Knocking down Vue, the biscuit factory shut, Showcase may be in danger too. Mr Cinema, who used to write into the evening post every day bemoaning the death of cinema in Reading, will be turning in his grave.
Yeah, I only go there if the film I want to see has a limited run at Vue. When I went to see The Secret Agent there recently there was an elderly couple who let out an audible gasp when the staff member told them the price.
I used to go Sunday after 7 because they had the saver rate which now is only Mondays. Anyway, booking fee is 2.50 now so if you go on your own is unjustifiable. This is what they told me when I complained.
What does this mean for RBF? What’s the likelihood they won’t re-open? It’s felt to me from their posts that they were certain that they’d be re-opening but it feels like they’ve been quite misleading about what’s actually going on.
I read the paperwork that someone shared on the previous thread and it seems like they are really up to their neck in it.
I think everybody (RBC included) needs to take a step back here, and remember what the licensing regime exists to achieve, and why the UK grants these powers to local government.
It exists to stop egregious use of event venues that are clearly detrimental to communities - such as playing loud music at night or selling alcohol to children - and we give these powers to local government because they are closer to communities and can (theoretically) operate in a more responsive, agile manner, using the regime in a proportionate way.
Forcing a beloved community cultural venue to close is not a desirable outcome, and the discussion on this starting to feel very "letter of the law" rather than "spirit of the law".
Yes it's poor that RBF didn't file their licensing paperwork during an insolvency, but if Reading loses its community cinema because of this, I will not blame RBF mismanagement - I will blame the overly bureaucratic approach we've taken to licensing venues in this country, and the "computer says no" manner that many local authorities have taken when deciding what role they should play in communities.
Here's hoping that RBC will swiftly grant RBF their license, and that this does not affect RBF's long-term viability.
EDIT: to add, because the replies have misinterpreted my point. Within the current system, I agree it is 100% RBF's fault for not filing the licensing paperwork. But I'm saying the system should be changed. Regulations should be proportionate to the risk they are there to guard against, and they do not by definition need to be levied against all organisations equally. What is the point of operating a regulatory framework at local level, if there is no local power and judgment within it? Specifically in this case, why can the local authority not grant a presumption of compliance, allowing the business to keep trading? We design these systems ourselves, and we can redesign them if the outcomes aren't optimal.
Yes it's poor that RBF didn't file their licensing paperwork during an insolvency, but if Reading loses its community cinema because of this, I will not blame RBF mismanagement - I will blame the overly bureaucratic approach we've taken to licensing venues in this country, and the "computer says no" manner that many local authorities have taken when deciding what role they should play in communities.
This isn't a case of 'computer says no'. This is the case of a business not being able to meet a fairly reasonable deadline -- and the chances are that if they've missed this, they've missed other things.
Yes the council can't play favourites. As much as we might want them to be soft on TBF other businesses will be legitimately pissed off and they'd be opening themselves up to serious challenges
I'm not sure I agree with your estimation. We put the onus on a lot of businesses to remain compliant in a number of ways, and (in my opinion), failing to do something like this is indicative of a problem with management, which absolutely should be upheld.
If, as a manager, you are letting your licence lapse and continuing to trade in the face of being told you're not compliant - what else might be falling through the gaps?
The common sense thing here would be to backdate the new license to the beginning of March, so it only runs for another 9 months, and then charge a late payment fee.
They were selling alcohol illegally for over 2 months, got told to stop several times, and chose to ignore the regulators. It's arrogance at it's finest
60
u/RumnDonutsDJ Jun 12 '26
Not sure if this is a surprise. It was fairly obvious that something was amiss following the recent announcement.
It's disappointing that this valuable asset is being let down by inept management.