Bay of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1947 THE GAMING ACT FARCE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 87, 27 January 1947, Page 4

Bay of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1947 THE GAMING ACT FARCE

ONCE again we have had the unedifying picture of two local bookmakers in court undergoing their annual “licensing” which it is tacitly understood will render them immune from police interference for another twelve months (or is it eighteen?). Just how long the country is going to be prepared to put with this farcical states of affairs is probably dependent upon the findings of the Commission appointed to commence investigation next month. It is hoped that the present hypocritical proceedings will be abolished and that in a country where the gambling habit is almost second nature, their place in the community will be controlled and not driven “officially” (?) underground as it exists in the present set up. If it is morally wrong for a bookmaker to accept a bet, it is surely just as wrong for the punter who ventures now and again to lay the odds. But never by any chance is the punter interfered with. It would mean rounding up nearly half the adult population.

Yet when a poor unfortunate Maori is caught red-handed

nursing a bottle of beer he is prosecuted with the utmost rigour together with the person who supplied him with the liquor (sometimes). Both parties by law must suffer for the offence. With betting however it is quite another matter, and were both bettor and bettee disciplined there would be more people in gaol than out of it. Thus we salve our national conscience by prosecuting ever so often the man who we pay handsomely to carry on the nefarious calling of bookmaker. It would be ha*rd in actual fact to find such a man any more of a criminal than the officially countenanced totalisator on every race-course in the Dominion and the State-sponsored art unions. But no, the law decrees that a bookmaker shall be tolerated as an honest man for 364 days of the year but on the remaining day that he shall be dragged before the court, frowned on, warned and fined as a deserving criminal; as a menace to the community. All this showmanship, and tongue-in-cheek formula in order to maintain appearances under the Act. The fine, becoming increasingly heavy as each prosecution takes place is as a rule paid out readily enough from the ever-present nest egg, set aside for just such contingency, and Mr. Bookmaker leaves the court once more reinstated as an honest man. And he is an honest man in most cases, meeting his obligations, and every bit as honest as those who seek him out and place their bets with him. Is this justice, ,or even decency. The whole pitiful farce is as nauseating to the average person as it is puerile and vicious—with the law of the land, not the least offender. With betting now assuming the proportions of a major industry in New Zealand ,it is high time ’the whole traffic was legalised as in other countries, and bookmakers registered and given at least the official status of respectability.