View Full Version : Camden club want to fingerprint you,so you can smoke.
http://thelondonpaper.typepad.com/thelondongossip/2007/08/koko-fags-and-f.html
Is that even legal? It can't be :D
I guess clubs are going to have security stationed in the toilets now. :(
detective-boy
07-08-2007, 12:29
Is that even legal?
Yes. Why shouldn't it be? Their gaff, their rules. Don't like it, don't go. It's only a variation on the theme of many access control systems now available.
littlebabyjesus
07-08-2007, 12:35
Yes. Why shouldn't it be? Their gaff, their rules.
Hmmm. It's not quite as simple as that, is it?
It's my gaffe, so I don't want blacks, women, over 40s. No, all that is illegal.
If this isn't illegal, it should be. There should be strict limits on the amount of information a private company is allowed to keep on its customers.
Yes. Why shouldn't it be? Their gaff, their rules. Don't like it, don't go. It's only a variation on the theme of many access control systems now available.
Either that or give up a medically proven dangerous drug addiction that will harm you and those around you, in an enclosed space. Just a thought... ;)
littlebabyjesus
07-08-2007, 12:37
Either that or give up a medically proven dangerous drug addiction that will harm you and those around you. Just a thought... ;)
Fucking puritan.
Harm those around you on the pavement? How?
Yes. Why shouldn't it be? Their gaff, their rules. Don't like it, don't go. It's only a variation on the theme of many access control systems now available.
Hopefully there's enough smokers who'll stop going to koko, thus they'll have to change their mind.
Yossarian
07-08-2007, 12:39
So I can come and go from this country and any other one in Europe as I please without a fingerprint scan, but I'll need one if I want to leave some poxy club for a fag? :D
I suspect Koko's may be one of the establishments that doesn't survive the ban...
Fucking puritan.
Harm those around you on the pavement? How?
Smoking on the street kills bunny wabbits. Remember, you heard it here first.
The Fingerprint method at Koko is to speed the process up and keep the place secure (people going out for a fag and giving their ticket to someone else). Fingerprints are deleted on re-entry....
Fucking hell some people are paranoid... :rolleyes:
The time limits are ridiculous though!!
Harm those around you on the pavement? How?
I was meaning an enclosed space...
The time limits are ridiculous though!!
Once it gets a bit colder I don't think they'll need them... :D
littlebabyjesus
07-08-2007, 12:50
I was meaning an enclosed space...
The whole point is that they have to go outside to have a fag, and the club's worried they'll go elsewhere for a cheaper drink.:rolleyes:
Once it gets a bit colder I don't think they'll need them... :D
You fail to see the resolve of a hardened smoker :)
Rain or shine, even snow, people will still be going out for a fag.
Maybe they should lower their drinks prices? AHAHAHAHAHAH. hmm.
This is all arse. What's wrong with handstamps? Or coloured wrist bands like at the swimming pool. You get a 15minute window. If there's only 5 minutes of the current window left then you can hang on til the next colour wrist band. I can see that going smoothly... :D
Sod it all.
The whole point is that they have to go outside to have a fag, and the club's worried they'll go elsewhere for a cheaper drink.:rolleyes:
Unlikely... Its probably more to do with people trying to get in free and generally controlling people entering/exiting...
Anyhow, if you give up smoking you don't have to deal with this...
http://thelondonpaper.typepad.com/thelondongossip/2007/08/koko-fags-and-f.html
Who'd want to go to a club that forces that kind of shit on its customers anyway?
Fruitloop
07-08-2007, 13:00
Well quite.
littlebabyjesus
07-08-2007, 13:01
Anyhow, if you give up smoking you don't have to deal with this...
..and if you give up moralising at people, you'll make more friends.
I suspect Koko's may be one of the establishments that doesn't survive the ban...It's been going for decades under different names so I guess it'll battle on.
Its various incarnations include the 'Music Machine' (punk rock and chicken in the basket) and the 'Camden Palace', home of the legendary indie night, Feet First.
..and if you give up moralising at people, you'll make more friends.
I'm not "moralising". Just pointing out that there's a way to avoid this system... (And I'm not here to make friends... Got quite enough of those in real life, thanks... :D)
Fruitloop
07-08-2007, 13:04
I always assumed that queueing up for ages, paying through the nose to get pushed about by arsy bouncers, and having your pockets gone through etc appeals to the same masochistic element in the British national character that has Tory politicians paying middle-aged ladies a fortune to hit them with sticks. There's certainly no other plausible explanation.
littlebabyjesus
07-08-2007, 13:07
I'm not "moralising". Just pointing out that there's a way to avoid this system...
Yeah, because nobody had thought of that.:rolleyes:
Thanks for the insight.
bluestreak
07-08-2007, 13:08
the annoying think about koko is that despite being loathsome in so many ways, not least the mark up at the bar which means you pay about 3.50 for a CAN of lager, and their poncey entrance/exit system means that it can take ages to get out, they do show some damn good bands. fucking cunts.
I saw the Psychedelic Furs and Dexys Midnight Runners (on their first tour) at that venue.
*Awesome* gigs!
detective-boy
07-08-2007, 13:29
If this isn't illegal, it should be. There should be strict limits on the amount of information a private company is allowed to keep on its customers.
There is. It's called the Data Protection Act.
(Oh, and no over 40's isn't illegal anyway)
Who'd want to go to a club that forces that kind of shit on its customers anyway?
certainly not me!!
I mean,I went to Camden Palace about 3 times,and had an ok-ish time (house/trance nights) But I'd never had gone in if they had this in progress. Hell,I won't go into a venue that doesn't allow trainers :D
lights.out.london
07-08-2007, 14:06
Yes. Why shouldn't it be? Their gaff, their rules. Don't like it, don't go. It's only a variation on the theme of many access control systems now available.
Lame. Very lame. Won't work in law.
"Must do better. DB has potential but is easily distracted. We hope next term, he puts recent challenging events on the interweb behind him and knuckles down to some real work!"
poster342002
07-08-2007, 14:11
Who'd want to go to a club that forces that kind of shit on its customers anyway?
The trouble is, once one of them starts doing it, they'll all be doing it sooner or later.
detective-boy
07-08-2007, 14:13
Won't work in law.
Why not?
GarfieldLeChat
07-08-2007, 14:21
I'm not "moralising". Just pointing out that there's a way to avoid this system... (And I'm not here to make friends... Got quite enough of those in real life, thanks... :D)
well the former is apparent to all present tbh and the later is a work of pure fantasy ... who the hell in reality would befriend a waste of skin like you??
The trouble is, once one of them starts doing it, they'll all be doing it sooner or later.
Only if is an affordable solution...
The trouble is, once one of them starts doing it, they'll all be doing it sooner or later.Not the kind of clubs I go to.
who the hell in reality would befriend a waste of skin like you??Pleeeeeaaaase cut out the uncalled for personal attacks.
paolo999
08-08-2007, 01:25
Better than some venues. Carling academy islington, for example, is plain and simple "no readmission".
If I trusted the venue to delete the info (which I would, it has little value without a name attached), then fine... if I really wanted to go there, of course. ;)
As for the rather harsh time limit - I suspect it's to minimise the amount of "spill out" onto the street.
London_Calling
08-08-2007, 06:26
There's nothing to say the club are also requiring names, just that a fingerprint matches that of someone who was in the place earlier - same principle as a doorman with a marker pen, etc.
I agree it's unpleasant, but as longh as there's no name associated with it, is it such a problem ?
DeadManWalking
08-08-2007, 08:06
I read about this elsewhere and they said it only applies to their club nights, gigs will be no readmission.
subversplat
08-08-2007, 08:19
The time limits are ridiculous though!!
Maybe they should just start handcuffing people to the railings if they want a cigarette! :rolleyes: :D
kokos new policy sounds a bit "1984" to me..im really disliking large commercially oriented rock/indie venues more and more..they are constantly thinking of ever new ways to get more and more of our shiny gold coins:(
probably the last time i went to this type of venue was a few years ago for le tigre at the forum ..not ever been to koko,never heard a good word said about the place..i found islington academy to be tolerable the few times i went, again this was awhile back.. (didnt experience bag searches..is that why im saying this?;)
i dislike no re-admittance rules too,this must be hell for smokers,seems like so many are quitting now ...i suppose from a smoker point of view or even a freedom lover point of view(wanting fresh air, to clear yr head,to make a phone call etc)allowing re-admittance is helpful but the fingerscan thing is creepy:(
on a positive note..voting with yr feet, starting up alternatives, supporting music events run more for love than money are all great..
lights.out.london
08-08-2007, 10:20
Why not?
Privacy is not a defence against discrimination.
Privacy is not a defence against discrimination.
Go on then, how is this "discrimination"...? I'm guessing that they will fingerprint anyone who says they are going to come back in, smoker or not... :rolleyes:
detective-boy
08-08-2007, 10:40
Privacy is not a defence against discrimination.
I'm not sure you know what you are talking about.
You seemed to be saying that the owners of private premises could not impose whatever rules they wanted as a condition of entry/re-entry, including, if they so wished the requirement to provide a fingerprint.
I don't see how your new statement justifies that position. The only discrimination which is unlawful is that based on race, gender, disability or sexuality in terms of the provision of services. There is no indication of any discriminatory use of the fingerprinting unless you are suggesting it discriminates against smokers. Even if it does, that would be perfectly legal.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.