Dulwich Hamlets Football Club licence review

[candp]

"My suggestion that it was too hot in the summer to have the windows closed at our gigs was based on fact."

But the licence said the windows had to be closed. So you were saying that you should have an exception. Or that the venue was unsafe to host gigs because of the heat. Either way you lose the job as PR for DHFC.

[Sue]

Thanks both for going to all this trouble, that's really helpful.

No more Goose gigs, then. Thanks.

[DJKillaQueen]

The issue is continued breach of license plus poor management (Sue isn't to blame for any of that). For me it's a black and white issue. I'll be interested to see what Ian reports back from the hearing when he get's time later.

[James Barber]

I've attached the sub-committees decision.

Hours:

Reduced to 23.30 serving alcohol Friday and Saturdays and closed by midnight.

Conditions:

? The 4 conditions proposed by Trading Standards and listed on page 23 of the agenda are to be added to the licence in full.

Police conditions listed below are to be added to the licence:

? The personal licence holder must be on the premises at all times that intoxicating liquor is being provided.

? That a CCTV system is installed at the premises and be maintained in good working order and be continually recording at all times the premises are in used under the licence. The CCTV system must be capable of capturing an image of every person who enters the premises.

? That all CCTV footage shall be kept for a period of 31 days and shall, upon request, be made available immediately to officers of the Police and the council.

? Condition 303 is replaced with the following conditions:

o When the premises is used for an event promoted either internally by the premises or by an external promoter, where it is advertised in the press and on websites and where people pre-purchase a ticket or pay at the door, the organiser must complete a Promotion/Event Assessment Form (MP696) supplied by the Police and ensure that a copy of that and the agreement is provided to the Police and Licensing Unit a minimum of 14 days prior to the date of hire. This requirement does not apply to events directly associated with a registered charity.

o When events as described above take place at least 2 SIA registered door staff should be employed at all times from 21:00 to the terminal hour the premises is being used. They shall be provided with hand-held metal detectors and ensure that searches are carried out in respect of all admissions including members of the public, performers and their assistants and the door-staff will also be provided with a mechanical counting device to ensure the accommodation limit is not exceeded.

o You shall notify the Police and the Licensing Unit on all other occasions when the premises is hired out to any third party at least 7 days prior to the date of the event.

? If requested by the Police and Licensing Unit a Promotion/Event Assessment Form will be submitted and security staff be employed as above.

? The DPS and premises management will hold meetings with the Police and Licensing Unit to discuss operational issues as and when requested.

[taper]

Thanks James.

I'd be interested in DHFC's views on whether this decision compromises their ability to raise sufficient revenue to keep the club afloat. Also from Sue whether this will make it more Difficult to Promote (the rather wonderful) Goose gigs.

Bad news if so.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

It does seem a heavy handed response to (albeit tragic) incidents that happened off site.

I can't imagine that the Folk Club could afford to hire two bouncers with hand-held thingammy jigs for their events. Nor could I imagine that the folk punters would want to go through that rigmarole.

When I did the door at Folk nights, there was never any trouble, even after alcohol had been consumed.

[mumof3girlies]

posted in wrong place- oops

[DJKillaQueen]

Unfortunately it is lesson in what happens if you don't observe your licence and manage your premises well. Most venues have CCTV now anyway as a matter of course but I would think that it's the reduced hours at the weekend that might bite most. On door staff though....most premises that have late licences have the requirement for door staff from 10pm as a standard part of the licence.

[Sue]

Happy now, DJKQ?

It would have been nice if as a DJ you did your best to support people working hard to bring music to the area.

Others, thanks for your support - obviously we will be meeting Nick to see how this affects our gigs, but we have five further nights already booked at DHFC this year, and we are contracted with the artists to hold them or we will have to pay thousands of pounds in guaranteed fees.

ETA: Which comes out of Nygel and my pockets. I am on a pension and he is not working at the moment.

[DJKillaQueen]

DH have brought all this on themselves.....IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR GIG....geez..do you really believe that venues should break the terms of their licence to accomodate your gigs? Unbelieveable.

Edited to add that there is no way in a million years I would ever ignore the terms of the licence held by the club I run, for anyone using/ hiring the venue......because no licence, no business. That is what you are asking a venue to risk by expecting them to ignore certain terms of their licence.

[peterstorm1985]

Sue, you seem to be stating that you are at financial risk here, but if you have contracted with the artists, surely you also have a contract with the venue, so there is no financial risk to yourself. It's their problem to comply with the license, not yours, and if they fail to provide what they have contracted to supply then that is a breach of contract, with all the normal remedies available.

[DJKillaQueen]

Peter is right. It is the venue's responsiblility to provide and pay for door staff. They may of course pass that on through higher hire fees, but that should be negotiable. Any current contract would probably contain a clause regarding alteration of hire fees anyway - so that could be referred to.

[taper]

It seems rather disprooportionate given the exceptional nature of the circumstances that led to the review. Isn't there a procedure whereby the Police can take a decision on an individual basis whether they want bouncers, metal detectors etc? Clearly a private party with lots of young people present is a different security risk to a Goose event. This seems vindictive to me and could threaten the club, which in turn would be a huge blow to the area.

Over zealous licensing authorities, including the Police, have long been the doom of live music in England.

[Weegee]

Thanks James for posting up the Sub Commitees decision.

I think that this is a very fair ruling. The committee have taken on board the comments from the police

and sought to put measures forward that hopefully should avoid the tragedy occuring again.

I dont think the measures sound heavy handed...in fact they are better than the alternative which was to have

no licence at all.

I spoke to someone who works at the club a few days ago...and alas there was no element or remorse about

the possibility of them losing their licence or the tragic incident that had taken place.

It was more a view of 'Too bloody right we didnt get our licence revoked..we SHOULDNT get it revoked...'

[James Barber]

Hi Taper,

The licence review was primarily caused by the tragic death and shooting.

The Police discovered that the existing licence conditions were not being followed - this management failure contributed to the tragic events.

Others have posted in the past that licence conditions weren't being adhered to and the Police stated conditions hadn't been adherred to. So it seems clear to me that the licensing breaches were not an aberation.

If the new conditions are not adhered to then I will ask for another licence review.

For any venue to be successful it must be well run. Any management deficiency places guests and visitors to a venue at risk.

I sincerely hope this venue will be better run and more successful going into the future.

[Otta]

The Police discovered that the existing licence conditions were not being followed - this management failure contributed to the tragic events.

Yeah right. I suspect the kids would have gone home quietly, without using the knives and guns they'd brought with them, had the club acted differently.

What a total nonsense.

And for the record, I have nothing to do with the club.

[James Barber]

Otta,

Have you bothered to read the report presented to the licensing sub committee?

[mockney piers]

Does this mean I'll no longer be enjoying a pint with the match of an afternoon?

Damn.

[DJKillaQueen]

Otta...there is a lot management can do to make sure there as little trouble as possible. Zero tolerance to licencing breaches and the law is one of them. CCTV and adaquate numbers of correctly trained staff is another.

[DJKillaQueen]

MP your pint is quite safe and you won't get searched at that time either so coins, and all the other variety of missiles you like to throw at the ref will get in ;)

[mockney piers]

I favour geese, far more entertaining than a sharpened coin at the back of the head.

I have flirted with pigs heads but that's like soooo 2002!!!

[Otta]

I hold my hands up James, I didn't read all 84 pages no. I did however have a look at the highlights.

Yes getting CCTV, and having the right number of staff would be a good thing. But I do not accept that the club did anything that in some way led to what happened on that night. Otherwise, why hasn't it happened regularly?

Anyway, whether I think it's a bit of a heavyhanded decision is inconsequential, as it's been made.

Good luck to the club.

[taper]

Yes, good luck to the club. I pray this does them no harm. Are they appealing?

[BrandNewGuy]

... and I hope the licence review didn't take too much notce of Mr Barber's curious anecdote about the bar staff heckling at a comedy show (this anecdote also made it into the South London Press). I've been into many licensed premises where the staff aren't friendly. I've even been into loads of places where the staff are downright unpleasant, but it never occurred to me that this would be a reason to query their licence.

[DJKillaQueen]

'Embellishments' are a regular part of contributions to licensing opposition. That's why the licensing department are precise in regards to under what terms an objection can be made. The licensing authority will then sort genuine complaint from irrelevant comment.

Whilst being precipitated by events on that one night, what we have to remember is that other complaints and previous beaches of license were also taken into account. The resulting review is a reflection on a longer history of poor management and licensing breach, not just one night. Had DH's reputation been impeccable beforehand, then the events of one night could genuinely have been seen as a one off. The licensing body felt there was a culture of poor management overall and made it's decisions based on that.