Big Green Gathering 2009

[eFestivals]

Regarding the condemnation I am throwing your way, I just think maybe, just maybe, your role should be more of a provider of fact rather than opinion, especially at the start of a topic/discussion when all the facts are not known and therefore opinion can be retrospectively seen to be badly defined but still inflict damage to reputations (throw enough sh*t and some will stick etc etc..)..

And my initial posts in this thread WERE those facts - the facts that BGG had chosen to omit, of their own failings. Such things are NOT irrelevant.

If they'd have been more clear with facts and given less of the paranoid claptrap then they'd have been a far better starting basis for ANYONE to start to deal with those facts.

[eFestivals]

I've said before a few times that I don't think this sort of discussion, where personal opinion is being voiced, should be had under the 'eFestivals' screen name.

Luxury tour bus anyone?

These are not personal opinions, but relevant opinions in regard to what festivals are doing. A personal opinion would be "the licencing system is ridiculous", and everything would be based around that. A professional view - which is counter to the BGG's belief (as stated in their press releases) - is that no festival can expect to go ahead when in breech of its licence.

Can a luxury tourbus be justified by a festival that claimed to be raising money for the homeless, when it was planned for that luxury tourbus to be at the expense of those homeless? I don't believe it can be, not on any moral basis.

Can a festival make believable claims of a conspiracy over its licencing with almost zero evidence (and absolutely no proof) when it has failed to meet its own obligations in regard to licencing? Nope, I don't believe it can do.

[eFestivals]

As to the technicalities of formats, you would think that something that said it "hereby makes" a notice and that it will come into effect on a certain date, and that had the legitimate authority's name on it, would be just what it says on the tin. Silly me, but I guess that's what lawyers are for.

Efestivals, have you considered this question of yourselves?

Yes. Since becoming aware of these things (which took BGG time too), we have posed the question to the authorities: on which occasions have these notices also been posted when closure orders were not granted?

(I'm personally unaware of any response to this as yet).

I think Flip and others are just querying if you should be voicing so much opinion under the banner of efestivals and questioning if you have a neutral stance. Hardly condemnation, especially compared to what you have been doling out yourself!

Yes, I have a neutral stance (something which neither yourself or Flip does).

I say again: no festival can expect to go ahead in breech of its licence, which is what BGG have stated they should have been allowed to do.

If BGG believe they should be allowed to go ahead without a licence (and they do), what does that say about how much respect and attention they are giving to the licencing process that they need to be abiding by?

Further: if, after months of negotiations with the police, Brig can say "but we don't need police" when the police have been perfectly reasonable about the police shifts required (reasonable in the context of officers having been cut in half while crime doubled; and crime is of VERY strong relevance to the licencing objectives - the four legal obligations), what does that say to the police?

Such things are of VERY strong relevance to the faith the authorities have in a licencee. BGG - and you - are not considering these things.

[5co77ie]

Yes. Since becoming aware of these things (which took BGG time too), we have posed the question to the authorities: on which occasions have these notices also been posted when closure orders were not granted?

(I'm personally unaware of any response to this as yet).

[probadarne]

Can a festival make believable claims of a conspiracy over its licencing with almost zero evidence (and absolutely no proof) when it has failed to meet its own obligations in regard to licencing? Nope, I don't believe it can do.

Edited August 5, 2009 by probadarne

[strudders]

Of course it can! It's claims are entirely believable, for at least three reasons:

1. There is an obvious conflict of ideology and vested interests. The BGG would have been attended by many radical green activist groups, and would have raised funds to support Climate Camp later this month. This is a time of genuine environmental & economic crisis, so the authorities are scared. When they complain about health and safety, we suspect they are really concerned about radical environmental activism. They naturally want to promote technocratic top-down control inside festivals, because they are ideologically opposed to the green anarchist movement.

2. The licensing authorities are obviously paper-pushers and technocrats who wrangle over legal details (that is their job), so the BGG coordinators are more believable and respectable just by the nature of their festival. There is also an obvious imbalance of power, and the authorities operate with as little transparency as they can get away with, which just makes them even less credible.

3. The BGG did not choose "its own obligations in regard to licencing", but the requirements were imposed in a way that apparently allows the authorities to stifle events whenever they want to. The BGG clearly would have lost the legal case, because they had failed to jump through all the right hoops. But are these hoops designed to scupper autonomous organisation and keep revellers under control whenever it is deemed necessary?

In reality, the BGG might really be responsible for bad coordination, but because the police are so heavy handed, the licensing is so technocratic, and the system is so lacking in transparency, the BGG are more believable than the authorities, especially when there is so little evidence.

[DeadAmos]

If however it is found that there was a concerted effort by some in authority to prevent the legitimate granting of the licence then I am sure it will end up in the hands of the lawyers.

[strudders]

BGG had a licence , but the BGG organizers handed it back , all be it under the threat of a high court injunction

[Ringoid]

It's certainly a sad tale. What I don't fully understand is that after loosing money 2 years ago and therefore having 2 years to organise the festival why weren't things done a bit earlier?

From a professional context, I know that when there are large sums of money that could be risked if deadlines are not met I would plan out everything to allow adequate time, including for contingencies, so that the risks are minimised.

If problems then arise, there would be time to deal with them. In this case it seems the knowledge of the problems wasnot shared until the last minute. Even to the extent that tickets were still being sold a few days before the vent was due to start.

If it is true that only 4,000 tickets were sold, this would have still raised at a guess around £400,000. However credit is not as easy to abtain as it was even 1 year ago. Perhaps because the event was lacking in funds not much was done until ticket sales generated revenue?

Even if this is the case I'm sure much of the preparitory work could have been done at a fairly low expense, for example meeting the council police etc and discussing what would need to be in place, ie all the red tape and paperwork.

Perhaps I'm living in a dreamworld and the barriers with the authorities are much greater than I percieve them to be. However I'm sure a lesson needs to be learnt about communication and working together.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Ringoid

[Guest Flip]

As it was all they did was say to BGG, "got road closures in place yet?" BGG "Errr No." Ok guys lets have the licence.

It was that simple.

[eFestivals]

In reality, the BGG might really be responsible for bad coordination, but because the police are so heavy handed, the licensing is so technocratic, and the system is so lacking in transparency, the BGG are more believable than the authorities, especially when there is so little evidence.

So a bunch of people that are known to have been deliberately vague and deceptive about their own failings in their own press releases are the most believable?

If this is the sort of logic that BGG have been using in their dealings with the council, it's no wonder that the council didn't have faith in them to deliver the requirements of their licence.

[eFestivals]

Ever asked yourself WHY that was the decision?

If BGG was seen as a nice peaceful gathering of likeminded people, where would be the hurt in saying "got road closures in place yet?" BGG "Errr No." "Ok guys, we will let you off the 2 days you were late as its not a main road we are talking about here and we, along with the police want your gathering to succeed...carry on but sort it out next year please!"

While there might not be any harm, bureaucrats are bureaucrats, and that's how they act - and it's how they act with EVERYONE - so it takes a little madness to jump from bureaucrats acting as bureaucrats to there being a conspiracy.

Also, why did Stuart Security suddenly demand all their money up front? Is this normal practice? I honestly don't know but I would suggest some kind of compromise would have been better for both parties...

it's very possible that Stuart felt that if they didn't get paid up-front they wouldn't get paid at all (after all, there's history of such things happening with BGG) - and so there's not really any compromise to be made around that.

Who knows, I just don't feel it was purely down to BGG being incompetent layabout hippies, neither of the above issued HAD to be showstoppers if there had been any appetite to keep this event going...

the licence was going to be breeched. That is ALWAYS a show-stopper!!!

Edited August 6, 2009 by eFestivals

[strudders]

Ever asked yourself WHY that was the decision?

If BGG was seen as a nice peaceful gathering of likeminded people, where would be the hurt in saying "got road closures in place yet?" BGG "Errr No." "Ok guys, we will let you off the 2 days you were late as its not a main road we are talking about here and we, along with the police want your gathering to succeed...carry on but sort it out next year please!"

Also, why did Stuart Security suddenly demand all their money up front? Is this normal practice? I honestly don't know but I would suggest some kind of compromise would have been better for both parties...

Who knows, I just don't feel it was purely down to BGG being incompetent layabout hippies, neither of the above issued HAD to be showstoppers if there had been any appetite to keep this event going...

Just a point of view, not saying its right...

[Guest Flip]

I have asked myself why, I have also trawled through the web, the MDC sites to find out as much as I can.

my own personal feeling is one of concern from the authorities that something was going to go wrong and the event would cost them and the council tax payers money. There has been talk of sluggish ticket sales (we don't know this and I do not know how the council and the Police would either) however financial failure at a late stage would result in costs for all parties.

I also strongly believe that you cant have one rule for one and one rule for another. irrespective of how much a nice bunch of hippies they are (and I am sure they are)

If you were to set a president, then you would have every tom dick and harry doing the same and not always to our advantage. We would all be the first to cry foul if a developer closed a road without the correct notice periods and then cited the BGG as it president. Rules are rules.

I also think the security firm asked for there money up front for the same financial reasons the council and Police looked at the event. It happens in my line of work as well when company financials are questioned and my company turns over 6 billion a year (well was.. I get let go today! but hey!)

My personal feeling is Yes the Police and the council were looking for an out for this event. Either due to a risk assessment based on financial issues or some other. I also thing there is a little to much self importance going on on the BGG side. Yes it is a big event for the green movement, but it is not the be all and end all. And I repeat what I said before, if it was so important to everybody, if it was so cherished then I am sure it would have gone ahead, as the little mistakes that have caused it to be cancelled would not have been made... A nice bunch of hippies they are, but they are also extremely intelligent.

[steveziggy101]

the big green never happend full stop and thats it.cant we close this thread now and be done with???or ppl still hanging on to be right or wrong..........move on.

[Hairyloon]

Also, why did Stuart Security suddenly demand all their money up front? Is this normal practice? I honestly don't know but I would suggest some kind of compromise would have been better for both parties...

Edited August 6, 2009 by Hairyloon

[Seem Silly]

Sorry, I think this one will (BGG) will drag on for a while, and for many with an interest - so it should! (Those getting bored can surely find plenty of other threads.)

Fact: Road closure notices were found.

I.e. they said "THE SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL in exercise of its powers under Section 14-16 of the Road Traffic regulation Act 1984 as amended, and of all other enabling powers, hereby makes the following Temporary Notice:..." Let's just not go there again for now, huh? - apparetly fine legal minds are picking over it.

If you think BGG didn't cross all the T's and dot all the I's then you should hear some of the wranglings and minutae that are now going on re what the authorities responsibilities are re road closures and whose responsibility what is.

(I notice the Banksy exhibition in Bristol has suddenly closed a side road to make way for the queue. Perhaps they should have shut down... instead of finding a sensible solution, apparently when nobody had even thought of it in advance, let alone processed it. )

Fact: BGG had just been granted a sizeable overdraft (to pay Stuarts Security up front).

I.e. a financial institution had looked over the books and deemed them in good shape.

Anybody care to estimate the cost of "operation fortress"? Resources were found to bring coppers in from Weston-super-Mare and Bristol to man five roadblocks 24/7 for a week. The arguement about financial implications in some ficticious world where everything went horribly wrong just don't add up.

Fact: BGG have worked hard since 2007 to pay off their creditors and have not just declared themselves bust and set up again like many companies do.

Fact: BGG have never said that they should be allowed to go ahead in beach of their licence.

On the contrary, they have provided a great deal of detailed info in response to some very last minute questions on the meeting of all licence requirements.

Less of the "disorganised hippy" stuff please!

If anybody can be bothered to re-read the press releases and the other info that has been posted on this thread, you will find that many facts are available and most of the speculation is actually on the anti-BGG front.

Well done efestivals for asking your latest question of MDC. And whoever asked why Stuarts suddenly wanted their money up front. There are certainly interesting answers to be had I'm sure to these and more.

[DeadAmos]

You seem to forget this fact Seem Silly

Fact BGG handed back their licence nobody took it

The 3 words that most readily spring to mind when thinking about BGG are Hippys Pissup and Brewery

[5co77ie]

I have had a long chat with the Highways Agency, and it seems this is the sticking point. Because a temporary road closure order could not be put in place in time, BGG applied for (at the last minute) an Emergency Road Closure Order.

This order was granted - however they also needed a 'Temporary Sign Plan' to go alongside it. It seems this was indeed submitted at the last minute. It was not acceptable and rejected at lunch time on the Friday.

The grounds for this rejection were:

1. that BGG did not have a proper Signage schedule

2. They did not name an approved Sign contractor - all people working on the highways must have suitable insurance cover.

3. 7 or 8 of the signs would have been put up in North Somerset Authority - an area that required a completely separate approval - this had not been sought, the Authority the BGG had applied were not able to grant approval outside their jurisdiction.

A few days earlier and the unacceptable details could have been sorted, even with the two authorities, however the Authority do not work Saturdays or Sunday, and the order had to be in place on Monday.

Because the sign plan, and the sign contractor, and the signs themselves had not been approved and could not possibly be approved before the road was due to close on Monday - the terms of the order could not be met and therefore it was not granted.

It seems BGG shot themselves in the foot by submitting their Temporary Sign Plan too late.

Edited August 6, 2009 by 5co77ie

[strudders]

Sorry, I think this one will (BGG) will drag on for a while, and for many with an interest - so it should! (Those getting bored can surely find plenty of other threads.)

Fact: Road closure notices were found.

I.e. they said "THE SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL in exercise of its powers under Section 14-16 of the Road Traffic regulation Act 1984 as amended, and of all other enabling powers, hereby makes the following Temporary Notice:..." Let's just not go there again for now, huh? - apparetly fine legal minds are picking over it.

If you think BGG didn't cross all the T's and dot all the I's then you should hear some of the wranglings and minutae that are now going on re what the authorities responsibilities are re road closures and whose responsibility what is.

(I notice the Banksy exhibition in Bristol has suddenly closed a side road to make way for the queue. Perhaps they should have shut down... instead of finding a sensible solution, apparently when nobody had even thought of it in advance, let alone processed it. )

Fact: BGG had just been granted a sizeable overdraft (to pay Stuarts Security up front).

I.e. a financial institution had looked over the books and deemed them in good shape.

Anybody care to estimate the cost of "operation fortress"? Resources were found to bring coppers in from Weston-super-Mare and Bristol to man five roadblocks 24/7 for a week. The arguement about financial implications in some ficticious world where everything went horribly wrong just don't add up.

Fact: BGG have worked hard since 2007 to pay off their creditors and have not just declared themselves bust and set up again like many companies do.

Fact: BGG have never said that they should be allowed to go ahead in beach of their licence.

On the contrary, they have provided a great deal of detailed info in response to some very last minute questions on the meeting of all licence requirements.

Less of the "disorganised hippy" stuff please!

If anybody can be bothered to re-read the press releases and the other info that has been posted on this thread, you will find that many facts are available and most of the speculation is actually on the anti-BGG front.

Well done efestivals for asking your latest question of MDC. And whoever asked why Stuarts suddenly wanted their money up front. There are certainly interesting answers to be had I'm sure to these and more.

[Guest Flip]

Also I hope the Hippie remarks are not aimed at me... I referred to them as extremely intelligent. As we all know they are.

[strudders]

What, all of em??

[paulo999]

Scottie... Interesting stuff. The first new information for a little while now.

[Seem Silly]

Hi 5co77ie, Can't argue with your detailed knowledge from the Highways Agency, except it definitely doesn't come under them, looking after motorways and A-roads as they do. As I say, there seem to be a lot of question marks over whose responsibility what is, and finer legal minds than mine are picking it over.

Hi Studders, Yes I am sure about the overdraft, but not sure how much Stuarts had demanded up front. Perhaps if you could point me back in the direction of where that paragraph came from. Either way, they did pull out as the money came through "because their cheque hadn't come through" as I heard it. This was not communicated by Stuarts but by the police.

No offence taken whatsoever at the highly intelligent comment. Whether it's true or not, it sure makes a refreshing change!

[strudders]

Hi 5co77ie, Can't argue with your detailed knowledge from the Highways Agency, except it definitely doesn't come under them, looking after motorways and A-roads as they do. As I say, there seem to be a lot of question marks over whose responsibility what is, and finer legal minds than mine are picking it over.

Hi Studders, Yes I am sure about the overdraft, but not sure how much Stuarts had demanded up front. Perhaps if you could point me back in the direction of where that paragraph came from. Either way, they did pull out as the money came through "because their cheque hadn't come through" as I heard it. This was not communicated by Stuarts but by the police.

No offence taken whatsoever at the highly intelligent comment. Whether it's true or not, it sure makes a refreshing change!