Legal Research

When not statistically significant = damning

By scott

The British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2010, and independent report published by the Gambling Commission, shows that nearly three quarters of UK adults, 73%, gambled in the previous year, up from 68% in 2007.

The measures of problem gambling in the report also show an increase in the number of problem gamblers with increases from 0.5% of the adult population in 2007 to 0.7% in 2010 (which is not statistically significant) on one measure and from 0.6% in 2007 to 0.9% in 2010 (which is at the margins of statistical significance) on the other measure used. These rates are similar to those in other European countries (Germany, Norway and Switzerland) where this has been measured and are lower than countries like the USA, Australia and South Africa.

So what kind of measured tone do you think the UK government took on this?

Today, the Gambling Commission?s Prevalence Study has announced that the number of adults in Britain with a gambling problem has increased to 451,000 since Labour?s Gambling Act came into force in 2007.

?We are looking into this urgently and will announce shortly measures to tackle it. Once again the coalition Government has been left to clear up the mess left by Labour.?

So a rise that is either ‘not statistically significant’ or ‘at the margins of statistical significance’ according to the body that wrote the report is “damning” in the eyes of the Government.

Now whilst i’m not for one minute saying any rise - no matter how small - in people getting into gambling habits is a good thing, nothing pisses me off more than misrepresenting the facts for political point scoring (2/1 with Ladbrokes and 7/4 with BetFair), and that - plain and simple - is what this is.

Full post as published by Information Overload on February 15, 2011 (boomark / email).