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 Clive Carter on
-
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!
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I don't think using this as an excuse to deliver the tyranny of local planning at the council level is very nice. Fine devolve it to the mayor of London/the GLA but not to the people who are the product of the least democratic process in the United Kingdom. Yuck. I would rather have a high street full of betting shops than planning decided on a whim by our councillors.
-
Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on
-
Pier,
Can you share the relevant sentences from Jeremy Hunt's letter that make it clear he doesn't see any problem with the 2005 Gambling Act, and would therefore not be open to the possibility of amending it, please.
I think it's fairly clear that there are members of the coalition government who do see problems with the Act in it's current form, so what are the specific grounds that convince you it can't be amended - it occurs with other legislation doesn't it, or is I being a simpleton again?
-
Permalink Reply by Pier Barrett on
-
Jeremy Hunt, SoS of Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the department in charge of Gambling policy and the implementation of the Gambling Act 2005:
"I'm happy to continue monitoring this area, but I'm not currently convinced there is a compelling case for further regulatory intervention."
"I've not seen the data to demonstrate whether the concentration of betting shops is a widespread problem that requires amendment to national legislation. Nor am I convinced that the current powers available to local authorities are insufficient to address legitimate concerns."
I don't remember ever calling you a "simpleton".
The offending letter can be found, in full, here: http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/sitedata/PDFS/DMCS_Letter_take_two.pdf
-
-
This is getting ridiculous now. I haven't pinned the blame on the current government, I've posted their exact quotes and the letter in full.
People have asked for the current government's view on the Act, I have posted what I know. I am entireley aware they inherited this Act from the previous Labour government and I have never sought to imply otherwise.
I'm trying to make a constructive contribution as to how all of us who care about this issue should proceed to achieve meaningful change, there is no political capital being sought anywhere in this - I am posting from my own, personal account after all.
-
-
I've done a wee bit of research into what was going on in government as this legislation was enacted and everyone in the government seemed to know what was happening but be powerless to stop it. Effectively putting wedges under the about to topple gambling act. One such wedge was Tessa Jowell's ban on more than four machines in a shop which has had unintended consequences.
They tried guys, they really did. It's shocking how powerless our MPs are. Lammy Landmark is quite unfair.
1. Treat betting shop debit card transactions as part of the daily cash withdrawal allowance.
2. Make sure FOBT rules are being adhered to (the FOBT is supposed to be a view of a remote game, much like watching a horse race).
3. Stop all this egotistical political posturing.
-
-
powerless to stop it ... They tried guys, they really did
The last government passed their own Gambling Act (not a Private Member's Bill) and yet are poor innocent victims of foul play?
LOL ... I enjoy your wacky sense of humour John!
You are kidding, right?
.
-
-
No I'm not. Labour was wined and dined but treated it with appropriate levels of (dis)respect. When the gambling lobby worked their magic with planning law it co-incided with a central government desire to stop us being screwed over by our local councillors. The gambling industry got lucky just as the race finished. Those big casinos to employ Labour voters and fleece money from Tory voters were a ruse they fell for (and who wouldn't have?). Labour concentrated all their attention on the casinos and it was only right at the end they began to realise what was going on. I have some sympathy for them. It's just a shame they wasted all that political capital on going to war in Iraq.
If we were responsible citizens and voted in local councillors with integrity they would still have the power to make planning decisions.
-
-
I have some sympathy for them.
Ahhhh.... poor, poor didums New Labour - there, there now.
Don't worry, it's just a nightmare, but Johnny is here to make it all go away.
There, there,
Do you feel better now?
-
-
OK guys, go back and read that article I linked to then come back to me. There is other stuff around on the internets but that article (linked to here again) is very good.
Petey...
-
-
I can remember reading the article when it was first published, by which time the New Labour administration was 7 years old.
I'm not sure what the point is that you are trying to make - that they were still green behind their ears? Is naivety their excuse? You may possibly be correct, or is it more likely that they were not fit for purpose?
What does that say about the people that elected them? And did the same the following year.
-
-
Nobody's perfect Peter. I think they did their best and like I said, it's demonstrable that not even the gambling industry saw this coming (or they would have started buying up commercial property when it was cheaper).
Our lords and masters are about to pull the wool out from underneath our neighbours who see unemployment as a "lifestyle choice". Don't blow all your ire on a silly nimby gambling bill.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
