Forum Topic

LBHF 'named and shamed'

LBHF has been publicly 'named and shamed' in front of millions over its refusal to help out the Ginglik club/pub on Shepherds Bush Green.All is revealed on this Friday's Al Murray Happy Hour show on ITV at 2200.

Charles Lawrence ● 6119d22 Comments

He appeared there recently in a surprise performance - have to say any venue who can attracts acts of that calibre must be worth trying to keep.

Andy Jones ● 6007d

There is some interesting discussion of this issue on www.shepherdsbushw12.com. There is a lot more to the matter than I originally thought.

Karen Cooper ● 6064d

Or the venue could get an independent assessment of the cost of bringing the premises upto standard.

Karen Cooper ● 6077d

In which case they could probably quash bad feeling about this issue by putting the engineer's report that came up with the cost of £300,000 in the public domain.

Paul Corcoran ● 6094d

The save Ginglik link posted above states that H&F are the landlord.

Karen Cooper ● 6104d

Andrew, like you I am working on the basis of an assumption. I don't know if the Council actually own the site. The only reason that the Council should invest this money is if the yield on their asset justifies it. I would have thought given the site the rent that could be derived from it would be quite healthy. I can't see any reason why the Council wouldn't sell the site or increase the rent if these were viable options.Or maybe there is more to this than we are being told - structural damage caused by the Westfield Development?

Paul Corcoran ● 6112d

I thought it was a health and safety reason why they needed the investment to be done.  Seems that if Ginglik want to keep running the business then they need to make that investment. If they aren't prepared to/can't afford to invest in the H&S aspects of the business then maybe the council should offer the space up to someone who can, or do the most cost effective thing (ie fill it with concrete).  If the site were to be used for a community purpose rather than a private enterprise then the council would be justified in doing the works, or if the return generated from leasing the property were sufficient to justify the investment.  The council has to make the most cost effective decision with regard to how they spend their (limited) funds.

Emma Thatcher ● 6112d

PaulYour reply implies that the Council owns the Ginglik site.  If so, I'm surprised that people think that the council should invest £300k of taxpayers money to renovate a site which is used for a private business.Maybe I've misunderstood the situation, but whilst I can see why the proprietors of Ginglik want to see the council invest that money, I don't see what would be in it for the council.Maybe someone can elighten me ?

Andrew Broadbent ● 6113d

There is as an alternative the very excellent purpose built (with no public money) Headliners club in Chiswick which is a short bus ride away from Ginglik. People like Bob Mills, Lucy Porter and Jo Caulfield are due to perform there this month.That said, whatever the future of Ginglik I think concreting in the space would be a huge waste. Trading on the site will have been hard with all the building work and the station closed but once everything is open it would be a prime site and an investment of £300,000 by the Council might be justified. Alternatively they could put it on the market.

Paul Corcoran ● 6113d

thanks Andrew!  that makes perfect sense.  you are an asset!

Sarah Taylor ● 6113d

My take on it is :- LBHF owns the lease on the underground space which Ginglik occupies- LBHF is improving Shep Bush green- the Council says that in order to extend Ginglik's lease, they need to spend £300k to fix the roof and the damp in the walls.  Or fill the whole space with concrete (at considerably less cost) thereby (obviously) closing it down- LBHF wants to fill it with concreteMy question - do the proprieters of Ginglik own the building, or lease it from LBHF ?- if they don't own it, maybe they could offer to buy it ?- if they do own it, then it seems that the Council is making their lives difficultDoes that about sum it up ?

Andrew Broadbent ● 6113d

The link is there...the site explains in detail what the debate is about...how much of an effort is it to click a link and read? Anything else you want me to precis for you?

Charles Lawrence ● 6114d

I said 'not interested *enough*'.  No need for you to bother at all if you don't wish to, but it does make the forum rather pointless, n'est ce pas?

Sarah Taylor ● 6114d

Fair enough, Sarah, but if you're not interested why should I bother?

Charles Lawrence ● 6114d

Trouble is, Charles, I'm not interested enough to click through on your link.  Would you be able to provide a short summary, please?  Thanks!

Sarah Taylor ● 6114d

It's explained here:http://www.ginglik.co.uk/saveginglik.html

Charles Lawrence ● 6114d

Maybe if you could explain to us (or me, at least) why the Council should spend £300k on a private business, we (or I) might be able to ascertain who is making the 'false argument' here.

Andrew Broadbent ● 6114d

I understand the term priorities than you. As I stated there is public money already given to support comedy in the borough. Like any spending of tax revenues the cost and benefit has to be carefully considered. Is Ginglik such an important asset that £300,000 has to be spent on it. It claims to have over 20,000 members who if they all gave a bit more than a tenner would be able to rescue it.I don't get the impression there is that strong a desire to save the club. The furore when the Bush Theatre was threatened with the withdrawal of its Arts Council grant was much greater than for Ginglik.

Karen Cooper ● 6115d

Higher priorities, yes, but why should that mean to the exclusion of other things? No one has suggested that this money should replace expenditure on essential services so I think you are posing a false dichotomy. Yours is a false argument or maybe you are using the word 'priorities' without understanding its true meaning.

Charles Lawrence ● 6117d

It is partly rhetorical - I have read the background on the reports on this site and elsewhere and still remain unclear why £300,000 of public money should be spent on a private club. Comedy is already put on at subsidised venues like the Lyric and the Riverside and there is no shortage of comedy venues in West London. I think most people would tend to think schools, social services, refuse collection and housing were higher priorities than comedy clubs.

Karen Cooper ● 6118d

Is that a rhetorical query? Or do you not know the background to this story? Did you not know that it's the council that is directly responsible for the threat posed to this very popular amenity? And why should comedy clubs not be high on the council's list of priorities? Do they not add to the quality of life in the borough?

Charles Lawrence ● 6118d

How exactly are the Council to be blamed for this? I would have thought they had other prioirities than bailing out comedy clubs.

Karen Cooper ● 6119d