I'll bet 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.

What better to do for a first post than go Riverdancing into the minefield of somsone else's hotly-contested debate? Hello everyone, by the way - I've lived in HOP for a few years and have only just found this place.

Shzl400 makes a good point, in my view - it's possible to attach quite a pejorative undertone to conversations about "gambling" but for a lot of people (e.g. every banker and broker in the City) it's how they earn a living. Personally, I have no view on the moral rights-and-wrongs of gambling per se, but I do feel a tadlet uncomfortable with bookies. And casinos, for that matter. Look at it this way - when was the last time you saw a bookie go out of business? Never, I suspect. Why? Because they fix the odds to make it enormously unlikely that they will lose across the board. Same goes for Casinos - any business which makes money from gambling without simply taking a cut of your stake must be stacking the odds against you in order to survive...[/i]

There was in fact a betting shop on Waldram Park Road next door to what used to be the pet shop many moons ago

Isn't it time you let go of people's hands and let them make their own decisions about where they spend their money? I find this paternalistic attitude extremely patronising. No-one's attempting to save city traders from themselves by banning their gambling activities, it's just somehow "the poor" who need to be protected.

Nice one Katie One, thanks for clearing that up.
I didn't travel much to 'that' side of the railway line.

That argument is a little confused - the poor may need protection from the bookies, but I mostly feel that we need the protection from the poor gambling addicts who turn to crime to make ends meet. Your argument suggests that it wouldn't be a problem if FH was chock-full of bookies, because everyone should have the freedom to spend where they want on what they want. To hell with the devaluation of your home and the area in general, and the increase in poverty and crime that will come on the back of it. As I've been saying, I'm fine with one bookies in Forest Hill. You can still throw your money away in there. We don't need more.

I'll personally be very surprised if William Hill retain the other shop. Please say I told you so when I'm wrong!

I'll personally be very surprised if William Hill retain the other shop. Please say I told you so when I'm wrong!

Agreed, nevermodern!

Just by way of comparison, I noted the very new-looking William Hill just opposite East Dulwich station this morning, with BetFred just a few doors further up Dog Kennel Hill.

Without wishing to get into the baboonery/frosty debate, could it be something to do with the large council estate that is right there, rather than the ED denizens who buy the Taste the Difference stuff in the Sainsbury's opposite.

Jeez, council estate = bookies!! Nice to know stereotyping is alive and well in SE23. Who do you think uses the bookies in the posh bit of Lordship Lane? Lost council tenants wandering around in search of the closed down job centre??

ps - I know this isnt an ED forum, but isnt that Foxtons place vile? If we ever get one of those in FH, I'm leaving the country!

I didn't write the above, by the way

Regrettable, but true - this is how the bookies (and all other firms) decide where to locate.

Interestingly, I heard somewhere that they often use the Bell Green Sainsburys as a test market for new products, as the demographic of the area it serves most closely matches that for Sainsbury's nationally.