Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Piece about betting shops on Green Lanes on Radio 4
.
Tags for Forum Posts: betting shops, gambling, green lanes
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Many thanks, Alison, for flagging this up. The programme is still available as a podcast here for the next few days. The betting shops item is about half way through.
There's a lesson for the council about 'crowd-sourcing' information and the usefulness of Hol . As far as I can see, the item wasn't picked-up by Haringey's Communication team - even though Green Lanes was highlighted. Or, at least, councillors weren't notified.
But obviously the Communication team can't listen to or read everything. Which is where the complementary eyes and ears of community websites can be enormously helpful.
(Labour councillor and candidate Tottenham Hale ward)
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Thanks for the link Alan. The item on BBC iPlayer begins at or near 35m 40s (and runs 7 minutes).
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
If anyone is still planning to organise a protest of some sort re betting shops along Green Lanes there are two ways to go about it according to the SNT;
1. If you're turning up outside the opening of a new betting shop (with placards etc) you could do this without permission but, the police person in charge at the scene can then make a decision whether or not you become a public nuisuance and disband you. For example, if you're blocking the footpath or road.
2. You can seek permission from the Borough Commander giving 28 days notice. Conditions are likely to be imposed. Contact his assistant; glen.steel@metpolice.co.uk .This would certainly apply if you were planning a march up Green Lanes.
-
-
Barbara, while the council is not especially helpful in this matter, it is not they who are to blame in the first place. The council has its gambling proponents, such as Councillor H. Lister – and he may have cronies on the council as well – but the council's hands are largely tied. Tied by statute and the government which pushed and passed particularly permissive legislation: the Gambling Act 2005.
The key changes in that Act, as far as the phenomenon of betting shop clustering is concerned, is that market demand would become the sole determinant of the number of betting shops. In other words, Hearings in courts or Councils could no longer object to new Gambling Premises Licences on the grounds that there were enough (or even too many) already. If they tried, it would be slapped down on Appeal. And the gambling industry has unlimited funds with which to mount Appeals.
Market forces are fine in many fields of commerce. There is no need to limit greengrocers on this basis: but gambling has addictive factors that make a mockery of the law. The legislators who passed it were either fools or knaves.
All the proposed fiddling (window dressing?) by David Lammy MP will be to no avail unless the source of the problem is lanced.
-
Permalink Reply by Pier Barrett on
-
I'm replying in my personal capacity and not as David Lammy's assistant (so do not in any way take my words and views here to be his).
Why do you continue to suggest that David isn't engaging with the problem fully/correctly?
He has explained, very thoroughly, in the comments to your blog the other week explaining his approach (http://www.harringayonline.com/profiles/blogs/the-gambling-act-amp-...). You have made no attempt to engage with his reply, yet use every opportunity possible to imply that David is "fiddling" and not solving the issue, why?
I don't mean the post to sound impolite, but I do declare an interest in that I contributed to some of the research around the campaign, so I felt a twinge of discontent everytime I saw part of my research seemingly misrepresented or misunderstood!
Best,
Pier
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I agree with you Pier but I think this may also be a technical problem with ning/Hol. Posts on blogs disappear pretty quickly from recent activity and I think David's response deserved a forum post of it's own. That's the first time I've seen that post.
For what it's worth, as someone who apparently is out to get the Labour party in Harringay, I think we have a pretty impressive MP. He has been all over this and I think it's slightly churlish to imply that he's not.
-
Permalink Reply by HoL Site Admin on
-
That's absolutely fair comment Piers. Unfortunately there are a few threads on this issue. I've pasted David's reply into this thread to ensure that people following this one can link in to to. It deserves thoughtful responses from those who have been critical of David in this respect.
-
Permalink Reply by PeterPiper on
-
Pier, I think the point that some of us are trying to make is that the best way to resolve this problem is to amend the 2005 Gambling Act, end of. Using pieces of other acts to correct a piece of faulty legislation is long-winded, and far from guaranteed to succeed.
Many of us have also put in hours of research, reading the Act in it's entirety and arguing the case in front of the licensing committee in the council chambers against QCs hired by the bookies, collected petitions, written letters of objection to licensing, planning and planning inspectors. Some of us also know the difference between the grounds for objecting to planning and licensing etc. etc.
-
-
Pier: thanks for your comments. I think most of us agree on the nature of the problem. I will concede that Mr Lammy may sincerely and genuinely believe that his proposed ideas will remedy the problem.
It is at this point where we part company: I have no confidence in the measures proposed.
Like others, I have attended several gambling licence application hearings and an Appeal at a Magistrates Court. I too have done some research on this and I believe I know precisely the source of the problem (the clauses in your government's Gambling Act that mandate market demand).
• If the offending clauses are withdrawn, fiddling in other areas will be unnecessary.
• Unless those clauses are repealed, any amendments elsewhere, either in the Gambling Act or in other Acts will, in my opinion, be to no avail.
Allowing opposiion to "clustering" is superficially attractive and I can well believe this was generated at the council officer level. However, I have little doubt that barristers for the gambling industry will have a field day with this concept. It hasn't been thought through. It will succeed only in producing endless argument, fees for barristers and no improvement.
All I care about is a strong likelihood of success and results – not an appearance of action.
If the MP provides information leading to the arrest of the 'market demand' clauses in the pernicious Gambling Act, I will be the first to applaud!
-
-
It's all about the betting machines. Without them, there is no market.
-
-
Even if you do away with the betting machines (which is what you seem to suggest) but leave the market demand test in place, then the inventive minds of the gambling "industry" will doubtless find other ways to exploit the big legal loophole.
Their favourite Act's market demand test is a licence to print money, leaving them the choice of which paper and which make and model of printing press to use.
Like the MP it seems you are reluctant to see this tackled directly, but unlike David Lammy, you implied earlier that any problem would be resolved by market forces alone, which is an acceptance of the market demand test – and one that the gambling 'industry' would have no issue with.
What that probably means is that betting shops saturation is going to get even worse and then possibly retreat a little. Meanwhile, how long are you prepared to wait and how much social damage are you prepared to see?
-
-
Please also be ware of David Lammy's recent response on this issue over on another blog post:
Clive,
Thank you for your points, I have tried to respond to each in turn.
You state “there are problems with his approach to the problem” and go on to mention the Hackney Council proposal through the Sustainable Communities Act to tackle betting shop clustering, as well as referring to the futility of engaging with William Hill.
1) You state that corresponding with William Hill is “a waste of time and effort”
For you it may well be, but corresponding with William Hill and making the responses public are further evidence for those yet to be convinced about the nature of the betting industry.
I have never stated, nor have I ever implied, that I am “trying to persuade the gambling industry by reasoned argument”. The reason I do so is because I believe it is powerful to any ambivalent party to see the arguments of those who benefit from the legislation crumble in the face of reasoned debate.
2) You state that I have only became “active publicly on this issue only in the run-up to the election”
A search of my website shows that I first wrote a letter to the Haringey Independent in November 2007 regarding betting shop applications. I have written to oppose new licenses throughout the last 3 years, and organised a public meeting at the start of 2009 regarding the subject.
Please find the following:
http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/da/65321
http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/da/91452
http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/da/92356
http://www.davidlammy.co.uk/da/94086
This was all before the start of this campaign in November 2009. I will be campaigning on this issue during the general election campaign and beyond until we arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
3) You imply that I am only concerned with the Sustainable Communities proposal by Hackney Council
This is completely false. The post of 25/02 makes no mention of the Sustainable Communities Act, I have only mentioned it once before on Harringay Online (and no where else) in passing. In no way was it ever made clear, or even implied, that it was the main tract of my approach.
Before even writing to John Denham, I had pursued various other methods that are quite well documented. Firstly, I have sought to publicise the campaign to garner public endorsement for the programme. This has involved writing an article in the Evening Standard, publicising correspondence with William Hill and promoting the campaign on BBC Radio 5Live. As a result, I have received letters of support from people across London and the country. My office has responded to each of these in turn, asking them to write to their local MP to support my campaign. This is essential to pave the way for substantive legislating reform.
Secondly, I have led the campaign within government for reform of the act. I have spoken (and written) to Gerry Sutcliffe, the Sports Minister directly with responsibility for the 2005 Gambling Act. The pre-cursor to this was aggregating and measuring the strength of opinion in the local community via the online petition.
The “Hackney proposal” is just one option that is available. It happens to be that it is one which is currently being reviewed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and has a good chance of succeeding before the General Election. Given the position we are in, it would be worthwhile to lend it our support.
4) You state that the “Hackney proposal” will only add “weak clauses to a separate vague Act will be of no practical use in addressing the flaws of the Gambling Act”
This is also untrue. The Hackney proposal makes direct changes to the 2005 Gambling Act by giving councils the same powers they are afforded the police the number and location of bars, pubs and clubs in the 2003 Licensing Act. These powers allow councils to oppose further gambling licenses on the basis there are enough already in the applied for area. This is not “tinkering with one Act to correct fundamental problems of another” it is a proposal that goes to the heart of the Act you, I and others have identified as being the problem.
Moreover, the “Hackney proposal” would amend the Planning Class Uses, ending the classification of a betting shop as any other financial or professional service and re-classifying it in its own category.
New betting shops would need to then not only obtain a gambling license, which councils can oppose on the basis of clustering, but separate planning permission, which council planning authorities could also oppose on the basis of clustering.
I hope you will agree that these are a significant increase in powers for councils to deal with the problem and I trust that the officers Hackney Council are in as good a position as any to determine which powers they would need.
I hope this helps clear up any questions you might have.
David
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
