A few weeks ago, BetBlocker was subjected to scrutiny by a journalist at The Guardian newspaper in this UK. This came on the back of funding decisions made by the incoming UK Prevention funding commissioner, OHID, and looked to call into question the evaluative methods that had led to BetBlocker being selected, instead of other commercial blocking software providers.

The root of these concerns lay in negative assumptions made in the absence of information. And, while this contact ensured several very stressful days managing the resultant conversations, that topic has been discussed at length elsewhere and is not one that would benefit from further exploration. Instead, I want to write about a different aspect of this experience.

During my interactions with the journalist, it came to light that concerns had been raised by an unspecified number of off-the-record clinicians, and on-the-record by an MP and a member of the House of Lords.

The clinicians reportedly told the journalist that they would refuse to recommend BetBlocker’s free support. They would instead choose to refer patients to an alternative commercial blocking software – which would charge for support – on the grounds that “BetBlocker’s functionality is not up to the standards they require.”

While it is entirely within the rights of medical professionals to exercise their own professional judgement when it comes to the welfare of their patients, what profoundly alarms me about these statements is that BetBlocker has not spoken to any NHS clinicians who have communicated concerns around the services functionality. Instead of contacting us to discuss their concerns, or asking for whichever improvements in functionality they feel necessary to address their concerns, the clinicians in question chose to pass anonymous criticisms to a journalist; against a charity that supports tens of thousands of people in the UK each year, and pass the costs on to their patients.

While we obviously would prefer to reassure NHS professionals that have concerns – and do so in a cooperative manner – the off-the-record natures of these comments inhibit any actions BetBlocker could take. Sadly, there’s nothing we can do. But that’s the far less concerning aspect of this situation.

Two appointed politicians in the UK chose to go on record with criticisms of our project. At the time BetBlocker had never spoken to, or interacted with, either of these people. In the weeks since, I have personally, repeatedly, reached out to both of these individuals, asking for meetings to address any concerns that they might have. I’m very pleased to say that one of them, appointee of the House of Lords, did agree to a meeting and the subsequent dialogue has cleared the air and opened up a conversation that stands to support a large number of vulnerable people.

The response we’ve received from the MP, however, has been a deafening silence. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that, while the MP in question is an authority in the field, are knowledgeable enough to provide expert opinion in the gambling harm prevention space, they hold preconceptions that mean they’re not willing to engage in a dialogue with our team. This is a member of our political class – the debating class – that are so committed to their assumptions that they are not willing to speak to anyone who might challenge them. 

Between the clinicians and the politician associated with this matter, a problematic pattern starts to appear. And, sadly, it’s one I’ve seen play out again and again, where reputational bombs are lobbed in spaces where the target has little recourse. But meaningful communication, of the sort that could result 
in growth and improvement, is avoided.

The UK’s harm minimisation space has become heartbreakingly polarised. How are we meant to find common ground when the partisan camps will not even talk to each other? Instead, they default to trying to erode public confidence in support services in the national press.

Sadly, this is exactly where we find ourselves.

The conversation has become so bitter, the parties so entrenched and tribal, that it has become politically unacceptable to even consider listening to someone who hasn’t passed your camp’s ideological loyalty test. I’ve not named the MP in this piece, showing a courtesy that wasn’t shown to us. That has been a conscious decision. Doing so would only further polarise the discussion in this space. It serves no one, other than partisan interests. And as unhappy as I am about this entire experience, this dynamic cannot be perpetuated without consequence. It has to stop.

It is okay to disagree with each other. To have differing positions on the best way to minimise gambling harm. Strong views are to be expected when the subject is something that has such profound consequences for the lives of those impacted by it. But when we stop being open to talking to each other, adopting exclusionary positions to dialogue, we ensure we all fail to do the best job of delivering support.

And the people who lose out, the people that we are failing when we behave in this manner, are the people who we’re supposed to be supporting.