HOSPITAL SWEEPS

Grey River Argus, 19 September 1932, Page 3

HOSPITAL SWEEPS

! COMING FROM BRITAIN ? Hospitals Won’t Object (British Official Wireless.} (Received September IS at 5 pj.ni.) RUGBY, ‘September 17. Mr Arthur Stanley, President of the 1 British Hospitals Association giving I evidence before the Royal Commission on lotteries and betting, said that the voluntary hospitals did not wish that their needs should be made a pretext for the legalising} of lotteries, but the voluntary hospitals were not op--1 osed to such legislation, they would and l;o prepared to accept money derived from properly legalised sources. The best way to manage the lotteries for the safety of the community and with proper safeguards against fraud' was through a statutory body on the. lines of the British Broadcasting Cor poration, authorised to run a limited number of public lotteries or sweep- | stakes. A certain percentage of the 1 proceeds should be set aside for grants j to organisations engaged in national welfare work. The Hospital workers re-j cognised that, if larg ( > sums were granted towards the maintenance off individual host itals, however, it would have a tendency seriously to diminish th,, charitable contributions which now totalled eight million pounds annually, and a considerable part of which Avon* given by people opposed on principle to lotteries. Dangers of bribery and other abuses inherent in big sweepstakes were reviewed by Lord Harewood before the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting. He agreed that, the sporting Interests woudl be less endangered if the sweepstakes were legalised and placed under Government control. He knew of an instance of a horse running solely for a sweepstake profit, lit* also knew of bribery negotiations. Small clubs’ sweepstakes were innocuous. Big sw(‘epstak('s enabled the drawers of eligible horses to pay the owners of horses amounts exceeding the forfeits in order to persuade them to run their horses and allow the drawers to win a prize, thus swelling the field and interfering with the chances of better animals. Negotiations with the Calcutta Sw<H>p ]>romoters had resulted in the abolition of the runners’ prizes. .A ticketholder with £30,000 1o play with could heavily bribe stable boys, train-' ors, or jockeys to secure the defeat of other horses. The totalisator, which was good for the turf, should be more strongly controlled, or should be tillotted to a responsible body.