Today I found out that Lewisham has a Mayor (Mayor Sir Steve Bullock) and that he has written to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Sport, Tourism and Heritage to recommend a fixed upper amount for play on the machines. He stated that the council is unable to prevent the borough’s abundance of betting shops.
See the article titled "
Gamblers oppose betting limits in Lewisham" in the East London Lines (I had never heard of this publication before).
There are five times more betting shops in Lewisham than in more affluent boroughs such as Wimbledon leading to suggestions that bookmakers have targeted the poorest areas with low income levels, high unemployment and crime.
The situation in Lewisham is being replicated across the country. There are probably 100 councils which have passed motions to reduce bets to £2.
I am not sure of the legal process required to reduce the maximum bet in Lewisham - our mayor has written to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Sport, etc. asking for a reduction of the maximum bet, while other councils have massed motions for the same proposal. Is the Mayor of Lewisham circumventing a council vote, or do those other council votes have no legal effect in their constituencies?
Thanks for pointing that out - for once I actually agree with the actions of our elected Mayor.
What a very depressing statistic. Can't they be opposed as being generally bad for the high street..
[Post removed due to abuse -admin]
I seem to recall that it was that back to basics chap who started the PFI craze in the NHS. The one whose cabinet were all -now what was the word?
Not sure what pfi has to do wity gambling?
[Post removed due to abuse -admin]
[Post removed due to abuse -admin]
[Post removed due to abuse -admin]
There was also the proposal for 'super casinos' which thankfully vanished off the radar.
Not suggesting Labour aren't culpable here, as they are (or were). They've admitted it, and so they should.
I do, however, object to the Torys being portrayed as the saviours and guardians of the poor.
They are not.
[Post removed due to abuse -admin]
Can we not discuss the point at hand? The political rhetoric:
"stop voting for Labour, and vote for change. Vote for the Tories"
"object to the Torys being portrayed as the saviours and guardians of the poor. They are not."
dissuades the wider audience from engaging in a discussion about a topic that affect their lives.
How have the Tories been 'the party of change'?
How have they been hard on gambling?
Yes, Labour were wrong on the gambling act. But:
"Betfair took the "commercial decision" to switch its betting exchange from operating under a UK licence to a Gibraltarian one. On 11 May last year, the firm made a £6,000 cash donation to the Thirsk, Malton and Filey constituency of the Conservative MP Anne McIntosh"
Ms McIntosh is now in charge of presenting the separate Offshore Gambling Bill!
Philip Davies received more than £10,000 in benefits from companies with links to the gambling industry. In March 2011 the Conservative MP was taken to the Cheltenham festival – a trip worth £870 – as a guest of Ladbrokes.
At the last election Labour had promised to give local councils the power to restrict the number of FOBTs in their area and perhaps even ban gaming machines entirely.