They should give Fabric a stage at Glastonbury

[watsonjm]

Just now, eFestivals said:

i deliberately didn't name names and I'm not starting now.

 

I'll take that as a yes  

 

 

[deejaybee]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You say "does nothing for the cause".

What exactly do you mean by "the cause", and why should the people responsible for the venue's licence put 'the cause' above their legal responsibilities in venue licencing (and do bare in mind you're asking them to sit back and do nothing of their legal responsibilities when people are dying)?

People don't volunteer themselves as councillors and then onto the licencing committee for any other reasons than a wish to do good things for their local community. Can you persuade them about the good things in holding responsibility for people's deaths when a simple revocation of the licence absolves them of that responsibility?

Perhaps the answer is for clubbers to volunteer themselves to be councillors, and see if they'd really make the same arguments if it were them sitting there.

 

I guess my point is that the venue shouldn't be held liable. The licensing committee are holding them responsible for something that Fabric has worked endlessly to combat... in recent years they've worked really closely with the police, implemented strict security and were much more diligent about containing drug use than other night clubs. What more could they do? Besides close it down, yeah. But ultimately they're just treating a symptom of the cause (the cause being draconian drug law... but we'll get to that another day ).

And even if the councillors had the best of intentions, that doesn't mean they weren't misguided. I feel like they didn't fully weigh the cost-benefit of closing down an institution like Fabric or what it would mean for London's night life in general. You can rationalise it by saying "oh, they were just doing their jobs" and while that's fair enough, that doesn't mean their final decision was the correct one.

 

Edited October 13, 2016 by deejaybee

[deejaybee]

18 minutes ago, Quark said:

You're fine .  It's nice to have an interesting debate between Radiohead threads

So long as you don't get personal, insult the Levellers or jeopardise Diana Ross appearing on Sunday we're all good

Haha, duly noted!  

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

And yet they waited until six people had died to make this decision. There would be a school of thought that would argue that these councillors have actually acted very negligently in allowing so many deaths to take place before they closed it.

I don't doubt they've had that accusation thrown at them.

But what do you want? Do you want them to at least try, as they did with Fabric?  Or do you want them to give no leeway at all for improvements, and act harshly with their first action?

They've trodden a middle ground where they've tried to find a satisfactory solution until they felt they could tread it no longer.

I can't condemn them for feeling enough is enough when people are dying in places they hold responsibility for and they've already given a number of chances.

Acting is guaranteed to stop those instances in that place, and whether or not they crop up elsewhere is yet to be seen. It's unlikely to make things any worse at its worst (and if that's the case it still might have kicked it off their patch so it's no longer their problem), and could make things better.

If anything needs changing here it's the drug laws and not venue licencing, and a venue with 6 deaths associated with it is a poor flag to carry to bring about that change.

Edited October 13, 2016 by eFestivals

[Quark]

Just now, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

And yet they waited until six people had died to make this decision. There would be a school of thought that would argue that these councillors have actually acted very negligently in allowing so many deaths to take place before they closed it.

 

8 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

And yet they waited until six people had died to make this decision. There would be a school of thought that would argue that these councillors have actually acted very negligently in allowing so many deaths to take place before they closed it.

A fair point.  Given the reaction to closing it down, which has been negative, they could have been viewing it as "too soon" to close.

Alternatively maybe they felt that they had given enough chances?  If, having implemented all the measures that they did, there was still the same result, maybe they had no other avenue open that was acceptable.

As you may tell I have an unfortunately cynical view of politicians!  But I'm also trying to avoid an emotional view of this as much as I can.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

But what do you want? Do you want them to at least try, as they did with Fabric?  Or do you want them to give no leeway at all for improvements, and act harshly with their first action?

They've trodden a middle ground where they've tried to find a satisfactory solution until they felt they could tread it no longer.

 

I do understand what you are saying with the councillors thinking themselves between a rock and a hard place. It just occurs to me that they didn't go down the drug testing / drug education approach when they may well have been able to far sooner (with possibly less deaths as a result) than this belt and braces job of closing Fabric down. I'll admit  I don't have enough of the background information to know whether testing / education would have saved some of these lives, but I get the impression from the experts (suppossed) working in this field that testing / education is the way forward. let's face it prohibition aint working.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, deejaybee said:

I guess my point is that the venue shouldn't be held liable. The licensing committee are holding them responsible for something that Fabric has worked endlessly to combat... in recent years they've worked really closely with the police, implemented strict security and were much more diligent about drug use than other night clubs. What more could they do? Besides close it down, yeah. But ultimately they're just treating a symptom of the cause (the cause being draconian drug law).

I don't much disagree with any of that. But....

Local licencing doesn't have powers over drug laws, it has powers only over venues, with a specific remit of not allowing criminality.

And you say "what more could they do?", with the inference being nothing more. If that's the case, then surely it shows Fabric cannot control the issue - something it is legally obliged to control under its licence - and therefore it's a venue out of control? It's just as much of an argument for licence revocation as any argument that might get made the other way.

I'm not particularly trying to say that licencing are right with what they've done, but I am making the point that it's all perfectly reasonable and justified from their position. They tried, it couldn't be made to work for the remit they have to work to.

 

9 minutes ago, deejaybee said:

And even if the councillors had the best of intentions, that doesn't mean they weren't misguided. I feel like they didn't fully weigh the cost-benefit of closing down an institution like Fabric or what it would mean for London's night life in general. You can rationalise it by saying "oh, they were just doing their jobs" and while that's fair enough, that doesn't mean their final decision was the correct one.

how do you cost-benefit someone's life?

Could you do it? I couldn't.

This isn't a random newspaper story to them, where they go 'oh, tragic' and move on. Try putting yourself in their position, where the details of death are fully personalised, where they might have the grieving parents tell them it's all their fault, and where the community they represent - more than just clubbers - has a realistic expectation that people shouldn't be dying in clubs, and that it's their duty to make it stop.

It's an impossible situation for them, where it's absolutely certain they'll eventually say enough is enough, it has to stop.

[Quark]

One thing I have wondered, as it's not a recreational area with which I am specifically familiar, is how much of the risk of pills is down to the quality of the batch as opposed to a reaction.

Are deaths from pills due to fillers or additional ingredients within the pills, the strength of them, or just an unfortunate adverse reaction? Or indeed any combination of the three?

EDIT: I for one am not trying to comment on the right or wrong of the closure, or whether the council took the right course of action.  Just trying to weigh up the reasoning behind it and the position they're in.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Quark

[deejaybee]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm not particularly trying to say that licencing are right with what they've done, but I am making the point that it's all perfectly reasonable and justified from their position. They tried, it couldn't be made to work for the remit they have to work to.

how do you cost-benefit someone's life?

Could you do it? I couldn't.

This isn't a random newspaper story to them, where they go 'oh, tragic' and move on. Try putting yourself in their position, where the details of death are fully personalised, where they might have the grieving parents tell them it's all their fault, and where the community they represent - more than just clubbers - has a realistic expectation that people shouldn't be dying in clubs, and that it's their duty to make it stop.

It's an impossible situation for them, where it's absolutely certain they'll eventually say enough is enough, it has to stop.

I'll concede here. All valid and good points  

[Quark]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

how do you cost-benefit someone's life?

Could you do it? I couldn't.

Depends on the person...

Tongue firmly in cheek

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, Quark said:

One thing I have wondered, as it's not a recreational area with which I am specifically familiar, is how much of the risk of pills is down to the quality of the batch as opposed to a reaction.

Are deaths from pills due to fillers or additional ingredients within the pills, the strength of them, or just an unfortunate adverse reaction? Or indeed any combination of the three?

EDIT: I for one am not trying to comment on the right or wrong of the closure, or whether the council took the right course of action.  Just trying to weigh up the reasoning behind it and the position they're in.

the reasons are as varied as it's possible to be.

Sometimes it's due to dosage, sometimes it's down to bad shit in the pills, some people seemingly randomly have a reaction (not necessarily a first pill) and drop down dead, some people over-hydrate themselves, some people under-hydrate themselves, some people overheat, some people have heart attacks, etc, etc, etc. The chances of any of those is very small, but even in a perfect world for drug taking they'd likely be some deaths.

I'd say the best weighing up would be to look at the numbers of drug deaths on licenced premises per-visitors-visit. I've absolutely no idea what the data around that would be, but I have a strong suspicion that fabric would stand out even amongst clubs that attract a similar drug-taking crowd.

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I do understand what you are saying with the councillors thinking themselves between a rock and a hard place. It just occurs to me that they didn't go down the drug testing / drug education approach when they may well have been able to far sooner (with possibly less deaths as a result) than this belt and braces job of closing Fabric down. I'll admit  I don't have enough of the background information to know whether testing / education would have saved some of these lives, but I get the impression from the experts (suppossed) working in this field that testing / education is the way forward. let's face it prohibition aint working.

prohibition isn't working cos it doesn't stop people like you and me. You're not really trying to blame your choice on other people, are you?

 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

prohibition isn't working cos it doesn't stop people like you and me. You're not really trying to blame your choice on other people, are you?

 

[Quark]

So even with the testing option there'd be no guarantee that people wouldn't die from a pill.

The frustrating thing about the whole shebang is the number of deaths caused by the booze and cigarettes that are already legal. But any moves to put pills, as the current example, on the same footing as those (in either direction) would be political suicide...

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, Quark said:

So even with the testing option there'd be no guarantee that people wouldn't die from a pill.

The frustrating thing about the whole shebang is the number of deaths caused by the booze and cigarettes that are already legal. But any moves to put pills, as the current example, on the same footing as those (in either direction) would be political suicide...

If those deaths were happening in bars and clubs though (and where alcohol has led to fatal violence, it has done) they'd face the same intervention as happening here.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

2 hours ago, Quark said:

So even with the testing option there'd be no guarantee that people wouldn't die from a pill.

The frustrating thing about the whole shebang is the number of deaths caused by the booze and cigarettes that are already legal. But any moves to put pills, as the current example, on the same footing as those (in either direction) would be political suicide...

I get the impression that politicians spend a lot of their time trying to avoid political suicide - mostly by avoiding answering questions like the man on the Clapham omnibus might ask. Such as ' Does this go all the way to the terminus mate?'.

[Quark]

29 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

If those deaths were happening in bars and clubs though (and where alcohol has led to fatal violence, it has done) they'd face the same intervention as happening here.

Absolutely. My badly worded point was the general legalisation or otherwise of drugs in comparison with the already legal booze and gags.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

2 minutes ago, Quark said:

Absolutely. My badly worded point was the general legalisation or otherwise of drugs in comparison with the already legal booze and gags.

Gags? is there a movement to be rid of gags now? We are living in a Stasi type state.

[Quark]

Fucking autospell! 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

8 minutes ago, Quark said:

Fucking autospell! 

Now, if you'd just said 'c**t' the nice mr gumby would have bought you a pint.

[Tommy101]

Glad to see that an agreement was reached today.

I've only been to Fabric once and didn't particularly enjoy the evening to be honest but the thought of an institution like that being shut down without at least trying to implement some sensible sanctions like they have done today just seems like a kick in the balls to culture from those that can't see that the term 'culture' stretches beyond opera, galleries and theaters.

[Trout Mask Replica]

Glastonbury already has enough dance music and DJs. 

No to giving them a stage unless it's taking the place of some other dance venue which has worn out its welcome.

I don't bother with any of these places and think enough of the site is given over to them and their punters already.