Lambeth attempts to cancel Cannabis Festival

[tarannau]

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

Er why? Surely this cloak and daggers routine shouldn't be necessary - you've stated that councillors, organisers and policemen have consulted regarding this festival in what would surely be open conversations. I can't see the problem with naming any of the folks involved in these discussions - they're public figures talking about a local public event after all

Indeed surely it'd help to clear up the confusion - everyone bar you has claimed to have no knowledge of such consultations.Why the big mystery? It's the local council and police talking about a local festival, not the sodding KGB monitoring secret nuclear plans.

Your tetchy tone isn't helping one little bit - I can't see what's to be lost with naming the public figures involved in this decision.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

An admirable summary of the most pertinent points.

 

[aurora green]

Why the big mystery? It's the local council and police talking about a local festival, not the sodding KGB monitoring secret nuclear plans.

Indeed.

 

[Streathamite]

I will keep off this thread due to confidental info that has suddenly come my way....I will however, continue to campaign to keep the festival going, as I completely and flatly disagree with the council.

 

[aurora green]

I will keep off this thread due to confidental info that has suddenly come my way....I will however, continue to campaign to keep the festival going, as I completely and flatly disagree with the council.

curiouser and curiouser

 

[Loki]

indeed

Why can't you spill the beans Jezza mate?

 

[Streathamite]

because if you give your word about retaining confidentiality, then that IMO is an unbreakable bond.
However-that info has given me hope as to what to do, I need to speak to Shane and others and will report back on the success of that endeavour

 

[christonabike]

Why bring it up?

 

[christonabike]

Anyone know what's going on?

 

[gaijingirl]

because if you give your word about retaining confidentiality, then that IMO is an unbreakable bond.
However-that info has given me hope as to what to do, I need to speak to Shane and others and will report back on the success of that endeavour

Jezza.. you're such a tease...

 

[pooka]

The police were certainly consulted: it would be inconceivable to make a decision like this without discussing it thoroughly with them first.

In a room full of about 50 or 60 people last night, including 5 Lambeth councillors, Shane Collins put the question:

"Were the police consulted on this?"

To which Supt Andy Tarrant (Supt, Community and Partnership), with borough commander Martin Bridger at his side, replied.

"We were not consulted, we were informed".

 

[Streathamite]

Why bring it up?

to explain - as good manners, and given my prominent role (heretofore) on this thread - my current silence.

 

[tarannau]

Why bring it up?

I'd agree with that - I'm not convinced that any more secrecy is what this affair (or thread) needs. Spout it, or just don't mention that you've got something you can't tell us...

Still, I'll forgive Jezza for that one. He's not really the one who should be answering questions or shedding light on these mysterious goings on. Whatever happened to transparency in local govt eh...

 

[christonabike]

"to explain - as good manners, and given my prominent role (heretofore) on this thread - my current silence"

fair do's, didn't realise

 

[aurora green]

In a room full of about 50 or 60 people last night, including 5 Lambeth councillors, Shane Collins put the question:

"Were the police consulted on this?"

To which Supt Andy Tarrant (Supt, Community and Partnership), with borough commander Martin Bridger at his side, replied.

"We were not consulted, we were informed".

Who are us Lambeth residents to believe? Our own elected councillor, or all those present at above meeting?

 

[TeeJay]

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

I think you should state when the meeting with organisers occured. None has taken place since the application for the 2005 event went in. Are you talking about meetings that took place last year?

The police were certainly consulted: it would be inconceivable to make a decision like this without discussing it thoroughly with them first.

Inconceivable? Really? Are you saying the police were misleading people at the consultative group? And why is it 'inconceivable' that Clare Whelan (executive for parks) would make a unilateral action without consulting anyone, and when pressed on why, blame it on fictitious 'advice' from one of their officers. And then get it rubber-stamped by the council executive? She has done this in previous years, after all.

Isn't it bizarre that the tiny Lambeth Conservative party (with only 7 out of 63 councillors) is allowed stamp over the rest of the borough? Surely a majority of Labour and Lib Dem councillors are perfectly entitled to tell them to go get stuffed? There are 56 of them after all. Surely there are 32 who would allow the event to be put on, as in previous years? Unfortunately Clare Whelan seems to be able to abuse her postion as "executive member of parks" and unilaterally issue bans on public events purely on her own say-so and without consulting anyone. Presumably her prime audience is the Daily Mail and she is playing politics with Lambeth without any consideration about the people who live there, or even Lambeth police or elected councillors.

 

[pooka]

Who are us Lambeth residents to believe? Our own elected councillor, or all those present at above meeting?

The Herne Hill Blog carries the same account of last night's meeting, which will doubtless be covered by approved minutes in due course anyway.

 

[lang rabbie]

None of what follows dilutes my criticism of the erratic and secretive way in which the decision seem to be being made by Lambeth on this...

Isn't it bizarre that the tiny Lambeth Conservative party (with only 7 out of 63 councillors) is allowed stamp over the rest of the borough? Surely a majority of Labour and Lib Dem councillors are perfectly entitled to tell them to go get stuffed? There are 56 of them after all. Surely there are 32 who would allow the event to be put on, as in previous years?

I suspect that this isn't necessarily running on purely party lines...

this administration is an odd alliance with differences between small 'c' conservative and small 'l' liberal attitudes to drugs (and other social attitudes) cutting across the Lib Dem/Tory party divide.

My perception is that although there are a couple of councillors who hold to a "law'n'order" populist approach, there are a larger number of members of the administration (strongly supported by officers in Social Services) who may want to take a "public health" line. On a free vote, they would probably be backed by some members of the Labour opposition with links in the health and social services fields.

This group, who it would be easy to lump together as paternalistic Grauniad readers, includes quite a few people who until recently would have been advocates of legalisation/decriminalisation. I think a lot of them are now convinced about the linkages between cannabis use and serious mental health problems of vulnerable Lambeth residents.

I think that anyone making a libertarian argument faces much more difficulty than they did a few years ago when Brian Paddick was first debating the approach that the public authorites should be taking, although there are still individual councillors (at all levels of the administration) whose instincts are in that direction.

 

[TeeJay]

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

There is no mention of events in public parks - it only refers to premises. The Cannabis Festival is unfenced, has no admission charges and takes place in Brockwell Park which is a public space. There is no legal right to search people on entrance or stop them entering the park, so the rules for licenced premises don't apply. There are separate rules for outdoor events.

In previous years the organisers and event security have worked with the police to deter dealers, however the organisers have no control over police deployment or what they prioritise.

If the council want to honestly discuss the policing and security of the event and the best approach for detering dealers from gathering near (or on the routes into) the festival they can. However they have simply made dishonest claims - that the organisers haven't be taking action against dealing, are "supporting" dealing, are not cooperating with the police, did not run a safe festival, did not comply with licensing or are unwilling/unable to sort out any issues that may arise. None of these are true.

They know full-well that the event is very well run, popular, has ideals, is community based, values excellent value-for-money, has extremely low levels of crime (eg property/disorder/violence) and puts many other Lambeth events and businesses to shame. They know that they are meant to be sorting out far greater problems related to drugs in Lambeth (eg crack and smack dealing - not to mention alcohol and other class A's at entertainment venues around the borough) which makes their claims about the cannabis festival having a "problem" look shameful. (Of the thousands of people who came to the festival last year there was *one* drugs-related arrest!)

But an open and honest discussion doesn't allow certain people to abuse their position (as head of parks or deputy leader for example) and substitute fiction for facts for the sake of cheap party-political gimmicks.

 

[tobyjug]

They know that they are meant to be sorting out far greater problems related to drugs in Lambeth (eg crack and smack dealing - not to mention alcohol and other class A's at entertainment venues around the borough) which makes their claims about the cannabis festival having a "problem" look shameful. (Of the thousands of people who came to the festival last year there was *one* drugs-related arrest!)
.

So only one person was in breach of the ACPO guidelines. (I take it the pictures of the event shown on TV news bulletins were faked up in a studio somewhere then)

 

[lang rabbie]

There is no mention of events in public parks - it only refers to premises. The Cannabis Festival is unfenced, has no admission charges and takes place in Brockwell Park which is a public space. There is no legal right to search people on entrance or stop them entering the park, so the rules for licenced premises don't apply. There are separate rules for outdoor events.

You seem to have missed this bit on pages 23 and 24 (my emphasis in bold):

20. Temporary Events

Introduction:

20.1 Under the Licensing Act 2003 small scale events where the attendance is under 500 persons and of specified limited duration at which alcohol is provided and/or entertainment provided do not require licensing. Instead the organiser simply serves what is known as a temporary event notice on the Council and the police. The Council can only intervene if the police object in furtherance of the crime protection objective.

20.2 For larger events that exceed the specified duration a time limited premises licence is required.

Policy:
20.3 For temporary events needing a time limited premises licences the Council will apply the general principles detailed in this policy statement as though the application related to a permanent premises licence. This will enable the Council to balance the cultural benefit to the community with the need to further the licensing objectives.

20.4 For events where a licence is not required the Council will not normally be able to adjudicate. However, at events on Council property such as its parks and open spaces the relevant department of the Council will seek as part of its letting policies and Events Strategy to achieve this balance. In other words the Department concerned will favour events that have a positive benefit to the community and will make any letting subject to conditions designed to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives.

20.5 In considering any application the Council will have particular regard to the steps the applicant has taken or proposes to comply with the recommendations set out in the following publications as they relate to the particular licensable activity:
• The Event Safety Guide
• Managing Crowds Safely
• The Guide to the Safety at Sports Grounds
• Safety Guidance for Street Arts, Carnival, Processions and Large Scale Performance.

 

[TeeJay]

I suspect that this isn't necessarily running on purely party lines...

Well wanting to look "tough on crime" isn't just a Conservative thing for sure ... you only have to listen to Kate Hoey going on about cannabis to know that - although it takes a certain type of person to misrepresent the facts and abuse due process.

Last year it was "missing notebooks" that got LBL laughed out of court.

Unfortunately accusations of "supporting" dealing or of not taking action (re security and police) in previous years are going further than complains over noise, and I'd caution whoever is writing this stuff to take some legal advice before repeating it. It is simply not true.

 

[TeeJay]

So only one person was in breach of the ACPO guidelines. (I take it the pictures of the event shown on TV news bulletins were faked up in a studio somewhere then)

I think you are making the mistake of confusing the event organisers with Lambeth police. It is up to them who they arrest and why - you should be taking it up with them. If you had ever been to Brixton you might be in a position to tell them how to police a local public event - and maybe you could tell them how to sort out the rest of the crime in Lambeth while you are at it.

Drugs and crime exists in London (and Lambeth). In fact a large part of the local Brixton economy is linked to bars, pubs and clubs - along with all the party people who are attracted to them. It is moronic to try and claim that the Cannabis Festival is "creating" any kind of problem. In fact the real truth is probably that crime is lower, drug dealing less aggressive and prevalent - and the only difference is that the centre of gravity in Brixton is moved from Coldharbour Lane up to Brockwell Park for the duration of the day. As I have said before, you have to have a reasonable "baseline" - what kind of crime etc would you expect from a crowd of thousands of people over a typical Saturday in London? The fact is that the Cannabis Festival is well run and no amount of rubbish thrown at it can substitute for some actual *facts* rather than worthless and partial "anecdotes".

The organisers do not want any dealers operating at the event and have taken action and made requests (not always followed up on) to the police to prevent dealers from gathering in or near the festival, both last year and in previous years. It is an issue that needs a well-thought out approach and good cooperation. Unfortunately Lambeth are pretending that this didn't happen and are trying to create some "moral outrage" to tar the organisers as irresponsible.

The responsible thing to do would be for the council to discuss the issue with the police and the organisers and agree with putting in place the necessary measures to deal with the issue.

 

[TeeJay]

You seem to have missed this bit on pages 23 and 24 (my emphasis in bold):

Brockwell Park is not a "premises".

edit: The point is that there are *lots* of rules and regulations covering public events - but they are not *identical* to those covering pubs, clubs and bars, for a whole host of legal and practical reasons.

Maybe someone can find the correct document?

 

[lang rabbie]

Brockwell Park is not a "premises".

I'm afraid it is ...

Licensing Act 2003 [2003 Chapter 17]

193 Other definitions

In this Act-
...
"licensed premises" means premises in respect of which a premises licence has effect;
...

"premises" means any place and includes a vehicle, vessel or moveable structure;

 

[editor]

Press release just in:

Statement from the Brixton Cannabis Coalition 2nd March 2005

Lambeth Council try to ban 7th annual Cannabis march and festival

The Brixton Cannabis Coalition regrets the decision supported by the
Lambeth Executive to ignore the agreed public events policy and try to ban
the Cannabis March and Festival on Saturday 7th May because of cannabis
dealers at last years Festival.

Instead of the application for a licence being taken by the relevant
licensing committees the decision has been made by Cllr Clare Whelan, Tory
Executive member for Environment and ratified by the Executive.

This is contrary to Cllr Whelan's statement to the Executive on 4th November 2004.

"If an application is received the outcome will be determined in line with
the events policy and the decision of the relevant quasi-judicial Licensing
Committee".

The Police and festival organisers were not consulted on the ban.

The Brixton Cannabis Coalition request that our application is dealt with
in the normal way. We ask supporters to sign the petition at
www.thecannabisfestival.co.uk

We also acknowledge and share Council
concerns regarding cannabis dealers during the march and festival. This is
a problem for us and any large open access event in Brockwell Park.
The organisers have requested police action, as in previous years, to deter
dealers, but have ultimately no direct control over what they do or how
they prioritise the issue of dealers.

We invite Lambeth Council officers to join the Police and the Coalition to
work through these problems in a planning meeting on 11am Monday 7th March
at Frank O'Neil House, Clapham Road.

Over the last 6 years the Council have taken the Festival to court twice
for alleged minor licencing violations, both times we were found not
guilty, then doubled the cost of using the Park by charging us a commercial
price.

This year the Council has not even allowed us to put our proposals
before the Licencing Committee. This is against the agreed Parks event
policy. This is political football in Lambeth.

Last year the Cannabis festival attracted only 4 public complaints, - based
on noise, 7 arrests - one for dealing and was enjoyed by many thousands of
people. We think there is a question of balance.

In a sane and tolerant society we would be consulted and recognised for
putting on a safe and free event, instead Lambeth Council have made no
attempt to overcome this problem but simply use it as a means to prohibit us.

We recognise that Cllr Whelan and the Executive may have more than
technical problems with us. We suspect their reasons may be political. We
may not fit in with their politics, their corporate, public relations
driven, glossy vision of Lambeth.

The influx of West Indians from the 50's, young urban professional clubbers
and pragmatic policing in the 90's, has given Lambeth reputation as a
progressive, culturally rich and diverse area. We are part of this
diversity.

We invite the Council to work with us and the police to overcome these
issues, however if they refuse and simply try to prohibit the march and
festival then we accuse the Executive of being intolerant of diversity.

We note the media's reaction to the Council's ban has already increased the
size of the march. Presumably people will want to do something after the
march. The question for the Executive is do they want it done licenced or
unlicenced. A bit like the sale of cannabis really.

 

[tobyjug]

I'm afraid it is ...

Thanks very much for finding that.
I get hacked of with people saying rules don't apply to this and don't apply to that. It is a major reason I am having nothing whatsoever to do with events I have helped to organise in the past. The other organisors have not got a bloody clue about the implications of the changeover of all licencing to councils.
Council licencing committee members are personally and unlimitedly liable for any cockups with event licencing if they have neglected any aspect of a duty of care in granting the licence. (As are event organisors).

 

[pooka]

This group, who it would be easy to lump together as paternalistic Grauniad readers, includes quite a few people who until recently would have been advocates of legalisation/decriminalisation. I think a lot of them are now convinced about the linkages between cannabis use and serious mental health problems of vulnerable Lambeth residents.

I think that anyone making a libertarian argument faces much more difficulty than they did a few years ago when Brian Paddick was first debating the approach that the public authorites should be taking, although there are still individual councillors (at all levels of the administration) whose instincts are in that direction.

I think this is very true. At the very least, there's a sizable contingent keeping their heads down now, in case the mental health case gets any stronger. The Chair of the Health Scrutiny Committee (Cllr Meador), which can scrutinise the local NHS as well as the council, has a strong interest in mental health issues and has firm views on the canabbis-mental health issue.

As lang rabbie says, none of which excuses this hole in the corner stuff. The Licencing Committee should have been the place, with transparent consultation with the police. Presumably there is also an appeal process against Licensing decisions?

As it is, due process is brought into disrepute.

 

[BROCKWELL]

To confirm Puukas report of Supt Andy Tarrant's statement at the Police consultative Group he did say they had not been consulted. Which was obvious anyway as no self respecting copper would say they coudnt police the Cannabis Festival.

Legally its an Officer's decision to refuse permission but they were instructed by the Executive and its interesting to see the group involved.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

As it is, due process is brought into disrepute.

....which pisses me right off. A lot of people in Lambeth spend hours in draughty committee rooms on uncomfortable chairs when they could be listening to The Archers, watching a film, eating their supper at a convenient hour or in the pub with their mates, instead of working, unpaid and unappreciated, to change things here because they really care about where they live. The biggest enemy is cynicism followed by apathy and abuse of due process plays right into the conspiracists, wreckers and cynics hands imo. It also is metaphorical nose-thumbing to all those people who get off their arses to benefit us all.