The Stirrer

Points to be considered:
-Underaged kids flock into Digbeth, already pissed, drinking as they stagger along the road.
-Underaged kids don't get admitted to the Rainbow or the Warehouse.
-Underaged kids certainly don't get served drinks in these venues (unlike a couple of venues nearer town).
-Underaged pissed kids get cranky when turned away from venues.
-Underaged kids take revenge, when picked out of the gutter by the police, by dobbing in the venue that has refused admittance.
-The Licensing Police should be stopped from proceeding with this case unless they produce these "victims" at the hearing, and make them testify as to their age and the source of the drink consumed.
-The Licensing Police didn't check the ages of the drunken "children".
-If the Police found the music so loud for their delicate ears that it prevented their entering the premises, it's no wonder they couldn't find the f**king DPS.
-The Police at Digbeth, who look after the area, unlike the Jobsworths of Licensing, are unanimous in their support of The Rainbow and the way that they run their events.
Unfortunately they are not allowed to say so because Chief Plod doesn't let his Officers contradict each other in public.
-Kent should fight this to the end, not even agreeing to a slap on the wrist. The Police jumped on the 2003 Licensing Act with glee and made many venues subject to so many hoops to be jumped through that they become unmanageable.
-Preventing crime is their job, not licensees or shop-keepers.
-If they get a result from this the Police will be well on their way to their ideal, Orwellian, situation where their uncorroborated evidence is forced on the populace. Though, haven't we always been there.

That review notice does not bear an officer's signature.

THE END OF THE RAINBOW?

Digbeth's popular Rainbow has been issued with a noise abatement order by Birmingham City Council - who've given one complaining resident more credence than 14,000 people who've offered their support to the venue on Facebook.

The decision is the latest blow to the campaign to Keep Digbeth Vibrant - an issue first highlighted on The Stirrer when we warned that similar issues affecting the The Spotted Dog on Alcester Street posed a real threat to the city's nightlife.

We even organised a Stirrer Summit to highlight the issue in 2007 - but it seems our concerns fell on deaf ears (http://www.thestirrer.co.uk/spotted_dog_2809071.html).

The Council seems more concerned with bowing and scraping to devlopers and a tiny minority of moaning incomers - rather than protecting an oasis of left field entertainment. Because, of course, Birmingham has too many of those.

It's enough to make you want to emigrate.

The Rainbow issued a statement last night saying, "The sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the Rainbow has finally fallen.

"This latest decapitation is further evidence of the City Counci'ls EPU department zealously applying it's subjective and tenuous rules regarding 'noise nuisance' - for the benefit of one resident and to the detriment of the vast majority.

"This is despite a commitment to sound insulate the roof from which the sound of music emanates - as quick as the planning department can allow it.

"We will issue our response this Friday at 6.30 - 7.00pm at The Rainbow. If you can make it we would appreciate your attendance and moral support. Please spread the word.
Cheap drinks will be served."

DISCUSS THIS ON THE STIRRER FORUM

One of the four grounds for appeal against a Noise Abatement Notice is that "it has been issued against the wrong person", (cf Carey case in Coventry).
The Rainbow must claim that it should have been issued against BCC Planning Department and get the tossers on the stand to explain themselves. This will expose the extraordinary extent of their collusion with developers - it's happened too often to be merely incompetence. Also, it would be an opportunity to question the deficiencies of the EPU noise team and the measures that they have gone to to cover up their part in the Abacus cock-up.
The irritating thing is that the developer, Tony Corbett of Concept Design Solutions, will be immune because he fulfilled the inadequate requirements of the Planning Department (even if the windows don't fit!!!).

Good points from gossip monger - Ive been to events at the Rainbow Warehouse and if anything, the complaints from the crowd is about how tight and careful the door staff have been about admitting underage people.

Now we know why!!

Rich
Xx

Even if there are contraventions - and I'm not saying The Rainbow is responsible for any - venues should also be allowed to mitigate any problems they cause by explaining how much they offer the community. The Rainbow was once the home of 7" Cinema which became the Flatpack Festival for example. I'm not saying boozers anywhere should get carte blanche to break the law, just that there should be scope for sensible discretion. Some people won't be happy in the city until a Bournville-style pub culture is imposed across the city. Never mind Sharia law and the Taliban - the Quakers are back!

I fully support the Rainbow.

If you want to show support for The Rainbow turn up there at 6.30 tonight

Cheers Barnard. I've warned Kent not to trust the smug oaf Mullaney.

And then come on over to the PoW about 9.30 where me and a few musicians will be making reasonable levels of noise.

Best wishes to the Rainbow -- I hope Martin Mullany will support the campign for keeping live music in Digbeth, Kings heath and Moseley alive now that he's in charge of culture in the city.

"Cut us some slack" call by Rainbow boss as 300plus turn up for public meeting to save the pub http://www.thestirrer.co.uk/cut-us-some ... 06091.html

I think there's a lesson here for John Tighe on how to achieve things.

Kent Davies has argued his case without repeatedly making snide uncalled for comments about Council Officers or politicians who are sympathetic to his cause. As a result a group of us within the Council are trying to help him.

In my role as Cabinet member for Leisure, Sport and Culture I want to ensure that the Council has in place a strategy for ensuring the growth of Digbeth as a cultural and creative area.

I feel I need to comment on the above article.

At the meeting prior to this public meeting, both Clive Dutton, Head of Planning and Regeneration and myself, made it clear to Kent Davies that we want the Rainbow to survive, that we see it as an important part of the culture of Birmingham and that we want to see Digbeth grow as a cultural and creative area.

However, the council has to work within the law. If someone complains about noise, the Council has to investigate. The officers will then have to make a determination as to whether that noise is a statutory nuisance. This will take into account if the noise is a repeat occurrence, what time of day it occurs, what level it is at.

It was also explained that the officers will not be sitting round the corner on 1st August waiting for a minor infringement of noise nuisance. Instead will only respond to complaints....and will again have to make an assessment as to whether it is a statutory nuisance.

It was also explained that the Council can’t make someone stay in hotel when the event on 1st August. We urged Kent to use local Digbeth organisations to mediate with the complainant.

Clive Dutton explained that when the Rainbow put in their planning application in for the roofed over garden – the application has not been submitted yet – he will ensure that it is expedited as quick as possible.

It was also explained to Kent that there is a level of responsiblity on his part to try to reduce any nuisance from his 1st August event – this would include walking to the Abacus building and listening to the noise level there, using friendly customers in the Abacus building to warn him when the noise levels are getting unacceptable; look at the arrangement of his loudspeakers so the event is not replying on just loudspeakers to fill all of Adderley Street....and finally maybe consider turning down the volume a bit.

[quote=martin_mullaney]However, the council has to work within the law.[/quote]

Would that extend to the laws requiring Abacus developers to have conducted an independent noise survey prior to building as opposed to the Planning and EPU Dept. merely relying on Abacus' assertion that noise in the area was not an issue?

Also Martin, hiding behind the law to justify what is going on here is no real explanation of the motives for BCC's actions.

As you will know law is subject to intepretation and the 2003 Licencing Act being cited is vague as to it's definition of public nuisance. In fact in the recent Nightingale case District Judge Zara found in favour of the Nightingale, implying that similar actions by BCC in the future would be nothing more than posturing based on an inaccurate interpretation of the 2003 Act.

To quote Lord Bingham's decision which informed District Judge Zara:


http://www.popall.co.uk/training/themea ... isance.asp

Given that BCC has already suffered one legal defeat in this area I feel that the actions taken against the Rainbow are nothing more than bullying tactics designed to cover up the initial mistake made by the Planning and EPU (also responsible for issuing Noise Abatement Orders) in accepting Abacus' flawed noise assessment at the planning stage.

As the level of media interest in this issue grows I hope that it will not be long before these matters are brought to much wider attention.

The Stirrer wrote:


I don't think they ever went away. As far as I can see they are a peaceable group who assemble at various meeting places in the city without hindrance to anyone.

Would that extend to the laws requiring Abacus developers to have conducted an independent noise survey prior to building as opposed to the Planning and EPU Dept. merely relying on Abacus' assertion that noise in the area was not an issue? [/quote]

My understanding - and please correct me, if I am wrong - is that when Abacus did their noise assessment in 2003 Digbeth was alot quieter. The Spotted Dog did not have live music playing in the beer garden after 11am. I don't think Kent Davies even owned the Rainbow at the time. My memory of the Rainbow in 2003 was that it was still owned by Fuzz and although it had DJ music in the garden, it wasn't loud enough to be heard at where the Abacus building is now.

What I am keen to do is engage in dialogue. However, if we are going to end up in some form of mob mentality where the demand is that music should be played as loud as you want, whenever and wherever you want then myself and others will walk away and leave the venues to deal with regulatory services alone.

And if John Tighe is going to mount vindictive campaigns against me, then fine I'll won't get involved.

And they (the Quakers) try to stop drinking of alchohol and general robust enjoyment activities -- that's the metaphorical point.

Cadbury may have started a nice chocolate factory -- but he also crated a housing estate with no pubs! How spoilsporty is that?