Council accused of ‘misleading’ the public over licensing consultation
Dinerama, the launch venue of the We Love Hackney campaign
Campaigners have accused the council of “misleading” local residents and businesses over the reasons for abandoning a controversial licensing consultation.
Licensing committee chair Emma Plouviez announced the council’s consultation was being “delayed” due to a “minor error” which was “not related to the part of the consultation affecting nightclub opening hours”.
But a total of eight incorrect closing times were highlighted in a document provided by the council to the Hackney Citizen, one of which brings forward the closing times of nightclubs from 12pm to 11pm in some parts of the borough.
Jonathan Downey, a partner in Dinerama and Hackney resident said the council’s statement was “misleading” and called for a “change of approach and a change of personnel”.
He said: “They are trying to fudge the issue and trying to get something through under the radar which is not what they should be doing in their position.
“They should be open and transparent. There is a pattern of inappropriate behaviour from elected officials doing important work for local residents and local businesses.”
“Licensing officers need to consider their position, because from where I’m standing, they are not considered appropriate.”
Campaigners also claim a licensing officer said the changes were only in relation to “takeaway opening hours”.
Hackney Council did not respond to a request for comment.
The only thing that is misleading is the “We Love Hackney” campaign itself. Totally misrepresents what the draft policy says. Bound to get thousands of “residents” to sign up when they’re promised free food and free booze.
Luke Watson, what is wrong with campaigners spending their money to rally others to their cause? Should they be under more scrutiny than elected official paid to represent us with integrity?
There seems to be a lack of honesty on both sides, but the lies told by “We Love Hackney” are particularly egregious. They make it look as if the council wants to shut down all the nightlife in Shoreditch and Dalston and then tell people they have to sign up in order to save it. This is beyond laughable when you consider what was actually being proposed.
@Marcel Pagnol I have no problem with a campaign based on the real facts, but the welovehackney campaign is only loosely based on the truth. It exaggerated/misrepresented what the policy proposed in order to get people to sign up. The launch party demonstrated this even further.
Are those people in the picture a true representation of Hackney?
I am going to add my voice to to the frustration others have voiced at this ludicrous disinformation being put out by the ‘We Love Hackney’ campaign, many of which are happily and readily repeated by the Hackney Citizen in a rather dull Leader piece.
It is clear there were significant errors and right that it should be suspended but given the outrage from this campaign and the vested interest of existing bar owners it is necessary to just point out that this was a consultation. Not an arbitrary piece of local legislation rubber stamped in a closed session. Nor are the proposals suggesting a ‘return to the 80s’ or a revoking of existing licenses. Just an opportunity to discuss how to manage the differing needs and desires of a burgeoning borough.
That includes residents – not just homeowners but renters who live, party but also sleep (or try to) in Hackney. Worth remembering that many shouting loudly and most incoherently are those who already have enterprises that can earn a huge amount of profit with little social responsibility but a huge desire to keep investing in new ventures to make more money whilst probably living well away from the chaotic areas they are creating.
It is simply high time that licences and licensing hours were discussed and ideally all applications for new licences were given greater scrutiny and that neighbours were consulted. At present it’s a painful process when all they need do is display an A4 piece of paper (that few bother to read) informing all and sundry (who choose to stop and see it) of their intentions. Neighbours are not consulted for fear of ‘touting for objections’. A ludicrous and one sided system that plays against residents.