Cannabis Festival Licencee Charged
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
steve indigenou
New Member
Final Thoughts
How did this all begin ?
Ah yes, I remember, with the whole 'Synergy-Cooltan Revisited' thread. Joespeh made an unfortunate mistake, loads of people, including the editor of this board, leapt in and accused us of being capitalist exploiters. I then defended the Project by making observations about the differences between Cooltan and Synergy, not actually mentioning Shane by name, but alluding to his role so as to avoid personally attacking him.
The Cannabis thread then came up, which is also something I know something about, and wanted to point out
i) why the Council has lost faith with Shane and the Cannabis festival and therefore no longer wants to support him / it.
ii) how and why the way Shane organises and operates mitigates against commanding credibility in these and other circles.
It seems to me that some Urban 75 members feel that it is fine to dis a project of which they have no knowledge (and then only to be contradicted by those who have actually attended events) and then get very upset when the same spotlight is turned closer to home. This smacks of hypocrisy.
It has been interesting to read Sinclair and Paula's remarks. What Sinclair says, I have little issue with, if only to diasgree with the suggestion that the way in which the Cannabis festival is organised, and how this impacts on people's motivation, is not Shane's primary responsibility. I don't know whether what Jonny V says is true, but it reasonates profoundly with my personal experiences of working with Shane and with the reports I have had from others of their experiences.
Basically, for me this whole discussion has been about organisational methods, surely a legitimate discussion when it comes to political representation and the organisation of an important local festival.
The personal issue has clouded the waters. For me it is only relevant in that it just illustrates how Shane operates, but it was not me who brought it up, but rather something that supporters of Shane keep bringing back into the discussion to try to discredit my position.
It's interesting that no-one has addressed the issues about how to go about engaging with the Council in order to win support - for me this is the real issue. But much easier to ignore for others, perhaps. Basically, they have no answers, so it's much easier to speak in such simplistic terms as 'the real enemy - Lambeth Council.'
It's a shame Jonny V has not gone public with his statement (made to me in private) that he has other damning information about Shane's methods. Other's who have shared my experiences are also not on hand to represent this strand of opinion, but Shane has done a good job of getting out his vote, so the issue will probably be left here as far as this board is concerned. I'm hardly going to call up all my mates and get them to post in support of what I'm saying.
The way this issue will really be resolved, however, is by seeing how well the different methodologies work in achieving their stated aims. I prefer a strategy of engagement, which demands a certain way of working in order to command credibility in influential circles. Some may dismiss this as 'selling out' or becoming 'capitalists', as they have done on this board.
Others prefer a more informal approach, with no formal structure, little transparency and the (deliberate or otherwise) 'tyranny of structureless' and the dominance of a charismatic individual who considers his own interests to be equivalent to those of the supporters who surround him. I think this is a recipe for exploitation, and also a profoundly unsustainable way of working. If you look at Shane's track record, I think it supports my case :
Cooltan - unsustainable
Ecotrip - unsustainable
The Greenhouses - unsustainable
The Cannabis festival - ...
Having worked in both environments, I have no doubt whatsoever which is the more effective. Whether or not Shane choses to change is less of a concern, for as Paula observed, he can be very stubborn.
What concerns me most, however, is that people should consider Shane's political leadership as likely to command any influence where it matters or that it will have a beneficial impact on the lives of people living outside of the Brixton Green Ghetto, in which he apparently still enjoys much affection.
As for what I would like to see happening with the Cannabis festival ? A new, properly structured, incorpoated organisation with proper financial transparency, democratic decision making and, in order to stand any chance of getting a licence, a new licencee.
So, Shane, (cos I know you read this, though you don't answer !), let's just see what happens, for...
after Ecotrip came Synergy
after the Jan Rebane comes the Brixton Synergy Centre
and out of person x comes....
Well, let's just hope the trend continues.
We'll see what Karma brings.
Steve
How did this all begin ?
Ah yes, I remember, with the whole 'Synergy-Cooltan Revisited' thread. Joespeh made an unfortunate mistake, loads of people, including the editor of this board, leapt in and accused us of being capitalist exploiters. I then defended the Project by making observations about the differences between Cooltan and Synergy, not actually mentioning Shane by name, but alluding to his role so as to avoid personally attacking him.
The Cannabis thread then came up, which is also something I know something about, and wanted to point out
i) why the Council has lost faith with Shane and the Cannabis festival and therefore no longer wants to support him / it.
ii) how and why the way Shane organises and operates mitigates against commanding credibility in these and other circles.
It seems to me that some Urban 75 members feel that it is fine to dis a project of which they have no knowledge (and then only to be contradicted by those who have actually attended events) and then get very upset when the same spotlight is turned closer to home. This smacks of hypocrisy.
It has been interesting to read Sinclair and Paula's remarks. What Sinclair says, I have little issue with, if only to diasgree with the suggestion that the way in which the Cannabis festival is organised, and how this impacts on people's motivation, is not Shane's primary responsibility. I don't know whether what Jonny V says is true, but it reasonates profoundly with my personal experiences of working with Shane and with the reports I have had from others of their experiences.
Basically, for me this whole discussion has been about organisational methods, surely a legitimate discussion when it comes to political representation and the organisation of an important local festival.
The personal issue has clouded the waters. For me it is only relevant in that it just illustrates how Shane operates, but it was not me who brought it up, but rather something that supporters of Shane keep bringing back into the discussion to try to discredit my position.
It's interesting that no-one has addressed the issues about how to go about engaging with the Council in order to win support - for me this is the real issue. But much easier to ignore for others, perhaps. Basically, they have no answers, so it's much easier to speak in such simplistic terms as 'the real enemy - Lambeth Council.'
It's a shame Jonny V has not gone public with his statement (made to me in private) that he has other damning information about Shane's methods. Other's who have shared my experiences are also not on hand to represent this strand of opinion, but Shane has done a good job of getting out his vote, so the issue will probably be left here as far as this board is concerned. I'm hardly going to call up all my mates and get them to post in support of what I'm saying.
The way this issue will really be resolved, however, is by seeing how well the different methodologies work in achieving their stated aims. I prefer a strategy of engagement, which demands a certain way of working in order to command credibility in influential circles. Some may dismiss this as 'selling out' or becoming 'capitalists', as they have done on this board.
Others prefer a more informal approach, with no formal structure, little transparency and the (deliberate or otherwise) 'tyranny of structureless' and the dominance of a charismatic individual who considers his own interests to be equivalent to those of the supporters who surround him. I think this is a recipe for exploitation, and also a profoundly unsustainable way of working. If you look at Shane's track record, I think it supports my case :
Cooltan - unsustainable
Ecotrip - unsustainable
The Greenhouses - unsustainable
The Cannabis festival - ...
Having worked in both environments, I have no doubt whatsoever which is the more effective. Whether or not Shane choses to change is less of a concern, for as Paula observed, he can be very stubborn.
What concerns me most, however, is that people should consider Shane's political leadership as likely to command any influence where it matters or that it will have a beneficial impact on the lives of people living outside of the Brixton Green Ghetto, in which he apparently still enjoys much affection.
As for what I would like to see happening with the Cannabis festival ? A new, properly structured, incorpoated organisation with proper financial transparency, democratic decision making and, in order to stand any chance of getting a licence, a new licencee.
So, Shane, (cos I know you read this, though you don't answer !), let's just see what happens, for...
after Ecotrip came Synergy
after the Jan Rebane comes the Brixton Synergy Centre
and out of person x comes....
Well, let's just hope the trend continues.
We'll see what Karma brings.
Steve
Final Thoughts
so let me see.
all the worthwhile interesting projects - unsustainable.
the deeply compromised, ultimately hollow projects - sustainable.
hmm...
how odd. maybe i need a lie down to figure THAT one out.
so let me see.
all the worthwhile interesting projects - unsustainable.
the deeply compromised, ultimately hollow projects - sustainable.
hmm...
how odd. maybe i need a lie down to figure THAT one out.
Steve, you might think you're coming over as reasonanble. But your last post is clearly still really bitter, personal and nasty.
I'm sure you've probably put alot of people off yourself and Synergy with your clear personal vendetta.
AS aurora said:
"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!!"
THE END
I'm sure you've probably put alot of people off yourself and Synergy with your clear personal vendetta.
AS aurora said:
"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!!"
THE END
Similar threads
