DJKillaQueen

KalamityKel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DOOOOOOOOOMED! WE'RE ALL DOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!! Hilarious.....just love the wit on this forum sometimes........

If he exists!

Hal rushes over with a couple of bagels to protect her modesty.....

What a load of nonsense. Daring to dignify an article about forum trolling as journalism? What will you be writing about next? Do Chav's really exist? Dull dull dull. I'm flaberghasted anyone would even pay to publish such a meaningless piece of reporting let alone read it. It's not journalism at all....just lazyness masquerading as journalism.

jrussel...what a w@nker! *disclaimer added to say that I make that comment in the pursuit of some deluded idea of credible research for some two bit tabloid people wouldn't even use as loo paper*

In English that means Netto had a bust up with Poundland, Boots tried to step in while WHSmith and the Halifax just carried on as though nothing had happened.

Having finished the book Grandma gave her she picks up the one she got from the library that afternoon. 'Sir Quids and the Deficit Dragon Slayer' We can begin.... Once upon a time there was an evil Prime Minister called Mr Cameron whose mission was to rid the land of the poor by throwing them out of their homes, taking away their child benefits and starving them to death........

LOL indeed.

....and stella.

Unfortunately The Queen can not be prosecuted as she is head of state and instead sends LM and her lawyer LB to the Tower.....whilst pardoning CS on the spot and knighting Quids for his services to speaking the truth....

I HATE that advert......chew chew chew chew chew.......the mouse with the spiral eyes........chew chew chew chew.....

meanwhile less than a mile away, Ladymuck had taken leave of her senses and decided to run naked up Lordship Lane......

There is no way PurleyMan that guy did a proper survey of your roof. If your roof were in dire straights it would be leaking like a sieve, it might be bowing, and there would be many things wrong with it that you couldn't but fail to notice. The fact he stayed there for 2.5 hours as well! Most companies will come and look for free and send you a written quote (in fact always ask for a written quote) - and never ever pay anything up front. Get a contract first and only agree to terms (including payment) if they suit you. Probably the truth is that you need a few new tiles and a bit of repointing, the cost of which will be a fraction of 6K. As for thr spray.....think about it logically? Is he trying to tell you that your uncracked (and therefore nothing wrong with them) tiles are no longer waterproof lol? What utter rubbish. Do a search on here and see if anyone has recommended any roofers that you could get to come and have a look.

You are a promoter which is very different to being part of the management committee responsible for DH. However on the sound/ noise issue as long as the licensing hours are kept to and the other conditions, such as keeping windows closed and bringing shutters down at 10.30pm are adherred to there shouldn't be any cause for most complaints. I don't know if you have anything to do with private functions but an assurance that live music/ entertainments won't play past midnight and that all events will be finished by 1.30 on Fri and Sat night (as the license requires) would I think go a long way to appeasing the two residents that have complained on this thread. Then people can get back to talking about the great (but legal) events they've attended and enjoyed, instead of the disturbance caused by those that go on long into the night.

My only wish is to see the licence is adherred to. People shouldn't have to complain every time DH breaks terms of it's licence. It would be welcome to have someone from DH agree that in future all aspects of the license will be adherred to (and to admit they understand what that the terms of their license are). After all, the vast majority of licensed premises are perfectly capable of policing themselves and staying within the terms of their licenses. And if DH does break a term of license residents can complain immediately to Southwark Liscensing (which is what I would recommend). There is no need to 'negotiate' with DH on issues of continued breach of license....there is no leeway when it comes to licensing. That is the law. And there is precedent. the OP has complained in the past to the club about late night party's that clearly are breaches. Each time to be told it won't happen again.....but of course it has. So that says that DH have no intention of abiding by their license. In that situation there is no alternative but to request a review by the licensing authority. Also why are people being asked to email you Davide as opposed to emailing the club directly? It's all very well you saying you don't want to say who you are but the problem is that you are asking people to contact you in a formal capacity when we have no idea who you are within the club management. You are not listed as part of the committee or management on DH website. The email address you have given doesn't link you to DH either. The licence holder is Nick MacCormack. So my advice would be that any complaints are addressed in writing to the registered licence holder, not yourself Davide. That is the correct process to follow. He is also the designated premises supervisor by that license and therefore is solely responsible for ensuring the terms are met. It's important that the right person receives complaint if further on, a review by the licensing authority is required, otherwise the license holder can say 'he never received any complaint'. So for that reason complaints should only be sent to the license holder.

That's a very practical point (we could ban the import of halal, kosher etc however). From a moral perspective I care more about animal welfare than religious nonsense justifying cruelty.

Seconded! The forum needs you, implores you even......

Tesco express deny any knowledge of having sold rice to anyone.......

There doesn't seem to be any issues with those events. It's the late night private function parties that the two residents have complained about on this thread that appear to be in breach.....they live next to the club and are best placed to know just how often that is a problem. DH can solve that issue in an instant by keeping to the rules. By all means continue support the club in the things and events it does well.

but what would be an acceptable one? I just don't think there is such a thing. This is what is such a difficult question to answer isn't it?...and often the answer is motivated by an emotive response (usually repulsion) to a certain type of violent crime.....serial child killers being an obvious example in the UK. I'm not even sure if even in those circumstances, execution does anything to lessen the effect of the crime on those affected. It's not something I think I have an clear view on to be honest.

There ARE opening hours defined in the license as follows (every premise has opening hours as part of the license): Opening hours: Monday 10:00 to 23:00 Tuesday 10:00 to 23:00 Wednesday 10:00 to 23:00 Thursday 10:00 to 00:00 Friday 09:00 to 01:30 Saturday 09:00 to 01:30 Sunday 12:00 to 01:00 The Op complains of parties at the weekend going on beyond 1.30 am. That is clearly a breach. Live music and entertainment is licensed until midnight only (or 9pm in relation to anything involving dancing). Granted licensable activities: Facilities for dancing - indoors Monday 07:00 to 21:00 Tuesday 07:00 to 21:00 Wednesday 07:00 to 21:00 Thursday 07:00 to 21:00 Live music - indoors and outdoors Friday 19:00 to 00:00 Saturday 19:00 to 00:00 Sunday 19:00 to 23:00 Ambient music is not a licensable activity so is fine. What the license is interested in is ?noisy? activities - live acts, bands/ PA systems delivering loud music. An MC for example would be classed as a live act and so can not happen after midnight. The OP compains that this has happened. In addition DH are required to monitor noise levels from the exterior regularly and ensure they are below disruptive levels (as part of the license). The noise pollution teams have db limits measured from a residents home as a measure for that. Nick (license holder) claims he has a late bar licence til 1 am on Fri and Sat so we can safely assume he is selling alcohol past the times shown on the license as below. Sale by retail of alcohol to be consumed on premises Monday 10:00 to 23:00 Tuesday 10:00 to 23:00 Wednesday 10:00 to 23:00 Thursday 10:00 to 23:00 Friday 10:00 to 23:00 Saturday 10:00 to 23:00 Sunday 12:00 to 22:30 It would not be difficult anyway to establish if alcohol is being sold after 11 pm on the premises and requires a big leap of faith to believe that a private party going on till 3am (one of the things the OP complains of) was operating with a soft drinks only bar. If however someone hiring the venue wanted to provide their own alcohol to be given free to guests that would be fine. It is the 'sale' of alcohol that is regulated. They can however serve hot food and hot drinks til 1am fri and sat (and I think they have cofused that with the 'sale of alcohol' part of the license). Late night refreshment - indoors Thursday 23:00 to 00:00 Friday 23:00 to 01:00 Saturday 23:00 to 01:00 Sunday 22:30 to 01:00 Whatever the club is used for at the weekends it should be finished and closed by 1.30 am. According to the OP this has not always been the case. And just to add that the council are required by LAW to keep an up to date record of all licenses (and applications)and make them available for public inspection free of charge. So there is no possibility of there being any other license other than the one I have referred to.

No but nor am I speaking on behalf of the club or license holder either. Anyway....the point is that DH can't defend their late night parties and breaches of their license. expat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >You are not the licence holder or the club owner. > It's not your responsibility > DJKQ are you?

It's not libellous. I have maintained all the time what licence DH holds and have provided evidence of it. Davide now and indeed Nick (the license holder) on another thread claim DH to have a different licence but have provided NO evidience of it. I have also given details for anyone who wants to check for themselves if the information I have posted is correct. To then further claim the license has now been ammended when it hasn't and can't possibly have been for the reasons I stated above, questions the validity of Davide's comments (although it might be something that has come from the license holder without Davide having actually seen any proof). To say that DH have the license they need for the activities they run is not a true statement when they hold private events that based on what residents are saying, clearly breach the terms of that license. The licensing authorities (whom for all you know I might work for) have a view on that? It is in the public interest that license terms are adherred to. I don't have to be an immediate resident to want to see that happen. And as it also a public forum, I can post as often as I like and will continue to do so when DH or those claiming to speak for them infer that they have a different license to the one they actually have.

Never sign anything from a cold calling door-to-door saleman without getting other quotes. Q: did he go up and actually fully inpsect your roof? From both inside and out? If not then that should tell you something. Sounds to me that what he is selling is two options, irregardless of what work the roof might actaully need....but I could be wrong.

Davide who are you? You are not the licence holder or the club owner. It's not your responsibility. The ONLY person that should be engaging in discussion with complainants about breaches of license is the license holder. The licence has NOT been ammended since 2009 when the previous variations were applied. It's terms and operating hours are clear. To ammend it requires an application for variation followed by a process of consultation where those immediately affected have the right to oppose it. Minutes from all parts of that process are published as well. I deal with licensing issues all the time so stop trying to bs people in the forum. Either produce a licence number different to the one on the licensing register or acknowledge the terms as they currently are. You are not doing DH any favours by making false claims in a public forum.