Cannabis Festival Licencee Charged
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
steve indigenou
New Member
Defamation or Censorship
Mike,
look at the original title to this thread : "Cannabis Festival Licencee Charged "
This thread is about Shane, or can't you see that ? You posted the thread Mike, I responded.
Just because some people (and not just me) haven't fallen for the predictable "save Shane !" response, and have come up with criticism about the guy, doesn't make what I am saying defamatory.
Nothing I have said is defamatory, and judging from Jonny Chimera's post, it seems what I say resonates greatly with what other people feel too.
You don't like me slagging of your mate ? You want to stifle discussion about one of Brixton's most public alternative figures ? Do you consider a discussion of Shane's poltical methods as inappropriate discussion material ?
Yes, I do enjoy tackling a few issues and when I see other people who have experienced the same exploitation as I have posting in support of what I say, so that other people who are not Shane's mates can see the other side of the story, then I think the effort is not wasted.
On no occasions have I used abusive language (in contrast to your style) and I have not made any allegations that I cannot back up fully. Shane has come on the board to defend himself once, let him do so again in response to what Jonny is saying.
Or would that be too boring for you ?
Steve
Mike,
look at the original title to this thread : "Cannabis Festival Licencee Charged "
This thread is about Shane, or can't you see that ? You posted the thread Mike, I responded.
Just because some people (and not just me) haven't fallen for the predictable "save Shane !" response, and have come up with criticism about the guy, doesn't make what I am saying defamatory.
Nothing I have said is defamatory, and judging from Jonny Chimera's post, it seems what I say resonates greatly with what other people feel too.
You don't like me slagging of your mate ? You want to stifle discussion about one of Brixton's most public alternative figures ? Do you consider a discussion of Shane's poltical methods as inappropriate discussion material ?
Yes, I do enjoy tackling a few issues and when I see other people who have experienced the same exploitation as I have posting in support of what I say, so that other people who are not Shane's mates can see the other side of the story, then I think the effort is not wasted.
On no occasions have I used abusive language (in contrast to your style) and I have not made any allegations that I cannot back up fully. Shane has come on the board to defend himself once, let him do so again in response to what Jonny is saying.
Or would that be too boring for you ?
Steve
A couple of points:
"the tendency to take over other people's dreams and visions and claim them for your own."
I also think he does do this sometimes. But I don't know how intentional this is or that it makes him such a bad person. I haven't got any more to say about it really.
However, it's not quite right to say he cannot respond Mike. He can respond, he is registered on u75 but has chosen not to respond.
Enough now though eh?
"the tendency to take over other people's dreams and visions and claim them for your own."
I also think he does do this sometimes. But I don't know how intentional this is or that it makes him such a bad person. I haven't got any more to say about it really.
However, it's not quite right to say he cannot respond Mike. He can respond, he is registered on u75 but has chosen not to respond.
Enough now though eh?
steve indigenou
New Member
Johnny Void's inside info
Hatboy (who comes across as more and more balanced as the discussion progresses) :
The answer to your question is yes, it does make him at the very least a severely flawed person if he goes around hijacking other people's dreams and visions, particularly if they've invested considerable emotional and physical energy in them. It's called exploitation, which is surely incompatible with the status of a leader of the 'alternative' movement which seeks to address the ills of the world caused by capitalist exploitation. The word hypocrite springs to mind.
You should contact Jonny Void to read his more detailed explanation of why he resigned from the Cannabis festival. Apparently there's more info besides too...
As should you Mike. When you read it, maybe you will question whether what I am saying is so defamatory after all. I've suggested to Jonny that he post an edited version for all to see, as it's really very informative on these issues.
Issues that need resolving if the alternative movement in Brixton, and the Cannabis Festival (the subject of the thread) is to move forward.
Not swept aside, Hatboy and Mike.
Steve
Hatboy (who comes across as more and more balanced as the discussion progresses) :
The answer to your question is yes, it does make him at the very least a severely flawed person if he goes around hijacking other people's dreams and visions, particularly if they've invested considerable emotional and physical energy in them. It's called exploitation, which is surely incompatible with the status of a leader of the 'alternative' movement which seeks to address the ills of the world caused by capitalist exploitation. The word hypocrite springs to mind.
You should contact Jonny Void to read his more detailed explanation of why he resigned from the Cannabis festival. Apparently there's more info besides too...
As should you Mike. When you read it, maybe you will question whether what I am saying is so defamatory after all. I've suggested to Jonny that he post an edited version for all to see, as it's really very informative on these issues.
Issues that need resolving if the alternative movement in Brixton, and the Cannabis Festival (the subject of the thread) is to move forward.
Not swept aside, Hatboy and Mike.
Steve
"But PLEASE keep this discussion more general now. You've both said your piece on Shane Collins".
And:
"...maybe there is censorship here occasionally. Any moderator has to use their own discretion. But I did say myself that I don't think the sun shines out of Collin's arse. I think some criticisms of him are legit. I do like him tho and I think that's enough now. If you don't like my decision then tough, it's not up for debate".
What is the point of me saying this? Jeez. Please respect it now.
And:
"...maybe there is censorship here occasionally. Any moderator has to use their own discretion. But I did say myself that I don't think the sun shines out of Collin's arse. I think some criticisms of him are legit. I do like him tho and I think that's enough now. If you don't like my decision then tough, it's not up for debate".
What is the point of me saying this? Jeez. Please respect it now.
And while you're at it Steve could you answer these previously asked questions too:
Steve said:
"Because we explained how what we were doing would benefit the young people of the borough."
And how exactly does it?
"What we need in Lambeth is a more mature form of representation and politics that seeks to build alliances with people outside our narrow circles."
This is a bit pompous and presumptious. Would you like to explain to me who is in my* "narrow circle". Do you know everyone I know then? Speak for yourself.
*or anybody's really".
Don't mention Shane in answers to my questions. Mike's question above will require you to mention him ONCE again (nice work Mike!), but mine don't.
Steve said:
"Because we explained how what we were doing would benefit the young people of the borough."
And how exactly does it?
"What we need in Lambeth is a more mature form of representation and politics that seeks to build alliances with people outside our narrow circles."
This is a bit pompous and presumptious. Would you like to explain to me who is in my* "narrow circle". Do you know everyone I know then? Speak for yourself.
*or anybody's really".
Don't mention Shane in answers to my questions. Mike's question above will require you to mention him ONCE again (nice work Mike!), but mine don't.
editor
hiraethified
Talking of 'censorship' Steve, you may want to censor this thread on your bulletin board. It's a money making scam.
With all this good advice, I really am being a thoughtful and generous chap, aren't I?
With all this good advice, I really am being a thoughtful and generous chap, aren't I?
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
Some quick responses to matters raised by TeeJay
There was a period in the mid-nineties when Lambeth bought the notion that a 24 hour club and bar based economy was the only route to salvation of Brixton, and many people had suspicions that only “pro-nightlife” councillors were selected by the party whips to sit on the licensing committee so that the council’s “anti-business” reputation would be lost.
In more recent years (and I think it predates the change of administration) Lambeth’s licensing committee has been tougher on licensees (though nowhere near as puritan as Westminster), and they’ve been willing to go to court to defend turning down late night licences.
I’ve never heard a serious allegation that a politician or licensing officer has been “bought” by a club owner, although (unproven) allegations have surrounded individual town planning officers about bar/club conversions. There is a serious question over how competent some of the licensing officers are – reinforced by their inability to bring all the evidence along in the current Cannabis Festival case!
Unlikely to be to please Conservative Central Office – it might make sense as a strategy if the Tories are serious about expanding out of their Norwood Nationalist confines by appealing to the instincts of those Poets Corner/Herne Hill residents who don’t want any events in Brockwell Park.
If the LibDems were complicit in a politically motivated prosecution, then I’d be amongst the first to say it stinks.
The issue (as I well know from running events on open spaces over the last fourteen years, and organising anti-roadbuilding marches what feels like a lifetime ago) is that you if you are running something like this on a voluntary basis it is one thing to say to the authorities we have X volunteers to steward, maintain backstage security, help with litter collection etc. etc. etc. – and quite another on the day it always transpires that some of them fail to turn up. The pisser is that as licensee, or as the Met’s nominated organiser of a march, you are personally responsible for the failure of all those friends, supporters, bullied, cajoled and press-ganged individuals to turn up on time or stay until the bitter end.
The explanations that were given in court for the breaches may well mean that Shane shouldn’t be held criminally culpable, but they still raise a lot of questions about whether the current arrangements for the festival can guarantee to deliver an event that is both safe and fun.
I’d suspect Lambeth actually loses out in cash terms– for the last decade business rates have been paid over to a central Government pot. Meanwhile the Council has extended street cleaning in Brixton (in theory) to eighteen hours a day.
There was a period in the mid-nineties when Lambeth bought the notion that a 24 hour club and bar based economy was the only route to salvation of Brixton, and many people had suspicions that only “pro-nightlife” councillors were selected by the party whips to sit on the licensing committee so that the council’s “anti-business” reputation would be lost.
In more recent years (and I think it predates the change of administration) Lambeth’s licensing committee has been tougher on licensees (though nowhere near as puritan as Westminster), and they’ve been willing to go to court to defend turning down late night licences.
I’ve never heard a serious allegation that a politician or licensing officer has been “bought” by a club owner, although (unproven) allegations have surrounded individual town planning officers about bar/club conversions. There is a serious question over how competent some of the licensing officers are – reinforced by their inability to bring all the evidence along in the current Cannabis Festival case!
My own old fashioned liberal affiliations are well known from other postings. I’m not cheer-leading for Lambeth, just pointing out that anyone organising an event faces the same licensing hassles.
Unlikely to be to please Conservative Central Office – it might make sense as a strategy if the Tories are serious about expanding out of their Norwood Nationalist confines by appealing to the instincts of those Poets Corner/Herne Hill residents who don’t want any events in Brockwell Park.
If the LibDems were complicit in a politically motivated prosecution, then I’d be amongst the first to say it stinks.
The issue (as I well know from running events on open spaces over the last fourteen years, and organising anti-roadbuilding marches what feels like a lifetime ago) is that you if you are running something like this on a voluntary basis it is one thing to say to the authorities we have X volunteers to steward, maintain backstage security, help with litter collection etc. etc. etc. – and quite another on the day it always transpires that some of them fail to turn up. The pisser is that as licensee, or as the Met’s nominated organiser of a march, you are personally responsible for the failure of all those friends, supporters, bullied, cajoled and press-ganged individuals to turn up on time or stay until the bitter end.
The explanations that were given in court for the breaches may well mean that Shane shouldn’t be held criminally culpable, but they still raise a lot of questions about whether the current arrangements for the festival can guarantee to deliver an event that is both safe and fun.
It's a shame this thread has descended into score settling in respect of Shane Collins, who seems a reasonable enough type whenever I've met him. Sure, he's a politician but that in itself doesn't damn him utterly.
The real issue is why is the Council using what seem to be petty issues to undermine the Festival, following on attempts earlier in the year to impose crippling charges. And do to so in a way that will incur considerable cost to the local taxpayer.
There may well be a diversity of views in the borough as to whether the festival is a "good thing" and as to whether it is properly resourced. In which case those views should be properly made and debated in the Council chamber - that way we can see where our elected representatives stand, and cast our votes accordingly next time round.
As it is, it appears that officers working on the instructions of some (unnamed) councillors are using back door methods to achieve their objectives.
The real issue is why is the Council using what seem to be petty issues to undermine the Festival, following on attempts earlier in the year to impose crippling charges. And do to so in a way that will incur considerable cost to the local taxpayer.
There may well be a diversity of views in the borough as to whether the festival is a "good thing" and as to whether it is properly resourced. In which case those views should be properly made and debated in the Council chamber - that way we can see where our elected representatives stand, and cast our votes accordingly next time round.
As it is, it appears that officers working on the instructions of some (unnamed) councillors are using back door methods to achieve their objectives.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Ive read nearly all this thread.A few comments.
1)Steves argument that people should engage with Council via Brixton Forum. I used to go to Forum meetings until I got sick of not being listened to by the Council.I can well understand why Shane does not go down on that route.Consultation is a two way thing.The Council uses it for its own benefit-see my report on the Secondary School thread about the Forum meeting on a new school posted up Sat
2)I remember going to a Herne Hill ward Brixton Forum meeting a few years ago(I was in that ward before the boundary changes).The issue of the Cannabis Festival came up.The people speaking wanted to now why the Council was supporting a Cannabis Featival as Cannabis is illegal.The meeting was dominated by middle englanders who wanted to stop the Festival full stop.
3)The case against the Licensee.I find it sick making that the Council have pursued this case so vigourously when places like the Living bar and the old Dogstar dont/didnt get such close scrutiny.Its obvious thats this is politically motivated to stop the Festival.Whether Shane runs it or not IMO the present Council is out to stop it.
4)I agree with Anna on this.The "Brixton Expo" and "Cultural and Creative" need to be treated with the upmost caution.I think their is something in what Anna says.Such free feativals(and Mike is right their are only a few left in London)are not totally under the control of the Council and their "consultative" bodies.It does not fit with the image that the Council wants for Brixton.Intersted in Lang Rabbies comments on the licencing committee as that was my experience as well at the time.
5)I do try not be personal in my posts but if Steve Indigenou has views on how someones politics is pursued thats a valid debate.Its gone on on the Fitchett thread recently.Shane can reply if he wants.The posts Steve has put up here and on Synergy show the problems in doing things in an alternative way and how to be Deomocratic about.Also the problems of "going mainstream" and keeping ones credibilty.
1)Steves argument that people should engage with Council via Brixton Forum. I used to go to Forum meetings until I got sick of not being listened to by the Council.I can well understand why Shane does not go down on that route.Consultation is a two way thing.The Council uses it for its own benefit-see my report on the Secondary School thread about the Forum meeting on a new school posted up Sat
2)I remember going to a Herne Hill ward Brixton Forum meeting a few years ago(I was in that ward before the boundary changes).The issue of the Cannabis Festival came up.The people speaking wanted to now why the Council was supporting a Cannabis Featival as Cannabis is illegal.The meeting was dominated by middle englanders who wanted to stop the Festival full stop.
3)The case against the Licensee.I find it sick making that the Council have pursued this case so vigourously when places like the Living bar and the old Dogstar dont/didnt get such close scrutiny.Its obvious thats this is politically motivated to stop the Festival.Whether Shane runs it or not IMO the present Council is out to stop it.
4)I agree with Anna on this.The "Brixton Expo" and "Cultural and Creative" need to be treated with the upmost caution.I think their is something in what Anna says.Such free feativals(and Mike is right their are only a few left in London)are not totally under the control of the Council and their "consultative" bodies.It does not fit with the image that the Council wants for Brixton.Intersted in Lang Rabbies comments on the licencing committee as that was my experience as well at the time.
5)I do try not be personal in my posts but if Steve Indigenou has views on how someones politics is pursued thats a valid debate.Its gone on on the Fitchett thread recently.Shane can reply if he wants.The posts Steve has put up here and on Synergy show the problems in doing things in an alternative way and how to be Deomocratic about.Also the problems of "going mainstream" and keeping ones credibilty.
I'd love to, and I could, debunk a lot of what he said, but I don't even want to dignify his accusations with a serious reply or drag lots of details into a public forum. It is important to understand that Steve has had a long running problem with Shane, and more recently has fallen out in a very big way over a *personal* issue, which involves other people, is a private matter and which is really noone's business to discuss here, believe me.
While I'd like to let Shane speak for himself, the problem is that steve has now also made several accusations that directly concern several groups for example the Green Party Drugs Group and the Lambeth Green Party, with which a lot of people have put in a lot of hard work. I am not going to stand aside and listen to him shit all over these people's achievements due to his own personal-motivated grudge, and will be coming back on several of his claims and accusations very soon.
I am not bothered by comments about Shane's “style” and I am not going to talk about the details of the personal dispute ("dispute X") mentioned as it involves (an)other person(s) and is a private matter, but I want to set the record straight regarding Shane’s honesty and about the Lambeth Green Party and the Green Party Drugs Group.
Many people are probably now wondering exactly what you are talking about? Are you in fact saying that Shane was asked to set up a CoolTan info stall/resource centre, given a budget, ordered some Green Party leaflets for re-sale without first telling everyone? A disagreement about the political content of an infostall along with clashing egos ensues? Or *what* exactly? Surely if you *do* actually have a good case against someone you wouldn’t be shy about setting out *explicitly* what they are meant to have done! Which you have failed to do - preferring generalised phrases like "corrupt practises". I can only assume that this is the centre-piece of your case since you go on to say the following:
It is also strange that you yourself were still proposing to do stuff with Shane up until very recently - 2001 or 2002 was it? This sudden decision to denounce Shane as corrupt doesn't have anything to do with "dispute X" that has occurred since then has it? I mean why wait 8 years to denounce Shane over CoolTan – and about something that you have only heard about at second hand?
The Lambeth GP isn’t just Shane - at the last local election Lambeth GP had 27 people standing across all 21 wards in the borough. He has never been the "leader" of Lambeth GP - no such position exists. There is a treasurer, membership secretary, and election agent. You are confusing it with the Green Party Drugs Group (GPDG), which *is* run by Shane and isn't the same as the local party. He does much of the voluntary work for the Lambeth GP, but his main focus has always been the GPDG and he is the *national* spokesperson for the GP on Drugs - so this makes total sense. He gets himself into the media as much as possible to promote the Green Party policy nationally even to the detriment of winning himself a seat on Lambeth Council, on the London Assembly or in Europe. I have also been there when he argued on standing firm on the drugs policies when others wanted to avoid the tabloid heat on the GP and backtrack on them. He spends less time in endless meetings than many other “political” types - something which is to his credit - preferring to actually *do* stuff. In effect he has operated as an unofficial GP "youth wing" and the idea of talking to otherwise cynical and non-political club-goers, for example doesn’t have the immediate "pay-back" for Shane as courting middle-class Nimby-type voters in his own ward but in the long run is something that switches people back onto politics. The people at festivals won’t vote for Shane in Tulse Hill but they might become politicized.
As I understand it you were not involved in CoolTan (1991 to 1995).
I was not involved with CoolTan either, and I first met Shane through the Lambeth Green Party, which was sharing offices with Ecotrip in the squatted Jan Rebane Centre in 1997. I did a massive amount of stuff with him from then until 2001. I do know that Shane was still doing stuff with Ecotrip right up until at least 1998 (I helped out too) so whatever this second-hand gossip about "re-direct[ing] funds", it is strange that that many of the same people were still working with him, and I never heard anyone accusing him of theft, which you seem to be.
Many people are probably now wondering exactly what you are talking about? Are you in fact saying that Shane was asked to set up a CoolTan info stall/resource centre, given a budget, ordered some Green Party leaflets for re-sale without first telling everyone? A disagreement about the political content of an infostall along with clashing egos ensues? Or *what* exactly? Surely if you *do* actually have a good case against someone you wouldn’t be shy about setting out *explicitly* what they are meant to have done! Which you have failed to do - preferring generalised phrases like "corrupt practises". I can only assume that this is the centre-piece of your case since you go on to say the following:
So basically you are saying that Shane is "corrupt" because he ordered some stuff for an Ecotrip infostall which you didn't agree with politically? Presumably he had been tasked with putting together the infostall? Was he told specifically to check with all the other members about every single leaflet or publication that he ordered for the infostall? Had he been specifically ordered to *not* get Green Party stuff? Was any of this this stuff for sale (ie the price would be recouped)? Did anyone else actually have any useful input to make on the info stalls at all, or was this all just bitching after the fact and yet another clash of egos and excuse for people to get one up on each other? BTW – who *did* all the money to start up Ecotrip come from in the first place?
It is also strange that you yourself were still proposing to do stuff with Shane up until very recently - 2001 or 2002 was it? This sudden decision to denounce Shane as corrupt doesn't have anything to do with "dispute X" that has occurred since then has it? I mean why wait 8 years to denounce Shane over CoolTan – and about something that you have only heard about at second hand?
Really? Care to actually enumerate any of these "rip offs"? Or is that just another careless turn of phrase? It's true that Shane can drive a hard bargain and also could blag for England, but all the time I worked with him (about five years all in all) I never saw him rip someone off. My experience is that if he owes money he always comes good on it, and it'll take more than someone with a personal grudge to effect his reputation with the hundreds of people who deal with him, for example at festivals, events and other things.
I must be sorely mistaken then! For a start the GP is not funded by the unions or big business (or any type of business really). It is funded by annual membership fees, which currently stand at: waged £28.00, low/unwaged £9.50 and student £4.00. Much of this goes to towards the national office and wages of a handful (3 or 4 maybe?) of staff. A bit comes back to local parties, but generally local activists typically put their own money in to keep things running or raise it somehow. This means taking *every* opportunity to generate publicity with no money for billboards or glossy colour leaflets. Also journalists always focus on named people/faces who they get to know, even when this doesn’t reflect the Green Party internal structure – it is the only national party with no “leader”.
The Lambeth GP isn’t just Shane - at the last local election Lambeth GP had 27 people standing across all 21 wards in the borough. He has never been the "leader" of Lambeth GP - no such position exists. There is a treasurer, membership secretary, and election agent. You are confusing it with the Green Party Drugs Group (GPDG), which *is* run by Shane and isn't the same as the local party. He does much of the voluntary work for the Lambeth GP, but his main focus has always been the GPDG and he is the *national* spokesperson for the GP on Drugs - so this makes total sense. He gets himself into the media as much as possible to promote the Green Party policy nationally even to the detriment of winning himself a seat on Lambeth Council, on the London Assembly or in Europe. I have also been there when he argued on standing firm on the drugs policies when others wanted to avoid the tabloid heat on the GP and backtrack on them. He spends less time in endless meetings than many other “political” types - something which is to his credit - preferring to actually *do* stuff. In effect he has operated as an unofficial GP "youth wing" and the idea of talking to otherwise cynical and non-political club-goers, for example doesn’t have the immediate "pay-back" for Shane as courting middle-class Nimby-type voters in his own ward but in the long run is something that switches people back onto politics. The people at festivals won’t vote for Shane in Tulse Hill but they might become politicized.
Again you are confusing a national policy on a single issue (drugs) with the local GP. In any case, you obviously don't realise that Dulwich and West Norwood recieved one of the highest GP votes in the country in the last General Election, and that in Lambeth in local, Euro and Assembly elections the Green Party is regularly getting around 15%. Hardly a failure! True - it has yet to translate directly into council seats, but the GP is second only to Labout or the LibDems in several wards and if there was actually PR in local elections we would have a significant number of councillors.
If you really have any evidence of licence breeches I suggest, seeing as you are on a mission to denounce Shane, you go and tell the court about them. I doubt however that your evidence would fare any better than the rubbish that the council seems to trot out every time it actually gets to court (whoops - I forgot my notes (again)). You also mention the toilets - despite the council having dropped this from their case after taking legal advice. Have you been studying some law books then?
I can’t remember exactly when and for how long you were a member but as Lambeth GP membership secretary between 1997 and 2001 we had a fairly solid and gradually increasing membership base. The biggest factor in losing new members were delays in getting their names and details from national office meaning someone's initial enthusiasm could be lost. Shane never made people feel any less than welcome, and all members were invited to all meetings and everyone had an equal vote on everything. There are in fact a lot of issues and challenges regarding how to effectively build support and win local elections, and I'd happily discuss them if I was't convinced that you are just looking for almost any way to knock Shane.
steve indigenou
New Member
In response to TeeJay
Wow, an impressively detailed post...
Ok TeeJay, you asked for specifics, here they are.
In about Janurary 1997, a meeting of the Ecotrip collective was held at the Porden Road squat and it was resolved that an audit of the accounts (kept by Shane) should be made and until the audit was completed, no further cheaques would be signed. Shane and his girlfriend Chloe were the two signatories on the chequebook. I was assigned the job of doing the audit.
Over the next few days, I ploughed through the books, coming across a number of errors and, to my dismay, a cheque for about £500 signed by Shane and Chloe on the day after the meeting. It was to pay for Green Party publications for the Ecotrip stall, in direct disregard for the unanimous decsion of the wider group.
It was not possible to recover the money and the fact that Shane and Chloe had acted in this way prompted the departure of certain key members of the group. The stall was not Shane's respnsibility, but was run by Theo, who now runs Comtech.
Whatever words you use to describe this, 'embezzlement, misappropriation' or whatever, it highlights Shane's tendency to assume that his interests (and those of the Green Party) are those of those working around him. He is a charismatic guy, but one who has not learned that a more plural approach would sustain the involvement of those around him, such that the projects he works on would not lose good people all the time. Have you checked Jonny Voids post about the no of people who have left the Cannabis festival ? His letter of resignation is very informative and supports my experience and comments.
This is the extent of my experience with Shane, but is supported by many of those who have worked with him since. I would also like to point out that :
my greivances with Shane predate the personal issues of which some are aware by about 5 years. Please don't be so gullible into thinking that the ONLY reason I have a grievance with him is because of this personal issue - though this also demonstrates his modus operandi perfectly.
It's also totally untrue to say that I have been seeking to work with Shane since we parted company in Ecotrip in July 1997.
TeeJay, I am surprised we don't know eachother. I founded Ecotrip and was one of the three coordinators (with Shane and Chloe) in the Jan Rebane Centre throughout Ecotrip's time there. Ecotrip was constantly troubled by people complaining about Shane and Chloe's management style and their failure to consult properly with people before taking key decisions that affected us all.
My understanding of the Cooltan experience is informed by discussions I have had with key people involved, namely Steveidge, Paula and Precious. My understanding of his work with the Green party is informed by my direct experience of him and through discussions with others such as Ryan, Tim, Sarah Green, Tony Maloney and Gareth. I know what happened up at the Greenhouses, as I have seen the letters of complaint from Green Adventure people about the turn of events and I have read with interest Jonny Chimera's account of how Shane has hi-jacked the Cannabis festival.
Funny thing is, in a way I only wish Shane would learn more progressive management techniques as we would all benefit from some Green Party representation. I personally have learned much from him, as I too made similar mistakes when I was starting out.
Do you still deny that I am not alone in making these points about Shane's management style ?
Steve
Wow, an impressively detailed post...
Ok TeeJay, you asked for specifics, here they are.
In about Janurary 1997, a meeting of the Ecotrip collective was held at the Porden Road squat and it was resolved that an audit of the accounts (kept by Shane) should be made and until the audit was completed, no further cheaques would be signed. Shane and his girlfriend Chloe were the two signatories on the chequebook. I was assigned the job of doing the audit.
Over the next few days, I ploughed through the books, coming across a number of errors and, to my dismay, a cheque for about £500 signed by Shane and Chloe on the day after the meeting. It was to pay for Green Party publications for the Ecotrip stall, in direct disregard for the unanimous decsion of the wider group.
It was not possible to recover the money and the fact that Shane and Chloe had acted in this way prompted the departure of certain key members of the group. The stall was not Shane's respnsibility, but was run by Theo, who now runs Comtech.
Whatever words you use to describe this, 'embezzlement, misappropriation' or whatever, it highlights Shane's tendency to assume that his interests (and those of the Green Party) are those of those working around him. He is a charismatic guy, but one who has not learned that a more plural approach would sustain the involvement of those around him, such that the projects he works on would not lose good people all the time. Have you checked Jonny Voids post about the no of people who have left the Cannabis festival ? His letter of resignation is very informative and supports my experience and comments.
This is the extent of my experience with Shane, but is supported by many of those who have worked with him since. I would also like to point out that :
my greivances with Shane predate the personal issues of which some are aware by about 5 years. Please don't be so gullible into thinking that the ONLY reason I have a grievance with him is because of this personal issue - though this also demonstrates his modus operandi perfectly.
It's also totally untrue to say that I have been seeking to work with Shane since we parted company in Ecotrip in July 1997.
TeeJay, I am surprised we don't know eachother. I founded Ecotrip and was one of the three coordinators (with Shane and Chloe) in the Jan Rebane Centre throughout Ecotrip's time there. Ecotrip was constantly troubled by people complaining about Shane and Chloe's management style and their failure to consult properly with people before taking key decisions that affected us all.
My understanding of the Cooltan experience is informed by discussions I have had with key people involved, namely Steveidge, Paula and Precious. My understanding of his work with the Green party is informed by my direct experience of him and through discussions with others such as Ryan, Tim, Sarah Green, Tony Maloney and Gareth. I know what happened up at the Greenhouses, as I have seen the letters of complaint from Green Adventure people about the turn of events and I have read with interest Jonny Chimera's account of how Shane has hi-jacked the Cannabis festival.
Funny thing is, in a way I only wish Shane would learn more progressive management techniques as we would all benefit from some Green Party representation. I personally have learned much from him, as I too made similar mistakes when I was starting out.
Do you still deny that I am not alone in making these points about Shane's management style ?
Steve
Steve, whatever the rights and wrongs of this I opened this thread again to allow Shane and people who would disagree with your views on him to come on here and say their piece.
Do not post on this thread again until Shane has had his say. That is fair. If you do your posts will be deleted without further explanation from me.
Thanks.
Do not post on this thread again until Shane has had his say. That is fair. If you do your posts will be deleted without further explanation from me.
Thanks.
steve indigenou
New Member
In reply to Hatboy and others
Ok, about this issue of engagement with authority.
I do agree with those who say that the whole consultation process is not an easy one. Council officers do have a tendency to be lazy and pay lip-service to what they consider to be the marginal concerns of the alternative fringe. This means that the whole process of consultation and engagement is a laborious one, requiring much persistence and resolve for it to be successful.
However, if you read some of the policy documents, such as the Urban (or is it Neighbourhood) Renewal Strategy, you will see that in policy terms, there is much we have in common with 'The Council' and if the right approach is adopted, then they can become aware how working in partnership with people like us can be in their interests. Also, participating in the community fora can help build alliances with other people in the community who you wouldn't otherwise meet. On many occasions I have spoken up, been dismissed by Council officers, only to see loads of more mainstream commuity people pile in to support what I have said. Building these kind of alliances is a key need for anyone wishing to have a significant impact at local level.
The first challenge is credibility - breaking down their images of us as hippies, squatters or whatever negative images they may harbour. Being properly constituted, having a well documented track-record of delivery, particularly if it benefits the wider, and not parochial, community and showing that you follow 'best practice' in terms of how you manage your affairs, particularly money, then you can enlist their support.
You cannot wait for them to come to you. They already have their existing network of 'community' groups, that while not necessarily that representative, are nicely established and easily on hand. Though they regularly have an underspend in terms of some funds they adminster, they do not bother to do any outreach. This is their failing, but creates the environment in which we are working, like it or not.
My points about 'narrow circles', 'the Green Ghetto', and the 'alternative movement' are informed by about 3 years working as a squatter and a protestor. Because it takes a lot of effort and time, non-one bothers to reach out to authority, partly as it involves a more pragmatic approach than many of the more ideologically inclined prefer. Many feel profoundly alienated from the mainstream, but this alienation can also breed an alienating attitude on 'our' part, which completes the vicious cirlce.
The process of getting the £41k from the Council for the Centre has been woefully laborious, but as they are giving us this much money, who can complain ? We have also learned shed loads about their way of thinking, which has prepared us well for our future efforts to engage with them.
One of my big grievances from the old days was that it was impossible to pay good people who were putting in hours and hours of good work, because it was always assumed that people would work for free and would support themselves by signing on. This then maximised the amount of money that could be put toward more overtly poltical work that benefitted the more overtly politically inclined.
In my experiences in running the small arts education charity, Indigenous People, and more recently with the Synergy Project and Centre, an area that needs vital prioritising is that of mundane admin, such that the people doing it need to be paid. Unless this happens, you cannot sustain the work and people bugger off. Things like engaging with Council are very mundane but can ultimately be very rewarding, such that time and money invested can be very fruitful.
As for how the wider community will benefit from the Centre, Hatboy, I believe I've sent to a copy of the proposal which describes this is considerable detail.
Though this does not answer all the questions, I hope it makes some progress. I can only speak from my experience, which covers both ways of working, against or in cooperation with authority. Though it has been a very demanding challenge, I have no doubt that the strategy of cooperation and engagement is by far the more fruitful.
But in oder to be able to do it, you need to have a team of good people, with whom you regularly consult to insure they feel as if they have a stake in the project and not assume that what's in your interests are necessarily those of those you are working with.
Steve
Ok, about this issue of engagement with authority.
I do agree with those who say that the whole consultation process is not an easy one. Council officers do have a tendency to be lazy and pay lip-service to what they consider to be the marginal concerns of the alternative fringe. This means that the whole process of consultation and engagement is a laborious one, requiring much persistence and resolve for it to be successful.
However, if you read some of the policy documents, such as the Urban (or is it Neighbourhood) Renewal Strategy, you will see that in policy terms, there is much we have in common with 'The Council' and if the right approach is adopted, then they can become aware how working in partnership with people like us can be in their interests. Also, participating in the community fora can help build alliances with other people in the community who you wouldn't otherwise meet. On many occasions I have spoken up, been dismissed by Council officers, only to see loads of more mainstream commuity people pile in to support what I have said. Building these kind of alliances is a key need for anyone wishing to have a significant impact at local level.
The first challenge is credibility - breaking down their images of us as hippies, squatters or whatever negative images they may harbour. Being properly constituted, having a well documented track-record of delivery, particularly if it benefits the wider, and not parochial, community and showing that you follow 'best practice' in terms of how you manage your affairs, particularly money, then you can enlist their support.
You cannot wait for them to come to you. They already have their existing network of 'community' groups, that while not necessarily that representative, are nicely established and easily on hand. Though they regularly have an underspend in terms of some funds they adminster, they do not bother to do any outreach. This is their failing, but creates the environment in which we are working, like it or not.
My points about 'narrow circles', 'the Green Ghetto', and the 'alternative movement' are informed by about 3 years working as a squatter and a protestor. Because it takes a lot of effort and time, non-one bothers to reach out to authority, partly as it involves a more pragmatic approach than many of the more ideologically inclined prefer. Many feel profoundly alienated from the mainstream, but this alienation can also breed an alienating attitude on 'our' part, which completes the vicious cirlce.
The process of getting the £41k from the Council for the Centre has been woefully laborious, but as they are giving us this much money, who can complain ? We have also learned shed loads about their way of thinking, which has prepared us well for our future efforts to engage with them.
One of my big grievances from the old days was that it was impossible to pay good people who were putting in hours and hours of good work, because it was always assumed that people would work for free and would support themselves by signing on. This then maximised the amount of money that could be put toward more overtly poltical work that benefitted the more overtly politically inclined.
In my experiences in running the small arts education charity, Indigenous People, and more recently with the Synergy Project and Centre, an area that needs vital prioritising is that of mundane admin, such that the people doing it need to be paid. Unless this happens, you cannot sustain the work and people bugger off. Things like engaging with Council are very mundane but can ultimately be very rewarding, such that time and money invested can be very fruitful.
As for how the wider community will benefit from the Centre, Hatboy, I believe I've sent to a copy of the proposal which describes this is considerable detail.
Though this does not answer all the questions, I hope it makes some progress. I can only speak from my experience, which covers both ways of working, against or in cooperation with authority. Though it has been a very demanding challenge, I have no doubt that the strategy of cooperation and engagement is by far the more fruitful.
But in oder to be able to do it, you need to have a team of good people, with whom you regularly consult to insure they feel as if they have a stake in the project and not assume that what's in your interests are necessarily those of those you are working with.
Steve
steve indigenou
New Member
More censorship Hatboy ?
Hey,
can't you see that TeeJay is speaking on Shane's behalf ? He is clearly a close colleague of Shane's and has access to info that can only be known from having worked with Shane over a long period of time.
My comments were in direct response to his questions, as was the other post in response to yours.
Please, try not to be so heavy handed. It's partly your (and Mike's) procedural interventions that have raised the heat at times. There's alot of useful stuff coming out, let if flow.
No more until TeeJay comes back...
Steve
Hey,
can't you see that TeeJay is speaking on Shane's behalf ? He is clearly a close colleague of Shane's and has access to info that can only be known from having worked with Shane over a long period of time.
My comments were in direct response to his questions, as was the other post in response to yours.
Please, try not to be so heavy handed. It's partly your (and Mike's) procedural interventions that have raised the heat at times. There's alot of useful stuff coming out, let if flow.
No more until TeeJay comes back...
Steve
More censorship Hatboy ?
1. To defend the integrity of the Lambeth Green Party and Green Party Drugs Group (with which I have been very involved) - they are not, and have never been, in any way, shape or form "corrupt" or "dishonest".
2. To stick up for Shane, who I consider a friend and who I know to be, while not perfect, an honest and kind person.
I've already said what I wanted to say on this matter in my previous post and in fact it isn't really my place to go into this any further.
I am *not* speaking on Shane's behalf. I did work closely with Shane between mid-1997 and 2001, but I haven't even spoken to him about the contents of this thread (yet) - I haven't spoken to him for several weeks. I was not around when the alledged events regarding CoolTan and Ecotrip were said to have occured. My main reason for saying what I did was
1. To defend the integrity of the Lambeth Green Party and Green Party Drugs Group (with which I have been very involved) - they are not, and have never been, in any way, shape or form "corrupt" or "dishonest".
2. To stick up for Shane, who I consider a friend and who I know to be, while not perfect, an honest and kind person.
I've already said what I wanted to say on this matter in my previous post and in fact it isn't really my place to go into this any further.
As event manager for the cannabis festival since its inception in 1999, I have read this thread with interest. Perhaps I should say that the role of event manager is handling the licensing, health and safety of the event, running it for its one day duration working with the authorities, stewards and security, gates etc, booking all the major contractors ( inc the toilets!) and planning and managing the budget. Whereas my role is concerned with the production and practicalities of the event, I am not ultimately responsible – that is the role of the licensee.
I do however have to work closely with, and, the nature of the cannabis festival being what it is (i.e. under-funded, under resourced and always teetering on the edge ) ultimately I must trust the licensee. I feel obliged to say that I have always enjoyed working with Shane, and he has never given me any reason not to trust him.
I would also give credit for the amount of voluntary unpaid work Shane ( and everyone else) does for the festival. Without the dedication and lets face it downright stubbornness of Shane in putting his ass on the line year after year, and the generosity of people that believe in him and the festival, we would have no festival at all.
I picked the following quote out of an earlier post:
“I really would like to believe that Shane isn't stringing Lambeth officers along - in the hope of obtaining publicity for his election campaign along the lines of the 1967 Times leader that punishment was a "primitive" impulse to "break a butterfly on a wheel". However, the tone of the press release makes me wonder...”
I have to say that we have stringently tried to adhere to all licensing conditions, and as an event organisation on the ground, we have no real difficulty in doing so, even if there were, as somebody said, an extra 5000 people all who had a couple of pints more! In fact that would be perfect as it would mean we would break even financially. Instead of breaking even we are left in a position with the licensee having to shoulder much of the debt personally, and the festival maintaining itself on the faith most people have in the licensee to make good.
We are a professional, albeit underpaid, group of individuals, well versed in event management. The allegations are based on the flimsiest of evidence, with no mention anywhere about possible Health and Safety breaches, and they do our professional and personal integrity no justice. The situation is that the council, ill-informed and misguided though it is, seem determined to drive us out of the Borough , for whatever reasons, and I think it is absolutely correct of Shane, and the rest of our organisation, to stand up and fight. I can however understand why Shane would want to publicise the Court case itself, and try and expose the politics that lay behind it where possible as the council are determined to push ahead.
Shane has definitely not been stringing the council officers along to gain political headway. The court case can do anything but increase his potential for putting on large free events in the future, and is not set to benefit the organisation in any way. Even if we win, we only get to NOT pay a fine! If the council win they get to smear our names, jeopardise future events, and bring the issue of cannabis generally into disrepute. Everything we don’t want to happen.
Thankfully the council seems intent on making a fool out of itself, again, impressively displaying a huge amount of ineptitude and showing a complete lack of understanding about what its job actually entails in the first place!
As for this, somewhat hazy, allegation of past financial misappropriation, as it was put, I should say my experience of under resourced voluntary groups is that it is always difficult to maintain transparency and clarity in pressurized situations, and individuals often have differing viewpoints and priorities. Having worked closely over five successive years with Shane managing the Cannabis Festival budget, there has never been an occasion when I have been in doubt as to his honesty and integrity.
As for the comments by Jonny V, they do not reflect in any way my understanding of the cannabis festival situation.
We have not had the health and Safety officer(s) walk out – both individuals declined due to other commitments, and we engaged the services of another experienced group for the job for the last 2 years - who did a great job. The sound system co-ordinator who started with us in 1999 is still on board, and we have the pleasure of working with many experienced event individuals who work with us year after year. Not to mention the numerous people who regularly work on the event voluntarily.
I know JV has experience of voluntary organisations, and he should know that often in under resourced high pressure groups there are levels of stress, and people tend to do as much as they can voluntarily until it becomes unsustainable for them to continue. This has unfortunately been the case with the cannabis coalition. It is unreasonable and unfair to attribute all the organisations’ shortcomings to the licensee.
We should of course admit that there are shortcomings and try to rectify them. Well before this year’s event, JV, and others, suggested reforming a core group, re-stating the principles by which we work and trying to better the event. Shane, myself, and other members of the organisation agreed to attend whatever meetings were going to be arranged to discuss issues they might like to raise. Sadly this did not happen, but nevertheless those people who remained committed to the event went ahead and did it anyway – and it was one of the best. It really does JV, and others, no credit to be sniping at us from the sidelines.
I do however have to work closely with, and, the nature of the cannabis festival being what it is (i.e. under-funded, under resourced and always teetering on the edge ) ultimately I must trust the licensee. I feel obliged to say that I have always enjoyed working with Shane, and he has never given me any reason not to trust him.
I would also give credit for the amount of voluntary unpaid work Shane ( and everyone else) does for the festival. Without the dedication and lets face it downright stubbornness of Shane in putting his ass on the line year after year, and the generosity of people that believe in him and the festival, we would have no festival at all.
I picked the following quote out of an earlier post:
“I really would like to believe that Shane isn't stringing Lambeth officers along - in the hope of obtaining publicity for his election campaign along the lines of the 1967 Times leader that punishment was a "primitive" impulse to "break a butterfly on a wheel". However, the tone of the press release makes me wonder...”
I have to say that we have stringently tried to adhere to all licensing conditions, and as an event organisation on the ground, we have no real difficulty in doing so, even if there were, as somebody said, an extra 5000 people all who had a couple of pints more! In fact that would be perfect as it would mean we would break even financially. Instead of breaking even we are left in a position with the licensee having to shoulder much of the debt personally, and the festival maintaining itself on the faith most people have in the licensee to make good.
We are a professional, albeit underpaid, group of individuals, well versed in event management. The allegations are based on the flimsiest of evidence, with no mention anywhere about possible Health and Safety breaches, and they do our professional and personal integrity no justice. The situation is that the council, ill-informed and misguided though it is, seem determined to drive us out of the Borough , for whatever reasons, and I think it is absolutely correct of Shane, and the rest of our organisation, to stand up and fight. I can however understand why Shane would want to publicise the Court case itself, and try and expose the politics that lay behind it where possible as the council are determined to push ahead.
Shane has definitely not been stringing the council officers along to gain political headway. The court case can do anything but increase his potential for putting on large free events in the future, and is not set to benefit the organisation in any way. Even if we win, we only get to NOT pay a fine! If the council win they get to smear our names, jeopardise future events, and bring the issue of cannabis generally into disrepute. Everything we don’t want to happen.
Thankfully the council seems intent on making a fool out of itself, again, impressively displaying a huge amount of ineptitude and showing a complete lack of understanding about what its job actually entails in the first place!
As for this, somewhat hazy, allegation of past financial misappropriation, as it was put, I should say my experience of under resourced voluntary groups is that it is always difficult to maintain transparency and clarity in pressurized situations, and individuals often have differing viewpoints and priorities. Having worked closely over five successive years with Shane managing the Cannabis Festival budget, there has never been an occasion when I have been in doubt as to his honesty and integrity.
As for the comments by Jonny V, they do not reflect in any way my understanding of the cannabis festival situation.
We have not had the health and Safety officer(s) walk out – both individuals declined due to other commitments, and we engaged the services of another experienced group for the job for the last 2 years - who did a great job. The sound system co-ordinator who started with us in 1999 is still on board, and we have the pleasure of working with many experienced event individuals who work with us year after year. Not to mention the numerous people who regularly work on the event voluntarily.
I know JV has experience of voluntary organisations, and he should know that often in under resourced high pressure groups there are levels of stress, and people tend to do as much as they can voluntarily until it becomes unsustainable for them to continue. This has unfortunately been the case with the cannabis coalition. It is unreasonable and unfair to attribute all the organisations’ shortcomings to the licensee.
We should of course admit that there are shortcomings and try to rectify them. Well before this year’s event, JV, and others, suggested reforming a core group, re-stating the principles by which we work and trying to better the event. Shane, myself, and other members of the organisation agreed to attend whatever meetings were going to be arranged to discuss issues they might like to raise. Sadly this did not happen, but nevertheless those people who remained committed to the event went ahead and did it anyway – and it was one of the best. It really does JV, and others, no credit to be sniping at us from the sidelines.
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
2 comments
1) steve's last post is the first where he's put his money where his mouth is, rather than hazy, factless non-substance allegations
2) Steve: your prime beef STILL seems to be that "personal" issue you have with Shane. You may have sound issues for not giving the full spec on that-but in that case, it's unfair to raise it on-board, where it can be fully discussed.
And I too would like to hear Shane's comments on all of this. Shane?
1) steve's last post is the first where he's put his money where his mouth is, rather than hazy, factless non-substance allegations
2) Steve: your prime beef STILL seems to be that "personal" issue you have with Shane. You may have sound issues for not giving the full spec on that-but in that case, it's unfair to raise it on-board, where it can be fully discussed.
And I too would like to hear Shane's comments on all of this. Shane?
aurora green
Tectonic
I'm sorry but I dont think Steves personal dispute with Shane has any relevance to this thread really.
By attacking Shanes character publically, what does that achieve? It certainly wont help the future of the cannabis festival.
You sound properly bitter to me Steve.
And whilst you may of had a bad experience working with Shane, I myself move in activist circles, and I have worked with Shane, though not as closly as others here perhaps, and I have known him for about ten years, and found him a decent, straightforward and ethical, hard working individual.
Let's concentrate on the real baddies here-
Lambeth bloody council!!
By attacking Shanes character publically, what does that achieve? It certainly wont help the future of the cannabis festival.
You sound properly bitter to me Steve.
And whilst you may of had a bad experience working with Shane, I myself move in activist circles, and I have worked with Shane, though not as closly as others here perhaps, and I have known him for about ten years, and found him a decent, straightforward and ethical, hard working individual.
Let's concentrate on the real baddies here-
Lambeth bloody council!!
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
agreed nem con, on both counts! I merely tried to say that tossing something in the pot which he refuses to clarify or enlarge upon, is just not on.
Now-sha-aane ? c'mon, this is important
Major respect to Sinclair's post. Reminds us how much sheer hard work is involved.
Shane and Sinclair -- if ANY more help is needed to help get the 2004 march and Fest off the ground, Stig and I would be very happy to help at any point, and we live locally ....
I'm with Jezza, editor and aurora -- Steve's posts look very much like his personalised vendetta with Shane.
Stig knows Shane also from a while back (Ecotrip at Glasto etc.), and doesn't recognise the portrait of him that Steve presents. Plus plenty of others seem to have a more balanced picture of the man who for all I can see works VERY hard with his compadres to keep this wonderful campaigning festival alive. There is no point or relevance in him taking all this flak when the main priority is to save the Festival from Lambeth's apparant determination to give it grief.
Since I asked aurora where the Burgess Park rumour came from, Shane comfirmed himself that they were thinking about switching the fest to there, in his second post. A reduction in the number of sound systems and an increased emphasis on campaigning and education stalls etc. may improve the chances of getting a licence from Southwark. But as I posted earlier, I still foresee potential problems in gaining acceptance, because the nimby element is probably that much more conservative and vocal around this part of Southwark than it is in Lambeth. The Southwark News while an informative local paper is far from outward-looking in its perspective, it's very much a locals local paper, and it has a lot of influence over councillors. Plus the Southwark Police distanced themselves (I believe) from the Lambeth Police at the time of 'The Experiment', and I suspect they might prove a bit of a hasslesome nuisance to relaxing festie goers and marchers, much as I'd personally love to see the march wending its colourful way down Walworth Road
The above is all speculation I suppose, I hope not unduly negative, but it is based on some local knowledge -- perhaps others know more than me and will contradict me in a more optimistic way, I hope so!
Whatever, I'm sure many around these forums will be watching out for the outcome of the case on 21 Jamuary and will be offering Shane a lot of support and good luck wishes at that time. Plus we'll all be wishing next year's march and festival all the best too.
And as I said before, many of us will be very willing to offer help (reliably) for the preparations if required.
Shane and Sinclair -- if ANY more help is needed to help get the 2004 march and Fest off the ground, Stig and I would be very happy to help at any point, and we live locally ....
I'm with Jezza, editor and aurora -- Steve's posts look very much like his personalised vendetta with Shane.
Stig knows Shane also from a while back (Ecotrip at Glasto etc.), and doesn't recognise the portrait of him that Steve presents. Plus plenty of others seem to have a more balanced picture of the man who for all I can see works VERY hard with his compadres to keep this wonderful campaigning festival alive. There is no point or relevance in him taking all this flak when the main priority is to save the Festival from Lambeth's apparant determination to give it grief.
Since I asked aurora where the Burgess Park rumour came from, Shane comfirmed himself that they were thinking about switching the fest to there, in his second post. A reduction in the number of sound systems and an increased emphasis on campaigning and education stalls etc. may improve the chances of getting a licence from Southwark. But as I posted earlier, I still foresee potential problems in gaining acceptance, because the nimby element is probably that much more conservative and vocal around this part of Southwark than it is in Lambeth. The Southwark News while an informative local paper is far from outward-looking in its perspective, it's very much a locals local paper, and it has a lot of influence over councillors. Plus the Southwark Police distanced themselves (I believe) from the Lambeth Police at the time of 'The Experiment', and I suspect they might prove a bit of a hasslesome nuisance to relaxing festie goers and marchers, much as I'd personally love to see the march wending its colourful way down Walworth Road
The above is all speculation I suppose, I hope not unduly negative, but it is based on some local knowledge -- perhaps others know more than me and will contradict me in a more optimistic way, I hope so!
Whatever, I'm sure many around these forums will be watching out for the outcome of the case on 21 Jamuary and will be offering Shane a lot of support and good luck wishes at that time. Plus we'll all be wishing next year's march and festival all the best too.
And as I said before, many of us will be very willing to offer help (reliably) for the preparations if required.
Similar threads
