Concerns are growing over the “often cosy relationship” that appears to exist between OHID and anti-gambling campaigners at the cost to many established gambling harm charities. Next.io is among a number of industry journals currently scrutinising documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request – and they are finding some disturbing evidence of significant menace from the prohibitionist lobby.
Gambling journal Next.io has published an article suggesting the Office of Health Improvement and Disparities is maintaining a “cosy relationship” with anti-gambling campaigners, while UK harms charities continue to be denied both information and funding.
According to documents acquired through a Freedom of Information request, the purportedly impartial OHID continues to grant campaigners privileged access to policy decisions, while failing to engage with those bodies providing frontline support.
“The documents also outline how OHID gave campaign groups Gambling With Lives and Action on Gambling access to upcoming initiatives such as the Men’s Health Strategy, and looked to work hand-in-hand on strategy,” reported Next.io. “Sources have suggested this reflects a level of privileged access to government policy not afforded to other organisations in the gambling harm prevention sector.”
“They raised concerns that by failing to fully engage with other organisations throughout the sector, OHID may be causing frontline services against gambling harms to suffer, ultimately resulting in worse outcomes for end users.”
The article suggests OHID staff “colluded with campaign groups to work together on various projects,” while incorporating “explicitly political feedback” into wider strategy decisions directly impacting initiatives such as the Men’s Health Strategy.
“In contrast to the privileged treatment received by the campaign groups, other third sector organisations – associated with the legacy funding model – have found it difficult to engage with OHID, with one source telling Next.io the Department of Health unit often appeared to simply ignore their emails.”
“Others were only able to get responses from OHID after third parties stepped in to help act as mediators, while others have engaged with the body as part of the commissioning process but had a more limited access than that of the campaigners.”
According to the journal, the biased engagement comes as more public health officials buy into the idea that organisations previously receiving funding from gambling businesses under the voluntary system “are suspect,” prompting many existing charities to reduce services, register bankruptcy and shed experienced staff in response to funding uncertainty.
OHID did not respond to a request for comment regarding the FOI documents submitted by Next.io, but it is unlikely to be the first line of enquiry about the body’s position.
It has already been widely reported that some anti-gambling charities have been threatening third sector organisations, many of which would be considered the founding fathers of gambling harm care provision, that they are campaigning to see funds cut if these charities on the grounds that they had links to the gambling industry.
And indeed,complaints have already been lodged with the authorities against the tactics of Gambling with Lives for their misuse of statistical data to support the prohibitionist case. The most recent of which is a recent meeting with xx MP where they stated the case of rising suicide rates – a position that has no evidential support, in fact recent evidence released by the Gambling Commission revealed that gambling related suicides are almost ten times lower than the figures quoted by GwL.
Gambling with the facts?
Gambling with Lives holds a fascinating role in the third sector arena. It has mastered the art of terrorising authorities with a guilt campaign, and so successfully so it has driven much of the narrative in the gambling debate for many years.
And, bizarrely, it still continues to have a strangehold over the authorities.
Yet it is unable, and probably unwilling, to provide reliable evidence or factual data to support its arguments.
Its suicide figures have been debunked and it continues to wildly misquote official data much to the chagrin of the Gambling Commission which has warned the charity of its behaviour in this area.
In fairness, Coinslot too has been warned by the regulator, but our posture was to challenge the statistics – and we have the ONS and the Gambling Commission’s very own independent assessor on our side of the argument.
But you’ve got to hand it to Gambling with Lives – they just don’t give a fuck: they’ll quote what they like.
But the authorities shouldn’t take that on face value – they have a duty to be more vigilant in challenging GwL – and to the same extent that they do with the industry.
Not to do so puts them in a vulnerable position and one where their own credibility should be questioned.
And OHID certainly needs to defend its credibilty for not challenging GwL’s.
Originally published on Coinslot on February 23, 2026. Republished with permission.