SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Site Feedback | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (2): « First [1] 2 Next > Last »
Gambling
Author Message
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #1
13-11-2007 03:28 PM

[Split from SE23 Topics 'Big Issue seller outside Sainsbury's' -admin]

frosty Wrote:
I apologise for going a little overboard here, and if I have upset anyone. There is such a state of rose-coloured views of what Forest Hill could be on this forum that I believe it is blinding many people to where it is actually currently heading. An outlook projecting the horrors it could become should surely only help to add to our resolve not to allow it to happen. Yes, I am unhappy with the empty shop-fronts, the proliferation of bookmakers and lack of sense of community or improvement I currently feel. I moved to the area believing that it had enormous potential to become a hub for the area, an aspirational place to live - sadly that is becoming less apparent, and I am reacting to it.
If you have any information that you regard as accurate or reliable with regard to crime figures, I would be more than happy to hear it. Considering how the measuring stick for these statistics is never the same length, and that police are tackling minor crimes rather than major ones in order to reach solved-target figures, even now advising people to report phones as lost rather than stolen, I think we should take them with a pinch of salt. I can only respond to what I have seen in the area - half of the people I know have been burgled, several mugged, graffiti has been sprayed all around my property and local area, and there have been three cars dumped and burnt out within a few hundred metres of my home in the last year. I have had to call the police and services at least eight times this year with regard to everything from antisocial behaviour and vandalism to arson, and on several occasions, the crimes were being committed by schoolgirls and boys still in their uniforms. Don't talk to me about realistic, you haven't got a clue. Maybe that is just london, and par for the course. Maybe it is just my corner of Forest Hill. But it's something I don't see being prevented or relenting, particularly with the current 'bury my head in the sand' politics people seem to be adhering to, or the 'TV can bring up my kids' and 'I wanna be a gangsta' mentality that is more than apparent if you care to open your eyes.
I also appreciate that people feel the desire to be charitable, and I too have no problem with the concept of big issue salespeople. It seems a reasonable solution to the continuing problem of homelessness and poverty. But again there is a wide gradient to the activities of BI salespeople and beggars too, from the unassuming guy and his dog who walks up and down the trains into london bridge, to the eastern european gypsy gangs who will steal anything that is not nailed down, and the abusive & aggressive heroin addicts trying to flog their 'last one' to get a bed in the hostel - or preferrably keep the magazine for the next person and just take the money. I have come across all of these types personally, and for the most part have unfortunately found that there is very little distinction between running a magazine sales business and begging with menaces. Yes, the Forest Hill one doesn't appear to be in that group. I would just prefer her to stand a little closer to the railings or nearer to the shop, just not directly in the path. I'd also like her not to approach me when I am using the cash machine. In truth I've avoided the supermarket for some time, so maybe she's improved.
Regarding beggars, I have friends who work with the homeless around london, who all agree that the worst thing you could do is give them money, as the majority of it will be shot up their arm. Give them food or a cup of tea instead, just don't give them money. Generalisations yes, but if you are looking for sainthood then you should have some idea of what your cash is going to be spent on, and the damage it serves to propagate.
If Forest Hill is such an affluent and thriving area, why have there been fewer companies opening up in the area than leaving it? Why are bookies prevailing? Do you see that as a good sign?


Why are you so obsessed with bookies? There are two in the centre of Forest Hill, so far as I know. I near enough live opposite one and forgot it was there the other day when I said there was only one, that's how much it impinges on my life. The other one is moving from a prominent site to a slightly more prominent site. Hardly the 'stampede' that was mentioned on here the other day. Rich places have bookies too: I lived in Crouch End before I moved here and there are four on a row of shops not much bigger than the London/Dartmouth sweep. Ditto the even richer Muswell Hill.

Someone referred to them as 'detrimental businesses', while singling out the Question for praise, which as a resident of Dartmouth Road made me roar with laughter.

Find all posts by this user Reply
nevermodern


Posts: 653
Joined: Feb 2007
Post: #2
13-11-2007 03:32 PM

Great post. Smile

Find all posts by this user Reply
frosty


Posts: 15
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #3
13-11-2007 04:41 PM

Do I really need to explain my aversion to bookies opening in FH Baboonery? With the 'recent' arguments for and against super-casino's in the news, the argument that gambling aids in the regeneration of an area by creating jobs & wealth is a flimsy one. Yes, the buildings may be unobtrusive, the punters less immediately troublesome than some of the pubs, but the problems they create, in my opinion, spread far deeper into our society than you are seeing. What happens when the (often dole-bludging) gambling addicts have blown their cheque on a horse with 3 legs? Poverty reigns - they build up impossible credit card debts, beg, or they steal.
Taken from gamblingtherapy.org, the first place I looked for some figures for you:

Three out of four Britons gamble every week, and we lose around nine-and-a-half billion pounds every year, a figure which has doubled in just four years. With the passing of the Gambling Act these figures will continue rising. The Government is increasing the opportunity to gamble and will be responsible for creating many more addicts with devastating effects on tens of thousands of families.
The Government raised almost ?2 billion in taxes last year from the gambling industry and Mark Griffiths who, as the only professor on gambling in this country, advises the Government on policy, tells The Insider that Ministers haven't listened to all his concerns.

He says that the with the Gambling Act making it easier to open betting shops, most of which are in poorer areas, it will be the poor who suffer the most. Most of Britain's bookies are concentrated in the poorest neighbourhoods, like inner-city Hackney which has 95 shops. Yet, the industry wants to open more, despite local opposition. One resident tells The Insider that only one out of 400 locals who responded to his survey was in favour of a new betting shop.

Are you sure that one of the bookies is moving from a prominent site to a slightly more prominent site? Or are they actually opening a new shop, and keeping the old one too? And then there were three.
I didn't refer to them previously as a detrimental business, but I fully agree that they are.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #4
13-11-2007 05:10 PM

frosty Wrote:
Do I really need to explain my aversion to bookies opening in FH Baboonery? With the 'recent' arguments for and against super-casino's in the news, the argument that gambling aids in the regeneration of an area by creating jobs & wealth is a flimsy one.


The argument I've never made, you mean? Right-ho, carry on.

frosty Wrote:
Yes, the buildings may be unobtrusive, the punters less immediately troublesome than some of the pubs, but the problems they create, in my opinion, spread far deeper into our society than you are seeing. What happens when the (often dole-bludging) gambling addicts have blown their cheque on a horse with 3 legs? Poverty reigns - they build up impossible credit card debts, beg, or they steal.


[quote=frosty]Taken from gamblingtherapy.org, the first place I looked for some figures for you:

Three out of four Britons gamble every week,


A statistic at odds with that produced by the Gambling Commission, which suggests that that level isn't even reached within one year.

frosty Wrote:
and we lose around nine-and-a-half billion pounds every year, a figure which has doubled in just four years. With the passing of the Gambling Act these figures will continue rising. The Government is increasing the opportunity to gamble and will be responsible for creating many more addicts with devastating effects on tens of thousands of families.
The Government raised almost ?2 billion in taxes last year from the gambling industry and Mark Griffiths who, as the only professor on gambling in this country, advises the Government on policy, tells The Insider that Ministers haven't listened to all his concerns.


Would this be the same Mark Griffiths who conducted the Gambling Commission study which suggests that gamblingtherapy.org's statistics are nonsense?

frosty Wrote:
He says that the with the Gambling Act making it easier to open betting shops, most of which are in poorer areas, it will be the poor who suffer the most. Most of Britain's bookies are concentrated in the poorest neighbourhoods, like inner-city Hackney which has 95 shops. Yet, the industry wants to open more, despite local opposition. One resident tells The Insider that only one out of 400 locals who responded to his survey was in favour of a new betting shop.

Are you sure that one of the bookies is moving from a prominent site to a slightly more prominent site? Or are they actually opening a new shop, and keeping the old one too? And then there were three.
I didn't refer to them previously as a detrimental business, but I fully agree that they are.


I didn't say you did, I said someone did.

Nice conflation of all gambling into one, and blaming it on high-street bookmakers, there, well done. Are newsagents selling lottery tickets a target of equal opprobrium? Scratchcards? Pubs? While you've got your puritan hat on is there anything else you'd like to ban?

I'm not sure that they're not keeping the old one, no, but I'm led to believe they're not, and it wouldn't really make economic sense, would it? Will demand double just by opening a new outlet? I doubt it.

Wikipedia (Which admittedly isn't particularly reliable, but then obviously gamblingtherapy.org isn't either) states that there are now about 8,500 betting shops in the country, as compared to 15,000 at an unspecified point in the past. Your concept of bookies opening left, right and centre is just wrong.

Find all posts by this user Reply
frosty


Posts: 15
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #5
13-11-2007 05:50 PM

frosty Wrote:
Do I really need to explain my aversion to bookies opening in FH Baboonery? With the 'recent' arguments for and against super-casino's in the news, the argument that gambling aids in the regeneration of an area by creating jobs & wealth is a flimsy one.

Baboonery Wrote:
The argument I've never made, you mean? Right-ho, carry on.

Being a little pedantic aren't we? I didn't specify that you were making that argument, I was just demonstrating that that is the general argument in favour of new gambling establishments being opened.
I realise that you are arguing that bookmakers aren't harmful to an area, and I am trying to tell you that I believe they are.

frosty Wrote:
Yes, the buildings may be unobtrusive, the punters less immediately troublesome than some of the pubs, but the problems they create, in my opinion, spread far deeper into our society than you are seeing. What happens when the (often dole-bludging) gambling addicts have blown their cheque on a horse with 3 legs? Poverty reigns - they build up impossible credit card debts, beg, or they steal.
Taken from gamblingtherapy.org, the first place I looked for some figures for you:
Three out of four Britons gamble every week,

Baboonery Wrote:
A statistic at odds with that produced by the Gambling Commission, which suggests that that level isn't even reached within one year.

95% of all statistics are made up - choose the one's that back your argument or consider them a waste of time, it's your choice. I imagine that that figure was reached by including the lottery, bingo etc etc.

frosty Wrote:
and we lose around nine-and-a-half billion pounds every year, a figure which has doubled in just four years. With the passing of the Gambling Act these figures will continue rising. The Government is increasing the opportunity to gamble and will be responsible for creating many more addicts with devastating effects on tens of thousands of families.
The Government raised almost ?2 billion in taxes last year from the gambling industry and Mark Griffiths who, as the only professor on gambling in this country, advises the Government on policy, tells The Insider that Ministers haven't listened to all his concerns.

Baboonery Wrote:
Would this be the same Mark Griffiths who conducted the Gambling Commission study which suggests that gamblingtherapy.org's statistics are nonsense?

I wouldn't know. So which do you prefer? Nags or pooches? Try to avoid the ones with 3 legs, won't you?

frosty Wrote:
He says that the with the Gambling Act making it easier to open betting shops, most of which are in poorer areas, it will be the poor who suffer the most. Most of Britain's bookies are concentrated in the poorest neighbourhoods, like inner-city Hackney which has 95 shops. Yet, the industry wants to open more, despite local opposition. One resident tells The Insider that only one out of 400 locals who responded to his survey was in favour of a new betting shop.

Are you sure that one of the bookies is moving from a prominent site to a slightly more prominent site? Or are they actually opening a new shop, and keeping the old one too? And then there were three.
I didn't refer to them previously as a detrimental business, but I fully agree that they are.

Baboonery Wrote:
I didn't say you did, I said someone did.

I didn't say you said I did. I was agreeing with them.

Baboonery Wrote:
Nice conflation of all gambling into one, and blaming it on high-street bookmakers, there, well done. Are newsagents selling lottery tickets a target of equal opprobrium? Scratchcards? Pubs? While you've got your puritan hat on is there anything else you'd like to ban?

Far be it from me to cast ignominy upon such fine upstanding establishments! I believe it is you conflating arguments there! And I haven't made any points denigrating lottery practitioners. I'm sorry, I don't have the energy to get into vitriolic banter with you. You have my arguments against betting shops, particularly when they are increasing in number in one particular area, and there is evidence to back it. Believe what you will.

Baboonery Wrote:
I'm not sure that they're not keeping the old one, no, but I'm led to believe they're not, and it wouldn't really make economic sense, would it? Will demand double just by opening a new outlet? I doubt it.

Did demand double to ensure the opening of a bloody great Paddy Power on Dartmouth Road?! I doubt it! And I'm fairly sure while people are in the grip of panic over credit card debts and mounting mortgage repayments, the appeal of a potential big win will keep another bookies afloat too. Why work for it when you can win it eh?! Only the house wins in the end.

Baboonery Wrote:
Wikipedia (Which admittedly isn't particularly reliable, but then obviously gamblingtherapy.org isn't either) states that there are now about 8,500 betting shops in the country, as compared to 15,000 at an unspecified point in the past. Your concept of bookies opening left, right and centre is just wrong.

I don't have a general concept of bookies opening left right and centre. I have knowledge of an increase in scale or increase in outlets in FH, and that is what I care about and would like to prevent. I don't believe gambling spending or betting shops are closing down in the long run - they are both increasing as more lenient laws allow them.

Find all posts by this user Reply
thenutfield


Posts: 235
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #6
14-11-2007 12:09 AM

who do you bet on to win this argument, Frosty or Baboonery. I am opening a book on it!

I would suggest you both meet for a drink to discuss life over a pint - but i expect you would argue about which pub to go to.

Find all posts by this user Reply
nevermodern


Posts: 653
Joined: Feb 2007
Post: #7
14-11-2007 01:34 AM

Gambling is, ultimately, a matter of personal choice. It's not the government that forces people to walk on their own two feet into a betting shop. And it's better regulated and taxed than run by organised crime. Of course there are degrees of liberalisation, but ultimately, I'd personally rather take responsibility for my own actions in any area of my overconsumption (hiccup!) than blame the government for my own lax morals!! Smile

Find all posts by this user Reply
PVP


Posts: 271
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #8
14-11-2007 10:00 AM

Straw poll - who here actually uses the bookies? I've never used one here as think gambling is for ninnies; a tax on stupidity if anything.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #9
14-11-2007 10:33 AM

Frosty's gambling beliefs in full, here:

# The number of betting shops may have nearly halved, but I don't believe it, on the basis that one opened in my town two years ago, taking the number from one to two. Fingers in ears, la la la.

# The man whom I cited as an authority on the subject authored a study which suggests that the statistics I quoted are bogus, well, 95% of statistics are made up on the spot, aren't they, they don't mean anything, and you can choose completely spurious ones to support your argument if you wish, and that's fine..

# Gambling is evil and has a pernicious impact on society. Apart from the form of gambling which is the only sort in which most people who gamble in this country indulge, which is fine.

Find all posts by this user Reply
shzl400


Posts: 729
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #10
14-11-2007 10:42 AM

pvp Wrote:
Straw poll - who here actually uses the bookies? I've never used one here as think gambling is for ninnies; a tax on stupidity if anything.


I confess! I have used a bookies - and the William Hill in FH to boot - to put a tenner on the Boat Race (they wouldn't let me go each way). Cambridge won and so did I.

Find all posts by this user Reply
shzl400


Posts: 729
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #11
14-11-2007 10:51 AM

pvp Wrote:
... gambling is for ninnies; a tax on stupidity if anything.


I'll bet Smile there are quite a few people out there who have shares on the stock market and anyone who "plays" the stock market is doing nothing more than gambling.

It is the informed knowledge that makes the difference e.g. if you play the lottery there is no way of predicting the numbers, but if you know your horse/football team's form, you may have an edge - or you may just want to bet on your favourite team to support them. Similarly, when buying a share, you may choose to read their annual report and do various ratio calculations on their figures - or you may just pick a household name because you like them. Where does the gambling begin and end?

Find all posts by this user Reply
frosty


Posts: 15
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #12
14-11-2007 11:40 AM

I'm impressed Baboonery, are you aiming to misquote everyone on this forum before you are finished? You're hilarious!!

I am giving you gambling figures such as 'we lose nine-and-a-half billion pounds every year, a figure which has doubled in just four years', and 'most of Britain's bookies are concentrated in the poorest neighbourhoods, like inner-city Hackney which has 95 shops'.
You are coming back with 'the number of betting shops have nearly halved' - from an unspecified point in the past! Well done, you've sent me down in flames!!! And you aren't choosing spurious facts or statistics to support your argument?! HAHAahaHHAaHAHaHAhAhahaAHahahAAHAA!!!

Please get a grip. There is a reality of problem debt and gambling addiction, and bookmakers cash in on it. Most people are obviously not rampant gamblers, but I don't see the benefit to our area of more bookmaking establishments.

Laugh

Find all posts by this user Reply
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #13
14-11-2007 12:53 PM

frosty Wrote:
I'm impressed Baboonery, are you aiming to misquote everyone on this forum before you are finished? You're hilarious!!

I am giving you gambling figures such as 'we lose nine-and-a-half billion pounds every year, a figure which has doubled in just four years', and 'most of Britain's bookies are concentrated in the poorest neighbourhoods, like inner-city Hackney which has 95 shops'.
You are coming back with 'the number of betting shops have nearly halved' - from an unspecified point in the past! Well done, you've sent me down in flames!!! And you aren't choosing spurious facts or statistics to support your argument?! HAHAahaHHAaHAHaHAhAhahaAHahahAAHAA!!!

Please get a grip. There is a reality of problem debt and gambling addiction, and bookmakers cash in on it. Most people are obviously not rampant gamblers, but I don't see the benefit to our area of more bookmaking establishments.

Laugh


I'm not misquoting you, I'm satirising you, because your flimsy arguments are worthy of little else.

Are you claiming your three-in-four gamble every week stat is accurate? Because it isn't. Even the man you cited as an expert to back up that stat says it isn't. Would you like to withdraw it? Or are you going to do a King Canute act?

Are you claiming that there are now more bookies than ever before in your precious 'society'? Because there really, really aren't. There is one more in FH than there used to be. One. I bet (ha!) that at a point in the not-too-distant past that there were two or even more: some FH lifer might like to confirm. There are 95 bookies in Hackney. I'd be AMAZED if this is a historic high. Bookies have closed left, right and centre in the last 20 years as the industry has consolidated and as the lottery has slashed their receipts. It may be easier than ever before to open one on a regulatory level, but that doesn't mean the money's there to sustain it.

And if your grasp of common business sense is so tenuous that you can't spot a difference between a new company opening a site in the market and the same company opening a second one, then there's little hope for you, and you have no place lecturing those who choose of their own free will to spend their money in whatever way they choose, and calling them stupid.

By the way, most of the increase in gambling turnover in the last ten years has come from city traders engaging in spread betting. This is also the type of gambling engaged in most frequently by problem gamblers.

Bookies are subject to supply and demand just like anyone else. Too many chasing money and some will close, as has happened throughout the country in the last decade. The fact that one more opens up doesn't create demand.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Ian


Posts: 75
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #14
14-11-2007 01:20 PM

As a "FH lifer" I can not remember any Bookies being on our "Manor" pre 1990?
There was one on Wood Vale years ago but closed after the Moore Park Hotel was shut down.

Any more "FH lifers" out there with a better memory?

Hmm, I wonder if I can change my user name to "FH Lifer" ?? I like that.


One loud voice can make a difference !
Find all posts by this user Reply
frosty


Posts: 15
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #15
14-11-2007 03:44 PM

frosty Wrote:
I'm impressed Baboonery, are you aiming to misquote everyone on this forum before you are finished? You're hilarious!!

I am giving you gambling figures such as 'we lose nine-and-a-half billion pounds every year, a figure which has doubled in just four years', and 'most of Britain's bookies are concentrated in the poorest neighbourhoods, like inner-city Hackney which has 95 shops'.
You are coming back with 'the number of betting shops have nearly halved' - from an unspecified point in the past! Well done, you've sent me down in flames!!! And you aren't choosing spurious facts or statistics to support your argument?! HAHAahaHHAaHAHaHAhAhahaAHahahAAHAA!!!

Please get a grip. There is a reality of problem debt and gambling addiction, and bookmakers cash in on it. Most people are obviously not rampant gamblers, but I don't see the benefit to our area of more bookmaking establishments.

Laugh


Baboonery Wrote:
I'm not misquoting you, I'm satirising you, because your flimsy arguments are worthy of little else.
Are you claiming your three-in-four gamble every week stat is accurate? Because it isn't. Even the man you cited as an expert to back up that stat says it isn't. Would you like to withdraw it? Or are you going to do a King Canute act?


As I said, my gambling monkey friend, statistics indicate a trend, and the data can often be either inaccurate or tailored to suit either side of an argument. Surely you are aware of that, considering your adhesion to the '15,000 down to 8000' figure? The statistic wasn't mine, it came from a website, as you well know, much like the one's below which quote other stats on the same subject. The davehill website states that 'the Gambling Commission, the government's watchdog, recently reported almost no increase in either the percentage of people in Britain who gamble (about half of us, if you exclude the national lottery) or the numbers of problem gamblers (about 250,000) over the past ten years.'
From which you could take that the amount of gamblers hasn't increased recently, which is obviously a good thing. You could also take from it that around half of all people gamble, and that is if you do not even take into account the national lottery. Still a fairly high percentage then eh? P-E-D-A-N-T.
Have a read.
http://www.hackney.gov.uk/print/xc-news-...ookies.htm
http://davehill.typepad.com/bigbritain/2...egula.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7001329.stm

Baboonery Wrote:
Are you claiming that there are now more bookies than ever before in your precious 'society'? Because there really, really aren't. There is one more in FH than there used to be. One. I bet (ha!) that at a point in the not-too-distant past that there were two or even more: some FH lifer might like to confirm. There are 95 bookies in Hackney. I'd be AMAZED if this is a historic high. Bookies have closed left, right and centre in the last 20 years as the industry has consolidated and as the lottery has slashed their receipts. It may be easier than ever before to open one on a regulatory level, but that doesn't mean the money's there to sustain it.


Again, I didn't make any such claims about 'more bookies than ever before in *my*precious 'society'. I also stated that my issue was with more opening in FH. As you are well aware, there was one bookmakers here. Within the last two years, we have another one. And with William Hill taking over the Blockbuster's site, there is the potential for a third. Can you count? Or do you want to be pedantic about that possibility? So sorry, but I think you'll find that some Forest Hill lifer has stepped in and NOT backed your insistence that they are decreasing rather than increasing in the local area. The website's above also seem to indicate that yes, 95 bookies in hackney is a historic high. I'll let you know if I find incontrovertible proof for you, but frankly I think I'm wasting my time on a moron who appears to have another agenda. What is it? Have you been banned from the other two already?

Baboonery Wrote:
And if your grasp of common business sense is so tenuous that you can't spot a difference between a new company opening a site in the market and the same company opening a second one, then there's little hope for you, and you have no place lecturing those who choose of their own free will to spend their money in whatever way they choose, and calling them stupid.


I doubt very much that all of the bookmakers in Hackney are run by 95 different companies. When it comes to gambling, what difference does it make if the two establishments on either side of the road are run by the same people? As long as there are mugs out there to pour their money into the gambling abyss, it doesn't matter in which outlet they blow it. Being connected, it is quite possible that one will subsidise the newly opened one until both are covering their expenses and turning a profit - an issue I doubt either will have anyway. What do you need more bookies for? Why argue so vehemently for their expansion in FH? If you are so desperate to get rid of your cash, I can point you in the direction of a certain BI saleswoman with pimps to support!

Baboonery Wrote:
By the way, most of the increase in gambling turnover in the last ten years has come from city traders engaging in spread betting. This is also the type of gambling engaged in most frequently by problem gamblers.

Bookies are subject to supply and demand just like anyone else. Too many chasing money and some will close, as has happened throughout the country in the last decade. The fact that one more opens up doesn't create demand.


Fair enough. It doesn't change the issue I am speaking about, which is more than adequately addressed in this quote, again from the davehill website (above):

The greatest concentration of problem gamblers is among the young, especially males, and the poorest. Gamblers from these groups are those most likely to make use of betting shops, and betting shops are where the most addictive and (for the punter) costly forms of gambling are provided. Perhaps the real problem is not the spread of betting shops as such but some of the newer gaming options they provide. Video roulette and the like were subjected to no restrictions under the Gambling Act (2005) which came into force last month.

Again, what does poverty breed? C-R-I-M-E-! Wow

Find all posts by this user Reply
admin
Administrator

Posts: 394
Joined: Dec 2002
Post: #16
14-11-2007 04:06 PM

While debate is welcome, I respectfully suggest that if a discussion starts to decend into the realm of name-calling it may be a good indicator that it's time to continue it off-list?

Find all posts by this user Reply
frosty


Posts: 15
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #17
14-11-2007 04:09 PM

admin Wrote:
While debate is welcome, I respectfully suggest that if a discussion starts to decend into the realm of name-calling it may be a good indicator that it's time to continue it off-list?


Apologies admin, I'll try to reign it in a bit.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile Smile

Find all posts by this user Reply
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #18
14-11-2007 04:12 PM

[quote=frosty]
What do you need more bookies for? Why argue so vehemently for their expansion in FH? If you are so desperate to get rid of your cash, I can point you in the direction of a certain BI saleswoman with pimps to support!

Show me one word where I have 'argued vehemently for their expansion'. I disagree with your vehement and rather puritan dislike of them - that's one thing, arguing for their expansion is another.

I'm sure economists will be grateful to hear your idea of bottomless bookmaking demand, constrained only by the number of outlets. It's certainly a new theory.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #19
14-11-2007 04:15 PM

I agree with you that FBOTs are awful, though. I'd happily see them banned.

Find all posts by this user Reply
frosty


Posts: 15
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #20
14-11-2007 05:27 PM

frosty Wrote:
What do you need more bookies for? Why argue so vehemently for their expansion in FH? If you are so desperate to get rid of your cash, I can point you in the direction of a certain BI saleswoman with pimps to support!

Baboonery Wrote:
Show me one word where I have 'argued vehemently for their expansion'. I disagree with your vehement and rather puritan dislike of them - that's one thing, arguing for their expansion is another.

Ok ok, you've argued vehemently against my dislike of them then. You've stated that you don't believe that they impinge on your life at all, and have found fault with every argument I have given regarding the negative impact they have and the negative impact new outlets would have. Even though you maintain that the number of bookies has halved, the number of people gambling and numbers of problem gamblers have remained around the same figures - which suggests that twice as much gambling is taking place in half as many establishments. Which by definition also suggests that an increase in the amount of gambling establishments has potential.
I am not arguing for the abolition of bookmakers either, I am arguing that an increase in their numbers and visibility on the local streets devalues the area and brings more potential problems leading to poverty and crime. If I could change the Blockbusters site into a coffee shop, deli, butchers or bakers I would be much happier.

Baboonery Wrote:
I'm sure economists will be grateful to hear your idea of bottomless bookmaking demand, constrained only by the number of outlets. It's certainly a new theory.

Tell it to the residents of Hackney. Or are all those outlets magically staying afloat in your 'there must be demand before supply' mentality?! If that were the case, there'd be very little advance in the world wouldn't there?

You know, it doesn't take many criminal elements in an area to make a large impact. I'm sure you are well aware that the majority of crimes are committed by a minority of people. And I'm fairly sure low aspirations, poor education and poverty are all involved. There are links, if you are willing to acknowledge them.

Baboonery Wrote:
I agree with you that FBOTs are awful, though. I'd happily see them banned.

We agree on something! YAY! Smile

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (2): « First [1] 2 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields