Gambling & Regulation

There's been a rapid increase in the number of betting shops in my neighbourhood. The most conspicuous arrival is that of Coral in the former Hackney Town Hall, which stands in the main local shopping street. The building had previously housed a bank where a plaque recorded that local boy Jack Cohen, the founder of Tesco, opened his first account there. Would Britain's trailblazing supermarket tycoon have been sanguine about this new surge of market forces or would he have shared the disquiet of the Council and some residents about the social impact of more betting outlets in my borough's streets?

Tricky issues, these. Opponents of the bookie boom claim that the shops are magnets for antisocial street behaviour and that by providing fixed odds computer betting terminals such as touch screen video roulette machines - described by critics as the gaming equivalent of crack cocaine - they foster problem gambling. A counter-argument might be that dislike of betting shops is driven by middle-class snobbery and that the recent increase in numbers will probably reverse anyway as demand and supply come into line: after all, the Gambling Commission, the government's watchdog, recently reported almost no increase in either the percentage of people in Britain who gamble (about half of us, if you exclude the national lottery) or the numbers of problem gamblers (about 250,000) over the past ten years.

So do we really have a growing gambling problem? As ever, the answer varies depending on which part of "we" you mean. The greatest concentration of problem gamblers is among the young, especially males, and the poorest. Gamblers from these groups are those most likely to make use of betting shops, and betting shops are where the most addictive and (for the punter) costly forms of gambling are provided. Perhaps the real problem is not the spread of betting shops as such but some of the newer gaming options they provide. Video roulette and the like were subjected to no restrictions under the Gambling Act (2005) which came into force last month. Yet they are a source of big trouble for some of the most susceptible people in the country and those damaged by the knock-on effects. State policing of peoples' pleasures can often make things worse, but in this instance the case for Nanny to step in looks pretty strong.

Comments

[Chip Dale]

I don't see it being a tricky situation. I live surrounded by run down areas. Just last week, I rode on a bus through one of the worst areas not far from where I live. There, outside a crummy little bookmakers, was parked a brand new Bentley Continental. It said everything there needs to be said about these parasites, living off the dreams of the poor. I'm generally quite liberal in my attitudes to most things but I'd close the lot of them. They bring nothing to our run down estates but take what little there is from them. The same is true of the lottery. Desperation makes people do desperate things. I don’t think the rest of us should stand by and watch it happen.

[Pants]

Hi Dave

Of all the depressing things that have happened in our high street, that has to be the worst. Our most prominent landmark building a betting shop. We should change the name to the London Borough of Hock Me.

xxx

Pants