Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
More Bad News on Green Lanes Betting Shops
The Licensing Committee has granted permission for a premises licence for Betfred (next to the Post Office). One slender hope remains in the form of a possible refusal from the Planning Inspectorate for planning permission, whose decision is still awaited, but with the licence now granted, the scales are tipped further against us.
What all this means, which of course we already knew, is that it is impossible to prevent an unlimited number of betting shops opening in our community.
What all this means, which of course we already knew, is that it is impossible to prevent an unlimited number of betting shops opening in our community.
Tags for Forum Posts: 513 Green Lanes, betting shops, gambling, green lanes
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Pat Cadigan on
-
I'm just guessing--I don't actually know for sure--but it may be that the betting shops are getting in because the alternative would be a storefront standing empty.
So how do we encourage other businesses to open instead of betting shops?
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on
-
I think it's time for a big, noisy demonstration with banners and all! Time to stop the quiet protest and go out and SHOUT about how unhappy we all are about this. Anyone?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
David, I think many of us share your concerns about gambling, but the actions outlined don't meet the challenge.
I think we all know that the primary cause of the surge in betting shop numbers in recent years was your government's permissive Gambling Act (2005). This widened the criteria for gambling outlets and narrowed the grounds for objection. Is it any surprise that the purveyors of this parasitical, sub-zero-sum activity – which tends towards compulsion if not addiction – have taken maximum advantage of it? The cause of the problem needs to be addressed directly if there is to be any prospect of real change.
The provisions of your government's Gambling Act are specific and well-known by the well-funded lawyers for the gambling lobby. The very name of your favoured Act to rectify the problem, is vague. "Sustainability" is a concept unlikely to cause sleepless nights for gambling company barristers.
The community – and Councils – are now practically powerless in the face of the Gambling Act of this Government, of which you are a Member.
This problem is not the fault of Hackney or Haringey Council and not councils' responsibility to resolve. Why should councils have to propose amendments to Acts, when (a) MPs like yourself already know the source of the problem in legislative terms and (b) MPs like yourself caused the problem in the first place?
I for one cannot take the Hackney proposal seriously.
Have you not proposed changes to the Gambling Act yourself?
Clive Carter
.
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
It is completely farcical that problems caused by one Act have to be dealt with by trying to use another Act. Both Acts were brought in by this government. Using the Sustainable Communities Act is long winded and a waste of people's time and resources.
To require that a council to submit a proposal to the Department for Local Communities and Government to deal with the problems caused by the Gambling Act is an insult and a sick joke. There needs to be a far better solution than this. Change the Gambling Act. Stop pussyfooting around.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I love how open we can be about gambling, to the point where an act of parliament concerning gambling is actually called the 2005 Gambling Act. Contrast this with legislation involving sex workers which is going to end up in the 2009 Policing and Crime Act. Hilarious.
They sometimes play 2-up outside Turnpike Lane station. I think you should nick them for not having flash lawyers, a lobbyist and a real estate portfolio.
-
-
Yes gambling has an Act all its own and now separated from being merely an aspect of licensing legislation. The Gambling Act 2005 was an attempt to make gambling more respectable. There is now even a "Professor" of gambling who is wheeled in by the gambling companies to give evidence at Appeals. He is doubtless very well rewarded for his trouble. The Act resulted from pressure from the gambling companies who doubtless pointed out to the government how much more tax revenue could be generated from reform and "overhaul". A blind eye was turned to the negative and unwanted consequences.
It is curious that David Lammy MP does not mention above his government's Gambling Act. We have a Member of Parliament who professes to sympathise with residents' concerns and yet updates us on various steps that are likely to be useless.
There is a double dishonesty going on here:
1: An unwillingness to own up to responsiblity for the problem in the first place. David Lammy, a Government Minister, might enjoy more respect if he admitted that his government mucked up big-time. "Yes, it was our fault and this is how we are going to reverse the damage", however true, are words we are unlikely to hear. But to shift responsibility onto councils is dishonest and even dishonourable.
2: A pretence that a "Sustainable Communities" Act is the best or only way to correct the excesses of the Gambling Act. It would seem to be an excellent way of delaying any effective action. Hackney's Proposal is an attempt to begin to tinker with some of the unintended consequences of the Gambling Act, but only at an oblique angle. I agree with Matt's comments, above. Are people really expected to to believe that these steps relating to the "Hackney Proposal" and announced in the run-up to an election, will be effective?
Gambling is hugely sustainable. The "industry" is so profitable – for its owners – that Green Lanes could probably sustain double the current number of betting shops, although perhaps not quite as much as twice the cash would be sucked out of the community. Betting shops' lawyers would probably laugh their heads off at a threat from the Sustainable Communities Act.
.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
You are absolutely right that the Gambling Act has landed us (and other communities) with this mess. But we have to accept that nothing will change in the short term and once they're open, even if the law changes, they will remain open until the owners decide to shut them down so we are landed with the number we have (plus one) for the foreseeable future.
The only option I can see is to make Betfred want to change its mind. I've been trying to find contact numbers and and address but apart from one in Gibraltar (where the company operates from) have come up with nothing.
Any one else able to track something down so we can at least let the company know how much we object to what they are doing?
-
-
Michael sorry to be difficult and pedantic, but The Gambling Act didn't just happen and it didn't just fall out of the sky. I don't mean to be rude, but individual legislators and the government in particular were responsible for this piece of legislation. And yet you can be sure that no one is likely to say yes it was me or yes, it was us.
The only small piece of mitigation I can identify, was the halt to casino expansion ordained by the current prime minister, within days of his taking over from laissez faire Tony Blair. For the time being at least, that may have scuppered the plans for a casino at Alexandra Palace pushed by pro-gambling lobbyist, Haringey Councillor H. Lister.
But the Gambling Act was made by humans, under pressure from other humans and it parts of it can be unmade by other groups of humans. Nothing is cast in stone by legislation for all time. As an example of what could be done in the short term, even with no change in the Act, existing regulations could be enforced to a greater or lessor extent – that's a matter of political will.
Begging Betfred to change its mind has about as much chance of success as the Hackney Proposal, which Government Minister Lammy says he is taking seriously. i.e. close to zero. I would still welcome serious measures from David Lammy to reverse the excesses caused by his Government's Gambling Act. Effective action would require political will, of course.
.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Good stuff. It all helps. Any sign of any legislative change on the horizon David? A private member's bill even?
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Dear David,
'Nobody really wants the faceless, soulless mini-Las Vegas that the current law allows for -'
Forgive my fading memory - but did this exponential growth occur under the no-such-thing-as-society Thatcher regime?
Just wondering,
OAE
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
Stumbled across this the other day, not just Harringay and Hackney then ...
"But, with an astonishing 23 different gambling venues, including 11 bookies and a number of amusement arcades in Kilburn High Road, already, residents are afraid that their high street is turning into a makeshift casino."
-
-
And how's this interesting piece from Tristram Hunt in The Guardian for an indictment of a ruinous policy.
It really does make one appreciate what a terrible piece of legislation this was. The relaxed attitude to fixing it is maddening.
Mr Lammy I'd ask you instead of petitioning me to undo what you and your government have done that you make an election commitment to clear up the mess. Convince us how will you clear up this very damaging legislation.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
