Jump to content

New betting shop at former Woolwich


Clyde

Recommended Posts

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> Ignoring the fact that they are often rammed as well (and therefore a very different proposition to betting shops)


Not sure I totally agree with that point Sean. Firstly, I know a lot of people who regularly use betting shops, they just tend for the most part to be an older generation.


Secondly, most betting shops don't have transparent windows, so how do people know who is in there unless they are going in there?


Thirdly, I used to work in one, and believe me, you only need a few regulars to keep you going. These people bet big, and often loose big because they often don't know when to quit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keef


Betting shops are now allowed to have clear windows that you can see through and many of the new ones are providing this facility with limited advertising features in the windows. Seeing into a betting office is now a lot easier. The fact some punters don't know when to quit is a problem often impacting on their familes. Big losers cause big problems for those who have to live with them. The average gambler is probably sensible playing to a budget but there are many that don't as you will probably remember from your days in a betting office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agre on the drink and drugs. So far as drink is concerned blame central government. They allowed the free for all on liquor licensed premises and made the situation worse by bringing in 24 hour drinking. Hence we have so many problems in our town centres. Now they are allowing the same free for all with gambling and betting shops. Drugs - other than prescription and over the counter - are a bit different in that they are illegal per se, drinking and gambling are not. Are we going to see the same discounted type offers in betting shops as we regularly see in pubs, off licenses and supermarkets. I don't know but wouldn't mind betting we do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What odds will you give me telboy?

You can see the effects of the new liquor law now. Binge drinking, rise in under age drinking, rise in alcohol related health problems. You can measure these through crime figures and a&e figures.

If I was a betting man I would wager that in two years time there will be a rise in betting related problems ie addiction, debt etc only these effects are harder to see and quantify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comes back to what I said before. Will we have all sorts of special offers to lure people in and part them from their money just like the liquor industry does. The more offices you get the more they have got to fight to retain market share. Don't know much about hypnotic roulette but I do know a lot of people lose a lot of money on the tables both real and virtual. LL was quite busy tonight but not in the bookies. No special offers advertised. Some of the bars were quitey though. Enough of them already.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"How come everyone is talking about the evils of gambling and yet it's ok for brand new organic off licences and trendy bars to open up in abundance along the lane? Double standards or what!"


Firstly: no organic off-licenses opening on LL. One claims to be but isn't

Secondly: while both gambling and drinking to excess are BOTH evils, drinking and eating establishments at least offer the chance of convivial soc-ialising for all the family - eating and drinking with friends and family are what make us human. Gambling is just a vice


So - no double standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sean


I totally agree. We have always had a culture of excess in this country. You can trace it back to the gin palaces of the 19th century and beyond. We will never be a cafe culture nation like the French or Italians. I concur that bars and restaurants are far more family friendly now and provide for convivial surroundings. The same cannot be said for betting shops which are mainly male dominated, though some women do use them. Children are banned. It's not that many years ago that gambling was run by illegal street bookmakers, I can certainly remember them. Funny how things evolve. The illegal street bookmakers then became the legitimate face of the industry when betting shops were first licenced. What a way to run a country. You can't control the crime so legalise it, give the criminals a licence and let them run it. 45 years on they are big business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

> Sean, you patently have never been to a

> point-to-point. Great family/friends day out with

> lucious picnics, booze and part of the fun having

> a flutter. No vice where I'm concerned.

>

> Ditto a day at the races is very convivial.


Although I agree with the sentiments expressed here - a betting shop is not a racetrack - no sunshine or picnics in there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> eating and drinking with friends and family are what make us human. Gambling is just a vice

> So - no double standards.


Massive generalisation, and total nonsense I'm afraid. Every betting shop will have it's regulars just like the pubs. Often these men (more often than not) will sit together in a cafe and sort their bets, they'll then go and put their bets on. They may then go to a pub to watch the races, and will then go back to collect their winnings.


I have met several betters in the past who have said to me "who's the mug, me or you. You go and spend ?20 in the pub and never see it again. I let myself spend ?20 on betting because I enjoy it, and have budgeted for it, and I have a chance of seeing my money back".


Some people just do it as a hobby, and it is a social thing for them.


It really isn't the seedy underbelly of society that everyone makes it out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keef


I agree with you that betting offices today are not the seedy underbelly of society anymore. The vast majority are now run by good legitimate businesses. The issue of a new betting ofice for LL was originally raised by Alba back in December with the question, "How can we stop it". Reading the postings there are mixed views and it would be interesting to see how strong the feeling is one way or the other. How about a quick simple poll. YES for I want it, NO for I don't want it or DC for don't care.


I don't have strong views either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people just do it as a hobby, and it is a social thing for them.


I'm not anti gambling per se, but I am biased against the proliferation of gambling opportunities (both on and off-line) simply because my childhood (and my siblings) was wrecked by a father with a serious gambling addiction.


Everytime I look inside a betting office it seems to be mostly full of the very people who can ill afford to gamble (bit like a Wetherspoons at 10.30 am). How many of those seriously see it as a hobby? How many of them are vulnerable to the false dream of getting rich quick? At casino's I see so many that are glued to a machine or a table night after night. Tell me that's not a problem. Now casino's are actively upgrading the restaurants and entertainment area to make them non gambler friendly. In other words to suck in more punters for the impulse gamble.


All of this is fine if the safeguards are there to protect the vulnerable and their families. I'm not convinced this is the case.


I should just state that I do occasionally gamble on the horses, at a casino, the dogs, poker and backgammon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

???? Wrote:

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

> So, in conclusion...gambling offends the

> sensibilities of the petit bourgeois



Gambling is a form of behaviour that is undertaken by all classes. Some of the aristocracy of the 18th century lost their fortunes through their gambling. It does not matter who gambles as long as it is under control. Loss of dignity/house/family/livelihood is a tragedy no matter to whom it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen the dangers of this industry, a fool and his money are easily parted irrespective of their social standing, and they all need the same protection.

You can have too much of a good thing. In 2 years time posts on this forum could be "my teenager is addicted to electronic roulette machines." Or "my partner has gambled away the equity in the house during the housing cash of 2k8" and we can say "oh what a shame, maybe we should have done something about the 5th betting office application."

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

    • The most recent one did, despite the council making it very difficult for anyone to object (which interestingly they were forced to change for the CPZ consultation and look how that went for them). I will dig out the responses for you when I have more time so you can enlighten yourself.   Ha ha...the language used by councils when they see the results of a consultation and need an out to ignore the views of locals...;-) Did you not notice how this only became a thing once the consultation had been run....one wonders why!? Earl you can bluster all you like but you cannot ignore the fact the council closed the junction to emergency services and put lives at risk and resisted all calls (from the emergency services) to open it for them. Surely you can't defend that  or are you willingly turning a blind eye to that too? Ha ha, which kind of begs the question then why so many of you get so vexed by One Dulwich? Surely you could compartmentalise their work if the above was true? I suspect it has a lot to do with the accountability that they are forcing and the fact some don't like it.
    • I believe around 57% of the 5,538 people who were part of the self selecting sample making up the original consultation, opposed the LTN. So just over 3,000 people. This was around 3 years ago now. I think there’s something like 40,000+ living across se22 and SE21 🤷‍♂️  The LTN is a minority interest at best. Whilst it’s an obsession for a small number on the transport thread who strongly oppose it, I suspect most locals quietly approve of the improvements made to that junction. …and we still haven’t heard who has supposedly been pressurising the emergency services and how (are we seriously going with the far left / the commies)? Is anyone willing to stand up and support the 'One' claim that people are partially covering their plates and driving through the filters due to inadequate signage? Again, it all sounds a little ridiculous / desperate. Feels like it may be time for them to start coming to terms with the changes.
    • Okay Earl, of those 'consulted' how many voices were in favour of the junction and how many against? Were there more responses in favour or more against? This local junction change is being driven by Southwark Labour Councillors- not as you assert by Central Govt. Also, if consultations are so irrelevant as indicators of meaningful local support in the way you seem to imply, why do organisations like Southwark Cyclists constantly ask their members to respond to all and any consultation on LTN's and CPZ's?  
    • You could apply the same argument to any kind of penalty as an effective deterrent.  Better than doing nothing. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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