text: There were 2 main objections raised against the introduction of the national lottery.
  The first was the objection that the lottery would be little more another form of taxation, in fact, none than that, a tax on the poor. The second and main objection came from charities who predicted that charitable donations would go down with the introduction of the lottery, as people would be less likely to give money to charity, instead buying a lottery ticket, with the excuse that some of the money spent buying the ticket would go to charity.
  There was also some controversy over the awarding of the lottery organisation franchise, which eventually went to Camelot, which was not seen as the strongest contender for the bid: other companies or consortiums promised to give more money to charity with lower running costs. Richard Bronson promised to give all of his profits to charity, but was rejected. My personal objections to Camelot as the lottery organiser is that a large proportion of the consortium are american or foreign firms, for example IBM has a sizeable stake in Camelot. The British national lottery run by non British firms.
  since its introduction there has been more controversy over the national lottery. When it promised to give 45 pence in every pound to charitable causes, it neglected to promise that most or all of this money would go to charity. There has also been some controversy over the allocation of money. For example 3 million pounds were given to Eton college one of the richest public schools for a gymnasium money was also given to the royal opera house. The lottery seamed to be a reverse Robin Hood: stealing from the poor to give to the rich.
  The lottery has also suffered alegations that it is addictive, especially with the introduction of scratch cards. It has been claimed that it is so addictive that people will spend all their availiable cash on lottery tickets, only to be disappointed.
  It has been calculated that only 4 pence out of every pound recieved by the lottery goes to charitable causes, the rest is tax the prize fund, profits, and the so called charities. It has also been calculated that the chance of winning anything substantial is one in millions, ie highly unlikely. 
  It has also been alleged that the jackpots are too high most of the lucky winners have said themselves that the jackpot had runed their life, alenating them from friends and family.
  In conclusion, I think that the lottery should be retained, but not in its present form. I think that jackpots should be capped at 2 million pounds, and the prize fund shared between more people: it is better to give forteen people a fortune than to give fourteen fortunes to one person. I would also remove any american buisness interests and give the charity money to more diserving 'charity'. Now the lottery is in place, it would be very difficult to remove it from society.
edits.text:  than objection American  is non-British Since , , , , . Money seemed allegations available received . The - i.e. . Most ruined alienating fourteen American business  a deserving