thehen wrote:
I want to give the appearance of a balanced argument, whilst casting a positive light on the rave scene.
The problem I seem to be facing is that the Police are a lot more keen to voice their opinion, than the ravers and party organisers. I suppose it’s kinda obvious, but I’m facing such a one sided argument. Luckily I know quite a few small organisers and have lots of friends with opinions, so it shouldn’t be too much of an issue.
Security and paranoia are obviously one thing making people hold back, but realistically if you want to be “balanced” there is a massive counter-argument against raves which is why things are stacked (no pun intended) against ravers.
They haven’t really got the moral high ground to start with.
Other than at Thetford Forest where it can be argued that ultimately the area is owned by all British taxpayers, most raves in East Anglia appear to take place on privately owned land and farm buildings.
In many cases this land appears to be in active use by a farmer, rather than abandoned or disused areas or commons.
Often when raves happen there is an amount of needless vandalism and even theft from surrounding areas, plus a lot of litter. Much of the litter is picked up, but some is always left behind.
(This isn’t of course confined to East Anglia, it happens in other parts of the UK and is a reason for the clampdowns in SE England a few years ago).
So the counterargument is why should farmers etc have to put up with people taking over their private property without permission or payment, and causing disruption and damage?
That said a bit of extra effort with regard to venue choices and better behaviour from some of the ravers might reduce the damage here, and TBH if the “right” bits of areas are partied (avoiding the tourist areas, nature reserves and areas near villages) and raves don’t become excessive in size and duration and are tidied up afterward, they cause little real disruption – no worse than many other summer outdoor activities.
