IT seems like a lifetime ago now, over 20 years anyway, but I remember my company was pulled up in front of the then-feared, no messing, autocratic Glasgow Licensing Board to respond to complaints of public nuisance and disorder outside a nightclub I co-owned in Shawlands.
Very serious allegations, that carried with it loss of trading hours, suspension or removal of its full entertainment licence.
The allegations were mainly centred on a couple of neighbours’ complaints, that on leaving the premises at 2am, inebriated punters would gather and hang about outside shouting and bawling while they queued for taxis.
Our lawyer decided, rightly in my opinion, that rather than argue with the board over the veracity of the complaints, in effect endorsing the notion that the club itself was part of the problem, to approach the problem from another angle and suggest a newly proven, well researched noise mitigation measure and instead become part of the solution.
Unfortunately, that reasonable and sane approach backfired spectacularly. The board went tonto, accused us of not taking the complaints seriously and making a public mockery of them and their high office.
In an explosive rant and tantrum, they slapped us with an indefinite reduction in our trading hours, which in effect was the worse of the three punishments, as it stopped us from being able to trade properly and there was no appeal process.
What was it our lawyer said that had enraged the uncompromising purple-faced members of the board and forced then to self-combust and kill our club? What well researched, proven, sensible but insulting solution did he offer up that would eventually cost us fortunes in a judicial review, one year later, to put right?
He suggested that on leaving the premises, the punters should be given lollipops to suck and that that would keep them quiet.
I can laugh about it all now but back then I was traumatised and in shock because he was right. Research in England had conclusively proven that eating sweets on the way out did mitigate noise pollution and reduce disorder. Sadly that evidence cut no slack with the board, it just severed our income.
I bring this up now because of recent events, namely the response from the Scottish Government to the rise of the Indian variant in the Glasgow area. They overreacted and, at the 11th hour, shut down the city by not moving it to level 2. They put many businesses at risk and jobs on the line. I also mention it because of last Saturday's disgraceful, frightening and shameful scenes of drunken violence that took place in George Square.
I fear that unless the Scottish Government look at these serious issues and problems from a different perspective, and try to find new ways to tackle the problem, especially Scotland’s not-so secret shame of sectarianism and bigotry, they are in danger of alienating many businesses and large sections of the community.
READ MORE: Herald Diary: A reason for rejection, right under his nose
They risk putting paid to any chances of fully recovering from this awful, debilitating and extremely polarising pandemic. In not properly consulting or engaging with those businesses now staring into the financial abyss, is the Scottish Government and indeed the chief medical officer Jason Leitch not in danger of being seen as part of the problem, rather than the solution?
Equally, with regards the scenes of chaos that shamed Rangers Football Club, the city and the country, should the authorities not accept some degree of responsibility for what happened?
They knew trouble was likely well in advance and couldn’t be contained so why wasn’t the stadium opened for the Rangers fans? It would have taken the sting out of the mob and diluted the numbers intent on going into the city. Until they engage fully rather than threaten the club with sanctions, they again will be seen as being part of the problem not the solution.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel