Betfred has confirmed plans to shut 132 betting shops from September, blaming higher taxes and wider economic uncertainty for the move.

The Warrington‑based bookmaker said the closures would affect just over a tenth of its UK estate and leave it with around 1,100 branches nationwide.

Betfred, founded by brothers Fred and Peter Done in 1967, has grown into one of the country’s biggest betting shop operators, with the pair’s combined wealth recently estimated at £3.61 billion.

READ MORE: EastEnders icon Shane Richie due in court next month

Chief executive Jo Whittaker said the company had “worked hard” to protect high street outlets and jobs, but rising employer National Insurance contributions, wage pressures and increased gambling duties had made that more difficult.

“We have tried hard to protect all our sites and the colleagues who work in them, but the combined impact of higher employer national insurance contributions, wage inflation, increases in gambling taxes and wider economic uncertainty has left us with no choice,” she said.

“These are well-run shops, staffed by dedicated colleagues, and it is incredibly hard to see any of them close, but the current fiscal and regulatory environment has made it impossible to keep trading all our shops.

READ MORE: 80s singing legend asked about ‘difficult return’ to iconic band after split

“Our priority now is to support the colleagues affected, and to continue serving customers and communities across the rest of our estate.”

Betfred has not published a full list of locations earmarked for closure, and it is not yet clear whether any Oxfordshire branches will be affected.

The company currently operates several betting shops in and around Oxford, including sites on Cornmarket Street, Cowley Road, Barns Road, in Templars Square and in Headington, as well as other outlets elsewhere in the county.

This newspaper enquired directly with Betfred as to whether any stores in Oxfordshire would be closing as part of the plans and, if so, which ones.

A spokesperson for Betfred responded: “We cannot comment on individual shops as there is a consultation process underway for the staff concerned.”

One hundred and 12 members of parliament have signed an open letter to the environment secretary and Ofwat, the water services regulation authority, calling for Thames Water to be placed into special administration without delay.

Since June 2025, Thames Water creditors, a group of US hedge funds, has been negotiating with Ofwat to formally take over the utility.

READ MORE: Rare Agatha Christie books sell for nearly £20,000

Calum Miller MP (Image: Office of Calum Miller MP)

The proposed deal includes waiving fines for the water company, suspend pollution and performance targets, and raise bills for households beyond the level currently set by Ofwat.

Calum Miller, MP for Bicester and Woodstock, Olly Glover, MP for Didcot and Wantage, Freddie Van Mierlo, MP for Henley and Thame, Layla Moran, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, and Charlie Maynard, MP for Witney all signed the list.

In total 53 Liberal Democrats signed the list, 46 Labour MPs, six independents, five Green party MPs, one from Plaid Cymru and one from the Conservative party.

Freddie Van Mierlo (Image: South Oxfordshire District Council.)

The letter highlights the dangerous possibilities of the company setting its own rules would create a dangerous precedent for all of England’s privatised water companies.

Thames Water was responsible for a third of the worst pollution incidents in 2025.

The CEO of the company, Chris Weston, recently drew controversy for saying that some of the firm’s targets were beyond what they could achieve.

The comments came after he gave himself a 14 per cent pay rise to £1.163 million in the year to March, while other directors received bonuses totalling £4.1 million

A Loughborough University study has challenged claims that tokenised bank deposits will transform banking, arguing that many of the supposed benefits can already be delivered through existing systems.

The paper examines tokenised deposits, which represent money held in a bank account as a digital token, and questions whether they amount to a significant innovation for mainstream banking. Supporters say the model could improve the speed and automation of payments. The study argues that these outcomes do not depend on tokenisation.

Professor Alistair Milne of Loughborough Business School wrote the policy note for SUERF, a group that brings together central bankers, regulators, academics and finance professionals. He argues that banks already use computer systems and databases that can be programmed to handle many of the same tasks now being presented as new.

Debate over digital money has gathered pace as banks, policymakers and financial technology groups explore alternatives to traditional account-based systems. Tokenised deposits have emerged as one of several concepts under discussion, alongside stablecoins and central bank digital currencies. Advocates say they could help create faster payments, available at all hours and easier to link to automated instructions.

Milne’s paper takes a narrower view of what is actually new. It argues that blockchain, the record-keeping technology often associated with cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, is not necessary for most of the practical gains linked to tokenised deposits. In his assessment, conventional bank infrastructure can already support much of the same functionality without converting deposits into tokens.

“Much of the current discussion suggests tokenised deposits will transform banking. My research indicates that the technology itself is not the key issue. Most of the promised advantages can already be achieved using conventional banking systems. In many cases, tokenised deposits are better understood as a new way of packaging existing capabilities rather than a fundamentally new form of money,” said Professor Alistair Milne, Loughborough Business School, Loughborough University.

The study does not dismiss tokenised deposits entirely. Instead, it identifies a limited set of circumstances in which they may offer a clearer advantage, particularly within the operations of large international banks serving corporate clients across several markets.

Cross-border use

One of the stronger use cases, the paper argues, arises when a global company moves money between countries and currencies within the same banking group. In that situation, payments can be automated more easily because the transfer remains within one bank’s internal systems rather than moving through several institutions.

That distinction matters because payments between different banks still require interbank settlement. This brings a series of established constraints, including regulation, security checks and the management of financial risk between institutions.

The paper argues that tokenising a deposit does not remove those underlying frictions. Even if the customer-facing representation of money changes, banks must still complete the same core settlement and compliance steps when funds move across institutional boundaries.

Wider debate

The findings add to a broader policy discussion over whether new forms of digital money represent genuine structural change or simply a redesign of existing financial processes. Banks and regulators have been assessing how far distributed ledger systems can improve payments, settlement and record-keeping, especially in wholesale and cross-border markets.

Milne’s intervention is likely to resonate with those who question whether the financial sector is overstating the novelty of token-based systems. The paper suggests the real barriers to better payments are not always technological, but often lie in the legal, regulatory and risk frameworks that govern transactions between separate institutions.

The paper also highlights a divide in the digital money debate. Some proposed systems promise gains by changing the form of money itself, while others seek improvements through better integration of existing infrastructure. Milne’s argument places tokenised deposits closer to the second category.

For banks, that could shape investment decisions. If the same results can be achieved through upgrades to current databases and payment systems, the commercial case for shifting to tokenised deposits may be weaker than some advocates suggest, especially in domestic banking where established systems are already deeply embedded.

At the same time, the paper leaves room for more targeted adoption where specific operational benefits can be shown. Large multinational banks handling internal cross-border flows may still find token-based structures useful in defined cases, even if the model falls short of a broader banking revolution.

The study’s central conclusion is that the hardest parts of modern payments do not disappear simply because deposits are represented differently in software. As Milne argues, the most important constraints often emerge when money must move between institutions rather than within them.

Those frictions remain central to banking, regardless of whether a deposit is recorded in a conventional account ledger or represented as a token. The paper argues that turning deposits into digital tokens does little to remove these underlying challenges.