UK Police Raid Party After Seeing "All-Night" Tag On Facebook 628
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.'"
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
I guess everyone should put all night party tags on their Facebook pages tomorrow night.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't that going to get kind of expensive having all your parties shut down by the cops?
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Fuck 'Em, And Their Law (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Fuck 'Em, And Their Law (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fuck 'Em, And Their Law (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fuck 'Em, And Their Law (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fuck 'Em, And Their Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Regular beat cops in the UK don't have guns, but if you think they're more than one radio call for backup away from a fully armed squad, you'd be sorely mistaken!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, just ask Jean Charles de Menezes [wikipedia.org].
Re:Fuck 'Em, And Their Law (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, I'm not normally one for ad hominem attacks, but you really are completely and utterly clueless.
Significant numbers of police units in the UK now routinely carry firearms, not just the odd specialist firearms car, and plans to deploy weapons like tasers to non-specialist units are well advanced in some forces.
And no, people cannot possess big sticks and bring themselves into line with what the police have. Carrying anything made or adapted for use as a weapon will fall under catch-all legislation and get you arrested, carrying anything that can be used as a serious weapon (sharps, firearms, etc.) will probably get you an automatic several years in prison, and even wearing body armour but being unarmed on an estate notorious for gang violence among its young population will get you a visit from a police officer telling you to take off the armour.
This is all a matter of public record, but if you want to see how things really work, just go read the stories about the use of kettling tactics by the Met at the recent London protests, and take a look at the videos that show police officers in full riot gear assaulting completely non-violent people, in some cases those who were just passing through the wrong place at the wrong time on their way home from work and didn't even have anything to do with the protests. One such person died, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission received hundreds of complaints and are actively investigating several cases of alleged police brutality where the video evidence captured by others present seems pretty hard to see any other way.
Seriously, if you think the public are allowed even close to the level of force the police use (and, it is now clear, abuse) here in the UK, then you need to watch the news a bit more often.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However if similar allegations were made against members of the public (especially if the alleged victims were police officers) they would undoubtedly have been arrested and their names and pictures splashed all over the media.
Well, probably, but remember that members of the public don't have the convenient ability to declare the mere act of photographing them to be a terrorist activity and impose all sorts of summary measures against the photographer as a result.
You have to keep a sense of perspective, you see. It's an important part of national security that the police be allowed to take their identification numbers off and arrest anyone who might be able to identify them by other means before they beat the crap out of innocent
Re:Fuck 'Em, And Their Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone inevitably brings this up everytime there's an article about the UK. But there are also news reports of other, also worrying infringement of people's liberties, going on in the US. So how come the handguns never stop them? Has there ever been a case where people got out their guns, and the police said "Oh dear, we'll back down then and ignore them"? Or does it just end up in bloodshed, with the citizens being either shot dead, or arrested for far more serious offences?
Don't get me wrong, I do agree with the principle of bearing arms to defend against the Government, but I don't see that this would prevent things happening such as those in the article. What are you expecting them to do, shoot down the helicopter?
Re:Fuck 'Em, And Their Law (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fuck 'Em, And Their Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad example. The citizens weren't armed, they broke into an armoury and armed themselves with government arms. Something that in theory could as easily happen in England, especially right after the war.
Re:Fuck 'Em, And Their Law (Score:5, Insightful)
If the cops showed up at your birthday party and told you you had to shut it down, you'd shoot them if you had a gun? Seriously? And you think that's a good thing?
Re:Fuck 'Em, And Their Law (Score:5, Insightful)
What a load of bollocks. Our freedoms aren't being removed by the idiots PC's on the beat, and shooting them wouldn't result in anything but a life sentence or a bloody shoot-out in either the UK or the States.
Our freedoms are being taken by law makers, politicians and lords. We don't require handguns to stop them, we just require the general public to sit up, take notice and grow a pair.
The simple fact is that a lot of the country don't have a problem with the laws as of yet. They don't gather in large groups in public, they've never 'done drugs' and have no desire to do so - they feel safe, they are happy. I think their total twats, but then part of the downside of living in a democratic country is have to put up with the twats and recognising that not everyone feels the same way I do. Or I could take your suggestion, buy a gun and assert my demand for freedom by... shooting people that are carrying out their (albeit dubious) jobs/duty?
Even with 50-1 odds in favour and legalised handguns would we stand a fucking chance against a fully trained and specially armed police/army joint force? No. If they had the inclination to do so, they would annihilate us - if they didn't have the inclination, guns wouldn't be needed anyway.
If you have trouble understanding any of my reasoning by the way - try asking yourself how the American people have managed to lose so many rights will still gripping onto their handguns? Ever wonder if they waved the guns in your face to distract you while they made off with your liberty?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fuck 'Em, And Their Law (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
£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)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
None of us here can judge one way or the other based on the news reports.
And yet that is EXACTLY what you are doing. YOU started the assumption that the police were correct in their conclusions, based on their superior future-predicting ability, based on little detail in the reporting. The only facts we have are less than 20 people, a BBQ grill, 4pm in the afternoon, a 'sound system' (incidentally I've routinely seen DJ level sound systems used at people's backyard family gatherings around here so I think this is a complete BS detail to use anyway, maybe this dude knew someone w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
the police get even more declawed, demoralised, and afraid of doing thier job
Are we living in the same world? Declawed? Half the shit they pull off today as routine would at the very least have resulted in a severe investigation a quarter century ago.
Demoralised, yes. I give you that. Mostly by the way people look at them less and less as "serve and protect" and more and more as "stasi on crack". Mostly because of news like this, where they act not only like they're above the law, but like they are the law with no review and nobody to answer to.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
No one was arrested.
So the police went over the top ape-shit and actually staged a helo-insertion raid that cost god knows how much to do when they didn't even have any crime to charge anyone with?
What, they didn't have a desk-jocky somewhere they could have told to drive out and ask about the BBQ?
Occam's law says they probably were setting up a rave.
First off, its Occam's Razor, and secondly, you are clearly unfamiliar with it. Occam's Razor states that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" therefor based on Occam's Razor less than 20 people in a field with a BBQ grill at 4pm in the afternoon are having a BBQ.
Anyone here like The Human League? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
I cant take credit for this info though, shamelessly stolen from the discussion on reddit [reddit.com] yesterday.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Since Thatcher took exception to the actual all-night raves that went on in the early nineties. The government take a dim view of anyone having fun, Thatcher (and Blair and Brown for that matter) take a dimmer view of spontaneous communities forming for the purpose of socialising, dancing and casual drug-taking. This is due to the neo-Liberal tenet that people are entirely selfish entities, plotting and scheming against one-another, the only way they should be able to express themselves is through the free market.[1] The point being that these raves were legal, but were not taking part in government-approved capitalist venues, people there were not consuming government-approved drugs (such as alcohol) and even more galling: they went against the principle that people are essentially selfish.
So. Thatcher had to shut them down, because they went against the government's philosophy of how the world should look. It was an amazing time though, and if you meet a 40-something Brit, who wears a suit to work, has two point four children[2] and you assume they're a boring old git, think again. Chances are a few years ago they were standing in a field, listening to great old school rave[3], and enjoying a sense of community the population of Britain can now only dream of. All thanks to the jackbooted thugs who have been forcing their Cold War derived ideologies on our fair isle for too long.
One of these days we're going to go Wat Tyler[4] on their arses.
[1] See The Trap [wikipedia.org].
[2] British idiom Two point four children [tvtropes.org], referring to the average number of children per-household in the UK.
[3] Just a small example: Prodigy - Out of Space [youtube.com] (not for everyone, but that's not the point)
[4] Wat Tyler, leader of the Peasants Revolt [wikipedia.org].
(captcha is 'corrupts', how apropos!)
Re:Wow ... Oddly enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Since Thatcher took exception to the actual all-night raves that went on in the early nineties. ...
Mrs Thatcher had been out of power for 4 years when that bill went through Parliament.
Guess you were too busy popping pills at those all night parties to notice though ;P
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that argument against a lot of Liberal and neo-Liberal programs, such as socialized healthcare or the like?
I thought these people couldn't take care of themselves, not that they took care of themselves too much.
That doesn't seem to line up.... (Score:3, Informative)
Thatcher did this, four years after she left office the prime minister's office (1990), and two years after she left parliament (1992)?
Really? Because everyone else is blaming a 1994 law. John Major (1990-1997), also of the conservative party, was the prime minister when this law passed, but you don't even mention him. Tony Blair took the reins in 1997.
Perhaps with all the citations and links you could have at least made sure your leading claim lined up with some dates. All your grand ideas about 'governmen
Re:That doesn't seem to line up.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thatcher did this, four years after she left office the prime minister's office (1990), and two years after she left parliament (1992)?
Yes she did, laws take time to be passed. Firstly, she appointed Michael Howard who had this crock of shit drawn up and then introduced it to parliament. John Major only kept him in the cabinet, she promoted him originally and probably gave him the mandate to oversee this being drafted as he was a barrister.
Also remember that one of the major events that brought this law into being occured 9 years before the bill was passed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beanfield [wikipedia.org]
It was this that event and the way it was portrayed in the media that led to this bill sailing through parliament and onto the statute books.
And to top it all off, Major was just another of her chronies anyway. I never actually beleived that anything changed about who governed Britain when she left office as it was still the same party in power. She was so authoritarian in the early days of her leadership that she moulded that party into her image. It has taken them 10 years of oposition to get some fresh blood in that is even slightly willing to look at things differently.
I am still not convinced they have changed much now, but that is a different issue we can find out at the next election, since they are probably going to be back in power soon.
Perhaps with all the citations and links you could have at least made sure your leading claim lined up with some dates. All your grand ideas about 'government approved this' and 'capitalist that' seemed like the drug-induced foggy ravings of someone who doesn't even have their dates right.
Oh, and a lovely insult to finish your post off, how charming.
Re:That doesn't seem to line up.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I still remember that event quite well. It was on the news about the Police attacking the Peace Convoy and me and a friend hitched down from sheffield to show support for the peace convoy.
We got as far as the roundabout with the turn off to stonehenge, where we were told if we went in that direction we would be arrested as the area was placed under martial law.
As we pondered what to do next an ole volkswagon combi van pulled up and we ran and jumped in, where we were taken up to the forest where what remained of the peace convoy were.
The Police wanted to come in to the Forest but couldn't get permission to do so.
The actions of the Police that day and many other days was criminal, but the Police being the Police were above the law.
We saw the same sort of actions taken against the miners during the miners strike and now frameworks are in place such as the asbo to make even legal actions illegal. While asbo's can be justified, using them to clear homeless people from central London in preparation for the 2012 Olympics doesn't seem right.
Britains got to the state where if you want to do something, protest against climate change whatever, its going to be dangerous to your health and well being. The Police will do as they like when they can get away with it.
It's pretty much been like that most of my adult life, provided you keep your head down and don't do anything to get noticed you will largely be ok.
I'm so glad I got out of the UK
Why not rm -rf that law after you win election? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think everyone misses the point that no law is impossible to change or remove.
So blaming John Major even after Blair elected and did nothing about it doesn't make any sense.
I would be just like Obama, keeping Guantanamo open even with more torture and blaming W. Bush for Guantanamo while he can easily close it down. (which he did or something)
A little trust (Score:3, Insightful)
What troubles me more with this is not that the police turned up in force (everyone makes mistakes) but that they persisted in shutting down the party once it was explained to them what was happeni
Re:A little trust (Score:5, Insightful)
If the party is too loud, I'm quite sure there would be existing laws on the books to deal with that. Noise ordinances and the like, specifically aimed at people who are just too loud, especially too loud late at night.
If the party was held somewhere illegally -- hi mr. warehouse -- there is also a set of laws to deal with that. Trespass laws.
No, this law was passed to stop people from having raves when it was held on private land, with permission, in areas where nobody would be calling in complaining about noise. Because of the evil MDMA and K and pot these kids were taking. It's all for the children, understand, they need to be protected via jail time and criminal records.
We in the US had a similar deal pass, but it's not nearly so draconian or invasive... but then again, Brits will be Brits and if there's anything British it's draconian and invasive police forces (I kid, but only *slightly*).
Why didn't they use discretion? Because that would be admitting wrong on their part. Like that would fucking happen -- nosir, it matters not that they were expecting glowstick-wielding pacifier-chewers and found 30-somethings with a grill and beer. They came to break up a party and by god nothing is going to deter them from running around in their ninja get-up barking orders at confused and upset people. You've gotta feel like you've got a big dick somehow, and admitting they goofed and called all their buddies to come help for no reason is about as far opposite a big-dick feeling you can get this side of your gramma applying ice to your boys wearing naught but a sheer negligee.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wow indeed. You have
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
I have of course heard of the comedy program 2.4 children.
That was comedy?! Jesus...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1.66 children born/woman (2009 est.) is not the same as children per household. More to the point the 2.4 children stat was the one time average number of children per family. Many households have single people in them, not families.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The police have plenty of "power". What they have the right to do is something else. If you want a really good example of police doing as they please, watch the following link:
http://hamishcampbell.com/2009/03/investigation-of-policing-at-climate.html [hamishcampbell.com]
Worth watching for a few minutes in to see some of the more absurd examples of the police abusing their power.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Since they replaced their training manual with 1984 and their procedures manual with Monty Python's Flying Circus.
What a good idea (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what you get... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is what you get... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bullshit. Oppressive regimes get overthrown. Not by people like you, of course.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately the UK Police also have new(ish) anti-terrorism laws that pretty much allow them to do whatever the hell they like! They just have to say something like "I am arresting you under the 2000blah-de-blah anti-terrorism laws" or somesuch. They don't have to say WHY they suspect you before or after they arrest you. They can keep you locked up for days!
There
Re:What a good idea (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:What a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
You should read your history... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
In the USA they use military police to do this... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pics or it didn't happen.
Must suck (Score:4, Funny)
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...
And If It *Had* Been a Rave...? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:And If It *Had* Been a Rave...? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:And If It *Had* Been a Rave...? (Score:5, Interesting)
As the (winning) republican in the district said, "If that's how she handles leadership at her own events, how could you trust her with running a country?"
Yeah... I think it is pretty foolish to cite a quote from the one person with the most to gain by portraying the situation in the absolutely worst possible light. Unless of course you aren't interested in making a convincing argument but rather just showing support for your team.
Pfft. If you've read about the Busby affair, the dems in question were acting like little princesses and attacked a sheriff. They deserved to get pepper sprayed for their idiocy.
Once a cop starts acting in an illegal manner - he assaulted a woman for refusing to state her birthdate, something perfectly within her right per a recent SCOTUS ruling - he loses all special privileges afforded his position. Sure it may be legally wise to continue to "respect his authority" but ethically not so much. In fact, the crowd's response to try to pull the assaulted woman away from the rogue officer could easily be the more ethical response.
And of course this all ignores the elephant in the room - who called in the noise complaint in the first place? The one reported to have complained about not just a "loud party" but a "loud democrat fundraiser." All of the immediate neighbours that were in town at the time have denied it and the police have refused to release any information - not just the caller's identity but even the tape itself.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
High ranking police all over the planet have built beuracratic kingdoms around the idiotic idea of declaring war on a social problem. In the US where this moronic idea came from it costs $100 billion/year to police just pot alone, yes $100 BILLION every YEAR just to stop people smoking pot. $10 billion of that goes directly to the DEA who LOBBY legislatures to keep the status quo. One american is arrested and has their life ruined every 18 seconds just for smoking pot. UK, Australia, etc, are no different.
O
Re:$100 BILLION (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I think your figures on the DEA budget are wrong, but stopping folks from smoking pot involves a lot of additional enforcement costs shouldered by local police, border patrol, coast guard and the courts. The DEA typically, though not always, spends their budget going after growers and trafficers and in the process they utilize a lot of local resources.
When you consider the cost of that local utilization, the cost of jailing these non-violent offenders, the costs incurred in public defense, prosecution and lost productivity (in the courts and in the lives of those being tried) - I'd be inclined to think it's much closer to 100B nationally than to 1.9B - still hyperbole but not just hand-waving.
I'd honestly be interested in seeing what those costs total out to nationally but I'd doubt there are numbers that would allow for a decent projection of those costs as they relate to marijuana and not all drugs combined.
Re:$100 BILLION (Score:4, Insightful)
>>Too bad it's from the government so his conspiracy-theory-addled mind will never accept it.
Yeah... he's got a crackpot notion that our federal government has nothing better to do than pour billions of dollars into wasteful programs that won't make a lick of difference. What a nutjob, eh?
Eh?
Re:$100 BILLION (Score:5, Funny)
One american is arrested and has their life ruined every 18 seconds just for smoking pot.
Really?
Who is this person? It must be awful for them to have their life ruined every 18 seconds.
Even if it was a rave... (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, if you want your silver lining then there's always the slutty girls at raves. Slutty girls are a big plus anywhere. Just be sure to wrap it.
Re:Even if it was a rave... (Score:5, Funny)
Ravers only write Java and Python code.
Real programmers don't go to parties, unless they have bearded men with homebrew beer or possibly pen and paper role-playing games (but not miniatures!)
Re:Even if it was a rave... (Score:5, Insightful)
The root of this all is the War on Some Drugs.
Fixed that for you.
Time to house arrest all citizens (Score:5, Interesting)
'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.
Started with a barbeque, but.. (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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)
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?
Re:Started with a barbeque, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Sure, yeah, I can believe that (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Criminal Justice Bill (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
"private information on Facebook" (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
RTFA - misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:RTFA - misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)
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
It is the LAW people (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
We have a complicated problem here (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Local paper link (Score:3, Informative)
So what if it was a fucking RAVE? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
So, no repetitive beats... (Score:3, Funny)
FrankN
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We are not alone! (Score:5, Funny)
...citation needed.
Just post it to facebook, the police will take care of the citation...
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
>>No, no, no, only raves: "playing amplified music wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats during the night".
Interesting law. It specifies that it applies to people regardless of if they're trespassing, so they can be used to order people off their land, as long as a superintendent of the police thinks that 2 or more people are "making preparations" to hold a rave there.
If they don't leave their own land, a constable can arrest them without a warrant.
Crazy times.
However, it does define a rave as a nighttime party of 100 or more people, and I think the 15 dudes BBQing under a tent during the afternoon doesn't look much like a nighttime rave. The police were acting against the law.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
and I think the 15 dudes BBQing under a tent during the afternoon doesn't look much like a nighttime rave. The police were acting against the law.
This is where the part making preparations comes in play. From the face of it the law is pretty much on the police's side. They see some people setting up a tent, building up music equipment, arranging some catering - there you go, looks just like preparations for a rave party.
And of course ravers are very scary, extremely dangerous and highly aggressive people who are likely to be totally high on whatever drug is in fashion nowadays which is why there is clearly a need for a helicopter, body armour, and the rest. (/sarcasm)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He can make a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. A department so independent it's run by a bunch of policemen.