peaceful hippies at local rave attacked by........

Former Member

Thats really interesting, thankyou!

Former Member

Senor Miguel wrote:

........
, it was in its second day and growing a bit and what tipped the police off was a copule of disgruntled neighbours moaning that some people had parked all down the access roads and some in the resident spaces

parents are gonna find out their children who went out camping for the weekend got attacked by police with teargas and they'll want to know what happened,

So it was growing a bit more, access roads were blocked so yeah lets all let these hippies enjoy their rave...fuck the people whose access roads were blocked :thumb:

These parents you speak about cant be that bothered, not if they are letting their children camp out all weekend. Children should be safely tucked up at home in their own bed !!

Former Member

The CJA is perfectly correct in what it spells out and what it doesn't. At least in this instance.

The simple fact of the matter is that raves do damage property, and their presence does make the local community feel threatened. Why should the local community have to put up with the rave just so the precious feelings of a load of drugged-up wideboys don't get hurt, and they can have a snort along to 200BPM music played at 50,000 decibels?

I can tell Aladdin doesn't live in the country. When I'm at the in-laws I can hear the cars in the nearest village, which is five miles away. So how far away from people is far enough? There aren't many raves held more than five miles from the nearest house.

If we're going to argue about democracy then lets see what more people want- the violent stoners to fuck off home, or to be kept awake all night by people trashing their land.

Skive

Kermit wrote:

The simple fact of the matter is that raves do damage property, and their presence does make the local community feel threatened. Why should the local community have to put up with the rave just so the precious feelings of a load of drugged-up wideboys don't get hurt, and they can have a snort along to 200BPM music played at 50,000 decibels?

I can tell Aladdin doesn't live in the country. When I'm at the in-laws I can hear the cars in the nearest village, which is five miles away. So how far away from people is far enough? There aren't many raves held more than five miles from the nearest house.

When you don't have permission it really isn't an argument. If you get discovered and the land owner wnts you off, you should go.
The problem is the police behave in exactly the same way even when you do have permission.

I do live in the sticks.
It's alright for the local steam rally, and 60's gigs for the old timers to go on all night down in the village, but not for young people to gather and listen to music.
As I've said I've witnessed police turn up in riot gear and sieze equipiment off land we have permission to be on, when there's been less than 150 people having a incident free evening.

Former Member

Naturally it depends on the circumnstances in each case. Like I said before if the land owner has given permission or the rave is in public land, and nobody is going to be disturbed, the rave should go ahead.

Sound travels better or worse depending on local geography and environment. I have been in villages that were far less than 5 miles from a busy A-road and even in the middle of the night you could hear precisely fuck all. I doubt anyone could hear much if a rave is held in a wooded area or forest a few miles away.

Former Member

Jim V wrote:

Ahem... Greek democracy (or Athenian where it originated) was founded on the election of officals, anyone could stand for office and or suggest measures to be voted on - or to exile someone for suggested bad ideas. The officals still handled the day to day running.

In particularly voting was carried out by people writing on stone who they wanted to vote for - naturally most people couldn't write (though enough could read) - so supporters would write the stones out for people and hand them out to sway the voting.

To be fair it was mainly a reaction to the growing number of tyrants would had been overthowing the traditional Greek Aristocracy - by enfranchising the essentially 'middle class' land owners and dividing land amongst small land owners it meant more people had a say - the old aristocracy lost some power but not as much as from a tyrannical overthrow. The growth of the hoplite army that required more landowners to remain committed to the army also reinforced the need for the old rulers to find an alternative to alienating political processes of old.

It's also widely agreed that the defeat of the Persians - a mainly slave army - by the Greeks was the result of the newly enfranchised population having more to lose and fighting harder than in the past.

Of course, the poorest couldn't vote, nor could slaves, nor could women who spent most of their time banned from leaving the home. And it's worth noting in case anyone mentions it, that many people did write against slavery at the time - dismissing the point that people simply didn't know any better.

So Athenian democracy was a huge step forward in the development of public representation - but don't be swayed into thinking of it as an idyllic period or perfect democracy, it had as many flaws as any other system of government - something that only become further magnified as it spread to other city states.

sorry -lecture over

Thanks for the bitch slapping there Jim!
I was just saying, back then they had a system of majority rule where each farmer, town, village, community or whatever sent people to represent them and in one big massive system they elected their leader for the day or week with a majory vote and everything after that was majority vote...i still...i get the point it was not majority rule at all.

Former Member

Skive wrote:

It's alright for the local steam rally, and 60's gigs for the old timers to go on all night down in the village, but not for young people to gather and listen to music.

The big difference being that the steam rally and the folk gigs are organised, and someone is responsible if it all goes wrong.

If a rave was properly organised, with local people being given a chance to veto it, then I would have no problem with them. But raves by their very nature are not properly organised within the law, and they do not give the people affected any say. They just turn up, knacker the land and keep everyone else awake all night. An organised rave would be a festival, something I have no problem with.

It's all about being considerate to others, and raves are inherently inconsiderate.

Skive

So were not allowed to have parties on our own land then?
That's fucking stupid.

Former Member

Don't think Kermit's saying that.

Skive

Sofie wrote:

Don't think Kermit's saying that.

But that's what happens.

My mate lives and runs with his old man a paintball place. It was well in the woods, wasn't overly loud, a non profit event yet the jenny got seized.

Out of order in my opinion.

I used to go to a lot of parties put on by a crew called Tribe of Locust. Some of the parties were well inside the Forest miles form anywhere. One of the lads involved used to workd for the Forestry and had keys various gates all over the forest. It meant we were never caught, and that every trace of us was removed by the time we left - as it always has been at every free party I've ever attended.

There's generally onyl ever triuble when the police start throwing their weight around.

Former Member

Define "party" though. 200 strangers in a field isn't a private party, consent of the landowner or not.

And yes, if you are causing a nuisance to others the police should be allowed to come in and shut you down.