well hows about this then? check these out guys:
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_LatestNews_13_04_06_Scottish_police_legalisation_call.htm
[http://www.tdpf.org.uk/]
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=570742006
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/431/scottishcops.shtml
http://talk.ocregister.com/archive/index.php/t-12965.html
:bounce_m:this has really put the cats amongst the scottish parliament pigeons:bounce_m:
:alien_abd
UK : East Anglia : Cops clamp down on Suffolk "Hall Parties" Now this I don't quite understand. Most village halls have a PEL, so provided the organisers aren't illegally running the event beyond permitted licensing hours and do not cause undue noise nuisance what offence (if any) is being committed? Surely these hall parties are legal and should be permitted?
Rave Still A Threat - Police Warning
News supplied by: Suffolk Constabulary
Published: 26 October 2005 17:26
Police are issuing a seasonal warning to village hall managers: ?make sure your venue is not targeted by illegal rave organisers...
Police are issuing a seasonal warning to village hall managers: “make sure your venue is not targeted by illegal rave organisers.”
The change in the weather heralds a change of tactic from those who organise illegal raves - as they turn their attention to indoor venues rather than outside events.
Last month, police successfully thwarted a rave which was about to start at a hall in Thorndon, near Eye. Officers, working closely with staff at the hall, closed the venue and turned away a number of people who had started to gather at the venue.
“Raves – whether indoors or outdoors – cause a great deal of disruption to local communities and often result in a damage of property and land,” said Superintendent Mark Cordell of Suffolk Police.
“Once in full swing, they are difficult to stop. However, when we have intelligence and information from the public about a potential rave, we have been successful in preventing them.”
Police are asking those who operate venues such as village halls and barns to be aware of the threat of illegal raves – and consider a few simple precautions to help ensure that bookings for their venue are genuine.
“Organisers of illegal raves disguise their intentions by hiring venues for occasions such as 21st birthday parties.,” said Supt Cordell.
“We would advise managers of local venues to be wary of people making bookings at very short notice, particularly if they are not local; if they don’t know a person making a booking, they should take a full, verifiable address and contact number for them and ask for an appropriate damage deposit, in cash, up front.
And, if they have any concerns or suspicions about those making the booking, they should contact the police.”
Police are also urging local people to help them prevent illegal raves – by reporting any information about raves or sightings of large groups of vehicles gathering.
Laws on soundsystem confiscation Me and some friends are planning a small party soon, but would like to know the laws on fines and soundsystem confiscation before we go ahead.
The site is very soundproof (being in a small valley) with no houses closeby. We had a small event there last friday and blasted out music 'till 9am with no trouble whatsoever, but we're planning on the next one being bigger. However, it's on District Council land so no landowner's permission would be involved.
What can the police do if they turn up. Does it depend on the amount of people? Can they fine you on the spot or do they have to warn you, same goes with confiscation of the soundsystem?
Answers to these and any more advice would be greatly appreciated.
Ben
cs gas a freind of mine who is a seventeen-eighteen year old lad was caught on friday in a stolen car. he refused to leave the vehicle and so was sprayed with cs gas at close range. he has chemical burns on his face as well as burns to his cornea.
my suggestion was to go to the local press, but somepeople seem to think that the police were within their rights. i'm sure this could be the case, but it doesn't seem acceptable nontheless. there were three officers at the time he was sprayed, and he is a small skinny lad.
i'm not defending the theft for a second, but surely the reason we have police is so we dont have vigilante's which seems to be these coppers m.o.
any advice would be appreciated.
UK : SW : Its *time* for this year’s Operation Hartley… I guess the subtle joke in the subject line is probably lost on some of the younger ones (maybe Site and Biotech may get it....)
this one from auntie 2006-03-06
they seem to be starting a bit earlier than last year though and even before the financial year has ended!
Quote:
Rave festival organisers warned
Festival promoters have been warned by police they risk prosecution if they organise illegal raves over the summer. The Wiltshire, Avon and Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, Gloucestershire and Dorset police forces are pooling intelligence to target organisers.
Officers believe many people will be attracted to the area for the solstice but, as the Glastonbury festival is rested, will look for other events.
The public were also being encouraged to report suspicious activity to them.
Police said they would liaise with English Heritage and other agencies during the solstice period to ensure the environment around Stonehenge is protected from unlawful activities.
and from Wiltshire constabulary press office. (some bits removed for obvious reasons!) Note paragraph about traffic movements - it seems that inadvertantly causing a traffic jam without contributing to the market economy now appears to be a criminal activity :rant:
Quote:
06/03/2006 - Operation Hartley targets would-be ravers in the south west
Wiltshire Police is again participating in a south west regional operation and is warning people not to try and set up illegal raves.
The south west is considered to be one of a number of susceptible areas in the UK for illegal raves and the five south west region police forces - Wiltshire, Avon & Somerset, Devon & Cornwall, Dorset and Gloucestershire - are working together to combat them by proactively targeting organisers of events in an intelligence-led manner.
The operation will run throughout the coming months and will also take into account the Solstice celebrations in June, where large numbers of people are expected to visit the region. Because Glastonbury Festival is not being held this year, it is anticipated that there will be attempts to stage some 'events' instead and people may gather illegally to try and achieve this.
Wiltshire Police works very closely with English Heritage and other agencies during the Solstice period to ensure the environment around Stonehenge is protected from unlawful activities and that the movement of traffic along one of the south west's busiest trunk roads is not impeded. The type of work undertaken by Operation Hartley allows police officers to be better informed and therefore more effective in their operational enforcement.
******
this is hartley BTW...
and here's one of his friends...
UK : East Anglia : Ramsholt organisers fined and have kit confiscated Will the "community", particularly those who were so quick to egg these lads on to continue for 3 days and to even pelt the cops at one point be having a whip-round to help them pay for fines/replace kit I wonder?
Men fined after illegal rave
East Anglian Daily Times
10 February 2006 | 07:30
TWO men who helped organise an illegal rave which continued for three days until finally being stopped by police in riot gear have been fined a total of £3,500.
Daniel Crook and David Howard appeared before magistrates in Ipswich yesterday where they admitted a single charge of being concerned in the organisation of unlicensed public entertainment.
The huge rave was held at Ramsholt, near Woodbridge, on August 28, 29 and 30 last year and caused disruption for thousands of villagers.
Crook, 29, of Bullocks Lane, Caister on Sea, was fined £2,000 at South East Suffolk Magistrates' Court for his part in the illegal event and was ordered to pay £35 costs.
Howard, 21, of Bakers Road, Norwich, was fined £1,500 and also ordered to pay costs of £35.
Both men were made subject of a depravation order which will see the permanent confiscation of items such as speakers, camouflage tarpaulin, scaffolding, generators and fuel containers.
An estimated 1,000 people turned up at the illegal rave and dozens of complaints about loud music were made to a council's out of hours' emergency service.
FR : French party crew busted and fined 5 years later for 2000 party This appears to be some sort of "cost recovery (civil law?)" launched against a crew for a party they had in 2000, the gendarmes kept vehicle details in 2000 but waited 3 years to press charges and the party people accepted a "guilty" plea which makes them liable for €51000 in total - but apparently one person has been stung for the whole fine and has to sue the others to get his money back (WTF?) (sorry if I got confused here, French law is new to me but this is what it sounds like).
Shocking though, 5 years later and they are still determined to get people...
Condamné à 51 000 euros pour avoir participé à un rassemblement festif et musical !
S'en souvenir avec quelques images (photos par Livia - info@freetekno.org)
Le 5 février 2000, une soirée tekno est organisée dans un entrepôt de la Seine-et-Marne. Cet entrepôt jouxte un champs exploité par la société GAZONS DE FONTAINEBLEAU, qui fournit notamment la pelouse du stade de france.
Les gendarmes ont alors relevé les plaques d'immatriculation de plusieurs véhicules. Certains sont garés près du champs et d'autres sont stationnés sur le champs de pelouse.
En début de matinée, les crs sont violemment intervenus, sans sommation, pour mettre un terme à la fête! Ils ont par ailleurs gazé tekno+, association subventionnée par l'état ! Il s'en est suivi un mouvement de panique, provoquant des dommages sur le champs et aux alentours, car les forces de l'ordre bloquaient la sortie.
Le lendemain, la société a alors porté plainte. Cette plainte a été classée sans suite par le Ministère Public pour "absence d'infraction"!
La société a alors assigné 65 personnes à comparaître devant le tribunal de grande instance de Fontainebleau. Il s'agit des personnes dont la plaque a été relevée pendant la soirée, qui ont ensuite été convoquées à la gendarmerie. Elles ont admis sans peine avoir participé à la soirée puisque, pour la plupart, ils n'ont rien à se reprocher !!!
La société demande alors 88 454.58 euros de réparation et 5 000 euros d'indemnités... Cependant l'affaire ne sera signifiée aux 65 personnes que 3 ans plus tard !!!
Malgré l'absence de contre-expertise sur l'évaluation des dégâts occasionnés, l'absence de preuve matérielle pour chaque personne identifiée, un procès sans plaidoiries, bref un procès non équitable et contraire aux principes fondamentaux de toute démocratie, la société obtiendra gain de cause devant la justice.
Le jugement (inéquitable) sera rendu en début d'année 2005, soit 5 ans après les faits. Il a été conseillé par les avocats des défendeurs de ne pas faire appel (risques de frais importants en appel, d'être condamnés à une somme supérieure, et difficultés de coordonner 65 personnes).
Les 65 défendeurs ont donc été condamnés ‘in solidum' à payer 51 000 euros à la société… ‘In solidum' signifie par exemple, que si une personne n'est pas solvable, la somme dûe par cette dernière devra être payée par les autres… Mais ce qui est encore plus vicieux, de par ce fameux ‘in solidum', c'est que l'amende a été signifiée à une seule personne ! Cette dernière vient de recevoir un courrier lui réclamant 51 000 euros, et il revientla charge d'effectuer toutes les démarches nécessaires pour réclamer le remboursement des 64 autres personnes.
Tout soutien ou toute idée est bienvenu :
- connaissances (avocat, média, etc.),
- circulation de l'info,
- etc.
Merci par avance de votre aide…
Parce que devoir 51 000 euros ou même (au mieux) 800 euros (51 000 /65) et n'avoir rien à se reprocher, c'est plus que rageant!!!
PS : Nous cherchons à savoir si la société a été remboursée par son assurance suite aux dégâts occasionnés, auquel cas elle serait doublement indemnisée…
contact : fontainebleau@no-log.org
dialogue with land managers NB This should go with the "getting parties legalised" thread but a filter won't let me post to it.
sorry if this sounds very despondent (which is why I have waited some time before posting this so I could do some further research) - but my only thought is at the present time and with the rave scene in its present form "why on earth would there be a dialogue?"
those in charge of the land have power and support from their neighbours, and who negotiates away a position of power?
As elraveon correctly mentions we are dealing with an age-old feudal system of land ownership and class structures, to which has been bolted the modern concept of free market capitalism; a powerful machine indeed which is swiftly repaired when any attempt is made to sabotage or damage it and which adapts to changing circumstances.
our current so-called "rave community" cannot claim to be "starving peasants" or "oppressed minorities".
whatever pressures the "babylon system" puts on us, few of us are short of food, we can usually get some kind of work or income, some form of shelter, and have access to a phenomenal amount of resources such as motor vehicles, fuel, sophisticated computers and multimedia equipment and most importantly spare time, even if in many cases it has been obtained by not wishing to climb the "social ladder" by spending more time at work or study. one common reaction I have noted from farmers where raves happen on their land is complete disbelief that people spend time, money and fuel travelling such a distance merely to listen to music...
the current argument of the antis (which unfortunately has a lot of credence amongst conventional society) is that "there is already a proper channel to hold these events via the Public Entertainments Licensing system, after appropriate liason with the Police and other authorities, and that all costs incurred by the public purse should be recovered from the organisers".
Another argument is "are these events essential to society? What value do they add, or do they in fact merely cause problems of noise, mess/contamination, violent behaviour and a legacy of problematic drug use and health problems which burden the NHS?"
Going back in time, it appears that the "Merrie England" of fairs and festivals never actually existed; at least not in the carefree form people think it did.
I have a strange feeling that the "Merrie England" elraveon refers to may have been considerably more recent - in an era where Maddie Prior was a sort of hippy pin-up girl, people thought they were Robin Hood in camper vans ;) and outdoor events were tolerated a bit more but only because England was a bit more prosperous (so Middle England felt less threatened) and amplifiers/loudspeakers were not as loud as they are now.
Even so many of these festivals were squashed or commercialised by the end of the 1970s..
The real Middle Age fairs were not "socialist utopias" but organised by the kings and lords as commercial enterprises and markets, and often employment agencies for servants, peasants and other muddied rabble, and such events as the sale of unwanted wives and the purchase of comely wenches for the pleasuring of the masters, whipping of strumpets at the cart tail etc.
The entertainments were put on merely as a sop to keep the peasants relatively happy until their next bout of feudal slavery; the lords would pay a shilling to the organisers as a "tab" so the new staff could enjoy the pleasures of the fair. These included binge-drinking, chasing after maidens, and games not dissimilar to modern soccer and rugby which usually ended up in a free fight between rival villages; and and such "sports" as shin-kicking and gurning (cue Benny Hill theme tune and chase scene of peasants/lords/wenches etc).
there were however a few notable occasions of collective bargaining for better wages/conditions because the peasantry were assembled in such number; which would account for fairs being notable in socialist/progressive political circles.
perhaps this is as much as we can hope for? occupying land and partying by force (if only force of numbers) has already been done - for 15 years - the ultimate result has been irate locals and the TSG cops being deployed more often and more rigs being confiscated.
There are still obvious ethical problems such as rubbish clearance - clearing up 97% of the bags still leaves 3% of contamination; often the human waste that no-one (understandably) wants to clear up but is classed as serious contamination on a farm (it can lose the farmer grants etc)
The only glimmer of hope I can see is that the drop in farm susbsidies next year may make land managers and locals realise that low-cost music events are not so bad and could provide some extra income - but theres he obvious risk of over-commercialisation or regulation.
there is also the "community farm" project but after the exodus débacle few believe in that anymore (incidentally exodus came really close to getting our culture accepted by government, they literally fought each other at the finish line and destroyed everything seconds before winning the race) - but something like this is more likely to get the ear of country types as it shows commitment, discipline and understanding of the local area rather than mere hedonism- but it may be that exodus have already poisoned the well..
Another issue is that if the rave scene is sucessfully stoppped, it will not stem the demand for a release of energy through music, dancing and in some cases recreational substances, and will only swell the numbers binge-drinking, going to commercial clubs or worse still just hanging around streets or estates and/or taking more dangerous class A drugs (interesting that TVP report a massive increase in violence and anti-social behaviour co-incident with the zero tolerance policies on raves!!!).
raves may well be the least of many evils in society....
web gets ravers busted. Police track down rave six on web
Six men were fined between £100 and £500 each
North Wales Police said they used the internet to help track down six men who organised an illegal rave, where a policeman was injured. At a special court in Pwllheli on Monday, the six admitted charges relating to organising a music event without a licence.
Hundreds turned up at Whistling Sands beach on the Lleyn Peninsula during the 2004 August bank holiday weekend.
A policeman lost his eye after being hit by a stone thrown from the crowd.
North Wales Police detectives became involved in the investigation because a police officer had been seriously injured.
Police helicopter
It proved impossible for them to track down the individual who had thrown the stone which hit the policeman, but their investigations led to the prosecution of six men who helped arrange the event.
Anyone who comes to rural Wales to do this kind of thing will be dealt with harshly
Dc Maldwyn Roberts
"The police knew about internet sites which are used by the ravers," said Detective Constable Maldwyn Roberts, one of a team of investigating officers.
"We used pictures they had posted on one of the sites after the event, video footage from the police helicopter, and evidence we had collected when we stopped people as they left the site to bring a prosecution," Dc Roberts added.
The police say the successful court case - using legislation which has been little used by North Wales Police in the past - gives out a clear message.
"Anyone who comes to rural Wales to do this kind of thing will be dealt with harshly," said Dc Roberts.
Raves are billed as 'free parties' and are held - often illegally, on private land - all over the country.
The six who pleaded guilty to organising a rave to which licence was not in force were from Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire.
They were all fined between £100 and £500 and ordered to pay £500 compensation to the National Trust which own the land at Whistling Sands.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4353338.stm
fuck it, lets be honest about this, it was squatjuice. thats the only place with enough info to get these fellas busted. now theyve done it once, they'll do it again.
UK: Halloween rave organiser nicked From Hampshire Police press releases
Quote:
An Alresford man who organised an illegal rave at Crabwood, Farley Mount near Winchester last year, has been fined £300 and ordered by pay costs of £200 by Andover Magistrates.
James Robert Peter Dean, 21, of Vernal Cottages, Spring Lane, Alresford, appeared before the magistrates on Wednesday (September 15).
He was taken to court for organising the unlicensed event held on October 31 2003.
On the night in question, police made four visits to the site during a five hour period before the event was closed down. Four people were arrested for public order offences.
Sergeant Bill Ord said: “We are pleased with this result and hope it shows how seriously we take this type of offence. Raves can cause misery to those nearby due to excessive noise and disruption.
“We also hope this sends a clear message to those who hold or attend illegal raves that they will not be tolerated and we will take action.”
Inspector Steve Sargent added: “The police are not out to spoil party-goers' fun just for the sake of it but, whenever a rave takes place, thousands of people are kept awake all night; the disturbance usually carries on well into the following day and the public are denied access to the site - which is usually a recreational area.
“Also, at raves there is usually no provision for crowd safety, toilets, parking or clearing up litter at the end. For these reasons, the police are given the power to close parties such as this.
“At Crabwood in particular, the sound carries to Winchester and to the surrounding villages, and the area has been declared to be a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
“Hampshire Police have access to information which alerts us to the time and place of forthcoming raves and, throughout the summer, we allocate extra officers to preventing illegal raves. If the rave does not materialise, these officers are diverted to foot patrol in town centres.
“This case shows we are prepared to take swift action against the organisers of these events, and that we can identify them, prosecute them, and seize their equipment - the result being increased peace and safety for the public.”
not sure where they get the idea "public denied access to the site". The organisers can't help it if people are frightened of them for some bizzare reason (I have never known locals to be threatened or approached aggressively by partygoers!)
Need contract law advice Can anyone help me here? My work has screwed me over. Breakdown:
Initially with 2 part time jobs, i left one to become full time at my current place when another fella left. Initially my contract was 25 hours per week (part time remember) and requested my boss to uprade the contract to match the full time hours I was now doing (40). She said she'd do it. This was in Feb '05.
Came into work last week and my hours have been cut to 25 because that's what management say is on my contract. They've virtually made me redundant. I done some research and found this in a GNVQ paper:
'The purpose of a contract, or statement of employment, is to set out the legal basis of the relationship between an employer and employee. A contract itself comes into force as soon as an offer of employment is accepted, even if the agreement is only verbal. It does not necessarily have to be written to constitute the formulation of a contract.'
But I can't find this on the Employment Right Act 1996. Does anyone know where it is or can give me advice regarding my treatment? Also a girl I work with who had 25 hours on her contract was given a full time contract last week even though she hasn't signed anything and started the same week as I.
Yes people, Holeydel is not a happy bunny. Any help will be fab!
pel update I have moved this answer from the freeparty section.
Pel View sounds like a name of a house, I just hope it dosent turn into Dun Partying.
I think its a important question that has been asked if you weren’t aware or the last twelve months PEL actions, its an important area for any party to consider I believe points need considering and I am in no way advising anyone to break the law as I believe we can act within the law, we can but only try with good conscience. I am not suggesting that parties be private so people can get around paying a licience, there is nothing wrong with liking parties but they must be private for friends and guests, for the sake of fun not profit, if you want to have any defence against this law it has to be clearly private, or at least we need to be in a position to argue that,
this law has been brought in not just to attack us it applys to a tea party, house party, barn party, unlicenced events like fetes pubs not paying their entertainments licence and selling booze various laws apply if the public are involved. So we need to be aware that we have been lax in our behavior as a whole and drawing back to the underground(private) to friends and guests will bring a little natural downsizing not a bad thing for several reasons and to be fair we have pushed our rights to the limits in a crowded island full of haves and have nots. I don’t see how you can defend against the amendments to the new law except by keeping the party private, not for the public, not advertised in the public domain, not done for profit, or to sell booze.
I am not saying we cant talk about parties, neither does the law stipulate how we invite people, except it must not be publicly. it also says that they must not be done for the public. they must not be done for profit, it does not say cant get donations but you may have to prove that point. the weight of this law is as understand it different to normal criminal law and in some areas instead of them proving you are guilty you may have to prove you are innocent. there is an exception to the party making it in to the public domain, but you have to prove you took all posible means to insure it didnt. not an easy way and I wouldnty rely on that. remember that this is all my view and interpretation. please in no way rely on it and check for yourself, you will find if you talk to solisitors that very few know much about this area at the moment.
After the PEL amendments roll in very soon, any rig or equipment owner or DJ at any party big or small that was advertised publicly is automatically assumed to be an organizer or part of the management. It would take little effort to collect this information, no arrests need be made, no confrontation as they can get address’s from plates or helicopter.. just a letter in the post, no one defending the rig, no convoy out, just you alone with a summons.
Even if you don’t advertise it may not stop you being taken to court but it must help you.
Recent history and update as asked for by toast
Interesting thread and thanks to GL for the social history lesson ;)
I knew PEL was having an effect but didnt realise there were so many prosecutions going on - you mentioned like ten or something.
RE: QUOTE: "Friends who have never been in trouble with the law before have had this happen for the first time, and it has increased their stress levels and also affected their relationship with their partners and families... sadly the so called "rave community" doesn't always give you the support you would expect (such as whip rounds to help people pay fines etc)..."
While i can dig the need /desire to keep certain details of cases off the net - or not discuss them on open forums where people will just add extra info / speculations which will no doubt be pretty useful to the authorities... It would be useful to at least have some static page somewhere updating people on what's going on in this area...
Though obviously it's a bit of a fine line cos you don't want to go publishing stuff that in effect says hey authorities look - yer newer tactics are being successful...
At least some of the stuff with czechtek and the utah bust has shown that there is at least some senses of solidarity in europe and beyond - if pple know more what was going on then support whether that be whip rounds or just moral support would be more forthcoming.
it should all be on partyvibe somewhere and I think I have already posted in the thread this was moved from about what is happening, but to recap the odd PEL prosecution takes place but because of the test case’s back in 92ish summons’s are few and far between but not unknown, the test case’s showed that it is hard to prove, ( they never had the internet them so parties were never advertised in the public domain) Just because you have a rig it doesn’t mean you are the organizer of a party, you may have been hired or merely just asked over the phone and never even met the said organizer. Which is why the law has been amended but that’s not law at the moment it will be in a couple of months which is why I have brought it up again because we need to get our acts tight to await new test cases. But you can see by DJ VU’s reaction people are calling it politics bollerks already fed up with it, but his reply was possible aggravated by others getting at him on another forum, nevertheless he should have been taking a little more care (PELaware).
Last year at beacon hill Hampshire nr Newbury Those rigs and people that left the party by the main entrance gave voluntary video evidence to the police and most gave statements some admitting that it was a public party(which it wasn’t) about ten people(rigs and dj’s) received summons, for PEL violations. Now the duke of Carmarthen who we now know owns that land was mentioned in the evidence and I believe it was his powerful influence that led the police to intervene in this way and the local authority to take measures they wouldn’t normally follow, for reasons I have already given. As far as I am aware none of these fellows were organizers but the nature of this type of trial and their lack of understanding of this hardly used on us law led to them after several pre-trial hearings of brow beatings and bad advice, to all but one of them pleaded guilty, the case was dropped for the one that didn’t as I understand.
At the heart of the evidence was the mention of the party on the internet, and some people who should of known better admitting iot was a party for the public, the name freeparty was coined to differentiate them from pay parties to avoid PEL originally, also they were presented the law in a way that led them to believe they were guilty under it.
A while later the Wokingham party where the rigs were taken under sec 63 of which they have dropped for most people there, they held the rigs as evidence passed it to the council and have asked for them to be destroyed under PEL., again at the center of this evidence is the net . They have to date been to I think four hearings the next I think on November the 3rd not sure if that’s the correct date but I can find out. They have not had much support, it has been costly for them and I believe that it is only because they have all pleaded not guilty that more case’s have not been brought this side of the amendments. We owe them a lot and they are the forgotten heros allowing others to carry on advertising like dj vu. A worry with PEL is there need be no OB involvement and a summons can come up to as I understand it 6 months later. I would assume that they are waiting now until the amendments come in before they bring more cases which is why we need to make all efforts to take the parties out of the public domain. Not many members of the public come to parties if any even though they are on the internet so its no loss and without a charter or some such legal order giving us the right to gather on certain occasions. its irresponsible to invite the public unless you have a licence and the necessary health and safety measures in place.
on the other hand if a large number of rigs go down in test cases,if that heralded a massive drop in parties even a stand still, the momentum of nothing to lose may drive them with help into showcase appeals, a joining in large numbers to the europeon movement to get some rights to gather, something on the lines of a proper free festival with bands, acts, and rave. I could live with that freedom returned.
Public Entertainment Licences explained In light several of sound systems in different parts of the UK having been charged with PEL violations (sometimes after the fact).
These are some layman's recommentation towards limiting exposure to this new repression on our freedom to party...
1. Private parties don't need a license under PEL!
2. A private party isn't open to the general public (invitations might want to state it's an invitation only party!).
3. Selling alcohol at a private party is a clear violation of PEL and should be avoided.
4. There's no size limit for private parties under PEL although Section 63 covers large events.
5. Boundaries or fences aren't needed for a private party, as long they fall within point 2.
6. Private means not advertising it on public websites (as yet untested by the law but has been used when charges were made).
When is a Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) required in premises licensed for the sale of alcohol?
A PEL is required where entertainment that consists of either more than two performers or a combination of live performers and recorded sound takes place. The High Court have recently been asked to consider the exact scope of the reference to "two performers" in the legislation. In that case it was argued that the reference to two performers was simply a reference to the number of singers and/or musicians performing at any one time. This argument was put forward on the basis that a number of singers could appear over the course of an evening so long as not more than two performed at any one time. However, the Court did not find favour with this argument concluding that the legislation only provided a limited exception in respect of the same two performers on any one evening. A PEL is also required where dancing by members of the public takes place. What actually constitutes dancing has often been the subject of heated debate! However, it will always be a question of fact and degree as to what actually constitutes dancing. It is often said that the term includes moving rhythmically to music.
What about dancing at a premises where no Public Entertainment Licence exists?
It is possible to prosecute any person concerned in the organisation or management of any such entertainment, or any other person who, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that such entertainment would be so provided at the premises, and allowed the premises to be used for the provision of that entertainment or let the premises or otherwise made them available, to any person by whom an offence in connection with that use of the premises has been committed. Any person who is found guilty of an offence shall be liable on Summary Conviction (in the Magistrates' Court) to a fine not exceeding £5,000.00. A defence is provided under the legislation for a person charged with an offence to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid commission of the offence. Where premises have the benefit of a Special Hours Certificate (Late Licence) a Public Entertainment Licence is always required as the sale of intoxicating liquor must be ancillary to music and dancing and substantial refreshment.
Do I require an Entertainment Licence for a Private Members Club?
Where premises operate strictly on the basis that admission may only be gained by members and their bona fide guests and not to general members of the public, then dancing may take place during the normal permitted hours. However, extreme care must be taken to ensure that any such clubs are operated strictly in accordance with their rules as any failure in this regard could result in a prosecution for allowing unlicensed entertainment to take place if members of the public are found to have gained admission. Where a private members club wishes to apply for a Special Hours Certificate, then a Certificate of Suitability from the Local Council will be necessary instead of a Public Entertainment Licence because of the private nature of the club.
When is a Public Entertainment Licence require in non-licensed premises?
There are three types of entertainment for which a licence is required from the appropriate authority:
Public dancing or music or any other public entertainment of a like kind;
Any entertainment which consists of a sporting event which the public are invited as spectators, designated a "Sports Entertainment"; and
Any public musical entertainment held wholly or mainly in the open air at a place on private land. (A licence is only required for this type of entertainment where the Local Authority has passed a resolution that such entertainment requires a licence)
Music is regarded as encompassing both vocal and instrumental sounds, either produced alone or in combination. "Other entertainment of a like kind" is a general expression that encompasses entertainment of a similar nature to dancing and music. For example, a skating performance to music and a striptease performance could be considered as entertainment of a like kind and thus fall under the definition of Public Entertainment. A sporting event means any contest, exhibition or display of any sport, which is defined as including "any game in which physical skill is the predominant factor and any form of physical recreation which is also engaged in for the purpose of competition or display except dancing (in any form)". The public must be "invited" to this entertainment for it to be considered "public". This requirement is wide enough to cover the public being notified by any means, for example, via the media, notices displayed in any place or by word of mouth. Admission arrangements are immaterial, so that as long as the public are "invited" whether the event is held in the aid of a charity, club, association or school funds a licence is still required. In all cases the requirement to obtain a licence will only apply if the entertainment is "public" and a licence is needed even if the entertainment is to take place on one occasion only.
What are the implications for 'Public entertainment'?
If the entertainment is private, then a Public Entertainment Licence will not be needed, although if the entertainment consists of dancing, music or any other entertainment of like kind, a licence may be required under the Private Place of Entertainment (Licensing) Act 1967 if the local authority have adopted this provision. However, this does not apply to premises licensed under the Licensing Act 1964 and so for the purposes of this article, this provision will be ignored. "Public" has not been defined by the act and so recourse must be made to decisions in earlier cases that have been heard. However, "public" entertainment has been held to take place where members of the public, without discrimination, are entertained by the means of entertainment that are provided. The important question to ask when considering the public element is "is the place where the entertainment is held open to the public?! If not, then the entertainment is private and no Public Entertainment Licence is needed but if it is then a Public Entertainment Licence is obviously required. It is therefore necessary to consider how entrance to the event is gained. The payment of admission money is immaterial in this consideration. Where entertainment is organised for the benefit of a group of persons and admission is restricted to them, then this will be private entertainment and no Public Entertainment Licence is necessary. Thus for "private" functions such as birthday parties, wedding receptions and anniversary celebrations no Public Entertainment Licence would be needed event if the entertainment consisted of dancing and live entertainment by two or more performers. Admission by ticket only does not necessarily mean that the function is private. It would be necessary to consider other factors, most importantly the exclusivity of the group of persons being sold the tickets. Therefore, tickets sold on the door to anyone wishing to purchase them would inevitably mean that the event is one of a public nature. Where premises are hired out to an organisation who either promote, distribute or sell tickets to a group of persons or members of the public it is necessary to look at the exclusivity of the people being sold the tickets to determine whether the entertainment is "public". If admission is dependent upon the purchase of a ticket and being a member of a particular club etc then the entertainment may still be public event if neither membership nor tickets are available on the night. It is therefore necessary to look at how membership of that particular club can be gained so as to obtain admission to the event. There must be a sufficient degree of selection of persons so that they become bona fide club members rather than simply members of the public. If advertising takes place to members of the public at large prior to the event then the entertainment will almost certainly be "public". Entertainment can be considered public event if the public's participation in the event comprises the entertainment (of course this is irrelevant to private functions).
What are the implications for theatres?
Theatres deserved a special mention with regards to licensing. Theatres are governed by the Theatres Act 1968. A licence is required where premises are used for the public performance of plays whether or not the premises are licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor or not. A licence will also be needed for productions or performances, which take place out doors. "Play" is defined to include not only any dramatic piece given wholly or in part by one or more persons actually present and performing but also any ballet so given. Theatres do not require music and dancing licences for incidental music to a play or for music or dancing forming part of the performance. However, it is important to note that a theatre licence does not cover public music or dancing and therefore, if the customers attending the theatre to "dance" to entertainment being provided the a Public Entertainment Licence will be required.
Are there any exemptions?
The following are certain types of entertainment for which a licence is not required:
Any music in a place of public religious worship;
Any music performed as an incident of a religious meeting or service;
An entertainment held i a pleasure fair; and
An entertainment which takes place wholly or mainly in the open air.12
UK : Official info on (legal) raves and police "cost recovery"
The following text is from a lengthy Home Office report (available on the public internet) from HM Inspector of Constabulary about "policing disorder" ( stuff like race riots, and large brawls at football matches)
However raves are also listed here - this shows what we are up against; but sadly I can see how this situation arose. The large commercial raves of the early 90s were indeed blighted by some quite serious violence, often because they attracted gangs of males anxious to prove themselves and stake a claim to territory :( - although most ravers didn't grass, a few commercial promoters indeed asked the cops for help when their livelihoods were threatened and workers in the Ambulance service often feed info about venues where violence is common to the Police (the NHS does not however pass over individuals' details)
it looks like the men of violence from the 90s have indeed fucked it up for everyone else (and now the culture of violence is infecting the free parties in some city areas).
Good practice example
Policing raves
Kent County Constabulary supplies officers to provide a police presence at the event on an isolated airfield. Following consultation with the police the local authority grant a music and dancing licence on condition that the full on costsof policing these events are reimbursed to the Force by the organiser. The police role is clearly defined and focused on crime and disorder. The costs involved are several thousand pounds.
