In a week's time, the question that is on everyone's lips will be answered. Not will Big Brother be canned by Ch.4, not is KAUTO STAR overrated, not will Prince William's girlfriend stand the strain, but where the UK's first super-casino will be located. Blackpool, perhaps? London?
In the meantime, Ch.4's 'Dispatches' strand devoted an hour to wondering if a betting revolution is about to sweep the country. Journalist Anthony Barnett explored relations between ministers and gambling industry bosses, documented secret meetings and backroom deals as the Government bids to introduce gambling on an unprecedented scale. (I've nicked this paragraph off the Radio Times.)
The first issue Barnett set out to debunk was that the 'it will bring about a revival which will be good for the local community, etc." position was tosh. One anti opined that it would do no such thing - that wherever it is, the casino won't be fussy about employing anyone local, but will quite possibly transfer in staff from elsewhere. The second issue was Tessa Jowell vowing that in no way would the Government ever promote something that would increase the number of gambling addicts - the people who get into thousands of ££ worth of debt with no hope of ever paying it back, and end up on the street. No, not even if the deals will bring in BILLIONS of pounds in revenue for that nice Mr Brown and his collection plate.
So, while I think this was raised some time back last year, what are our thoughts? Once the door is opened, the argument went, you won't stop a positive avalanche of casinos springing up like overnight mould all over Britain - in fact, a list showed all of the 200 new casinos likely to go up, which seemed heavily tilted (from the brief glimpse rolled past our eyes) to the North, the Midlands, and the East coast.
Opening bars 24/7 would not, guaranteed the Government, lead to more binge-drinking, fighting, and otherwise anti-social naughtiness. The Police, they said, would've strongly rejected the idea if they felt it would stretch their resources to deal with the nonsense.
Widening roads and licensing more and more vehicles isn't seen as a sure way to kill off more motorists, if one's to follow the cause-and-effect logic of the programme, so is it a given that as the casinos roll in, so will the gangsters, the money-laundering, the gambling addicts, and a higher rate in crime (via credit card/Internet, as well as more directly) as they beg, steal and borrow to fund their crazed addictions?
In the meantime, Ch.4's 'Dispatches' strand devoted an hour to wondering if a betting revolution is about to sweep the country. Journalist Anthony Barnett explored relations between ministers and gambling industry bosses, documented secret meetings and backroom deals as the Government bids to introduce gambling on an unprecedented scale. (I've nicked this paragraph off the Radio Times.)
The first issue Barnett set out to debunk was that the 'it will bring about a revival which will be good for the local community, etc." position was tosh. One anti opined that it would do no such thing - that wherever it is, the casino won't be fussy about employing anyone local, but will quite possibly transfer in staff from elsewhere. The second issue was Tessa Jowell vowing that in no way would the Government ever promote something that would increase the number of gambling addicts - the people who get into thousands of ££ worth of debt with no hope of ever paying it back, and end up on the street. No, not even if the deals will bring in BILLIONS of pounds in revenue for that nice Mr Brown and his collection plate.
So, while I think this was raised some time back last year, what are our thoughts? Once the door is opened, the argument went, you won't stop a positive avalanche of casinos springing up like overnight mould all over Britain - in fact, a list showed all of the 200 new casinos likely to go up, which seemed heavily tilted (from the brief glimpse rolled past our eyes) to the North, the Midlands, and the East coast.
Opening bars 24/7 would not, guaranteed the Government, lead to more binge-drinking, fighting, and otherwise anti-social naughtiness. The Police, they said, would've strongly rejected the idea if they felt it would stretch their resources to deal with the nonsense.
Widening roads and licensing more and more vehicles isn't seen as a sure way to kill off more motorists, if one's to follow the cause-and-effect logic of the programme, so is it a given that as the casinos roll in, so will the gangsters, the money-laundering, the gambling addicts, and a higher rate in crime (via credit card/Internet, as well as more directly) as they beg, steal and borrow to fund their crazed addictions?