INCIDENT AT DAMAGE 12/09/1999 - JOINT STATEMENT
Steve Slimelight
to post it to UPG as this is no doubt going to turn into another flame
war thread. This reeks of propaganda and behind the scenes tittle
tattle, and I am not sticking up for anyone at all here, it's just my
opinion.
How would annyone feel if they got banned from Slimelight for causing
trouble, then got banned by almost every other goth club in the UK for
it as a consequence?
Steve.
--
"In the middle of the night, you don't know what I'm thinking, but the
stars still sparkle and shine
Seems like all of the time, our boat was slowly sinking, and you didn't
even seem to mind
Now all I want to do is sleep..."
SLIMELIGHT URL: http://www.slimelight.com
Revolution By Night are sponsored by inflatable penguins ltd.
Ophth
<st...@slimelight.com> wrote:
>your collective decision to which you are entitled, but surely no need
>to post it to UPG as this is no doubt going to turn into another flame
>war thread. This reeks of propaganda and behind the scenes tittle
>tattle, and I am not sticking up for anyone at all here, it's just my
>opinion.
>
>How would annyone feel if they got banned from Slimelight for causing
>trouble, then got banned by almost every other goth club in the UK for
>it as a consequence?
yep, i thought it was a pretty harsh decision but then again, it's
only theirs.
David
Rob Ingram
alt.gothic.announce moderator <aga-mo...@twisted.org.uk> writes:
> In light of this, and the fact that we cannot afford to have any trouble
> in our venues, the following promoters have made a collective descision
> not to allow Chris Wareham into events run by us in future as we feel that
> we cannot risk similarly violent behaviour.
Wow. I've tried sooo hard to keep out of this but I feel compelled to
point out the hypocrisy and victimisation that seems to be on display
here. He isn't the only person ever to commit a violent act in a goth
club (including very prominent members of the community) and I don't
see anyone else receiving a blanket ban.
Frankly I'm shocked and surprised at this action from people I respect.
Rob.
--
Rob Ingram Actually, I remember having a fondness
Computer Science for balloons.
University of Nottingham
Nottingham UK http://www.crg.cs.nott.ac.uk/~rji/
Phildo
Phildo <Mi...@my-pants.pacbell.net> wrote in message news:...
>
Whoops, hit send before I meant to.
Just a couple of clarification questions.
What happens if no charges are brought against Chris and why wasn't Plant
banned as well, at least until the police investigation is completed? Surely
this is a bit premature and should have waited until the police have
resolved the matter?
--
Phildo
ICQ 15290022
Remove my pants to reply
Pete Scathe
>Pete Scathe (Portsmouth)
Eh?
I've missed something here, haven't I...?
--
Pete Scathe (Next Resurgence: 31st October)
club info & daft haircuts: http://www.scathe.demon.co.uk/
Mel
<snip>
> Although what actually happened in Birmingham is still unclear at this
> time (and speculation is counter-productive whilst the Police are
> continuing their investigation into the matter) it would appear that
> Chris
> Wareham, a member of Killing Miranda, was resposible for hitting
> somebody
> with a glass. Whatever the reasoning behind this action, it remains true
> that this fact is not disputed by either side.
>
> In light of this, and the fact that we cannot afford to have any trouble
> in our venues, the following promoters have made a collective descision
> not to allow Chris Wareham into events run by us in future as we feel
> that
> we cannot risk similarly violent behaviour.
>
> We do, however, recognise that the event in question was a private
> matter
> between the two individuals concerned. Thus we are still prepared to
> consider booking Killing Miranda in the future, on the proviso that the
> gig takes place without Chris Wareham. Recent gigs have demonstrated
> that
> the band are quite able to play gigs without their bass player, so we do
> not consider this to be an unreasonable request.
So what happened to 'guilty until proven innocent'? And as investigations
are not yet complete and no-one has been charged, should you not have
considered banning both parties until guilt has been proven?
And what is your purpose in posting this information here? It's not as
though we're all staying home on the off-chance that Mr Wareham might be
out is it?
> Afterlife (York)
> Alt.Axiom (Cheltenham)
> Bedlam (Glasgow)
> Bratcave (London)
> Cafe Transylvania (Birmingham)
> Cybersyn Industries (Edinburgh)
> Drayhouse/Boy Sinister (Leeds)
> Epitaph/Dissolution (Sheffield)
> Eris Promotions (Brighton)
> Nemesis Promotions (London)
> Pete Scathe (Portsmouth)
Frankly, I think you should all be ashamed of yourselves for making a
public statement on what should be, for the moment at least, a private
issue.
I also find it interesting that there is a very obvious omission from the
list of venues above (though I expect we can take that as a given).
/Mel/
Mel
<snip>
> So what happened to 'guilty until proven innocent'? And as
Or even, 'innocent until proven guilty'. <cough>
/Mel/
The Painted One
/SNIP/ no more Chris Wareham
Just to stand on the other side of the fence. If, as was stated in the
statement, he is accused of glassing someone and neither he nor the other
person involved denies it, then I think it quite reasonable to bar him from
a venue. This has nothing to do with police investigations, lets face it
people get barred from clubs all the time for stuff that would never stand
up in a court of law. All these places are private venues and if they
believe this man to be dangerously violent they are quite within their
rights to bar him, criminal charges or no. As for saying other people are
violent, getting roudy and abusive is one thing, glassing someone is a far
worse and particularly vicious act. If this man was loudly protesting his
innocence it might be a different matter (Although I dont believe so), but
that does not seem to be the case. Even if the other guy involved started
it, there is no justification for an act that violent and this is apparently
not the first circumstance.
I for one would feel much safer at a venue knowing that this individual is
not around. In fact it could even be argued that the venues have a duty to
ensure good order by barring undesirables, every other nightclub does this,
why not these ones?
It is also quite acceptable for a collective group of venues to act
together, it happens to hooligans at football grounds, why should this be
any different.
You will note I have avoided the issue of his actual guilt, this is
deliberate, I was not there, I do not know. I didnt write this post to say
he is a demon and should be ostracised from the world. I am merley
responding to the various posts, which didnt approach this point either, but
seemed to think the clubs were somehow wrong in their actions. If they, as
the owners/organisers of these events, feel that he is a risk they are quite
within their rights to take preventative action.
TPO
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
I...@itdudley.demon.NOSPAM.co.uk remove NOSPAM to reply
If it wasnt for bad luck......
.........I'd have no luck at all.
-Da Crüe
Lord Occum
>I for one would feel much safer at a venue knowing that this individual is
not around
so are you only going to venues where chris wareham is banned?
>It is also quite acceptable for a collective group of venues to act
>together, it happens to hooligans at football grounds, why should this be
>any different.
football hooliganism is altogether different, involving gangs of organised
thugs on the whole.
dez.
Alexander
>How would annyone feel if they got banned from Slimelight for causing
>trouble, then got banned by almost every other goth club in the UK for
>it as a consequence?
Not very good probably, which may make them think twice in the first
place.
At the end of the day if somebody acts violently it's their problem,
not the venue, and as such why shouldn't other venues ban them rather
than risk another violent incident?
I'm all for giving people a second chance though, and sometimes third
and forth chances; I would have thought it sensible to impose a time
limit on the ban.
--
~Alexander : Exigo a me non ut optimis par sim, sed ut malis melior
DJing at Malice Underground & DisAssembly (Electrowerkz)
URL: http://www.alexander.darkwave.org.uk/ ICQ: 6165829
Alexander
>I also find it interesting that there is a very obvious omission from the
>list of venues above (though I expect we can take that as a given).
Gossips? ;P
(Assuming you mean Whitby).
Steve Slimelight
Pete Scathe wrote:
> alt. gothic. announce moderator <aga-mo...@twisted.org.uk> wrote
>
> >Pete Scathe (Portsmouth)
>
> Eh?
>
> I've missed something here, haven't I...?
I take this to mean Pete doesn't know why his name is on this list.
Steve.
> --
> Pete Scathe (Next Resurgence: 31st October)
>
> club info & daft haircuts: http://www.scathe.demon.co.uk/
--
"In the middle of the night, you don't know what I'm thinking, but the
stars still sparkle and shine.
Aconite
Mel wrote:
> So what happened to 'guilty until proven innocent'?
Seems to be alive and kicking.
Aconite
--
Narcissim - http://www.darkwave.org.uk/~aconite
The Painted One
>The Painted One wrote in message <939405175.2838.0.nnrp-
>>I for one would feel much safer at a venue knowing that this individual is
>not around
>so are you only going to venues where chris wareham is banned?
No but if I knew he was at a venue the same time as me, I would be wary
(excuse the pun). This is a purely natural reaction to knowing there is a
person in your vicinity who is capable of acts like that. Not long ago there
was a bunch of lads hanging around my flats, one of whom I know has recently
been done for assault with a knife. I have never personally seen him commit
an act of violence, but his precence disturbs me as if a person can cross
that line once, they can do it again.
>
>>It is also quite acceptable for a collective group of venues to act
>>together, it happens to hooligans at football grounds, why should this be
>>any different.
>football hooliganism is altogether different, involving gangs of organised
>thugs on the whole.
>
Thats just a matter of numbers, the mentality is the same, a willingness to
commit acts of extreme violence. In fact I would argue a person who is
capable of doing this kind of thing on his own is potentially _more_
dangerous than someone who only behaves violently when part of an anonymous
group.
The basic point here is that there is a type of behavior which is acceptable
in society and types that are not. I ,like most people, have been involved
in scuffles and what have you, when tempers have been raised. I've even
started a few. But to go from that to taking a weapon and slicing someones
face open with it, which could quite easily be fatal if you get them in the
neck, is a whole diffetent ballgame and cannot be tollerated in a
responsible society. Most people are basically incapable of doing these
things, except under _extreme_ provication, which does not appear to be the
case here. If this individual does not have this incapacity, then he could
quite easily under similar circumstances (and a row in a club is not exactly
an unusual circumstance) do it again.
Us 'gothic types' like to pride ourselves on being a more intelligent and
rational bunch of people than the great unwashed as a whole. Most if the
time this sort of incident is unheard of in this scene. This is the sort the
sort of behavior you hear about in trendy nightclubs (who would react in
exactly the same way BTW, except perhaps including a kicking from the
bouncers). If we want to keep our culture the way we like to believe it is,
we will have to act to remove people who are willing to act in a way that is
as unacceptable as this. Anyone who thinks that glassing someone is
acceptable needs to have a long hard think about the effect being scarred,
and potentially maimed, for life would have on them. Its a bit more serious
than a quick push about and shouting match because you spilt someones pint.
TPO
Tom Sulston
Steve Slimelight wrote:
> How would annyone feel if they got banned from Slimelight for causing
> trouble, then got banned by almost every other goth club in the UK for
> it as a consequence?
Commenting on the policy, and not the specific (Damage) case in
question:
I think it's a bloody good idea, personally. But then again, I'm not
very likely to glass someone.
And it is nice to see /some/ sort of cohesion in the world-of-goth, for
a change! ;-)
--
Tom Sulston ICQ# 31612067 Mr_Tom on #agf
- http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~bsumq -
Not bitchy, just snobbish and intolerant
Loki
The Painted One <i...@itdudley.demon.NOSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
> No but if I knew he was at a venue the same time as me, I would be wary
> (excuse the pun). This is a purely natural reaction to knowing there is a
> person in your vicinity who is capable of acts like that. >
> >
but you just don't know who is in a club where you are, so what do you do
stay at home for life?
But to go from that to taking a weapon and slicing someones
> face open with it, which could quite easily be fatal if you get them in
the
> neck, is a whole diffetent ballgame and cannot be tollerated in a
> responsible society.
True, but in previous threads, I think it was stated the victims injurys
were slight (which was lucky) and the assailants injurys were far worse. You
are correct that this should not be tollerated, but it happens.
Most people are basically incapable of doing these
> things, except under _extreme_ provication, which does not appear to be
the
> case here.
Do we now "what the case here" realy is I think not, that is for the police
to sort out.
> Us 'gothic types' like to pride ourselves on being a more intelligent and
> rational bunch of people than the great unwashed as a whole. Most if the
> time this sort of incident is unheard of in this scene.
Let's remember the roots of goth, a lot came from the punk scene, not noted
for its tollerance
The Painted One
>Loki scrawled
>The Painted One <i...@itdudley.demon.NOSPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
>> No but if I knew he was at a venue the same time as me, I would be wary
>> (excuse the pun). This is a purely natural reaction to knowing there is a
>> person in your vicinity who is capable of acts like that. >
>but you just don't know who is in a club where you are, so what do you do
>stay at home for life?
>
As I said, no, but I feel safer knowing that the clubs I visit will bar
people who act in this way, even if I do not personally know them.
> But to go from that to taking a weapon and slicing someones
>> face open with it, which could quite easily be fatal if you get them in
>the
>> neck, is a whole diffetent ballgame and cannot be tollerated in a
>> responsible society.
>
>True, but in previous threads, I think it was stated the victims injurys
>were slight (which was lucky) and the assailants injurys were far worse.
You
>are correct that this should not be tollerated, but it happens.
>
That is a matter of luck not design, he could just as easily killed the
victim.
>Most people are basically incapable of doing these
>> things, except under _extreme_ provication, which does not appear to be
>the
>> case here.
>Do we now "what the case here" realy is I think not, that is for the police
>to sort out.
>
It seems fairly obvious that there was not the sort of provocation I meant.
e.g. the victim came up and started attacking the person so vicously that
this person felt they had no other defence to save themselves. I think it it
is quite appropriate for a club to act before the poilice come to a verdict,
they are not operating as a democracy and have to move to protect their
interests. It can take months, if not years for the legal system to come to
a desicion, and quite often these cases can be lost on technicalities. I
think the clubs are acting entirely appropriately in barring one person who
may in the fullness of time turn out to be aquited, so as to guard against
the danger that it will not happen again. The needs of the many, etc. etc.
If they are wrong then it is a relatively minor injustice (in the scheme of
things) compared to the potential consequences if they are right and do
nothing. Being scarred for life or killed is a much worse thing than being
banned from a few clubs.
>> Us 'gothic types' like to pride ourselves on being a more intelligent and
>> rational bunch of people than the great unwashed as a whole. Most if the
>> time this sort of incident is unheard of in this scene.
>Let's remember the roots of goth, a lot came from the punk scene, not noted
>for its tollerance
>
Ah, so your saying it _is_ OK to glass someone, because we're all ex-punks?
If your just saying that goths are not tollerant you have justified the
clubs taking the action they have, since you appear to think they are being
intolerant.
TPO
--
Lord Occum
>The basic point here is that there is a type of behavior which is
acceptable
>in society and types that are not. I ,like most people, have been involved
>in scuffles and what have you, when tempers have been raised. I've even
>face open with it, which could quite easily be fatal if you get them in the
>neck, is a whole diffetent ballgame and cannot be tollerated in a
>responsible society.
of course i agree with that, but we don't know if the victim was glassed or
hit with a glass, there is a difference.
dez.
Ian C.
>
> your collective decision to which you are entitled, but surely no need
> to post it to UPG as this is no doubt going to turn into another flame
> war thread. This reeks of propaganda and behind the scenes tittle
> tattle, and I am not sticking up for anyone at all here, it's just my
> opinion.
>
> trouble, then got banned by almost every other goth club in the UK for
> it as a consequence?
a one off incident perhaps it would be unfair but there is a history
with Chris which my wife witness to her horror in Whitby a few years
ago. (The girlfriend incident.)
Before this annoncement we would have been unhappy to hae such a person
at Dissolution (with Cath and I promote) because of his violent actions
towards his girlfriend and those who tried to stop him (friends of mine)
hitting his girlfriend at Whitby. However that was a one of incident but
now there are more showing that when pushed/disagreed with this man has
no control and lashes out- that to me is dangerous.
Ian C.
Ian C.
>
> In article <UAj+N7Teo1v8qL5m2S5afXM8za=p...@4ax.com>,
> alt.gothic.announce moderator <aga-mo...@twisted.org.uk> writes:
> > in our venues, the following promoters have made a collective descision
> > not to allow Chris Wareham into events run by us in future as we feel that
> > we cannot risk similarly violent behaviour.
>
> point out the hypocrisy and victimisation that seems to be on display
> here. He isn't the only person ever to commit a violent act in a goth
> club (including very prominent members of the community) and I don't
> see anyone else receiving a blanket ban.
>
> Frankly I'm shocked and surprised at this action from people I respect.
Thers no hipocrisy, several clubs ban serial trouble causers, The goth
scene just uses the internet like pubs use pub watch to ban trouble
causers, and Chris Warham has caused trouble on a number of occasions ,
to the point of physically scaring someone who verbally disagreed with
him.
Cath was involved in halting the Whitby incident he was involved with
years ago, and has first hand experience of Chris's behaviour. in her
words it wasn't a normal drunk person having a bit of a barny with his
partner he had lost it completely , and seemed intent on killing her.
Cath was shaken by the incident back at Whitby and was upset by it.
I accept people can get drunk get involved in trouble etc but it seems
that the scene is safer without Chris until he learns to moderate his
behaviour. I would not support this ban if it had just been some drunken
pushing and shoving between two grown men but this guy has attacked a
woman and used a dangerous weapon on two different occasions that I'm
aware of.
Ian C.
Ian C.
I think its because of the past history we have of Chris's behaviour. I
have to say the main point of the post should have been that promoters
won't book Killing Miranda with Chris Wharham playing for them till the
matters resolved.
Ian C.
Lord Occum
receive a ban from venues? are the various promoters here going to nominate
someone?
dez.
Pete Scathe
>
>Pete Scathe wrote:
>
>> alt. gothic. announce moderator <aga-mo...@twisted.org.uk> wrote
>>
>> >Pete Scathe (Portsmouth)
>>
>> Eh?
>>
>> I've missed something here, haven't I...?
>
>I take this to mean Pete doesn't know why his name is on this list.
>
I was vaguely aware of the statement, but I didn't actually agree to
have my name on it...
I guess I should pay more attention to my mailing lists...
Ian C.
And we will make or own minds up thats what we did, and then we were
told about the statement which we agreed to.
Can I ask why you are so critical of everyone except Chris in this?
anyone would think you are a wooly minded liberal :oP
As I'm a club /gig promoter you have homed in on the wrong bit of the
statement in that we will not be paying A band featuring Chris Wharam to
play at our venue until the matter is resolved.
And again I stress my wife has had first hand experience of Chris's
temper at Whitby a while ago, as has at least one other person on the
list as they were sat with my Wife when Chris attacked his girlfriend at
Whitby a few years back. My wife was invloved in rescuing the girl from
his violence that night.
Read my post ientitled Promoters Statement and you might realise that
the post wasn't circulated and ploted over like you seem to think.....
IT was a gradule build up of likeminded thought that was pulled together
rather than having each promoter make a statement themselves.
as for critisism about not mailing Chris ,I haven't got his mail address
anyway.
Ian C.
Phildo
Ian C. <ian.c...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:37FF7C...@virgin.net...
> Hello,
>
> I think its because of the past history we have of Chris's behaviour. I
> have to say the main point of the post should have been that promoters
> won't book Killing Miranda with Chris Wharham playing for them till the
> matters resolved.
>
has yet to be established that he is guilty in this matter. Somehow I think
you have jumped the gun. Having heard the story several times from both
sides it seems that it is not at all that one-sided yet it is Chris who is
getting the ban.
While I agree his past behaviour is not in dispute this issue has yet to be
resolved so no decisions should be made until it is.
Phildo
Marc Elston <Ma...@elston45.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7too02$psa$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...> news:2BML3.344$iA1....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
> >
> > So in essence you are forcing Killing Miranda to fire Chris, even though
> it
> > has yet to be established that he is guilty in this matter. Somehow I
> think
> > you have jumped the gun. Having heard the story several times from both
> > sides it seems that it is not at all that one-sided yet it is Chris who
is
> > getting the ban.
> >
> > While I agree his past behaviour is not in dispute this issue has yet to
> be
> > resolved so no decisions should be made until it is.
> >
decide
> who is and who isn't in a band because of excessive violence, what's the
> next step going to be ? Firing anyone who abuses drugs, gets drunk or
> misbehaves in a public place ? Some of the most powerful music is written
by
> ppl who are slightly disturbed / out of control...
> In the future all music could be made by 'nice boys' like Boyzone. As a
man
> 'in the know' do you think this decision might be dangerous ?
>
I think they have gone too far in a cabal-ish sort of way but it is their
decision and at the end of the day they are good enough to spend their time
putting on events for the rest of us and should be respected for that so who
are we to question what they do?
Marc Elston
Marc Elston
> > It's a pretty dangerous precedent all round as well. If promoters can
> > decide who is and who isn't in a band because of excessive violence,
> > what's the next step going to be ? As a man
> > 'in the know' do you think this decision might be dangerous ?
> >
> I think they have gone too far in a cabal-ish sort of way but it is their
> decision and at the end of the day they are good enough to spend their
time
> putting on events for the rest of us and should be respected for that so
who
> are we to question what they do?
>
Well, true 'nuff I suppose, and I respect those concerned for making a moral
statement, but if Killing Miranda are forced to get rid of Chris Wareham
(thus inevitably changing their music) or disband through lack of gigging
venues, it will be a sad day. Let's face it, this is almost inevitable once
the word gets around, because very few groups outside the Top 20 can survive
without live performances.
-bat.
> Well, true 'nuff I suppose, and I respect those concerned for making a moral
> statement, but if Killing Miranda are forced to get rid of Chris Wareham
> (thus inevitably changing their music) or disband through lack of gigging
> venues, it will be a sad day. Let's face it, this is almost inevitable once
> the word gets around, because very few groups outside the Top 20 can survive
> without live performances.
I guess this has backfired somewhat. Part of the point of a public statement
was to show that this wasn't a backdoor excuse to boycott Killing Miranda.
We could all have simply decided that because we didn't feel comfortavble
having Chris around then we'd just not book them. But that would soon
get noticed, there would be all sorts of wild stories about a "secret ban"
on K.M., probably with people saying it was due to the Nightbreed thing, and
would basically be a fairly underhand way of doing things. Waiting until
after the gig in Dublin was a way of seeing if the band could perform without
him. As they can then the statement was worded so as to try and make it
clear this was not aimed at K.M. nor an attempt to make them get rid of him.
Promoters get together and talk all the time - to arrange tours, discuss
fees, dates and potential clashes etc... there are promoters who are
part of thatc ommunity who's names aren;t on the statement because
they don;t agree with it. (most significantly the Damage people in whos
venue the most recent incident occurred). It's not really a cabal, though
I can see how it appears like that at the moment.
As to whether it was a harsh descision on our part, well I'm basically of the
same thinking as Ian. After both the Whitby and the Birmingham incidents I'd
just rather not risk it. And yes, I would make the same descision over Plant
if he acted like that, or anyone else for that matter.
-bat. [entirely my own opinions by the way, not discussed with anyone else]
Lord Occum
-bat. wrote in message <7tpsbj$p3d$1...@pump1.york.ac.uk>...
>As to whether it was a harsh descision on our part, well I'm basically of
the
>same thinking as Ian. After both the Whitby and the Birmingham incidents
I'd
>just rather not risk it.
that's fair enough, but can we expect a policy statement? is there going to
be a *violence threshold*? we've heard that a bit of pushing and shoving is
acceptable, but when does it cross the line? how are you going to judge
violence levels- a points system? fists 1 point, kicks 3(steel toe caps 5)?
how is it going to be judged as well, are you going to listen to rumours/
hearsay?
dez.
-bat.
> that's fair enough, but can we expect a policy statement? is there going to
> be a *violence threshold*? we've heard that a bit of pushing and shoving is
> acceptable, but when does it cross the line? how are you going to judge
> violence levels- a points system? fists 1 point, kicks 3(steel toe caps 5)?
> how is it going to be judged as well, are you going to listen to rumours/
> hearsay?
>
A "point system" ? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is ? These
things have to be decided on-the-fly according to the particular
circumstances. As an example I can think of an incident in York where
we let some people known for violence into the club as we knew that
when turned awway at the door they would most likely go away and come
back with a crowbar and attack the bouncers (they had done this a week
earlier). In the event we let them in and shut the bar - they had only
come down 'cos they heard we had a late bar (it was the first time we had
run one). They got bored quickly and left in search of something else
to do. They haven't bothered comming back. The aim is to minimise the
likelyhood of something happening.
I guess you are going to moan along the lines of "it's so arbitrary" and
would prefer a nice hard-and-fast set of rules. But these are nightclubs
and gigs we are talking about, not some regimented standardised environemtn
where you can apply such things. When a promoter chooses to put on events
they take on the responsibility for how it runs - including venue security
and the safety of the public etc... (Phildo can probably tell you a lot
more about public liability and related stuff than I can as he's a professional
in the ents industry,. where as I merely dabble these days). Some promoters
are very cautious and sensetive about this and ban people at the drop
of a hat, others are more restrained. It also depends on the event and
what people are likely to percieve as "trouble". The same applies to the
application of "dress code" on the door.
There is also venue policy to take into account as well - some places allow
people to sit on shoulders, some don't - the latter usually due to health
and safety reasons (i.e. they are afraid of getting sued if someone gets hurt)
Stagediving is another classic example. In the end it's down to the
individual circumstances, event, venue and promoter.
-bat.
Lord Occum
>"Lord Occum" <oc...@davidbowie.co.uk> writes:
>>how are you going to judge
>> violence levels- a points system? fists 1 point, kicks 3(steel toe caps
5)?
>A "point system" ? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is ?
that's the point.
>things have to be decided on-the-fly according to the particular
>circumstances.
which are? are you going to judge when it's *legitimate* or not?
>I guess you are going to moan along the lines of "it's so arbitrary" and
>would prefer a nice hard-and-fast set of rules. But these are nightclubs
>and gigs we are talking about, not some regimented standardised environemtn
>where you can apply such things.
well you're obviously having a go at it. i'm just wondering how this is
going to work in practice and whether it is going to apply to everyone? can
we call you up to report someone for instance?
dez.
jo hampshire
<mel@cix.?.?.co.?.?.uk> writes
>I also find it interesting that there is a very obvious omission from the
>list of venues above (though I expect we can take that as a given).
If you mean Whitby - CW has been banned from my event since 1995 -
before I even knew Plant. In fact if you had been paying close
attention, you would have noted in my previous posts on this topic, that
that was what this incident between Plant and CW related to - the fact
that he was barred from Whitby, but had the gall to show up
Jo
>
>
Top Mum Promotions/Whitby Gothic Weekend/ Cheeky Monkey
Website: http://whitby.darkwave.org.uk/
Fax: +44 0870 0558280
PO BOX 19 Upton Wirral L49 6HZ
jo hampshire
pants.pacbell.net> writes
>>
> Having heard the story several times from both
>sides
From BOTH sides??
You certainly haven't heard it from Plant or myself so you mean you've
heard a lot of Chinese Whisper style gossip then?
jo hampshire
writes
> how are you going to judge
>> violence levels- a points system? fists 1 point, kicks 3(steel toe caps 5)?
How DARE you trivialise what has happened? Whether it was Plant or not -
whether he's the other half of the person who runs Whitby or not is NOT
the issue.
The issue is that someone could have lost their sight through the
irresponsible actions of another regardless of who either party is or
isn't connected with. Promoting is what I do and with that comes an
element of socialising. How do you think I feel, to think that that
glass could have just as easily been in MY face? After all, in the past
my opinions have been just as outspoken as Plants. It's fair to say that
the psychological repercussions of this incident have been far greater
for BOTH of us, than the physical ones.
As Pete rightly said the statement was posted on a public forum in order
to supply information: factual information instead of rumours flying
around that a gang of promoters were refusing to promote Nightbreed
bands. It wasn't posted on here as an excuse to start another flame war.
KM have played at least 2 gigs without Chris Wareham. So it appears that
they are more than capable of playing gigs without him. Are we forcing
them to fire him? Not from the 'fuck you UK promoters' response I got
from Riccky the day after the incident. They were aware that this
statement was being worded weeks ago, they knew in advance most of the
names that were going to appear on it. Their response? 'We won't be
playing England much over the next 2 years anyhow'. Don't you worry
about them - they've got enough attitude & ego for all of us.
Mel
> >I also find it interesting that there is a very obvious omission from
> the >list of venues above (though I expect we can take that as a given).
>
> If you mean Whitby - CW has been banned from my event since 1995 -
> before I even knew Plant. In fact if you had been paying close
> attention, you would have noted in my previous posts on this topic, that
> that was what this incident between Plant and CW related to - the fact
> that he was barred from Whitby, but had the gall to show up
I was aware of this - what I was pointing out was the fact that Whitby did
not appear on the 'official' list.
My problem is not really that the bloke has been banned - partly because
it is (of course) the right of the promoters concerned and partly because
too many people whom I trust have come to this decision. What does bother
me is the post which has started all of this up again. I'd like to know
exactly why the people concerned felt the need to inform the rest of us.
/Mel/
The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an
ugly fact - T. H. Huxley.
NP: THE HUMAN LEAGUE - LIFE KILLS
Phildo
jo hampshire <whit...@whitby02.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mEZeJAA5...@whitby02.demon.co.uk...
> In article <2BML3.344$iA1....@typhoon01.swbell.net>, Phildo <Mixy2@my-
> pants.pacbell.net> writes
> >>
> > Having heard the story several times from both
> >sides
>
> From BOTH sides??
>
> You certainly haven't heard it from Plant or myself so you mean you've
> heard a lot of Chinese Whisper style gossip then?
>
firmly on Plant and some others who lay the blame on Chris (as well as some
who blame both parties). I've also heard a lot of gossip but tend to take
that with a pinch of salt, choosing only to listen to those with first hand
experience.It's surprising how many people from here were there that day.
Anyway, you gave your statement on here right after it happened so yes, I
have heard it from you and Plant.
OK, my plane leaves in 2 hours. See you in a month.
Andrea Procter
newsgroup! If we look back at events isn't it all the gossiping and flame
wars that lead to this incident happening in the first place?! I dont agree
with violence and neither party should have reacted with violence. But I
think the issue here that is being missed is all the public flaming and
gossiping that unfortunately lead to this incident happening in the first
place. For a culture that has a limited number of promoters, bands, venues,
record labels etc it certainly seems to have more than its fair share of
arguments and rifts between these parties! This only leads to damaging the
UK scene in the long run!
I think the coverage on UPG of this incident proves this point.. we've had
various accounts of what happened none that agree so how can anyone at this
point draw any conclusions as to what happened? Neither party involved has
commented and no independent witnesses so everything so far is based on
gossip! Would a professional promotion company ban a band or line-up of a
band from playing from what they'd read in the News of the World?
Andrea
in controversial mode for a change :-)
-bat.
> well you're obviously having a go at it. i'm just wondering how this is
> going to work in practice and whether it is going to apply to everyone? can
> we call you up to report someone for instance?
of course not. why are you using the future tense by the way ? this is
the syystem used by all promoters of all events since before either of us was
born. R.O.A.R. whats you alternative ?
-bat.
Ian C.
>
> Ian C. <ian.c...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:37FF7C...@virgin.net...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I think its because of the past history we have of Chris's behaviour. I
> > have to say the main point of the post should have been that promoters
> > won't book Killing Miranda with Chris Wharham playing for them till the
> > matters resolved.
> >
> has yet to be established that he is guilty in this matter.
He used a glass no disputes that......do they ??? Yes it seems to be
questioned as to who started things but Chris's means of attack were
horrific.
I don't think anyones forcing KM to do anything.
Somehow I think
> you have jumped the gun. Having heard the story several times from both
> sides it seems that it is not at all that one-sided yet it is Chris who is
> getting the ban.
>
> While I agree his past behaviour is not in dispute this issue has yet to be
> resolved so no decisions should be made until it is.
>
Its a temporary mesure I'm sure if Chris is exonerated of all blame then
the ban will be reversed.
As ar as I can tell Plant did not use a weapon in this dispute, and
thats where I draw the line.Others may be different but thats my view.
The whys and wheres are to be revealed yet. I didn't see the statement
prior to its issue which i feel was an error because I would have worded
things differently as I have said in my other post entitles "the
promoters Statement"
Ian C.
Michael Johnson
>My problem is not really that the bloke has been banned - partly because
>it is (of course) the right of the promoters concerned and partly because
>too many people whom I trust have come to this decision. What does bother
>me is the post which has started all of this up again. I'd like to know
>exactly why the people concerned felt the need to inform the rest of us.
I've just posted a lengthy (probably too lengthy) dissertation of my
own about this sorry busines. It'll be below, somewhere. I try to
answer this very point (however imperfectly) in that post. I should
say that it represents my personal view, although I think it's a view
that will be shared.
I should also like to say that I intend to say no more on this. I am,
however, put in mind of the old proverb that the road to Hell is paved
with good intentions....
--
Uncle Nemesis > Michael Johnson > un...@globalnet.co.uk
Nemesis Promotions: Gitane Demone, The Breath of Life, Passion Play...
http://www.nemesis.to
Ian C.
> But these are nightclubs
> >and gigs we are talking about, not some regimented standardised environemtn
> >where you can apply such things.
>
> going to work in practice and whether it is going to apply to everyone? can
> we call you up to report someone for instance?
>
No we are not its a joint statement conding one persons actions and
violence in general. No ones setting up a policy on this . This is an
extreme case. And the action in the main was unilaterally decided on by
most people involved certainly here but we considered a strong
jointstatement to be a good way of making our points after finding
others felt the same way. It has occured to me that the over riding
point seems to be getting ignore, in that we are sending a message to
the Goth Community that we can't afford to have violence at our events
or the venues will ditch us straight away after all many venues only
just tollerate goth events anyway!
Ian C.
Marc Elston
news:3800333F...@hotmail.com...
> this country is full of spiteful rumour mongering hypocritical self
deluded self
> important talentless small minded narrow minded blinkered retro fuck wits.
>
> End of fucking story.
>
Lyrics for a new song, perhaps ?
Or a way of introducing the girls at Slimelights ?
Sorry to have to join the 'Let's flame Steve Slimelight' brigade, but what
the hell are you on about ?
Are you flaming me, Phido, or supporting Killing Miranda ?
Marc Elston
news:38010a66...@alpha.news.global.net.uk...
>
> I should also like to say that I intend to say no more on this. I am,
> however, put in mind of the old proverb that the road to Hell is paved
> with good intentions....
>
could be in for a British goth grilling !
Steve Slimelight
> Steve Slimelight <st...@slimelight.com> wrote in message
> news:3800333F...@hotmail.com...
> > this country is <SNIP>
> >
> Lyrics for a new song, perhaps ?
> <snip> but what
> the hell are you on about ?
I have no idea where this post attributed to me comes from. I can't see it on my
newserver.
Even I'm not stupid enough to post something like that on UPG in a thread, and
like you say who on earth is it aimed at, and secondly what on earth is it
about!!!!?!?
This is all need :-(((
Steve.
--
"In the middle of the night, you don't know what I'm thinking, but the stars
still sparkle and shine.
Seems like all of the time, our boat was slowly sinking, and you didn't even
seem to mind
Now all I want to do is sleep..."
SLIMELIGHT URL: http://www.slimelight.com
Revolution By Night are sponsored by inflatable penguins ltd.
Pete Scathe
>deluded self
>> important talentless small minded narrow minded blinkered retro fuck wits.
>>
>> End of fucking story.
>>
>the hell are you on about ?
This wasn't Steve- it's a forgery, from a hotmail account looking at the
above.
Have you got the headers for this message?
Thanks for replying, I & Steve had been trying to figure what on earth
Uncle N was going on about on that other thread and now we know...
Loki
Andrea Procter <a.j.p...@removethis.wmin.ac.uk> wrote in message
<SNIP>
>Would a professional promotion company ban a band or line-up of a
> band from playing from what they'd read in the News of the World?
>
> Andrea
> in controversial mode for a change :-)
>
Loki scrawled
Well said!!!
Marc Elston
news:3800333F...@hotmail.com...
> this country is full of spiteful rumour mongering hypocritical self
deluded self
> important talentless small minded narrow minded blinkered retro fuck wits.
>
> End of fucking story.
>
postings.
BTW I'm in no position to slag off the girl DJ's since I haven't heard them
yet, and would probably bounce around to their stuff anyway.
Marc Elston
news:M+7JlBAP...@scathe.demon.co.uk...
> Marc Elston <Ma...@elston45.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> >Steve Slimelight <st...@slimelight.com> wrote in message
> >news:3800333F...@hotmail.com...
> >> this country is full of spiteful rumour mongering hypocritical self
> >deluded self
> >> important talentless small minded narrow minded blinkered retro fuck
wits.
> >>
> >> End of fucking story.
> >>
what
> >the hell are you on about ?
>
> This wasn't Steve- it's a forgery, from a hotmail account looking at the
> above.
>
> Have you got the headers for this message?
>
news.freeserve.net, so if you need to trace this any further, either let me
know or grab one of those Freeserve account cd's.
> Thanks for replying, I & Steve had been trying to figure what on earth
> Uncle N was going on about on that other thread and now we know...
>
No prob. Sorry I flamed Steve Slimelight for nothing. :(
Pete Scathe
>Pete Scathe <pe...@scathe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:M+7JlBAP...@scathe.demon.co.uk...
>> Marc Elston <Ma...@elston45.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
>> >Steve Slimelight <st...@slimelight.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3800333F...@hotmail.com...
>> >> this country is full of spiteful rumour mongering hypocritical self
>> >deluded self
>> >> important talentless small minded narrow minded blinkered retro fuck
>wits.
>> >>
>> >> End of fucking story.
>> >>
>> >Sorry to have to join the 'Let's flame Steve Slimelight' brigade, but
>what
>> >the hell are you on about ?
>>
>> This wasn't Steve- it's a forgery, from a hotmail account looking at the
>> above.
>>
>> Have you got the headers for this message?
>>
>Yep. BTW, this is showing up on the news server used by Freeserve -
>news.freeserve.net, so if you need to trace this any further, either let me
>know or grab one of those Freeserve account cd's.
>
collects news from news.freeserve.net as well as demon, but it didn't
grab that post so I had to get it elsewhere... (and then you mailed it
to me anyway)
Anyway:
Path:
news.theplanet.net!diablo.theplanet.net!btnet-
peer!btnet!news5-gui.server.nt
li.net!news11-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!not-for-mail
From: Steve Slimelight <st...@slimelight.com>
Newsgroups: uk.people.gothic
Subject: Re: INCIDENT AT DAMAGE 12/09/1999 - JOINT STATEMENT
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 07:33:35 +0100
Organization: Slimelight / RBN / Electrowerkz II / W.R.M.S
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <3800333F...@hotmail.com>
References: <gVoL3.19$Kg....@typhoon01.swbell.net>
<37FF7C...@virgin.net> <2BML3.344$iA1....@typhoon01.swbell.net>
<7too02$psa$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
<zVRL3.505$iA1....@typhoon01.swbell.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p12-skua-gui.tch.virgin.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net 939537207 27091 194.168.121.12
(10
Oct 1999 06:33:27 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@virgin.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Oct 1999 06:33:27 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
Xref: news.theplanet.net uk.people.gothic:150382
Putting it through Spam Cop verifies that the guilty party is on
virgin.net:
Parsing header:
"nslookup p12-skua-gui.tch.virgin.net" (checking ip) [show] ip =
194.168.121.12
NPH field concurs:194.168.121.12
Path:news.theplanet.net!diablo.theplanet.net!btnet-peer!btnet!news5-gui.
server.ntli.net!news11-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!not-for-mail
Tracking ip 194.168.121.12:
"nslookup 194.168.121.12" (getting name) [show] 194.168.121.12 =
p12-skua-gui.tch.virgin.net
"whois p12-skua-gui....@whois.abuse.net" (checking abuse.net
database) [show] abuse.net recommends: ab...@virgin.net,
postm...@virgin.net
I just searched all the posts/headers on upg for anything matching the
interesting parts of that header, but didn't get anything- anyone else
come up with anything?
>> Thanks for replying, I & Steve had been trying to figure what on earth
>> Uncle N was going on about on that other thread and now we know...
>>
>No prob. Sorry I flamed Steve Slimelight for nothing. :(
>
Well, think of it this way, you flamed whoever forged the post!
Lord Occum
>Its a temporary mesure I'm sure if Chris is exonerated of all blame then
>the ban will be reversed.
you're the first to say so.
dez.
Lord Occum
>of course not. why are you using the future tense by the way ?
you're obviously setting a precedent here, that's why.
dez.
Lord Occum
>No we are not its a joint statement conding one persons actions and
>violence in general.
sure you're condoning it? :p
dez.
polarise
revoked on our part. Innocent to me on this matter one whether or not
charges are brought is that he did not use a weapon when involved in an
altercation with Plant. So far no ones denied that Chris used a glass
have they but if it some how emerges that he didn't then we will revoke
the ban. It seems that everyone is sure a glass was used, but I guess
we should wait until more info is made available.
I've got nothing further to add I've made my point, explained our
reasoning for signing up to the joint statement which I'm sure will be
Ian C.
interpreted differently by every promter involved and no doubt every
reader of the group. Thats life I guess.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
-bat.
you think ? you don't go to many events do you ? (and have never
been involved in organising one). precendent is that it's the
promoters judgement who'/s likely to cause trouble and who they
let into the vneue. thats was established god knows when, applies
to all public events organised by private individuals. it applies to
pubs, clubs, private parties, *anything* in fact - it even applies to
your local shop. if Sainsburies decides they don;t wat to let you in
because you "look like a shoplifter" then they can bar you. TThis happened
to someone onhere a year or so back. its not my precedent...
-bat.
-bat.
> gossip! Would a professional promotion company ban a band or line-up of a
> band from playing from what they'd read in the News of the World?
No, but they would (and do) make such descisions based on reports from
other promoters. Pubs do something similar. None of us are going to make
any descisions based on anything we read in this newsgroup, don't worry
about that.
> Andrea
> in controversial mode for a change :-)
*grin* - and somewhat cheeky as you know where I got at least part of
my info from and would preseumably consider that to be a slightly more
relaible source than the News Of The World!
-bat.
Rob Ingram
"Ian C." <ian.c...@virgin.net> writes:
> Rob Ingram wrote:
>> Frankly I'm shocked and surprised at this action from people I respect.
>
> Thers no hipocrisy, several clubs ban serial trouble causers, The goth
> scene just uses the internet like pubs use pub watch to ban trouble
> causers, and Chris Warham has caused trouble on a number of occasions ,
> to the point of physically scaring someone who verbally disagreed with
> him.
Perhaps I should clarify a little more the problems I saw with the
statement.
First, although the reasons behind it have been mentioned, I think the
idea of a joint statement was very ill-advised. It gives a very
strong impression that there is a committee of promoters having behind
the scenes discussions about who is eligible for admission to clubs
from the south coast to Edinburgh. We assume this isn't really the
case but that's the message you're giving out. Clearly every promoter
has ROA but I can't help feeling that managing this on an individual
and private basis would have been a better option.
Second, as people have pointed out, you're setting precedent here.
The time is going to come when another incident occurs and people
will start looking to see if you take action. People are also going
to want to know where you draw the line. The statement cites concerns
of club owners as a major reason for taking the action. Seems to me
that club owners don't like drug taking and dealing as it tends to get
them closed down. Is this something you should take action on? I
don't expect an answer but don't be surprised if people start asking
you to draw lines.
Third, the statement has now been somewhat ammended with reference to
the individual's past behaviour. The statement originally referred
only to the Birmingham incident. If you're going to issue such things
make _very_ sure you say exactly what you mean.
Fourth, the statement is very open ended. It doesn't, for instance,
say that this is an interim measure that will be reviewed at the end
of the court case. It would have seemed a lot more reasonable if you
appeared to be taking acount of the legal process.
Fifth, you don't seem to mention what the appeals procedure is.
Finally, I guess I just react against the thought of ad-hoc groups
being formed and making decisions that might affect my life. One day
any of us might be on the wrong end of such a decision.
Rob.
--
Rob Ingram Actually, I remember having a fondness
Computer Science for balloons.
University of Nottingham
Nottingham UK http://www.crg.cs.nott.ac.uk/~rji/
Alex Page
I thought they were condemning it...
Alex
--
"My place is here, corrupting the young" - Lord Rochester, "Plunkett & Macleane"
Bah. It is Techno. It goes Beep.
MancGoff: http://www.gothicdreams.net/grimoire
Alex Page
> Ian C. wrote in message <38010D...@virgin.net>...
> >Its a temporary mesure I'm sure if Chris is exonerated of all blame then
> >the ban will be reversed.
> you're the first to say so.
Yeah, but given the *reason* for the ban it's common sense, innit?
Alexander
>Tracking ip 194.168.121.12:
>"nslookup 194.168.121.12" (getting name) [show] 194.168.121.12 =
>p12-skua-gui.tch.virgin.net
>"whois p12-skua-gui....@whois.abuse.net" (checking abuse.net
>database) [show] abuse.net recommends: ab...@virgin.net,
>postm...@virgin.net
>
>I just searched all the posts/headers on upg for anything matching the
>interesting parts of that header, but didn't get anything- anyone else
>come up with anything?
Ignore the first bit; the 'p12-skua-gui' is just one of many posting
hosts at Virgin.
The following people, who have posted to UPG in the past two months,
have posted from addresses at *.tch.virgin.net:
Ady, Alan Chang, Alexander Shepherd, Bryan Adamson, Catherine Carter,
David Campbell, Dawn, Gary Beldon, Gothic Angel, Gran Ewesh, Ian C,
Jamie Walker, JoeStalin, John Muir, Kylie Probert, Mark Guy,
Muliebrity Man, Ophth, Orfeo, Paddy, Philfledermaus, Simon, Steph,
Steve Slimelight, Stray Safe.
And before a witchhunt starts, although it could have been any member
of UPG with a Virgin Account (i.e. the above list), it could quite
easily have been a non-member with a virgin account, or a member who
would usually post under another account.
The only way to be sure would be to contact Virgin.
However, looking at the rest of the headers, evidence would suggest
that it *was* sent from Steve's computer (whether he posted it or
not). Either that or somebody went to *a lot* of trouble to dupicate
Steve's computer settings (including setting up a Windows 95 machine
posting with Netscape 4.05 [not the latest version]). i.e:
From: Steve Slimelight <st...@slimelight.com>
Organization: Slimelight / RBN / Electrowerkz II / W.R.M.S
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Cache: nntpcache 2.3.3b4 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
--
~Alexander : I'm GAF (De ba dee, de ba dai)
DJing at Malice Underground & Club Tenebrae (and *NOT* Disassembley)
URL: http://www.alexander.darkwave.org.uk/ ICQ: 6165829
polarise
I think we subscribed to the sstatement as we felt it would be a
stroingly worded condemnation of violence. In alot of respects that
major fact has not come across.As i wasn't for some reason sent a copy
of the draft after initially agreeing to be included in the statement,
I am not in 100 % agreement with the phrasing of the statement however
the sentiment I am 100% behind.
> Second, as people have pointed out, you're setting precedent here.
> The time is going to come when another incident occurs and people
> will start looking to see if you take action. People are also going
> to want to know where you draw the line. The statement cites
concerns
> of club owners as a major reason for taking the action. Seems to me
> that club owners don't like drug taking and dealing as it tends to
get
> them closed down. Is this something you should take action on? I
> don't expect an answer but don't be surprised if people start asking
> you to draw lines.
>
It certainly would be at Dissolution , we will not tollerate dealing On
premises as it would ul;timately lead to the event been canceled at
Sheffield Hallam Uni as they have a strong anti drugs code.However this
statement refers or should clearly refer to people who have commited
exremely violent acts on a number of occasions.
> Third, the statement has now been somewhat ammended with reference to
> the individual's past behaviour. The statement originally referred
> only to the Birmingham incident. If you're going to issue such things
> make _very_ sure you say exactly what you mean.
>
here I agree, the statement was a little wooly .
> Fourth, the statement is very open ended. It doesn't, for instance,
> say that this is an interim measure that will be reviewed at the end
> of the court case. It would have seemed a lot more reasonable if you
> appeared to be taking acount of the legal process.
>
again I agree here......
We back the statement but would have asked had a copy been circulated
to us that this point was clarified. Indeed if a person is found not to
have committed the act then we would not ban the person. However no one
has denied that chris used a weapon in an attack which he may/may not
be found guilty of causing. That fact remains constant, who ever
started it Chris resorted to the use of a weapon.
> Fifth, you don't seem to mention what the appeals procedure is.
I think each venue / promoter has a different procedure. It would be
too long to publish each here. I would suggest that if the person wants
to appeal they contact the promoter, and it goes from there.
>
> Finally, I guess I just react against the thought of ad-hoc groups
> being formed and making decisions that might affect my life. One day
> any of us might be on the wrong end of such a decision.
Its not an ad hoc group, its a one off statement about an incident that
shocked and appalled all people involved in signing the Satatement. Its
an extreme case.I would hope an issue where a joint statements an
option never occurs again.
I think I'd better shut up now, I've tried to justify Dissolutions
inclusion on the statement, and explain why. I can't say anymore. These
are our opinions and actions(Cath and I) and they happen to coincide
with those of other promoters. You may/may not disagree with these
opinions thats your right to do so. After all didn't this all start
because certain people felt that Plant didn't have the right to say
what he felt here in this Forum and disagreed with his opinions?.
Ian C.
-bat.
> strong impression that there is a committee of promoters having behind
> the scenes discussions about who is eligible for admission to clubs
> from the south coast to Edinburgh. We assume this isn't really the
> case but that's the message you're giving out. Clearly every promoter
It's more the case that a lot of people independently said "eek!, don't
want him in my club!" but raher than lots of individual postings we
wanted to show a little solidarity. TThe "oragisation" exists to sort
out tordates and the like primarily - it;s *NOT* a behind the
scenes summary council.
> to want to know where you draw the line. The statement cites concerns
> of club owners as a major reason for taking the action. Seems to me
> that club owners don't like drug taking and dealing as it tends to get
> them closed down. Is this something you should take action on? I
Err, we do. I've thrown people out for underage driunking, drug
dealing and stealing from my club. Other places tolearte it. We aren't
acing as a whole unit.
> the individual's past behaviour. The statement originally referred
> only to the Birmingham incident. If you're going to issue such things
> make _very_ sure you say exactly what you mean.
fair comment. it was that indcident that kicked off peoples discussions
on the matter, but each person made the descision based on their own
bits of info. it;s not a unanimous thing by any means - I've already pointed
out that there are names not on that list who are part of the "organisation".
> Fourth, the statement is very open ended. It doesn't, for instance,
> say that this is an interim measure that will be reviewed at the end
> of the court case. It would have seemed a lot more reasonable if you
> appeared to be taking acount of the legal process.
>
> Fifth, you don't seem to mention what the appeals procedure is.
Yopu appeaar to think that this is a lot more formal than it actually
is. The 'appeals procedure" is exactly the same as if you get thrown
out of you local pub. Wait a bit go back and sayy "ah, can I come back
in again yet?" and he either says "oh, o.k., buut behave yourself this time"
or says "no, sod off".
> Finally, I guess I just react against the thought of ad-hoc groups
> being formed and making decisions that might affect my life. One day
> any of us might be on the wrong end of such a decision.
..so preseubaly you object to the "pub watch" schemes on the same
basis then ? "ad-hoc goups being formed" is basically having friends and
acquaintances. If I cause trouble in a pub and get kicked out, and the
landlord rings up his mate who runs the opub down the road and says "'ere,
I had that pete french in my pub last night - made a right scene & we had
to kick him out. Can't be trusted if you ask me" and the second bloke bars
me too 'cos he trusts his friends opinion then thats to be expected.
With hindsight, the bit of wording I regret in that staement is "joint
descision". It should probably have said "lots of people made up their own
minds about this, but we thought we'd just say it all at once and have done
with it".
The organisation you object to so strenuously was formed in an aed-hoc
basis for sure ... but it was done in rder to co-rdiate toruing
bands. It doesn't make an real collective descisoins, it dooesn't jhave
everyone dping everythong - ti;s there as a discussion list fo the promoters
who put on gigs round here. Most conbversation goes along the
lines of "wwell, I've booked x on tuesday, any body else intereetd - it's
150 quid plus rider" and then someone says "yeah, I'd like e'm thursday or
friday"? and someone else says "I can only do friday - you atke them thursday
and I'll take them friday". Thus it comes to pass that tours are formed with
no clashes and a reaosnable spread of dates across the country. We also
occasionally club together for joint flyers for the whole lot.
it is *NOT* some kind of kangaroo count making arbitrary descisoons about
admissions policies by which all members must abide!!!!!
-bat.
ekka666
Marc Elston wrote:
> Phildo <Mi...@my-pants.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:2BML3.344$iA1....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
> >
> > So in essence you are forcing Killing Miranda to fire Chris, even though
> it
> > has yet to be established that he is guilty in this matter. Somehow I
> think
> > you have jumped the gun. Having heard the story several times from both
> > sides it seems that it is not at all that one-sided yet it is Chris who is
> > getting the ban.
> >
> > While I agree his past behaviour is not in dispute this issue has yet to
> be
> > resolved so no decisions should be made until it is.
> >
> It's a pretty dangerous precedent all round as well. If promoters can decide
> who is and who isn't in a band because of excessive violence, what's the
> next step going to be ? Firing anyone who abuses drugs, gets drunk or
> misbehaves in a public place ? Some of the most powerful music is written by
> ppl who are slightly disturbed / out of control...
> In the future all music could be made by 'nice boys' like Boyzone. As a man
> 'in the know' do you think this decision might be dangerous ?
Barring people from clubs/pubs for violence is nothing new and I for one do not
believe that being part of a band should make you exempt from this. As has
already been pointed out by someone, most goth promoters hire venues off a third
party and as such, have to ensure that their "night" is free from grief if only
to ensure that they are allowed to book said venue again. A far scarier (yet
equally improbable) "for instance" than the one you suggest would be goth
promoters being unable to find venues due to the scene gaining a reputation for,
shall we say, unruly behavior. Staying in at nights does not appeal to me.
It is the right of promoters to refuse people admission and often, the law does
not come into it (there's no law against steel capped docs but I've been refused
admission from several clubs for wearing 'em).
As for certain venues refusing to book KM if Chris Wareham is part of the line
up, they also have every right. If he has managed to father a reputation for
violence (however it was come by) , he should not be surprised that promoters
want nothing do do with him....
Luv'n'Pinkfluffybats ^..^
Paul
Rob Ingram
pe...@ohm.york.ac.uk (-bat.) writes:
> r.in...@cs.nott.ac.uk (Rob Ingram) writes:
>>
> It's more the case that a lot of people independently said "eek!, don't
> want him in my club!" but raher than lots of individual postings we
> wanted to show a little solidarity. TThe "oragisation" exists to sort
> out tordates and the like primarily - it;s *NOT* a behind the
> scenes summary council.
As has been said many times in this thread. I'm just trying to point
out that joint statements about collective decisions may give an
impression you didn't intend.
I also fail to see why issues between promoters and individuals have
to be announced on this newsgroup. I can only assume it was for
deterrent value, which again puts you in the the dangerous position of
an organisation laying down guidelines.
>> that club owners don't like drug taking and dealing as it tends to get
>> them closed down. Is this something you should take action on? I
>
> Err, we do. I've thrown people out for underage driunking, drug
> dealing and stealing from my club. Other places tolearte it. We aren't
> acing as a whole unit.
The point being in this case you were so people may come to expect it.
>> Fifth, you don't seem to mention what the appeals procedure is.
>
> Yopu appeaar to think that this is a lot more formal than it actually
> is.
The statement sounded pretty formal to me and that's all I had to go
on.
> The 'appeals procedure" is exactly the same as if you get thrown
> out of you local pub. Wait a bit go back and sayy "ah, can I come back
> in again yet?" and he either says "oh, o.k., buut behave yourself this time"
> or says "no, sod off".
So in this case does the banned person ask the promoters as
individuals or collectively? Does one promoter relaxing mean the
others do too?
See what I'm saying? By acting together over something that was
usually down to individuals the thing suddenly gets far more
complicated.
> ..so preseubaly you object to the "pub watch" schemes on the same
> basis then ?
AFAIK pub watch is a formal scheme and members display posters
prominently. Also, as I understand it, it is intended as a much more
immediate scheme, as in landlord of pub X warns landlord of pub Y next
door about the rowdy crowd doing a pub crawl down the road. I wasn't
aware of it imposing long term bans.
> With hindsight, the bit of wording I regret in that staement is "joint
> descision". It should probably have said "lots of people made up their own
> minds about this, but we thought we'd just say it all at once and have done
> with it".
That would have sounded better but still doesn't explain why any
announcement was necessary at all.
I know I'm sounding quite critical but I do think the people involved
should note a few of the issues raised here, particularly regarding
what is and isn't an issue for the newsgroup and the possible
implications of joint statemets, and bear them in mind when
considering such statements in future.
polarise
> > >No we are not its a joint statement conding one persons actions and
> > >violence in general.
>
> > sure you're condoning it? :p
>
> I thought they were condemning it...
>
ruth perfect
>Steve Slimelight wrote:
>>
>> your collective decision to which you are entitled, but surely no need
>> to post it to UPG as this is no doubt going to turn into another flame
>> war thread. This reeks of propaganda and behind the scenes tittle
>> tattle, and I am not sticking up for anyone at all here, it's just my
>> opinion.
>>
>> How would annyone feel if they got banned from Slimelight for causing
>> trouble, then got banned by almost every other goth club in the UK for
>> it as a consequence?
>a one off incident perhaps it would be unfair but there is a history
>with Chris which my wife witness to her horror in Whitby a few years
>ago. (The girlfriend incident.)
>Before this annoncement we would have been unhappy to hae such a person
>at Dissolution (with Cath and I promote) because of his violent actions
>towards his girlfriend and those who tried to stop him (friends of mine)
>hitting his girlfriend at Whitby. However that was a one of incident but
>now there are more showing that when pushed/disagreed with this man has
>no control and lashes out- that to me is dangerous.
>Ian C.
Why cant you people just let this matter rest? Are you that bored that
you have nothing better to talk about? This incident happened ages ago
and does not mean that the indivual concerned is liable to glass
someone at every event he turns up at. And what about the other person
involved in all this? Is he going to get banned from everywhere as
well, I doubt it... this seems to me like a childish plot to get
members of K.M. to respond and prolong the matter further , when they
have ,so far, maintained a dignified silence. and i hope will continue
to do so.
ruth perfect
>Lord Occum wrote in message <7tlbpl$gr9$1...@gxsn.com>...
>>The Painted One wrote in message <939405175.2838.0.nnrp-
>>>I for one would feel much safer at a venue knowing that this individual is
>>not around
>>so are you only going to venues where chris wareham is banned?
>No but if I knew he was at a venue the same time as me, I would be wary
>(excuse the pun). This is a purely natural reaction to knowing there is a
>person in your vicinity who is capable of acts like that. Not long ago there
>was a bunch of lads hanging around my flats, one of whom I know has recently
>been done for assault with a knife. I have never personally seen him commit
>an act of violence, but his precence disturbs me as if a person can cross
>that line once, they can do it again.
>>
>>>It is also quite acceptable for a collective group of venues to act
>>>together, it happens to hooligans at football grounds, why should this be
>>>any different.
>>football hooliganism is altogether different, involving gangs of organised
>>thugs on the whole.
>>
>Thats just a matter of numbers, the mentality is the same, a willingness to
>commit acts of extreme violence. In fact I would argue a person who is
>capable of doing this kind of thing on his own is potentially _more_
>dangerous than someone who only behaves violently when part of an anonymous
>group.
>The basic point here is that there is a type of behavior which is acceptable
>in society and types that are not. I ,like most people, have been involved
>in scuffles and what have you, when tempers have been raised. I've even
>started a few. But to go from that to taking a weapon and slicing someones
>face open with it, which could quite easily be fatal if you get them in the
>neck, is a whole diffetent ballgame and cannot be tollerated in a
>responsible society. Most people are basically incapable of doing these
>things, except under _extreme_ provication, which does not appear to be the
>case here. If this individual does not have this incapacity, then he could
>quite easily under similar circumstances (and a row in a club is not exactly
>an unusual circumstance) do it again.
>Us 'gothic types' like to pride ourselves on being a more intelligent and
>rational bunch of people than the great unwashed as a whole. Most if the
>time this sort of incident is unheard of in this scene. This is the sort the
>sort of behavior you hear about in trendy nightclubs (who would react in
>exactly the same way BTW, except perhaps including a kicking from the
>bouncers). If we want to keep our culture the way we like to believe it is,
>we will have to act to remove people who are willing to act in a way that is
>as unacceptable as this. Anyone who thinks that glassing someone is
>acceptable needs to have a long hard think about the effect being scarred,
>and potentially maimed, for life would have on them. Its a bit more serious
>than a quick push about and shouting match because you spilt someones pint.
>TPO
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------
>I...@itdudley.demon.NOSPAM.co.uk remove NOSPAM to reply
>If it wasnt for bad luck......
> .........I'd have no luck at all.
>-Da Crüe
So how do you know that your mans face was sliced open? did you see
it? From what ive heard it was Cris who came off worse, And it was
actually a beer glass, not a weapon. get your facts right
ruth perfect
>In article <7tq1ef$1fj$1...@pump1.york.ac.uk>, -bat. <pe...@ohm.york.ac.uk>
>writes
>> how are you going to judge
>>> violence levels- a points system? fists 1 point, kicks 3(steel toe caps 5)?
>>> how is it going to be judged as well,
>How DARE you trivialise what has happened? Whether it was Plant or not -
>whether he's the other half of the person who runs Whitby or not is NOT
>the issue.
>The issue is that someone could have lost their sight through the
>irresponsible actions of another regardless of who either party is or
>isn't connected with. Promoting is what I do and with that comes an
>element of socialising. How do you think I feel, to think that that
>glass could have just as easily been in MY face? After all, in the past
>my opinions have been just as outspoken as Plants. It's fair to say that
>the psychological repercussions of this incident have been far greater
>for BOTH of us, than the physical ones.
>As Pete rightly said the statement was posted on a public forum in order
>to supply information: factual information instead of rumours flying
>around that a gang of promoters were refusing to promote Nightbreed
>bands. It wasn't posted on here as an excuse to start another flame war.
>KM have played at least 2 gigs without Chris Wareham. So it appears that
>they are more than capable of playing gigs without him. Are we forcing
>them to fire him? Not from the 'fuck you UK promoters' response I got
>from Riccky the day after the incident. They were aware that this
>statement was being worded weeks ago, they knew in advance most of the
>names that were going to appear on it. Their response? 'We won't be
>playing England much over the next 2 years anyhow'. Don't you worry
>about them - they've got enough attitude & ego for all of us.
>Jo
>>>
>>
>Top Mum Promotions/Whitby Gothic Weekend/ Cheeky Monkey
>Website: http://whitby.darkwave.org.uk/
>Fax: +44 0870 0558280
>PO BOX 19 Upton Wirral L49 6HZ
Not as much as you though, it seems
Alexander
>Although the Hotmail message ID still confuses me. I wonder if Hotmail and
>Virgin share resources somewhere?
Erm... that seems to be the only discrepency here. Steve's messages
usually have "Message-ID: <38013907...@slimelight.com>" whereas
this posting had "<3800333F...@hotmail.com>". Which I would
guess puts Steve in the clear.... :)
I assume it gets the Message-ID domain from either the machine it was
posted from, or from the domain of the server it was sent to. I would
assume the former assuming Steve isn't running an NNTP server from a
Win95 box.
It seems that somebody has gone to an awful lot of trouble just to
post as Steve, methinx a conspiracy is afoot? :O
From: Steve Slimelight <st...@slimelight.com>
Newsgroups: uk.people.gothic
Subject: Re: INCIDENT AT DAMAGE 12/09/1999 - JOINT STATEMENT
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 07:33:35 +0100
Organization: Slimelight / RBN / Electrowerkz II / W.R.M.S
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <3800333F...@hotmail.com>
References: <gVoL3.19$Kg....@typhoon01.swbell.net>
<37FF7C...@virgin.net> <2BML3.344$iA1....@typhoon01.swbell.net>
<7too02$psa$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
<zVRL3.505$iA1....@typhoon01.swbell.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net 939537207 27091
194.168.121.12 (10 Oct 1999 06:33:27 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@virgin.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Oct 1999 06:33:27 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I)
--
Blackbird
>
> In article <3801bfd8....@news.mcc.ac.uk>,
> grim...@twisted.gothicdreams.net (Alex Page) wrote:
> > "Lord Occum" <oc...@davidbowie.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Ian C. wrote in message <380110...@virgin.net>...
> > > >No we are not its a joint statement conding one persons actions and
> > > >violence in general.
> >
> > > sure you're condoning it? :p
> >
> > I thought they were condemning it...
> >
> bugger wrong word, condemed was what i mean't honest
>
> Ian C.
Sure it wasn't condomed ?
--
Guy
Dammerung website.. with added purple and some MP3's at:
Blackbird
Congratulations!, you've just won this milleniums award for the most
obvious troll.
I'm keeping my billy goats gruff well away.
Blackbird
>
> ruth perfect wrote, wrote and wrote some more...
>
> Congratulations!, you've just won this milleniums award for the most
> obvious troll.
>
> I'm keeping my billy goats gruff well away.
>
oh yes, and KKKkkkkkeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrr.........
.....*plonk*
(I never thought I'd do that)
Alex Page
> polarise wrote:
> > grim...@twisted.gothicdreams.net (Alex Page) wrote:
> > > "Lord Occum" <oc...@davidbowie.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Ian C. wrote in message <380110...@virgin.net>...
> > > > >No we are not its a joint statement conding one persons actions and
> > > > >violence in general.
> > > > sure you're condoning it? :p
> > > I thought they were condemning it...
> > bugger wrong word, condemed was what i mean't honest
> Sure it wasn't condomed ?
Well, safety at club venues is apparently the concern here...
Andrea Procter
-bat. <pe...@ohm.york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7tsau1$sjk$1...@pump1.york.ac.uk...
> "Andrea Procter" <a.j.p...@removethis.wmin.ac.uk> writes:
> > gossip! Would a professional promotion company ban a band or line-up of
a
> > band from playing from what they'd read in the News of the World?
>
> No, but they would (and do) make such descisions based on reports from
> other promoters. Pubs do something similar. None of us are going to make
> any descisions based on anything we read in this newsgroup, don't worry
> about that.
>
event? Though they do not appear on the statement. Or maybe the promotors of
Whitby for the other incident mentioned?
> > Andrea
> > in controversial mode for a change :-)
>
> *grin* - and somewhat cheeky as you know where I got at least part of
> my info from and would preseumably consider that to be a slightly more
> relaible source than the News Of The World!
I dont think any source so far can be classed as reliable, all sources that
I've seen have been liable to being biased in one direction or another? I've
heard accounts from KM people and from you from Plants side both seem to
tell a totally different story as to what actually happened. We've had
everything on UPG from Plant sabotaging KM's gear to stories of KM just
walking up and glassing Plant for no reason. We dont know who hit out first
and although it does seem to be definite that a glass was involved was using
it intentional?
So no.. I dont think any sources are more reliable than the Sun or the News
of the World at the moment, none that I've seen so far anyway!! From the
postings I've seen the court case could end in a multitude of ways,
either/both or no party being charged.
Andrea
Marc Elston
news:NtoBOKC18qJqPN...@4ax.com...
> I wrote:
>
> Steve, do you want me to start nipping at Virgin's heels, or were you just
> trying to deny a perfectly normal case of Drunk In Charge of a Keyboard?
>
The only thing is - this message doesn't actually look like Steve's normal
writing style, does it ?
It's almost lyrical in it's venomousness. Could this be a post from someone
who spends a lot of time writing poetry or song lyrics ???
(Not that I'm saying Steve couldn't, etc.) :)
The Painted One
>So how do you know that your mans face was sliced open? did you see
>it? From what ive heard it was Cris who came off worse, And it was
>actually a beer glass, not a weapon. get your facts right
>
If you hit someone in the face with a beer glass, you cannot reasonably say
you did not mean to cut their face open. If in actual fact you didnt succeed
and cut yourself instead, this is through luck and not design. The point
behind all this is not so much what he did to the other guy, but what he
intended to do. If I try and stab you with a knife, but fuck it up and cut
myself, I will still be done up for attempted murder, a leser crime than
murder, but still pretty bad.
Oh and by the way a beer glass in the face is most definately a weapon, in
fact by law almost anything not physically part of your body can be classed
as a weapon if used in such a way. If you ask a policeman I think you will
find that is their view too.
Hmm, your an interesting character arnt you? Ruth Perfect has only ever
posted four times, all of them in this thread, all badly composed and rather
snippy. Looking at your aliases (nobody,name and Jessica) you've only a
handfull of posts at all, quite a few of them are badly composed (as in not
snipping the posts your replying to with one line replies) and there are
quite a few snippy ones.
So the question is, are you a lesser spotted under the bridge dweller or are
you an alter ego for someone who posts on here regularly? To be honest I
couldnt give a shit either way as your posts seem at best pointless and at
worst trolling. So I think I shall join Blackbird in sending you to the
Plonk bin, bye bye now.
TPO
--
The Painted One
>It's almost lyrical in it's venomousness. Could this be a post from someone
>who spends a lot of time writing poetry or song lyrics ???
>(Not that I'm saying Steve couldn't, etc.) :)
>
Without wishing to put words to your inference, that would be a rather daft
thing to do. Steve (not to mention everyone else) will, I imagine, be
distinctly dis-chuffed at this. Since he has generally been in support of
the inferee's (ahem) it would be rather stupid. On the other hand sending
nasty poison pen letters with a forged mail is pretty damn stupid to start
with.
TPO
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
I...@itdudley.demon.NOSPAM.co.uk remove NOSPAM to reply
You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common:
they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit
the views,
which can be uncomfortable, if you happen to be one of the facts that needs
altering.
The Doctor
Brett
Loki <lo...@kian.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38013...@newsread3.dircon.co.uk...
>
> Andrea Procter <a.j.p...@removethis.wmin.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> <SNIP>
> >Would a professional promotion company ban a band or line-up of a
> > band from playing from what they'd read in the News of the World?
> >
> > in controversial mode for a change :-)
> >
>
> Well said!!!
Apart from it being an absoloutely useless analogy, I mean I know there
are some untruths in this newsgroup but I don't think its quite got to News
Of The World Status yet[1]
Brett....(Trying to keep his opinions to himself but not quite suceeding
[1] Mmmmmm!!!!!!!
Ian C.
>
> So how do you know that your mans face was sliced open? did you see
> it? From what ive heard it was Cris who came off worse, And it was
> actually a beer glass, not a weapon. get your facts right
Erm legally a broken glass used in this way is classed as a weapon.
A weapon by definition is a device that can be used to cause harm.
So a glass broken deliberatly to cut someone is a weapon.
Plants face was sliced open , or was he rushed to Hospital for nothing
???
As far as I'm aware none of these facts are in desute by either side.
Its the cause and the initation of the incident that are under debate.
Ian C.
Andrea Procter
> Oh and by the way a beer glass in the face is most definately a weapon, in
> fact by law almost anything not physically part of your body can be
classed
> as a weapon if used in such a way. If you ask a policeman I think you will
> find that is their view too.
>
Yeah which can be a pain if you defend yourself as you can still get done
for injuring the other person. Dunno if anyone else does this but if I'm
walking home alone from somewhere late at night I often carry a key (yale
key or car key) with the top in my had and the jagged edge protruding out
between my fingers. If someone was to try to attack and I got the chance I'd
use it as a weapon.
Andrea
Ian C.
>
> "Ian C." <ian.c...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >a one off incident perhaps it would be unfair but there is a history
> >with Chris which my wife witness to her horror in Whitby a few years
> >ago. (The girlfriend incident.)
>
> >Before this annoncement we would have been unhappy to hae such a person
> >at Dissolution (with Cath and I promote) because of his violent actions
> >towards his girlfriend and those who tried to stop him (friends of mine)
> >hitting his girlfriend at Whitby. However that was a one of incident but
> >now there are more showing that when pushed/disagreed with this man has
> >no control and lashes out- that to me is dangerous.
>
> >Ian C.
> Why cant you people just let this matter rest? Are you that bored that
> you have nothing better to talk about? This incident happened ages ago
> and does not mean that the indivual concerned is liable to glass
> someone at every event he turns up at.
No as a promoter its important that people understand we can't afford to
have violence in our clubs, or the venues will just not let us put Goth
events on again.
And what about the other person
> involved in all this? Is he going to get banned from everywhere as
> well, I doubt it... this seems to me like a childish plot to get
> members of K.M. to respond and prolong the matter further , when they
> have ,so far, maintained a dignified silence. and i hope will continue
> to do so.
Far from it. MY view is that it involves only one person who happens to
be a member of KM. Its also my understanding that only the person banned
is under investigation and might face charges. So why ban a person who
it seems is not being investigated by police regarding the matter??
Also he did not resort to the extreme measure of using a potentially
lethal weapon.
Ian C.
Andrea Procter
>
> Erm legally a broken glass used in this way is classed as a weapon.
>
> A weapon by definition is a device that can be used to cause harm.
> So a glass broken deliberatly to cut someone is a weapon.
This proves the point about the stories all being different.. I havent
bothered to troll back through the posts but wasnt one version that the
glass got broken when Chris was pushed over and one that the glass was
picked up and used intentionally?
>
> Plants face was sliced open , or was he rushed to Hospital for nothing
> ???
>
Again.. A version I heard said he only had minor cuts that needed no
stitching whereas Chris had his hand operated on. Sliced open seems
different?
I'm not saying which version is true just that the whole thing has turned
into malicious gossip on which it looks like group decisions are being
based.
> As far as I'm aware none of these facts are in desute by either side.
See above and check the old thread for how different the stories are!
Andrea
Hatchet
>*grin* - and somewhat cheeky as you know where I got at least part of
>my info from and would preseumably consider that to be a slightly more
>relaible source than the News Of The World!
"Killing Miranda Found On Moon".
Actually, this is probably just wishful thinking...
Hatchet >:)
--
**************************************************************************
*"The graveyard pallor was mandatory, and Gothick hair was by definition *
*black. Bobby knew that the few who couldn't warp their bodies to fit the*
*subcultural template were best avoided; a short Gothick was trouble, a *
*fat Gothick homicidal." Count Zero - William Gibson *
**************************************************************************
Liz Stubbings
Rob Ingram <r.in...@cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7tsl6d$qah$1...@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk...
> AFAIK pub watch is a formal scheme and members display posters
> prominently. Also, as I understand it, it is intended as a much more
> immediate scheme, as in landlord of pub X warns landlord of pub Y next
> door about the rowdy crowd doing a pub crawl down the road. I wasn't
> aware of it imposing long term bans.
'K, so it's not *that* relevant, but Pubwatch can be a more permanent thing,
IME. I've had friends who've been barred from certain pubs and others have
also refused to serve them. I suppose this was possibly a slightly different
case, given that it was underage drinking. But I'll go away and stop
wittering quite so much now.
Fare thee well,
Liz
--
Paranoia is reality seen on a finer scale - Philo Gant, Strange Days
Aidan Skinner
<a.j.p...@removethis.wmin.ac.uk> wrote:
>record labels etc it certainly seems to have more than its fair share of
>arguments and rifts between these parties! This only leads to damaging the
It's the hair spray, rots the brain it does.
>I think the coverage on UPG of this incident proves this point.. we've had
u.p.g is not a monolithic entity, it's not really an entity at
all. It's simply a means for anybody to say anything that they
want. When you get down to it, you can post anything here. Please stop
lumping every body in together.
Not meant as an attack, I'm just fed up with people referring to the
newsgroup as if it's anything other than a (somewhat) unfiltered
communications medium.
- Aidan
--
"Every time I see her I want to geek..."
"I say geek. If she runs then it was never meant to be. But if you talk
about routers, TCP/IP and programming and she stays, she's yours until the
counter flips"
zog...@home.com
Nah, That's what I've got my Swiss, and my belt for... <g>
Angel.
mel
<snip>
> Apart from it being an absoloutely useless analogy, I mean I know
> there
> are some untruths in this newsgroup but I don't think its quite got
> to News
> Of The World Status yet[1]
Sometimes I think we've gone past that and become the online Sunday
Sport. Hang on ... I'll do a nipple count ... hmmmm, only five
references to nipples in the last 2000 messages, so perhaps not.
> Brett....(Trying to keep his opinions to himself but not quite
> suceeding
Now where's the fun in that? Or indeed, why is it that it's usually
people who know bugger-all about anything post so much. Er, checks
stats, hmmmm.
--
/Mel/ (at work)
Sinister Ducks: http://www.cix.co.uk/~mel/file/mp3/sinister.mp3
Whisky Dave
Marc Elston <Ma...@elston45.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ttb32$inc$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Kieran <kie...@twisted.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:NtoBOKC18qJqPN...@4ax.com...
> > I wrote:
> >
> > Steve, do you want me to start nipping at Virgin's heels, or were you
just
> > trying to deny a perfectly normal case of Drunk In Charge of a
Keyboard?
> >
> The only thing is - this message doesn't actually look like Steve's
normal
> writing style, does it ?
someone
> who spends a lot of time writing poetry or song lyrics ???
Sounds like a Goth to me ;-)
polarise
"Andrea Procter" <a.j.p...@removethis.wmin.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Erm legally a broken glass used in this way is classed as a weapon.
> >
> > A weapon by definition is a device that can be used to cause harm.
> > So a glass broken deliberatly to cut someone is a weapon.
>
> This proves the point about the stories all being different.. I havent
> bothered to troll back through the posts but wasnt one version that
the
> glass got broken when Chris was pushed over and one that the glass was
> picked up and used intentionally?
The earlier threads state to me that the glass was still picked up to
use intentionally , the question was whether Chris was acting in self
defence or was the protagonist. The Glass getting broken as he was
pushed over was if I remember correctly related to him being pushed on
the floor after he had picked up the glass.
> >
> > Plants face was sliced open , or was he rushed to Hospital for
nothing
> > ???
> >
> Again.. A version I heard said he only had minor cuts that needed no
> stitching whereas Chris had his hand operated on. Sliced open seems
> different?
Thyats the KM version. I know for a fact unless a friend who has seen
Plants face has told me lies which I doubt ! that Plants face was badly
cut and his eye was narrowly missed.
>
> I'm not saying which version is true just that the whole thing has
turned
> into malicious gossip on which it looks like group decisions are being
> based.
>
> > As far as I'm aware none of these facts are in desute by either
side.
>
> See above and check the old thread for how different the stories are!
I don't think the gossips malicious. The thread is getting so sprawling
that its hard to get any intelligent picture together now from the news
group.
However when our desision , and I refer only to Gothtart Promotions it
was to make a stand agaist Violence and point out that violent people
are not welcome at Dissolution. My wife has personally witness one of
Chris's other violent attacks so we some idea of how he reacted then
and to our minds one story told here ties in more appropriatly with
this behaviour than the other. However I accept that the facts are not
available not probably because of any dignified silence but because if
a police investigation is ongoing the matter will be sub judicy which
means neither person involved can really speak in public about the
matter.
Whisky Dave
The Girl who wanted to be God <god...@twisted.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3808ffbd...@news.demon.co.uk...
> -bat. wrote:
>
> >if Sainsburys decides they don't wat to let you in
> >because you "look like a shoplifter" then they can bar you. This
happened
> >to someone on here a year or so back. its not my precedent...
>
> This is true. At a recent Lloyds pharmacy branch where i was working,
> i came across a folder consisting basically of 5 years worth of
> barring letters instructing the named individuals that were they to
> step into the store, legal proceedings would be taken. There must've
> been at least 15-20 different individuals named. Reasons for these
> barrings include theft, threatened violence to staff or customers,
> abusive behaviour or language.... most places dont give people the
> benefit of the doubt and say "well, let's wait til someones lost an
> eye..." [1]
>
Recently a male wheel chair bound psychiatric was know to have a
dangerously violent hatred of women. For some unknown reason (probably some
PC
jobsworth[1]) decided that a female nurse would look after him.
In a relatively short space of time he got his chance to enact his hatred.
He stabbed the female nurse 64 times! as she learned over near his chair.
The attacks were so ferocious that he had left knife wounds in his own legs
(paralysed as he had no feelings in them).
In court while he was handcuffed to officers (male) he said proudly
"O got her good didn't I, showed her" or words to that effect to the
police officers.
This case bought about the recent 'law' on detaining the mentally ill for
public
protection.
[1] Now I'm totally guessing here but why would anyone else instruct
a women nurse to care for a man known to be a violent women hater.
ruth perfect
>On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:21:42 GMT, ruth perfect wrote:
>>So how do you know that your mans face was sliced open? did you see
>>it? From what ive heard it was Cris who came off worse, And it was
>>actually a beer glass, not a weapon. get your facts right
>1. Trim your followups please.
>2. His name is 'Chris' not 'Cris'.
>3. A beer glass can quite easily be used as a weapon.
>4. Telling somebody to "get your facts right" when you yourself are
>posting based on "what ive heard" makes you a hypocrite.
>That is all.
>--
> ~Alexander : I'm GAF (De ba dee, de ba dai)
>DJing at Malice Underground & Club Tenebrae (and *NOT* Disassembley)
>URL: http://www.alexander.darkwave.org.uk/ ICQ: 6165829
Whereas some items are intended to be weapons i.e. a gun,etc a beer
glass is not. therefore by someone stating that Chris used a weapon
without mentioning what it was, it can make the matter seem worse than
it is. I dont see the point in being petty about minor spelling
mistakes, and your right, I am only commenting on heresay, but arent
most people on here doing that? I am merely stating my thoughts on
the matter, something I have a right to do as much as anyone else
Kevin O' Gorman
> most people on here doing that? I am merely stating my thoughts on
> the matter, something I have a right to do as much as anyone else
Alexander isn't questioning your right to post, only the quality
of your posts. Learn to edit. Learn to spell or use a spellchecker.
Get basic facts right. Otherwise, expect first to be flamed and then
to be ignored.
K.
-
zog...@home.com
They would if they were a sadist. Either a woman hater themselves (thus
putting her in danger) or just a torturous bastard (imagine the feeling
of being a woman hater, and needing a woman to tend to your basic
survival needs)
Angel.
Alexander
wrote:
>Whereas some items are intended to be weapons i.e. a gun,etc a beer
>glass is not. therefore by someone stating that Chris used a weapon
>without mentioning what it was, it can make the matter seem worse than
>it is.
Oh for God's sake... come here and feel the wrath of my broom
handle... when the police ask you what I used as a weapon to disfigure
you with, please state: none.
>I dont see the point in being petty about minor spelling
>mistakes,
Fine, I shall now refer to you as 'Ruth Defect'; unintentionally of
course.
>and your right, I am only commenting on heresay, but arent
>most people on here doing that? I am merely stating my thoughts on
>the matter, something I have a right to do as much as anyone else
Fair enough, just don't criticise others for doing the same. People in
glass houses etc etc etc.
As such, if I were you I woouldn't bother continuing; it's all been
said already. You may find it more worthwhile to put up a personal,
advertise your web page, or tell us what your favourite COF^H^H^Hgoth
band is.
Alex Page
> 'K, so it's not *that* relevant, but Pubwatch can be a more permanent thing,
Blimey, Liz is posting... you must be bored!
Alex
--
- "What are we doing tonight, Alex?"
- "The same thing we do every night, Doofie - try to take over the pants!"
MancGoff: http://www.gothicdreams.net/grimoire
Aidan Skinner
>bugger wrong word, condemed was what i mean't honest
Now, if you'll kindly remove the extraneous apostrophe in that
sentance we can all move along quietly and get on with our lives.
If not I'll have to hunt you down and kill you ooooh so slowly.
With a rainbow coloured cocktail umbrella and a shrine to dorothy.
- Aidan (just finished editing a fanzine with student contributors,
can you tell?)
Matt Gibson
ai...@skinner.demon.co.uk says...
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:02:05 GMT, polarise <pola...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >bugger wrong word, condemed was what i mean't honest
>
> Now, if you'll kindly remove the extraneous apostrophe in that
> sentance we can all move along quietly and get on with our lives.
Perhaps it should be swapped for the necessary extra "n".
M "Okay, maybe I've been reading alt.usage.english too much" G
--
"It's the gaps between the rain that count,
and learning how to live amongst them"
-- Jeff Noon, _Pixel Juice_
Matt Gibson http://www.gothick.dial.pipex.com
Alexander
<k_og...@kompass.ie> wrote:
>Otherwise, expect first to be flamed and then to be ignored.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. >:)
Ben Wilson
writes
>Erm legally a broken glass used in this way is classed as a weapon.
>
>A weapon by definition is a device that can be used to cause harm.
>So a glass broken deliberatly to cut someone is a weapon.
>
>???
One point I'm confused about (not that it makes much diference, but I'd
like to know anyway)
Was the glass in question:
1: Smashed in advance of the injury (ie: Smashed on a table, weilded as
a bladed weapon, then used to cause the injury)
2: Thrown (ie: Unbroken glass thrown, which smashed on contact, causing
the injury)
3: Other (eg: Unbroken glass smashed into face or something)
--
Ben 'Morgoth' Wilson
DJing @ Malice, Wag, Tenebrae,
and now:
*******************************************************
*** Tenebrae @ Electrowerks/Slimelight 12th Nov '99 ***
*** DJs Ben, Irish Dave, & Allen ***
*** More info and virtual flyer to come ***
*******************************************************
E-mail: dj...@armoury1.demon.co.uk
The Painted One
>Yeah which can be a pain if you defend yourself as you can still get done
>for injuring the other person. Dunno if anyone else does this but if I'm
>walking home alone from somewhere late at night I often carry a key (yale
>key or car key) with the top in my had and the jagged edge protruding out
>between my fingers. If someone was to try to attack and I got the chance
I'd
>use it as a weapon.
>
I think this falls under the purvue of 'reasonable force' which is one of
those wonderfull wooly terms so beloved of our legal system. There are no
hard and fast rules, its based on the situation, the level of threat and
also the relative difference between the two parties. In other words,if you
are a small slightly built female who is approached by a 6 ft bruiser, you
will get away with more as you will need to be fairly extreme to defend
yourself. On the other hand if you are 6ft 4 and weigh 15 stone, and are
then started upon by a 7 stone 16 year old, you basically cant touch him
without going beyond what is reasonable (I was confronted with this very
situation last week).
The police also try to be human about this, if you are obviously the victim
and have just done whatever you could to protect yourself and escape, you
should be ok. Its when your response is out of all proportion to the
incident that your are in the shit. Or if you continued after you had an
opportunity to get away.
However do be carefull about going around 'prepared', or at least telling
people such. That could constitute malice of forethought, which a prosecuter
could use against you :-)