UK : East : "Rave Organisers Banned from Forest" from EADT. Surprisingly lenient penalties compared with other areas - in a similar case in SE England the crews were fined £2,000 per crew (£16,000 in total!)!
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=news&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED09%20Jan%202007%2023%3A21%3A20%3A137
Quote:
Rave organisers banned from forest
10 January 2007 | 08:21
LORRAINE PRICE
FIVE men have been banned from entering an East Anglian forest for their part in organising an illegal rave which brought misery to people living nearby.
The five, who admitted staging the rave near Bury St Edmunds, were also banned from attending such events for the next year and ordered to pay hundreds of pounds in court costs.
District Judge David Cooper, sentencing the five men, said: “This is extreme thoughtlessness. It causes sheer misery to a large number of people who live in dread of just these sorts of events, which ruins their peace of mind and tranquil lives.
“I know that wasn't your intention but that's what such events do. People want to live quietly, that is why they live in these places.”
The men involved in organising the event were all banned from the King's Forest following the rave at the isolated village of North Stow, near Elveden, on April 30 last year, which ended in violence after a raid by Suffolk police, magistrates in Bury heard.
Samuel West, 21, of Little Melton Road in Hethersett, Norfolk, Anthony Hall, 20, of High Street, Brandon, David Graves, 20, of Ash Close, Heathersett, Norfolk, Stephen Singleton, 26, of Pretorial Cottages, West Acre, Norfolk, and Stephen Forster, 20, of Beccles Road, Lowestoft, were all banned from the forest for one year.
All five pleaded guilty to carrying on an unauthorised licensable activity. They were all banned from attending any unlicensed music events for one year and ordered to pay £300 costs each.
Hall was put under the supervision of probation officers for the next six months. Singleton and West were both ordered to do 60 hours of unpaid community service
Adelle Parker, 24 of Magdalan Street, Norwich, and Singleton also admitted resisting or obstructing a constable in the execution of duty as the rave was broken up. Parker was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £300 costs.
Aaron Ward, 19, of Fairland Terrace, Hingham, Norfolk admitted using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear of, or to produce violence. He was fined £300 and ordered to pay £300 costs.
lorraine.price@eadt.co.uk
Getting illegal parties legalised? the french have done it, so why cant we?
if we got organised about this, we could form a pretty decent lobby group, alongside some of the heads from squatjuice, and make the case for legalising them.
if we could sort out rubbish collection, site allocation and toilets, i recon that would be half the battle. thereis the drugs issue, but clubs are legal, and as long as it isnt to blatant they stay open.
check out this beast from gerard la rouge off sj:
Quote:
19 tons lorry decorated as a giant fly
5 meters of urinal, 6 cabins all decorated by a different artist
non stop air-freshener, dedicated cleaning staff, free tea & coffee, 3kw sound system and video projection on the roof.
http://www.moniclamouche.com/
Monique la mouche can be found at festival across europe every summers, she's not scared of teknival.
You only need to pay for her travel and provide food & drinks to the staff.
You also need to provide running water and 3 16A lines.
12…56
UK : East : Top cop claims "Suffolk not soft spot for raves" TBH Suffolk's response is no different from most Southern England forces; in fact they now appear to be assisting Norfolk (a smaller force) with dealing with raves by sharing resources..
A SENIOR police officer has rejected a suggestion that Suffolk could be regarded as “soft touch” for illegal raves.
Chief Superintendent David McDonnell, head of operations, was speaking after an illegal rave took place in buildings on the former Parham Airfield, near Framlingham, at the weekend.
Two arrests were made - one for drink-driving and the other for a drugs related offence.
Landowner Michael Gray said he had not known about the rave until 6.30am - four hours after it started.
He added he was unaware that police had taken any tough action - either to prevent the rave or stop it.
“I think there should be a stronger police response to these events. Otherwise, Suffolk will become known as a soft touch,” he said.
The rave at Parham was the latest in a series which have disturbed rural dwellers in Suffolk over the past few years.
In the worst incident so far, in August last year, more than 500 people congregated at a three-day rave held on a field at Ramsholt, near Woodbridge, and police later admitted they had performed “below standard” and pledged not to let it happen again.
Police say the Parham rave did not cause anything like the disturbance at Ramsholt.
Chief Supt McDonnell said the Suffolk Constabulary took a pro-active approach to deter raves from happening and to respond as rapidly as possible.
“Ultimately, public safety is the primary concern for us. Where officers can prevent, disrupt or stop a rave taking place, we will do everything within our powers to do this, providing that it is in the best interests of all concerned, given the specific circumstances that we are faced with,” he said.
The effective and efficient use of public money had to be considered when policing an isolated incident where few or no complaints had been received.
“However we respond we will be criticised for either an inadequate or a heavy-handed approach to what is often considered to be innocent partying.
“Suffolk is definitely not seen as a soft touch - the intelligence we have from rave organisers is that Suffolk's response to raves is exactly the opposite,” he said.
Chief Supt McDonnell said earlier this month Suffolk Constabulary was asked to lecture at a national conference in Birmingham as an example of good practice in the policing of raves.
“We will seek to identify organisers, make arrests and where necessary seize sound equipment as was the case following the race[sic] at Ramsholt last year and a rave that took place in Elveden earlier this year.
“Landowners can play an important part to ensure raves do not take place by obstructing entrances to land and securing outbuildings,” he added.
david.green@eadt.co.uk
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED13%20Nov%202006%2021%3A03%3A22%3A363
CA : Warehouse party organiser busted on Canadian "PEL" charges Looks like its not just the UK using licensing laws to take action against party organisers.
http://www.newstalk980.com/index.php?p=ntnews&action=view_story&id=6500
Charges Laid In Rave Bust
October 31, 2006
A Regina man will appear in court in December as a result of a weekend "rave" party.
Police broke up the party in a warehouse-style building in Regina's old warehouse district Saturday night. Elizabeth Popowich with the Regina police says a 34 year-old man has been ticketed, and faces two summary charges.
The first is for organizing an event without a permit to sell alcohol and the second for promoting an event intending to sell alcohol without a permit.
Popowich says the suspect is accused of being one of the organizers. If convicted, he could face a fine or jail time. Popowich adds the fire department is still investigating, so more charges could still be laid.
Geoff Smith reporting.
IN : Mumbai Rave Crew Busted This is actually a fairly harsh clampdown as the cops have been using urine tests and checking up on Interpol lists, bear in mind that India's law enforcement doesn't have as much resources as a Western force and that these appear to be middle class youths as well being busted (perhaps as an example to frighten others?)
IMO they are worried about Indian youths partying too hard and this affecting their work performance in the call centres as this was one of the justifications used by Western companies for outsourcing a few years back...
Rave party accused are granted bail
DNA Correspondent
Wednesday, October 25, 2006 23:14 IST
The 18 accused and two women in the Gorai rave party case were granted bail of Rs15,000 each by a sessions court on Wednesday and have been asked to present themselves for interrogation at the ATS office in Nagpada for interrogation twice a month.
The accused, between 18 and 27 years, were medically examined at the Nagpada police hospital on September 24 and their blood and urine samples proved that they had consumed Charas.
They were arrested on October 22 and remanded in police custody till October 25 by a magistrate’s court the next day. The youngsters were mostly call centre employees, event managers and recording artists.
Earlier, 20 others who were allegedly the main organisers of the rave party were granted bail on October 6. One Mansoor Kara, who possessed LSD was not granted bail as it was a non-bailable offence. He is also an Interpol accused in cases of drug peddling.
Eighty people and 13 drug peddlers were detained after the Anti-Narcotics Cell (ANC) of the ATS raided a farm house on Gorai Road in Borivali on September 24.
Drug classifications change ruled out LONDON (Reuters) - The government has ruled out changing the system of classifying illegal
drugs, which was deemed by MPs earlier this year to be "not fit for purpose".
The Home Office said on Friday that, "after careful consideration", it had decided the current
system which rates substances in A, B or C categories according to their medical and social harm, did not need to be reviewed.
The decision came as the latest study by the British Crime Survey (BCS), which examined
trends in drug use, reported that overall drug use, particularly cannabis use, had fallen
significantly.
[URL="http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:commonPopup%28%27/news/newsPhotoPresentation.aspx?type=domesticNews&imageID=2006-10-13T131357Z_01_L13147750_RTRUKOP_0_PICTURE0.xml%27,%20560,%20535,%201%29"]
[/URL]
"It is important that there is a coherent system in place to categorise drugs and determine the
penalties for their manufacture, possession and supply," said Home Office minister Vernon
Coaker.
"I believe that the existing classification system does this effectively, allowing for clear and
meaningful distinctions to be made between drugs."
A critical report by the Science and Technology Select Committee in July said the system of
classifying drugs was failing and needed to be completely overhauled and replaced by a scale
which assessed harm.
The committee said the current scale had "significant anomalies" and was "not fit for purpose"
while there was no convincing evidence that using the system had worked as a deterrent.
It called for a new, scientifically based scale which took into account the harm that each drug
caused, rather than one based on historical assumptions and on the penalties incurred for
possessing or trafficking a substance.
However Coaker said he had met police, victims, and drug addicts and that none had raised the
classification system as a problem.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), the body that advises the government,
also rejected criticisms expressed by the MPs in their report saying it had been misleading and
contained "significant errors of fact".
The MPs said they had found a number of serious flaws in the way the ACMD worked, along with
confusion and a lack of transparency.
"The Committee makes some interesting points but the Council is disappointed by the errors and
misconceptions in the report," ACMD chairman Michael Rawlins said.
The Home Office did announce on Friday that it had accepted the ACMD's advice to re-classify
the club drug crystal methylamphetamine as a class A substance, alongside the most serious
drugs such as heroin in light of the harm it caused.
It follows fears about growing misuse of the highly addictive drug, known as crystal meth.
Coaker said the government's main focus would remain tackling Class A drugs and the problems
they caused.
The BCS report said that between 1998 and 2005/6 there had been an increase in the use of
Class A drugs among 16 to 59-year-olds, mainly because of a rise in cocaine abuse.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-10-13T131359Z_01_L13147750_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-DRUGS.xml
Isle of Man drug driving policy A campaign to educate people about the dangers of driving under the influence of drugs is being launched on the Isle of Man. Health officials want people to know about the effects of both illegal and legal drugs on motorists.
Cannabis can impair concentration and affect a driver's reaction times, but so can anti-depressants and painkillers, they said.
The launch was being held at Noble's Hospital on Wednesday.
The Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS) said many drivers were unaware of the dangers of driving under the influence of drugs.
It said the consequences were serious and fatal injuries to the driver, passengers and other road users, including pedestrians.
The Isle of Man Constabulary treats drug driving in the same way as drink driving
Sgt John Kinrade
Dawn Henley, Senior Health Promotion Officer said: "Both illegal and medicinal drugs can impact on a driver's ability to drive safely.
"A driver may not realise until it is too late and as a consequence they are unable to react quickly to a hazard or situation on the road."
Health officials are urging those with prescription drugs to read the small print on their medicines.
Meanwhile, police say the penalties for those found drug-driving will be severe.
Sgt John Kinrade said: "The Isle of Man Constabulary treats drug driving in the same way as drink driving.
"The offence is the same, as are the penalties."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/isle_of_man/5405120.stm
Warehouse Rave with permission from owner – advise? Ok basically me and a group of mates have been orginising a lot of partys in our area recently mainly house partys marquis etc and they seem to be getting bigger and bigger all the time the last one had so many people in the one gaff you could barely move in the place but the crowd where stompin and so far no trouble people have been getting too loved up for that shit -ok we have had the odd visit from police to turn it down but thats it they never stopped it
:weee:
Now the interesting thing is a mates (who also is into the scene) owns (not rents) a warehouse and has offered to let us use it for a stomper as he was that impressed with the last one we orginised. at present this warehouse is totally empty and is in a good remote enough location now we have never done anything this big before and although well up for it want to know what the legal implications are. Your advice would be greatly appreciated
Seeing that we have permision to use the venue isn't it just a private party?
Can the police confiscate our equipment? (gonna rent most of it)
If the ob don't know about it until the night in question they can't get a warrant to raid the place or anything on such short notice can they?
We are thinking of printing up and laminating invites and distibuting them amongst various chosen circles closer to the time of the event and have a party line number on them or something no other specifics info like date or location is this a silly idea?
How does a police search go like? If a cop searches you on the street, does he just check your pockets and shoes etc. Or do they go more in depth? I'm asking because I currently hide my weed in the pocket of my shorts that I wear underneath my jeans to hide it a little better. What are the chances of them searching that far and finding it?12
criminal records? does anyone know if its possible for a person to get a copy of their criminal record(im sure you must be able to but i havn't got a clue) and if they can how?cheers.
Who can you trust? Can anybody tell me what happens to a dna sample if you are proven innocent. I was aquitted a while ago and am concerned about who might have access to it. Does it get destroyed or is there a massive database where its kept? Also how are the so called anti terror laws going to affect the free party scene. With the amount of new surveilance officers drafted in will they start to channel extra resources into wiping them out? At a recent party I saw more plain clothes police than i have anywhere. It seemed to me they were on to it a long time in advance and only allowed the rigs to set up so they could gather evidence on the sly before shutting it down. Maybe we should ban all cameras at parties and then it would be easier to spot old bill.btw the reason i know they were plain clothes is because i was standing next to a bloke filming people on his phone. The cheeky fucker had a big grin on his face, When a police land rover pulled up he strolled on over greeted the driver and donned his stab vest and stupid fucking belt. As we watched about five more people one woman i believe, did the same. all with phones.
UK : Free party promoters being denied legitimate venues a quick warning to everyone involved in parties
if you do free events do not use your free party crew name when hiring legal venues... or there is a big risk that cops and the council will visit the venue manager and try and put them off hiring the event, In some cases the authorities have even revoked venues licenses.
it may seem counterproductive from the cops POV as it may encourage more illegal events; OTOH it may be a tactic to try and stop funding sources for parties and to stop people using free parties as a test bed to running licensed events now the TENS system is supposedly available...
UK : East : press release from Norfolk cops From Norfolk constabulary website...
Illegal Raves Successfully Tackled
Aug 03 2006
Three men were today (Wednesday 2nd August) ordered to pay substantial fines after admitting their parts in organising an illegal gathering in Norwich on New Year's Eve (2005).
MATTHEW FITTON, 22, of Greys Meadow, Banham; MATTHEW JAMES BECKER, 22, of Leys Lane, Attleborough; and RICHARD FARMBOROUGH, 28, of Station Mews, Attleborough, all appeared before Norwich Magistrates today.
Each man was charged with the offence of being involved with the organisation of an unlicensed musical event.
All three men admitted the charges and magistrates sentenced them to each pay a £900 fine and £250 costs.
The charges relate to an illegal gathering at a vacant premises in Twickenham Road, Norwich.
During this incident a number of police officers were injured, property was damaged and members of the public intimidated. These prosecutions demonstrate clearly that Norfolk Police will target the organisers of events such as this which result in serious anti social behaviour.
The successful prosecution is the result of robust action by Norfolk Constabulary to tackle illegal raves and sends out a clear message to other potential organisers that officers will not tolerate this type of inconsiderate activity within our county.
Superintendent Jo Parrett, who leads on the policing of unlicensed musical events for Norfolk, welcomed the fines issued and said, "This prosecution reflects our pro active stance of dealing with unlicensed musical events and raves. We do not want to prevent people from enjoying themselves but we will not accept the detrimental impact that raves have on local communities and the environment. Furthermore, it is clear that during these events young people in particular put themselves at risk because adequate safety precautions are not taken. We will always prosecute wherever possible in partnership with other agencies."
"For the forthcoming Bank Holiday weekend we are working closely with Suffolk Constabulary to ensure that we are in a position to take robust action to prevent any illegal raves."
UK : East : Cops’ merger off, but forces still plan to co-operate.. Whilst this may mean the East of England "superforce" isn't going to happen; it does seem that adjoining police forces are increasingly going to work together to solve "cross-border" problems and/or pool resources to deal with them (their new comms system Airwave makes it very easy to communicate, and they have their own special intranet for exchanging info) rather than "passing the problem into another force area" which used to happen at raves in border regions.
This has obvious implications for certain activities in a certain forest...
Quote:
SUFFOLK chief constable Alastair McWhirter today welcomed the news that the force is not likely to merged with the neighbouring counties of Norfolk and Cambridgeshire.
Controversial proposals to reduce the number of police forces across the country are expected to be called off after forces and the government were unable to negotiate financial details surrounding the move.
Now Mr McWhirter said he hoped the force could put the debate behind it and star preparing for a different future.
And he hoped to see increased co-operation between county-based forces: “We would like to see more work on a regional basis.
“What has happened over the last few years is that the regional crime squads have been replaced by a national crime squad which has now become the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
“That deals with very major crime, but there is a need to co-ordinate between regional forces on other crimes as well as other operational matters.”
Mr McWhirter was frustrated that at present it was not possible to have a dedicated team of specialists dealing with regional matters.
He said: “Local authorities can set up organisations that cross boundaries - as police authorities we cannot do that. If people are working on regional issues they have to be employed by one authority or the other.
“Through ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers) we are talking to the government about that situation. It would be good to have that kind of structure without the need for a full merger.”
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.YesNoPrivacy policy
You can revoke your consent any time using the Revoke consent button.Revoke cookies
