Spotted Dog leads way to a quiet Digbeth

martin_mullaney · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 16:32

Timmo wrote:

I can't believe that Martin is an elected official. Public life will always come with detractors. This cause doesn't need fairweather friends and sycophants. If you're only able to achieve objectives when surrounded by people who are kissing your arse then it may have been a long time since you've ever had a conflicting view to your own raised let alone resolved a conflict.

John is angry. Angry at your notion of support. Martin, you need to choose whose side you're on and stick to it.

The numbers are the single most galling factor in this situation 1 person complaining. If 1 person complained about a mosque on their doorstep or a needle exchange or a bail hostel it would not mean that these premises would be closed down. If one bigot was campaigning for a Mosque to be closed down, If a NIMBY decided that they didn't want their area to become awash with addicts and ex crimanals because it caused them a singular annoyance would Martin be out for the cause? Less than 50% of the country vote, the majority of the country don't want Gordon Brown as our leader but in this case 1 person really can make a difference by circumventing the law when it doesn't back up the argument. Unfiled Noise Documents and Court precedence don't seem to overrule this person's argument. I mean how important are they? Has Jacqui Smith landed a second property in Abacus??

If Kent's roof is not the solution and it is solely one person whom is making all these complaints then I propose a new fundraising activity: We should raise money for the insulation of the abacus flat.

As it is 1 persons complaint against currently 20,000 members of the Facebook group that is causing this conflict lets get their flat soundproofed professionally so that everyone can live in harmony without infringing on each others enjoyment of life. Martin may feel like he is standing up for the unheard minority in this argument but its a fairly lonely place when so many don't want it to happen.

So lets all raise money to "SOUNDPROOF THE ABACUS ONE" as this person has the potential to impose their desires for a quiet life whilst infringing everyone else's desire to run a business, enjoy live entertainment, expand the arts, get drunk and dance together. Fulfilling some of lifes most primal urges Kent and John are providing places for people to enjoy each others company. Be it a public house or a tribal gathering of dancing energy or the freedom to sit quietly in their own home. All these things can co-exist if we SOUNDPROOF THE ABACUS ONE.

Can I just clarify things here. This is not a one off criticism by John Tighe, it is a year long repetitive campaign.

I've had people come up to me, saying that the John Tighe has said that I want the Spotted Dog pub closed down - which is the complete opposite of what I want. I've had John Tighe telling people not to vote for me in my re-election campaign in 2008, claiming I want to close down all live music venues in Birmingham - completely not true.

I would have thought that John Tighe would have dropped his obsessive campaign against me - indeed in my new Cabinet role, I am in the perfect position to help the Rainbow and the Spotted Dog. This is why I asked Clive Dutton if I could attend the Rainbow meeting on Friday afternoon.

There is alot I could do to help the Rainbow - indeed I was only thinking on Friday evening that I could even do a £10,000 loan out my own personal money to help the Rainbow build its garden roof - not Council money, my own personal money. Money which I used to help the Prince of Wales pub out of sticky situation last year.

Quite frankly, I don't need to get involved with the Rainbow situation and equally I don't need the continual rubbish I'm getting from John Tighe. Indeed, I don't see him offering the Rainbow any money to build the garden roof or any of the other people on here backing the Rainbow.

So I have decided to walk away, take my own personal money and wish the lot of you the best of luck.

Timmo · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 16:54

Noone here is saying that you should be offering your personal money to sort this out. I for one wouldn't accept it from someone whose judgment on whether or not to get involved (especially from your newly appointed seat of influence) is based upon whether or not he is liked.

If you want to be seen as the great saviour your also going to have to put up with those whom know that your opinion on this matter has waivered greatly and that you come off as an opportunist and this sort of politicing is not what this campaign needs. It needs solidarity.

Do you agree that the Rainbow has a right to operate business?
Do you think that one persons opinion should overturn the opinions of thousands of others?
Do you think that Birmingham should have an area where loud but legal events should happen?
Feel free to answer any of my other points from my previous post

If you're not going to get involved would you kindly let us get on with it as arguing about the Martin Mullaney waivering support wagon takes up peoples time and is little more than Trolling. Either you're here to help or please take your ball and go home. This doesn't need naysayers carping from the sidelines.

martin_mullaney · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 17:03

Timmo wrote:

Do you agree that the Rainbow has a right to operate business?

Yes

Timmo wrote:

Do you think that one persons opinion should overturn the opinions of thousands of others?

Yes - it's called protection from the mob. A fundamental principle of any Western Liberal democracy.

Timmo wrote:

Do you think that Birmingham should have an area where loud but legal events should happen?

What you really mean is "should Birmingham have an area where very loud open air events can take place regularly until 2 or 4am in the morning?". The answer is no, if it stops people sleeping.

Pam Dean · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 17:08

Martin, I do think you are coming all over like 'if you don't want to play, I'll throw my toys out of the pram'.

The situation with Digbeth is so much bigger than petty squabbling. What John's doing is pointing out the facts and yes, he is unhappy, because it's his livelihood.

I've always taken the view that where people are deprived of their income, whether that be as a result of loss of a job, benefits not being sorted or other similar situations, it's something that needs to be taken extremely seriously. Even worse is the threat of that income being withdrawn by way of some bureaucratic cock-up.

Where livelihoods are threatened, I believe that anyone who has any clout to influence decisions, should stand up and be counted. Which is where you fit in, Martin.

As LIKW pointed out, don't make it personal. You are a politician and need to take the brickbats that go with that.

It's not easy, but just think about the consequences of the Rainbow and Spotted Dog closing down - what that would mean for the thousands of supporters who frequent these venues and enjoy the entertainment. It is a huge issue, one that's not going away, but one that needs to be sorted urgently. As Barnard and others have pointed out, maybe it's a case of getting the 'Abacus One' his/her flat soundproofed properly (which, of course, should have happened during the course of development).

One way or another, it's dialogue that is all-important. Only by talking, not ignoring or walking away, will solutions be found.

I sincerely hope that the powers that be will realise that pubs such as the Rainbow and Spotted Dog are of significant value to Birmingham and do all they can to ensure that their existence flourishes.

Timmo · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 17:13

martin_mullaney wrote:

Timmo wrote:

Do you agree that the Rainbow has a right to operate business?

Yes

Timmo wrote:

Do you think that one persons opinion should overturn the opinions of thousands of others?

Yes - it's called protection from the mob. A fundamental principle of any Western Liberal democracy.

When will you be announcing that you are backing the wants and needs of the Abacus resident? It would be nice to have some clarification

Timmo wrote:

Do you think that Birmingham should have an area where loud but legal events should happen?

What you really mean is "should Birmingham have an area where very loud open air events can take place regularly until 2 or 4am in the morning?". The answer is no, if it stops people sleeping.

Which is why it was originally recommended that they shouldn't build flats in the Digbeth area.

Rich_J · **Joined:** Wed Mar 26, 2008 23:16 **Posts:** 165

martin_mullaney wrote:

Timmo wrote:

Do you think that one persons opinion should overturn the opinions of thousands of others?

Yes - it's called protection from the mob. A fundamental principle of any Western Liberal democracy.

I thought that the principle of democracy was that the wishes of the many held sway over the wishes of the few.

Particularly where the ratio is along the lines of 20,000:1.

davidnikel · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 17:20

barnardhobbit wrote:

After the Rainbow Noise Nuisance Meeting on Friday I attended the celebration
of the completion of their album and release of their first single "Out of Babel"
Moseley/Balsall Heath based band "The Destroyers" at the Rainbow Warehouse

All very apt considering they are building a real Tower of Babel at the city end
of Digbeth - Enjoy it while you still can

Bloomin terrific song.
Bloomin terrific band.

Pam Dean · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 17:32

Totally agree - brilliant!

martin_mullaney · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 17:34

Timmo wrote:

martin_mullaney wrote:

Timmo wrote:

Do you agree that the Rainbow has a right to operate business?

Yes

Timmo wrote:

Do you think that one persons opinion should overturn the opinions of thousands of others?

Yes - it's called protection from the mob. A fundamental principle of any Western Liberal democracy.

When will you be announcing that you are backing the wants and needs of the Abacus resident? It would be nice to have some clarification

Timmo wrote:

Do you think that Birmingham should have an area where loud but legal events should happen?

What you really mean is "should Birmingham have an area where very loud open air events can take place regularly until 2 or 4am in the morning?". The answer is no, if it stops people sleeping.

Which is why it was originally recommended that they shouldn't build flats in the Digbeth area.

People have a right to sleep - this is why we don't have the refuse collectors operating before 6am or planes flying from Birmingham airport during the night.

I can sleep through the noisest of parties, but I accept that there are people who have a low threshold to noise and therefore need silence.

When the Abacus apartments were designed, Digbeth was a quieter place. I know readers can't accept these facts, but I used to use the Rainbow alot before the introduction of late closing in Moseley in 2005. In 2003, the Spotted Dog DID NOT have open air gigs in its beer garden till 2am. The Rainbow had DJ music in its beergarden, which you could hear standing in Adderley Street - which is different to now, where I can clearly hear the music standing on the other side of the Digbeth High Street dual carriageway.

The person making the complaint in the Abacus building has a right to a nights sleep. Just because they are the only one complaining, makes no difference. When the derelict building on the corner of Green Street and Alcester Road eventually becomes a night club - which I understand it received planning permission for in the late 1990s - you can bet your bottom dollar the people on the other side of the Abacus development will be complaining.

The mob mentality which seems to be generating around the Rainbow and Spotted Dog is very depressing. Indeed, if the ten of thousands of supporters claimed to support the Rainbow, put their money where their mouse button click was - just £1 each would get the Rainbow roof built.

So why don't the people on here, who support the Rainbow, stop moaning and donate money to the Rainbow - £1000 each and the garden roof will be built in no time.

Remember, the Prince of Wales pub raised £36,000 in 7 days through donations from customers. Why can't the Rainbow do the same?

martin_mullaney · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 17:38

Rich_J wrote:

martin_mullaney wrote:

Timmo wrote:

Do you think that one persons opinion should overturn the opinions of thousands of others?

Yes - it's called protection from the mob. A fundamental principle of any Western Liberal democracy.

I thought that the principle of democracy was that the wishes of the many held sway over the wishes of the few.

Particularly where the ratio is along the lines of 20,000:1.

In a democracy, minorities need protection. Otherwise majorities could claim they have the democratic support to slaughter an ethnic minority.

Also, in a democracy, the application of the law should be separate from the political process, otherwise you end up in a patch work application of the law across the country.

If it 20,000 get them to donate £1 each for building the garden roof. Let's see their level of commitment to the Rainbow.

Pam Dean · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 17:40

Martin, that's not the point. The Abacus development should have ensured adequate soundproofing was installed, but it didn't. Both the Spotted Dog and Rainbow were well-established before Abacus. It's a no-brainer, really.

martin_mullaney · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 17:45

Pam Dean wrote:

Martin, that's not the point. The Abacus development should have ensured adequate soundproofing was installed, but it didn't. Both the Spotted Dog and Rainbow were well-established before Abacus. It's a no-brainer, really.

The Abacus development had adequate sound proofing for the situation in 2003.

I know readers refuse to accept this, but Digbeth was a lot quieter place in 2003 - pre late night closing. Believe me, I used to use Digbeth for post-11pm drinking.

Can someone show me evidence that the Spotted Dog had regular gigs in it beer garden in 2003 until 2am. Answer: NO.

Who here used the Rainbow after 11pm in 2003. I did! Did anybody else?

The Rainbow was not as loud as it is today. You could not heard the Rainbow on the other side of the Digbeth High Street dual carriway.

Pam Dean · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 17:58

Martin, the soundproofing was pathetic, by many accounts. Not just from outside, but internally too. Have you spoken to other residents in the Abacus development? I think you will find a tale of how they can hear what's going on in the next apartment very clearly.

Ok, I can't say that any noise from the Spotted Dog back in 2003 was as loud as it was when John applied for an entertainment licence. But from what I've learned, there were garden parties for weddings, christenings, etc. Which can't now happen because of the complaint from the 'Abacus One'.

This isn't about 'mob rule' as you describe. If that were the case, then we shouldn't be supporting the protests in Iran against Khameini/Ajimihanjad or Mugabe in Zimbabwe. This is about democracy, here in this country and here, in Birmingham. Why is it that some officials seem to want to destroy a heritage that most want to keep?

beefheart · **Joined:** Wed Nov 14, 2007 17:15 **Posts:** 5961

Destroying a heritage....lets not get carried away, Digbeth for me is largely a dump, thats crying out for for tasteful re-development making use of the best buildings that survive.

I find it hard to be believe there is only one objector? Are all the others hearing impaired?

As to the noise well maybe there needs to be strict time limits on how loud the music can be. After 10 maybe the decibel levels needs to be drastically brought down, since its not really necessary to have it ear splitting....and yes any more acoustic shielding development that can be incorporated great. In fact to build acoustic barriers need not be massively expensive....I work in the field and I have some knowledge of this.

gossipmonger · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 18:54

Pete Ashton's videos of the meeting. Doesn't sound like Kent is as respectful of authority as certain posters would claim.
Kent
http://vimeo.com/5238091
John
http://vimeo.com/5238535

martin_mullaney · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 19:05

Pam Dean wrote:

Martin, the soundproofing was pathetic, by many accounts. Not just from outside, but internally too. Have you spoken to other residents in the Abacus development? I think you will find a tale of how they can hear what's going on in the next apartment very clearly.

Ok, I can't say that any noise from the Spotted Dog back in 2003 was as loud as it was when John applied for an entertainment licence. But from what I've learned, there were garden parties for weddings, christenings, etc. Which can't now happen because of the complaint from the 'Abacus One'.

This isn't about 'mob rule' as you describe. If that were the case, then we shouldn't be supporting the protests in Iran against Khameini/Ajimihanjad or Mugabe in Zimbabwe. This is about democracy, here in this country and here, in Birmingham. Why is it that some officials seem to want to destroy a heritage that most want to keep?

This is about 'mob rule'. Someone - and in the case of the Spotted Dog, it was several complainees - complains about noise from rock bands playing in a beer garden till 2am. They didn't complain about music prior to 11pm, just music after 11pm. Can I repeat that once more, because I know readers refuse to accept this fact. The complainers, there was more than one, complained about music playing from the Spotted Dog after 11pm - not before 11pm. That was the issue - music playing in the beer garden AFTER 11pm, NOT before 11pm. That someone making the complaint, wants the protection of the law. Once, we decide that the law is an ad hoc thing, which can be decided at any time by the majority, then you enter 'mob law' territory.

For example, let's say next year someone opens a night club in the derelict building on the corner of Green Street and Alcester Street with loud music till 4am every night. I bet the people in the Abacus building, who presently claim they can't hear a thing from the Spotted Dog or Rainbow. I bet they will start complaining about the noise. Shall we say that more people use the nightclub than are complaining, so "tough".

The way people talk about the 'Abacus One' is nothing more than collective bullying, of someone who is merely seeking the protection of the law.

martin_mullaney · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 19:08

beefheart wrote:

Destroying a heritage....lets not get carried away, Digbeth for me is largely a dump, thats crying out for for tasteful re-development making use of the best buildings that survive.

I find it hard to be believe there is only one objector? Are all the others hearing impaired?

As to the noise well maybe there needs to be strict time limits on how loud the music can be. After 10 maybe the decibel levels needs to be drastically brought down, since its not really necessary to have it ear splitting....and yes any more acoustic shielding development that can be incorporated great. In fact to build acoustic barriers need not be massively expensive....I work in the field and I have some knowledge of this.

All the complaints have been about music after 11pm. Nobody has complained about music prior to 11pm.

Personally, I can't stand pubs that insist on ear splitting music - they are the type of pubs that attract the knuckle draggers.

Timmo · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 19:11

Its not a mob mentality, Its concerned parties examining the evidence and finding that BCC and the abacus development were given the green light without dotting all the i's. Why should The Spotted Dog and the Rainbow be the ones to lose out because of these failings? How does the Abacus 1's rights outweigh the Rainbows rights? Should it be the situation where because the Rainbow has infringed on the Abacus 1's right to a decent nights sleep that the Abacus 1 can force The Rainbows management out of their livelihoods and means of supporting their families.

The Spotted Dog is attempting to raise the funding for the roof. Why aren't you backing the Rainbow's efforts to raise funds by arguing that the fundraiser should go forward. Has anyone offered any explanation of declining development on their property to reduce noise levels experienced?

From your position of influence you could recognise that the Rainbow has attempted to make reparations to the Abacus 1 to put them up in a hotel on this night and offering double glazing. Is it that the Abacus 1 wants to live in peace or have the Rainbow and Spotted Dog go out of business. A compromise needs to happen on both sides. It appears that the Abacus 1 has declined any reparations whilst the Rainbow is bending over backwards to reduce noise levels. These things take time and whilst organising these reparations the EPU declined to suspend any action taken against the Rainbow whilst following dubious protocol. The Rainbow funded independent noise testing but the EPU's human ear is enough to force the Councils hand.

With regards to complaints after 11pm at the Summit held on Friday Kent explained that a complaint about noise was made about noise at 11pm when the evening was due to end at 11:30 pm so there have been complaints prior to 11pm.

Timmo · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 19:16

Since when has a majority held position equated to a mob mentality. Racism is a minority held view, the majority abhor it. Does this equate to the majority of people being a mob mentality against racism? I somehow doubt it.

Once again if you're not interested in some sort of compromise between the conflicted parties and just want to cause spurious claims of mob mentality you are stunting the argument.

Pam Dean · **Posted:** Sun Jun 21, 2009 19:24

Martin, I understand what 'bullying' is about, but I don't think it applies here.

Let's provide a bit of context. Spotted Dog, Rainbow pubs in existence from....

Abacus (inferior) development - planning permission 2003.

If you've taken the time to read some of the pertinent posts from people who actually live in these apartments (including the signposting to other websites), you will have noted how dissatisfied a lot of the residents are about the standard of construction.

Remember, this was a factory originally. Interestingly, planning permission was granted on this conversion to apartments, whereas further down the road in Bradford Street, another former factory remains derelict after planning permission was turned down. Maybe the views weren't as good?

The Stirrer

Spotted Dog leads way to a quiet Digbeth

Who is online