Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Tottenham mobilising against betting shop saturation
The proposal by Paddy Power to take over independent record shop premises Every Bodies Music seems to be the straw that broke the camel's back in Tottenham. Residents have had enough and a mass rally is planned outside the shop on the corner of West Green Road and Tottenham High Road to protest at betting shop saturation from 12 - 3 this Saturday.
Perhaps a few of those folks complaining about residents lack of action on Green Lanes could find the time to lend their support to this?
Perhaps a few of those folks complaining about residents lack of action on Green Lanes could find the time to lend their support to this?
Tags for Forum Posts: betting shops
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Hinchcliffe on
-
Can Lammy not answer himself? Or is he too grand for HOL?
-
Permalink Reply by Pier Barrett on
-
And from a personal point of view:
The only way the rising tide will be rolled back is by severe amendment or the wholesale abolition, of New Labour's Gambling Act.
There is unlikely to be a second Gambling Act any time soon, and Jeremy Hunt has made it clear in his letter that he doesn't see it as a problem, so I doubt he will make any amendments to the 2005 Act.
The Decentralisation and Localism Bill, as expressed elsewhere in this parish, is the first opportunity to devovle the necessary power to councils and local people to make a change. More so because the power for local people to oppose betting shops matches the sentiments expressed in the outline of the Bill.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Piers: The Gambling Act contains the crucial wording: "Aim to permit". This is an instruction from the government to licensing authorities, in respect of permanent gambling premises Licence Applications.
You might agree that the wording is as vague as it is dreadful, but the courts seem to take this as meaning that in the absence of absolutely overwhelming evidence to the contrary, gambling premises licences must be issued. It is so expensive for councils to flout this that they have given up trying to protect communities.
Unless key clauses, including this one, are abolished, any amount of tinkering elsewhere will do little good. The New Labour Gambling Act is the source of the problem and unless this is fully acknowledged, we will not make progress.
Any fiddling about such as opposing "clustering" (the symptom and not the cause) can only be a stop-gap interim measure of little use.
-
-
"stop-gap interim measure of little use."
What if we were able to amend an act to include a cumulative impact clause, as per the 2003 Licensing Act?
Councils can then control Betting Shops in the same way they can control the location of Clubs?
Even if you believe the 2003 Licensing Act to be too lenient, you can at least accept this would be a significant uprating of the power held by councils if this were to also apply to betting shops too.
You're welcome to wait for the next Gambling Act to come along (bearing in mind there was a 40 year gap between the last two!), but it seems a good idea to focus some energy into making an amendment to the D&L Bill.
-
Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on
-
Forgive me for appearing to be a simpleton, but surely amending a Bill in order to counteract an Act will only contribute to the purses of the legal profession.
Such obfuscation will quickly take away what little chance the average community citizen has of arguing their case against QC's at gambling licence hearings.
Can you please remind us what DL's chosen profession was before he became an MP.
-
-
Very funny.
I'm not pretending it is the perfect solution, but it is the realistic one.
It might well reduce the chances the average citizen has of arguing their case against lawyers from a multi-national betting firm.
But it will give the licensing department with a means to decline applications (which they want to do) with a clause they already have experience in using successfully in other sectors.
As a result, you'll probably have less court cases that line the pockets of the legal professions as a result.
-
-
Piers are you aware of how readily gambling companies currently Appeal any declinatory decisions?
Do you know how the Courts have been ruling, consistently?
Are you serious when you say there would be less [sic] court cases as a result of tinkering-legislation?
Court cases have declined because Councils know they are beaten already. Are you seriously suggesting that if councils feel inclined to turn down more applications, that there will be fewer court hearings and not more?
Your assertions seem divorced from the reality on the ground as seen by Objectors and those like me who have observed Objectors.
-
-
Perhaps that is a bit of wishful-thinking, I accept that, but it is beside the point.
The important point is this: councils have used cumulative impact clauses in the 2003 Licensing Act successfuly in the past to turn down applications for clubs and bars.
Council Officers are knowledgable about how to use it and are aware of its limitations.
I am certain there have been legal challenges in the past - the alcohol industry is just as powerful as the betting industry - but councils have won the court case (and therefore cost £0 of public money).
I reiterate, this is not the perfect solution, but it is a viable one.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
What do you think of my idea to include gambling debit card transactions as part of the daily cash withdrawal allowance? I mean, the government does practically own our retail banking system, some tinkering to make sure that these A1 business are all treated the same... surely not too hard.
They'd certainly not find our high street such a prospect if their money punters were not able to blow £2000 at a sitting. I'm not saying the problem would go away but this would run counter to their business model which is "take everyone's money, all of it".
This was a good article to read. -
-
-
Piers, I detect a steadfast refusal to acknowledge the source of the problem.
Bugger "cumulative impact"!
The whole thrust of the wicked Gambling Act was to cast gambling, and by extension betting shops, as simply another form of commerce and subject to ordinary market forces of supply and demand. Never mind that this business is addictive, corrosive and preys on the poor (thank you, New Labour).
The nonsense of the suggested reforming approach is that it would set up one piece of legislation in direct opposition to the thrust of an existing piece of legislation.
I agree with Peter: the only result of such an ill-thought-through approach is to line the pockets of the legal profession, thanks to the endless wrangling that would ensue. If nothing else, at least the current legal position is clear: free reign to the gambling companies.
I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You cannot appease both the gambling lobby and the local community: at some point the government will have to choose. I regret that New Labour sided so heavily with the gambling lobby.
Please try to think it through!
-
-
How would giving powers to councils to oppose betting shops appease the gambling lobby?!
If it were a realistic possibility to amend/scrap the Gambling Act, then I would of course want that, but it isn't going to happen any time soon!
Hence why I suggest trying for something else.
Please try to read what I am saying (and spell my name right)!
-
-
Pier: I'm sorry I got your name wrong and I promise I will try harder.
There are dangers with what I would call the compromise route, which would leave the precious Gambling Act intact:
1) it would have little effect on the ground
2) it would cause endless argument in courts and muddy the waters further and this would last for years
3) it would postpone indefinitey, hope of the fundamental reform that is sorely needed at the source of the problem: the Act that instructs licensing authorities to
Aim To Permit [gambling licences] amongst other odious clauses.
Giving "powers" to council to oppose betting shops would appease the gambling lobby in this way: Firstly, the powers would be weak indeed. Secondly, if the powers were not hopelessly weak (and I do not believe that for one minute) they would be challenged immediately in court by the gambling companies. Giving a little bit of ground might be seen as preferable to risking losing a much greater extent of ground. You might even find gambling industry support for a (shoddy) compromise: and that would be a bad sign.
I am not sure if you appreciate the extent of inclination of the gambling companies to go to Court to get the permission they need and the extent of funds available to them to indulge this inclination.
The compromise approach overlooks the mindset of the gambling companies.
i) With the old approach, gambling companies would self-censor because they weighed up their chances of Applications succeeding based on the main legislation.
ii) With the current situation it is just open slather.
iii) With the proposed approach, there would be a constant probing and testing of the woolly legislation that you've suggested, knowing that most would succeed and a few would fail. A recipie for endless argument in court. Please attend a few gambling Appeals in Court.
The aim should not be to slow the rising tide of betting shops, it should be to turn the tide back!
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
