Gambling and the Myth of “Helpless Consumers”

Miller and his ilk often treat gamblers as though they’re walking bundles of poor judgment and unrestrained impulses, helplessly tossing money onto losing bets. This caricature fuels the cycle of regulation, as though no one has ever heard of the word moderation. The result? A regulatory model that seems to assume all gambling customers are one bad decision away from destitution – and that they’d be blissfully lost without the benevolent intervention of a data-sharing bank.

The problem with this approach is that it ignores the larger, more nuanced reality. The overwhelming majority of gamblers are able to assess their own risk, set limits, and – shocker – stick to them. But there’s no lab dedicated to studying safe gambling behaviour. No, that would undermine the entire tone of urgency and intervention that Miller is selling.

The PR Appeal of Only Talking to the “Harmed”

Naturally, it’s much easier to spin up a compelling policy narrative by highlighting only the harmed. If Miller actually asked around, he’d probably hear from millions of gamblers who simply enjoy betting on the horses, placing a casual accumulator, or trying their hand at poker. What’s the story there? No moral crusade, no “urgent” interventions – just ordinary people enjoying themselves and gambling well within their means. Not exactly the stuff of a PR campaign, is it?

And perhaps that’s the rub: listening to responsible gamblers would puncture the myth that the gambling industry is a one-way ticket to ruin. It would force regulators to admit that, actually, for the majority of the population, gambling is just another recreational expense, a habit not all that different from ordering an overpriced cocktail or indulging in the occasional luxury latte.

Conclusion: The Case for a Gambling Safety Action Lab

If Miller really wanted to understand gambling, he’d do well to launch a Gambling Safety Action Lab and actually ask safe gamblers how they manage it. Perhaps even invite a few psychologists, sociologists, and, dare we suggest, everyday people who have never had a gambling problem. The findings might be surprising. He might discover that the majority of gamblers don’t view a bet as a “harm” in need of a regulatory knight in shining armour, but as a momentary indulgence, a thrill that they – get ready for it – know how to handle.

Until then, we’re left with a skewed lab, an echo chamber that filters out the voices of those who’ve mastered responsible gambling. Perhaps, one day, we’ll realise that not every pastime requires a crisis response. But as it stands, the “safer gambling” conversation remains a single-track mission, set on painting every gambler as a liability, and ignoring the wisdom of the vast majority who simply don’t need Tim Miller’s Action Lab.