Big Green Gathering 2009

[eFestivals]

I mean the political ideology, not the colour! Worldwide, grassroots democracy and social justice are two of the green movements' four pillars. This means autonomy and participatory decision-making are key. Green politics is not just single-issue, if that's what you're suggesting.

I'd disagree strongly with you here. While participatary decision making is a good thing in principle, it's the very root of all the problems we have: turkeys are never ever going to vote for xmas. People in general will not vote to give up what they have, meaning that true ecology is an impossibility via the will of the people. But anyway, that's of no relevance to BGG's failure this year.

You cant 'do' participatory decision-making unless everone has a chance to understand and participate. This means coordination shouldn't be ridiculously time consuming, or unnecessarily, grindingly dull. It's this bureaucracy that's really 'thick'.

again, I strongly disagree, The "ridiculously time consuming" has to happen, because you will not get a right answer via poor consideration of the very many issues needing to be considered. But again, that's of no relevance to BGG's failure this year.

The authorities demand top-down management with all responsibility resting on a few individuals -- not a problem for most groups/companies. But the greens are typically (though BGG clearly werent) committed to a consensus process and sharing responsibility.

Like it or hate it, we have a system whereby we expect an individual to take responsibility for a group. This has not come about as a way to undermine the green movement.

But they clearly are doing different things, because it's not actually a festival. Most of it is legal protest.

true - it's not a festival, and so falls under different rules and regs. The parts which are not legal protest are what leads to action against it - and a perfect green world could not operate on any different basis.

From the Guardian's point of view, the miners/travellers/etc were never their target audience.

utterly wrong. They were the only mainstream paper with sympathies towards the miners; they had a journo and snapper 'embedded' with the travellers.

Today the Guardian does serve many environmentalists, and has recently published articles in support of environmental direct action. This makes me think the Guardian are somewhat less likely to lose interest or remove support, as they did for the miners' strike.

that's more to do with a growing green conciousness than anything else. The miners lost their mainstream support via their own actions - and that's something that green radicals should bear in mind too!

Also, at some of those 80's police actions. I think the greens were there too -- certainly with the travellers/free parties, but admittedly not with the miners, when interests of dirty-industry conflicted.

the green movement as you see it today didn't exist back then - it WAS the travellers to a large extent (and they managed to undermine as much as they might have achieved).

Still, had the police been involved in licensing back then, I doubt they'd have been keen on any festival of 20000+ miners/travellers.

And that's different to them not being keen on any mainstream event of that size nowadays how exactly? If the police had their way, we'd all be banged up 24 hours a day, and crime would be eliminated. They only allow any event of any type because they have an obligation in law to do so if certain conditions are met.

You are starting to persuade me though, that a BGG-like festival could have gone ahead. I suspect strudders is right that the police don't think too deeply about the politics, but more about immediate location and militancy. And, after all, the BGG organisation wasn't exactly a model of green principles.

I agree. The police, like anyone, want a quiet life. If they think something is going to happen which won't give them a quiet life, they'll move against it.

And that "quiet life" isn't for them about whether something is considered radical or not, it's about whether it fits within the obligations in law they have to act by. If something will not work within the law - and it's worth remembering that the BGG feels it should be able to operate outside of those laws (via their claims that it should have been allowed to go ahead outside of its licence) - then they WILL take action. It's foolish to expect them to act in any other way, no matter what your politics.

[eFestivals]

As a side note I have just got back from the Boomtown Fair in the forest of Dean. This had a large traveller presence and very little policing (a van and 3-4 polioe outside the gate) and went ahead fine and there were no problems. As far as i could tell no roads were closed and there were cars and vans parked along the road.

This makes me think that the BGG issues might be more political than I first thought.

That's simply down to the different ways that different police forces and different local authorities interpret licencing laws - there's no national "you must do things this way" rules, which leads to big differences on how things are done on different areas.

The thing that need to be considered to arrive at the right conclusion is whether BGG had anything different imposed on it to other festivals that happen within MDC's area - and I'd say not. (There are of course some differences, due to the different size and location of different events).

In regard to policing, at WOMAD a few weeks back the place was crawling with old bill - yet that's got to be about the safest and most middle-class event going. This demonstrates the different ways that different police forces operate.

I've got to say tho, in the mix is the state of a police force's finances (tho they'd deny that) - the fact that they get paid by a festival for the policing of a festival increases the chances of the police insisting on it being over-policed. For them, it's free money - getting paid for providing no extra police resources across their whole area.

[probadarne]

Thanks eFestivals, I think you're mostly right again.

So why are those two concepts mutually exclusive?

All the authorities are looking for is somebody to deal with in discussions. It is madness to suggest they need to address a committee on every matter.

In licensing terms, what is the difference?

[probadarne]

... But again, that's of no relevance to BGG's failure this year.

[Hairyloon]

When we judge their failure, do we measure it only against their 'corporate goals'?

[eFestivals]

I don't think eating turkeys is a very green thing to do, because (ethics aside) animal farming results in massive carbon emissions.

I think you are criticising democracy as a whole, not just participatary decision making.

But if not democracy, then what?

You've hit the nail squarely on the head there. All the while people's selfish wants have primacy, we'll never be taking the right actions for everyone.

IMO a more participatory (and less representative) form of democracy would solve some of our problems.

yep - I'd like the world made to what I think too. But I'm not so daft as to be thinking that I have any right to impose my wants on others.

But the big question is how we define the "right answer". IMO the right answer is the one that ideally *everyone* has consented to. We can only consent if we have the time and means to understand.

and that only works if you're able to get everyone to agree. Care to name anything where everyone is in 100% agreement?

[eFestivals]

It is relevant, I suspect, because the choice of top-down decision-making is where the BGG fundamentally went wrong.

When we judge their failure, do we measure it only against their 'corporate goals'? Or had they actually failed the green movement (by not respecting green democratic principles) even before plod tripped them up?

I think that's an irrelevance.

If BGG wants to happen, then (rightly or wrongly) it can only happen in a form that matches the systems it has to comply with.

The relevant authorities expect any organisation that's having dealings with it over something like a licence to have specified structures in place. I don't believe that they'd accept anything other than a 'normal life' standard management structure, so that they're able to have confidence in that structure, because such structures are what is (rightly or wrongly) believed to work best.

If someone wants to make a challenge to that requirement, then the time and place to challenge it is not within a licence application process - that is very likely to result in no licence.

[probadarne]

...the right answer is the one that ideally *everyone* has consented to. We can only consent if we have the time and means to understand.

[Hairyloon]

If I could see a strong community and networks of trust, then I mightn't be so disappointed by the lack of the actual BGG festival. But where is everybody?

[probadarne]

How exactly? Even if it had happened, I can't see any likelihood of any chipping ...

[Kaybee]

Ladies and gents, welcome to Earneststock....

[Hairyloon]

The BGG did combine entertainment with educational workshops (practical and political), so it would have drawn some people in, and inspired others to go out and 'evangelise'.

[steveziggy101]

just had interesting email from bbg,stating reasons why no go,they gonna be suing the council.

[Hairyloon]

just had interesting email from bbg,stating reasons why no go,they gonna be suing the council.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Hairyloon

[steveziggy101]

P.S. BGG 2009 souvenir programmes for the ‘festival that never was’ are currently available on Ebay (www.ebay.co.uk ). Don’t miss out, as we still need to pay the printer!

How did it happen?

On Thursday 23rd July, a ‘multi-agency meeting’ was held at Fernhill Farm, which is part of the normal process leading up to the start of the event. Attending this meeting were BGG Directors, BGG Site Manager, Coast to Coast Security (who had replaced Stuart Security as our perimeter security company), Green Security (our internal security company), Devon and Somerset Fire & Rescue Service, West Country Ambulance Service, Police and Mendip Council representatives.

The Police and the Council used this meeting to demand written assurances by 4.30 p.m. the next day (Friday) concerning our security provision, attendance of the ambulance service, the road closure (which affects the narrow lane around the back of the site) and fire safety precautions. This was an entirely new demand, which had not been included in the conditions of the licence, which had been granted on 30th June 2009. Along with this demand came the threat that, if we did not comply in every detail, the council would take out a High Court injunction on the Monday to prevent the event going ahead.

Both our security providers gave immediate verbal assurances to the meeting that they had been paid money up-front in accordance with their contracts and would be attending. West Country Ambulance gave a similar assurance, conditional only on their fee being paid by the following Wednesday as previously agreed. The fire safety management strategy document requested by the fire service was a new document which had not been asked for either in previous years or during the licensing process (in which the fire service had been duly consulted and had raised no objections), but was not too difficult to compile overnight. The road closure order was the only serious concern, although we had been assured by the Highways department at the County Council that it would be done in time.

The snag with the highways stuff was that we had had to change the company providing road signs, so the paperwork needed to be revised to show the name of the new company rather than the old. The revised paperwork was duly submitted on Friday morning, but the junior official who had been left in charge because his boss had just gone on leave said that he was “under a lot of pressure” from Mendip Council, the police and the County Solicitor. He then sent an email at 12.45 stating that the new paperwork was unsatisfactory (although essentially the same as had been perfectly good in previous years) so he could not issue the order. The Highways Department phone remained unanswered all afternoon, and an email from Brig Oubridge, Chair of the BGG, requesting an explanation of what else was required received no reply.

At 6.54p.m. on the Friday evening (24th July), we were served with injunction papers, notifying us that the hearing would take place at 10.30 a.m. on Monday at the High Court in London. We consulted with solicitors and barristers, including a leading QC. Though the arguments in the injunction were spurious bar the road closure, we had no way of contacting Highways over the weekend, and the junior official had clearly been got at. The Police and Council were saying categorically that the road closure order was not in place, and there seemed to be no possible way of remedying the situation. On legal advice, we reluctantly handed back the licence on the Sunday, because there appeared to be no way of winning in court, and had we contested it we were threatened with £50,000 of legal costs in addition to losing the event. Nor was the BGG company alone have been liable, as both Brig and our bars supervisor Denis France were also individually named on the injunction, and we had been told that if we did not hand back the licence, the farmer who owned the land would also be added by name.On the Tuesday, 28th July, a member of the BGG staff found a copy of the Road Closure order in the hedge. It had fallen off a post, and was dated Monday 20th July. We were astounded, and immediately contacted our lawyers who are now looking into a case of 'malfeasance in public office' and believe that we may be able to sue the Council for applying for an injunction based on false evidence. We are meeting with lawyers as soon as possible to discuss this.

DOWLOAD YOUR REFUND/SWAP FORM HERE

sounds like they have a case!!!!!

[steveziggy101]

i would imagine every one who ordered tickets direct from big green woudve had same e mail,someone,somwhere intensually pulled the plug.you will be found!

[Bezdad]

i would imagine every one who ordered tickets direct from big green woudve had same e mail,someone,somwhere intensually pulled the plug.you will be found!

[steveziggy101]

my brush is dry??????

[Hairyloon]

At 6.54p.m. on the Friday evening (24th July), we were served with injunction papers, notifying us that the hearing would take place at 10.30 a.m. on Monday at the High Court in London.

[strudders]

On the Tuesday, 28th July, a member of the BGG staff found a copy of the Road Closure order in the hedge. It had fallen off a post, and was dated Monday 20th July. We were astounded, and immediately contacted our lawyers who are now looking into a case of 'malfeasance in public office' and believe that we may be able to sue the Council for applying for an injunction based on false evidence. We are meeting with lawyers as soon as possible to discuss this.

[Hairyloon]

However if it all ends up in court (who is going to pay for that?) and the BGG uncover some plot that is exposed, then I will be the first to eat my hat. Its big, its a sombrero.

[eFestivals]

Why don't they actually show us these papers?

I am not a lawyer, but I understand such papers would include at least the skeleton argument and written evidence.

I believe you need to present a fairly good case before they'll even give you a hearing in the High Court.

From what MDC have said no injunction was applied for and no actual court papers were served - I believe it's the case that this statement from BGG is incorrect, and the actual facts are that BGG were told that an injunction would be applied for on the Monday if BGG planned to go ahead with the festival.

I am not convinced, but it should definitely go to court one way or another, then the truth will out.

Seeing as BGG don't seem to be able to lay out the facts correctly (as the bit above seems to show) then it makes me wonder what other parts of their version of events are different to the actual events.

[Hairyloon]

From what MDC have said no injunction was applied for and no actual court papers were served - I believe it's the case that this statement from BGG is incorrect, and the actual facts are that BGG were told that an injunction would be applied for on the Monday if BGG planned to go ahead with the festival.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Hairyloon

[eFestivals]

According to MDC:

"The final decision to prepare legal papers for a High Court hearing was made on Friday evening (July 24), but a court application was not expected to be made until yesterday (Monday, July 27)."

(taken from http://www.efestivals.co.uk/news/09/090728b.shtml, with those quoted MDC statements taken verbatim from a press release they sent eFestivals).

This clearly shows that no actual injunction papers were served - unless you want to dispute MDC's statement, tho I'd suggest that it's hugely unlikely that they'd have sent out a factually incorrect statement in a press release when there's threats of legal actions flying about.

And of course (based on acceptance of MDCs statement), this raises another issue - if BGG haven't been able to give accurate info on what exactly happened with this, what else might they have also got wrong?

Of course, that inaccuracy might be down to them not understanding the legal processes, but then the same thing could have been running right thru their dealings with the council and police and others in regard to the whole licencing process.

[Hairyloon]

This clearly shows that no actual injunction papers were served - unless you want to dispute MDC's statement, tho I'd suggest that it's hugely unlikely that they'd have sent out a factually incorrect statement in a press release when there's threats of legal actions flying about.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Hairyloon