HearFromYourMP

Comments

• Posted by Susanna Bennett, 10:04, Tue 24 February 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I agree with this entirely. I think the success of the gambling industry is reliant upon vulnerable people and fuelling addiction. I am really pleased that Diane is taking action on this. It is not just the individual that suffers but the rest of their household too.

• Posted by Y.F.Man, 10:33, Tue 24 February 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Is it not a matter of true or false that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport claimed that the Gambling Act 2005 which came into force in 2007 would ‘make it easier for licensing authorities to act in the interests of local residents. Local residents or responsible authorities can seek a review of a licence for any particular premises.’ and can easily be proved. Is there a need to restrict people ability to gamble? Surely if one does not have the income to gamble they shouldn't!

  I think more effort being put into correcting Mr Brown financial policy would save the public more money? Investment into financial institutions without controls? No finance institution would do it. What happen to the free market economy correcting itself?

• Posted by Nic Knowland, 11:47, Tue 24 February 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I agree and support Diane's position on betting shops in general and hope that she can get some clear answers as to why the 2005 gambling act is not working in the interests of the local communities in the way it was supposed to. I would hope that we can read about the out come of the planned meeting with government ministers on the website in due course.

• Posted by Arthur M. Gallagher, 12:51, Tue 24 February 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  In support of betting shops they do:

  * provide a place for people to socialise regarding sports they share as common interests

  * fill a desire many people have to "prove" their knowledge or hunches are better than other peoples'

  * avoid people resorting to unlicensed bookmakers who could pose a greater economic and social threat

  However, even these licensed bookmakers do:

  * use plenty of tactics to lure hard-earned cash out of people's pockets with promises of big winnings

  * have odds that are proportionately stacked AGAINST their customers' favour, in comparison with other financial betting mechanisms

  * not put as much back into the community as state sponsored schemes such as the National Lottery

  As much as I personally feel that the high numbers of betting shops in depressed communities do take unfair advantage of vulnerable people, I wonder if education and community co-operation might not be a better way to reduce the associated problems, rather than resorting to closing businesses using heavy-handed legislatory mechanisms?

• Posted by Thomas, 13:46, Tue 24 February 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Well educated individuals with reasonable employment prospects would be less likely to risk their incomes on excessive gambling. This government has failed to deliver acceptable levels of education. It has also failed to deliver a sustainable economy. Of course, it would be great to see less betting shops taking over our high streets - but people will find a way online or otherwise. Perhaps Diane might consider closing down estate agents too - how many more will be ruined by betting irresponsibly on property?

• Posted by Thomas MacManus, 14:07, Tue 24 February 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I understand the concern over vulnerable people gambling away their last pennies every week - those the Act claims to protect. But gambling is no more 'evil' than the 'demon drink'. And where should our priorities lie? What about the National Lottery in every shop - the biggest gaming apparatus in the country? And what about gaming machines in pubs - how much is pumped into them everyday? I would suggest that we get some numbers and data on where the problem really lies. I, like many, do most of my gambling online - how do we protect vulnerable people of Hackney in cyberspace? The real issue is protecting the vulnerable - not the many people who enjoy some harmless gambling and the freedom to do as they please, without government interference.

• Posted by Flora Fyfe-Graham, 14:27, Tue 24 February 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I completely agree with Ms Abbott that betting shops must be treated differently than banks, for the reasons she states.

  Another issue is the sustainability of the high street, ensuring that the services that communities require have affordable premises on the high street, rather than chains of betting shops.

  For example, there are parts of Hackney that are very poorly served with banks and building societies--often the poorest areas. This means that fee-charging cash points, or time-consuming bus trips, are the only options for the people who can least afford them. And these are the areas where you will find an excess of better shops, as well as usurious cheque-cashing places and loan/pawnshops.

  Legislation should be encouraging banks and especially building societies that offer services to people with low incomes, while discouraging betting shops, pawn shops etc that take people's last penny while draining the high street of character and community spirit.

• Posted by Ellen Graubart, 14:59, Tue 24 February 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I agree entirely with Diane Abbott's views on betting shops, and have noted with extreme dismay over the years the proliferation of these predatory businesses. Their existence has cast a blight on our communities, and tempted scores of people to part with money many of whom could ill afford to lose, the knock-on effect of which must have contributed to many problems for families, and added to the number of children living in poverty. Whoever thought of classing these businesses in the same category as banks and building societies must either have been insane, or was hiding an agenda of pure greed in the name of social advancement. Our shopping areas have been made bleak places to walk through - I always feel a negative streak of pure anger every time I pass one of these places, because each one of them represents a little death to the health of where we live.

• Posted by Guy Cruls, 18:43, Tue 24 February 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Clearly, the majority of betting shop punters are under-educated men who have fallen on hard times. No amount of marketing patter from the betting industry will distract attention that these outlets prey on people that are under-equipped to survive in the job market. I have no doubt that empirical research will demonstrate that most punters suffer from a compulsive condition derived from a sense of hopelessness. Let's offer solid support and training to the unemployed and, where appropriate, rehab to those in need thereof.

• Posted by Sharon Irvine, 14:34, Wed 25 February 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I wholeheartedly back this campaign! I think it is shopcking the number of betting shops on an average high street, especially in today's financial climate. Betting is a drain on time and money, and add to the mix it's addictive qualities it's surprising more people haven't been sucked into gambling addiction.

  Offer help and support to the people most likely to fall foul of the lure of betting and you could target a huge audience and possibly even get more employed!

• Posted by Robert Pendar-Hughes, 12:36, Thu 26 February 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Even as an opponent of gambling (I just don't get the attraction), I'm uncomfortable endorsing yet more 'nanny state' controls over what/how/where citizens choose to spend their leisure time. Enough already! As hinted at in previous posts, perhaps a more realistic approach would be to persuade Betting Shops to plough a little back into the immediate neighbourhood or even to provide sponsorship of Gamblers Anonymous activity in the area.

• Posted by John Callon, 16:21, Fri 27 February 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I agree with what Diane is seeking to do. If the relevant act was supposed to make it easy for local citizens and local authorities to exercise control and this is, in fact, not the case in reality, then the evidence of this should be presented to the Minister and the relevant scrutiny committee of the HoC.

• Posted by Kate Creedy, 23:15, Sat 28 February 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I cannot believe that gambling is anything other than a cynical way of parting people from their money and creating another addiction that can be taxed. People have the right to go to the devil in a handcart if they wish, but why on earth would we encourage this in terms of local high streets and communities! The sheer arrogance of this government in ignoring ordinary citizens views of what is in the interests of their local communities at street level, and its intense focus on curtailing civil liberties, is breathtaking. I do not want more betting shops locally and want a government who can actually demonstrate a commitment to listening to the ordinary people to whom they are answerable at the ballot box.

• Posted by Nathan Murphy, 09:36, Sun 1 March 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Dear Diane,

  I feel that your thoughts, although relevant to some extent poorly consider the wider context of gambling.

  Closing betting shops in Hackney just provides online gambling companies with a state sponsored preference. I am sure you know, if you use the web to any extent that it is hard to avoid gambling adverts.

  Online gambling does not create jobs for the local population OR provide taxes to the Hackney council. Betting shops are valid businesses, and saying they cause poverty can be carried across to other businesses, for example pubs.

  Or, how about the incredibly high number of fast food shops causing low standards of cardial health and the life long problems childhood and adult obesity.

  It is easy for people in the public sector to target buisnesses providing such services as a bain on the community, but the fact is that they pay tax and create employment. Have you considered that the desire to have a flutter is simply cultral and very few people if none in Hackney are left destitute through it.

  If you want to tackle poverty, don't hit businesses that employ local people to the benefit of exactly the same businesses that don't. Focus on the people who need support, empowerment and encouragment towards stable employment.

  I am still awaiting a reply for my letter sent to you regarding the governments position on Titan Prisons.

  Warmest regards,

  Nathan

• Posted by Guy Cruls, 06:40, Wed 4 March 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  A key fact to bear in mind at all times when discussing betting shops is their typical clientele. The fact is that, passing by a betting shop is a depressing experience. Punters are overwhelmingly men, obviously disaffected. It is very clear from their general appearance and demeanour that in socio-economic terms these people belong among the lowest ranks of society - poor education and poor training, many of whom are probably not in employment. Betting shops are not happy places - and the highest concentrations of them are found in poor areas. Surely is a coincidence? Money that could be spent on fresh vegetables or on a utility bill is spent on gambling.

  To gloss over the above reflects, to paraphrase NM's own words, a poorly considered view of the wider context.

  In addition to the above, there is an issue with NM arguing that:

  * closing shops would boost online gambling * closing shops would imply job losses * poverty would be better tackled by targeting fast food shops (pubs as well?) * the desire to have a flutter is simply cultural and very few people if none in Hackney are left destitute through it. * betting shops are valid businesses

  Please note the 'if none' in the fourth bullet point ...

  One could address each of the above points separately but, put together, they reflect such a blatantly biased view that the argument would not have been put otherwise by one with a stake in one or more betting shops. Mendacious is the word that describes the argument made.

  Still, let us address some of the points:

  * job losses: on the strength that betting shops are businesses preying on vulnerable people, as is my contention, remunerated employment in such places barely qualifies as a job, as there is no pride whatsoever to be drawn from doing such a job. * fast food shops are a serious but separate issue. And yes, they should be tackled, bu let us not muddy the waters... * NM intimates that very few people 'if none' are left destitute by gambling. Perhaps he could tell us why the following exist:

  http://www.gamblersanonymous.org.uk/ http://www.gamcare.org.uk/ http://www.addictions.co.uk/addiction.asp?id=gamb http://www.wanttostopgambling.com/ http://www.beatingaddictions.co.uk/BeatingAddictionGambling.html

  Betting shops are not valid businesses. The fact that they pay tax and provide remunerated work in no way whatsoever makes them such. Being legally legitimate does not exempt a business from being targeted as being a negative influence on the community. A business can be legally legitimate but morally bankrupt.

  NM rightly states that the focus should be on 'the people who need support, empowerment and encouragment towards stable employment'. That is a bit confusing, as, er, curiously these are exactly the sort of people that patronise betting shops!

  Clearly, betting shops are a symptom among others of a wider, systemic problem of socio-economic deprivation. Wait for Dalston's regeneration to be completed and, with new housing, new businesses and new jobs and a brighter, more promising future in the air, most betting shops will move elsewhere. People with rewarding social lives simply do not think of gambling. Gambling is a substitute for life.

  While I do support the principle of targeting betting shops, I am not sure that this can achieve much in isolation. I would certainly support the following: betting shop punters are entitled to being warned and educated about the nature of gambling. Just as a pack of cigarettes bears a mandatory health warning, just so betting shop windows could be made to bear a warning that gambling can be addictive. The warning could include a helpline telephone number, as well as an email address. Betting shops could also be required to display leaflets on gambling addiction.

  Finally, it would be helpful if systematic empirical research were carried among betting shop punters, to establish their most salient socio-economic attributes. I would urge Diane Abbott to commission this if it hasn't been done yet. Hard statistical evidence is essential to support the case for closing betting shops or otherwise limit their nefarious impact on vulnerable people.

  Guy Cruls

• Posted by Jacqui Deprez, 13:25, Sat 14 March 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  agree with Diane. It is and always will be a mugs game.

  Regards.

• Posted by Robert Pendar-Hughes, 10:39, Sun 15 March 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Pray tell why can't people be mugs if they want to be? If a minority of citizens get into trouble gambling should this really initiate a collective punishment of all who enjoy a flutter?

• Posted by Ferdinand Dennis, 16:57, Thu 9 April 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Exactly what Diane objects to in relation to betting shops is not clear to me. Is it gambling? If so, I'm sure some economists would argue that gambling by the poor is a perfectly rational economic activity, and one entirely consistent with the 'risk culture' in which we live. Is it the bold and pervasive presence of betting shops? Having seen the clientele--elderly men, black and white--of a recently opened betting shop in my neighbourhood,I am reluctant to agree that such gambling outlets represent a threat to the fabric of our community. Perhaps some research is in order.

  Ferdinand Dennis

• Posted by Simon Pennington, 09:33, Tue 14 April 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I'm not keen on an increase in gambling as we fall deeper into a economic malaise. However I do not feel qualified to make a informed opinion

Commenting on this message is now disabled.