Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Social Networks The Internet Your Rights Online

UK Police Raid Party After Seeing "All-Night" Tag On Facebook 628

Posted by Soulskill
from the clicking-buttons-is-much-easier-than-walking-a-beat dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Apparently the police like to spend their time trawling our private information on Facebook looking for criminals. 'Riot police stormed a man's 30th birthday barbecue for 15 guests because it was advertised as an "all-night" party on Facebook. Four police cars, a riot van, and a force helicopter were dispatched to a privately-owned field in a small village near Sowton, Devon in the UK on Saturday, ordering the party shut down or everyone would be arrested. The birthday barbecue was busted up before they even had a chance to plug the music in, reports the BBC. It was about 4pm when eight officers with camouflage pants and body armor jumped out of their vehicles and ordered everyone out about an hour into the party.' The event's organizer, Andrew Poole, said, 'The police had full-on camouflage trousers on and body-armour, it was ridiculous. There were also several plain-clothes officers as well ... they kept on insisting it has been advertised it as an all-night rave on the internet. The times on it were put as "overnight" in case people wanted to sleep-over, but after being explained this they were still banging on saying it was advertised on the internet. They wouldn't accept it wasn't a rave. It was in a completely isolated field.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Police Raid Party After Seeing "All-Night" Tag On Facebook

Comments Filter:
  • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by inKubus (199753) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @02:13AM (#28738601) Homepage Journal

    I guess everyone should put all night party tags on their Facebook pages tomorrow night.

    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tokerat (150341) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @02:20AM (#28738617) Journal
      I, for one, will be tagging every Facebook event I list from now on as an all-night party in Sowton, Devon, UK. I encourage you to do the same.
      • Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)

        by sumdumass (711423) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @02:59AM (#28738791) Journal

        Isn't that going to get kind of expensive having all your parties shut down by the cops?

        • Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @05:48AM (#28739417)

          WTF? Why should they shut it down in the first place, or have me pay the cost? I have a party, it's going all night, where's the crime? Did I miss when it became illegal to celebrate?

          • by mdwh2 (535323) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @06:23AM (#28739525) Journal

            It became illegal about 15 years ago - from TFA, it states Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 [opsi.gov.uk]. This basically criminalised raves (which at the time were being demonised from hysteria and moral panicing from the tabloids and the politicians), even if they are held on legal ground.

            AFAICT, it criminalises any gathering of over 100 people in a public place where music is played (defined infamously as "sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats"), unless they have obtained the appropriate entertainment licence, but furthermore, any it allows the police to disperse any gathering of 2 or more people if the police think they're preparing a rave, or 10 or more people if the police think they're waiting for a rave.

            No evidence, no courts, no right to appeal.

            Of course, the police deserve criticism for applying the law in a case that was clearly not in its original spirit, but let's not remember the law they used to do it is broad and draconian. The worrying thing is that the police haven't backed down and acknowledged it as a mistake - they still believe that anything advertised on the Internet as an "all-night party" should be illegal. What is this, a curfew? Telling us when bed time is? Talk about nanny-state - it's like the strict rules my college used to have about parties, where you needed permission, and parties had to be over by midnight.

            From TFA, the polic: "far more resources would have been used to police the event". In my experience of Cambridge's Strawberry Fair, these resources would predominantly have involved the police doing a fishing expedition [urban75.org] in order to catch people with cannabis on them [bbc.co.uk] (I experienced this first hand when travelling through Cambridge Train Station that day - even though I wasn't going to the fair, every single person getting off the train that day was detained for about 30 minutes for stop and search for drugs).

            • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, 2009 @07:54AM (#28739809)

              The thing that would concern me most about a law like that isn't the nanny-state implications, but the ability to use it to break up political rallies.

              • by mdwh2 (535323) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @08:17AM (#28739887) Journal

                Indeed, that too is very worrying. I'd argue these issues are connected as well - many grassroots political activism and protests grow from people who are connected via social networks. If you can break up people being able to meet up for pleasure, you break up any potential for political activism too. People don't go on a protest because they read about it on Slashdot or the news or wherever, no matter how enraged they are - they go on a protest because they hear about it from their friends, and it's all the same people they know who go along to them. Consider, the large numbers of people protesting this law would have I imagine been made up of the people who attended raves.

              • by pete6677 (681676) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @01:20PM (#28741857)

                This is exactly what the "if you have nothing to hide" crowd repeatedly fails to understand. Laws or procedures giving lots of power to a small group of officials with little accountability will inevitably be abused.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Hurricane78 (562437)

              Well, this all can be boiled down to one simple rule: Nobody gets hurt by those "raves", and even less so by the party. So it is not illegal. Period. The law is illegal. The makers and enforcers are illegal.

              Now you could say that this only works, because they are stronger.
              But are they really? I mean count the people in the whole UK. Minus most of the police forces and politicians. (And maybe the army too.
              Then take all those Police/Army/Politicians, and compare them to the rest.
              I bet you are getting somethin

            • by Vinegar Joe (998110) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @09:33AM (#28740265)

              I'm suspicious! This law was passed before George Bush was president?!?!? How could that be??? Sounds *very* fishy to me!

          • Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

            by BasilBrush (643681) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @06:33AM (#28739553)

            Possibly you did. All night events in fields with music "characterised by a repetitive beat" aka "Raves" were made illegal by Margaret Thatcher's government back in the 1980s.

            Bad law, but a law never the less.

            As to this story, the question is who to believe. Clearly the police saw it to be a rave in the process of preparation. 15 people in a field at 4pm could indeed be preparations for a rave that night. The give away would be what kit was there. Was the not-yet-turned on music equipment a portable CD player, or a full on gig sound system. Did they have a couple of torches (flashlights) with them or a DJ lighting system.

            Whilst it's naive to automatically assume that the police were acting honestly and responsibly, it's even more naive to assume that these people were just having a small family barbecue in a field just because they say they are.

            The rational response for intelligent people is to say the story doesn't have enough information to just who is right and who is wrong. Photos would help.

            • Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)

              by Mr. Freeman (933986) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @06:49AM (#28739597)
              Yeah, it's completely irresponsible to assume that some people with a few speakers, a single small tent, and some burgers who sent out an invite to 17 (not close to 100) people on facebook weren't planning a MASSIVE all night LSD-fueled rave.
              • Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)

                by BasilBrush (643681) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @07:11AM (#28739665)

                So you are the naive type of the second sort. Taking the word of the person who was stopped by the police, as retold by the Daily Mail of all things. (Are you British, do you actually know that paper?)

                You even got your reporting of what he claimed wrong, he didn't say he invited 17 people, he said 17 people "had confirmed", on Facebook. If you have any experience of events advertised on facebook, you'll know that the number of people who find out that way and actually bother to RSVP a confirmation is the tip of the iceberg of the people who go to the event.

                Now read between the lines. He talks about "taking down a sound system". For 17 people? Ridiculous. He talks of hiring a generator and a marquee. He says he spend £800 on the event. >£50 per person for a barbeque? Ridiculous.

                You are very naive.

                • Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)

                  by coastwalker (307620) <acoastwalker@NOspAm.hotmail.com> on Saturday July 18, 2009 @09:06AM (#28740099) Homepage

                  £800 for a tent, mobile sound system, barbecue food and booze for 20 friends sounds cheap. I've spent more money on a Christmas dinner for a few friends. I think you just dont like people who break laws against people having fun. He publicized the event to his friends, not to the whole of facebook. What exactly is this Rave thing the law was designed to ban anyway? From what I remember it was introduced because entrepreneurs were organizing parties where they sold drugs and booze on land with out the owners permission with the pull of all night music. Well no one is going to make much of a fuss about putting a stop to littering peoples fields, potentially with dead teenagers. But this was a thirty-th birthday barbecue with music and a tent to hide under when the rain got too bad, set in a field so that alcohol could be consumed and slept off in your own tent. There used to be a pub in Exeter which allowed much the same deal in its field. The pub has been bought by a national chain now and camping in its field is no longer allowed. This country is becoming a vile place to live, no strike that, this country is a vile place to live.

                  • Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)

                    by smoker2 (750216) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @09:22AM (#28740177) Homepage Journal
                    I live about 4 miles from the site. This is about the fourth different story I've heard so far. In the first incarnation, he said that he "offered" to close the party down - no enforcement needed. So all the rest of it has come later, in fact as soon as the national media got involved.

                    As for that other pub, I assume you're talking about the Double Locks - that place is crap now anyway. I don't know anybody who would go there for a night out now. They used to have about 20 different real ales and ciders, now they have 1 real ale, 2 ciders and the rest is processed crap.
                • Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)

                  by DJRumpy (1345787) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @10:43AM (#28740741)
                  Actually the Facebook bit was just an afterthought. If you follow the links to the original BBC article, you would see that the local neighbors actually called the police when they saw a group of unfamiliar people gather in the same are where a rave previously took place a few days before. They called the police, who apparently then went out and investigated.

                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/8155441.stm [bbc.co.uk]

                  That doesn't excuse what the police did after the fact. It should have taken at least a low grade moron to see that these people were having a BBQ. It's kind of frightening how far out of control things have gotten across the pond. It seems far worse than the US. They have surrendered some very basic liberties to the government and they don't appear to be screaming to get them back which is also confusing. This is obviously some very bad legislation that needs to be revisited. Are the elements that got this type of legislation passed still in control over there?

                  They are in a very slippery slope.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by houghi (78078)

                some people with a few speakers,

                And that is it. They will play music for an audience without paying to the local RIAA. It is almost like Sicilian Security.
                The next thing they must do is go by the houses, see who has invited friends for a BBQ and arrest say daddy Fawkes in front of little boy Guy (Guido), so he learns what a bad person daddy is and he won't go against government.

    • Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)

      by barefoothannibal (967579) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @03:06AM (#28738829)
      Residents were quoted as saying "OMGWTFBBQ!?!"
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Actually, this story gave me a start, since I actually AM going to an all-night rave in an isolated field in Devon tonight.

  • What a good idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tokerat (150341) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @02:17AM (#28738611) Journal

    Instead of keeping people you know to possibly be intoxicated confined to an event all night where they can only do harm to themselves (if even), let's break these gatherings up so some of these people get intoxicated elsewhere, and have to drive home early.

    Raving is not a crime.

    • Raving is not a crime.

      Correct you are. Taking drugs might be, but partying and listening to loud music in an isolated field out in the middle of nowhere, isn't.

      • by Tokerat (150341)
        Not sure how it is in the UK, but in the US it's not illegal to be under the influence unless you are disturbing the peace (unless this has changed without my knowledge. Haven't done anything like that since college). Possession and sale, however...
    • Re:What a good idea (Score:5, Informative)

      by xdotx (966421) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @03:37AM (#28738957) Homepage

      Raving is not a crime.

      TFA: "[...] section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which grants police powers to remove persons attending or preparing for a "rave" (defined as playing amplified music "wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats," during the night)."

      Well, apparently it is.

      • by SputnikPanic (927985) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @04:15AM (#28739067)

        I've never been to the UK but over the years I've read no small number of stories coming from across the pond that just leave me shaking my head: the ever-present cameras, the citizen databases, the monitoring and surveillance, etc. How are the good folks in the UK not in the streets about all this? Maybe I'm wrong -- in fact I hope that I am -- but the UK seems to be barreling down the road to Big Brother. To see a Western nation going down this path truly disturbs me.

        • by salmacis2 (643788) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @04:38AM (#28739157)
          There are all kinds of stories of the lunacy going on in the States, too. Anybody reading slashdot / digg/ reddit etc would get a completely distorted view of what America is like, just as you seem to have with the UK.
        • by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojo AT world3 DOT net> on Saturday July 18, 2009 @06:00AM (#28739459) Homepage

          Us English are incredibly apathetic. Not just about the laws themselves, but about informing ourselves about what is going on. We would rather read rubbish the The Sun and The Daily Mail and have our opinions given to us rather than think for ourselves.

          It all boils down to never having had any kind of revolution or defining moment. Most "modern" countries have had some kind of defining moment where they laid down the values and ideas on which they define themselves. The French Revolution, loosing WW2, overthrowing a dictator... We never had anything like that (our civil war didn't do much to help) so we have nothing to base our modern self-image on. We try to apply the mythical "British" values of the old world to the new one.

          Ideas such as freedom and liberty don't hold much weight here, as we never had to really struggle to get them. There is no clear divide between freedom/democracy and subjugation/imperialism for us.

          • by fantomas (94850) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @07:43AM (#28739773)

            You should read a bit of history, matey. "Never had any kind of revolution or defining moment"... "never had to struggle to get (freedom and liberty)"....

            Take a bit of time out to read some history and you might find out why you've got the right to vote, what habeus corpus is, why we we're allowed to move from parish to parish without getting permission from our lords and a whole lot more.

      • by fantomas (94850) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @04:45AM (#28739177)

        Check this [youtube.com] - in the USA they use police that look like the military, the whole guns and armour thing to break up their parties... so looks like its the same both sides of the pond.

  • Must suck (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, 2009 @02:22AM (#28738625)

    Must suck for those guys to live in a police state. Man am i ever glad to live in a free an democratic country.

    Oh, wait...

  • by ewhac (5844) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @02:25AM (#28738637) Homepage Journal
    Honestly, what's the justification for this nonsense? Are the local constabularies that bored? And what the hell was with the SWAT-like response? Do they seriously think Osama bin Laden is going to turn up and spin techno for three hours?

    Did the owner of the field give informed consent for the gathering? If so, then the police had no business being there. Apologies are almost certainly in order.

    Schwab

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tokerat (150341)
      That's the other thing I never understood. I've never seen a rave turn violent. You could just sent one or two cars and break it up. 5 officers, MAX. It's not like partykids carry guns!
    • by MarkusQ (450076) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @02:35AM (#28738673) Journal

      Honestly, what's the justification for this nonsense? Are the local constabularies that bored? And what the hell was with the SWAT-like response? Do they seriously think Osama bin Laden is going to turn up and spin techno for three hours?

      It would be interesting to see if there were any political connections--local officials in this country have been known to use almost almost identical "SWAT-like" tactics [talkingpointsmemo.com] to break up an opponent's fund raiser, for example.

      The "we thought it was a rave" BS would make a lot more sense as a cover for some stronger (but presently obscure) motive.

      -- MarkusQ

  • by MindlessAutomata (1282944) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @02:28AM (#28738651)

    What's worse, even if it was a "rave" (*gag*) it technically shouldn't have been illegal. While ravers and raves are probably one of humanity's least finest inventions there's nothing inherently wrong with listening and dancing to shitty techno (a redundancy?), waving around glowsticks like a fruitcake, and taking a drug that hurts no one 'cept yourself. Ravers in all their idiocy are like modern retardo hippies; it's not like raves are an assembly of violent people. The root of this all is the War on Drugs.

    So it's doubly-wrong.

    (sorry for any possible ravers that read this, 'though I suspect most ravers don't know how to read)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, 2009 @02:30AM (#28738659)

    'Had it gone ahead, it is likely that far more of our resources would have been used to police the event and there would have been considerable disruption to neighbouring properties.

    That's from a spokeswoman of the police there.

    I mean seriously, you're gonna say that because it's easier to make people stop doing something that you have suspicion it might be illegal it's better to mess up a tax paying citizen's freedom?

    To loosely quote Sam Vimes of Discworld, "It's better to say we caught the guy what done it instead of saying we caught the guy who looked like he'd do it. Especially when they say, Prove it."

    Also...

    'It was fortunate that the force helicopter was able to fly over the site as they were returning from another task.'

    Really. In the same article the spokewoman says that it cost them 200 pounds to deploy the helicopter for 20 minutes. The birthday boy spent 800 pounds to get his party RUINED by the police. Fuck you guys, seriously. What the fuck.

  • by andersa (687550) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @02:43AM (#28738717)

    Frankly I am old enough and bitter enough to just want kids like that off my lawn, my neighboors lawn, and if they are loud enough, the field next to it as well for that matter.

    From BBC news [bbc.co.uk] - "But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police."

    In other words, this bunch were notorious around town for partying all through the night, playing loud music and generally being a pain in the ass to everybody else. They may have been just barbequeing when the police showed up, but the locals knew what was comming and decided enough was enough.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Repossessed (1117929)

      Kids? The guy whose birthday they were celebrating just turned 30.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      "But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police."

      Ok, so they may have gotten a little rowdy in the past; send patrols by to make sure things stay calm, and break it up after if it starts getting out of hand. Go up and ask questions a bit, make your presence known, to make sure it stays under control. There are ways of controlling a bad situation without much fuss, and without eliminating the possible bad situation.

      This was just plain horrid reactionary behavior that points out flaws in laws that, while have good intentions, allow for abuse and make pe

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MartinSchou (1360093)

      this bunch were notorious around town

      How do you figure? The reports say "after previous events [...] at the same premises", not "after previous events with the same people".

      How would you feel if you visited a bank the day after it had been robbed, and random people accused you of being a bank robber, just because you happened to be at the scene of a previous robbery?

    • by Psychotria (953670) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @03:20AM (#28738899)

      From BBC news [bbc.co.uk] - "But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police."

      In other words, this bunch were notorious around town for partying all through the night, playing loud music and generally being a pain in the ass to everybody else. They may have been just barbequeing when the police showed up, but the locals knew what was comming and decided enough was enough.

      Where did you get that they were "notorious around town" from? I don't see mentioned anywhere that the "bunch" were notorious around town for causing trouble. All I see is that a bunch of locals decided that they'd contact police. A bunch of locals giving police "information" is not reason enough for the police to respond in the way they did. Heck, if YOU lived in my neighbourhood I just might be tempted to get me and my friends to make up stories about YOU and get the police to raid your house. How would you like that? Not very much I am guessing.

      In case you don't understand what I just said, let me put it in another way. Lets just say I have a bunch of friends here on slashdot and that I got together with them to accuse you of being a troll. All of us (me and my friends) will agree and email the slashdot admins that you're a troll. Upon hearing this, the admins revoke your account and ban you. How would this be right?

  • by TheModelEskimo (968202) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @02:58AM (#28738789)
    Yeah, I have neighbors who do the whole "BBQ" thing. They like to stay up "barbecuing" until about 4:30 a.m., and one of them in particular likes to rap an entire song's worth of memorized rap lyrics in a loud monotone for several minutes at a time.

    Now, I don't want camouflaged police showing up, but when I call the cops and these guys demand to know "which neighbor was it?" and STILL don't shut up after the cops are gone, I have to think that somebody with a Facebook account and a field is probably driving his neighbors FREAKING insane.

    Thank goodness for my linux box and synths that can play a nice loud PSHHHHHHTTTT sound, brown or pink as you like it. (Had to work linux in there somehow)
  • by Inda (580031) <slash.20.inda@spamgourmet.com> on Saturday July 18, 2009 @03:42AM (#28738965) Journal
    Probably arrested under the Criminal Justice Bill.

    I went on two London marches to fight against this bill 15 years ago. They were determined to stop us having free parties, "Illegal Raves" as the media called them. No conveys of more than 6 cars, no parties in fields, no freedom to enjoy life without corporate involvement. In my eyes, this is where CCTV Britain started. This was the start of anti-social laws. The nanny state.

    These parties still go on though. Fuck the police.
  • by obarthelemy (160321) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @03:47AM (#28738979)

    read that again... breathe... there.... you got it, champ.

    step one to being a successful "criminal": don't advertize whatever illegal stuff you're going to do...

    and no, facebook is not private...

  • by Cougem (734635) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @03:57AM (#28739015)
    1) The police didn't scour facebook - locals did, saw it, and reported it as a rave.

    2) The helicopter was out anyway, and they just asked the helicopter to fly over the site to really check if there was a party on its way back

    It was not police scouring facebook and dispatching a helicopter.

    It embarrasses and annoys me that this happened in my own country, which I do love dearly, but I wont let the usual anti-UK/US/Australia facebook crowd exaggerate it further.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, 2009 @04:20AM (#28739097)

      Apparently, they had caused problems before and were told to get a license before having the next party.

      They acknowledge this by saying they pointed the speakers away from the village to reduce the noise.

      If you have ever lived in the country, you know how far sound travels at night. Pointing the speakers in any direction would have little effect.

      They knew they had caused problems before, and were told they had to get a license befoe having another party. They failed to observe the warnings. Enough is enough. I would have them boiled in oil.

      It is amazing how Slashdot publishes articles with such misleading descriptions. It is becoming a useful exercise to try to analyze the facts as stated, then figure out what to look for to find the truth.

      Mike Monett
      Midland

  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @04:09AM (#28739047) Journal

    You see a lot of kiddies complaining along the lines of "a rave shouldn't be illegal". But in britain, it is. Yes, really. Not concerts or parties, but raves.

    The reasons are probably that overtime raves became a problem for some and they wanted something done against them. The other side was not intrested in fighting it and so things got passed into law and voila, you got a specific type of party made illegal.

    England, believe it or not is still democracy. More so now then in the last couple of decades because it is no longer ensured who is going to win an election in a region. Safe seats aren't that safe anymore.

    If YOU don't fight for your rights, then someone else wins with their rights. The problem with raves is simple, it is the struggle between the neighbours who want a quiet night and the party people who don't. Both have rights but they can't both excersise them fully without restricting the other.

    So either the ravers turn down the music or the neighbours give up their quiet night. Ideally, both sides should work this out but as you can see on this side, working things out ain't part of human nature. The anti rave laws have come into being to deal with "illegal" events being held at random location with absolutely no care being given for the consequences. This doesn't just upset the neighbours, it upsets others in the entertainment industry. Not entirely fair is it that a local pub has to spend a fortune on sound isolation but a random group can just hold a rave anywhere, break every law that exists, not pay taxes and get away with it?

    The law didn't come into place because YOU played techno in your yard and the neighbour complained. It came into being from 1000+ parties being held in location with no fire safety, no securty, causing serious disturbances. Not just noise, but traffic and things like fights breaking out.

    The ravers suffered the public wrath and did NOT regulate themselves to fit into society. Of course, that is not a rebel thing to do but it is the thing to do if you don't want society to turn against you. Because as silly as this story is, the average voter (that is people who actually do vote, not just people who can vote) doesn't give a shit. They just see the tabloids depiction of ravers as crazed druggies, heared from someone at work how a rave is a warzone and are all in favor.

    Democracy is just another word for dictatorship of the many. The raves that got out of control created these laws, which weren't oppososed by the ravers themselves and now you got this silly situation.

    Most laws are silly, but exist because people are silly. If a lot of rave parties didn't cause such a nuisance (you could hold a rave party the same as any other concert and follow laws of fire safety, drugs laws and noise pollution) then there would be no desire to have them restricted. There are laws that says you can't drill into your wall after or before a specific hour in a building that isn't standalone. Why? Because someone found it neccesary to drill all night in an apartment block. Well not SOMEONE. A LOT of someone's. The apartment block is actually a good example, an old flat might easily have several hundred of apartments and drilling in one sound through the entire building. If a person only drill once every 3 years, it takes less then 1000 people to have drilling going on day in day out.

    That is the reason there are rave laws and lots of others. Because without them people just can't be consider the affect their action have on others.

    Want to protest that? Then don't say "it shouldn't be illegal". You should made sure when the laws were introduced that it didn't become illegal by doing the same thing the petitioners did. Make your case and show that YOUR case benefits the greater good (gets the most people to vote for you).

  • by erroneus (253617) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @07:17AM (#28739683) Homepage

    On one hand, we have a government that is entirely too willing to "Control and Defend" (what ever happened to "serve and protect"?) and on the other hand, we have short-sighted people who are all too willing to request and expect such things from government.

    It was "the locals" who contacted the authorities to have this birthday party cancelled according to the articles. (I wonder how much we can trust the articles to actually be telling the truth in this matter?) If this is true, then "we have only ourselves to blame" in that we are begging government to protect us from just about everything.

    No amount of any single thing will back this problem out. Soccer moms and elderly don't give a rat's ass about freedom and self expression. They want the world to change for them, not the other way around. And I have to admit that I have my own "the world offends me" perspective from time to time... especially when I am driving and the person in the passing lane is moving too slow and I get blocked in by two or more drivers who don't seem to notice or care that they are impeding traffic. (There are those moments when I actually wish I could slap a police light on my car, whip out a badge and a gun and get crazy on their asses... but at just about that moment, I remember that this is exactly why I don't own any guns -- I might use them! And frankly, I know I'd have much to regret if I ever did.) I can identify with the world offending me in any case, but here's what I do about it:

    I try, as often as possible, that in order to protect my own rights, I have to make allowances for and respect the rights of others and that [especially] includes the right to be DIFFERENT. I think that somehow, the world of people at large has forgotten that when you try to take the rights of "some people" away, you invariably harm the rights of ALL people. Perhaps I am showing my age, but there was a time when we taught this sort of wisdom in schools... civics or social studies... not sure what they might be called today, but it seems pretty obvious to me that people of my age, older and younger either never had such classes or didn't learn from them.

    But here I sit with a real problem. Because I am in the clear minority in this position as are many slashdotters who probably agree with me. On this issue, the need to see that rights are to be protected and respected for ALL or NONE, I am a member of a minority group. The rest of the people don't understand or even care about their rights and freedoms. I want the world to change for me... but really, for us all... but primarily, for me.

  • Good grief!

    I think making sure a rave is safe is a good idea, after what happened to the people with the lasers a while back, but otherwise, what's the harm?

    NONE, ZERO, NADA.

    Between the US and UK, what the fuck is going on?

  • by FrankN (856136) on Saturday July 18, 2009 @12:12PM (#28741367) Homepage
    Time to fire up the theremin, we're gonna party!

    FrankN

You will lose an important disk file.

Working...