A bid on the way at William Hill?

2 mins. to read
A bid on the way at William Hill?

Until last weekend I summarised to myself that Barnier and Juncker’s line was that since we declined to be governed by them we’d have to pay them some money. But at the weekend Theresa May mentioned that it would be important for British expertise in resisting Islamist terrorism to be recognised (i.e. easing back on all these vast Barnier-inspired bills). As a result, Juncker did a wobbly and said that that was not fair since security cooperation had nothing to do with the Brexit deal. In a sense he is right but he now knows that when an Islamist attack slaughters two hundred more innocent people (as I expect will happen on the Continent sometime soon) a lot of Continentals who do not share Juncker and Barnier’s view will point the finger at Juncker and wonder whether had he not been so unreasonable towards Britain this horror might not have occurred.


William Hill (LON:WMH) has been fined £6 million+ this morning for, in the Gambling Commission’s view, being insufficiently diligent in considering whether losing punters were stealing money to lose at WMH.

There is a long-established legal trace on this one. About thirty years ago a solicitor nicked perhaps £500,000 cash from his firm’s client account by issuing cheques to, I think, the Ritz casino. When challenged he ran off to Israel. His partners sued the Ritz arguing that the Ritz was put on notice with each of their firm’s client account cheques given to the Ritz. They won.

Apparently, a WMH punter stole from his employers to fund his gambling habit at WMH. WMH has now been criticised. But how on earth was WMH to know?

Anyway, what with that and the £2 cap for FOBT’s, one might be tempted to hold back from buying WMH. I wouldn’t. I’ll wager a bid is on the way. Now 326p.


It’s funny seeing these universities coming under financial pressure as a result of the dawning realisation that a lot of university lecturers are bone idle and incompetent and thus incapable of giving students a fair return on these substantial fees which take graduates into serious debt.


Finally, my pal Nick Sadleir tells me that although there are potentially imminent problems, he can still get water for his garden in Cape Town, apparently the sixth fastest growing city in the world. It is all a question of infrastructure spending when a lot of the money has been stolen by the ANC and the Guptas. Absence of water causes serious civil disturbances, you know. Up with One Man One Vote.

Comments (3)

  • Radu Pop says:

    Any updates on CIHL Mr Kenievel

  • Elric Lloyd-langton says:

    what’s the point f a comments option if you don’t bloody use it?

    Evil is talking nonsense here. Gaming commission (as useless as it is) is clear, new guideline state all gambling monies need to have a valid and proven source, as per money laundering act.

  • Joe says:

    Re. William Hill.

    The reverse of knowing your client was true until they changed the gambling laws say c.12 years ago.

    Around twenty five years ago a lawyer in my area lost over £1 million of client funds which allowed a small bookmaker, with stolen money, to expand rapidly and become a now sizeable player. They did not have to return the money.

    Previously a client, new or old, could suddenly start wagering large sums with no questions asked. Having worked in the bookmaking game I know the misery stealing from your partner, your employer or other can cause especially as the monies were then not recoverable by law. Now they rightly are. Anyone involved in red flag industries accepts this. I hope Evil now understands and also accepts this.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *