Jump to content

woolwich turning into a betting shop? (Lounged)


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)

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

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.

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.

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

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.

"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?

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?

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!

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.

Louisa - if I count as a member of the "organic brigade" you'll see I supported the idea (without the really 'orrible shopfront of one particular operator) - New Year's resolution for us all "No More Generalising" ;-)


oh and Happy New Year back at you

The company is Jennings:- (http://www.joejennings.co.uk/aboutus.htm ). Why a small firm like this wants to open next door to Wm Hill is a bit of a mystery, maybe they hope to pick up those who are fed up with Hills and Ladbrokes etc.. - of which there must be plenty.

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?

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).

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.

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! ;-)

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

    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
    • Niko 07818 607 583 has been doing jobs for us for several years, he is reliable, always there for us, highly recommended! 
    • I am keeping my fingers crossed the next few days are not so loud. I honestly think it is the private, back garden displays that are most problematic as, in general, there is no way of knowing when and where they might happen. For those letting off a few bangers in the garden I get it is tempting to think what's the harm in a few minutes of 'fun', but it is the absolute randomness of sudden bangs that can do irreparable damage to people and animals. With organised events that are well advertised there is some forewarning at least, and the hope is that organisers of such events can be persuaded to adopt and make a virtue of using only low noise displays in future.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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