It probably dates me, but one of my favourite films is the spoof cop movie "Dragnet" starring Tom Hanks and Dan Ackroyd.
At one point Ackroyd, who plays a "by the book" detective, is interviewing a witness who has had her old wedding dress stolen; to be used as part of a pagan ritual.
The witness offers a succession of foul mouthed opinions about the perpetrator with Ackroyd urging the witness to stick to the facts.
Having seen the motion at the Liberal Democrat conference on increasing planning control on betting shops,to be moved by Don Foster, I see a similar Dragnet situation arising; where the facts are completely lost in the negative invective. After all, Don is not known for his balanced views on betting shops.
The Gambling Commission statistics show a rise in betting shop numbers between March 2009 and September 2012 of 187. By my calculation that is a rise in three years of 2.1%. In the last reported year betting shop numbers fell slightly to just over 9000 (in the 70's there were 16,000). The Daily Mail recently reported that numbers had risen 25%- perhaps someone is counting those that have opened and not deducted those that have closed!
Apparently betting shops, which even in areas of "clustering" occupy no more than 2 or 3% of retail frontage are "blighting" the High st. Really?
The suggestion that the previous Labour Government deregulated gambling is a gross distortion of the facts. In return for market deregulation, betting operators are in fact triple locked with operating licences, personal licences and premises licences.
The "failure" of licensing authorities to prevent new betting shop licences is a failure on their part to produce cogent evidence of harm, not an indicator of legislative failure. The legislation should not be used as a cover for what are, in the main, moral objections.
One can always spot a moral objector masquerading as a liberal. They start their sentences with "I'm not against betting shops, but......
In most inner city areas, the rise in betting shop numbers since the inception of the Gambling Act is non existent or marginal. Population rises in percentage terms far outstrip any increase in betting shop numbers.
The latest Gambling Commission statistics (compiled from local authority returns) show that in 400 local authority areas there were only 49 visits to 9000 betting shops as a result of complaints and that complaints were down 33%.
The facts speak for themselves, but no doubt in the debate around this issue many will behave as if their wedding dress has been stolen.
"Just the facts Don- Just the facts!".