London's Lion & Lamb Cut Ties With Its Co-Founder. The DJs Aren't Coming Back Either.

What happened at the Lion & Lamb?

On 5 July 2026, the Hoxton venue told followers it "won't continue in any business relationships with Andre King in any capacity," cutting the man who cofounded it out of the business entirely. Every upcoming show was pulled from the calendar so the remaining team could, in their words, "work out the next steps effectively." Remaining cofounder Mauro Ferno said he was "absolutely disgusted," adding he had "never imagined it was anything like what's being alleged."

The allegations, spanning claims of abuse and coercion, had been circulating for days across Reddit and through the Instagram account @exposingandreking, which is calling on alleged victims and anyone with information about King to file a report with London's Metropolitan Police. No criminal charges have been announced.

Why are DJs refusing to come back?

Within 48 hours, Silverlining, Voigtmann, Secretsundaze, De La Reef and Sugar Free were among the acts publicly ruling the venue out for future bookings. None of them run the Lion & Lamb's door, its books or its licence. Their leverage is smaller and blunter: a DJ who won't play is a party that doesn't happen, and six names refusing at once, unprompted, inside two days, reads as a verdict the scene reached faster than any official process could.

"We won't continue in any business relationships with Andre King in any capacity." (The Lion & Lamb, via Instagram)

What happens when a boycott is the only accountability tool a scene has?

A venue like the Lion & Lamb runs on the kind of trust that never gets written into a contract: DJs book in on a friend's word, promoters vouch for each other, and nobody checks a background before handing someone the keys to a room full of people at 3am. That informality is most of what makes small independent venues feel different from a corporate club night, but it also means there's no HR department to escalate to when something goes wrong, just Instagram statements and a shrinking list of people willing to play the room. The boycott is fast, public and imperfect, but for now it is the only accountability structure this corner of the scene actually has.

Why it matters

A cluster of respected London DJs choosing, unprompted, to name a venue they won't play sets a precedent other promoters and artists will be watching: refusal is now a visible, coordinated response to allegations, not a private decision made quietly.

What we think

The speed here is the story. The venue acted within 48 hours of the allegations spreading, and DJs didn't wait for a police outcome to make their own call. That's not due process, and it shouldn't be mistaken for it, but in a scene with no formal reporting structure, a fast public boycott is often the only signal that reaches the people still deciding whether to book the room.