Apparently this decision was made by the council "executive"/cabinet last week, ie these people:
Cllr Peter Truesdale
ptruesdale@lambeth.gov.uk
Cllr John Whelan
jwhelan@lambeth.gov.uk
Cllr Clare Whelan
cwhelan@lambeth.gov.uk
Cllr Andrew Sawdon
asawdon@lambeth.gov.uk
Cllr Anthony Bottrall
abottrall@lambeth.gov.uk
Cllr Ashley Lumsden
alumsden@lambeth.gov.uk
Cllr Keith Fitchett
councillor@fitchett.net
Cllr Roger Giess
rgiess@lambeth.gov.uk
(all Lib Dem except J & C Whelan (Con):
The politics?
Why was this decision made secretly behind closed doors instead of by the usual method of an open licensing committee meeting? Who presented evidence? Who was behind this decision - ie who tabled it?
It can be seen that there is a clear majority of Lib Dems on the executive but this disguises the fact that they are dependent on the handful of Conservative councillors for a working majority over Labour in the full council. My guess is that once again the Lib Dems are allowing the Conservatives to do a bit of headline grabbing and toadying to Conservative Central Office (and the Evening Standard/Daily Mail) in retuirn for getting their loyalty on more serious matters such as the budget and other important policies.
You really do have to ask if this is either in line with national Lib Dem policy, or even with the Whelans protestations (from last year) that they *personally* have nothing against cannabis campaigning. Isn't it likely that this is n othing more than pathetic electioneering and empty attention-grabbing for the benefit of Conservative Central Office by the Whelans? What else exaplins the last 180 degree u-turn in "principles" and "morality" by the executive - or are they really claiming that 2004 was unique in what happened, to the extent that the event must be banned?
The exectuive is way out of line with what the people of Lambeth think about this event, they are way out of line with what Lambeth police and other blue light services think - they are even out of line with what the majority of Labour and Lib Dem councillors think about this festival - which is prescisely why they have smuggled it secretly through the executive rather than having it discussed and voted on in an open committee.
Errors in The Press Release
The press statement says that these accusations were discussed with the organisers. This isn't true. There was no effort made to talk to the organisers before this decision, and these issues were not raised in the licensing committee or by the parks department last year. Nor were they raised by Lambeth police after the event. The organisers were not even consulted or informed before this press release was sent out.
When the council mention
"cannabis use and drug pushing - both of which have taken place at a previous festival" and that
"council officers monitoring the event in the past were approached by drug dealers who offered them drugs" - the council should be able to produce actual records of this. In the past when they have made accusations their officers' note books have gone missing when a court has required them to be produced. I wonder if this would happen again if they were required to back up these lastest claims. What documented evidence do they actually have or does it consist of gossip and their own imaginations? Have they spoken to the police officer in charge of policing the events last year and in previous years? Can they actually show that more illegality occured at the festival than in any other simliarly sized crowd on a saturday afternoon in London? In fact they would find that there was less crime in Brockwell Park than could be statistically expected, if they actually did bother talking to Lambeth police about it. In other words they are liars (aka politicians).
They claim that
"numerous complaints from local people who have been harassed by drug dealers." Well how many complaints were received? I have heard that there were 4 last year. This is a tiny number, and far less than the number of local people and organisations who have supported and praised the the event. Futhermore some people are on record that they would make a complaint against the event *on principle* becuase they disagreed with the campaign - ie malicious complaints - although it is impossible to say if complaints were or not, especially if the council refuses to discuss these complaints with the organisers or disclose any details about them to the public. Again, the council must be expected to back up their accusations with hard evidence. The Freedom of Information Act will hopefully enable this to happen and full disclosure of their records to occur.
They mention
"many reports of people taking drugs". How many "reports" were received? And did the council pass these reports on to the police?
"These issued have been raised with the event organisers." Again - when were these raised? Dates please Mr Truesdale!
They say:
"We do not feel confident that the Cannabis Coalition will be able to prevent such incidents occuring again" It is worth pointing out that there was a large police presence at the 2004 festival. What actions are the council saying the organisers should have taken, above and beyond what the police did on the day? Why did the council's witnesses not report any dealing to the police? If they did, what action did they police take and why? In fact, what view did the police take on how the event went? Are Lambeth council saying that the policing of the event was unsatisfactory?
The most disgusting part of the press release for me is where it implies that the festival is "being used to support illegal activity". Are they claiming that the event organisers are 'supporting' drug dealing? I was involved with the 2004 event, I have no type of criminal record or involvement with crime whatsoever, and as such I feel *disgusted* that Lambeth council can make this kind of comment and implication. If anyone is presiding over a corrupt system that sees millions of pounds of people's money snaffled then its those muppets in the town hall and all their private consultancy friends they over-pay to fiddle while the borough 'burns'.
