James, if you are going to (quite rightly) place such importance on balance, can I ask why you are chairing such an imbalanced panel on the Gambling Act? It is not sufficient to say to people who question this “what question would you like me to ask the panel?”, as they will..1/2
Rupert, I wouldn’t usually say this on a public platform because I believe that private conversations with journalists are sacrosanct. So I’m a bit surprised to see that you’ve mentioned me here, and feel I should respond.View quoted post on X
You texted me earlier this month to say that you were writing a piece about gambling in the UK and asked me about the SMF’s aspirations. While we have a good relationship when it comes to racing matters, I declined to talk with you for the piece because I’m not in a position to speak for the SMF. I am just an associate Senior Fellow of the organisation and do not represent it formally. You didn’t tell me that the piece was actually about Derek Webb! If I had known that, I would have replied to you differently.
I respect you a great deal as a journalist and agree with many of the concerns you have raised about racing, but (if you don’t mind me saying) I do wish that private exchanges aren’t aired on public platforms, as it disrupts the fundamental premise that private conversations with journalists should remain private.
For Matt’s point about whether Derek should have been approached for a quote, I think I agree with Matt. When newspaper stories are written about my policy reports, the BGC is always given the right to respond and have an opposing quote in the story. This is in the interest of balance. So I think the same principle should go both ways: if there is a story written about the reform campaign, it is only fair to make sure that reformers are given the right to respond. We saw the same thing last week with the Fred Done story in the FT: Done made a series of assertions about tax, and in the name of balance someone who has worked on tax policy (such as me or one of my colleagues) should have been invited to give a quote.
I value our exchanges and will continue to make the case for racing in future discussions about tax and regulation. But please, let’s do maintain the principle of “off-record” exchanges remaining private!
