Plug pulled on Sir Paul McCartney

Hermione_Granger

bazster wrote: »

The controversial incident has turned London into an international laughing stock just weeks before the 2012 Olympics.

The Daily Mail has it wrong again.

London was an international laughing stock long before this incident.
Wiith the chaos at Heathrow immigration, some of the decisions made by our esteemed Government, some of the "Human rights" decisions from our courts (I know that these are not always London based, but many of the headline cases are), the abundance of CCTV etc, our capital must already be a talking/laughing point amongst potential visitors.

paddyrg

I am still puzzled why Live Nation should have to risk/lose their license to operate the compound for the sake of a few tens of thousands of fans of two aged pop stars. If it was NDubz would it be any different? Nobody seems to want to justify these points, I suspect it is easier to feel hard done by.

RobertoMoir

paddyrg wrote: »

I am still puzzled why Live Nation should have to risk/lose their license to operate the compound for the sake of a few tens of thousands of fans of two aged pop stars. If it was NDubz would it be any different? Nobody seems to want to justify these points, I suspect it is easier to feel hard done by.

Well this is it, isn't it. As someone who enjoys those two artists, I'd be upset if it were my good time that was interrupted, sure...

But not as upset as I would be if the show was in a park near to me and it was, well actually your example of those god awful ndubz chavs will do just fine...

paddyrg

RobertoMoir wrote: »

Well this is it, isn't it. As someone who enjoys those two artists, I'd be upset if it were my good time that was interrupted, sure...

I enjoy a bit of 80's stadium rock myself, and want concertgoers to have a brilliant time, absolutely. I just think it is arrogant to put another company's livelihood at risk unnecessarily. And funnily enough, annoying as some more youth-oriented bands are, they can hit their slots professionally.

Populist, ill-informed headlines don't change the fact that a LN rep was forced into that position on the night - lose his company's license or upset a bunch of fans because the artist was too inconsiderate to finish at the time they legally agreed to in their contract. I have dealt with licensing meetings for large events - they are no laughing casual matter. The compound was being put at absolute risk if they had allowed the artists to overplay by even more than the 10 mins which anyone at all could wind up in. I personally would have hated to be the LN rep who had to make that decision, I really feel he/she was put in an impossible position.

Dave_C_2

I personally would have hated to be the LN rep who had to make that decision, I really feel he/she was put in an impossible position.

You did read my post number 22 didn't you?
The LN rep MUST have known Bruce Springsteen's reputation to overrun. Said LN rep is probably being paid ridiculous amounts of money for being in a position of such "great responsibility".
Pulling the plus was an easy option and easy to hide behind trivial rules. Finding a middle ground solution to satisfy the 109 residents and thousands of fans was obviously beyond this jobsworth!

Meh! Dave

And finally 10:30 on a Saturday night in Hyde Park! It's not exactly in the middle of a housing estate at 2:00 am is it? Residents of the serpentine and the Diana memorial must be up in arms!

Meh!

Kite2010

It wouldn't be bad if Hyde Park lost it's music license as it's not the best venue for music. Local businesses will suffer though (loss of trade).

shaun_from_Africa

Dave_C wrote: »

Finding a middle ground solution to satisfy the 109 residents and thousands of fans was obviously beyond this jobsworth!

There are far more that 109 residents living in that area.
All that article states is that last year there were complaints from 109 residents.

Many websites (including the Daily mail, which Bazster has used for quotes) state that the cutoff time was 10:15 and they concert wasn't stopped until 10:40, so they already allowed 25 minutes extra.
Springsteens guitarist admitted that if they were allowed to continue, it would have been 11pm by the time they finished, or 45 minutes past the time they should have stopped. (assuming that they didn't continue past 11pm)

Is there just too much fun in the world? We would have been off by 11 if we'd done one more.

paddyrg

Dave_C wrote: »

You did read my post number 22 didn't you?
The LN rep MUST have known Bruce Springsteen's reputation to overrun. Said LN rep is probably being paid ridiculous amounts of money for being in a position of such "great responsibility".
Pulling the plus was an easy option and easy to hide behind trivial rules.

I can't explain a whole industry late at night, but it doesn't work like that, so you know.

Sharon87

So Bruce Springsteen is known to overrun? I bet he plays mostly indoor arenas though? Which are much more lenient in terms of licensing, as the noise doesn't travel as far. When playing outdoor venues the rules are more strict because the noise can travel for miles, especially if pyros or fireworks were used.

The LN representative who pulled the plug was in the right here. If they had allowed another 5 minutes and they still hadn't been done, then where does it end? They were already given plenty of time to wrap up.

mttylad

art_for_arts_sake wrote: »

After his performance at the Jubilee Concert it's about time someone pulled the plug on him permanently. He's clearly dependent on his backing band to reach the high notes for him. Mind you, he still managed to turn in a better performance than Cliff. Time to move over for the youngsters.

Absolutely....