PAGCOR says alien crime syndicates are security threat, not POGOs; Philippine Senators call for comprehensive ban  

Several DraftKings employees are facing serious allegations after a New York resident, identified in court documents as “John Doe”, claimed his personal information was leaked, resulting in a distressing assault and extortion attempt. This legal dispute has garnered significant public attention.

The incident reportedly began in March 2023 when John Doe, residing in Long Island City, was approached on a subway platform by an assailant who aggressively demanded $500,000. It's alleged that the assailant had been waiting for John Doe outside his apartment for several hours before confronting him at the subway platform.

The lawsuit claims this demand was linked to Gadoon "Spanky" Kyrollos, a prominent figure in sports betting.

John Doe asserts that his sensitive details were obtained through undisclosed means involving employees of DraftKings. According to the lawsuit, DraftKings is accused of exposing John Doe's personal information, including his address, betting history, and financial records, to Kyrollos and potentially others. The plaintiff claims this breach made him vulnerable to threats and physical harm, culminating in a terrifying assault that has left him living in constant fear for his safety.

DraftKings has vehemently denied these accusations, stating there is no evidence that any of its employees leaked confidential customer information. The company's response challenges the allegations as unsubstantiated. DraftKings also reiterated its commitment to customer security and privacy.

A DraftKings spokesman told Sports Handle: “In the complaint, the plaintiff does not identify any DraftKings employee, but rather alleges on ‘information and belief’ that an unknown and unidentified DraftKings employee provided private account information to ‘Spanky’ and to additional unnamed third parties. DraftKings has found no evidence of anyone at DraftKings providing plaintiff’s information to a third-party, and DraftKings denies acknowledging any such “security breach”.”

Spanky Kyrollos to the plaintiff's claims in a social media post. According to Spanky, the anonymous plaintiff and his attorney, Steve Jacobs, are one and the same person.

Spanky claims he had a contentious partnership with Steve Jacobs. He explained that, due to being banned from betting by certain operators, including DraftKings, he relies on bettors like Steve Jacobs to place bets. Despite their allegedly successful collaboration, Spanky claims that Steve Jacobs never shared any of the earnings with him.

This legal battle is linked to broader concerns about the security of personal data in the iGaming industry. With more states legalising and regulating sports gambling, protecting customer information from exploitation has become increasingly crucial. The DraftKings case, regardless of the veracity of the allegations, serves as a reminder of the potential risks individuals face when their information is mishandled.

As the legal proceedings continue, they are likely to spark discussions about regulatory frameworks and corporate responsibilities when it comes to consumer protection and .

 Summit powered by Soft2Bet, will take place in Budapest from 2-4 September 2024.

Sir Philip Davies, considered to be a very prominent figure in the Conservative Party, has been reported to be involved in the controversy involving election betting. The allegations suggest that Davies placed a bet of £8,000 against his own victory in the forthcoming election, a move that has stirred up considerable debate.

Davies, who is vying for the Shipley seat in West Yorkshire, has been a significant player in the UK political scene. His candidature, however, has been overshadowed by the betting scandal. The controversy has raised questions about the ethics of a candidate betting against their own success, and whether such actions could potentially influence the outcome of the election.

When questioned about the alleged bet, Davies responded with a dismissive attitude, stating, “What’s it got to do with you whether I did or didn’t.” He further asserted that the bet was “nobody’s business,” a statement that has only fuelled the ongoing speculation.

Despite the controversy, Davies remains committed to his campaign, expressing his determination to win the election. He stated, “I hope to win. I’m busting a gut to win. I expect to lose.” This paradoxical stance, hoping for victory while expecting defeat, adds another layer of complexity to the situation.

Interestingly, this is not the first time Davies has been associated with such a bet. He admitted to having placed a similar bet on himself during the 2005 election, which he ultimately won, causing his bet to “go down the pan.”

In the face of Davies maintains his innocence. He invites anyone who believes he has acted illegally to make their accusations, confident in his assertion that he has not broken any laws.

This incident has cast a spotlight on the issue of election betting, prompting a broader discussion about its implications on the democratic process. As the controversy continues to unfold, the focus remains on Davies and the outcome of his election campaign.

The nature of politics is indeed unpredictable, where even a seasoned politician like Sir Philip Davies has not ben immune to this controversy. As the date for the election approaches, this extraordinary

Sir Philip Davies, considered to be a very prominent figure in the Conservative Party, has been reported to be involved in the controversy involving election betting. The allegations suggest that Davies placed a bet of £8,000 against his own victory in the forthcoming election, a move that has stirred up considerable debate.

Davies, who is vying for the Shipley seat in West Yorkshire, has been a significant player in the UK political scene. His candidature, however, has been overshadowed by the betting scandal. The controversy has raised questions about the ethics of a candidate betting against their own success, and whether such actions could potentially influence the outcome of the election.

When questioned about the alleged bet, Davies responded with a dismissive attitude, stating, “What’s it got to do with you whether I did or didn’t.” He further asserted that the bet was “nobody’s business,” a statement that has only fuelled the ongoing speculation.

Despite the controversy, Davies remains committed to his campaign, expressing his determination to win the election. He stated, “I hope to win. I’m busting a gut to win. I expect to lose.” This paradoxical stance, hoping for victory while expecting defeat, adds another layer of complexity to the situation.

Interestingly, this is not the first time Davies has been associated with such a bet. He admitted to having placed a similar bet on himself during the 2005 election, which he ultimately won, causing his bet to “go down the pan.”

In the face of Davies maintains his innocence. He invites anyone who believes he has acted illegally to make their accusations, confident in his assertion that he has not broken any laws.

This incident has cast a spotlight on the issue of election betting, prompting a broader discussion about its implications on the democratic process. As the controversy continues to unfold, the focus remains on Davies and the outcome of his election campaign.

The nature of politics is indeed unpredictable, where even a seasoned politician like Sir Philip Davies has not ben immune to this controversy. As the date for the election approaches, this extraordinary

The political landscape in the United Kingdom has been rocked by a gambling scandal that has further eroded public trust in politicians. This controversy, which has embroiled both the Conservative and Labour parties, has drawn parallels with previous scandals such as Partygate and the expenses scandal, reinforcing the perception of a double standard in the rules governing politicians and the public.

Five weeks ago, the Conservatives launched their election campaign amidst challenging circumstances: they were trailing by 20 points in the polls and had seen four prime ministers in five years. However, the situation worsened when on 12 June, The Guardian reported that Craig Williams, Rishi Sunak’s closest parliamentary aide, was under investigation by the Gambling Commission for betting on a July election three days before it was announced.

The scandal has since widened to include at least four more Tories, six police officers, and one Labour candidate. The allegations revolve around the use of insider information to place bets, a practice that is not only unethical but potentially illegal. : its simplicity makes it easy for the public to understand, and it reinforces the perception that politicians operate outside the rules they set for others.

Michael Gove, the outgoing levelling up secretary, drew parallels between this scandal and the Partygate scandal, which severely damaged Boris Johnson’s government and eventually led to its collapse. He noted that the perception of politicians operating outside the rules was damaging during the Partygate scandal and is equally damaging now.

This scandal also bears similarities to the expenses scandal, which severely undermined public trust by creating the impression that politicians were not adhering to the rules they imposed on others. Like the Partygate and expenses scandals, the gambling scandal has been impossible to ignore due to the constant stream of damaging revelations.

A week after The Guardian’s story on Williams, the BBC reported that Tory candidate Laura Saunders and her husband, Tony Lee, the party’s director of campaigning, . The broadcaster also revealed that a police officer working in the prime minister’s close protection team had been arrested following an allegation of bets on the timing of the election. This revelation established that the scandal extended beyond a single individual.

The controversy deepened further when The Sunday Times reported that Nick Mason, the Conservative party’s head of data, was being investigated by the gambling watchdog over claims he had placed dozens of small bets that would have won him thousands of pounds cumulatively. He has denied any wrongdoing.

On Tuesday, the Metropolitan police announced that five more police officers were being investigated in relation to suspect bets on the date of the election. Shortly afterwards, A fifth Tory, Russell George, was also under investigation.

The Conservatives initially , much like they did with Partygate. However, as more Tories were implicated, they were forced to take stronger action. Sunak expressed his disappointment in Williams’s actions and later his anger as more Tories were implicated. Finally, after a week of attempting to weather the scandal, the prime minister withdrew support from Williams and Saunders and launched an internal inquiry.

The surprise news that a Labour candidate, Kevin Craig, is now under investigation by the gambling watchdog may take some of the sting out of Keir Starmer’s attacks. Craig was swiftly suspended as a candidate by Labour and is understood to be under investigation for betting that he would lose the race in his safe Tory seat, rather than acting on any insider information.

This scandal demonstrates that the investigation’s remit has widened significantly and will prompt a much larger conversation about political betting. In the US, a top Wall Street regulator is moving to ban betting on American elections, and there have already been calls for the UK to consider similar measures.

However, this will be a question for after the election. For the next prime minister, improving standards in politics and rebuilding public trust in politicians will need to be a priority. This scandal serves as a stark reminder of the importance of transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct in politics.

Sir Jim Ratcliffe, a prominent British industrialist, shared his candid views on the UK’s political and economic landscape. Ratcliffe expressed his disapproval of the non-domiciled tax status, a policy he believes is unwise to discard given the significant economic contributions of London’s wealthy residents. He emphasized the importance of retaining such individuals to maintain the city’s financial health.

Ratcliffesuggesting that such initiatives could attract substantial economic interest.

When asked about the current state of the UK and its political climate, Ratcliffe noted the Conservative Party’s lengthy tenure and the series of less-than-successful prime ministers it has produced. He conveyed a sense that the UK populace is ready for a change in leadership, hinting at a general fatigue with the current administration.

Discussing the Labour Party, Ratcliffe mentioned having met its leader, Keir Starmer, and described him as sensible and intelligent. He speculated that Starmer might have to make some unpopular decisions to address the nation’s challenges effectively.

Ratcliffe criticized the government’s handling of Brexit and its overall management of the economy, particularly the allocation of the country’s £2 trillion GDP. He argued that the government’s expenditure of £1 trillion indicates a need for more prudent spending, as it is the public’s money at stake.

The industrialist highlighted the UK’s infrastructure woes, citing outdated sewage systems and the privatization of water utilities as examples of mismanagement. He called for stricter regulations and consequences for utility companies that fail to invest in necessary upgrades.

On immigration, Ratcliffe pointed out the lack of a coherent strategy to address the influx of 500,000 people into the UK last year, which strains the country’s infrastructure. He emphasized the need for a sustainable approach to immigration that considers the capacity of the nation’s infrastructure.

Ratcliffe suggested that the Labour Party, under Starmer’s leadership, might bring about the changes needed to address these issues. However, he acknowledged that only time would reveal the effectiveness of such potential leadership. Ratcliffe himself dismissed any personal political ambitions, citing his lack of political correctness and wokeness as barriers to entry. He stressed the importance of making difficult decisions, even if unpopular, to steer the country in the right direction.

 Summit powered by Soft2Bet, will take place in Budapest from 2-4 September 2024.