Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Council takes on the wretched FOBT industry ...
FULL marks to Newham council. They are appearing in court to defend their decision not to grant another gambling premises licence: on the grounds that Fixed Odds Betting Terminals are more about casino-type gaming and less about traditional betting.
It’s good to see at least one council prepared to take on the mighty gambling industry in an important test case. I wish Newham the best of luck. I'm sure other councils, less brave, will watch with interest.
Guardian story here.
Tags for Forum Posts: betting shops, fobts, gambling
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Regrettably, [here] PP won their Appeal. Paddy Power was pleased:
"Paddy Power makes a positive contribution to local communities in which it operates."
I'd like to know how, exactly.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
In case you haven't yet spotted it, Clive, there was an interesting article on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals in the Guardian on 27 May 2013 by Amelia Gentleman. Called Wheel of Misfortune in the paper version, it was renamed: Roulette Machines the crack cocaine of gambling in the online version.
Searching the Guardian for the first title also turned up a 2004 article by Victor Keegan called: Labour's Wheel of Misfortune.
Keegan described the gambling bill - then just published - as "one of the most bizarre creations this government - a Labour government, remember - has come up with".
In my view, one thing where the Labour Party deserves some credit is in realising and owning-up to the serious error it then made.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor. Labour Party member.)
-
-
Alan not only did I spot the article, I posted it here on HoL on the day of publication. As you say, it is an interesting article.
Unfortunately your link Labour's Wheel of Misfortune, though underlined, is not working (was it meant to link?). Could you check this please?
Many warned against the legislation at the time. I beleve the only concession made, was that the intended permission for an unlimited number of FoBTs was reigned in to be a maximum of four. I would wager that there there is not a betting shop in the country that does not have four FoBT machines – and if permitted, would have as many as "market demand" would allow.
These machines are obscenely profitable and represent a leech on poor communities. I was flabbergasted that a Labour Government would allow such a thing.
It is widely recognised that the last government's Gambling Act was a flawed piece of legislation. I would rate it as one of New Labour's greatest mistakes. Realising and owning-up is easy compared with the years of time and effort that it will take to reverse the serious error.
-
-
Apologies, for missing your original post, Clive. Here's the missing link to Victor Kegan's article.
You say that owning-up is easier than reversing a mistake. In a peculiar way, it often seems to me that for many politicians the opposite is true. The very last thing they're willing to do is publicly admit they were wrong. Or even partly wrong.
Can you imagine, for example, Michael Gove announcing that he'd reviewed the facts on academies and that, in the face of clear and persuasive argument and evidence, was drastically amending his Department's policies to give as much support, attention and resource to successful or improving local authority community schools?
Will Cllr Claire Kober bravely stand-up to admit that her various personally appointed panels and commissions were misguided and foolish - as well as undermining local democracy?
For Haringey, a key text remains Neil Garnham QC in the Victoria Climbié Inquiry.
"One possibility is that it might be thought that there is a lack of willingness to take responsibility... Willingness to acknowledge error is at least at the root, is it not, of progress?"
So please let's welcome Labour sinners who repent about the gambling legislation.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
Alan I think you may underestimate the difficulty of "reversing a mistake" when that mistake is the Gambling Act, much of which is based on the premise that the number of gambling premises should be subject mainly or wholly to market forces (rather than to controls by councils).
Reform will require a concerted effort, probably of a future government, rather than just a few parliamentarians.
Reform of the Gambling Act would of course be opposed by the wealthy gambling industry, the same gentlemen who successfully lobbied for their Act in the first place. Reform won't be easy. Last year, a craven committee of MPs even suggested a further slackening of the law.
I believe that two or three members of the shadow cabinet have spoken out against the mistaken legislation. I'm only to happy to welcome repenting Labour sinners. I would honestly be impressed if I saw the shadow cabinet adopt as policy, the repeal of this pernicious Act, or its deep reform.
-
-
An interesting suggestion FPR.
I see parallels between the addiction to FOBTs and the addiction to nicotine. The NHS offer help to those many nicotine users who simultaneously crave the drug and detest their addiction to it, hoping and wishing they could give it up. Likewise, those addicted to FOBT's need help.
-
-
So, Clive, how about asking what help exists for problem gamblers?
-
-
I am already aware of the efforts of the gambling industry to help problem gamblers. The point is that these are token efforts.
Some years ago, at a Licensing Committee Hearing that Hugh may remember, the betting firm was asked how much they contributed to GamCare. I think the answer was £2,000.
Per Annum.
-
-
It's capitalism in its purest form.
The last (New Labour) government was astonishingly laissez faire and tried to out-market out-private the Conservatives. Their Gambling Act is one of the best examples of New Labour free-market. Even the Conservatives would have shrunk from some of New Labour's privatisations.
However, I'm not sure that the purely market approach of New Labour (as enshrined in the Act) is a fair criticism of captialism: it's a criticism of the people who supported this Act and who voted for it. Can genuine market ever be said to exist for an activity that is as addictive as FoBT "gambling" ?
This was a craven, shameful piece of legislation.
-
-
Sadly, parliament as a whole doesn't yet see this as a priority; indeed in the short-term, there may be further slackening of the law.
Little chance of self-exclusion in Newham FPR. There's reportedly a street there with 18 (eighteen) betting shops, about double that of the Green Lanes strip.
-
-
The really important issue is the right to self exclude.
IMO, the ability to self-exclude is a side issue. Few 'risk takers' elect to desist because they are addicted.
The suggestion that, the number of bookies really just a bourgeois debate about how to make the consumer high street as attractive as possible, is misplaced and misunderstands the strategy of the gambling industry.
Their aim for several years has been to make their premises as attractive as possible. From a strictly aesthetic POV, betting shops fit into the high street better than ever, with slick modern promotions. The aim is to appear as just form of retail and to normalise gambling.
Some residents care what is going on in the lives of the poor wretches who waste their money in these 'shops' and can see that legislation has had a dramatic effect.
Don't forget the really important issue is establishment and continuing existence of the Gambling Act 2005, the previous government's most socially destructive piece of legislation. It provided for up to four FoBT's per premises and, together with other permissive clauses, changed the landscape for high street gambling in the UK.
The basis for the number of "betting" shops is now market demand for the most addictive form of gambling - Fixed Odds Betting Terminals, the source of most betting "shop" profits and the crack cocaine of gambling.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
