Get us in your inbox


The Museum of London and Islington Council have dashed those Fabric property theories

Amy Smith

Everyone loves a conspiracy theory, right? As people around the world followed the tweets emerging from the Fabric licence hearing inside Islington Town Hall yesterday, theories that property developers had somehow brought about the club’s closure started spreading.

And they didn't really stop all day:





Many focused on the Museum of London’s relocation to Farringdon, close to the club:

The Museum of London contacted us to explain that:

'Like many Londoners we were sad to learn that Fabric may not reopen following the ruling. In thinking about a future for the Museum of London in Smithfield, our aspiration has always been to talk to work hand in hand with Fabric and the other local businesses so that the area can continue to thrive.'

A number of articles have jumped on The Independent’s claim that the decision to revoke Fabric’s licence was an attempt by Islington Council to make money from the sale of the building.

Again, the council got in touch to explain that they don’t own the building and wouldn’t benefit from any sale. An Islington Council spokesman said:

‘The decision of Islington Council’s licensing committee on Fabric’s licence was based solely on the evidence, submissions, and representations put before the committee. To suggest anything else is simply wrong. For the avoidance of doubt, Islington Council is not the owner of the building and has no financial interest in the site.’ 

Or as @danhancox pointed out:

Of course, none of this means that the site won't be sold and turned into some bland rarely lived-in luxury apartments.

We really are all waiting for Fabric’s next move. Though you have come up with some great protest ideas.

Here's everything you need to know about the club's closure

And this is why being young in 2016 is now even more dull without Fabric

Popular on Time Out

    Latest news

      Read next