Naive and negligent - the Gambling Commission needs to do its job better

From start to finish, but most particularly as Hukum and Westover duelled up Ascot's home straight, the King George left me enthralled. The great race also had me baffled. For that reason, I didn't have a bet.

If obliged to back a horse, the choice would have been Emily Upjohn, but nobody is forced to gamble. When presented with a contest so spectacularly fascinating, I do not need to bet. Most punters are like that. We bet when we want to bet and do so because it provides mental stimulation, enjoyment, excitement and the opportunity for a little financial reward.

We are the sort of people who should be constantly in the mind of the Gambling Commission. That appears not to be the case. The perception many hold is that the industry regulator is only concerned with combatting problem gambling, yet it is questionable whether it is doing a particularly good job for the vast majority who bet safely or the tiny minority who are at risk.