Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Updates to the campaign against the proliferation of betting shops
Dear all,
Apologies for creating another thread, but I hope this warrants it.
Two major updates for you today:
1) I have written an article in the Evening Standard in order to raise
awareness for the campaign. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I was constrained by
a strict word limit and a need to address the whole of London, and not just Haringey. However, I am
confident it will help people become aware of the problem, or even just realise
that something they see with their eyes every time they walk up the High Street
is in fact a serious issue to the balance of the community.
You can read (and comment) on the article here:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23809766-our-high-st...
2) I have also published some correspondence I had with William Hill, who
challenged some of the facts of our campaign. They claimed "the facts do
not support [the] perception" and that we ought not to regulate them on
such perceptions but on pure fact.
The letter from William Hill can be found here:
http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/sitedata/PDFS/173504.PDF
My reply can be seen here: http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/sitedata/PDFS/165849.PDF
If you think there is something I may have missed, you can reply yourself via
email (quick and easy) by visiting my website here:
http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/Write_to_William_Hill
In the next few weeks, I hope to receive a reply from the Secretary of State, and that will give us some formal indication as to what changes are a foot.
I will update you with any updates that I receive.
Regards,
David
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Perhaps you could concentrate on the fixed odds betting machines. They're the reason they need a shop in the first place. They're extremely addictive. Are we supporting a British industry that makes these things?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
DAVID : thank you for your posting and continuing to engage in this important issue. I note we are in the run-up to an election and this matter is long overdue for airing, but I put aside the timing aspect because this really is a matter of long-term concern.
I agree with practically all the points in your letter to The Standard and in your response to William Hill.
Yes, the "gambling industry is targeting deprived areas" and this is regrettable. But before that, just over five years ago, the gambling industry was targeting the government via lobbyists and via the gambling industry's friends in government. This led to the 2005 Gambling Act, that I am pleased you acknowledge has failings.
I agree that local authorities ought to be able to control the number and influence the location of betting shops. However:
One of the most important changes in the Government's Gambling Act was that the number and location of gambling premises was no longer to be determined by demand as perceived or assessed by councils or courts, but would instead be determined solely by market forces (i.e. no control).
Was this concept developed after representations by the Salvation Army or after lobbying by the gambling "industry"?
Those who benefit from the open slather approach will doubtless fight to retain their Licence to Print Money. Market demand is a criterion that's fine for greengrocers because fruit & veg are not normally subject to compulsion and addiction – nor associated with debt, crime, poverty and money laundering.
I'm not sure how much mileage there is, in engaging about this with the gambling industry, such as William Hill. I am not surprised they "very much welcome further discussion" with you about the extent of regulation. Their sole aim will be to weaken your case.
The aggregate profits that are being sucked out of poor areas are a disgrace. The money that this "industry" has to spend on its friends and lobbyists is practically unlimited. At one of the recent Appeals that you will know of, one of the "expert" witnesses for the gambling company was rumoured to have been offered a huge "success fee" if his evidence led to a win. Which it did.
Within the London Borough of Haringey, Councillor H. Lister has assiduously lobbied on behalf of gambling interests for years.
In my opinion, the two groups that need to be persuaded are (a) your own colleagues and (b) the public. The gambling industry will never concede any need to tighten the highly permissive legislation of the Government in 2005.
.
-
Permalink Reply by Adam on
-
I would like know why they think it makes economic sense to have their shops so close together?
-
-
The number of fixed odds betting machines they can have in each shop is regulated. There is massive demand for these things, I always see a queue of people standing behind the person on them and I can tell you from having had the experience of growing up with a gambler, these people are not there to offer advice and support.
-
Permalink Reply by HoL Site Admin on
-
We've been asked to post the following on behalf of a member who has email access but no web access:
The 2007 Gambling Prevalence survey was a large scale national population survey commissioned by the Gambling Commission. There are a number of findings that are really relevant to this debate.
The study uses a standard set of questions to identify what they call problem gamblers (which they define as people who gamble to a degree that compromises, disrupts or damages family, personal or recreational pursuits). Among people who have gambled in the last year, 1% are classed as problem gamblers. Certain types of gambling are far more likely than others to be done by problem gamblers – rates of problem gambling were highest among those who’d taken part in spread betting (15% were problem gamblers) and – wait for it – played at fixed odds terminals (11%). You can't assume causality from this (ie that these forms of betting ‘cause’ problem gambling), but this certainly makes it very clear that a significant minority of those who play fixed odds machines have real problems with their gambling. Not for nothing are they called the crack cocaine of the gambling world. More here.
Further analysis of the same survey also found that area deprivation was significantly associated with frequency and volume of gambling, with those living in the most deprived areas gambling more often than those in less deprived areas. Parental regular gambling and parental and close relative problem gambling were each more prevalent amongst respondents from the more deprived areas. More here.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
