Big Green Gathering 2009

[eFestivals]

i've heard that when the bgg directors finally decided to hand back their license......................................................they couldn't find it

[eFestivals]

eFestivals has just had a long chat with a BGG director.

They admitted that their road closure order was submitted two days later than it should have been, with the result that the road closures couldn't be implemented, meaning that the licence was breached. It was on the basis of this fact that the BGGs legal advisors advised them that an injunction would have been won by MDC if things had progressed to court, which in turn caused BGG to hand back the licence.

BGG do say that a junior employee in the local highways dept had indicated that the application would be processed anyway, but that 'the boss' wouldn't allow it to be processed - this is a part of the basis of the BGGs conspiracy theory that there was establishment pressure to shut the event down. However, there could be a million different reasons why that boss took that line, with the most simple one being "what's the point of having a deadline if it means nothing?".

Interestingly, the closure guidance notes say:-

Important: Please read these notes before completing the application form.

1. In order to make a Road Closure Order we require a minimum of 10 weeks notice and certainly not less that 8 weeks notice.

.... and elsewhere there's a comment that it's just not possible to work thru the process in less than eight weeks. Presumably, the BGG application was made two days under that eight weeks - it seems that what the council consider important enough to flag up as of number one importance in their guidance notes wasn't important to BGG.

[dandreamweva]

From the Earth Energies and Divinatory Arts Coordinators at BGG

Subject: STOP PRESS: FREE Alternative EEDA event in Wales, 1st - 2nd August 2009

"We are totally gutted about the BGG cancellation, so the Earth Energies & Divinatory Arts area have been kindly offered a combined indoor & outdoor venue near Cardiff, Wales to hold an alternative to EEDA. With two full days of talks and workshops from many of the booked speakers and film screenings in the evenings. There will also be acoustic music, healing , dowsing workshops etc. It a fully legal venue and there will be no charge for the actual event. However, each person will have to contribute £10 per night for camping/live-in vehicles. The site has sauna, an outdoor fire, a cafe, & like the EEDA field, has a stone circle & also some beautiful woods. It will officially be a private event & is NOT CONFIRMED UNTIL ENOUGH INTEREST IS REGISTERED , so please contact events@avalonrising.co.uk if you are interested or respond via our facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=97528124379. You can also text 07814 510513 to confirm if you would like to attend."

[Alchemy Festival]

I think what that post was trying to say was that the wristband entitles you to a swap to another AGREED festival - Big Chill, Sunrise, cheap entry in to Endorse-It.

Or at least I hope that is what they mean....

[eFestivals]

Honestly, I don't think I've laughed so much in years. I'm just loving these BGG press releases.

The latest one is their attempt at refuting Mendip Council's FAQs on what happened and why - there's some real comedy genius within it. Essentially, at the end of the day, BGG's argument is that they believe that they should have been allowed to go ahead despite them having a major breech in their licence before they'd even started - would another event have been allowed to go ahead on that basis in today's health & safety/duty-of-care obsessed world? I very much doubt it.

They claim that being stopped from going ahead because they were breeching their licence are "spurious arguments to stop the BGG". The only spurious arguments I'm seeing are their own words.

Meanwhile, what are they achieving by putting out this claptrap? To my mind, their only achievement will be the full and final death of the BGG, because I can't see any council anywhere being willing to have sympathetic dealings with any event that believes itself to have a right to go ahead despite not complying with its licence terms (which BGG state as their belief), and who then throw a tantrum any two year old would be proud of when they don't get their way.

Edited July 30, 2009 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Press release from BBG, received by eFestivals at 16:34 today.

BIG GREEN GATHERING RESPONSE TO MENDIP COUNCIL

Responses in Green

Who has cancelled the Big Green Gathering (BGG)?

The organisers of the BGG agreed to cancel it and handed their event licence back to the council.

There were four conditions on the injunction:

The Big Green Gathering surrendered the Licence to an Officer of Mendip Council on Sunday 26th July at 12.00 p.m. on the advice of our Barrister as we believed we could not meet the condition on the injunction to ensure that the road closure order was in place. Our legal advice was that the other conditions were or could be met. The weekend was spent trying to answer the proposed injunction. The injunction itself was founded upon an untrue assertion that BGG had "threatened" to put the event on in breach of its licence conditions. If the licence conditions were not capable of being met, BGG had no intention of continuing with the event - and it was a recognition that that was regrettably the position that caused BGG to surrender its' licence: It was not the threat of an injunction. The BGG were subject to further ‘threats’ on the Sunday morning, one of them being that the landowner would be added to the injunction. We respect the farmer and his family and we would not want any harm to be caused to them.

Why has the event been cancelled?

There were serious concerns about potential public safety and crime and disorder, which the organisers of the BGG seem to have recognised they could not address in time for the event.

The licence was surrendered -

1. Because the Highways authority were being intransigent and utterly unreasonable in not giving permission for the road closure;

2. the Fire Authority were placing unnecessary hurdles in BGG's way - which were not deemed necessary at the last festival; nor at the time of the granting of the licence, nor was any objection made by the Fire Authority at the previous Licence Hearing. They made the objection on Thursday 23rd July at a multi-agency meeting held at the premises where the BGG was to be held and

3. Valuable time was lost, which could have been spent trying to fulfil BGG's licence obligations, but instead was spent mounting an answer to a wholly misconceived application for an injunction.

Why did the council consider applying for an injunction?

The seriousness of the concerns meant that despite days of negotiations the organisers had still not complied with some aspects of their licence and other legal requirements connected to fire safety. This amounted to concerns that public safety could have been seriously undermined should the event take place in such circumstances. Therefore the council had no other option but to consider applying for an injunction, which if successful may have forced the event to shut down.

This is just not true. Midland Fire Services were contracted by Big Green Gathering for the event and they were performing fire service duties at Womad, which meant they could not be at the Multi Agency Meeting. Midland Fire Services were due to appear at the Big Green Gathering on the following Monday before the event and there had been no criticism of the fire plan until Thursday at the Multi Agency Meeting – just six days before the event was due to start.

When was the decision made to progress with an injunction?

During a meeting between the council and emergency services at 6.30pm on Friday (July 24). However, the injunction application was not due to submitted until Monday (July 27) which gave the organisers more opportunity to address their licensing issues.

The timing of the threat of an injunction was almost deliberately designed to make it almost impossible for BGG to get expert legal advice in the time available and that the decision to pursue an injunction must have been made way before Friday evening 24th July – The actual injunction was received by email at 6.54p.m. The Council were sending the solicitor copies of all the statements, draft order, application at about 7 p.m. therefore no-one could have put that lot together in six minutes.

When was the council first made aware about concerns surrounding the licence?

On July 17 we became aware there were serious issues about the licence including the confirmation that an important security company involved with the event had withdrawn their services.

Stuart Security Services were originally contracted to provide perimeter services at the BGG. They wanted their whole fee of over £70,000 paid before the event and the BGG thought this was an unreasonable request. We offered them alternative terms and they rejected them. Another Security Firm Coast to Coast was employed and the director of Coast to Coast Security (who have incidentally provided services at the Bath & West Showground) attended the Multi Agency Meeting on 23rd July, together with Green Security who were covering the internal security at the event. Both Coast to Coast and Green Security were repeatedly called by the Council to ask whether they had received monies from the Big Green Gathering. The Big Green Gathering had paid both companies a proportion of their money for their services and as a consequence has lost a large proportion of that money.

What happened next?

Internal investigations at the council alongside the emergency services flagged up other areas of concern. The organisers of BGG were invited to attend a meeting at the council offices on July 22 to help resolve various issues. Some issues were resolved at that meeting, but a number of issues remained outstanding. The council and emergency services had already arranged to meet with the organisers the following day on-site to ensure the outstanding issues had been resolved.

One of the issues was regarding South West Ambulance whose invoice was to be paid on 29th July. We have a copy of the agreement stating the payment terms. The Council was putting pressure on us to pay South West Ambulance early and we believed it was correct not to cave into this kind of pressure. If a company caves into a Council on when and how they pay their fees for services, when would this stop? The fee for South West Ambulance was just over £9000 including VAT. We had already budgeted for this fee. We also contracted doctors, The Red Cross, Festival Welfare Services, Medical Herbalists to ensure that all medical eventualities were met. There is also a helipad landing area catered for on the BGG site plan. We also agreed to watch towers over the site and many more conditions that would appear to be unreasonable for a peaceful event primarily concerned with giving people information and advice on sustainable lifestyles.

Who would have granted the injunction?

The council had prepared a case to take to the High Court where a judge would have listened to both sides of the argument and made a decision. There is no guarantee the court would have agreed with the council, but the council felt so strongly about their concerns that it had no other option but prepare for an injunction.

The Council knew that a lack of road closure order would be a breach of the licence. Our lawyer, a QC was pretty sure on the evidence that we could win the arguments bar the road closure.

Did the police pressurise the council into threatening an injunction?

No, the council works in partnership with many agencies. This decision was based on advice from emergency services including the police, ambulance, fire etc. Ultimately, as the licensing authority the council weighed up all the factors and risks and made the final decision.

The ambulance service was at the Multi Agency Meeting and did not appear on the injunction therefore there were no concerns about ambulance provision. From our meetings with the police and the council, it was apparent that the police were leading the discussion. At the Multi Agency meeting held on Thursday 23rd July, it was certainly the police that had most to say. The woman leading the discussions from the Council said very little and left it to the police to do the talking.

Was the threat of an injunction a political decision?

No, this was purely based on public safety and potential for crime and disorder.

We believe this was a political decision. One of our Directors and (overheard by another of our staff, who holds a responsible position in the team) was told this was a political decision. At the meeting on Sunday, we were informed by the police that a decision to stop the event had been made at had been planned for some time and decisions were made at a higher level.

Why wasn't this issued sorted out sooner?

The council and other agencies have been working closely with BGG since February this year on the licence application, which was finally granted. However, there were a number of requirements that had to be completed before the event. Some of these crucial elements had not been completed.

This could easily have been sorted out sooner and there was ample opportunity to complain at the licence hearing if there were concerns. No such complaints were made on 30th June and indeed Inspector Sean Williams stated in an email to one of the directors that he believed we had an Event Management Plan suitable for the next few years.

Does the council not feel that this is a safe and green festival?

This is not an issue about whether it has been safe and green, but is an issue as to whether the forthcoming event would have been safe based on the fact that certain requirements were not met.

This is a complete red herring and utterly mendacious.

BGG had professional health and safety teams on site

BGG had provision for 2 doctors on site

BGG had provision for ambulance provision and Red Cross on site - South West Ambulance

BGG had provision for Festival Welfare Services on site

BGG had provision for fully qualified medical herbalists on site

BGG had engaged the services of Midland Fire Rescue

BGG had provision for400 stewards on site - Green Stewards Ltd

BGG had provision for external trained security on site - Coast to Coast Security

BGG had provision for internal trained security on site- Green Security

BGG had provision for a helipad area on site

BGG had provision for trained road people on the perimeter and on site

BGG has an exemplary record on health and safety

BGG had provision for a Challenge 21 alcohol policy

BGG had provision for a lost kids and kids area, with a strong child protection policy in place

BGG had provision for a professional noise monitoring team in place

Trackway, fencing, watch towers and other infrastructure was taking place when the Council and the police visited the site on Thursday, 23rd July for the multi agency meeting on site. Gate crew and site crew were already operating.

The Council and the police knew all this – it was in the licence granted on 30th June, to which they had agreed.

Does the council not support the ethos of events such as the BGG?

The issue here is not about the ethos or messages this event wants to send out but about ensuring public safety during the event.

Again, it would appear that the Council does not support the ethos of events such as the BGG, which incidentally brings around £2million to the local economy. We are saddened by this as it is becoming apparent daily that individual action on climate change is vital and in order to take action information is paramount. BGG supplies that information and helps customers reduce their carbon footprint.

Is the council not victimising this event and those that attend?

Since BGG came to this area a number of years ago it has had significant support from all agencies in planning and running this event. Over the past couple of weeks there has been significant ongoing discussion between organisers, the council and emergency services to try and resolve the licensing issues. The organisers signed up to legal commitments associated with the licence, some of which they failed to meet, and are bound by other legislation.

Our Barrister confirmed to us that the only condition he believed that a judge would accept is that we had failed to meet was the road closure order.

Did the council not want this event to go ahead from the beginning?

The council strives to ensure that any licence application is considered properly and fairly, but it also works closely with other agencies and organisers to attempt to organise safe and well run events. We realise the potential benefit that large events create for the area and local economy. In short the cancellation of this event creates many more issues and a heavier workload for the council than if it had gone ahead safely.

We believe that the Police and the Council did not want this event to go ahead. We are still unsure as to why this peaceful event appears to create an atmosphere of fear in some members of the responsible authorities. The BGG brings in £2 million to the local economy. Traders, local producers, local contractors have all lost money. The BGG had already spent over £200,000 in infrastructure and other costs on the BGG. The BGG had paid in full for the fencing, half the noise monitoring, in full for the Trackway, half the police costs, significant amounts to the Security Companies, toilet providers, site crew wages, portacabins, telephone lines, hire of the land, licence application, marketing and publicity etc.

Has the council gone health and safety mad?

No. However the council has a duty to protect the public from potential harm, and concerns existed due to certain plans not being in place. We realise that the cancellation of this event will be blamed on the council by some and has had a huge impact, however if we had done nothing and a serious incident had happened the council would have been also been blamed for not acting where concerns existed.

All events however well run do have a significant potential for crime and disorder issues, however part of our role is to minimise this effect through proper licensing. We were not satisfied that this event had addressed some of those issues.

We agree that protecting the public from harm is very important and the BGG has a very good record on public safety as the Council very well know. We think it that lack of a road closure order is disproportionate to the action taken and the police were very quick to enact road closure orders in order to shut down the event.

Did we have an intention of creating financial difficulties for the BGG?

No. The council would never wish to see any financial difficulties affect any local event or businesses as one of our corporate goals is to support the local economy.

The effect is not just on the BGG but many local businesses that rely on income from the BGG in these difficult financial times. For example the local farmer had organised £000’s of food to be ready for the BGG, Butcombe Brewery had laid on extra drinks, the local Bread lady had bought supplies especially, Traders who come had bought in extra stock. Those that we employ that live in the neighbourhood have now lost out. And the BGG has lost a fortune in lost revenue. The corporate goals seems to have gone awry on what was in the most generous terms spurious arguments to stop the BGG

Did the council create problems with the BGG signing up a security firm?

No, we simply needed assurance from the BGG that they had security arrangements in place.

This is mendacious as both security contractors attended the multi agency meeting and gave assurances that they would fulfil their contracts. Some of our contractors have complained of harassment from the Council so much so that an officer of the BGG telephoned the Council to complain. One contractor said they were being phoned every ten minutes and the impression they received was that they should pull out of the BGG

How much crime and disorder results from the BGG?

This is a policing issue and the BGG spent significant time working with the police on this event.

Very little compared to the number of people on site. There was an increase in tent thefts in 2007 but BGG were providing campsite neighbourhood watch and lockers for peoples valuables

[bobthelob2009]

A very simple question for the BGG.....

Did you have the road closure order in place in time to meet the conditions that YOU agreed to?

[Alchemy Festival]

To people that had a ticket to big green gathering I have decided to offer tickets to Alchemy at the early bird price of £50 - This offer is open until Aug 16th - Please email me for details - alchemy.festival@live.com

The Liberty Stage at Alchemy will be Solar powered and we aim to be as green as possible!

[eFestivals]

A very simple question for the BGG.....

Did you have the road closure order in place in time to meet the conditions that YOU agreed to?

We have asked this specific question. The BGG's answer was "no".

We have also asked: was the road closure paperwork submitted before the specified deadline? The BGG's answer was also "no".

[elfweirdigan]

What is it with kicking people when they're down? Why the witch-hunt? Yes, lots of us are very disappointed and out of pocket but if you want to throw blame, throw it at the authorities... obviously if the council wanted the road closed it could be closed at a moments notice - as soon as the licence was revoked, roads were closed all over the place to STOP people getting to the festival... but they couldn't be closed to let people go to the festival!?? A lot of the other arguments thrown at BGG were indeed spurious - just read the list of Health and Safety stuff implemented. In fact, listen to what BGG are saying and try to find a bit of empathy... Why close down this festival but not those commercial ones where people burn portaloos?

[Paul ™]

There is no witch hunt!

Facts have been posted and the fact is that BGG failed to comply what was required of them, that is why the festival could not go ahead. It would be the same for any event that never complied with licence conditions.

[eFestivals]

What is it with kicking people when they're down? Why the witch-hunt? Yes, lots of us are very disappointed and out of pocket but if you want to throw blame, throw it at the authorities... obviously if the council wanted the road closed it could be closed at a moments notice -

I refer you to the council's road closure notice advice notes, item 1 - and presumably it's item 1 because it is considered the most important thing for any event applying for road closures to take on board:-

"1. In order to make a Road Closure Order we require a minimum of 10 weeks notice and certainly not less that 8 weeks notice.

Road closures by the council for special events require consultation across different bodies, including the (national) Highways Agency. The council has no influence on the timescales that external bodies might work to.

as soon as the licence was revoked, roads were closed all over the place to STOP people getting to the festival... but they couldn't be closed to let people go to the festival!??

Any roads that were closed were closed by the police and not the council. The police have different rights in law to the council for such actions, and do not have the right to shut roads for organised events that have failed to get the road closure orders that an event's licence requires that event to have.

That might sound slightly nuts for the authorities to have set the system that way, but it's how it is. Every other festival that requires road closures manages to work with those rules.

A lot of the other arguments thrown at BGG were indeed spurious - just read the list of Health and Safety stuff implemented.

Just because they might have implemented a long list of health & safety requirements doesn't mean that they've complied with all health & safety requirements.

In fact, listen to what BGG are saying and try to find a bit of empathy...

I've listened.

What they are saying - and it's very clear in their latest press release above - is that they believe they should have the right to run their festival in breech of the licence terms they agreed to adhere to.

Why should they? If they're not able to fulfil the terms they agreed to with plenty of time to have those requirements in place, what else might they be ignoring?

It's hardly surprising that in the end the council and police lost faith with their ability to fulfil the licence requirements. If you care to read the council's meeting minutes that adds even further fuel to the fire, as less than a month ago they were still trying to tell the police that they weren't needed, despite having already agreed to their presence.

And the police were being quite reasonable about the numbers needed too. If the police's aim had been to shaft BGG they could have quite justifiably insisted on twice the numbers that they did do - and charged BGG for those extra numbers - as 2007 had around twice the amount of reported crime compared to 2006 while having around half the number of police shifts.

Why close down this festival but not those commercial ones where people burn portaloos?

The problem with licencing (and there's many problems - that doesn't make the results of those problems an automatic conspiracy tho) is that there are no national rules. Each council implements their own licencing regime and rules, and these can and do vary wildly between different councils.

The question that needs to be considered when looking to see whether the BGG has been picked on as the BGG would like to imagine is whether the requirements put on them by MDC are much different* to the requirements put onto other festivals in its area - and with myself being very familiar with Glastonbury's licencing requirements, I know that they're not.

(* there will of course be some differences due to the different sizes of both events).

===============

I'd probably agree with many of the points BGG have made about the licence requirements being over the top - not just for BGG, but for just about every festival in the UK. But moaning about stupid laws has no effect on the implementation of any laws - things are how they are.

If you won't work within the rules then it's quite reasonable from the rule-regulators point of view (however much you or I might disagree) for those rules to be used against you - and this is precisely what has happened with BGG. It is totally unrealistic to expect a council to give the OK for a festival to go ahead when it's in breech of its licence.

Edited July 31, 2009 by eFestivals

[llcoolphil]

... Why close down this festival but not those commercial ones where people burn portaloos?

[Mike H]

Thanks efestivals for having the sense not to believe the hype.

The sad fact is that the management this year had just not managed to get it together. To illustrate this I'll give you another example of this (one of many), independent of all the conspiracy nonsense about the road closure.

The site would probably have been closed down as unsafe on the first day even if the event had gone ahead, because there was no emergency route through the site and not even any hard route from the gate to the car park. Having previously been both site manager and licensing director of this event, and having visited the site last weekend, I know that it would not have coped with this week's rain, and that the authorities would not have stood by and watched the chaos unfold. The directors of the company had cancelled the temporary trackway order at the last minute, without even consulting this year's site manager who was trying his best to prepare the site, or informing the licensing authority who had approved an event management plan including a map showing the hard emergency route.

The reason for this ill-advised costcutting was that they had only sold about 4000 advance tickets, and were panicking about money even more than usual. This was also why they failed to pay the security on time, leading them to pull out. There's plenty more to say but I hope you get the picture.

Of course the police's reaction has been predictably over the top, and licensing these days is a very anal business which is killing festivals. And yes we do more or less live in a police state in which environmental direct action is rapidly being recategorised as ecoterrorism. BUT this does not add up to a political conspiracy to kill the BGG. Certain people need to grow up and face the facts.

[bobthelob2009]

Thanks efestivals for having the sense not to believe the hype.

The sad fact is that the management this year had just not managed to get it together. To illustrate this I'll give you another example of this (one of many), independent of all the conspiracy nonsense about the road closure.

The site would probably have been closed down as unsafe on the first day even if the event had gone ahead, because there was no emergency route through the site and not even any hard route from the gate to the car park. Having previously been both site manager and licensing director of this event, and having visited the site last weekend, I know that it would not have coped with this week's rain, and that the authorities would not have stood by and watched the chaos unfold. The directors of the company had cancelled the temporary trackway order at the last minute, without even consulting this year's site manager who was trying his best to prepare the site, or informing the licensing authority who had approved an event management plan including a map showing the hard emergency route.

The reason for this ill-advised costcutting was that they had only sold about 4000 advance tickets, and were panicking about money even more than usual. This was also why they failed to pay the security on time, leading them to pull out. There's plenty more to say but I hope you get the picture.

Of course the police's reaction has been predictably over the top, and licensing these days is a very anal business which is killing festivals. And yes we do more or less live in a police state in which environmental direct action is rapidly being recategorised as ecoterrorism. BUT this does not add up to a political conspiracy to kill the BGG. Certain people need to grow up and face the facts.

[fexis]

Well, considering all the hard graft spent and all the work already done and time organizing and dosh spent etc etc i think it was a completely heartless decision ie cancellation for the sake of road closure leagalities being a couple of days late. That is the problem though - festivals and gatherings are so mired in hoops and legislation that you have to get to grips with nowadays it is soul destroying to be honest.

Bring back free festivals? As someone who has been a festival attendee (and helped organise one in the early 80s) since the early 70s alot of the people who go to festivals today have no inkling how amazing some of the old free festivals where. I know everything has evolved from what has happened before but there is too much red tape to deal with in todays climate.

Edited July 31, 2009 by fexis

[eFestivals]

Well, considering all the hard graft spent and all the work already done and time organizing and dosh spent etc etc i think it was a completely heartless decision ie cancellation for the sake of road closure leagalities being a couple of days late. That is the problem though - festivals and gatherings are so mired in hoops and legislation that you have to get to grips with nowadays it is soul destroying to be honest.

While I can understand to a certain extent why you feel it's heartless, it is totally unrealistic to expect a council to give the OK for a festival to go ahead when it's in breech of its licence as the BGG clearly was. It is the council's legal duty to enforce all aspects of the licencing act.

As I've already said, there's issues around the fact that there's no national rules for where that duty starts and ends in what *exactly* any festival has to do, but in the case of the BGG they'd already agreed to what exactly the council wanted anyway.

So it's then a bit of a red herring for anyone to suggest what had been agreed between all parties was draconian as having any part in the BGGs failure to happen - it only failed to happen because the BGG didn't implement what they'd agreed to implement.

> ie cancellation for the sake of road closure leagalities being a couple of days late

It's actually a bit more than that. We have been told by BGG that BGG did not follow it up AT ALL, to know whether it had been done or not.

If they had followed it up and found out it had not been done then there might perhaps of been the possibility of going to the council with that info, and then re-working all the plans to take that into account (which, I guess, might have cost them more in police shifts needed, and stuff like that), and the festival might have still been able to happen (I don't know this, I'm purely guessing).

As a part of the council's legal duty around licences, they're bound to check every single detail - and so they're extremely likely to have found out themselves that the roads couldn't be closed by calling the highways dept. I would think it's hugely likely that them finding out and then finding out that BGG didn't themselves know would have had them severely question how much eye for detail was being used by BGG in their organising and implementation of the licence - this could explain the calls to contractors by the council; who knows what other details they found out were being overlooked?

Edited July 31, 2009 by eFestivals

[Mike H]

Bobthelob:

I was referring to the scale as in (numbers of police officers and vehicles deployed) of "Operation Fortress".

[Mike H]

eFestivals:

You're on the right track...

[bobthelob2009]

Bobthelob:

I was referring to the scale as in (numbers of police officers and vehicles deployed) of "Operation Fortress".

[elfweirdigan]

I'm shocked and disappointed by efestivals partial take on this. 'Paranoid shite' and 'Claptrap'? Who has an axe to grind here?

While I don't want to get into an argument with him, based on dealings with Mike H when he was site manager in 2007, I would not entirely trust his slant on things.

The only thing it seems BGG could have seriously lost an injunction on is the Road Closure issue, and as efestivals notes, when BGG put in the application for the order they were assured by someone in the Road Agency office that it would be processed. So what did they do so terribly wrong other than trust that official and tick off 'road closure order dealt with' on their excessively long list of H&S issues to be addressed?

More truths will hopefully be uncovered in the next days and weeks. Until then, perhaps people could keep their minds open and refrain from slagging off the organisers of one of the best and longest-standing independent festivals on the circuit...?

Edited August 1, 2009 by elfweirdigan

[Mike H]

I'm pretty sure it was and is called "operation fortress" - more to the point though it has at times involved at least five simultaneously manned checkpoints. One evening I personally went through three, the last of which had an entire vanload who'd just come down from Bristol with hardly any briefing at all. Certainly plenty of resources were found from somewhere to make it possible, many more than were supposedly available to help it happen (eg by enforcing no-waiting zones).

Elfweirdigan: I'd be happy to discuss whatever your problem is/was if you say who you are... but no, please let's not have an argument.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Mike H

[beamends]

From what I read it seems that while Mendip Coucil could have sorted the road closure business out (it was only 2 days late) if they had the will, they were made uneasy by other issues they were aware of and use the road closure technicality to stop the show. Not nice as such, but probably justified if other stuff mentioned here is true, or even half true.

Strangely, and I never thought I'd say this, the Police seem to have a much better grip/positive attitude on things than even festival organisers these days judging by this years Glastonbury! Maybe wandering around at festivals is preferable to dealing with the Saturday night morons in town centres ;-)

Edited August 1, 2009 by beamends

[elfweirdigan]

Elfweirdigan: I'd be happy to discuss whatever your problem is/was if you say who you are... but no, please let's not have an argument.

[Mike H]

elfweirdigan - think I might have guessed your identity - anyway quite right, no hard feelings.

Getting back to my original point though, I'm sure you'd agree that the total lack of the planned hard emergency route through the site would have been a H&S disaster in anyone's book, particularly in these weather conditions.