They should give Fabric a stage at Glastonbury

[Gnomicide]

No-one protested when Birkenhead Stairways was shut down, think on.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

@Sawdusty Surfer posted ages ago that it was all being totally changed next year - and being called something different too. And he's mates with a load of those that organise it all I think and works there himself.  

i believe I'm right when i say that Shangri-la get an arts council grant that covers a number of year, and when the grant is renewed what they do has to be renewed to fulfil the conditions of the grant, and the grant gives the funds to do it with.

[Slugworth]

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Without drugs deaths happening at Fabric they ceaswe to have that excuse.

It was ultimately Fabric who gave them the "excuse" (if that's what it is).

Expecting the authorities to not act after two deaths in quick succession is unrealistic. Can you prove your conspiracy theory by showing me a club in London that's been allowed to continue after two deaths in quick succession?

The council might get lobbied and bend some to commercial interests, but it's less likely that the old bill will, and from I've read (not a huge load, I admit) I'm pretty sure it was the old bill who were leading the charge for closure, wasn't it?

Only one person died at the club. The other had been there that night and died in hospital. He could have been anywhere else too that evening.

 

I don't know the rate of deaths in London clubs. I would presume it's not low though.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, babyshambles701 said:

as opposed to the adults who smuggled, purchased and then consumed drugs inside the venue, yeah?

I get what you're meaning, but from the point of view of the authorities, no.

The authorities regulate venues, not the people within a venue. It's the venue's job to regulate the people inside the venue.

And while I fully appreciate how difficult it is for anyone to do an effective job, when people start dying on a regular basis it's not an unreasonable conclusion of those authorities - individuals who hold legal responsibility for these things, don't forget - to think it's not been effective enough.

I can see all of the holes in how its viewed, but those individuals are always going to cover their own arses, while any commercial enterprise will be loathe to reduce 'the customer experience' via more stringent security checks.

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.

[hannahlmoore]

Going to break my forum lurking for the first time and say that this is a most excellent idea, maybe not a whole stage but a nod to it at least. Would love to see that

[Untz]

47 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

@Sawdusty Surfer posted ages ago that it was all being totally changed next year - and being called something different too. And he's mates with a load of those that organise it all I think and works there himself.  

Very interesting, thanks. I look forward to it.

[Jamie D]

2 hours ago, Untz said:

Why do you think that? Surely they'd wait until after the fallow year for anything major?

We discussed a while ago in this thread:

Block 9 going on tour, the Shangri La 'story' has come to its end, frustrations this year with crowd control and mud.. somethings got to give. 

 

[Untz]

1 minute ago, Jamie D said:

We discussed a while ago in this thread:

Block 9 going on tour, the Shangri La 'story' has come to its end, frustrations this year with crowd control and mud.. somethings got to give. 

 

Thanks for the thread. I had been avoiding all mention of this years festival, but I'll have a look through this.

[Mezhyp1]

4 hours ago, ___S_o_m_a__ said:

SubClub just round the corner still smashing it I believe.

Miss you Subculture x

Newly revamped in the summer to slightly change the fittings, it's managed to avoid the plague of people being there for completely the wrong reason unlike The Arches. It lives on strong Soma

[Nice hymer]

[Sawdusty surfer]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

i believe I'm right when i say that Shangri-la get an arts council grant that covers a number of year, and when the grant is renewed what they do has to be renewed to fulfil the conditions of the grant, and the grant gives the funds to do it with.

Exactly that. 

[Purple aki squat]

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

i believe I'm right when i say that Shangri-la get an arts council grant that covers a number of year, and when the grant is renewed what they do has to be renewed to fulfil the conditions of the grant, and the grant gives the funds to do it with.

Too much Grant 

[Matt42]

I think that Glastonbury should have a #Saveourculture stage

even if it's just DJs on double duty,i'd personally love them to do this

might finally get ricardo villalobos on the farm if anything...

[LondonTom]

12 hours ago, Jamie D said:

I can't believe no one has suggested a Fabric takeover of London Underground in Block9.

Although I suspect we'd be silly to suggest existing SE corner venues as I reckon big changes are afoot next year.

Ha thats exactly what I was thinking the whole thread, most obvious place for some sort of night/takeover from Fabric anywhere on the site!!

[smiley33]

Fabric stage for the weekend would be ACE...and I'm from Shropshire

[geoffboycott]

22 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Whatever happened to Gayle San?

Great DJ, her and Billy Nasty, proper techno!

Definitely a shame to see Fabric close, big fan here of the club and the CD series - had to chuckle at the recent Hannah Wants release, it was 2 big dance music stories beautifully colliding.

[mjsell]

20 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The authorities regulate venues, not the people within a venue. It's the venue's job to regulate the people inside the venue.

I cant find the article now but I'm fairly sure I read that one of the deaths was a result of the guy having had 2 or 3 pills before even entering Fabric (thinking he had taken duds) or something along those lines. How is the venue meant to regulate the people that go inside the venue before they even get to the venue? 

I do completely get where you are coming from of course, any death needs consequencial actions taken to try and avoid deaths of that kind happening again in the future. However, closing Fabric (not taking into account the whole economic perspective) seems to be an attempt to distract away from the failings of a government on the whole topic of drugs.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, mjsell said:

I cant find the article now but I'm fairly sure I read that one of the deaths was a result of the guy having had 2 or 3 pills before even entering Fabric (thinking he had taken duds) or something along those lines. How is the venue meant to regulate the people that go inside the venue before they even get to the venue? 

I do completely get where you are coming from of course, any death needs consequencial actions taken to try and avoid deaths of that kind happening again in the future. However, closing Fabric (not taking into account the whole economic perspective) seems to be an attempt to distract away from the failings of a government on the whole topic of drugs.

I realise it's a rather impossible situation for the venue, but from the view point of 'the authorities' and where legal responsibility falls back onto them, they are able to take actions which can stop that sort of thing happening on their patch. Those authorities are simply doing what is within their powers to stop.

It's easy to pull out the imperfections for the whole situation with what they've chosen to do, but there's also the imperfection of the range of powers they have to make a difference.

They've used the powers they have to make a difference where they can, and if you put aside the overall situation, you can't really blame for them for making that difference where they can.

Would you sit idly by and have people keep dying when you had the power to stop them dying in a place you had responsibility for? I don't think there's many people who would.

I'm not trying to say that what they've done is anything near to perfection, but I am saying it's not unreasonable from their limited-powers-but-full-responsibity position.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I realise it's a rather impossible situation for the venue, but from the view point of 'the authorities' and where legal responsibility falls back onto them, they are able to take actions which can stop that sort of thing happening on their patch. Those authorities are simply doing what is within their powers to stop.

It's easy to pull out the imperfections for the whole situation with what they've chosen to do, but there's also the imperfection of the range of powers they have to make a difference.

They've used the powers they have to make a difference where they can, and if you put aside the overall situation, you can't really blame for them for making that difference where they can.

Would you sit idly by and have people keep dying when you had the power to stop them dying in a place you had responsibility for? I don't think there's many people who would.

I'm not trying to say that what they've done is anything near to perfection, but I am saying it's not unreasonable from their limited-powers-but-full-responsibity position.

I get what you are saying, but I would suspect that the powers that be controlling that area / venue are just pushing the 'problem' to another area / venue. Not really a result in terms of care for the punter.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I get what you are saying, but I would suspect that the powers that be controlling that area / venue are just pushing the 'problem' to another area / venue. Not really a result in terms of care for the punter.

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.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

1 hour 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.

I agree with what you are saying. It's just a shame that they haven't got the big hairy bollocks to try to tackle the problem via another route ie allowing drug testing on the premesis etc. The drugs aren't going to go away, the punters taking them aren't going to disappear from the planet, it's just shifting the problem to another borough or club within their area. Taking that in to account then one could argue that they are being negligent - morally, and possibly even legally - not sure - would have to scrutinise their own Policies & Procedures in order to verify as well as the law. As from April 2013 responsibility for public health transferred from the NHS to local authorities. Would like to know if it's within their remit to actually tackle the problem rather than shoo it away to somewhere else.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I agree with what you are saying. It's just a shame that they haven't got the big hairy bollocks to try to tackle the problem via another route ie allowing drug testing on the premesis etc. The drugs aren't going to go away, the punters taking them aren't going to disappear from the planet, it's just shifting the problem to another borough or club within their area. Taking that in to account then one could argue that they are being negligent - morally, and possibly even legally - not sure - would have to scrutinise their own Policies & Procedures in order to verify as well as the law. As from April 2013 responsibility for public health transferred from the NHS to local authorities. Would like to know if it's within their remit to actually tackle the problem rather than shoo it away to somewhere else.

they might have the bollocks, but they don't have the powers to achieve it however much they might want to.

Their powers are pretty much to keep the licence or revoke it. Yes, they can enforce stricter door security rules on Fabric, tho I believe they've previously done that and these deaths still happened, and how far Fabric will be prepared to go with stricter rules will be limited by their commercial considerations.

Nothing about it is ideal, and I wouldn't be surprised if the authorities feel like that about it themselves. They have limited powers and full responsibility

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Yet they have the powers to run free needle and syringe programmes for known drug users. Doesn't really add up. At this years Secret Garden Party the local authority and police allowed free drug testing via an external charity called The Loop. Were both the police and the local authority acting illegally in doing so?

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

Yet they have the powers to run free needle and syringe programmes for known drug users. Doesn't really add up.

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

 

8 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

At this years Secret Garden Party the local authority and police allowed free drug testing via an external charity called The Loop. Were both the police and the local authority acting illegally in doing so?

I've not said anything about anyone acting illegally.

And that's something too late, I'd guess, for what's happened at Fabric. I'd presume that Fabric would claim their door security wasn't the issue, and that people had already dropped pills before they'd entered - which means drug testing would have no effect.

And if Fabric said "we should have drug testing so people can test their drugs inside the club", that's Fabric essentially saying their door security isn't stopping people getting in with drugs - and so a failing of their obligations towards their licence.

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.

[Memory Man]

would love to see them get a shout out with a stage takeover somewhere appropriate!

Blues on Thursday would be appropriate but not friday - sunday.