Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Living Bar: Racist

Same rules apply I suppose.

There is a bar on Clapham High street called the Kazbar which is mainly gay. I used to go in there a bit with Mrs Retro because it was the best bar in that area (before Arch 635). The door staff would always ask me if I had been there before and if I knew the type of bar it was. Lots of people would turn away at the door but I don't think they were turned away by the door staff. Good policy I thought.
 
RETRACTION

Today I was contacted by Stuart Noble in person.

It appears someone has e-mailed me with an account of events which have not been endorsed by him.

This account was posted by myself on the site on 15 May 2002.

Mr. Noble has asked not to be associated with this post, so therefore I cannot allow for it to be accepted as his personal view, and it MUST be disregarded.

However, the fact still stands that whomever the person was that sent me the e-mail, obviously had some experiences of the operations within the Dogstar and has used Mr.Noble's name as a cover in order to remain anonymous.

My public apologies to Mr.Noble and any distress caused to him.

WATERHOUSE
 
Mr Noble's comments have been removed. Surely the sender is visible on the email header?

I think some small business people feel reluctant to criticise Merrit for fear of damaging their livelyhood. Thankfully many others do not.
 
"I think some small business people feel reluctant to criticise Merrit for fear of damaging their livelyhood."

In this case, you're jumping to the wrong conclusion, as Stuart rang me up and explained his side of the story to me.

I won't be reposting his comments here though, because he's made it clear that he doesn't want his private comments published on these boards - which he's perfectly entitled to request.

Will posters be very careful when posting up private correspondence from third parties in the future and ensure that they:

(a) get their permission first and
(b) check the authorship.

Cheers!
 
Originally posted by hatboy
I think some small business people feel reluctant to criticise Merrit for fear of damaging their livelyhood. Thankfully many others do not.
Yes. In my experience local people are being very careful. However, the bulk of Coldharbour Lane daytime business (the parade from Ritzy to Dogstar) signed a strong petition against the proposed Merrett nightclub in the old Brixton Cycles building, including Pat at the Albert.

Many know they'd face rent rises should there be more night economy development on this stretch of Coldharbour Lane. Shops like Bookmongers would be under threat.

Do people really want to exchange Bookmongers for a Merrett nightclub called WALLPAPER offering Brixton an "exciting ICA-type experience" with "A-list guests" chillin2 "ambyant sounz?"

The petitions are with the Council planning department. 300 other people signed too, mostly local residents.

Then there's the problem raised by GODSMACKED above:-
Should only a fraction of the allegations be true Lawrence Merrett is not "Mr Upright Citizen." Is he likely to get violent towards those who disagree with him, who question his expansionist plans or who urge a boycott of his companies? Is there a history of violence? Does Lawrence Merrett have a criminal record?
These strike me as sensible questions. Let's put a stop to Mr Merrett's alleged bad behaviour but, at the same time, minimise any possible personal risk to those who speak out.

Does anyone know how to discover if someone has a criminal record? It's very private information so, presumably, is handled with great care. There's also the question of spent convictions and ex-prisoners being allowed to make a fresh start.

Despite Mr Merrett's alleged behaviour I want to see his rights respected. He's clearly treated the community without respect and has attacked local democracy (e.g. all the proven planning violations - see the Lambeth Council Planning Committee minutes quoted above) but I don't want to sink to his level.

Also, I agree with the Editor about the undesirability of witch-hunts. I simply want Mr Merrett - an important Brixton businessman - to obey the law, to stop subverting local democracy and to respect the local community.

Not much to ask. Certainly not a witch hunt.
 
Yeah, and if he stopped being a racist and pissed off that would be good too.

I don't believe he is a violent man but I've already consulted the police on this and if I get so much as slapped by some hired thug in the next few months they know EXACTLY where to look first.

This is not my personal battle. I lost interest in L. Merrit years ago. This is many from the Brixton community speaking up for themselves, their area and what is right.
 
To be frank, the calm I have exerted thusfar is bordering on fury! It pains me to have to backtrack.(reference to the Noble issue) I have endeavoured to be factual, but somehow there has been an anomaly.
And yes Hatboy, I do posess the header for the e-mail, retained for legal purposes, should anyone decide to threaten action.
 
Sorry Mike.

I should be a bit more controlled and less fanatical when it comes to these issues.

This thread and its content are only here because the Editor is open-minded enough and realises that the view I have on LIVING and its management are not unique, and give others the ability to air their views, whether I agree or disagree with them.

It also shows that he has great integrity with regard to some difficult/sensitive issues.

I am sure this is not the first time issues like this have been posted and his experience shows this.

I am relatively new to U75. I don't know much about its history at all.
What I do know however, is that this thread is INTENSE. Legal threats may come about because of its content. Physical threats of violence may come also.

The editor has done a good job.

As I mentioned before, I'm not having a pop at you Mike.
I can't stand what the place represents, and I apologise for being out of order.
But you can't fight passion.
And I can't help the way I write sometimes either, it just comes out.


Waterhouse.
 
Hello - I'm Ben & work with Lawrence

hello, it's always nice to be amongst friends.

i was slightly flummoxed when i saw that not only is Mr Hatboy a man with with strong - and obviously personal feelings - on this subject but he also seems to be the moderator, which as far as i can ascertain is defined as;

"Moderators oversee specific forums. They generally have the ability to edit and delete posts, move threads, and perform other manipulations. Becoming a moderator for a specific forum is usually rewarded to users who are particularly helpful and knowledgeable in the subject of the forum they are moderating."

this fills me with worries as to the objectivity of the forum that i would have thought should be at least given lip service. after all one should not merely be whiter than white (a slightly unfortunate turn of phrase i know considering the subject matter, but please give me some leeway) but seen to be whiter than white.

does anyone else think this is a valid point? or will they be censored??

cheers

ben
:)
 
Please note: The 'Living' bar on Coldharbour Lane is nothing to do with the large bar chain who run several bars called the "Living Room".

(They're the people who forced the Coldharbour Lane version to change their name).
 
I bet they're glad they did too. It would be damaging for them to be associated with a racist bar in Brixton.
 
ben cockle - your 'point' about Hatboy being a moderator is irrelevant and a pathetic attempt to divert the course of the discussion. Moderators on U75 don't select or censor genuine opinions or posts, they just delete ads, legally dodgy stuff and irrelevant bollocks. Nobody's ever been stopped from saying anything so long as it's on-topic and respectful in the time I've been here.

Perhaps you should stop arsing around and address some of the issues raised?
 
precisely, john. Ben:
a) moderators are reactive, not proactive (ie they respond to specific problems, rather than steer discussions)
b) you chose to come here. Well done, it's a good thing, welcome etc. But you did so according to the house rules.
So, like JWH said - address the issues.
 
I posted this on the I went to the Living Bar tonight thread a few days ago, but got no response. Thought I'd try again here:-

Welcome Ben. Given the criticisms of your employer, Lawrence Merrett, on these boards I respect you for posting here.

Can you comment on the complaints against Living Bar or, as Lawrence Merrett's employee, is this difficult for you?

I appreciate your need to be loyal to your employer, who pays your wages and could discipline or sack you should you be disloyal.

A reminder of the main points, from Living Bar: Racist?
Originally posted by GODSMACKED:

Posts on this thread accuse Living Room Leisure Ltd Director Lawrence Merrett of:

- Enforcing a racist door policy
- Enforcing a sexist door policy
- Enforcing a door policy which discriminates against Gays and Lesbians
- Brazen, repeated and on-going breaches of planning rules
- Breaking the terms of a Licensing Magistrates' Alcohol License
- Breaking the terms of a Local Authority Entertainment License
- Breaking weights and measures law on licensed premises where he may also be a company director (The Dogstar pub).
Any thoughts?
 
Ben: as has been stated by others, I can repeat that Hatboy's role as 'moderator' is simply as a helping hand to occasionally delete clearly offensive/racist posts, blatant trolls and adverts and bona fide defamatory/illegal comments.

He has no authority to delete posts that he doesn't personally agree with, nor can he steer debates in a direction he likes or interfere with other people's posts.

His (much appreciated) role is the same as the other moderators here, and that is to facilitate free, open and honest debate within the clearly-defined rules of this forum. In reality, that means he does very little indeed, other than be another set of 'eye's for me.

I can assure you that he will not delete/edit/alter any of your posts here so long as they comply with the conditions above, so please feel free to answer the points repeatedly raised by others.
 
Don't hold your breath waiting...

Oi you lot , your all going blue!

Hell may freeze before Lawrence's employees stand up to the Eton wally...

Then again bar jobs are two a penny so go on Ben answer the questions!
 
How silent of you, Ben. DO you intend to rebut them substantively. This issue will NOT go away if you just ignore it. But I think that if you convince people on this site with a reasoned argument against these allegations, people will take them and consider them seriously (but not as gospel). So-run away or put up?

<edited to add: by "seriously", I personally will not quite so openly display the deep loathing I feel for a racist bully (Lawrence) and the disdain for a lackey whose testicles appear entirely non-functional on current showing, metaphorically speaking
 
How pathetic.

Lawrence Merrett sends his employee to these boards to try and dampen things down.

Said employee is given special protection by the Editor, who asks people to be nice to Ben.

Said employee attacks a moderator (Hatboy).

Said employee moans about people not wanting a debate.

Said employee refuses to debate.

Said employee lies about Living Bar wrecking a crime scene.

Ben. You are a proven tosspot.
 
...Who not only lies about tampering with a crime scene but accuses a moderator who witnessed the act and spoke to the police at the scene of lying. Isn't tampering with evidence a pretty serious crime in itself? BTW welcome back, GOD. Will we be seeing more of you?
 
Said employee is given special protection by the Editor, who asks people to be nice to Ben.
This is deeply offensive bullshit of the highest order.

Ben will be treated no different to any other poster here.

If you want any credibility here, try sticking to the truth. After all, I don't see anyone editing your comments, do you?
 
I am not happy about the swipe at Mike either.......Mike runs these boards, in his own time and at his own expense, so that we are able to debate stuff here. The breadth of debate here is like nowhere else. By running these boards extremely well Mike is actually facilitating interaction amongst a broad section of computer users, not just in Brixton, but around the world. Have you taken a look at other bulletin boards? This is really a site in a class of its own......which is why it is so popular. That demands a great deal of respect.

Tell me GODSMACKED of the shouty capitals, what have you contributed to your community recently?
 
I don't think that was mean't to be a swipe. I get the impression that GODSMACKED was saying that despite being politely welcomed by the Editor, Ben Cockle still failed miserably to address the allegations of racism being levelled at his employer.

Pathetic.
 
hatboy: His comments were very specific: "Said employee is given special protection by the Editor, who asks people to be nice to Ben" and it was most certainly (another) snipe.

To be honest, I really don't take too kindly to some new poster using these boards to post up a bag of lies about me supposedly granting 'special protection' to anyone associated with the Living Room.

I would have thought the fact that I'm hosting pages and pages of debate slagging off the place is more than enough proof of that...

<deep sigh>
 
It WAS a swipe and was out of order.

ben we are still waiting for your reply...

<tumbleweed goes by for tenth time>

:rolleyes:
 
Read it again

You're arguing over a grammatical nuance:
Originally posted by GODSMACKED
Said employee is given special protection by the Editor, who asks people to be nice to Ben.
I interpreted this as GS saying that Ben has been given special protection insofar as Mike has asked people to be nice to him, and that nothing more than that is implied.
Mike, I think you are being too touchy about this.
 
I didn't read it like that at all at first, but I see what you mean.......it had been a pretty full on day for the Mike & the Mods, I know that I was pretty snippy with one & all..........

OK, well if you meant it like IntoStella suggests, then sorry for my snippiness, I do hope I misinterpreted your remark, if not then what I said stands.....
 
Supposedly offering 'special protection' and asking people to 'be nice' sound like two entirely different things to me, hence my response.

Ben has no 'special protection' whatsoever, neither have I asked people to be 'nice' to him: I've just tried to ensure that he gets the chance to argue for himself and not be held personally responsible for every gripe that people have with the bar he works for.

And my comments about his posts not getting altered weren't about 'protection' - they were designed to remove any chance of him wriggling out of answering the questions posed by others.

That's why I clearly and unequivocally implored him to "to answer the points repeatedly raised by others".
 
Back
Top Bottom