« Tim Montgomerie | Main | Monbiot and Sulphates »

January 30, 2007

Super Casino Licence

Now here's a turn up for the books:

Manchester has won the race to build Britain's first ever supercasino in a shock decision which saw it overhaul the favourites Blackpool and the Greenwich Dome.

The news - at 11am today - came as a blow to the Blackpool's hopes of a immediate regeneration from gambling, while the Dome, under its new American owners, was hoping to combine a new casino with a concert hall, hotel and Olympic facilities.

Maybe fuckwit really was talking about Wilberforce?

Something interesting as I was just looking for that link. As you might recall, there was a nice little Google Bomb that lead that word to the page of the Deputy Prime Minister. It was the first (the "I feel lucky") result in Google for a long time. Now, I know that such things decay but something really rather interesting has happened. It's not even there in the first 100 results now. None of my posts about it are in the index, there's only a couple out of the 100 that even refer to it.

It was working only a few weeks ago as the number one result: so, has someone been cleaning up Google? Has there been some intervention somewhere? Or is this just a natural result of the recent Google Dance?

Anyone with enough technical knowledge to tell me? And if it has been cleaned up, what if anything, should be done about it?

January 30, 2007 in Scams and Frauds | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d834de8f7353ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Super Casino Licence:

Comments

Yup.

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2007/01/quick-word-about-googlebombs.html

Posted by: Chris C | Jan 30, 2007 11:41:42 AM

Yeah, Tim Ireland wrote about it yesterday, they've redone the algorithm, they say, but he suspects it's a manual fix as several of his (and two of mine) are still working.

I keep reading the decision and screaming in my head about stupid regulations and idiotic restrictions. You've corrupted me sir...

Posted by: MatGB | Jan 30, 2007 1:19:16 PM

Maybe I am just a bit thick but why only 1, if super casino's are finally being allowed, what thought process calculates that 1 is Ok as opposed to 2 or heaven forbid, let the market decide

Posted by: steves | Jan 30, 2007 2:30:19 PM

The government wanted 8 - but had to do a deal with the old Conservative party before the last election to get the bill through, and they said they would only back the bill if it had just 1.

Posted by: Richardr | Jan 30, 2007 8:54:50 PM

I'm familiar enough with the standard JS Mill argument for deregulating the trade in addictive drugs and letting the market decide:

"the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
http://utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html

The substantive argument against deregulation is that we are likely to witness an increase - possibly a substantial increase - in the incidence of drug addiction which will impose additional costs on the NHS for treatment as well as probably increase eligibility for incapacity benefits which the government is presently trying to curb.

According to current press reports, the government is about to do a somersault on its recent relaxation of pub opening hours because of binge drinking:

"The Government is preparing to make a substantial U-turn over 24-hour drinking by making it harder for pubs to open later in future amid the first signs they realise that the policy went too far too fast."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2572154,00.html

By a general consensus gambling, like drugs and alcohol, is also addictive:

"In 1953 the celebrated Harvard behavioural psychologist BF Skinner published a paper about the gambling habits of rats. Testing his theory of 'operant conditioning' he had noticed a strange compulsive tendency among his laboratory rodents.

"When one of Skinner's rats pressed a lever, it was given a food pellet. By experiment Skinner then established that if a pellet was delivered only on the 10th press of the lever, the rat would quickly learn to press the lever 10 times. If, however, a random element was introduced to the lever-pressing, whereby a pellet was still introduced on average one in 10 times, but sometimes delivered twice or three times in a row and sometimes not for 20 or more presses, the rat apparently became obsessed with the lever-operation itself."
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1984051,00.html

Some of us think it would be prudent to take cautious early steps in the liberalisation of the restrictions on casinos to assess the impact on the incidence of gambling addiction and what additional costs that will impose on the NHS.

Posted by: Bob B | Jan 31, 2007 2:05:13 AM