Jump to content

woolwich turning into a betting shop? (Lounged)


alba

Recommended Posts

There is a planning application up on the window for a betting shop on the old Woolwich building society site. Right next to the massive William Hill. I seem to remember there was a campaign against William Hill before it opened. Does anyone know why that failed and if there's any hope of stopping this new betting shop not getting in?(I forget what the name of this new betting shop is, not one I'd heard of before)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems that a lot of the old Woolwich sites are going to bookies. We put in an offer to purchase another Woolwich branch in London Bridge and our offer was blown out of the water by a bookie; I'm talking by about 75% over our offer and well over double the asking price. Since advertising laws have changed on gambling, the bookies seem to be going all out for as much advertising as possible - but then they obviously need as many shops with good foot fall to ensure the advertising doesnt go to waste.


Personally dont care for betting or baby shops.. we dont need either on LL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am disgusted that this site will be turned into yet another betting shop - anyone see William Hill over flowing? The council would not change the status of the site for a restaurant (Mr Carluccio I need you!)but is quite happy for yet another bookie to open up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, and the bookies wouldn't bother opening in the area if they wern't confident of getting the business.


I'm not really a big better, but I used to work in a bookies up in Liverpool, and I don't see what the problem is with them. It used to remind me of working in a bar, you had your regulars who'd have a bit of banter with you, it was all quite friendly.


Some people like to go and spend their money on drinking, some on food, some on clothes, and some betting on sports and racing. Fortunately Lordship Lane caters for all of these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a fan of betting shops myself (especially that garish one - is it Bet Fred? That will be a real eyesore if it's them)


But being disgusted is a tad harsh? My objections would be


a) yet another chain (but anyone can counter that with the fact that it was already a chain so I won't make a fuss)

b) it could look really horrible. I mean really really, not in a Foxtons way horrible but REALLY horrible


I'm sure some people will object to the gambling side and the effects on families but as with alcohol, the fact that some people become dependant shouldn't stop the show for everyone else in my opinion


But if it looks as horrible as that one opposite Sainsbury's on DKH then I will sign anything to stop it - otherwise, que sera sera

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victim of our own success? I think that there were a lot of businesses interested and that, at the end of the day, (I wish I could stop saying that) money was the decider. I think it could well be Bet Fred and I think they were prepared to pay far more to be there than anyone else. Simple answer is to boycott LL and they will all bugger off. Mind you, I wouldn't bet on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Many of the restaurants on LL are hardly overflowing......."


This is true, but that is rather dependent on quality of food, ambiance and other things. Is that also true of betting shops? ED is kind of overflowing with them.


I think it's a class issue, what's Lousia's view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before Caffe Nero opened (pleeeeease don't debate whether this was a good or bad thing again), Paddy Power applied for a licence to open up in that space, but got turned down (I believe) because there were already enough bookies in the area - I think the council was applying a 'one-in, one-out' policy - William Hill was presumably ok because they simply relocated; so presumably the same rule would apply to the Woolwich site - unless Ladbrokes are planning to relocate from near Nero?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDmummy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am disgusted that this site will be turned into

> yet another betting shop - anyone see William Hill

> over flowing? The council would not change the

> status of the site for a restaurant (Mr Carluccio

> I need you!)but is quite happy for yet another

> bookie to open up.


Agreed. May we please have Carluccios pdq!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isnt it typical - something for the working classes decides to open and the organic brigade come out in force and claim there are too many bookies in the area. Well for me personally there is one too many of everything in the area including baby shops, restaurants and pointless boutiques. But they still continue to open and operate, lets just get on with it and accept it, as keef has already pointed out there is more than enough room for a variety of shops on LL.


Happy New Year.


Louisa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I saw the title of this I assumed someone was asking why the whole of Woolwich Town Centre was being turned into a betting shop, then I thought that's daft and then thought maybe that they're thinking Woolwich Buiding Society is a betting shop which, if you think about it, is about right. People betting on the price of their houses/mortgages rising is a safer bet than on a horse winning or losing.

Now I read the actual contents and I think, if they're opening a betting shop it's because they think there are enough people willing to make it work. Market forces and all that. I'm with Louisa on that issue. If no-one goes it will fail. Give the people what you persuade them they want, and all that.


(Talking of which wasn't Extras BRILLIANT last night.)


Now, do we need another Wetherspoons in the region?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How terribly depressing... I always find betting shops a tad tragic - those screwed up bits of paper which offered so much hope, but just mean another pound in the bookie's pocket. I think it's ironic that Louisa equates them with working class culture - some would argue they are just another way of exploiting the working classes hard-earned cash (In Peckham we have bookies and churches - suprisingly appropriate bed fellows).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think there isn't?


> perhaps a high class brothel in LL or thereabouts

> would be a good business proposition.




As for churches and betting shops being bedfellows, of course they are!

Everyone's betting on something, or trying to insure against something which is the same as betting.

The stock market is basically gambling isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do get the odd tragic better who will lose the house keeping money in one afternoon, and walk out tail between legs. However, most of your regular betters know exactly what they are going to allow themselves to spend on betting, and if they happen to win, that's a great bonus. It's the same as allowing yourself ?20 for the pub. Only difference being that unless you get sick, you have absolutely no chanve of getting anything back from the drink! ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But you don't think the same protection should be afforded to those on the anti-LTN side...? Given the witch hunt some are be conducting to unearth which local residents are involved (see numerous examples on this forum), given the vandalism of the anti-LTN signs and interference with cars, labelling of anyone who opposes as some sort of petrol-head facist and given even Anna Goodman's tearing down of an anti-LTN poster you still think you only want anonimyity for those on one side of the argument? Does that not seem slightly hypocritical...it's why your first post on this issue entertained so many of us - it seemed ever so one-sided and summed up the challenges anyone who opposes the measures has to fight?
    • Hello again, Rubie, my cat, is still missing. He has been gone since 18th April.  Rubie is black and white, with black ears, a splendid white moustache, white front paws, and mostly white back legs.  Please check your sheds etc as he may be trapped, he’s a curious little thing.  I would really appreciate any help and suggestions. Thank you.
    • There is no equivalence between One Dulwich purporting to be a local organisation speaking for local people, and actually properly constituted organisations such as The Dulwich Society. A 3 -second google search reveals the openly published names of the trustees of Dulwich Society, so I can make my own mind up as to whether these individuals are coming at local issues with a particular slant. I can read minutes of their meetings online, and whilst I might not agree with their every position, I can have confidence that they are an open and fundamentally democratic institution. There is absolutely nothing similar in terms of publicly accountable information to be found about One Dulwich - no idea of who is behind it, who pays for it ( it is clearly expensive), and on what basis they make their decisions.  Given the Police involvement in the intimidation of people with a public pro-LTN view ( for which there is no equivalence in terms of severity of any incident for those with an anti-LTN point of view), I can fully understand why, for Dulwich Society's traffic sub- committee only, they want a bit of online anonymity. I also find it slightly disturbing that when The Dulwich Society current leadership asked the 'grouping' pushing for changes within it for a meeting to discuss their concerns, they refused it. Given the recent experiences of organisations such as The National Trust, the question can be asked - is something similar going on here?   
    • I’ll post it to the DVLA if i don’t find the owner by midweek. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...