New betting shop at former Woolwich

[????]

Sean - ever met any alcoholics or families ruined by booze? Where are your threads about closing down bars?

I've noticed yours and others use of the word "WE"....are you the collective opinion of all the EDF? Forums are places for debate sorry If you're not up for that....but unless you really speak for everyone (and I'm sure you speak for a lot) I'd change your "We" to "I"...

Meanwhile, whilst this is an open forum which I'm allowed to post on I'll continue to have my own opinions even if they are in the minority...

If this was a dinner party I'd understand you're annoyance at the appearance of an unwelcome guest that disagreed with you and your mates but it's not it's a public forum. The laugh is that I'm sure that you and others think you're very liberal and tolerant and full of original thpought and opininon.....infact you're not at all........

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Don't be a plonker ????. You are deliberately being obtuse. We all know the evils of drink and gambling as we all know how they can be enjoyed in moderation.

[????]

I'm not, it strikes me that the undercurrent of this thread is pretty clearly "YUG, we don't want Betting Shops in our (recently aquired) manor"...plus a whole load of stereotypical views about the nature of gambling and bookmakers.......I notice, with a few exceptions, most reactions to my posts which don't are outright abuse Brandon calling me *%$*, or, as in Seans "Oi, you WE don't want your opinions on here"....sorry for pissing on your chips

[SeanMacGabhann]

???? - ha - on that point you have me. I shouldn't have used "we". I wasn't speaking for a forum collective (how could I - there are 1500 odd people on here) - although if I was to take "we" to mean everyone except you, I would make a defence for it

The slightly tedious nature of your "this is a public forum etc etc" ignores the fact that I'm not arguing with the pros and cons of betting shops. My beef with your argument is that instead of talking about the merits or otherwise of betting shops you seem determined to compare them to restaurants and bars. Despite arguments to the contrary, you don't engage with any of them

Several people, who you dismiss as the "petit bourgeois" have spelled out their prediliction for gambling - be it big time or nickle and dime stuff. One or two people with families who have suffered overly have come out against. You ignored all of this to make a cheap point - namely

And you don't have a lot to back that statement up with. You can point to some posts arguing against the spread of betting shops and the negative effect on communities but to conclude, as you do , is not an opinion - it's factually wrong

As it happens my family is riddled with chronic addictions to both gambling and alcohol (not always both in the same person) and there ain't anything petit bour fucking geois about any of us.

My point is you can't keep repeating the same guff about thebarsarequietsometimessowhydopeoplepickonbettingshops??

Because. they aren't. the same. thing

It is a public forum and there is a debate to be had on it - but it would be useful if people referred to the points others make in the counter-argument. The first time you did that in this thread was when I singled your post out.. . And to then finish with

is just chip on shoulder stuff. You haven't the first idea about me other than what you read on here - I make no similar judgement on you (and have supported you on other threads - not that I imagine you care one jot) - I merely said that if you can summarise as incorrectly as you did your opinion can be ignored.

You could counter that by expanding your argument but instead you've gone on a personal attack (to which I probably shouldn't respond). By your post I'm not sure if you think liberal and original thought are good things or not by the way

Having re-read the thread just now to be sure (to be sure) I caught a few things that I missed first time. Keef taking my point about restaurants being social and betting just a vice and calling it nonsense. Sorry keef, but your description to portray the social side of it doesn't sound like the wife and kids would be either welcome or want to join in. Again, I'm not saying that makes betting shops bad - I'm just saying there is a difference with pubs/restaurants beyond the possibility of addiction to either - and why more of one would be preferable to more of the other - but I'm not against betting shops (which I'm sure I have posted somewhere on here, just not on this thread)

[????]

Ok Sean, I accept, and now remember that you agreed some parts of my posts on the bank charges...so you clearly are capable of original thought : ). the use of we bothers me and riled me as I've had it several times already from various posters. Is this a cozy club or a forum....I will bother to sit down and make some points about gambling shortly...but with a few exceptions most arguments on here about it demonstrate ignorance, and however much they are dressed up with steretype and prejudice put forward as justification actually suggest to me that 'people like us don't want people like that round here'...I suspect you can see that a bit too....it looks like classic PB disapproval of gambling to me...am I being a bit provocative, sure, but that's my nature...

[Asset]

isn't it just that the frontage of betting shops is crap and the frontage of poncy boutiques is a bit more attractive?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

What's PB?

[SeanMacGabhann]

;-)

As I'm coming to realise ???? - and I'd be happy for anyone to call me on ot if I use the royal we again. Bad form and all that

I look forward to the arguments around gambling - Personally, I love it. But I tend to keep well away from it these days. And I have no real problem with the number of shops in the area. I wouldn't be thrilled by one opening in the Woolwich - but that's more to do with size of the space and the fact that something more interesting could open there

ummm...what else? Oh yes... the fact that it's a public forum doesn't preclude it from being cozy. Come along to the drinks. But it isn't a club...honest guv

[SeanMacGabhann]

petit-bourgeois PCG

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

merci

[Asset]

Yes Sean, I pulled you up about using 'we' the other day didn't I?

[????]

Ok - anyway, I'm off to play online poker

(PB = Petit Bourg. PG)

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Break a leg.

[????]

Get dealt A 8 would be the poker equivalent.......

[SeanMacGabhann]

did you? och I don't listen to you, you silll.. oops. just kidding. I always listen to you

[citizenED]

I think many people's disappointment about the prospect of a bookies opening on the woolwich site is simply about what could be there in it's place, however unrealistic that may be. There are already Bookies on the Lane: wouldn't it be great to have a record shop?

[Keef]

On this thread I basically agree with ????'s arguements. And I'm not a better (maybe once or twice a year I'll bet a tenner).

I still disagree about bank charges though!

[????]

Some arguments against points made on here

1) Betting shops are largely empty

Betting is not like going for meal or even going for a drink - a great deal of betting business is a single relatively straightforward transaction, except for the hardcore all day user (more of which later). Therefore, a bookmakers doesn?t have to be ?full? to justify its existence - I hardly ever see (no pun intended) anyone in the opticians.

2) Gambling is the ruin of all gamblers and bookies result in all sorts of social ills

Er?no, or certainly no more, and actually probably far less than pubs/off licences are the cause of far more widespread social, criminal and health problems. Of course, some people get into problems with gambling as some people do with drinking, some with drugs, some with sex etc. The vast majority of gamblers genuine enjoy the ups and, mainly downs, of gambling and pitting their wits. They may lose, and the majority do but MOST gamblers lose a little and have an occasional nice win and enjoy this well within their means,

3) Bookies are anti-social full of misfits

A bookies is actually quite a social place with quite a lot of banter and collective commiseration (hey, and even celebration sometimes.) There are a hardcore of punters (mentioned in point 1) - who spend a great deal of time in the bookies, have mates their, bring in a daily budget and pass the day in likeminded company without getting in to any financial problems. They are, in the majority, not the sort of people many EDF types probably mix with?but so what.

4) Bookies somehow cause social harm to surrounding areas and attract the wrong crowd

In east Dulwich pubs, I?ve seen several pretty unsavoury incidents including someone getting bottled, numerous fights, frequent highly aggressive behavious, abuse of passing people, people throwing up on the streets, Anti-social noise at closing time, not personally seen any of this in or by bookies

5) You only need one

As any punter knows, it?s about the odds you get. The more the merrier - in reality it would be best if there were about 5 in a row so you could easily check odds/prices

Let?s face it EDF?you don?t like them because you have prejudiced PB attitudes about the the whole gambling thing plus you don?t like their hardcore demographic?

There Sean, some points rather than provocation as promised

[SeanMacGabhann]

and a very good post to Quids (although naturally I'll disagree with some of them ;-) so, without further ado;

1) Betting shops are largely empty

Only one (or two) people have expressly made this point. Sometimes they are busy and sometimes they aren't. Just like the other establishments you highlight. ie we (that's we as an quids and me btw!) agree

2) Gambling is the ruin of all gamblers and bookies result in all sorts of social ills

Don't think anyone has made that point - certainly not with the "ALL". If they did make that point I would disagree with them. so another one we agree on. But it can definitely ruin families far quicker and without any awareness on their part - compared to (say) alcoholism where it's a year on year increase with all the signs becoming more evident

3) Bookies are anti-social full of misfits

Can't find anything to support this. The anti-social could be an interpretation of me saying that restaurants and mbrs are convivial places whereas bookies aren't - which is true if we broaden out the client base. I have been to bookies, I do know what the score is and have had fun there - with other people too! But I wouldn't get very far if I suggested Lady MacGabhann and pals might care to join me.. so, not sure if I can full agree on this point

4) Bookies somehow cause social harm to surrounding areas and attract the wrong crowd

It's a point that could be made but as you rightly point out the same is true of bars etc - although only in a bookie can someone go in and end up losing not only all of his/her own money but that of their families as well (without them knowing - yet). So I half agree with this one

5) You only need one

Don't think anyone has made that point - I think some people have said we have enough in the area and there are many more than one... but yeah you're not realistically going to tear from Crystal Palace Rd to Lordship Lane bottom end and then up to The Plough end to compare odds

So in short: I'm not against bookies opening but if someone was to directly compare them to bars/restaurants then I know which I would prefer MORE of....

[Michael Palaeologus]

I dont have a problem with Bookies as such, dont use them but others do. I do agree that I dont think it will enrich the area very much, but thats me being middle class wankey.

[????]

But honest MP - no problem with that

[rifleman harris]

The majority of the betting done in betting shops during the week is in the morning. Punters come in, place bets and then go. My wife worked in a betting shop for years and this is apparently what happens.

[Keef]

Very true, it's busy for the first hour or so, then you just get your little group of regulars coming in and out all day, then people come for winnings at the end.

In the summer you get your evening crowd in for the dogs.

[david_carnell]

As per the previous post asking for a quick show of hands I think I fall into the "don't care" category but with some reservations.

I do not have a problem with bookmakers or gambling. The idea of people "needing protection" from gambling seems absurd. If someone wishes to gamble they should be free to do so and have the facilities provided. If they lose their money it is no ones fault but their own. People complain about government interference regarding drinking limits, community inteference regarding individual pursuits is a similar grievance.

I would rather have something else, though. I don't gamble myself (other than the odd flutter - Grand National etc) and could think of things that would be of more use to me personally. Whether anyone else would want them is another matter.

I am wondering whether it matters if a shop is busy though? Is this an argument against a bookies? Surely if they pay rent, business tax and council tax they are doing the community a service? Better that than an empty premises.

I'm not sure whether more bookies equals a better deal for the consumer though. Odds are pretty similar in all. Do you not just visit the one closest to you or with the biggest range of TVs and free teas/coffees?

[karter]

Not sure if I am seeing things or if it has been mentioned on the edf but that big site up by the plough across from Homecrafts that contains many units has a *new* William Hill on the end unit.

Can anyone confirm? Citizened?