War Against Fun

[Pinhead]

Time for a good debate . . .

This weeks Schnews ran a piece highlighting just how many smaller festivals have seen concerted legal and bureaucratic efforts levied against them in order to bring them to a halt and effectively make it impossible for them to proceed.

As has been previously described in news articles here on eFests (e.g. http://www.efestivals.co.uk/news/10/100319d.shtml), now Grassroots Feastival has been the latest to succumb to this change in attitude, Strawberry Fair, Big Green Gathering, UK Teknival and Thimbleberry falling before it to various efforts by the local authorities to prevent them from going ahead.

What does the panel (!) think about this and the possibility that larger festivals could come under threat? Is it ever conceivable that Glasto could find itself returning to the bad old days of playing cat and mouse with MDC's efforts to make the license stipulations unworkable? Does anyone think this might represent a clandestine change in official attitudes towards festivals in general by the police and / or government? Or perhaps you feel that the problems highlighted by the various authorities were perfectly justified in order to keep these festivals safe and properly managed and set an example to others.

http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news734.php

http://www.thegrassrootsfeastival.co.uk/

Essays no more than 2000 words . . .

[eFestivals]

Hmmm .... the problem with the fests you've named is that they all (as far as I'm aware) had 'issues' of some kind with their licences which are much more than simply "concerted legal and bureaucratic efforts levied against them in order to bring them to a halt".

For example:-

- Thimbleberry always had scant regard for at least some of the legalities around what it was doing.

- Strawberry Fair tried to circumvent the police's objections to their licence as it currently was, which was always going to lead to a police appeal by doing that (I've read the internal police docs).

- BGG had a whole range of things going on. If I'd have been the licencing officer I don't doubt that I'd have lost confidence in them to meet their licencing obligations, which is (from what I know) ultimately what appears to have happened.

- tecknival was unlicenced.

While I might not agree with the licencing regime as it stands (and I don't), it's simply unrealistic for any event to expect themselves to be able to operate outside of it. While they might get away with things for a while, sooner or later it's all going to catch up with them.

Nothing different to that was what happened with Glastonbury after 2000. Michael Eavis had continually said he'd do particular things, which then didn't happen. Eventually they as good as said "we don't believe anything you tell us any more, and we can't issue a licence to someone who will ignore its requirements".

Eavis was left with either giving up, or getting professionals in (Melvin Benn of Mean Fiddler) to run it who had more to lose than just the festival itself.

The whole premise of your post is 100% wrong. As is what scnews has written.

It's all very well thinking "I'm going to stick one to the man, maaan", but it's somewhat laughable that those people think that the man will never stick them back. The simple fact is that the law is on the side of the authorities, and if you want to play the game you have to play by their rules.

[anoldhippie@60]

I would hope that as Glastonbury now has its good reputation back and that no one complained at the new lisence that they would be big enough to overcome any H&S problems. I know that there a few tractors and that moving in around cleaning out the loos but I do not think that anybody has been hurt in any way They have done loads anyway to make it a safer place now.

[The Nal]

The simple fact is that the law is on the side of the authorities, and if you want to play the game you have to play by their rules.

[grumpyhack]

It's not about clamping down on fun. Festivals have a duty of care - as do licensing authorities. Quite rightly they have got to consider the worst case scenarios. It's not as though all festival goers are mature, sober, responsible adults. Festivals have also got to be able to take care of those who, for one reason or another, can't look after themselves.

[wweerr208]

is it the headline "health and safety gone mad"

or is it the fact we don't except preventable deaths/ crushes/ negligent people getting away from their responsibilities

it's all subjective and there is no absolute right or wrong

but my gut feeling the rules are a little ott at the the moment

[OneLittleFish]

I do tend to think that this kind of thing will lead to more trouble at festivals in the future - bigger queues and more intrusive searches to more people will make people more tense, and after a few drinks then it could potentially escalate to something bigger.

Perhaps that's what they want, but on the other side you can't understaff the security team of an event.

Personally, I don't think the balance has been too far off in recent years, but it does seem that there's been a gradual increase in the last couple of years. Hope that it doesn't continue.

[Pinhead]

Hmmm .... the problem with the fests you've named is that they all (as far as I'm aware) had 'issues' of some kind with their licences which are much more than simply "concerted legal and bureaucratic efforts levied against them in order to bring them to a halt".

For example:-

- Thimbleberry always had scant regard for at least some of the legalities around what it was doing.

- Strawberry Fair tried to circumvent the police's objections to their licence as it currently was, which was always going to lead to a police appeal by doing that (I've read the internal police docs).

- BGG had a whole range of things going on. If I'd have been the licencing officer I don't doubt that I'd have lost confidence in them to meet their licencing obligations, which is (from what I know) ultimately what appears to have happened.

- tecknival was unlicenced.

While I might not agree with the licencing regime as it stands (and I don't), it's simply unrealistic for any event to expect themselves to be able to operate outside of it. While they might get away with things for a while, sooner or later it's all going to catch up with them.

Nothing different to that was what happened with Glastonbury after 2000. Michael Eavis had continually said he'd do particular things, which then didn't happen. Eventually they as good as said "we don't believe anything you tell us any more, and we can't issue a licence to someone who will ignore its requirements".

Eavis was left with either giving up, or getting professionals in (Melvin Benn of Mean Fiddler) to run it who had more to lose than just the festival itself.

The whole premise of your post is 100% wrong. As is what scnews has written.

It's all very well thinking "I'm going to stick one to the man, maaan", but it's somewhat laughable that those people think that the man will never stick them back. The simple fact is that the law is on the side of the authorities, and if you want to play the game you have to play by their rules.

[eFestivals]

Personally I have no issues with the typical licensing requirements as required today by local authorities - as long as they are not artificially inflated as a cynical attempt to prevent a festival from going ahead due to other political motivations. It is the duty of each party to work together to achieve a balance and agreement. If you see no strong evidence from your persepective of this happening yet however, then that is good news for festivals.

The issues I have around licencing nowadays are mostly to do with the fact that it's now impossible for anything spontaneous to happen - unless something has been risk assessed, it can't happen as far as licencing is concerned. A great example of this is the Glastonbury World Cup for WaterAid that hogga and co arranged both last year and this year, where he had to submit a risk assessment for it to be allowed to go ahead. Does a kickabout in the local park require a risk assessment? Nope. Where's the difference? Nowhere.

As for what you say about "as long as they are not artificially inflated as a cynical attempt to prevent a festival from going ahead due to other political motivations", I agree entirely.

But I've yet to see an example of a fest being stopped on that basis - all of the events the OP listed are ones where there's definitely been IMO legitimate concerns about the licence (or non-licence in the case of Tecknival) from the point of view of the law as it stands in regard to licencing. It's simply been the case of those authorities carrying out their duty in law in regard to those licences - or at the very least, their duty in law as they (perhaps mistakenly) believe it to be.

The only one where I'm seeing the possibility of "political action" to stop a festival is with regard to BGG. But it's also the case that they were continually re-arguing over things that they'd already agreed to do for the licence, and the eventual effect of their manner would have IMO led the authorities to believe they weren't taking those requirements seriously.

It's possible that underhand means were used by the authorities to stop BGG going ahead, but from their side they need solid reasons to present to a court in the event of a legal challenge, and so might have manipulated the situation somewhat to ensure they had those solid reasons. If - as I believe to be the case - they'd simply lost confidence in BGG to do what was required in regard to the licence, then I guess it would be difficult to point to any one thing which gave them a strong enough basis in law for revoking the licence. This might well lead them to manipulate and contrive a situation which gave them that good enough basis in law.

But given that a council has a legal responsibility to ensure that everything that should be done is done, and that once people are turning up any event can become extremely difficult to stop, any contriving would have been done with the best intentions from the point of view of their own legal responsibilities.

It's certainly not the case - you only have to read the publicly available minutes of the many meetings to see it - that BGG were acting in a manner that would have inspired confidence in the licencing arm of the council, as they were not accepting that they should do many of the very standard things that are expected of festivals to gain a licence.

[Magma]

It already has, but it fights back amiably. Every year, people come on here asking for more to be banned...

[Pinhead]

"now impossible for anything spontaneous to happen" - quite agree that this has definately been one of the sacrifices Glasto has had to make in order to ensure a smooth license compliance report at the end of each fest, and have been going long enough to remember just how valuable that spontenaity was to the atmosphere of the whole event. I hope the H&S stipulations don't grow tighter until we are no longer permitted have fires and take beer anywhere around the site. If that point is ever reached, I would personally find it hard to differentiate between Glasto and most other gigs in parks etc. (albeit in size), which already enforce those rules, and that would be a shame.

[mrtutz]

is it the headline "health and safety gone mad"

or is it the fact we don't except preventable deaths/ crushes/ negligent people getting away from their responsibilities

it's all subjective and there is no absolute right or wrong

but my gut feeling the rules are a little ott at the the moment

[Pinhead]

I would never argue that H&S should not be taken seriously. My contention here was really whether there was a growing trend whereby recent H&S stipulations given to the festivals mentioned above (for example), had deliberately been made either impossible or unrealistic to implement, in the full cynical knowledge of the authroities that requested them, in order to serve their other interests relating to preventing the festivals from taking place. However, it seems likely that there is little evidence to suggest that this is the case, though it is something worth keeping an eye on I think as I don't believe any of us would want to return to the days when councils and authorities constantly worked against festival organisers to prevent them from going ahead.

[eFestivals]

I would never argue that H&S should not be taken seriously. My contention here was really whether there was a growing trend whereby recent H&S stipulations given to the festivals mentioned above (for example), had deliberately been made either impossible or unrealistic to implement, in the full cynical knowledge of the authroities that requested them, in order to serve their other interests relating to preventing the festivals from taking place. However, it seems likely that there is little evidence to suggest that this is the case, though it is something worth keeping an eye on I think as I don't believe any of us would want to return to the days when councils and authorities constantly worked against festival organisers to prevent them from going ahead.

But there isn't any growing trend. 100%, definitely not.

If you take the Grassroots Feastival that the scnews piece you've linked to talks about, the article goes on about them having been asked to install security watchtowers. Yet these have long been a stipulation for very many events (it was Eavis not doing them when he should have at Glasto prior to 2000 that was a part of Glasto's problems), and while the stipulation for them isn't consistent across all festivals, at the end of the day it comes down to the view of that particular area's licencing regime.

Particularly for a new festival, where the authorities have less of an idea about just how rowdy an event it might be than they would for an established fest, it's not hugely unreasonable for the licence to require them - they give a view of what's going on that it's impossible to get from another angle, and if the site layout is done in particular ways where there's narrow walkways or whatever, they can play a big part in the most basic control of crowd movements. They're not necessarily just about spotting trouble at a fest that just won't have it.

I'd much prefer overall that there were standard requirements for all fests across the country so that things like this weren't sprung on particular fests merely because of the location they're in, but the downside of that would likely be that all fests would be required to have watch towers, because at some events they are very definitely needed.

Any licencing authority has to (from the point of view of safety) cover their own arse with the requirements they stipulate - it's a symptom of the "I'll sue your arse off" society we're becoming. And from that it's quite likely that if it was you that the buck stopped with for the safe regulation of fests, you'd want to cover your own arse too.

At the end of the day each festival team has to be able to convince those people that they're fully upto the job of running a festival safely, so even within one area the requirements made of different organisers might differ. The more confidence the team can inspire in themselves to the licencing authority, they less stringent the licence is likely to be. Not all festivals are equal!

[Pinhead]

I accept from what you have told me that my original contention that there was a growing trend is incorrect. However, one point you just have made about the watchtowers is interesting - can smaller festivals really be expected to be able to comply with such a complex and expensive infrastructure requirement? Many don't have anything like the resources that Glasto has for such installations, yet festivals such as Reading / Leeds don't seem to be hounded into compliance with any such stipulation. Could this not be seen an example of the authorities deliberately setting the bar too high?

[stuartbert two hats]

Schnews is the Daily Mail of the left. Full of reactionary outrage. They may report some facts that don't get mainstream coverage, but they're basically too angry to be trusted. Pity.

[eFestivals]

I accept from what you have told me that my original contention that there was a growing trend is incorrect. However, one point you just have made about the watchtowers is interesting - can smaller festivals really be expected to be able to comply with such a complex and expensive infrastructure requirement? Many don't have anything like the resources that Glasto has for such installations, yet festivals such as Reading / Leeds don't seem to be hounded into compliance with any such stipulation. Could this not be seen an example of the authorities deliberately setting the bar too high?

It's a while since I've been to Reading fest now, but as far as I remember it has watchtowers - it's certainly the case that when WOMAD (a much more mellow fest in comparison) was on the same site (with the same licencing regime) it had to have watchtowers.

And of course the number of towers required will be proportional to the size of the site, which is proportional to the number of people a fest attracts - and so the proportional costs to any fest will be around the same amount. So it's not really correct to say it's a complex and expensive requirement.

The only place within everything that can have them regarded as unnecessary comes down to the differences in requirements by different councils - because some say they're almost always necessary while others take the view that they're mostly not necessary. But as I've said, if there was a country-wide consistent view taken for all fests then I'm almost certain it would be that all fests have to have them - so pushing for consistent requirements countrywide is likely to impact on more fests than happens now.

[Pinhead]

Yes, it surprises me that there appears to be no country-wide festival site license framework that is distributed to local authrories upon which they can base their decisions and requirements, especially when there seems to be a growing number of festivals around these days.

[eFestivals]

as i point out above, national regs would be a bad thing and not a good thing - it would have each fest implementing the most extreme requirements when many don't need anything so harsh.

[Pinhead]

There's a new quango to be created out there somewhere - the National Festival Infrastructure Consultancy (NFIC). Would be quite a good private contract consultancy job role too I would have thought . . .