Features
Auschwitz, the reality of evil
(Ed. note: We received an inquiry from someone by the name of Richard Britton, who asked us whether we would consider printing something he had written about a recent visit he took to Auschwitz. Richard wrote: “May I send for your consideration an article (1050 words) I wrote following a recent visit to Auschwitz? This isn’t a ‘tour guide’ piece it’s about my personal reactions and outrage to what I saw and heard.”
We said we would. What follows is what Richard wrote:
I’m not entirely sure why I wanted to go to Auschwitz, the Nazi extermination camp in Poland – it was not the most obvious place to go for an Easter break! But I think it was prompted by something more than just morbid curiosity. A prominent local political figure – a Muslim whom I had known for several years – had made some anti-semitic comments which shocked me, happening as it did in my local community. It suddenly seemed a dangerously short step from anti-semitic remarks to persecution and violence against the Jews.
So against this background I wanted to try to understand the reality of the mechanistic killing of over a million Jews which took place there and to explore my own reactions when confronted with the hideous reality of genocide.
Born in 1942 I grew up in a small provincial town in the East Midlands. Although the war was very real for us – surrounded as we were by American Air Force bases – the enormity of the Holocaust didn’t really enter our consciousness until well into the 1950s. And it was not taught or talked about during my Grammar school years right up to 1960.
Although I am neither Jew nor Christian I think there was also an element of atonement – a wish to express my personal outrage at the enormity of the wickedness of cold, systematic murder.
Upon my return I find I have difficulty in processing and coming to terms with what I have seen and learned about those frightful wartime years in Poland. Writing this is, I think, part of that process. I don’t want to write a tour guide – there’s plenty of information readily available on the Internet. Instead I want to explain my reaction to what I saw and heard – things I shall remember and ponder on for a long time to come.
There are two camps about an hour’s journey from Krakow: Auschwitz itself and, about a mile away, the industrialised killing centre of Birkenau where between one and one-and-a-half million Jews were murdered in little more than two years.
Auschwitz is entered via the infamous “Arbeit Macht Frei” gate and the museum there contains many disturbing exhibits including the luggage and personal possessions of the last trainloads of victims; items which had not yet been sent back to Germany when the camp was finally abandoned early in 1945 as the Russian army closed in.
There are piles of cooking pots and utensils (victims had been told to take with them what they would need for their ‘new lives after resettlement’); luggage of all kinds – carefully marked with the names or addresses of their owners; spectacles; prosthetic limbs; and human hair shorn from the victims of the gas chambers, some of it woven into a fabric.
Amongst the displays was a pile of shoes and there jumped out at me the sight of a small child’s very faded red shoe. I was stunned and shocked to a standstill in front of the display cabinet. Here was a direct and intimate connection with a real child – almost standing in front of me – who had been led to their death by their, perhaps unsuspecting, Mother. That child looked at me across the years. Here was reality.
Amongst other horrors to be seen in Auschwitz, there remains a small gas chamber where the use of Zyklon B cyanide pellets had been pioneered. Unlike the large gas-chamber at Birkenau it is intact and to stand in the very place where thousands of people were murdered was a frightful, chilling experience.
But the Nazis realised that a larger-scale and more efficient killing process was required to deliver their mass-extermination plans of the ‘Final Solution to the Jewish question’ and it is at Birkenau where the mind-blowing industrial scale of the killing of Jews and other undesirable ethnicities such as Romas, strikes home. Up to 2,000 people at a time could be murdered in the large Birkenau gas chamber. Murder by the trainload.
The Auschwitz museum contains some remarkable photographs of people being unloaded from a train onto the infamous ‘ramp’ at Birkenau with the obscene selection process already in progress. Probably taken from a guard tower they show confused and anxious people but the scene is very orderly – no panic or violence of any kind. Clearly, the arrivals had been carefully persuaded that they were being ‘resettled’ in a work camp.
Even standing on that very ramp shown in those photographs where Jews from across Europe were offloaded it is difficult to come to terms with the realisation that the majority of them would be dead in the next hour or so as a result of a casual, off-hand, life-or-death decision taken in a couple of seconds. That this is so far outside any understanding of human norms of morality and that it happened in the very place I was standing was almost incomprehensible.
Although the Nazis blew up the undressing room, gas chambers and crematoria at Birkenau in an effort to destroy the evidence of their crimes as the Russian advance neared the camp, the ruins can still be accessed and one stands before them mesmerised, humbled and angered.
Despite being at the very site where all this took place it is difficult to grasp the horror, evil and extent of the cold, casual routine of murder which took place there only 80 or so years ago – just as my own life was beginning.
This is the reality of genocidal anti-semitism. This is maniacal Fascism. This is routine state-backed mass murder, planned and conducted on a systematic industrial scale. This is pure evil and wickedness and it really happened. Perpetrated by real people against other people they judged inferior and undesirable is, alarmingly, recent history.
Of course there have been genocidal killings around the world since then. Sparked by racial, religious and cultural differences and fuelled by fear, hate and ignorance, they are a depressingly regular occurrence through history.
I’m glad I went to Auschwitz-Birkenau. I experienced astonishment, sadness, outrage and other sentiments I haven’t come to terms with yet. And great depression at the evidence of man’s inhumanity to man and the feeling that evil lies just beneath the surface in a great many of us.
I was gratified to hear that visiting Auschwitz and learning about the Holocaust is a part of the school curriculum for Polish children. I wish it was possible for all young people to visit. We must not allow what happened at Auschwitz and similar camps to simply fade into history.
I have not previously been engaged with Holocaust Day. Now I shall be.
Features
Hair straightening at Sets on Corydon
Features
Ontario Online Casinos Let Players Set Daily, Weekly and Monthly Deposit Limits
A deposit limit sets a ceiling on how much money someone can add to an online gambling account. In Ontario’s regulated market, players can choose limits covering 24 hours, seven days and one month, with the website’s system enforcing the amounts they select.
The settings are straightforward, but the timing deserves attention. A daily allowance may sit within weekly and monthly caps, while an increase can involve a waiting period. For adults using Chrome on a Chromebook, understanding these account rules starts with knowing where to find them.
Finding the Settings and Choosing a Period
Deposit controls sit within the gambling website’s account menus. The Tooniebet Ontario responsible gaming page is an operator-specific resource readers can consult alongside their account settings. ToonieBet is operated by Canadix Limited and regulated by the AGCO under an agreement with iGaming Ontario.
Ontario’s standards require an easy and obvious way to set financial and time limits during registration and afterward. Players must be offered deposit and loss limits when signing up, and the controls must remain easy to reach and change once an account is open.
Menu names differ between sites. Published examples place deposit limits under account settings or responsible-gaming tools, where players can select an amount and a period.
Each type of limit measures something different. Deposit limits cap money added to the account. Loss limits restrict net losses after winnings are taken into account, while time limits govern playing time. iGaming Ontario’s player guidance explains all three.
For Chromebook users, these settings are managed through the website’s account interface. Chrome’s own permissions handle separate browser functions, such as access to location information.
How Several Limits Apply to One Deposit
Players can have daily, weekly and monthly limits running together. A deposit must fit within every active cap.
Take a hypothetical account with limits of CAD $40 daily, CAD $100 weekly and CAD $250 monthly. These figures illustrate the process.
If someone has already deposited CAD $90 during the weekly period, the remaining weekly allowance is CAD $10. That becomes the most they can add, even when the daily limit has more room. Reaching the monthly cap would likewise block another deposit until some monthly allowance becomes available.
This is why checking all active limits matters. A new day may bring fresh daily capacity while the weekly or monthly total remains close to its ceiling. The longer periods continue to apply as the shorter one refreshes.
When Money Drops Out of a Rolling Window
The next question is when previous deposits stop counting toward a cap. Some sites use rolling periods, which track elapsed time from individual deposits.
Published Ontario policies include daily windows of 24 hours, weekly windows of 168 hours and monthly windows of 720 hours, equivalent to 30 days. Under that approach, each deposit frees up its corresponding allowance once it falls outside the window.
Suppose someone has a CAD $100 rolling weekly limit and deposits CAD $25 on Friday, followed by CAD $75 on Saturday. Seven days after Friday’s deposit, CAD $25 becomes available again. The other CAD $75 returns seven days after Saturday’s deposit.
Leaving the restored Friday allowance unused means it combines with Saturday’s restored amount. At that point, the full CAD $100 is available. Reviewing deposit dates and times helps explain how much room remains within a rolling period.
Changing a Cap Takes a Separate Step
A limit refreshing follows the schedule already attached to the account. Raising that limit requires a request and a wait.
Ontario’s standards require at least 24 hours before a player’s request to relax or remove an established limit can take effect. The existing limit remains enforceable during the cooling-off period.
Operators publish their own timings. Documented examples include a seven-day wait for deposit-limit increases or removals. Another published schedule allows increases after one day for a daily cap, seven days for a weekly cap and 30 days for a monthly cap.
Lower limits take effect immediately under these published policies. Some policies also restart the waiting period when a player requests another increase while an earlier change is pending. The effective date shows which amount currently applies.
Other Controls and Support
Deposit limits work alongside loss limits, time limits, short breaks and self-exclusion. Together, these give players ways to restrict account funding, gambling activity or access.
Ontario-regulated online casino play is restricted to adults aged 19 and older who are physically in Ontario. Gambling involves financial risk.
For concerns about your gambling or someone else’s, ConnexOntario offers free, confidential information and referral support around the clock. Call 1-866-531-2600 or text CONNEX to 247247. Standard message and data rates may apply.
Features
What “Best Odds” Really Means When Comparing Gambling Review Websites
The phrase best odds appears frequently in gambling discussions, but it is surprisingly easy to use imprecisely. MonsterBetList is primarily a casino review and rankings website, not a dedicated live sportsbook odds comparison terminal. That difference is central to evaluating what its reviews can and cannot establish. A casino rating may explain payout conditions, licence information and bonus restrictions, while a claim about the best available price on a sporting outcome requires a different kind of evidence altogether.
Odds and ratings answer different questions
Sports betting odds represent a price offered on a specified outcome. A review rating is an editorial judgement built from multiple criteria. These two numerical systems cannot be substituted for one another. A bookmaker rated highly for service may offer a less competitive price on a particular match, while a service with a more attractive price may impose different limits or verification rules.
Similarly, a casino review can discuss return-to-player statistics, but RTP is not the same as sportsbook odds. RTP describes a theoretical long-run percentage built into a game model. It does not tell a reader what will happen in one session and it is not an individually negotiable market quotation.
What makes sports odds comparable?
A fair odds comparison starts with identical selections: the same event, outcome, market rules and settlement conditions. Comparing a three-way football result with a draw-no-bet price is invalid because the products pay under different circumstances. The observation time also matters; displayed prices can change quickly as market information or trading decisions evolve.
The numerical format should be standardised. Decimal odds provide one convenient representation, but American and fractional formats express the same underlying idea differently. Converting these formats is straightforward. What matters is the net price, the operator’s rules and whether the quoted offer remains available when reviewed.
Overround explains the hidden cost of many markets
In a simplified two-outcome market, dividing one by each decimal price produces an implied probability. If the implied probabilities add to more than 100%, the excess is commonly described as the bookmaker’s overround. It is one way of understanding the margin embedded in prices, although individual market structure and adjustments can complicate the interpretation.
This concept explains why the word best should not be attached to a price without context. A strong headline may look appealing yet represent an ordinary margin after calculation. More importantly, any single quote is time-dependent. Genuine comparison requires a dated observation and equivalent market rules; broad editorial praise is not enough.
What casino rankings can establish instead
MonsterBetList publishes casino reviews and guides addressing licences, bonuses, payout experiences and responsible gambling. Those topics are relevant to evaluating consumer risk and service quality. A report about the length of a withdrawal process, for example, can be useful if its methodology is transparent. A bonus review can help identify restrictive wagering requirements that marketing headlines omit.
However, a casino ranking should not be presented as evidence that its highest-rated operator consistently offers the best sports prices. Unless a site publishes repeated market-by-market comparisons, that conclusion is not supported. Readers benefit when publishers clearly distinguish what was measured from what readers might assume was measured.
Bonuses can complicate comparisons
A sportsbook may offer free-bet tokens, cashback or other promotions. Their effective value depends on conditions rather than the largest number printed in a banner. Some credits are not withdrawable as cash; others require qualifying selections, minimum odds or a deadline. Casino welcome bonuses often introduce wagering requirements, game-contribution rules and limits on withdrawals. Combining these products under one generic promotional score can hide important differences.
For instance, a large matched deposit might require extensive play before bonus-related funds become eligible for withdrawal. The required betting volume is not a promise of profit. The presence of a promotion may therefore make comparisons more complex instead of simpler. Clear disclosures should precede any judgement about value.
Editorial independence and methods
Review sites sometimes state that rankings are editorially independent. Such a statement is relevant but does not replace evidence of consistent testing. Readers should look for the criteria used, the date of each review, whether real transactions were examined and how negative findings are treated. If one platform receives detailed testing while another is scored on marketing copy, the ranking loses comparability.
Commercial incentives should also be visible. Referral relationships or sponsorships do not automatically make every observation inaccurate, but they create reasons to ask how rankings are insulated from revenue. A publication that explains its methodology and corrections process gives readers a stronger basis for trust than one that simply declares its winners.
Licensing and dispute rights before price claims
A marginally attractive price is of limited value when the operator is not legally available to the reader or does not provide meaningful avenues for redress. Regulations vary by jurisdiction, and a licence in one country may not authorise service in another. It is prudent to verify the legal entity behind a brand and the current status of any licence through official records.
Consumers should also review identity verification, account restrictions and dispute resolution procedures. These operational conditions influence the actual experience of using a gambling service. A sensible evaluation includes them before discussing promotions or theoretical market advantages.
Why guaranteed-profit language is a warning sign
No ordinary review or odds list can guarantee that an individual will win money from gambling. Claims of certain returns often omit the fact that results are uncertain, prices move and transactions are subject to restrictions. Casino games generally incorporate a house advantage, and sports outcomes remain uncertain regardless of a persuasive analysis. The safest response to absolute promises is scepticism.
Readers should also avoid treating gambling as a means of addressing financial problems. Chasing previous losses and increasing stakes to recover money can deepen harm. Consumer-oriented coverage is more valuable when it explains risk and offers realistic options for stepping away.
Conclusion: define the claim before ranking the service
“Best odds” is a specific comparative proposition, not a synonym for a high casino rating. MonsterBetList can be examined for its published casino research, review structure and risk disclosures, but those materials should not be stretched into claims they have not tested. Clear definitions, dated evidence and honest limitations are the foundations of trustworthy comparison journalism.
