The Lemmy: Sympathy for the Devil

Charlotte Sefton responds to Sam House who claimed that security staff not allowing a group of students in at 10:29 is not the end of the world and we need to respect the job that they do.

After reading the recent counter-article to ‘Lemmygate’, it wasn’t long before my fingers found their way to the nearest keyboard, driven to action by both confusion and more importantly, dismay. Despite the misdirected ‘college staff’ analogy – but the ‘essay’ did arrive on time, isn’t that the point? – the author proffered some rather patronising attempts to brush aside the argument as whimsical and tangential to the ‘real’ problems in the world.

“Having worked in the night-time economy myself for a good few years, I’ve heard my fair share of disturbing bouncer tales straight from the horse’s mouth.”
Photo Credit: Darwin Bell via Compfight cc

Well forgive me if I am barking up the wrong tree here, but said author appears to have missed the point of the original article entirely. Of course the event at the Lemon Grove provided the backdrop to the story, appearing as it did in a University newspaper, but the issue itself runs much deeper than any independent incident. The fact remains that the bouncer industry defies regulation, and furthermore allows the notion of proportionate violence to be mentally negotiated in a split second by someone who has donated just 30 hours of their time to attain the necessary security qualifications. Bouncers are much less controlled in the arena of physical-contact than police officers, who have undertaken intense training for two years.

Having worked in the night-time economy myself for a good few years, I’ve heard my fair share of disturbing bouncer tales straight from the horse’s mouth. Tales from security staff who check ID not because of age restrictions, but to check that the patron is ‘from the right part of town’; tales from security staff who miss the ‘good-old days’ when the police didn’t care much about proportionate response, tales from security staff who relish their employment because it allows them close proximity to vulnerable women… the sorry list goes on.

Thus whilst I agree that bouncers may appear to have a bad (but indeed, chosen) lot in the night-time economy, I’m afraid that the age-old argument that they are simply ‘looking out for us’ just does not wash with me. Tony Blair launched two illegal wars under the banner of looking out for us, intelligence agencies violate civil liberties on a daily basis under the banner of looking out for us – does this make such acts legitimate? Admittedly, the original point made may have been highly context-specific, but its undercurrents remain valid. It may be ‘the British way’ to dust down our shoulders, keep calm and carry on, but in reality apathy is about as much use as a valid ID when you’re from the local council estate.

So yes, the Rolling Stones may have named one of their songs ‘You can’t always get what you want’, but perhaps the author of this particular rant may wish to turn his attentions to ‘Too rude’, ‘Too much blood’ or, dare I say it, ‘Sympathy for the Devil’.

Charlotte Sefton

 Does the security industry need to be regulated more? Do bouncers need to be abrupt, borderline rude, to effectively do their job? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter@CommentExepose. In other news, Exeposé Comment are looking to find Exeter’s favourite alumnus. Vote here!

[poll id=”72″]

The Lemmy: You Can't Always Get What You Want

Having recently read the Comment piece about the Lemon Grove, Sam House argues that security staff not allowing a group of students in at 10:29 is not the end of the world and we need to respect the job that they do.

What is it with students this year and their sense of entitlement? If you’re arriving somewhere with less than 60 seconds until the cut-off point, then you clearly aren’t all that bothered about getting in. 10:30pm is a cut –off, not a target and clearly some people at this University have no idea about the real world.

“Do [the Lemmy bouncers] complain when students call them, “f*****g c**ts” for getting us out of the building at the end of the night? No!”
Photo credit: Niklas Rahmel

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m sure it’s very upsetting not to get into the Lemmy on a particular evening, but let us suppose for a second, that this was an academic department.

If someone got to the hand-in office at 11:59 and for whatever reason their work didn’t get scanned until after the deadline, it would be silly to write to Exeposé, talking about having, “come head-to-head with one of those, sadly, increasingly more common, administrators on a power-trip”.

 

Would it not be more sensible to  just write the whole thing off as bad luck and remember to get there earlier next time? I don’t see any letters about, “self-ordained omnipotent college staff” so I guess we know the answer. A disappointing evening does not require security to be publicly shunned, it’s just straight up bad luck.

The security team who work at the University are incredibly dedicated and protect us all when we are at our most vulnerable. We put them in some extremely pressured situations which they normally diffuse very well and, frankly, I think they should be getting praise for the job they do and not being scrutinised for every little slip-up. Do I need to clarify here that sometimes life is hard and we don’t get what we want? It isn’t always a social injustice or a plot against “the hard working well meaning students of the future”, sometimes we’re just unlucky and clearly we as a body of students need to learn how to suck it up and take it when that happens.

If this had happened to a member of the public out in the “real world” no one would bat a single eyelid. I can personally vouch that all of the security team at the Lemmy are a lot more lenient and friendly than the proper bulldogs you get elsewhere, and it is a pleasure to have such a nice team at the University to look after us. We are not entitled to everything we want and if we were then it would be awful to live and study here.

These people are paid to protect us and they do a really good job for the vast majority of the time.

Do they complain when students call them “f*****g c**ts” for getting us out of the building at the end of the night? No!

Do they demand that students are suspended when they sing derisory chants at them? No!

They write it off as just drunk students acting up and carry on doing their jobs. Yes, some people are meaner than others. Just deal with it.

This isn’t just their Saturday night out like it is yours. It is their 9-5 and these guys spend their whole lives trying to keep order amongst the chaos that we inflict on them. They are due a lot more respect than we give them. They are only human and they deserve the same amount of respect which we wouldn’t think twice about expecting for ourselves.

There are bigger and more important problems facing us at the moment and the last thing we need is people getting fired for doing their job. So please, give the world a chance and accept that, in the words of the eternal Rolling Stones, sometimes, “You can’t always get what you want.”

Sam House

 How flexible on admission times do we want the bouncers at the Lemmy to be? Do they need to be abrupt, borderline rude, to effectively do their job? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter@CommentExepose.

The Lemmy: 10:29 is still on time!

It seems that, once again, Exeter students and the Lemon Grove bouncers are at loggerheads. Amy Snelling gives an account of more altercations with the Lemmy’s security services.

On Saturday the 19^th October, a group of second years turned up to the Lemmy in the nick of time, with their Ents Cards in hand, ready for their free entry and queue jump, only to be kept waiting unnecessarily by one bouncer and refused the privileges that should come with the card.

“Despite their attempts to talk to the bouncer, this unfortunate group of students seemed to have come head-to-head with one of those, sadly, increasingly more common, bouncers on a power-trip.”
Photo Credit: tommy forbes via Compfight cc

The Ents Card is sold to students by the guild at £30, under the premise that, as long they arrive at the Lemmy before 10.30pm, they will receive free entry and queue jump. Yet, on Saturday night a group of three students arrived, each of them checking the time on their phones to make sure they were, indeed, on time. According to the bouncer’s phone it was 10.29pm, but they were told to wait while he checked to see if the “clicker had gone”. Naturally, by the time this had happened, it hit 10.30pm and the clicker had, of course, “gone”.

Despite their attempts to talk to the bouncer, this unfortunate group of students seemed to have come head-to-head with one of those, sadly, increasingly more common, bouncers on a power-trip. One member of the group, Matt Hearne, a second year Economics student, told Exepose that, after being refused entry, he held up his phone to the bouncer, which showed the time as 10.29pm, but “by this point… he was having none of it”. To add insult to injury, when asking the bouncer why they were being refused their card privileges after they had arrived before 10.30pm,  Hearne added that he became “pretty rude” and “told us to pay or go home and wouldn’t discuss it”.  He informed the students that if they had an issue, they should “take it up with the guild”. Natasha Leigh-Wootton, a second year Economics and Finance student, also informed Exeposé that she had arrived to the Lemmy at similar times before and had “not had an issue”, so it does seem unjust that on this particular week, these three students came across this particular bouncer.

Such issues, by which I mean certain bouncers with their self-ordained omnipotence, leads me to the one real bone of contention that I have with their profession: bouncers are supposed to keep people safe on a night out, and keep control of security around the club, ie. to regulate goings on. But what I want to know is: who regulates these bouncers? I am not trying to say that all bouncers at the Lemmy have the intention of unnecessarily making it more difficult for students to enjoy their nights out, but some of them don’t seem to like making it easy either, and what we need to know is that there is someone on our side. Someone who is checking that the bouncers aren’t being allowed to dictate freely according to their whims.

As I’m sure many of you are aware, this is not the first issue that has cropped up between the students and bouncers this term; two bouncers were recently dismissed after “multiple complaints” due to their “aggressive” behaviour towards students. While this demonstrates some form of regulation, I want to know how far it has to go before something will be done about certain bouncers’ behaviour. Of course, it is not only the Lemmy where such problems crop up between bouncers and students. Charlotte Sefton, a Masters student of Middle East and Islamic Studies, who also spent four years in Exeter carrying out her undergraduate degree in French and Arabic has told Exeposé that, “Over the course of my five years in Exeter, the local bouncers seem to be getting ever more aggressive, particularly with the student population. Of course order must be kept, but there is a clear line between crowd control and legitimated thuggery.”

But, what is more worrying, is that such incidences are happening at The Lemmy, a supposedly student friendly venue and nightclub, run by the student union, for the students. So why are bouncers being allowed to make life harder for students when they are not causing trouble? They did not arrive drunk or disorderly, they did not behave aggressively or disrespectfully, they posed no danger to anyone; they simply arrived just before the time they were required to according to the Guild rules for this, particularly expensive, Ents Card.

The Student’s Guild VP Participation and Campuses representative, Jak Curtis-Rendall stated, “I am sorry to hear that any student has not fully enjoyed their Lemmy experience. Lemon Grove and security staff work together closely to try to ensure that anyone arriving at the Lemmy with an Ents Card or advance purchase ticket is able to enter the club… but.. I would always advise arriving in good time to avoid disappointment.” But 10.29 is still on time.

Amy Snelling

How flexible on admission times do we want the bouncers at the Lemmy to be? Do they need to be abrupt, borderline rude, to effectively do their job? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter@CommentExepose.

Lemmy bouncers dismissed from campus after student complaints

Image credit: Niklas Rahmel

Two Lemon Grove bouncers have been dismissed from their positions on campus following multiple complaints from students, Exeposé has learnt. The bouncers were accused of being ‘unnecessarily aggressive’, with the complaints coming after a ‘shambles’ of a queue to get into the Lemon Grove on Saturday 21 September, at the end of Freshers’ Week.

Ollie Skinner, a second year History and International Relations student who made an official complaint to the Lemon Grove, told Exeposé: “We got there around 8:15pm and there was already a massive queue, which we had expected. The queue was lined up heading towards the corner of Rennes drive.

“We were quite far back so didn’t see any bouncers giving directions, when suddenly, there was a stampede of people towards the Lemmy. As we got closer I saw that one bouncer on his own was trying to give directions to the five hundred people in the queue.

“Then, there was chaos, everyone was jostling to get as far ahead as they could or just not lose their place in the queue. It was a huge squash and each time the queue went to move forward there was a mad rush to stay ahead and with your friends. It was like being in an unorganised herd. This carried on for at least two hours.”

When Skinner did eventually get near the front of the queue, he said: “One particular bouncer started to shout at the crowd using the F word repeatedly, making the very useful”…

suggestion that we would not be let in unless we ‘sorted’ our ‘f***ing selves’ out, implying that some people ought to go to the back of the queue, meaning they would definitely not have got in despite queueing for such a long time. When I was near the front I also witnessed the same bouncer shout and swear at a girl who got separated from her group of friends when they were being let through a separate “queue” for people with tickets. She then proceeded to cry, at which point he did not stop, suggesting it was her fault he could not count.

The front of the queue was being monitored by one bouncer, who was controlling who moved forward to the door. He informed us that we would be allowed to go past him until he touched us. He then proceeded to light a cigarette and smoke it right in my face which was completely inappropriate and inconsiderate. He then let forward another group of students and touched me and it wasn’t exactly a friendly tap on the shoulder either.”

Skinner commented: “To then have a rude bouncer continually swear and be unnecessarily aggressive towards students, along with suggesting we sort it out ourselves made the whole experience even more shambolic”, before adding: “He should have given more constructive direction”.

Skinner finally concluded: “To then see the Lemmy Twitter account saying the line was moving along nicely was outrageous, the person controlling the feed surely only needed to look out the door to see that wasn’t the case.”

Other students also told Exeposé about similar experiences in that same queue. Harrison Jones, online News Editor, was in the queue, and he said: “A couple of bouncers were regularly using the F word, and generally being obnoxious. I heard one tell a group of students to ‘f*** off’”.

Following his complaint to the Lemon Grove management, Mr. Skinner attended a meeting and left satisfied with the outcome. He told Exeposé: “My meeting with the Lemon Grove management went well. My concerns and complaints were listened to and I left the meeting satisfied with what I was told.”

Students’ Guild President Hannah Barton says of the issue: “I was dismayed to receive a small number of complaints regarding the behaviour of externally contracted security staff at the Lemon Grove during the Welcome Lemmy. Issues were raised during the course of the evening about two members of the security team who were dealt with on site by the Head of Security. We have since received assurance that they will not be returning to the Lemon Grove. The Students’ Guild continues to meet with students to discuss their complaints and is working with our security provider to maintain the great Lemmy experience that our members expect.”

Chris Rootkin, Students’ Guild Vice President Welfare & Community adds: “I am always sorry to hear that any student feels they have been treated poorly. The Students’ Guild takes student complaints very seriously. I am pleased that Guild staff and our security provider acted quickly to deal with the issues caused by external staff.”

Owen Keating, News Editor

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.