Cliff Bryant, 52, from Southampton, placed two £5 accumulators on snow falling across 24 towns and cities in the North and Midlands on December 25.
But staff at the bookmakers accepted the gamble by mistake as the company rules state such a wager can only be a single bet.
The company has honoured the relevant single bets and paid out only £31.78 instead. It has apologised to Mr Bryant for the mistake.
It is claimed the first accumulator would have netted Mr Bryant just over £4.9 million and the second £2.23 million.
The graphic designer is now seeking legal advice over the error and said he was ''gutted'' at the decision.
''This is a genuine mistake and if I make a mistake in my work like that it costs me dearly and I think the offer should be a lot more generous than they have made,'' he said.
''They are one of the leading bookmakers in the country and I think they ought to do their homework a bit better in future.''
He urged the company to make its rules clearer.
A spokesman for Ladbrokes said company rules state that ''snow at Christmas'' bets must be singles only, rather than accumulators.
''We have apologised to the customer for any confusion and for mistakenly accepting an accumulator bet when our own rules state that only single bets are available on a market of this nature,'' he explained.
''We are happy to void the bets and to pay the customer his winnings on the relevant singles.''
Independent Betting Adjudication Service spokesman Danny Cracknell said Mr Bryant had contacted them over the issue and they would investigate when he sends them the relevant paperwork.
Under the Gambling Act 2005 a bet is now an enforceable contract and Section 334 repealed the old provisions preventing enforcement.
However, Section 335 of the Act, relating to the enforceability of gambling contracts, states ''...gambling contracts may be void on the same basis as any other contract (for example, on the basis of lack of intention, mistake or illegality)''.
Joined: 16 Jun 2006 Posts: 3220 Location: Capacious Creek
Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 1:27 am Post subject:
Another epic fail for the pile.
BBC: forecast of a mild winter 'wasn't actually wrong'. And they called climate sceptics 'deniers'
By Gerald Warner UK Last updated: January 8th, 2010
Fasten your seat-belt before you read this one. It’s a corker. It is a quote from Susan Watts, BBC Science Editor, on Newsnight, as she attempted to explain why the abysmal failure of climate “scientists” to predict current weather conditions does not in any way reduce their credibility in predicting global warming. Watts said: “In fact that seasonal forecast predicting a mild winter wasn’t actually wrong, but it left people with the wrong impression.”
If you think I am making this up, I cannot honestly blame you. I can only invite you to go to BBC iPlayer and view Newsnight for 7 January, in order to hear this garbage for yourself. So, the prediction of a mild winter “wasn’t actually wrong”. Does the term “in denial” have any more graphic illustration than that? If you look out the window you might get the impression of Arctic conditions. But please remember, that is only an impression – a wrong impression. In scientific terms, it is baking hot.
In Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited there is an entertaining passage in which Rex Mottram, an adventurer, is taking instruction in the Catholic faith, in order to marry an heiress. Devoid of belief, he is anxious to conform. Asked by the priest, if the Pope predicted rain would it be bound to happen, he says yes. And if it didn’t rain, persists the priest? “I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.”
That is the territory we are now in with climate change. Global warming is all around us, only we are too sinful/sceptical/denying to see it. The total, insupportable falsity of the whole AGW scam is so blatant that its apologists’ excuses are now not so much infantile as cretinous. A week ago we had the Gulf Stream Guff, but that could hardly account for conditions in Beijing, so that has faded from the radar. Now we are urged, imperiously and superciliously, to distinguish between “weather” and “climate”.
Great article bri! Well worth reading it all and the comments too -
The BBC and the Met Office remind me of the ‘Dead Parrot’ sketch: the shop owner never does admit the bird is dead. So Monty Python wasn’t just funny, it was prophetic as well.
Update on those snowballs (oops, I mean global-warming balls): Yesterday with that frozen powder snow they were hard to make, very crumbly, you had to take your gloves off to melt the surface a bit and then great, but forzen hands, but who cares! Yupeeeee! Splat!
It snowed again today, 2 days and still here - unknown in living memory!
As I said yesterday, one of our jobs this year is to wipe the complacent smiles off the smug faces of the lobbyists, “experts”, “scientists”, politicians and activists pushing AGW.
This is why I am so glad to report that Michael Mann – creator of the incredible Hockey Stick curve and one of the scientists most heavily implicated in the Climategate scandal – is about to get a very nasty shock.
When he turns up to work on Monday, he’ll find that all 27 of his colleagues at the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University have received a rather tempting email inviting them to blow the whistle on anyone they know who may have been fraudulently misusing federal grant funds for climate research.
Under US law, regardless of whether or not a prosecution results, the whistleblower stands to make very large sums of money: it is based on a percentage of the total government funds which have been misused, in this case perhaps as much as $50 million. (Hat tip: John O’Sullivan of the wonderful new campaigning site www.climategate.com)
Here’s that email in full:
Greetings and best wishes for a prosperous New Year.
After the recent whistleblower revelations of emails between climate researchers and data from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, there are on-going investigations into potential fraudulent use of grant funds in Climate Research in the US. I am assisting interested parties who may have details of fraud in climate research to make contact with the proper authorities, and to share in the rewards paid when the funds are recovered.
Whistleblower Rewards Program
The federal government has established vigorous programs to identify and prosecute fraudulent grant applications and administration. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) administers the False Claims Act.
It allows rewards for those who come forward with details of grant fraud to share in the recovery of federal funds.
This reward can be as much as 30% of the total amount reclaimed. The program is almost completely reliant on insiders to report their knowledge of the fraud in their institutions.
Attorney Literally “Wrote the Book” on Fraud Recovery Lawsuits
Joel Hesch, Esq., of Hesch and Associates, literally wrote the book on how to report federal fraud. He has an extensive background in representing whistleblowers in all types of federal funding fraud cases, including Educational/ Research Grant Fraud. According to Mr Hesch: “Many institutions receive grants, whether for research or educational purposes. When they lie to get the grant or keep the grant or if they use the funds for purposes outside the grant, they are liable under the DOJ program. There have been many grant cases brought by whistleblowers. ”
If you know of anyone who might have details about fraudulent statements or actions by recipients of federal grant funds for climate research, please have them contact me immediately at the below email or cell phone. Alternatively, they may also contact Mr Hersch directly, and let him know that they were referred by me. All communications are completely confidential. They may want to consider using a third party email service (Yahoo, Hotmail, or other) instead of work email to communicate.
30% of $50 million is more than $12 million. Ask your friends to do the right thing, and be rewarded for doing it.
Our country, and in fact, the entire world is counting on someone to stand up and tell the truth about climate research.
The effects of moving forward with taxes and policies based on fraudulent science could potentially cripple the US economy and cost lives and jobs for generations.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum