The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

could new betting shops face extinction?

Home Forums Lounge could new betting shops face extinction?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #6067
    Seagull
    Member
    • Total Posts 1708

    According to someone involved with Wilson Sports (owners of Metrobet) I heard at Kempton yesterday that the London Borough of Harringay opposed two new betting shops near Green Lane in north London.

    This is apparently the first time that any local council has used the new powers bestowed upon them under the new Gambling Act

    For those that do not know London well this is the home to a lot of Turkish immigrants and a well known area for the heroin trade.It has a high number of Turkish,Greek and Kurds living in this area.
    This is an area that is also home to the infamous Broadwater Farm estate where residents have had roits and in which a police officer died.

    The reason that the betting shop licenses were refused was according to the council ‘It has a high number of immigrants and asylum seekers and a high number of residents who suffer from mental health issues’.
    One council member apparently objected to the machines in betting shops as she though that when punters lost they damaged the machines a lot.
    She apparently failed to mention any damage to the people that play them though!

    <b>I dont know if Metrobet or Betterbet are going to object but if they do not and other councils follow this lead I cannot see many new betting shops opening in the future.</b>

    I looked up the new Gambling Act and it is now the responsibility of the local council to ensure that they protect children and the vulnerable from being harmed or exploited from gambling.
    (It is up to local councils now whether or not to grant a betting shop licence and not the local magistrate as in the past.)

    <u>What about English people that are not asylum seekers and who can cope with gambling that may wish to have another betting shop near to where they live?</u>

    #133036
    dave jay
    Member
    • Total Posts 3386

    No wonder they call this place the racistforum.

    I’m suprised this thread hasn’t been deleted.

    #133040
    crizzy
    Participant
    • Total Posts 789

    I don’t find that racist, does that make me racist? :shock:

    #133041
    Irish Stamp
    Member
    • Total Posts 3181

    It has nothing to do with where they come from and all to do with the circumstances they find themselves in ie. poverty.

    #133048
    NWRA
    Member
    • Total Posts 259

    It has nothing to do with where they come from and all to do with the circumstances they find themselves in ie. poverty.

    though, as someone who used to work in two betting shops in York, one outside of a Gurkha base and another which was close to a couple of Chinese takeaways, I think its true that certain people (i.e., ones with spare time during the daytime) from certain nationalities (mainly Asian ones) do gamble in an idosyncratic way. It must be a culture thing.

    Obviously ‘asylum seekers’ isn’t a natrionality so I couldn’t comment; but I don’t think I’m racist if I can well believe that asylum seekers, many who are poor and uneducated, may behave badly in a high-pressure environment like a bookmakers if they’ve just lost.

    #133093
    Seagull
    Member
    • Total Posts 1708

    I’m certainly no racist so dont even go there. Thanks

    I have listed some of the terms that local councils now have to take into consideration under the new Gambling Act when deciding whether or not to issue a bookmakers licence.

    In the case of Haringay or Harringey (there are apparently two ways of spelling the name and both seem to be correct) the issue of the residents mental health was one of the reasons why two well established companies were refused a licence.

    In the case of Better who were also refused they were at the time the only ones that were providing pictures from every race track and they offer the chance to lay bets in the shop.(So I would have thought they were offering a better service than the established shops.)

    This refusal was apparently the first time the issue of residents mental health has been used and no doubt any lawyers representing the likes of Ladbrokes, Hills, Coral and others will no doubt be reminding all other councils and giving this example why other councils should follow this lead when other firms apply for licences.

    It is a good job then that Harringay greyhound track closed down to make way for a Sainsburys superstore.

    No doubt under the new powers that they now have that venue would have been seen as a danger to residents mental health when they had done the social money ‘down the dogs’ as up to 60,000 used to attend the Greyhound Derby when it was held there and no doubt some would have had ‘mental health problems’.

    There are of course many other bookmakers already trading in this area so they must also then be facing closure when they need to re new the licences they currently hold.

    In the end it is down to each and every of us how we lead our lifes and not up to some tin pot local council to decide what is right or wrong for us.

    Thatcher made a massive mistake when she introduced the Poll Tax and this goverment has made a mistake with the new Gambling Law.

    #133100
    dave jay
    Member
    • Total Posts 3386

    In the end it is down to each and every of us how we lead our lifes and not up to some tin pot local council to decide what is right or wrong for us

    WRONG .. like smoking has gone, so will go drinking and gambling.

    We don’t live in a country where you are encouraged to say what you think or tell the truth and even proper debate is stiffled by complainers who want debating banned. If you disagree with the party line there it is assumed that their is something wrong with you.

    Gambling and drinking, like smoking will be something you will have to put behind you like our lost libertarian past.

    You’ll be saying next that letting over 1M immigrants into the country has had effect on the availability of affordable housing.

    #133106
    Irish Stamp
    Member
    • Total Posts 3181

    Gordon Brown is Titus Salt

    #133214
    Seagull
    Member
    • Total Posts 1708

    Dave Jay
    WRONG
    Smoking bans are just force for smoking in enclosed premises (excluding prisons) but it is not actually banned outright neither is drinking or gambling.

    In fact this goverment has welcomed on line gambling but our German friends are about to be banned from on line gambling.

    How much would income tax have to rise if all those three were banned?

    It will never happen.

    #133217
    LetsGetRacing
    Member
    • Total Posts 1147

    Bookmakers thrive on exploiting those who could affectionately be described as ‘challenged’, and also those who clearly can’t cope without gambling.

    My local Coral’s is regularly frequented by two particular people, one of whom struggles to put sentences together (through a combination of being rat-arsed by 11am every day and not being the brightest star in the sky) and another who can’t actually read and write…he just copies the shapes of the horses’ names, or simply scribbles something which vaguely resembles ‘2nd favourite’.

    And you only need observe how the Chinese bet, for instance, to know that bookmakers would be all the worse off for refusing to serve them. I’ve witnessed Chinese people throw away £800 in less than 15 minutes on FOBTs and can’t believe the frequency with which they place bets, and large bets at that, simply by looking at the prices for all of 10 seconds. The Chinese are by no means alone in this respect, people of all races, religions and backgrounds do it (the head of our local police force can regularly be seen throwing away insane amounts of tax payers’ money) but they are serious ‘offenders’ of such ridiculous practices.

    #133251
    Fist of Fury 2k8
    Member
    • Total Posts 2930

    Seems to me the council has thought this one out and made a sensible decision.

    Riots, murder, unemployment, heroine, mental health issues.

    Hardly be doing them a favour by sticking a betting shop in the middle of that lot.

    Had they allowed it with with all these facts at their disposal and something untoward happened they would be shot down in flames.

    Place sounds like something out of a Quinten Tarantino movie.

    The bookmakers that applied don’t give a rats ass for the people that live there. They just see another rat hole full of crazy people who are more likely to lose every penny they can get their hands on than the normal every day average punter.

    Would hate to be the cashier in that shop if it had opened.

    Wonder what it would do to the rate of muggings, burglaries etc has they allowed it and some of the less desirable characters ended up losing their dole money and couldn’t get their daily fix.

    Why would anyone think this was a racists decision. It wouldn’t matter if they were Chinese Lebonese or pikanese sound like the area is bad enough without sticking a betting shop in the middle of it.

    #133255
    Flash
    Member
    • Total Posts 1144

    Why does someone always have to play the race card? Nothing and I mean nothing annoys me more.

    Everything is fking racist if it doesn’t suit.

    The Labour party has brought with it an obsession with race.

    #133256
    Tony25
    Member
    • Total Posts 327

    Dave Jay
    WRONG
    Smoking bans are just force for smoking in enclosed premises (excluding prisons) but it is not actually banned outright neither is drinking or gambling.

    In fact this goverment has welcomed on line gambling but our German friends are about to be banned from on line gambling.

    How much would income tax have to rise if all those three were banned?

    It will never happen.

    Theirs a big difference between smoking and gambling,the first mentioned can be a nuisance to others if it`s not controlled,surely,polluting your own body is a personal thing,Smoking bans are supposed to protect others and that`s good so!!

    I don`t know much about prisons,however,it`s illogical that people who don`t smoke should be forced to inhale passive smoke…..should be banned!!

    With regards to Germany i realise you where using it in context to support your other statement, however, i very much doubt you or others on here understand German gaming laws, Germany is a total mess, the idiots who run the country are trying to create the impossible (State Monopoly), supposedly to protect the consumer from addiction, the ban they are trying to implement is against Sportsbetting and the lottery ,Slot machines that pay 80% tax are allowed and so is horseracing,we don`t need to point out which are the most addictive!!whilst the Staatsvertrag has been signed by all member states theirs a big challenge to it`s legality ,in the long term Germany have 0% chance when it comes to retaining a monopoly, in the short term the lawyers are going to continue to line their pockets and the German States will be very reluctant to make a hard line stand has they are worried about massive “damage “ proceedings against them!!

    In my opinion the lawyers are to blame , when they had the chance to put forward the case for a open Betting market they where so passive,personally,i think they where acting in their own interests as they are the main winners out of the current situation!!

    A bet i will make with anyone:-

    Germany are incapable of stopping residents from betting online (With EU licensed Bookmakers)……..any takers?

    #133258
    Artemis
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1736

    For those who don’t know, gambling is part of Chinese culture. They have a very strong belief in the concept of ‘luck’ in the form of lucky numbers, colours and various other omens and superstitions. I think perhaps that many other cultures are just as fatalistic and this can certainly fuel the desire to gamble.

    Western societies(at least in the last two hundred years) have tended to regard gambling as a weakness, and that we should take responsibility for our own destiniies. This view is changing as society becomes more secular.

    Interestingly, Islam forbids gambling but fosters the belief that events are largely out of our hands and subject to the will of a divine being, rather like the Chinese.

    In view of the above, local councils will do well to follow the precedence of most magistrates court and only refuse betting office licences in very exceptional cases. Cultural considerations are inappropriate.

    #133260
    Seagull
    Member
    • Total Posts 1708

    Fist of Fury
    According to the person who told me about this in the first place there are 57 betting shops in the borough already.

    So two more are hardly going to make any difference to the well being on local residents.

    This ‘race’ issue was brought up not by me but by local councillors along with ‘mental health’ of residents when they listed the objections to more betting shops in their area. It was the local council who stated they have a high number of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants.

    I have been involved in a High Court appeal in the past when a bookmaker was appealing against a decsion to refuse a licence for a betting shop.

    Q.C.s representing the established bookmakers brought up all sorts of objections. Some of the matters they brought up were the actual number of steps from the established shop to the proposed new shop.
    The actual time it would take for someone to walk from the proposed new premises to the nearest established shop.
    Actual number of punters in the current shops was also brought up and the actual odds of winning the betfred bonus bets was also debated.

    The Q.C.s employed in this charade were normally of the highest grade and the one Betfred used came from the same chambers that acted for Prince Charles over his marriage to Dianne Spencer.

    This used to be the ‘standard procedure’ when a new bookmaker wanted a licence and I remember member Barry Dennis complaining about this procedure on here when he wanted to open in Romford.

    Under the new Gambling Law it is now up to the local council to grant licences and they must now be PROTECTING CHILDREN AND THE VULNERABLE FROM BEING HARMED OR EXPLOITED BY GAMBLING.

    So if I went to my local council and complained that my local betting shop have not stopped me betting despite me always losing and that the FOBT machines were addictive would they them object to the licence being renewed?

    They also allow Big Issue sellers to gamble away money they have earned.
    Surely that should be stopped under the new law?

    Could I sue my local council for not for falling over a dodgy paving slab but for failing to protect me from gambling then if I had told the staff in the shop I was a member fo Gamblers Anonymus and they had allowed me to bet?

    Any law that is vitrtually unenforceable is always a badly drawn up.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.