Richard Beggs, the managing director of Moving Venue, which had invited bankers to booze by maritime war memorials, is now asking us to sympathise with his clients becaus ethey now have to find another venue at short notice.
Here’s his statement:
“Moving Venue fully understands the position the surprising comments made by Trinity House has placed London Borough Tower Hamlets Council in and we can confirm that we are withdrawing from the proposed events at Trinity House.“Moving Venue had been told by Trinity House that they fully supported the project, confirming approval in June, and have, over the past eight months, looked at all relevant logistics of the event venue. Acknowledging the sensitivities around the venue location, from the outset we had robust plans in place to preserve the dignity and safeguard the security of the memorial gardens, which had been reviewed by London Borough Tower Hamlets Council during our discussions.
“However, following the pressure on London Borough Tower Hamlets Council, who have acted fairly and impeccably throughout, from adverse media coverage, Moving Venue confirms that it will not be using the venue. We are now in the process of contacting those clients that had made arrangements to use the venue, helping them to ensure they are able to find a suitable alternative at such short notice.
“We fully understand the concerns raised and had little hesitation in withdrawing the events, but would reiterate that we were invited by Trinity House to consider the site as a venue”.
Richard Beggs
Managing Director, Moving Venue
Trial by Jeory 
There’s always Bunhill Row cemetery if they want a tranquil location in the City 😉
I wonder what that story of Trinity house originally inviting them “to consider the site of a venue” is about? Wasn’t it the boss of Trinity house who set off the opposition? Maybe they thought they were going to get a larger share?
Have to say, I can understand their frustration. While the original event was far from being desirable, cancelling it at short notice is going to cause a big old headache for Moving Venue. (Given their company name you may expect them to be good at it tho!)
I suspect this is one company that will never want to do business with LBTH in the future, and understandably so.
(Before anyone suggests that I am suggesting that the event was a good idea, be very clear that I am not. It was a bad idea, and it rather seems that Moving Venue are being made the scapegoat for some monumentally poor planning and management on behalf of LBTH. And for that, I pity them.)
Tim
This only seems to confirm that:
* Moving Venue were pillocks
* Trinity House were pillocks – and
* LB Tower Hamlets were pillocks.
ANYBODY who ever thought that Trinity House Gardens could possibly be an OK location for bankers to booze is in urgent need of a “common sense” transplant!
My only sympathy lies with the families of those whose death is memorialised at this site.
Beggs aka ‘Moneybags’ (thanks David Donoghue) is blaming “adverse media coverage” but extolling the virtues of the Tower Hamlets council officers who hired out a memorial garden and (ab)used Delegated Powers to grant permission for a party marquee! That’s rich.
Now he has has no memorial garden to put up his plastic mausoleum, sorry “high quality marquee” for his parties. Boo-hoo. We are out of pocket for SIX MONTHS of wasted negotiations with TH council officers on fat wages being “extremely supportive” of a proposal that should never have started, for public space LBTH have no clear title to; also a ‘Protected Square’, and a memorial garden, which shuts at dusk, in a Conservation Area, opposite a World Heritage Site, next to a Listed Memorial.. These same officers – or others – after 6 months then give Moving Venues their exclusive consent: in-house and with no public consultation. But it was all done “fairly” and “impeccably”? And the dignity of the memorials would have been robustly protected – against pissed partiers in a see-through tent dancing on the Sea of Remembrance lawn?
Name and shame the officers, Ted. You were right to say that the Executive Mayor could overturn these Officers’ decision – the “approval in June” – taken using Delegated Powers, so it was good your campaign pushed for this. Having to resort to objecting to the later and separate Licensing Application to try and stop this party venue was of course ridiculous and designed to fail.
The role of Trinity House in this is just getting odder. Seems Sir Jeremy was out of the loop while the commercial manager, Edgar King, of the Trinity House venue (book now through LBTH’s ‘London Eastside’ organisation), was the one in meetings with those same “extremely supportive” LBTH council officers and for even longer at “8 months”? Moving Venues only launched the party tent venue at Trinity House, in September!:
http://www.eventmagazine.co.uk/news/1091850/Photo-gallery-View-Tower-Hill-launch-party/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH
Mr Beggs is now looking for an “alternative venue” for his partiers. He should fill in another APPLICATION TO HIRE A PARK OR OPEN SPACE IN THE LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS FOR A PRIVATE EVENT(downloadable from http://www.towerhamletsarts.org.uk!) What about Altab Ali Park or Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park. Available for Christmas office parties; still have that irreverent feel plus those same photogenic heritage backdrops and dignified memorials. Book early to avoid disappointment! And don’t forget with “Park Use” you get your own council officer:
The TENS application and the licence and all that is a bit of a distraction in this discussion, Ted. At least the licensing and entertainment applications would have involved someone else but these officers, and exposed this particularly inappropriate exploitation, sorry “income generation” plan a lot earlier.
Thanks for the extra info contained in this very informative comment
Let’s take this one step further as now clearly have evidence of council policy at work here.
Could Mayor Rahman and Councillor Shahed Ali now explain WHY in a borough that is seriously deficient in GREEN SPACE (we’re way below the standard required for Inner London boroughs) that there is any policy at all which allows the use of green space in such a way as to restrict its use by the residents of Tower Hamlets.
Rather than seeking to make money from the green space they should be working to attract sponsorship to develop MORE green space – for use as green space by residents.
More to the point, there should be significant cuts in council officers who clearly do not know when they are bringing the council into disrepute and waste time and money as a result.
This is NOT a borough which needs parties and festivals. It’s one which needs sane and competent politicians and council officers with more than an adequate amount of common sense. Something we seem to be lacking at present….
Anon-no-more,
Bang on – that’s precisely right.
Well said.
Tim
Bankers? Bankers? Are these the same “people” who put our grandchildrens’ grandchildren in debt?
None of these comments has questioned the fact that Trinity House invited the Moving Venue company to consider the park.
I think it’s actually been established that the money making commercial arm of Trinity House (which should have known better) got together with the money making Council Officers who organise Festivals and Events in Parks in Tower Hamlets (who should have known better) and they both got on with working out how to make this happen.
In exercising their money-making enthusiasm, they completely forgot to use any common sense whatsoever.
They appear to have completely failed to think about what other people – who don’t prioritise money-making – might think about this. Like:
* The Board of Trinity House
* The Commonwealth War Graves Commission
* The Families of those whose names are commemorated on the plaques in the memorial
* the Rail Maritime and Transport Union (who I understand took a very dim view of the proposal)
* relevant Members of Parliament – who were treated as irrelevant to the process
* relevant Councillors eg the Licensing Committee and Local ward Councillors
* any number of people who might be outraged by this action
In doing so the Council Officers seem to have used delegated powers to make a decision without involving Councillors – i.e. completely ignoring the sensitivity of the site and the fact that there may be some people who might not think this a good idea
The outcome is that the Council has been held up to ridicule for being involved in such a ludicrous proposal and pursuing it with apparent vigour.
What we now need to know is what is happening to the officers who brought the Council into disrepute through their actions. This is, of course, a disciplinary offence which would normally require investigation and a disciplinary hearing.
I quote from the Disciplinary Code of Conduct
“The Council expects all employees to exercise care and judgement in the exercise of their duties, endeavouring always to represent the Council’s interests to most benefit and avoid damaging the reputation of the Borough.”
If more officers kept this in mind as they undertook their duties we might get a bit more common sense and sensitivity to the common man being exercised. Not everything is about money!
Absolutely agree with you. And thank you for the quote from the Disciplinary Code of Conduct: this is surely a disciplinary offence as the Borough’s reputation has been damaged by the Officer/s actions.
There is a short film on You Tube about this proposed party venue next to the memorials. The Council Officer(s) involved should be forced to watch this
..and there must be a reckoning: an investigation and a disciplinary hearing.