Fabric Closure Could Do More Harm Than Good
The verdict was delivered in the early hours of Wednesday morning: Fabric — one of Britain’s most popular nightclubs — is to be closed, permanently. Scores of weary-eyed, dressing gown-clad individuals gathered outside Islington Town Hall hailing the dismantling of the night-time economy and the dawning of the tea-time economy — where sales of Horlicks rocket, being the last to bed is frowned upon, and listening to music faster than Breakbeat is considered outrageous.
Obviously, only the first sentence of the above paragraph is true. There is a reason for the exaggeration, though; with such a huge wave of resistance against the closure of the world-renowned club — particularly from over 150,000 online supporters — and relatively small numbers in favour, you have to ask the question: in whose interest was this decision by Islington Borough Council made? Certainly, scrolling through the comments using the #FabricReview hashtag — which momentarily excited textile enthusiasts — demonstrated that the club, according to the people it has served, has provided a sense of security, community, and unforgettable moments.
It’s important to recognise why the license was called into question — two deaths in the space of nine weeks is tragic. In total, this means there have been six accidental deaths at the club in the past four years. But, it would be wrong to suggest that the club hasn’t implemented tough measures in response to incidents in the past. Fabric have made clear they have a zero-tolerance policy towards drug taking in the venue, which is evident before you get through the door: drug searches, improved CCTV, numerous security staff patrolling the inside, warnings placed around the club — almost as thorough as airport security, but without the rubber glove treatment. It was only eight months ago that they were described as a ‘beacon of best practice’ by a judge.
According to the Office for National Statistics, in 2014, there were 1,720 deaths in England and Wales due to accidental poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances. In the same year, there were 8,697 alcohol-related deaths in the U.K., so I’m wondering when I’m going to see a string of pub closures; except we never will, because we don’t take action on drugs based on the harm they represent to society, but on popularity and money. The profits derived by the alcohol industry, and the consequent revenue stream to the government, means that there are vested interests which cause a disproportionate response.
History has taught us on many occasions that taking the prohibition approach only gives rise to more illicit and unregulated forms of activity, which will be harder for the police to deal with — and they are stretched enough as it is. It shows us that, no matter what hard-line approach is taken, people will find a way to circumvent the system. That is why individuals continue to sneak illegal substances into festivals and clubs, because it doesn’t stem demand. Instead, we see the loss of jobs — 250 staff in the case of Fabric — and many other resident DJs losing a steady stream of income; and not to mention the thousands of music fans who pass through their doors each week who are being unfairly penalised.
The drug problem that we experience in society is not being tackled at source; instead, we are resorting to punitive measures against a venue that contributes a lot more to the night-time economy and vibrancy of the city than other similar establishments.
In one of the closing statements, made by the licensing sub-committee chair, Flora Williamson, she said: “There is a culture of drugs at Fabric which management cannot control.” No, there is a culture of drugs on a much larger scale, and closing a treasured 2,500-capacity club in Farringdon is not going to help control it. Fabric was doing its bit to reduce drug-related deaths; now the government needs to change their approach.
If you enjoyed reading this, please click the ♥ below. This will help to share the story with others.
