They should give Fabric a stage at Glastonbury

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

55 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I think you're refusing to consider the view from where those authorities sit.

 

I'm not really. I understand that there are certain constraints on the local authority, but, as in the case of SGP, these needn't necessarily apply. Either the police and the local authority were acting illegally, and I doubt that very much, or it was within their remit (ie there was no constraint) to allow drug testing. If one local authority can do it then why can't another, given that they have to abide by the same rules and regulations?

PS - I'm not arguing for arguing's sake, and don't give a fuck about Fabric, I just recognise inconsistency and feel that whichever council governed Fabric's licence hasn't exactly acted in the publics interest, merely their own. I just don't believe that is an acceptable stance for a council to take ie fuck off and die somewhere else nimbyism.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I'm not really. I understand that there are certain constraints on the local authority, but, as in the case of SGP, these needn't necessarily apply.

when people are dying, the onus is on them to act.

If people you had responsibility for via your job were dying, would you come up with a wishy-washy theoretical that may or may not stop the deaths, or would you take the action that ensures you have no responsibility for any further deaths?

In the case of SPG no one was dying. It's just not the same.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

when people are dying, the onus is on them to act.

If people you had responsibility for via your job were dying, would you come up with a wishy-washy theoretical that may or may not stop the deaths, or would you take the action that ensures you have no responsibility for any further deaths?

In the case of SPG no one was dying. It's just not the same.

So all drug addiction services via the NHS, private concerns and avenues like Talk to Frank are wishy-washy? Their approaches are null and void in terms of delivery? Why the fuck are we funding them if they have zero benefit? I go back to the SGP example - were the police and local council acting illegally or were they acting responsibly within the law of the land?

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

So all drug addiction services via the NHS, private concerns and avenues like Talk to Frank are wishy-washy?

Yep, essentially. They attempt to change the general direction.

Revoking a licence *ENSURES* a change, and ensures the people revoking that licence cannot be accused of taking a lax attitude to people dying.

These aren't people who put themselves forwards for the role of overseeing people dying, or even drug issues. It's meant to be a relatively straightforwards role where they decide if venues meet the legal requirements and local expectations of the council doing the best for that council area. Their remit is that and only that.

Remember, revoking the licence wasn't their first decision, it was something they arrived at only after trying other things - other things which didn't change anything. People died.

 

2 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I go back to the SGP example - were the police and local council acting illegally or were they acting responsibly within the law of the land?

And I go back to the central point about Fabric: people were dying.

Anyone in a position of responsibility with a lax attitude towards deaths is not going to be regarded by society at large as fulfilling their position of responsibility.

Councillors have power ONLY in that area, and very limited powers. They can do next to nothing about drug problems in wider society, their remit is that venue's suitability to operate - and it's hard to say it's suitable to operate when people are dying.

I'll ask you again, and try not to duck it this time: If people you had responsibility for via your job were dying, would you come up with a wishy-washy theoretical that may or may not stop the deaths, or would you take the action that ensures you have no responsibility for any further deaths?

And have (say) parents come and say you did nothing to protect their child when you might have acted, that you had a lax attitude towards illegal activities, that you didn't take your licencing role seriously, that you were unfit to serve the local community, etc,etc.

There's almost no one who would volunteer themselves to do what you say these people should have done, to set themselves up as the ones guilty for allowing deaths they WOULD have stopped.

You're more than welcome to get yourself elected and then onto the licencing committee, and take the responsibility that you think others should take. Perhaps you should even use your view as your campaign slogan - "I won't do anything if local kids die".

 

[___S_o_m_a__]

*cough*

Operation Lenor

 

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, ___S_o_m_a__ said:

*cough*

Operation Lenor

 

While there might have been a conspiracy like that running alongside of things, people still died.

When people have died, you can't say drug legislation has been used as "excuse" to act and sound sane.

The chances are that if there is a conspiracy as well, if there hadn't been that conspiracy the council might still have acted in the same way.

Sane people don't just sit back and do nothing when people are dying unnecessarily and long may that continue for the good of humanity - even if it sometimes intrudes into places I'd rather it didn't.

[mjsell]

Your argument

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

While there might have been a conspiracy like that running alongside of things, people still died.

When people have died, you can't say drug legislation has been used as "excuse" to act and sound sane.

The chances are that if there is a conspiracy as well, if there hadn't been that conspiracy the council might still have acted in the same way.

Sane people don't just sit back and do nothing when people are dying unnecessarily and long may that continue for the good of humanity - even if it sometimes intrudes into places I'd rather it didn't.

Your, and I imagine Islington coucil's, argument is very singular and doesnt consider the collective impact of a closure to places such as Fabric. Now I'm not saying they are wrong to shut down a place because of deaths - it is entirely understandable. However, if this closure leads to a rise in the number of drug related club deaths as a result (which I'm willing to wager it will) then seeing this as public safety measure is competely misguided.

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Your argument

Your, and I imagine Islington coucil's, argument is very singular and doesnt consider the collective impact of a closure to places such as Fabric. Now I'm not saying they are wrong to shut down a place because of deaths - it is entirely understandable. However, if this closure leads to a rise in the number of drug related club deaths as a result (which I'm willing to wager it will) then seeing this as public safety measure is competely misguided.

That might be true tho would be impossible to prove.

It would be interesting to know how many people have died on other licenced premises in Islington during the time of the at-least 6 deaths I know of (from no research) at Fabric. Anyone know?

And on the basis that the alternative clubs people might attend instead aren't in the same council area, that ceases to be that council's legal responsibility - and it's the shit back on them individually they're likely to be most concerned about, given that they're elected councillors.

As i keep saying, I'm not trying to claim the action taken is anywhere near perfect, I'm simply pointing out that it's a quite understandable response given the regulatory structures along with the fact that people have been dying.

It would be a hard argument to make in that committee that "we should keep it open and we'll just have to accept responsibility for any further deaths", and it's not hard to see why others would reject that line of argument if someone did make it.

[Untz]

I am now convinced and think that Islington council isn't doing enough to prevent deaths on its patch. Closing all the roads in the borough should be their next priority.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Untz

[DeanoL]

40 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That might be true tho would be impossible to prove.

It would be interesting to know how many people have died on other licenced premises in Islington during the time of the at-least 6 deaths I know of (from no research) at Fabric. Anyone know?

No, but one would hope there's data somewhere on similar circumstances as it's not the first place that's closed down. There's likely some effect - not everyone is going to move to a different club, some will just move on entirely.

2 minutes ago, Untz said:

I am now convinced and think that Islington council isn't doing enough to prevent deaths on its patch. Closing all the roads in the borough should be their next priority.

Roads with high death-tolls get speed cameras and reduced speed limits and pedestrian crossings and whatever else is needed to reduce the number of deaths. That was also an option for Fabric (the equivalent being a massive clamp down on drugs in the club) - but it wasn't something they could/would go for.

[Untz]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Roads with high death-tolls get speed cameras and reduced speed limits and pedestrian crossings and whatever else is needed to reduce the number of deaths. That was also an option for Fabric (the equivalent being a massive clamp down on drugs in the club) - but it wasn't something they could/would go for.

Fabric did introduce some measures, it wasn't as if it was a free for all. The road equivalent of a massive clamp down on drugs would be a massive clamp down on people using motor vehicles. 

Of course, I'm being slightly ridiculous and the two aren't directly comparable. But if we're going to go with the blunt argument of X causes deaths, X must be stopped (no pun intended), then why not replace drugs/clubs with cars/roads?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Untz said:

I am now convinced and think that Islington council isn't doing enough to prevent deaths on its patch. Closing all the roads in the borough should be their next priority.

the licencing committee don't have responsibility for the roads.

But anyway, realism would have anyone accept that deaths would happen on the roads, while they're far from typical for licenced premises.

Up the road from me there's a pub that's had a number of shootings in a 15 month period. It got shut down after the 5th shooting.  It being shut down for those shootings doesn't make the shootings stop it'll just push them elsewhere, but funnily enough there wasn't a national campaign to keep it open.

A case could have been made to shut it down after the first shooting, i'd guess. It was allowed to continue until a point where they felt enough was enough, and action was taken to shut it down. I very much doubt there was no "this has got to stop else you'll be closed" talk over the period of those shootings.

None of that's bullshit. I don't want to post the pub's name publicly (it's recently reopened, i think), but if you'd like to know it contact me privately I'll point you at some newspaper articles.

Fabric had had at least 4 deaths previously. it had been told things needed to improve. Then there was another death, and then another death. It got shut down.

In 2001, Glastonbury couldn't get a licence. It was told it had taken the piss too many times and Michael's word would no longer be good enough for them, and that there was a way forwards but that it required the festival to clean up its act - not just say it would clean up it's act but really do nothing at all. That's what Michael had been doing for years, while doing nothing.

Essentially, only Melvin Benn was considered good enough, someone with something to lose beyond Glastonbury perhaps being lost forever if he fucked up. Melvin took it seriously, and cleaned up the festival's act.

When you play with the man to operate a licenced business, you're expected to play by the man's rules. They will accept real life to a certain extent, but there's always going to be a strong reaction past a certain point. They're never going to let danger or harm continue without acting against it, and sometimes the action they'll take will be strongest possible.

If Fabric hadn't fucked up in the eyes of the man, there'd be no grounds to shut it down. It did fuck up, and it got shut down. That's always how it's going to work.

[Untz]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If Fabric hadn't fucked up in the eyes of the man, there'd be no grounds to shut it down. It did fuck up, and it got shut down. That's always how it's going to work.

I understand your point about licensing and would be concerned if events at the club weren't looked into, as I'm sure most people would. I don't even disagree with closing clubs in some circumstances (and maybe 5 deaths in 15 months, like your pub, might be one).

You can disagree with whatever crap a licensing committee comes up with though. Surely the whole point of the publicity, the melodrama and hashtags, is to change how the man thinks and lays down his rule? I doubt anything will change, but it's nice to think we could make clubbing and/or drug taking safer.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, Untz said:

I understand your point about licensing and would be concerned if events at the club weren't looked into, as I'm sure most people would. I don't even disagree with closing clubs in some circumstances (and maybe 5 deaths in 15 months, like your pub, might be one).

It wasn't 5 deaths, it was 5 shootings. I'm not even sure if anyone was shot in each of those shootins ()I know there was from at least one, I walked past the blood). I don't think there were any deaths,

Meanwhile, there's been at least 6 deaths at Fabric, and plenty of previous warnings to clean up its act before the last 2 deaths.

 

Quote

You can disagree with whatever crap a licensing committee comes up with though. Surely the whole point of the publicity, the melodrama and hashtags, is to change how the man thinks and lays down his rule? I doubt anything will change, but it's nice to think we could make clubbing and/or drug taking safer.

The man isn't going to change his rule, that's the point. You'd do exactly the same if you chose to put yourself in that position.

Because who would first put themselves in that position and then not use that limited power they have for good? And the only way that power can be used for good is to make the deaths stop in one of the few places you have power over.

To claim deaths as an "excuse" that's been used to shut it down is madness. To claim it's an attack on culture is loony, because the clubs of the same culture which don't bring themselves to the attention of the authorities don't get shut down.

No one in a position of responsibility is never going to sanction deaths as an ok thing to happen.

Edited October 12, 2016 by eFestivals

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, essentially. They attempt to change the general direction.

Of course they attempt to change the general direction, That's what they are there to do. What I'm asking is if you consider their 'attempts' to be wishy washy, and if so why?

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

And I go back to the central point about Fabric: people were dying.

Anyone in a position of responsibility with a lax attitude towards deaths is not going to be regarded by society at large as fulfilling their position of responsibility.

 

People were dying at Fabric but probably do at a lot of other clubs around the country too. The closing down of the club doesn't guarantee that people who would have gone to Fabric are now immune to premature death. Fabric the building isn't akin to the Bermuda Triangle. It's people taking shed loads of drugs (which they may not know the content, purity of etc) that is the problem - more than likely exacerbated by people taking the lot before they even got to the door of the club. I just don't see why the club should be held responsible for something out of their control. I'm afraid I have to go back to my point about Secret Garden Party - either the local council and the police were acting illegally by allowing drug testing, or, and I should imagine this is the case, they had both the councils lawyers and the police force's lawyers ratify that they were quite within their remit of responsibility to allow drug testing to take place for the benefit of the punters going to the festival. So, if one council can adopt this strategy to cover a private companies festival, why can't it be adopted by another council for a seperate private companies club?

 

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

I'll ask you again, and try not to duck it this time: If people you had responsibility for via your job were dying, would you come up with a wishy-washy theoretical that may or may not stop the deaths, or would you take the action that ensures you have no responsibility for any further deaths?

I'm not ducking the question. I'm saying that the people who have made this decision have not stopped the deaths, they have merely moved them elsewhere. That is not a result. And yes, if I were in charge I believe that I would introduce drug testing at clubs etc as the first line of 'attack' because there's a strong possibility that it would cut the number of deaths rather than just shift those deaths elsewhere. I'd be far happier knowing that I tried to save lives than just allow them to happen, but not on my patch. It's a fucking ridiculous situation to penalise those who aren't actually guilty of anything.

 

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

There's almost no one who would volunteer themselves to do what you say these people should have done, to set themselves up as the ones guilty for allowing deaths they WOULD have stopped.

You're more than welcome to get yourself elected and then onto the licencing committee, and take the responsibility that you think others should take. Perhaps you should even use your view as your campaign slogan - "I won't do anything if local kids die".

 

As indicated previously the club Fabric is a building which I'm fairly sure doesn't positively kill people. People are killing themselves and will continue to do so wherever the venue. Pushing the responsibility to another borough and allowing the deaths to take place there is a gormless solution to the problem. This action will NOT have stopped deaths from occuring. Local kids will die regardless.

[musky]

On 11/10/2016 at 1:39 PM, eFestivals said:

When people have died, I'm not going to be overly critical of those in a position to do something actually doing something - even if all they really achieve is pushing the problem somewhere else.

 

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I don't disagree, but they've fulfilled their responsibility which is only for that area.

If you were one of those responsible people and that was the only action available to you to make it stop, would you choose to make the deaths stop in your area of responsibility or would you choose to keep allowing them to happen and be responsible for them?

That's the consideration of those people, and it's hardly surprising they don't want the responsibility for them.

 

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I think you're refusing to consider the view from where those authorities sit.

People are dying, and them allowing a licence for the place where those people are dying puts them in a position of responsibility for those deaths.

They could run every possible information progamme there is, but if people die in a place they regulate, they're still likely to feel the need to act to stop it.

Try and imagine yourself in their position, a position they've put themselves into to serve their community - which gets difficult to reconcile if they do nothing when people are dying unnecessarily

 

I've not said anything about anyone acting illegally.

...

You can say the law is an arse and it sets people like Fabric up to fail and that might be true, but the fact still remains that those authorities are supposed to act to stop bad situations, and the only meaningful powers they have with which to act is to revoke the licence.

 

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

when people are dying, the onus is on them to act.

If people you had responsibility for via your job were dying, would you come up with a wishy-washy theoretical that may or may not stop the deaths, or would you take the action that ensures you have no responsibility for any further deaths?

In the case of SPG no one was dying. It's just not the same.

 

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

While there might have been a conspiracy like that running alongside of things, people still died.

When people have died, you can't say drug legislation has been used as "excuse" to act and sound sane.

...

Sane people don't just sit back and do nothing when people are dying unnecessarily and long may that continue for the good of humanity - even if it sometimes intrudes into places I'd rather it didn't.

You're making a pretty good case for the revocation of Glastonbury's license here. 350,00 people a year walked through Fabric's doors, and although I can't remember 2 deaths from drugs at Glastonbury in recent years, drug related deaths are a regular enough occurrence. You don't have to look too far to find open drug dealing and people in much worse states than red eyes and sweating.

I get that it's a different licensing authority, but I do think it points to a motivation other than purely a drugs related one. Are we to think that MDC just don't care, or perhaps that the balance of their priorities are different given the differing local circumstances?

Edited October 12, 2016 by musky

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

Of course they attempt to change the general direction, That's what they are there to do. What I'm asking is if you consider their 'attempts' to be wishy washy, and if so why?

because 'an attempt' is not a guarantee of success.

Compared to taking the decisive and effective action of shutting a place down which is guaranteed to make those particular problems go away, such attempts ARE 'wishy-washy'.

 

11 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

People were dying at Fabric but probably do at a lot of other clubs around the country too.

I reckon you can't find another club that's still open after the (at least) 6 deaths which they've had at Fabric.

If you want to add some substance to your argument, I suggest you try and find one.

 

11 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

The closing down of the club doesn't guarantee that people who would have gone to Fabric are now immune to premature death.

But it does guarantee that deaths will no longer be happening in that place which is regulated by some individuals who do not wish to be taking regulatory responsibility for those deaths.

 

11 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I'm not ducking the question.

says you as you duck the question, again.

 

12 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I'm saying that the people who have made this decision have not stopped the deaths

That's purely speculation on your part. You cannot know if the same deaths will occur elsewhere.

What isn't speculation is that some environments encourage a greater amount of excess than other environments.

What isn't speculation is that those regulators have stopped themselves from having any legal responsibility for those deaths,.

12 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

And yes, if I were in charge I believe that I would introduce drug testing at clubs etc as the first line of 'attack' because there's a strong possibility that it would cut the number of deaths rather than just shift those deaths elsewhere

That's - in your own words - your first line of attack.

In just the same way, a number of different approaches have been tried at Fabric over the years, and the deaths have continued.

At some point, when the new measures are not having the desired effect, you have to conclude those new measures are not having the desired effect and something else has to be tried.

And at some point if nothing changes of the bad consequences, you have to conclude that it cannot be remedied in that place, and so shut it down.

The very role of those regulators is to stop bad things happening. They are not carrying out their role if they don't stop those bad things happening.

12 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I'd be far happier knowing that I tried to save lives than just allow them to happen, but not on my patch.

But if you do nothing to stop the deaths happening on your patch - and drug testing doesn't stop them - then deaths are happening on YOUR patch.

Which is a worse thing for that regulating-individual than deaths happening on a patch elsewhere that's fuck all to do with them.

 

12 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

It's a fucking ridiculous situation to penalise those who aren't actually guilty of anything.

Glastonbury used to have thousands jump over the fence and cause chaos in the local area and undermine the festival's safety measures, and a far greater number who aren't actually guilty of anything.

In 2001 the council said it couldn't have a licence. It didn't matter a fuck that thousands who weren't guilty of anything would be affected.

You can moan that that's wrong, but it's never ever going to work differently to that. If an event cannot be controlled to the satisfaction of those responsible for regulating it, that event will be closed.

Or another one: people used to hire unseated vans to take a crowd of mates to Glastonbury. On several occasions, these vans crashed on the homeward journey and number of people in a van were killed. This led to changes in the law about people without seats in vans .... and yet the vast majority of people using vans in that way weren't guilty of anything bad, but have had to take the hit because of those who did die. How unfair!

 

12 hours ago, musky said:

You're making a pretty good case for the revocation of Glastonbury's license here. 350,00 people a year walked through Fabric's doors, and although I can't remember 2 deaths from drugs at Glastonbury in recent years, drug related deaths are a regular enough occurrence. You don't have to look too far to find open drug dealing and people in much worse states than red eyes and sweating.

Deaths grab people's attention and make them act. That's how its always going to be for all of the while us humans act on that thing we call our own humanity.

Glastonbury has been 'lucky' in that there's been relatively few drug deaths over the years. Compare and contrast with Boomtown that's had (I think) 4 deaths in 4 festivals. It's under heavier scrutiny and greater action after each death.

This year, 3 people died as a result of taking drugs at T in the Park. It's now under scrutiny, and stricter anti-drug measures are bound to come as a result.

You can say "well, that's just wrong, they should just let people take all the drugs they want to take" - but for all of the while drugs are illegal, that's never going to be how it goes. You don't have to agree with the drugs laws to intellectually understand why that will ALWAYS be the approach.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

53 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

says you as you duck the question, again.

I didn't duck the question though did I? I answered the question you posed. You have even quoted my answer in your post above???

Anyway, I unfortunately don't have the time at the moment to discuss further. Will try to get back to this later.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I didn't duck the question though did I? I answered the question you posed. You have even quoted my answer in your post above???

You gave an answer for a first response to the issue.

The shut-down happened long after the first deaths which got first responses to try and address the issue of deaths happening. A number of different measures were taken over years, and deaths kept on happening - six of them.

Stop and think about it: that's real people dying. Finito, the end.

And the people who issue the venue licence are in a position of legal responsibility around those deaths, and have a legal duty to address the problem in the location where it's happening - and NOT a legal responsibility to address the wider issues of drugs.

Those people will - eventually (and the shutting down was their eventual response after a number of deaths, not their immediate one) - take the only action they feel they can to make it stop, after the other things they've tried have failed to make it stop.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with what they chose to do, but if you're unable to recognise why those people will act in the way they did, you have a bit of a problem. Good people do not stand by and do nothing to stop deaths they have the power to prevent.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 but if you're unable to recognise why those people will act in the way they did, you have a bit of a problem.

Of course I understand why those people acted the way they did. My point of view was that maybe the scale of deaths wouldn't have escalated to six had their been on site (or close by) drug testing facilities. The local council at SGP were able to offer this facility with the agreement of the local police, so why couldn't Islington Council have adopted this strategy after the first death at Fabric. Instead, these good people that you mention actually waited until there were six deaths.

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

Of course I understand why those people acted the way they did.

That and only that has been my point.

There was nothing wrong in the final action they chose to take in shutting it down, because in full context of their limited but legally responsible role and of having earlier tried other things that didn't change things (enough, or to their satisfaction), they didn't feel there was another sensible option for dealing with the issue of people dying in a venue they're responsible for regulating.

There's fuck all point saying "licenced venues should allow people to take drugs". That's never going to be satisfactory for those regulators for all of the while they are required to regulate venues within the law. It would be no different to saying "pubs should serve alcohol to kids, because kids will get hold of drink and drink it anyway". It's just never going to be endorsed by that regulating authority.

The only worthwhile campaign to make around this, if someone is so inclined, is a campaign to change the national drugs laws, and not how venues are regulated to comply with national laws.

[Matt42]

19 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If Fabric hadn't fucked up in the eyes of the man, there'd be no grounds to shut it down. It did fuck up, and it got shut down. That's always how it's going to work.

 

How did Fabric fuck up though? I was someone who went regularly, and it followed the rules strictly. There were mandatory searches on entry, trained security, medics about, free water, air conditioning, fire exits etc.. everything a club can do to ensure safety.

I don't buy this at all Neil, if fabric closes for these reasons then close Glastonbury. Glastonbury follows all the rules and people still die, so to say Fabric 'fucked up' is an unfair statement. By that logic, Glastonbury 'fucks up' every year!

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

How did Fabric fuck up though? I was someone who went regularly, and it followed the rules strictly. There were mandatory searches on entry, trained security, medics about, free water, air conditioning, fire exits etc.. everything a club can do to ensure safety.

I don't buy this at all Neil, if fabric closes for these reasons then close Glastonbury. Glastonbury follows all the rules and people still die, so to say Fabric 'fucked up' is an unfair statement. By that logic, Glastonbury 'fucks up' every year!

Glasto follows the rules and almost no one dies. Don't invent your own facts.

Boomtown follows the rules and (I think it is) 4 people have died in 4 years. If that death rate continues, it'll be acted against sooner or later (most likely sooner).

No one gets a free pass over deaths on the premises.

How did Fabric fuck up though? Show me another club that remains open after at-least 6 deaths and you might have a point in saying Fabric didn't fuck up or was treated unfairly.

I'm absolutely stunned at the number of people taking the attitude "so people are dying, so what? That shouldn't stop me having my fun". Perhaps look up the words 'humanity' & 'self-centred'?

Edited October 13, 2016 by eFestivals

[Untz]

46 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm absolutely stunned at the number of people taking the attitude "so people are dying, so what? That shouldn't stop me having my fun". Perhaps look up the words 'humanity' & 'self-centred'?

I'm sure most people here are looking at the wider picture and thinking about how we can reduce those deaths via various means, admittedly while keeping Fabric open. People are going to take drugs, how do we reduce the harm?

If anything, yours and the licensing committees stance (and yes, I understand why it was taken - let's not go back over this) are the ones who don't seem to care about the deaths as a whole. Just shifting the deaths from one venue or borough to another won't stop drug deaths from happening. Yes, people won't die from taking drugs at Fabric any more. No, this won't do anything to make taking drugs safer. I don't think you or the council are being heartless - we're just coming at it from different angles and the licensing committee has a narrow remit. 

And, as it happens, I rarely go clubbing and don't take drugs. Even if they closed down every club in the world, I probably wouldn't miss it that much.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Untz

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

59 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm absolutely stunned at the number of people taking the attitude "so people are dying, so what? That shouldn't stop me having my fun". Perhaps look up the words 'humanity' & 'self-centred'?

Who's taking that attitude? I'm certainly not.