Theoretical Question about a legal defence

[Rogerborg]

the fact that it relies on belief is the funny bit

Click to shrink...

Belief about the future, at that.  Past performance is not an indicator, and all that.  Guilty by default, "sufficient evidence of [the defence must be] adduced to raise an issue with respect to it" rather than the State being required to prove their case first: I loathe this sort of legislation.

 

[Tommikka]

Just to jump in with a question from a newbie, but a scenario that could possibly occur within the OP’s example.

What if a site has a shop, and a newcomer plays one game, buys a membership to the site, but doesn’t fulfill the UKARA criteria, and is sold a RIF? 

A see a lot of sites near me advertise that their membership packages include being put on the retailer database.

It’s kind of by-the-by, because if you’ve played one game and then bought a membership, you’re very likely going to be attending more than two games in the next 56 days, but still. 

Click to shrink...

For the legislation under the VCRA it would be pretty much good enough to become a member of a site. 

But if a site added new players directly to the UKARA database when they just signed up to site membership then they would not be complying with UKARA procedures

Just because a site advertises that site membership includes UKARA registrarion that does not mean they put you on the list immeadiatley - they could just as well be adding the player to the sites membership list and then adding to UKARA once the criteria has been met