Super Cuts appeals

Super Cuts, the Upper Brockley Road off license that had its license withdrawn earlier this year, has appealed the decision. The News Shopper reports that the decision to withdraw it followed CCTV footage being shown of an:

Illegal street party which culminated in around 600 revellers fleeing in panic as a gun was fired. The Met police argued the off licence had helped organise the party and had caused problems for residents over many years.


The appeal will be heard in mid-November.

63 comments:

HardliaNotion said...

Heh. Good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

Wonder what Cllr Duwayne Brooks will think of that.

Anonymous said...

Is this store part of a chain or franchise ?

Anonymous said...

good luck to them, they have a right to appeal against a decision as much as anybody else

Brockley Nick said...

They certainly do have that right - did anyone suggest otherwise. But the appeal will consider the merits of their case, which is another matter.

Supertw@ts said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rumpole said...

It's standard practice in all civilised countires. If your bussiness has a ruling against it or if your planning permision for a new conservatory has been refused, you can appeal - assuming you have grounds for an appeal. If it's thrown out, end of story. Don't get in a hissy fit. The law is based on a balance of probability, it's a judgement call. If yuo want top throw a thousand years of leagl proccess in the bin, move to some despotic regime in the middle east.

I susspoect they will loose anyway, be happy that we have a system where citizens can cahllange the law. They are OUR laws.

Anonymous said...

All rise for the right honourable Justice Mung. The prosecution will be represented by Trinny Homemade Crafts and the Jury is made up of members of the Brocsoc.

Anonymous said...

"did anyone suggest otherwise."

no Nick, only you by saying that - why would anyone suggest otherwise?

cola said...

This is a real community breakdown failure. This will be a real shame if SuperCuts is forced to close as a result of losing its license.

There's been so much hostility and condemnation towards this shop, bourne from a lack of understanding and engagement.

Asher the shop owner has said he can control what goes in his shop but not the street outside. This has to be a police issue, he is not a vigiliantee.

Nailor said...

On the Tuesday night of the riots this was the only shop left open in Brockley, when I went in the owner was arguing with a women who thought the riots were justified, he was saying there was indeed no justification for them and refusing to be intimidated and to close the shop.

I thought this was pretty laudable given the circumstances, and I hope he is successful in the appeal.

NAT said...

Taylors on Tyrwhitt Road stayed open.

NAT said...

And @ cola. If you're supplying power to a gathering outside your door you have the type of control over what goes on outside your door known as a switch.

Anonymous said...

He said he can't control what goes on outside his shop ? Surely running a power cable to a sound system with 600 people drunk on his booze that resulted in 35 complaints to the police and a man shooting a firearm was in some way controllable by him ?

Brockley Nick said...

Loads of places stayed open.

cola said...

I can understand that people who've paid a lot for the homes and want a quiet life would object to a party.

But you must remember street parties were encouraged to celebrate the Royal Wedding. Indeed some who were actively opposed to it were arrested.

What should have happened is negotiation, the police or whomever speak to Asher negotiate a reasonable noise level and time to end event and hopefully most people accomodated.
That the event whether organised by or just assisted by Supercuts or not (I'm not sure) went wrong, is a real, real shame. But you cannot say the shop was responsible for a gun and shots being fired, anymore than you can blame St Peter's Court residents for having a gun stash in their bins. Or Broca for having a pursued man, running into their shop.

Again I ask where were the police? whenever there are crowds, there's a risk someone will see it as an opportunity for disorder this applies to Glastonbury, Notting Hill Carnival and street parties.

Brockley Nick said...

The difference with Glastonbury and Notting Hill Carnival of course is that the organisers do it with the permission of the police and local authorities and spend a whole year working out how to minimise disruption, anti-social behaviour, etc.

It's not only people who have bought houses there that object to some of the problems that occur at that spot - people of all means and backgrounds are affected. There are lots of different types of homes located there.

NAT said...

Didn't Royal wedding street parties need to get a licence?

Brockley Nick said...

NAT, to be fair, the Tories saw Royal Wedding street parties as an opportunity to talk about "common sense" and bash councils for being too bureaucratic. This is what he said ahead of time, you can see there might have been some confusion:

"Samantha and I will be holding one in Downing Street and bringing together local people and charities.

"It's incredibly simple. All you need to do is to get in touch with your council if you need to close the road. They'll let you know if there are any issues.

"My message to everyone who wants to have a street party is: I'm having one and I want you to go ahead and have one too.

"The truth is that this is a great chance for communities to come together and celebrate.

"So go on - bring out the bunting and let's make this a day to remember. For everyone."

Minister for health and safety Chris Grayling said: "The royal wedding will be a great national occasion and I want to reassure everyone that they can have street parties with friends and family and bring out the bunting to celebrate in time-honoured British tradition.

"There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to ban these celebrations on the grounds of health and safety. We are restoring common sense to our health and safety system, ensuring it is there to protect people at work not penalise people at leisure."

NAT said...

Could well be wrong Nick but I thought a licence was applied for in this case and turned down.

Anonymous said...

and if you want to have a street party , how about having it in the street where you live ? The people that had the party don't live on the Parade but I do. AND I wasn't invited!!

cola said...

If you had turned up in party mode I doubt you would have faced any objection.

Anonymous said...

Weren't there claims of gunshots at this party?

Non-house owner who likes to party said...

"I can understand that people who've paid a lot for the homes and want a quiet life would object to a party."

What a ridiculous, narrow-minded, chip-on-the-shoulder statement. Objecting to excessive noise and the type of events that occurred in this case is hardly the sole preserve of people who own expensive houses.

Anonymous said...

I'd imagine a few on here would've faced objection if they'd asked after the organic fennel.

cola said...

See what I mean they don't understand and it's just outright hostility, rudeness and aggresssion and you wonder why Asher has had it up to here with you guys and bridges were burnt.

Westsider said...

Cola, no I don't see what you mean.

joej said...

Cola you write 'street parties were encouraged to celebrate the Royal Wedding. ' - but they also had to be approved, this was an illegal party.

I live only a walk from there, I was driven from my home because of the noise and disturbance.

What about my quality of life? I live in the area where many of the 600 who attended didn't.

The celebrations were meant to bring communities togethere - this did not - instead caused a disturbance and use of illegal weapons.

Try living here. Its the most unwelcome shop in the neigbourhood unless your a 'known' member.

Despite a consevation area, the shop encourages its customers to drink outside, open containers, plastic cups etc. I pay service charges to have my property kept clean, on top of council tax.

If Supercuts does not lose its license I may force a civil lawsuit, as I have evidence it has disrupted my quality of life.

Authorities need to enforce the rules, and enforce publiic disturbances - or I may just put it in my own hands to solve. Its all well documented.

Remember you can sue a bar for serving you too much alcohol, and in this case I may just do the same for public disturbances which meant I had to leave my own home because of some illegal street party with excessive noise, sponsored and supported by Supercuts.

Anonymous said...

Actually, David Cameron advised councils "not to interfere" - unfortunately, as we live in a Mung ward, they did.

cola said...

Asher pays business rates. Again if there is anti-social issues going on outside the shop that is for the police to sort out.

Maybe Asher could put an no loitering sign up, but you need to give some evidence to say he is encouraging drinking outside the shop. But then what is so bad about that?
's a bar on Harefield Road I always see people outside smoking on a narrow street and women with pushchairs having to get round them.

joej said...

'drinking outside' is banned in the area, it is an acholol free zone. It is a conservation area. Signs are posted everywhere.

I have evidence of groups outside shop with open containers etc. I have found cups on our property, even bottles and cans (champaigne etc)

It litters my home. I pay service charges to keep my property clean, on top of council tax. McDonalds sends its people out to clean the community - Supercuts does not.

Obviously you do not live very near it Cola - or perhaps your a supporter or 'member' of Supercuts. But I have photo and video evidence of disturbances from Supercuts.

cola said...

Supercuts is only a little offie in Brockley how can you compare it to McDonalds.

Street parties there happen once in a blue moon. And i repeat this about the failure of the police to their job.

Asher may well lose his livelihood cuz of all this, but you don't care it's only about your needs, your home, your quality of life.

There's no negoitation, just strip the shop of it's license and that's it. A business gone!

Nailor said...

@ Brockley Nick

Actually 'loads of places stayed open' is absolutely untrue, a couple of takeaways and pubs were but i didn't see a single shop open other than Supercuts

I cycled around trying to get a bottle of wine and the new Co-op, Gayle's, Quick Stop Shop, Best One (both of them), CostCutter (both of them), the shop in the Post Office, Tesco's, Mira and all of the other shops on Lewisham Way were all closed.

Hmmmmn I think we're seeing your bias here Nick...

Giles said...

Why on earth would he encourage people to drink outside the shop when it's threatening his livelihood? People have been hanging out there for years before Supercuts, and if it goes they will continue to do so. There are three shops selling booze 30 seconds away so they'll just buy it from there instead. I live within spitting distance of Supercuts and whilst it can get bawdy down there occasionally, this really is blown out of proportion. And yes the street party was very loud, as was both of the other ones I went to in other parts of London where no one complained.

Some neighbours presumably the same people on this website do have a vendetta against Supercuts. One of the neighbours told me they had been to a neighbourhood meeting to try and get it shut down early on this year, I wasn't invited however as I was seen to fraternise with the shop. I think it was organised by someone who everytime I bump into him talks about the price of his property.

The police need to enforce the no drinking zone, the same way the council need to enforce the current parking restrictions that this site is so keen on going on about. But it doesn't happen because it's not cost effective, so the easiest solution is seen as closing down the shop. Well if it happens it'll be amusing when everything stays exactly the same.

joej said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brockley Nick said...

@Nailor - geographical bias, perhaps. I live near Brockley Cross and there were plenty of open places. Regardless, whether or not other places stayed open during a riot is not material to this matter.

joej said...

@Giles

I completely agree - 'The police need to enforce the no drinking zone, the same way the council need to enforce the current parking restrictions'.

'closing down the shop, everything stays exactly the same.'- I hope not, but don't think Supercuts will be the only target here.

cola said...

"I hope not, but don't think Supercuts will be the only target here."

so you are targetting businesses in the area that you don't like?

joej said...

I'm not targeting businesses I don't like, just businesses that contribute to public disorder, such as illegal street parties etc.

cola said...

well what do you mean by what you said, what other businesses are in the firing line?

Anonymous said...

All who sell honest fare.

Sadly the BC regulars want a society where everywhere is a deli.

joej said...

@Cola - this is about Supercuts.

Why you so concerned about 'what other businesses are in the firing line?' - are you a member of the Parade who contributes to the public disorder that happens there?

The focus of this page is only about Supercuts.

Anonymous said...

Some people just sound like they don't like people having public parties. Everyone should be forced into their four walls even if it's for one day out of 365. Then we can walk down the street miserable, say hello at most to neighbours unless people behind their windows could hear it and damage their eardrums and we can all then live controlled in our places like a factory farm.

Tressilliana said...

'Sadly the BC regulars want a society where everywhere is a deli.'

I'm a BC regular and I don't want that as I wouldn't be able to afford to feed my family. Happy enough to use a deli for an occasional treat but for everyday I have to use the supermarkets and the market, like most other people round here.

Anonymous said...

Supercuts staff and a significant number of their friends and customers treat those who live on the Parade with zero respect. If you don't live here don't comment because you don't know what goes on despite the best efforts of some of us who live here to describe the situation. To suggest it is not their responsibility to control the behaviour of their own customers is unlikely to wash in a Magistrates Court anyway. To suggest also that those of us who complain are racists is laughable too and sounds very much like desperate clutching of straws to me.

lll said...

1. There are conflicting accounts of what goes on around the shop, by people in this thread who say they live on the road.

2. It's not for you to tell people not to comment on a public forum. This is not a court.

No one is stopping from describing in detail what has gone on.

3.There are always two sides to story no matter how cut and dried a case may appear.

4. Yours is the first comment to mention racism in this thread.

Anonymous said...

Yours is the second

Local said...

This guy of course has every right to appeal but we have to bear in mind that Supercuts is one of the various catalysts of actually some pretty terrible anti-social behaviour in the area. Closing this place down won't stop it 100%, probably, but it will have a major impact on the quality of life of local residents. What I find most offensive about some of the comments on this thread is the attempt to trivialise the issue: this is very serious. Some of my neighbours worry about leaving their flat for fear of abuse. The torment of noise, people drinking alcohol (served in open cups by the licensee!), music etc into the small hours is a regular occurrence. I wonder if these people have anything other than 'self' running through their internal monologues.

The discussion about folk being encouraged by the Government to have street parties is spurious. I think what was intended were family-friending jelly and tombola type events - something inclusive to anyone. What this was was an event which had a licence application rejected, music that drove people out of their homes, litter, gun shots... hardly something inclusive or attractive to most people. Again, people who think 'self self self' and have no sense of responsibility to others.

Sorry for the rant, but those who mention the necessity for civil action have my 100% backing. The police don't care, evidently.

Anonymous said...

The licensee needs to be interviewed by BC, so we can hear what he has to say.

NAT said...

Think you may find that the licencee is a whooooole other person, anon, and that there might be a reason for that.

GT said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

anyone see the cat fight on Upper Brockley Road today?

Anonymous said...

a double bottling. lovely to see on a saturday afternoon. idiots

Anonymous said...

Maybe it would be ok if the party was the only incedent,but it wasnt this shop has been anti social for years.

Anonymous said...

The idea of an interview with the licensee/owner tends to get hushed up pretty quickly every time it's mentioned... shades of Stephen Lawrence...

Danja said...

Do an interview then, and send it to Nick.

Brockley Nick said...

@Anon that is possibly the most ridiculous and offensive comment on here I have ever heard, especially as I went to school with Stephen Lawrence.

It's a fine idea, as Danja says, go ahead and do it. If it's well-written, I'll run it.

Brockley Nick said...

By the way, he has given his views in the past on this site himself. You should be able to find his comments yourself if you bother to look.

I can't say I found his argument very persuasive.

Anonymous said...

"Do an interview then, and send it to Nick."

"go ahead and do it. If it's well-written, I'll run it."

Passive-agression?

Why is it deli owners and handcrafted rubbish sellers get interviewed directly by the site but this guy doesn't?

Danja said...

Passive-agression?

Delicious irony.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, it's me again. The anonymous guy who said not interviewing a guy who lost his license after contributing to years of misery for local residents was was basically like the cover-up of a racist murder.

That was obviously an incredibly stupid thing to say and an insult to the memory of Stephen himself.

I say stupid things on the internet sometimes. It's a sickness, but one I have to come to terms with in my own time. Please bear with me as I struggle.

Also, I'm obviously never going to do the interview myself. I can't be bothered, so there's no point having that conversation. I'm just going to avoid the topic and I suggest you all do the same.

Sorry guys.

DT said...

New Anonymous - very clever! Yes, indeed a great spur on Stephen Lawrence's memory to evoke his name as part of a very feeble argument. Shameful actually.

The licensee is indeed conspicuous by his absence. Perhaps he is busy running his bar, sorry I mean off-licence.

Anonymous said...

I really hope this ban is upheld. The constant drunken shouting from that place until the small hours is driving me up the wall. I heard someone come out of there at 1 am this morning and smash up a car right outside Rokeby House. This has got to stop.

Brockley Central Label Cloud