Lambeth attempts to cancel Cannabis Festival

[Mr BC]

so;
the organisers have not been consulted.
the police have not been consulted.
the local community - by and large - have not been consulted (if there was a community consultation exercise, I must have blinked and missed it!)
Has ANYONE been consulted?

My understanding is that there was a meeting with the organisers to discuss the council's concerns. The police were certainly consulted: it would be inconceivable to make a decision like this without discussing it thoroughly with them first.

 

[aurora green]

At last night's Community Police Consultative Group, the police were asked if they had been consulted about this decision. They said no, they had simply been informed of it.

Well I wonder what the truth is then?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It was also claimed that this was a [council] officers' recommendation

Christ, not that old one.

 

[tarannau]

My understanding is that there was a meeting with the organisers to discuss the council's concerns. The police were certainly consulted: it would be inconceivable to make a decision like this without discussing it thoroughly with them first.

Go on Mr BC, name the policemen and councillors that were involved in this discussion. Given the slightly (ahem) inconsistent and unexpected nature of this release, its not an unreasonable queestion to ask...

 

[tobyjug]

from the South London Press is plain wrong. Lambeth are operating to the same ACPO Guidelines as anywhere else in the country.

Which is somewhat specific about smoking cannabis in a public place or near children being an arrestable offence.
It may also have escaped everyones attention, councils are now responsible for ALL licencing involved in events.
Somewhere perhaps on their website will be the licencing policy. Which may explain the current situation.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Is the ban likely to be discussed in an open council meeting?

 

[Rich]

Cheers for the contact info. The only way we'll be able to protect free festivals like this from being gradually replaced by corporate events which restrict access to our "public park" is by kicking up one almighty fuss and exposing their rediculous excusess for refusing permission.

I've just phoned the council press office and they deny all knowledge of releasing a press statement!! Although they admitted that they've had a lot of enquiries already.

020 7926 2841 or 020 7926 2739 if you want to phone them.

Then they tried to pass me to the parks department.

I am trying to find the email address or name of someone we can write to to complain. Any ideas? Best done through local councillors perhaps?

One of the councillors for my ward (Tulse Hill, which borders on the park) is Toren Smith (Lab) and he's been helpful before. His email is tjsmith@lambeth.gov.uk
The leader of the council is Peter Truesdale libdem@lambeth.gov.uk who cunningly doesn't seem to have a personal email address. But I bet it's something like ptruesdale@lambeth.gov.uk
The deputy leader of the council is jwhelan@lambeth.gov.uk (tory)
The executive member for the environment (covering parks) is Clare Whelen - who IIRC is none other than Mr Whelan's wife, no? Her email is cwhelan@lambeth.gov.uk I wouldn;t be surprised if all this had come from her.

Email them all.

 

[Mr BC]

Go on Mr BC, name the policemen and councillors that were involved in this discussion. Given the slightly (ahem) inconsistent and unexpected nature of this release, its not an unreasonable queestion to ask...

It's actually a completely unreasonable question and against the whole spirit of posting on this site.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It's not unreasonable to ask you to back up a claim you've made. This decision is supposed to be secret - indeed, that fact that it apparently was is half the bloody issue - and there's therefore no adequate reason to withhold such information.

 

[Mr BC]

It's not unreasonable to ask you to back up a claim you've made. This decision is supposed to be secret - indeed, that fact that it apparently was is half the bloody issue - and there's therefore no adequate reason to withhold such information.

Don't be so pompous. It's your choice whether you believe what I say or not. I've been posting on here long enough for people to make up their own minds about the veracity of what I say. I'm ceratinly not going to disclose the source of information disclosed to me confidentially.

 

[Streathamite]

My understanding is that there was a meeting with the organisers to discuss the council's concerns. .

that's news to the organisers AFAIK!

The police were certainly consulted:

and that's news to the OB at the LCPCG!

it would be inconceivable to make a decision like this without discussing it thoroughly with them first

make that 'should' be inconceivable; it doesnot appear to have happened here.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Don't be so pompous. It's your choice whether you believe what I say or not. I've been posting on here long enough for people to make up their own minds about the veracity of what I say. I'm ceratinly not going to disclose the source of information disclosed to me confidentially.

Don't you be so pompous. When you give us information that conflicts with other information given on here, it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to provide some verification. What you're actually doing is avoiding a very obvious point that you're - not surprisingly - uncomfortable with, which is that this has all been done behind closed doors when there was no good reason for this to be the case.

 

[tobyjug]

If anyone is interested in wading through this lot they might get some ideas what the problem is (There are 14 references to drugs)
http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/policydocument/029687.pdf

 

[Streathamite]

that's a premises licensing document tobyjug - and it therefore has bugger all to do with an open air festival

 

[Donna Ferentes]

"This was done in secret without consultation!"

"No it wasn't."

"How do you know?"

"That's a secret."

 

[tobyjug]

that's a premises licensing document tobyjug - and it therefore has bugger all to do with an open air festival

Licencing policy includes events, which have to comply with the licensing policy, it is a section of the same act.

 

[Mr BC]

"This was done in secret without consultation!"

"No it wasn't."

"How do you know?"

"That's a secret."

Believe me, I feel no compunction whatever to justify myself to you. Believe what you want to believe.

 

[Mr BC]

Jezza - empty your PM box!

 

[aurora green]

This just doesn't make sense.

Well, I'm looking forward to what both the Whelans' have to say on this. Neither has replied yet.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Believe me, I feel no compunction whatever to justify myself to you.

Oh, I believe you. In this respect if no other.

 

[Mr BC]

Oh, I believe you. In this respect if no other.

Yeah, Everyone knows I'd just post a downright lie just to defend the council.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

"...therefore what I say must be the truth regardless of the fact that it conflicts with other information people have been given."

 

[Mr BC]

"...therefore what I say must be the truth regardless of the fact that it conflicts with other information people have been given."

You really are a very inadequate little man.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Personal abuse does not add to the stature of your posts.

 

[aurora green]

Personal abuse does not add to the stature of your posts.

I agree.



There is definately some cause for concern over what exactly the facts are. The organisers and the police deny being consulted. Mr BC says they have.
What is the truth I wonder?

 

[Mr BC]

Personal abuse does not add to the stature of your posts.

Maybe not, but it makes me feel a whole lot better. Besides, you're the one who called me a liar, not something I take kindly to.

 

[Streathamite]

Jezza - empty your PM box!

done - and umm, I hate to point this out, but your box...ahem!...

 

[Mr BC]

done - and umm, I hate to point this out, but your box...ahem!...

Oops.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Besides, you're the one who called me a liar, not something I take kindly to.

I didn't, of course, call you a liar. I asked you to provide verification for information that conflicted with other information we had been given. You are, I believe, a lawyer of sorts, and I am quite sure you appreciate:

1. the difference ;

2. the fact that if party A and party B provide conflicting information then it is only possible to believe one at the expense of the other ;

3. the possibility that information may be supplied that turns out to be inaccurate for reasons other that deliberate untruthfulness.

Now give over sulking and accept that you cannot automatically be believed by virtue of your word alone, much though we would all like that to be the case.

 

[Rich]

Its also a n event which is free to all members of the community, with no restriction of access to the park and no requirements to purchase refreshments only from proffit making stalls.

We went round this course last year. Discounts are available for events raising funds for charities or community causes. This is a self-confessed political, campaigning event.