[matilda] meeting afterthoughts

[Chris Malins]

It may be worth bearing in mind that sometimes it seems necessary to 
place an explicit restriction on people to compensate for an implicit 
one. If I recall, someone has talked about a woman's space in Matilda, 
which I assume is predicated on some restriction of male involvement, by 
order or by agreement. To restrict certain parties so that a dominant 
group of younger people are occasionally uninvited could be a valid way 
of overcoming the implicit barrier that they might represent to the 
involvement of others with different social outlooks.

Chris

dougald hine wrote:
> There's nothing 'closed' about a members only party, so long as anyone
> who asks is allowed to become a member.
> 
> The ONLY kind of parties we can have are 'members only', because
> otherwise we're breaking licensing law - and, given that the two
> neighbouring nightclubs will make complaints, we will get raided by
> the police and kicked out of the building very quickly.
> 
> Just because some skilled de-escalation prevented the police entering
> last time, doesn't mean that will work in future. By having 'members
> only' events, we have the right to refuse the police entry to the
> building.
> 
> --
> Dougald Hine
> 46 Alderson Road, Sheffield S2 4UD
> (+44)(0)7810 650213
> 
> www.dougald.co.uk
> 
> _______________________________________________
> matilda mailing list
> matilda at lists.aktivix.org
> http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/matilda
>