Online debates about the betting industry are always trolled by the betting industry.

Licensing committees do not turn down applications because the betting companies would appeal in the magistrates court, where the Gambling Law is interpreted thus: serious crime = serious organised crime, antisocial behaviour = riotous behaviour. The council would lose and have to pay the court costs.

Harringey Council's website tells those who wish to object to a license being granted that:

Residents will not be in a position to give any supporting evidence to the first 2 objectives, i.e. ensuring gambling is kept free from crime and ensuring gambling is conducted in a fair and open way. These objectives are really matters that the Gambling Commission are best placed to deal with.

The Guidance issued to the Police advises them that they are able to refer to the following, but even in that guidance it uses the word ‘may be relevant’

‘Other gambling premises in the area are routinely used for illegal activities such as drug-dealing’
‘The existence of other similar premises in the area has been found to have contributed towards local disorder’
‘Other premises owned by this operator in the area have been known to have major problems with underage gambling’

The 3rd objective of protecting children and the vulnerable is also hard to evidence as the law already dictates that only persons aged 18 or over are allowed on betting premises. It will not be relevant to state that because children are walking by a betting shop on their daily journey maybe to and from school that they will be harmed by this."

In Deptford, where there are already five betting shops and four pawnbrokers within a 150m stretch (a total of 7 bookies in the high street and 5 more nearby), Betfred were granted a gambling license. But they were later turned down at Planning, thanks to a historical clause in the A3 Class Use which applied specifically to the site: in a Core Retail area, the premises could only be used as a building society (the condition applied to the previous occupiers, the Halifax).

Betfred appealed against this condition; the council stood firm. Betfred appealed to the government inspector; the inspector turned down the appeal and lifted the condition, but applied a new one: the premises is now classed as ANY A3 useage EXCEPT as a betting shop. Betfred appealed again. The second inspector turned them down. We await their next move.

As somebody who bought property in Peckham in 2007 and somebody who would be classed as a white professional I am totally against betting shops, pay day loan shops, tacky hair salons and cheap take outs- so am I automatically a snob then? well no. I was brought up in the eastern suburbs in a working class Irish catholic family - I was not poor but I always wanted to live in South London.
The issue here is not about class, Peckham is a great place to live, we live in a great ethnic enclave but it could be so much better without the businesses like these clogging up Rye Lane. We need a mixture- I dont want Rye Lane to be middle class like Lordship Lane, but we need businesses that are going to be good for Peckham that are going to bring opportunities for all and betting shops are not going to do that.

Oh, and PS, your point about a lack of power at local level is nonsense. The three councillors on the licensing sub-committee which decided BetFred's application could very easily have turned it down and found as much evidence as they liked to justify doing so, had they wanted. You could have got the police to produce evidence against that, but that's the problem, isn't it - betting shops don't cause trouble, you only have middle-class snobbery against them.

In my own borough, licensing committees routinely turn down applications to extend hours or open new curry restaurants and fried chicken shops, largely out of spite towards the owners, who they don't like, but they put the evidence down to cover it up. If Southwark councillors didn't want more betting shops, they'd turn them down. You've probably annoyed the hell out of them with this bourgeois crusade and they're passing them to spite you.

This really takes the biscuit. The author of this piece (who every Sunday is rolled out as some expert on politics) totally ignores the fact that Labour in 13 years (yes 13) did NOTHING about the gambling industry. In fact it gave it the green light and even more ability to blight our society. It also gave active support to horse racing and disgusting greyhound racing. So the spread of gambling is something the authors party was responsble for. The article would carry more weight if she mentioned this fact but intead it just another appratchik piece. I have no time for this awful government but if Labour figures are going to ignore their own record in the interests of spin then it just lowers politics even further.

Hmm....if the council needs revenue, surely filling the previously empty shop with a rate-paying tenant helps the local people in some way?!

.