- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. You are comparing raffle tickets to gambling? Are we going to have a raffle anonymous group meeting now?
Any politician or private citizen - of sound or unsound mind, who thinks this is a big deal needs to get a grip on reality and stop thinking the people of Langley are idiots.
Please find a real issue to grandstand about!
For you information....
Raffles ARE gambling events. That is why it is covered under Gaming Control Act. Just ask Rich Coleman.
This IS a big deal. The law is the law for everyone, especially politicians who are supposed to uphold it.
There is too much 'gray area' these days. No wonder our youth get confused. This is NOT a gray area.
Have you read the article in the Province today?
See: http://www.canada.com/theprovinc...ba-
ee04a1bf7c92
The paper says...
[quote] He blamed the "mistake" on "young guys on his campaign team.
"This was an early invitation mentioning raffle prizes to be won. It was meant to say door prizes. It was a mistake -- imprecise language. I don't think political groups qualify for gaming licences," said Bateman.
He said no raffle will be held, but there could be door prizes. [endquote]
The article goes on to say:
[quote] Martin said a gaming-enforcement official told him the three elements of gambling are present in Bateman's ad -- paying a price ($60), taking a chance ("the word raffle means chance") and winning a "prize." [endquote]
I would guess that unless the tickets are free, which they are not in this case, OR unless everyone receives a free gift, "door prizes" would still fall under raffles, just like 50/50 draws, etc.
As for the "young guys on his campaign team."....this is what was posted on his website earlier
[quote] Sam and I were thinking about a raffle (which we would have only done if we had been issued a licence), but decided after this rendition of the invitation that a modest auction would be a better fit for what we have planned. [endquote]
.
Thank you Anon, I have posted it. Yes please note that the Ad which advertised the Raffle was never pulled or altered to state anything other than a "RAFFLE" at any time.
Very curiously and coincidentely in fact Bateman commented about the possible unlicensed "RAFFLE" for the first time ONLY 6 hours after our NEWS BREAKING posting hit the web on this site about a formal gaming complaint made against him about his advertised raffle fundraiser. Bateman then made some vague attempts of clarification (on his ad posting comments section) about it but no specific ad/flyer changes whatsoever were ever made! The specific clarification attempt excerpts from Bateman on this specific Raffle AD posting comments section say;
"the invite posted here is now out of date. Sam and I were thinking about a raffle (which we would have only done if we had been issued a licence), but decided after this rendition of the invitation that a modest auction would be a better fit for what we have planned."
In the same posting he also said it was completely sold out with the obvious conclusion being clear that the fundraiser tickets sold out with the 'raffle' referenced ad/flyer!
His website banner boasts 150,000 website visitors and 500,000 hits annually.
All details of this and much, much more can be seen in full at our previous posting #1 at;
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...atemans-
60.html
Oh by the way the original and only Bateman AD posting states NOV 5 th (PS: The very same day he voted against gambling increase at Langley Bingo!) POSTED BY JORDAN BATEMAN 9:47AM.
This editor also posts using the very same software. I vet and doublecheck all that I post before I publish/post. I'm sure he does as well. Especially one would think re any web Raffle fundraising ad and handout flyer if any, especially his first big one ever! One would think that he would have vetted the ad and contributed to it as well too! After all the ad is very short and raffle does stick out prominently in my opinion. Don't you think?
Okay, I have tried to avoid commenting on this subject because at the time it seemed so inane. A posting was put up and pulled down, no tickets to the raffle were ever printed, offered or sold. Frankly from my point of view it was a case of no harm no foul. As for the bright colours and multiple postings herein considering what a supported LFP has been of Jordan in the past I am surprised by the vigour of the postings... of course the most important part is that Wally got his name in the paper again.....
By the bye Anon, you are incorrect in saying “I would guess that unless the tickets are free, which they are not in this case, OR unless everyone receives a free gift, "door prizes" would still fall under raffles, just like 50/50 draws, etc.”
Door prizes are not raffles, even if only one or two people win them. Were they raffles then ***OTHERS*** would be in trouble since ****OTHER**** shows have a requirement that every seller gives away at least one door prize...mind you wouldn’t that be funny if someone called the gaming enforcement branch on ****THEM**** during their events...or maybe the fire marshall during the ******************I’m sure their show exceeds their occupancy limit by a ‘fair’ margin.
Of note, in case anyone is concerned, the previous comment was intended to be an ironic jest and not a threat. My wife and ****** wife used to work together and are friends and I would never dream of doing such a thing myself.
Edited By Siteowner
First I was shocked;
By a local politician advertising an apparently unlicensed fundraising raffle for his own campaign funds purposes!
Then I was shocked;
By the same politician who may have simply demonstrated very poor judgment that made me wonder why I would elect anyone that does demonstrate such poor judgment!
Then I was shocked;
By the same politician saying that he indeed "would have done a raffle only if we had been issued a gaming license"!
Then I was shocked;
By the same politician confirming he was apparently early on "thinking about a raffle”, and yet on the other hand he voted against the Langley Bingo Hall gambling expansion despite the grave concerns of all the community charities who were desperately concerned about losing their bingo charity revenues.
Then I was shocked;
By the same politician yanking the raffle ad only after a gaming complaint was made public here on LFP!
Then I was shocked;
By the same politician having what seemed to me to be somewhat conflicting stories on the so called raffle ad error only after it was made public here on LFP!
Then I was shocked;
By the same politician essentially pointing fingers and blaming supposed young underlings for the error and not shouldering any of the responsibility at all!
Then I was shocked:
By the same politician accusing the original whistle blowing complainant of perhaps having a personal ax to grind in making the original complaint!
Then I was shocked;
By the same politician apparently still carrying on with this now controversial fundraiser especially when a very highly regarded provincial minister was named as his keynote feature and was now tagged with the controversy.
I now worry and wonder that in the next 5 days will I be as shocked by as many more legs from this story as have developed in only the last 5 days alone! What will shock me next?
I also seriously still wonder if Bateman's "Get Moving BC" website and its obvious partisan support network are the continuation of this story perhaps?. See the 3 part "Get Moving BC" story again here in LFP for details?
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...-
political.html
"Door prizes are not raffles, even if only one or two people win them."
Don't take my word for it. The following is an article titled "Gaming Funding for BC Charities and NPOs" from a newsletter produced by in 2005 by a law firm.
[quote] Licensed Gaming
For an activity to be considered gaming it must include three elements: "consideration" which means players must pay or provide something of value; a "prize" which includes money or something of value; and "chance" which means the outcome is not determined. As an example, offering a door prize at an event might be gaming and may require a licence. [unquote]
So one might think.......since people had to pay $60.00 for the ticket, unless everyone gets a "door prize" thus eliminating "chance" ...........
Anon:
Does this mean that Mr. Bateman must now give every ticket holder a $50 door prize (I think that was the value of the "doorprize raffle" I read somewhere)? That means he'll only make $10 on each ticket and will that even cover the cost of food?
Anon,
Since the $60 ticket was for a "meal" any door prize would not be considered a consideration, it might be an incentive or a bonus but not a consideration under the act. Any number of events have door prizes (including *** other people's events***) and none would be considered as gambling or raffles. Nice try though.
Edited By Siteowner
What ever happened to people just admitting they made a mistake? Or simply to state they did not realize that a raffle was a game of chance and required a license and move on. So be it if you are fined $500.00 for advertising a gaming event without a license. Just like the Bingo Granny do the crime pay the fine. It is when people will not admit error that stories begin to be spun. This is when morals and ethics begin to play a role in their actions, it usually shows us who they really are.
First I was shocked;
By a local politician advertising an apparently unlicensed fundraising raffle for his own campaign funds purposes!
For which he admitted he was in error
Then I was shocked;
By the same politician who may have simply demonstrated very poor judgment that made me wonder why I would elect anyone that does demonstrate such poor judgment!
Making a mistake is not an error in judgment. Had he not corrected himself would have been an error in judgment.
Then I was shocked;
By the same politician saying that he indeed "would have done a raffle only if we had been issued a gaming license"!
Nothing shocking here, had he got a license he would have been fully eligible to run it
Then I was shocked;
By the same politician confirming he was apparently early on "thinking about a raffle”, and yet on the other hand he voted against the Langley Bingo Hall gambling expansion despite the grave concerns of all the community charities who were desperately concerned about losing their bingo charity revenues.
Apples and oranges, not wanting slot machines is a different story then not wanting a raffle. Slot machines target the most vulnerable populations. Raffles are a long accepted way to make money for charities and considering the self-selection of the group he could feel confident that he wasn't targeting vulnerable folk.
Then I was shocked;
By the same politician yanking the raffle ad only after a gaming complaint was made public here on LFP!
The issue was addressed and resolved on his web site not yours.
Then I was shocked;
By the same politician having what seemed to me to be somewhat conflicting stories on the so called raffle ad error only after it was made public here on LFP!
Once again you take too much credit. The issue was raised and addressed in his comments section.
Then I was shocked;
By the same politician essentially pointing fingers and blaming supposed young underlings for the error and not shouldering any of the responsibility at all!
Frankly the first time I have agreed with you on this topic although I was simply disappointed with his answer.
Then I was shocked:
By the same politician accusing the original whistle blowing complainant of perhaps having a personal ax to grind in making the original complaint!
If the shoe fits..... Wally would appear to the outside observer to be acting out of pique on this one...either that or a desire for publicity.
Then I was shocked;
By the same politician apparently still carrying on with this now controversial fundraiser especially when a very highly regarded provincial minister was named as his keynote feature and was now tagged with the controversy.
The fundraiser was never a concern only the raffle. To cancel one would be cowardice.
I now worry and wonder that in the next 5 days will I be as shocked by as many more legs from this story as have developed in only the last 5 days alone! What will shock me next?
Clearly you are easily shocked...watch out for loud noises...or Councillor Richter reversing herself on airport rents.
I also seriously still wonder if Bateman's "Get Moving BC" website and its obvious partisan support network are the continuation of this story perhaps?. See the 3 part "Get Moving BC" story again here in LFP for details?
Feel free to wonder. I will wait until you find proof before I make a decision.
Correction, he admitted it's everyone else's fault, not his!
The rest of your arguments are purely overly defensive bafflegab. Why?
Remember this all comes from a self admitted communications consultant and former educated and trained reporter. 60 - 60 for 60$ doesn't sound like it was written by any young underling! Your hero blew it badly. Take your blinders off. Susan is dead on. You are not.
BS,
Overly general? Maybe you would like to be more specific? I provide a reply to each "shocked". Don't agree? Tell me why. To say I was overly general is just a cop out. Intellectual laziness is such an unappealing trait, especially from the anonymous.
"Since the $60 ticket was for a "meal" ..."
Must be a really ritzy place if lunch is $60.
By the way, how is it a fundraiser if the ticket is $60 and the meal is $60?
Anon,
That is how fundraisers work. You pay $60 for a meal that costs the people running the meal less than $60 to prepare. The difference forms the funds raised in the fundraiser. A rather simple concept really.
Then that would be a meal and a donation portion that would be receipted by the party as a political contribution?
Just asking
Not necessarily Anon. The basis of our free enterprise/capitalist system is that folk will pay varying prices for finished products constructed from the same base materials. Denny’s and the fancy restaurant downtown pay the same price for their eggs and milk but Denny’s will sell you a benny for under $6.95 while a downtown restaurant will charge you closer to $20. This difference is attributed to “ambiance” and goes towards profit margin. The downtown restaurant isn’t going to give you a tax receipt because you overpaid for a benny even if the restaurant assures you that the profit will go to a good cause.
Were I to make a donation greater than $20 to a registered political party, then I would expect a tax receipt. Similarly were a political party to advertise that a $100-a-plate meal comes with a $50 tax receipt then they too would be expected to provide a receipt because the incentive of the receipt was part of the promotion.
A bit confused here Blair. Jordan has advertised this as a fundraiser therefore should the people not get a tax receipt for $60.00? It is up to him to cover the costs? So he should be claiming 60.00 X 60 = 3,600.00 in campaign fundraising. No where on the advertisement does it say the tickets are for lunch only that lunch will be served. He is selling Rich Coleman is what I get out of this not the lunch.
Blair
Your answer got me curious so I went to the source and consulted the Candidate's Guide re local elections published by the Ministry of Community Services. It contained an example of a fundraising dinner and dance.
Apparently the entire $60.00 of the ticket is considered a contribution and must be recorded as such with name and address of persons/groups that purchased the tickets.
The guide is very interesting.
.
WHERE THE HECK IS JORDAN?
DOES HE HAVE A WEBSITE ANYMORE?
LangleyPolitics.com
HAS GONE INTO SHOCK, NO MENTION OF ANY OF THIS
WHAT A *****!
Edited By Siteowner
Anon,
You are quite right and I got it wrong. Clearly I have a bit more to learn about local elections, I've worked for federal and provincial ones but never got involved locally.
Of note, you don't get tax receipts for contributions to local elections.
LFP,
It seems odd both you are editing my comments as I mention an individual who is involved in the story and at no time say anything even vaguely controversial. I point out a fact that is posted on the other person's web site, is advertised heavily in the media and is common knowledge.
By editing my post in the way you did it makes it look like I'm saying something controversial or even questionable.
Commenting by HaloScan
