UK : LDN : Haringey squatters have kit confiscated (2004-05) anyone know which crew this was?
Council stops marathon raves
Tuesday 25 May 2004
People living in Horsey Park Road, Malvern Road and Cross Lane enjoyed their first peaceful weekend in a month thanks to Haringey Councilâs Noise Enforcement Officers.
A team of 21 council officers seized two vanloads of speakers and amplifiers from the Old Gas Works site on Friday 21 May 2004, following complaints from local people about marathon weekend raves lasting up to 36 hours.
Residentsâ lives had been made a misery when squatters occupied the site at the end of April and started running unlicensed raves each weekend in May (1-2 May, 8-9 May and 16-17 May 2004).
A noise Abatement Notice was served on the squatters on 14 May 2004 prohibiting them from causing noise nuisance. The squatters disregarded the notice and one resident complained to the noise team that she had only had six hours sleep over the weekend of 15-17 May.
Following this rave, a warrant of entry was obtained.
A team which included the councilâs Noise Team, Neighbourhood Wardens and the new Heavy Enforcement Team and two Police Officers arrived at the Western Road entrance on Friday morning (21 May). When squatters refused officers entry they had to force open the gates to the site before removing twenty seven items of sound equipment.
On entry to the site officers found that the conditions were unsuitable for public entertainment.The council is now applying to the Magistrates Court for a Forfeiture Order.
This will prevent the equipment being used for similar illegal activities in the future.
Cllr Ray Dodds, Executive Member for Environment, said: âThis was a very successful operation to prevent any further noise nuisance to the residents living around the old Gas Works. The seizure required the coordinated efforts of a number of teams from across the council. This shows that we will act to prevent illegal public entertainment that causes severe disruption to the lives of local people or endangers people attending the rave.
I would like to thank the Police who were present throughout the operation.â
Media enquiries to Moira Mercer on 020 8489 2980
From net-cops to hobby bobbies? rather worrying - IME IT workers are either very liberal/hedonistic or very conservative (to the point of right-wing extremism). you can of course see which sort will want to become a special..
Incidentally is the UK the only European nation with this peculiar concept of a volunteer police force?
Quote:
IT pros called to become boys in blue
Dan Ilett
ZDNet UK
December 01, 2004, 17:45 GMT
IT professionals could soon be asked to volunteer their services to police the Internet.
The European Information Society Group (EURIM) is calling on the government to employ the services of IT workers as special constables.
The request has apparently been welcomed by commissioner of the Metropolitan police Sir John Stevens.
"I think we should be using special constables," said chairman of EURIM Brian White, MP. "IT managers could be given special powers. If they were trained in evidence gathering, they could report straight to the Crown Prosecution Service. [They could] secure crime scenes and give records to court, for example."
The recommendations follow findings earlier this year that only 240 people were qualified to work in digital forensics and evidence recovery. EURIM is proposing to increase the number of skilled police officers patrolling the cyber world.
White said that legislation alone was not enough to fight cybercrime, and more had to be done to improve the level of skilled police for the Internet.
As part of EURIM's proposals, White added that the UK needed better methods of reporting cybercrime because local police stations were ill-equipped to handle the task.
EURIM also proposed that some of the barriers to becoming a special constable should be removed, especially for IT specialists.
"One of the things you need to be [to join the special constables] is physically fit," said Philip Virgo, secretary general for EURIM. "There would probably be lots of people who could monitor Internet chat rooms who couldn't police the town on a Friday night. There are lots of boundaries to this that don't need to be there."
EURIM also called for IT specialists to contribute ideas for Internet policing, as the debate for what role the Serious Organised Crime Agency will play will begin over the next few weeks. EURIM said it wanted to use the opportunity to ensure that people had a centralised point of contact when they needed to report a cybercrime.
Currently, the Metropolitan Police Computer Crime Unit in London has 11 officers.
The Criminal Justice Act of 1994 (UK) A copy of the entire Act can be bought from HMSO office or your local library should have a copy.
Sections 61 & 62: Trespassers on land
Two or more persons trespassing on land (not including public highway land, eg verges & lay-bys) with the intention of living there may be directed to leave the land by the police if: (a) there are 6 or more vehicles there; or (b) if any damage has been caused to the land, eg crop damage); or (c) 'threatening or abusive words or behaviour' have been used against the occupier or their agents. Not leaving as soon as reasonably practicable is an offence; as is returning to the land within 3 months; the maximum sentence is 3 months in prison and/or a ÂŁ2,500 fine. The police are also given powers to seize vehicles.
Sections 63, 64 & 65: Raves
A 'rave' is defined as a gathering of 100+ people, at which amplified music ('wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats'[!) is played which is likely to cause serious distress to the local community, in the open air and at night. These sections give the police the power to order people to leave the land if they're believed to be preparing to hold a rave (2 or more people); waiting for a rave to start (10+); actually attending a rave (10+). Ignoring this direction, or returning to the land within the next week, are both offences, liable to 3 months' imprisonment and/or a ÂŁ2,500 fine. Section 65 lets any uniformed constable who believes a person is on their way to a rave within a 5-mile radius to stop them and direct them away from the area - failure to comply can lead to a maximum fine of ÂŁ1000.
Sections 66 & 67: Seizure
The arrangements authorising police officers to enter land where a rave is in progress or anticipated. and which allow for the seizure, retention and charges for the confiscation of vehicles and sound equipment.
Section 68 & 69: Disruptive Trespassers
These refer to the new offence of 'aggravated trespass'. Section 68 is committed by anyone trespassing on land in the open air (not including highways and roads) with the intent of intimidating other people engaged in 'lawful activity' on that land or adjoining land, so as to deter them, or obstructing/ disrupting them. Section 69 gives the police sort of preventative powers to direct people to leave land. This direction can be made by a senior officer as long as at least one person is committing or intends to commit aggravated trespass, or there are two or more people present with the 'common purpose' of aggravated trespass. Failure to comply with this direction carries a maximum penalty of 3 months in prison and/or a 2,500 fine.
Sections 70 & 71: Trespassory Assemblies
As an amendment to the Public Order Act of 1986, this part allows the police to apply to the local authority (or, in London, the Home Secretary) to prohibit 'trespassory assemblies' of 20+ people for up to 4 days with a 5-mile exclusion zone, as long as there is a risk of 'serious disruption to the local community', or of 'significant damage' to the land or buildings/ monuments on it which may have historical/ archaeological/ scientific importance. Anyone organising or inciting another to attend one of these may be arrested and imprisoned for up to three months. Attendance, and refusal to be directed away, is punished by arrest and a maximum fine of 1000.
Sections 72, 73 & 74: Squatters - and Protected Intended Occupiers
These mean changes to section 6 of the Criminal Law Act of 1977, and apply only to residential property. DROs ('displaced residential occupiers', an extremely rare phenomenon!) and PIOs ( 'protected intended occupiers') - or others who can prove that they are acting on behalf of them - are made exempt from the protection previously given squatters and are permitted to use violence to secure entry. It becomes an offence not to leave premises when requested to by a PIO or DRO, liable to 6 months' imprisonment and/or a fine of 5000. Section 74 introduces a new offence of deliberately or recklessly making a false statement to claim PIO status. The definition of a PIO has been extended slightly.
Sections 75 & 76: Interim Possession Orders
These sections introduce a new 'faster' way of evicting squatters. Once an IPO (interim possession order) has been granted by a court and all the legal procedures have been correctly followed, the 'squatters' must leave within 24 hours of its service. It covers any person who is there when the Order is served and even those who arrive afterwards - failing to leave or returning within one year are both offences. The maximum penalty is 6 months in prison and/or a 5000 fine. Similarly to above, section 75 makes it an offence for the owner to make a false or misleading statement to obtain an IPO.
Sections 77, 78 & 79: Unauthorised Campers
'Unauthorised campers' are people residing in a vehicle or vehicles on any part of the highway or any other land in the open air without permission of the owner. Section 77 gives the local council the authority to direct an unauthorised camper to leave the land and remove all vehicles. It becomes an offence to not leave the land and remove all vehicles/ property 'as soon as reasonably practicable' or to re-enter the land within 3 months, liable to a fine of up to 1000. A magistrates' court can make an order under section 78 which allows the local council to take 'reasonable steps' to ensure the removal of a vehicle and any person residing within it. Another new offence is the wilful obstruction of anyone engaged in the removal - maximum fine of 1000.
Section 80: Caravan Sites Act
The Caravan Sites Act of 1968 included a duty of local authorities to provide gypsy sites in their areas. Most local authorities never got anywhere near full, decent levels of provision, but section 80 repeals that duty, so leaving travellers with nowhere legal to stop.
Section 154: Intentional Harassment, Alarm or Distress
This section inserts a new section 4(a) into the Public Order Act of 1986. Designed for incidents of racial harassment, its definition means it has much wider potential uses, whether against football fans or peaceful protestors, both of whom is has already been used against. It becomes an offence to intentionally either (a) use 'threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, or disorderly behaviour'; or (b) display 'any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting'; to cause someone 'harassment, alarm or distress'. The maximum penalty is 6 months in prison and/or a fine of 5000.
Section 82: Possession of Articles or Information Useful to Terrorists
This section is to be inserted into the 1989 Prevention of Terrorism Act as a new Part IVa of that Act. Besides the offence of possessing articles 'giving rise to a reasonable suspicion' that they are to be used for terroristic reasons; it also becomes an offence to collect, record or simply possess 'any information which is of such a nature as is likely to be useful to terrorists in planning or carrying out any act of terrorism...' The information is described as that 'not in the public domain' but journalists, peace campaigners and other researchers regularly use such information in the course of their work. The burden of proof lies on the accused to show that they had 'reasonable excuse' or 'lawful authority' to hold the information. Conviction can mean a prison sentence of up to 10 years and/or a fine.
Other police powers, in less detail-Right to Silence
Up till now, anyone arrested has had the right to remain silent in police custody - a precious safeguard of a legal system based on the premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Now, a jury can 'draw adverse inference' from the accused's relying on evidence not mentioned to the police at the time of arrest.
Increased Stop & Search Powers
Similar to the old 'sus' laws, these give the police increased powers to declare areas as 'stop & search zones' because they anticipate that 'serious incidents of violence' may take place. A direction can be made to cover an area for up to 24 hours, with possible 6 hour extension. The police are then able to stop and question people at random, as well as searching vehicles, pedestrians and any bags for weapons and dangerous articles, without even suspecting that those people have committed an offence or intend to. This is bound to affect young people from ethnic minorities who are much more likely to be stopped and searched than a white person.
Intimate Samples
The CJA introduces the compulsory taking of 'intimate and non-intimate' samples (such as hair, saliva, skin, pubic hair, hair, blood, urine, semen - 'reasonable force' may be used in cases of non-cooperation!) from anyone charged with a 'recordable offence' (some of these are relatively minor offences and the samples are not for use in the case). These samples will instead be used for a national DNA database.
Prisons
Privately-run prisons, unaccountable to public scrutiny and run on a profit-making basis, and due to be introduced, along with prison ships and 'secure training centres' for children aged 12 to 14. These young inmates can be strip-searched forcibly by a single member of staff; all their mail can be read and censored; all family visits can be stopped on the order of the Centre's Director...
Bail conditions
Changes to the Police & Magistrates' Act mean that the police will often be able to set bail conditions themselves without resorting to a magistrate in a court. This makes ultra-restrictive bail conditions much more likely.
DISCLAIMER:
The information contained on this page is intended for reference only and may become out of date. If you think you may be in trouble, please do not use this page as your only source of information, consult a solicitor.
TVP,ufton nervet, post traumatic stress disorder and raves! I didn't really want to post this rather heavy message but with many friends in party crews this is something which has been bothering me lately....
Everyone is no doubt aware of the terrible train crash just outside Reading. I won't say any more of this as I am sick to the teeth of the media coverage already; they don't turn up when positive stuff happens here :mad:
as part of the emergency response, most of the local old bill would have been deployed at some time or another to the scene for the usual policing duties associated with a major incident. These are the same officers who carry out local policing duties in this area, including turning up at raves. some may also have been present at the ill-fated Halloween rave in our area.
these officers have been exposed to some very disturbing and stressful situations, and may be suffering forms of PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). The macho culture prevalent in the emergency services could lead to many not seeking treatment; attempting to fight off any mental problems themselves.
worse still, there have even been some rather uncomplimentary comments on other rave message boards, criticising the TVP response to this incident (FFS there is nothing old bill can do to stop a train at 100mph, the train driver can't do it either...) - and a media allegation the lunatic who parked his car on the level crossing was an angry drug user
but why could this affect raves? Well we are now in a situation in our area where TVP at senior level have authorised the use of an extra level of force to stop rave events. The October police response was unprecedented for any public order situation in our area.
One symptom of PTSD is increased agression, and there is a possibility some cops may try to "get over" the train incident by deliberately volunteering for or creating situations where they can "prove themselves". Might be something we should be on the lookout out for in our area..
Farmer gets squatters rights on property developers land! LOL at the whinging developers; how can you "lay low" with a herd of cattle? they aren't exactly easy to hide...
Quote:
Farmer awarded squatter's rights
A farmer who grazed cattle for 30 years on land belonging to developers has won squatter's rights to the land.
Topplan Estates, who thought they owned the 13 acres near Scotforth, Lancashire, are now in the position of having to buy the land again.
The Appeal Court said farmer David Townley had been under no obligation to tell the developers he was continuing to farm on the land.
Mr Townley intends to wait to see if the company will make an offer.
Topplan Estates had planned to build about 500 Barrett homes on the land, which they first bought in 1992, but had yet to gain planning permission.
They accused Mr Townley of being "underhand" and that he had "lain low" while establishing squatter's rights.
However, Lord Justice Parker said: "The activites of the squatter on the land must have been open and apparent to anyone who had eyes to see...in this case they were."
He upheld Mr Townley's squatter's rights because he had been in uninterrupted possession of the fields for at least 12 consecutive years.
Mr Townley's family has farmed adjoining Whinney Carr Farm since the 1960s.
The disputed strip had at first been rented from another owner, who subsequently went bankrupt. Mr Townley continued to farm the land.
He had started the legal action to establish his rights in 1996.
Mr Towney, quoted in the Times on Thursday, said: "You could call it a triumph for the little man against the developers."
He added: " We had actually farmed the land since 1964. We managed the land in a positive way for all those years."
Thames Valley *Paparrazi*? Interesting events happened after the large Reading multi-rigger two weeks ago....
As reported in the local press; following complaints from locals TVP moved in to close the event down on Sunday afternoon (there were so many people there that cops had to wait until numbers dropped!)
TVP deployed about 30 cops to the front of the entry/exit point (cops had previously taken control of this by surprise!) and assembled there in about 4 full serial (TSG) vans.
Crews were packing away, and moving their vans in convoy to get ready to get out (however TVP were preventing the first van from moving).
They heard the shout "GO! GO! GO!" and all the cops from the serial vans advancing towards them. Naturally people were alarmed..
but instead of raising batons, cops produced cameras!
Very slowly and methodically (I am advised the whole operation took 2-3 hours!) the cops filmed and photographed every vehicle, every passenger and the building.
They used mainstream-media style techniques; similar to how the "media circus" move in and surround a celeb; the cops who had no cameras providing the "backup" to invade the targets personal space.
However, the cops were not particularly physically aggressive either (compared to previous engagements between the Thames valley ravers and cops!) and only made about 8 arrests from a very large number of people.
This seems like a new tactic - and definitely one aided by the new technology and perhaps even the media industry. There are plenty of out of work, embittered and angry cameramen and other media types; who would be perfectly happy (for the appropriate fee!) to train cops in how to get good stills and video footage for evidence gathering purposes- and one of the first things any camera op is told is "get in close".
Also it seemed like the whole event was staged for the benefit of the locals, to show they "are doing something about the problem". It is perhaps the case the slowness was deliberate - as the ravers "stole" the locals rest time, the cops "take back" time from the raves by delaying them getting home to rest as the comedown came in?
I wonder what they are going to do with all those pictures. Vehicles and drivers will no doubt be checked for the usual traffic matters (although perhaps understandable on our areas dangerous roads) - but what about the people?
No doubt TVP will be trying to find out "whos who" and what else they may get up to. Of course for most people this shouldn't be too much of a source of paranoia; OTOH its always worth remembering if you attend raves or take part in any other form of underground activity the rest of your life is perhaps also being scrutinised and you may be called to account for it..
US county classes illegal raves as child abuse! http://members.tripod.com/sheriff_ficano/id11.html
Quote:
We Will Investigate The Following Types Of Digital Crime:
âą Felony Crimes - instructions on bomb-making, illegal drug production, terrorist activities, incitement to racial hatred.
âą Crimes Against Children - sexual predators, abusive forms of marketing, violence, and pornography, illegal rave parties.
WTF? I thought the RAVE Act was bad but this is really fucked up - I'm not surprised now a lot of Americans lurk here and dare not post....
Raid closes rave on river beach http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3588200.stm
Sunday, 22 August, 2004, 10:53 GMT 11:53 UK
Raid closes rave on river beach
A police raid has put a stop to an illegal party on a beach alongside the River Colne in Essex.
Two people going to the event between Alresford and Wivenhoe were arrested on suspicion of drink-driving.
Officers raided the party early on Sunday morning after residents complained of the noise the 80 people were making.
Chief Insp Iain Logan said: "Our policy is to act early and disrupt illegal events such as these."
He added they caused nuisance to residents and were generally held in inappropriate or dangerous venues with no consideration for those attending.
Organisers can expect arrest
"Organisers can expect to be arrested, prosecuted and have their equipment seized if they fail to comply with directions from police to close their event.
"Police stayed at the beach area until all those taking part had dispersed and the sound equipment was dismantled.
"We found items associated with drug-taking but no arrests were made although two people on their way to the event were questioned after arrest on suspicion of drink-driving."
Several raves across the east of England were stopped by police last weekend
REVIVED RAVE ACT PASSES Congress slips anti-club measure into child-abduction bill.
http://www.hightimes.com/ht/news/content.php?bid=58&aid=2
NEW ORLEANSâThe correlation between baby-snatching perverts and pacifier-slinging music promoters is tenuous at best, but on April 10, the House and Senate approved a revived version of last yearâs failed âRAVE Actâ as part of the âAmber Alertâ anti-child-abduction bill. The new law, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, was quietly folded into the measure by Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE).
As Section 608 of the âAmber Alertâ bill, formally titled the PROTECT (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today) Act, it broadly expands the federal âcrackhouse lawâ (21 USC 856). That law already allows up to 20 years incarceration and $500,000 in fines for opening or maintaining a building for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using an illegal drug. The new wording extends it to cover temporary, one-time, and outdoor events, and also allows the Feds to levy civil suits against promoters, with additional fines of up to $250,000 per offense. Civil suits have a lower threshold of proof, requiring only a âpreponderance of evidenceâ instead of the âbeyond a reasonable doubtâ of criminal trials.
The Feds already used the crackhouse law in their landmarkâthough widely ridiculedâprosecution of New Orleans promoters Donnie Estopinal and brothers Brian and Robert Brunet in 2000. This year, the conviction and sentencing of Idaho promoter Lee Rice on the same charge earlier this year barely raised a whimper of protest. (See below.)
In these increasingly conservative political waters, Senator Biden has offered up concert promoters as chum for Attorney General John Ashcroftâs old school buddies. âAmber Alert is certainly the centerpiece of that act,â explains Chip Unruh, Bidenâs spokesperson. âWhat binds them togetherâthe purpose of that actâis to protect kids. As for slipping [the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act] in there, we donât feel that we slipped it in there; it passed unanimously in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It would have gone through last year, but it was held up because of some judicial nominations.â
Last yearâs RAVE Act was essentially the same bill, but contained explicitly anti-rave language; glowsticks and chill-out rooms were deemed evidence that promoters were aiding and abetting drug use. Two key sponsors withdrew after ravers sent tens of thousands of protest messages to Congress. Biden made a last-ditch effort to resurrect the bill in October, but it died. This year, the PROTECT Act as a whole was approved by the Judiciary Committeeâwhere Biden is the top Democrat on the crime subcommitteeâwithout hearings on the drug provisions.
âThereâs sort of an alarmist attitude out there about this bill,â Unruh continues. âThe Drug Policy Alliance claimed they had gathered so much opposition to it, and the ACLU, too. Theyâve tried to scare people into believing that incidental drug use will be targeted.â
Indeed, the wording of the bill is so broad that Widespread Panic may eventually have to do Muzak renditions of âTiny Bubblesâ for Wal-Mart shoppers, rather than risk their fortunes by strumming live for fields full of tripping hippies. California landlords who allow little old ladies burdened with glaucoma to toke up at home could conceivably face forfeiture of their property. Cypress Hill might as well resign themselves to singing family tunes for Narcotics Anonymous conventions in Branson, Missouri. The potential nightmare that this bill poses was disturbing enough to prompt the Drug Policy Alliance to spearhead a drive thatâonce againâflooded Capitol Hill with over 30,000 letters in opposition to Section 608. Alas; to no avail. Still, the fight is far from finished.
âWeâre turning our attention to enforcement issues,â says the DPAâs William McColl, unswayed by the setback. âI expect that at some point weâll try to repeal it or change it. Theyâve already prosecuted people who are innocent, and I expect them to prosecute more.â
Bidenâs office denies that innocent rave promoters will be targeted, however. âThis is no more anti-rave than the crackhouse law is anti-house. To prove that a promoter violated this law is an incredibly high bar,â insists Unruh. âA very small percentage of raves will be shut down because of this, and the ones that are will be the ones where unscrupulous promoters prey on young people by encouraging drug use. If you hold an event to distribute drugs, you will be held accountable.â
âThereâs really an issue about the way they passed this,â sighs McColl. âI think weâd have a very different bill if theyâd gone through committee. Itâs unusual for it to go through with no vote, no hearing. They knew it was a major issue.â
For more information, visit the Drug Policy Action Network, the DEA, or Electronic Music Defense and Education Fund.
IDAHO RAVE PROMOTERS JAILED
April Foolâs Day was no joke for rave promoters Lee Arthur Rice II and Kevin Pawlik. Rice received a seven-year federal prison sentence plus three years of probation and a $2,000 fine for conspiracy to distribute Ecstasy and LSD, as well as violating the âcrackhouse law.â Pawlik got 17 years in the pen and six years of probation.
The two men are the first rave promoters to be found guilty at trial of knowingly allowing a venue to be used for the sale or consumption of drugs. The Feds initially used the crackhouse law in 2000 to prosecute concert promoters in New Orleans; that case was settled with a hefty fine. In 2001 they targeted Club La Vela (MTVâs spring-break headquarters from 1996-98) in Panama City Beach, Florida, but the defendants were acquitted.
Rice and Pawlik didnât fare so well, however. Deputy US Attorney Monte Stiles claimed that Rice allowed codefendants Eric Shira and Tyler Nichol to use his VIP rooms to sell drugs during his music events in exchange for a kickback, an assertion that they all denied. Whether or not Rice will face criminal forfeiture of his properties, Leeâs Hip-Hop Boxing Club and Knockouts, remains to be seen. Meanwhile, he continues to adamantly proclaim his innocence, and is planning to appeal.
http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=1581;
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/856.htm;
http://emdef.org/s226/
Illegal Rave Organisers Prosecuted http://www.chelmsfordbc.gov.uk/news/feb03/rave.htm
CHELMSFORD Borough Council has successfully prosecuted two Earls Colne men for their involvement in an illegal rave at Montrose Road, Chelmsford on 20 and 21 April last year.
Mathew Clague and Mathew Moore pleaded guilty at Witham Magistrates Court yesterday, Wednesday 19 February, to the offence of âbeing concerned in the organisation or management of a public entertainment event without a public entertainment licenceâ. They were each fined ÂŁ750 and ordered to each pay ÂŁ750 costs.
Chelmsford Borough Council decided to prosecute after receiving evidence that the conditions in the premises were totally unsafe. Essex Police and Essex Fire and Rescue Service, who went to the warehouse (formerly occupied by A-Z Supplies), found that there was no lighting in the premises, no lit means of escape, no staff to supervise an emergency evacuation and no first aid facilities. In addition, the mezzanine floor, which was in the process of being dismantled, was found to be unbolted and completely free standing.
Chelmsford Borough Councilâs Commercial Services Manager, Dawn French said: âWe took this action to protect public safety. The event could so easily have ended in disaster. If something had gone wrong, like the mezzanine collapsing, revellers could have been killed.â
Anyone wishing to organise such an event should contact the Council on 01245 606940 so appropriate health and safety guidelines can be followed.
20 February 2003
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
