Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Anti-Betting Shop Clustering Commitment in National Labour Manifesto
After lobbying John Denham, Gerry Sutcliffe and most recently, Ed Miliband (in charge of Labour manifesto), I am told there WILL be a commitment in the National Labour manfiesto with regards to introducing laws that will empower councils to tackle betting shop clustering with the ability to oppose further betting shop licenses on the basis that there are too many in operation in the area already.
I submitted a proposal to the Manifesto last month, and I've lobbied Ed Miliband ever since.
This should be included in the launch, live from Birmingham, starting in 10 minutes.
I submitted a proposal to the Manifesto last month, and I've lobbied Ed Miliband ever since.
This should be included in the launch, live from Birmingham, starting in 10 minutes.
Tags for Forum Posts: betting shops
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
very interesting - to become an expert, you have the luck to be born to a hereditary or you get a title like Lord Ashcroft and you immediately become an expert.. either that or you are decrepit ex-prime minister..
I certainly don't dispute that many have lots of leisure time, but that IMO is not the way to run a modern European democracy..
There should be an elected second chamber that really represents a cross section of the population and it's about time to do away with these titles..
the thought of Lady Thatcher still being able to vote on serious issues is outrageous.. but perhaps being 85 and put nicely 'ill', is par for the course
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
Not all hereditary peers are experts of course, but many of the appointed Lords had distinguished themselves in the professions, including the Law, and it is they who were appointed to the committees scrutinising proposed new legislation.
I'm not confident that a Chamber drawn from a cross-section would spot the implications of the difference between " .. imports of fruit trees, fertilisers and agricultural implements ...." and " imports of fruit, trees, fertilisers and agricultural implements... ".
The Americans didn't, but then they didn't have the benefit of an expert, if unelected, Upper House. :-)
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
DEVIL IN THE DETAIL! Michael, we can only ever expect vague statements in political party manifestos because otherwise, its easy later for voters to hold parties to them! You dismiss the need for detail on this subject at this time. Detail has and will make all the difference.
The "detail" was known well by the gambling industry when they got exactly the Act they wanted from this government. The consequences of the Gambling Act were claimed to be unpredicted by Mr Lammy and his acolytes. But the fine detail is exploited by the sharp barristers for the gambling companies almost every month in courts and Licence Hearings up and down the land. We should not miss the "detail" again.
I'm not easily persuaded by warm words alone. I do not share your faith that as long as the government that brought us this Act is re-elected, everything's going to be alright on the gambling front:
Mr Lammy is proud of the manifesto "commitment" to a set of vague ideas. But why has he had to go to such trouble in getting such modest notions in his party manifesto? Why are the proposed measures so weak? Because this Act was a Government Act, not some private members bill that accidentally passed. Mr Lammy's colleagues wanted this Act, together with their friends in the gambling lobby.
We return to detail. The Government knows full well the precise clauses that the gambling "industry" prizes above all others and which makes courts and councils practically powerless to resist new betting shop licence applications – and Appeals. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like they're deliberately avoiding the crunch clauses. I note the Tottenham MP has had a number of opportunities to comment on the Market Demand Test and has chosen not to do so. Did you notice that or is that mere detail?
Can I respectfully suggest that you read the Act, understand its precise powers and compare that with what is needed to be changed. Can I also sincerely suggest that you attend a few gambling Hearings and Appeals to see how the Government-Gambling Lobby Act is exploited to the maximum and why I say the proposed measures will, not only be useless, but why it will cause even more trouble.
-
Permalink Reply by Adam on
-
On twitter, I asked David Lammy "are stuck with nine betting shops on Green Lanes?"
His reply was "I hope not but will have to wait and see if law will be retrospective"
Can anyone think of a retrospective law that has resulted in shops being forcibly closed?
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Well, Vladimir Putin may mumble a half apology for the 1940 Katyn massacre in a day or two. So if we are patient till 2080 someone may whisper 'sorry, Harringay'.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
It's the machines. Get rid of those machines and the shops will go away all by themselves.
Law can do anything; strip a native population of its land rights, nationalise entire industries, leap tall buildings in a single bound. (I made that last one up).
-
-
You are absolutely right John. These machines are ideal for laundering money. You can assure that you lose only a small amount of money and have evidence of legitimate earnings. I would love to see a breakdown of the bookmakers profits.
-
-
I don't think that, given the maximum bet of £100, these machines are being used for money laundering. I think that drip feeding 50p at a time into them would feed a gambling addiction quite nicely though.
To launder money, find a two horse race with a definite outcome (snooker and tennis are good) then bet on one person to win in one shop and the other person to win in another shop. If I have to launder my week's illegal profits from pimping my two Ukranian girls on Seven Sisters then I would bet on Steve Davis to beat Steven Hendry in William Hill and Steven Hendry to beat Steve Davis in MetroBet. If I was lazy and a risk taker I would just bet on the favourite at Wimbledon to win their first round match. It's basically paying the bookie a commission to legitimise my earnings. Simples!
-
-
Well the bookies edge is approximately 2.6% on roulette, which is not a bad hit. There was also a specific incident a few months ago that led me to believe previous rumours i had heard. This would identify an individual and circumstantial evidence so better leave it out
-
-
Retrospective legislation is hugely contentious. Unfortunately, even if the government's entire wretched Gambling Act was repealed, it is highly unlikely that licences already granted could be rescinded. Which shops would be forcibly closed? Businesses applying for licences in good faith (insofar as this 'industry" is capable of such a thing) might seek compensation.
The only thing that could be done would be zealous enforcement of existing rules and losing licences that way.
The Act is so lax, that at present, there is little point in either citizens objecting to, or councils declining, new gambling licence applications: its practically automatic, with a duty on the licensing authority, mandated by this government to "aim to permit". This really was a poor piece of legislation. And we are expected to be grateful for quarter-baked proposals to tidy it up.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
