If it says she can't use a third party's money to bet with, and she has, then it would seem an open and shut case as I believe you accept Bet365's terms and conditions when you register with them.

With the Curley case it could be that there were different circumstances.

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

I was wondering that as well. If I had been her I'd have just said it was my own cash or some cash my uncle/boyfriend/cousin etc owed me.

Weird thing was I couldn't find a link between the horses she selected, not the same owner, trainer, jockey so it doesn't seem like a betting coup like Curleys one was.

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

A 19 year old laying out 25k should have had alarm bells ringing and the bet denied unless she had a history of simular bets. To be fair if you get somebody to put your bets on with such high stakes then you should read all the rules. I would say there is a good chance of it being paid via the courts.

Bookies do not like losing money !!!!!

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

That seems fair. If you can't win, you can't lose.

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

As someone who likes a bet..
This is an absolute diabolical liberty. How on earth can they possibly know the funds are not here own. And had the bet have lost they would have had no qualms about pocketing the stake.

Bloody shysters

When I was a young girl my Mother said to me.. You listen here kid you're CPFC