High Streets First: a response to Eric Pickles

Don't be fooled by claims that the number of betting shops is decreasing.

Dear Mr Pickles,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to High Streets First, the campaign calling on you to give local people the power to limit the number of betting shops in their neighbourhoods. We have happily accepted your invitation to meet Bob Neill MP.

Since you have declined our invitation to Southwark to see the problem for yourself, I thought I'd give you a visible contrast of the number of betting shops in our area compared to yours:

A

A

It seems that your constituency of Brentwood and Ongar has more florists than bookies. This map shows just seven betting shops in total, compared to ten flower shops. Southwark has over 68 active licensces for bookies, with nine in Camberwell Green ward alone.

I can't help but think that if you suffered this kind of proliferation in your area, you'd get what we're talking about.

Please don't be fooled by the bookmakers' claims that their numbers are decreasing. Despite the downturn, the total has risen to over 9,000 in the last few years, with many clustering in poorer areas See p. 6-8 here and p. 9 here.

Crucially, we have also seen an explosion in the number of high stakes gaming machines to over 32,000.

It's great that you acknowledge this principle in your letter:

"It is important that local communities can manage the overall retail diversity, vitality and viability of their high streets... I understand there can sometimes be concerns raised about problems faced by the clustering of betting shops in some high streets."

But I'm slightly concerned by this:

"...you may be aware local authorities already have the power to limit development in their areas, through article four directions..."

The fact is that Article 4 directions don't work for councillors. Even the LGA says they are "cumbersome, bureaucratic and costly". If local people want to block a store, we have to give a years notice or face potentially colossal compensation claims from large bookmaker companies.

Southwark isn't the only area that gets this. Since we launched, several thousand people have signed our petition, and many other councils have contacted us in support. We are meeting Waltham Forest and Ealing, and Manchester is passing a motion in support of the campaign that is spreading throughout the North West.

The media also seem to get it. You might have seen our coverage in the Daily Mail, the BBC Today programme, the One Show, the Independent, the Wright Stuff, BBC London and Southwark News. More is on its way.

We also have celebrity endorsement from "the Real Hustler" Alexis Conran on the back of his documentary on addiction, and a whole bunch of community groups are getting in touch. They are keen to start letter writing campaigns and build the petition. A group of young people in Southwark felt so strongly about the issue they stood outside Elephant and Castle shopping centre and collected 250 signatures off their own back.

Then of course there is the public. A recent poll by the LGA and ComRes found that over three quarters of people want central government to give councils more power over their high streets. Some 68 per cent are specifically against existing rules that allow betting shops to take over banks and building societies without planning permission.

We're not going away either. The campaign is now formally being led by GRASP () with a coalition of politicians, former addicts, grassroots groups, medical experts, churches and councillors. We're achieving all of this in our spare time around full time jobs, but more people are coming out in support every day.

We'd love you to join us.

Rowenna Davis is a journalist and author of Tangled up in Blue: Blue Labour and the Struggle for Labour's Soul, published by Ruskin Publishing at £8.99. She is also a Labour councillor.

Rowenna Davis is Labour PPC for Southampton Itchen and a councillor for Peckham

Getty
Show Hide image

A new German law wants to force mothers to reveal their child’s biological father

The so-called “milkmen’s kids law” would seek protection for men who feel they have been duped into raising children they believe are not biologically theirs – at the expense of women’s rights.

The German press call them “Kuckuckskinder”, which translates literally as “cuckoo children” – parasite offspring being raised by an unsuspecting innocent, alien creatures growing fat at the expense of the host species’ own kind. The British press have opted for the more Benny Hill-esque “milkmen’s kids”, prompting images of bored Seventies housewives answering the door in negligées before inviting Robin Asquith lookalikes up to their suburban boudoirs. Nine months later their henpecked husbands are presented with bawling brats and the poor sods remain none the wiser.

Neither image is particularly flattering to the children involved, but then who cares about them? This is a story about men, women and the redressing of a legal – or is it biological? – injustice. The children are incidental.

This week German Justice Minister Heiko Maas introduced a proposal aimed at to providing greater legal protection for “Scheinväter” – men who are duped into raising children whom they falsely believe to be biologically theirs. This is in response to a 2015 case in which Germany’s highest court ruled that a woman who had told her ex-husband that her child may have been conceived with another man could not be compelled to name the latter. This would, the court decided, be an infringement of the woman’s right to privacy. Nonetheless, the decision was seen to highlight the need for further legislation to clarify and strengthen the position of the Scheinvater.

Maas’ proposal, announced on Monday, examines the problem carefully and sensitively before merrily throwing a woman’s right to privacy out of the window. It would compel a woman to name every man she had sexual intercourse with during the time when her child may have been conceived. She would only have the right to remain silent in cases should there be serious reasons for her not to name the biological father (it would be for the court to decide whether a woman’s reasons were serious enough). It is not yet clear what form of punishment a woman would face were she not to name names (I’m thinking a scarlet letter would be in keeping with the classy, retro “man who was present at the moment of conception” wording). In cases where it did transpire that another man was a child’s biological father, he would be obliged to pay compensation to the man “duped” into supporting the child for up to two years.

It is not clear what happens thereafter. Perhaps the two men shake hands, pat each other on the back, maybe even share a beer or two. It is, after all, a kind of gentlemen’s agreement, a transaction which takes place over the heads of both mother and child once the latter’s paternity has been established. The “true” father compensates the “false” one for having maintained his property in his absence. In some cases there may be bitterness and resentment but perhaps in others one will witness a kind of honourable partnership. You can’t trust women, but DNA tests, money and your fellow man won’t let you down.

Even if it achieves nothing else, this proposal brings us right back to the heart of what patriarchy is all about: paternity and ownership. In April this year a German court ruled that men cannot be forced to take paternity tests by children who suspect them of being their fathers. It has to be their decision. Women, meanwhile, can only access abortion on demand in the first trimester of pregnancy, and even then counselling is mandatory (thereafter the approval of two doctors is required, similar to in the UK). One class of people can be forced to gestate and give birth; another can’t even be forced to take a DNA test. One class of people can be compelled to name any man whose sperm may have ventured beyond their cervix; another is allowed to have a body whose business is entirely its own. And yes, one can argue that forcing men to pay money for the raising of children evens up the score. Men have always argued that, but they’re wrong.

Individual men (sometimes) pay for the raising of individual children because the system we call patriarchy has chosen to make fatherhood about individual ownership. Women have little choice but to go along with this as long as men exploit our labour, restrict our access to material resources and threaten us with violence. We live in a world in which it is almost universally assumed that women “owe” individual men the reassurance that it was their precious sperm that impregnated us, lest we put ourselves and our offspring at risk of poverty and isolation. Rarely do any of us dare to protest. We pretend it is a fair deal, even that reproductive differences barely affect our lives at all. But the sex binary – the fact that sperm is not egg and egg is not sperm – affects all of us.

The original 2015 ruling got it right. The male demand for reassurance regarding paternity is an infringement of a woman’s right to privacy. Moreover, it is important to see this in the context of all the other ways in which men have sought to limit women’s sexual activity, freedom of movement and financial independence in order to ensure that children are truly “theirs”.  Anxiety over paternity is fundamentally linked to anxiety over female sexuality and women’s access to public space. Yet unless all women are kept under lock and key at all times, men will never, ever have the reassurance they crave. Even then, the abstract knowledge that you are the only person to have had the opportunity to impregnate a particular woman cannot rival the physical knowledge of gestation.

We have had millennia of pandering to men’s existential anxieties and treating all matters related to human reproduction, from sex to childbirth, as exceptional cases meaning women cannot have full human rights. Isn’t it about time we tried something new? How about understanding fatherhood not as winning gold in an Olympic sperm race, but as a contract endlessly renewed?

What each of us receives when a child is born is not a biological entity to do with as we choose. It is a relationship, with all of its complexities and risks. It is something worth contributing to and fighting for. Truly, if a man cannot understand that, then any money wasted on a Kuckuckskind – a living, breathing child he could get to know – has got to be the least of his worries. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.