View Full Version : Cannabis Festival Licencee Charged
Maybe a concerted bout of faxing/letter writing to the council could be called for here?
The 6th Annual Cannabis March and Festival News Release
Cannabis Festival Licencee Charged
10am Wednesday 26th November. Court 3 Tower Bridge Magistrates Court,
Lambeth Council have summonsed Shane Collins, Cannabis Carnival Licencee and Green Party London Assembly candidate, to Tower Bridge Magistrates Court, 211 Tooley Street, at 10am Wednesday 26th November.
The charge is over licensing violations at the Cannabis Carnival held on 4th May 2003 at Brockwell Park, Brixton. The Council allege a sound system was turned on 9 minutes after the licence permitting it and alcohol was sold 13 minutes after the time permitted.
If the festival is found guilty then Lambeth Council will have succeeded in stopping the march and festival happening in Lambeth. Mr Collins will be pleading not guilty. Witnesses will be called.
The free event, which was attended by 10 - 15,000 people, was one of 318 happening on the same day around the world. The organisers will be putting on the 6th annual march next 8th May 2004 and hopefully a free festival as well.
In taking this action the Council are in effect threatening one of the organisers of a free event with imprisonment and stopping the event happening next year in Lambeth.
Shane Collins, Licencee and Green Party London Assembly Candidate said "This was a free event to protest at the continued prohibition of one of natures most useful plants
and a call for the huge trade in cannabis to be regulated and legalised.
Reclassification will simply ensure the this trade remains in 'criminal' hands where disputes get settled violently and not through the small claims court..
This event is about getting dealers off the streets and into cannabis cafés.
Scores of people worked, unpaid, for six months to bring this event together. In a sane society we might be applauded, instead the Council is spending taxpayers' money to
prosecute me for our efforts'.
Notes to the Editor.
Maximum sentence for the licensing violations is 6 months prison and £20,000 fine.
Cannabis May Day marches took place in 318 cities world wide and are planned for May 8th 2004.
The 1997 UN Drug Report put the trade in illicit drugs as the third largest in the world after oil and arms.
The charge is over licensing violations at the Cannabis Carnival held on 4th May 2003 at Brockwell Park, Brixton. The Council allege a sound system was turned on 9 minutes after the licence permitting it and alcohol was sold 13 minutes after the time permitted.
Oh for fuck's sake!
:mad:
guinnessdrinker
25-11-2003, 16:54
it's not as if it was a blatant and deliberate offence, any way. so many pubs do that, keeping open for a few more minutes for their regulars (and I am not talking about lock ins). how could he ensure that everyone obeyed on the dot at closing time? looks more like an attempt to stop the annual march.
Down with Lambeth Council!
Save the annual march!
Lucy Fur
25-11-2003, 17:21
petty fuckers. you'd think Lambeth Council might have a few more serious issues to be diverting its time to.
:mad:
Please post up email addresses and postal addresses for protest. Also what about an online petition Mike? Could you set one up?
lang rabbie
25-11-2003, 17:40
Courting unpopularity (again), just what is going on here?
Archived story from 1999 "NOT GUILTY for Green Candidate Charged Over Cannabis Carnival!" (http://www.urban75.org/archive/news079.html)
In that earlier 1999 case, it was clearly a stupid line for the council to try to hold Shane as licensee responsible for the actions of a few members of the crowd, and the magistrates were absolutely right to chuck it out.
In this case there does seem to be a real issue - which is well understood to any of us who have run an open air event. If you have a license that says when the bar must close, you're required to keep to it so that the crowd disperses causing less hassle to the neighbours. You normally plan things in advance with Lambeth and the Met so that the bar closes half an hour before the last act on your music stage.
Moreover, Lambeth's licensing team are usually notoriously reluctant to incur the costs of taking applicants to court [see posts passim]. Mangling Wilde horribly:
To be up before the bench once for licence violations is a misfortune, to be charged again looks like carelessness.
I really would like to believe that Shane isn't stringing Lambeth officers along - in the hope of obtaining publicity for his election campaign along the lines of the 1967 Times leader that punishment was a "primitive" impulse to "break a butterfly on a wheel". However, the tone of the press release makes me wonder...
It would be a high risk strategy, as despite some earlier posts on his relative fanciability v. Kate Hoey, I don't think that Shane is quite as much of a poster boy for drugs reform as Mick Jagger was.
"I really would like to believe that Shane isn't stringing Lambeth officers along - in the hope of obtaining publicity for his election campaign along the lines of the 1967 Times leader that punishment was a "primitive" impulse to "break a butterfly on a wheel".
I'm SURE that's not true. I've been round his house months ago and he's discussed being worried about the council's attitude to the Festival and that this summons was imminent. If the publicity is good for him and bad for council pettyness then that's justice IMO.
steve indigenou
25-11-2003, 19:32
Anyone who thinks that the Green Party are any different in their approach from the other political parties is sorely mistaken.
To suggest Shane would NOT take every advantage to milk as much publicity from this is a bit of a joke. Publicity is his life-blood, that's the line pf business he's in. The same applies to his conviction for cultivation, which he did a very good job of milking to the max. Not to my taste but certainly effective politics.
Why else do you think he mentions the fact that he's a 'London Assembly Candidate' in his press release. Is it relevant to the issue surrounding the licence ?
On that issue, this incident has to be seen it its wider context. The new Lambeth adminsitration, the removal of Paddick, and the reluctance of the Council to have Brixton come to be seen as the Drugs capital of London. There's a discussion going on in Council circles about the branding of Brixton and they certainly don't want it to be too closely associated with Cannabis. Mostly because he does very little to engage with the day-to-day running of the Council in key areas (such as the Brixton Area Forum), Shane holds little influence with the Council, who probably see him for what he is and have grown weary of his repeated (and real) licence breaches. So yes, they are taking the opportunity to squash the festival, as they probably can't see how Lambeth benefits from it.
The solution would be to reach out to the wider community who would benefit from a more progressive drugs policy and convince them of the merits of the festival. But Shane doesn't do this. By the wider community, I mean people who don't gop to the festival and wouldn't consider themselves part of the Underground.
I once asked him why he doesn't reach out more and instead focuses on the already converted underground. His resonse was most revealing.
" Because the underground is where the trendy young people are." Whether or not Shane is trying to hang on to his receding youth is perhaps as valid a question as how many Green Party votes there are to be found in the trendy underground. But in terms of building a broader coalition to support meaningful change in Lambeth, as the results show, his strategy is not working.
Steve
Also, Shane doesn't mention it, but could the fact that the toilets were not delivered for the festival have something to do with the licence breach ?
:confused:
Originally posted by steve indigenou
To suggest Shane would NOT take every advantage to milk as much publicity from this is a bit of a joke. Publicity is his life-blood, that's the line pf business he's in. The same applies to his conviction for cultivation, which he did a very good job of milking to the max. Not to my taste but certainly effective politics.
Shane helped put together a fantastic festival for the benefit of tens of thousands.
And it didn't cost £15 a head either.
What a load of bollocks! :mad: all blown out way out of proportion. 13 bloody minutes. Big fucking deal.
You sound very bitter and angry Steve. Have you tried chanting?
Originally posted by steve indigenou
Also, Shane doesn't mention it, but could the fact that the toilets were not delivered for the festival have something to do with the licence breach ? You seem almost happy that the festival is running into trouble.
If it does go down the pan, when can I look forward to seeing your 'synergetic' bunch hosting a free festival for the people of Lambeth, with over 10,000+ people enjoying bands, stalls, speakers, Indymedia/SchNEWS stalls, food, cafés and kids areas?
Or are you only interested in paying punters?
It wasn't Shane's fault that the toilets contractor failed in his duties either.
So what if he does try to further his own political profile as well as doing stuff that's good for the community. I don't think that's incompatible. If people like the things he stands for then publicity for him is publicity for those causes too. And it didn't take much to "milk to the max" his experience of Brixton prison did it? Right was on his side. The law was shown to be ridiculous.
Shane's Shane. He's not perfect but he's more than alright IMHO.
Steve, I think you're right tho when you talk about the council and their desire to brand the area in certain ways only and squash this festival. However, you're personal enmity with Collins shows in your posts.
lang rabbie
25-11-2003, 22:14
Originally posted by lang rabbie
I really would like to believe that Shane isn't stringing Lambeth officers along - in the hope of obtaining publicity for his election campaign along the lines of the 1967 Times leader that punishment was a "primitive" impulse to "break a butterfly on a wheel". However, the tone of the press release makes me wonder...
I've looked at this again, and what I wrote may appear overly cynical - I suspect Shane genuinely does believe that the council are being oppressive to him.
IMO, what he has failed to realise is that in this litigious age you just can't run a free festival for 10,000 people on a shoestring and goodwill and hoping it will be all right on the night.
My personal experience is that with an alarming lack of people willing to volunteer both with organisation and stewarding such events, (both for campaign events or even community festivals involving their own kids!), more and more work is being thrown on to a very few organisers, which is bringing their future viabiliy into question.
Most councils (not just Lambeth) and the Met Police, see any event in an open space as a potential public liability claim waiting to happen. I don't think I'm exagerrating to say that you now need £5million cover just to hold a teddy bear's picnic for toddlers, backed up by a safety plan for the event.
I can understand why Lambeth's licencing officers may be concerned that Shane is not credibly backed up by an organisational structure that could cope if the next festie was on a sunny day, there were a few thousand more people, and if they all had another drink or two because of a lax approach to bar hours.
I would be really concerned if the council is trying to use this prosecution to "prove" that he is not a fit and proper person to run a future event.
aurora green
25-11-2003, 22:22
I heard the festival's moving to Burgess park, Southwark next year anyway, which I think is a good thing, give Brockwell a rest, after all it wasn't always held there.
Shane works hard putting on this free festival, no sponsors, no advertising, prefering to work with underground sounds and grass roots protest groups.
I'm saddened he's being dragged through the law courts yet again.
lang rabbie
25-11-2003, 22:33
But that's the problem - without
(a) an influx of 50-70 committed volunteers willing to give up at least half of the day to the dull grind of stewarding while remaining sober(ish); or
(b) 10 - 15 grand from evil monopolistic corporations, or even a fluffier sponsor such as Rizla [ who, my learned friends hasten to add have no corporate stance on cannabis legalisation, and would just be supporting smokers rights in general ;) ] to pay for set up labour and security, I don't see a future for an event of this sort.
Shane's sound - he'd get my vote.
Originally posted by hatboy
It wasn't Shane's fault that the toilets contractor failed in his duties either
But it was his responsibility.
Originally posted by Ol Nick
But it was his responsibility. FFS: he helped put on a fucking excellent FREE festival.
If you like your festivals turned out like a smooth-running corporate event, I suggest you dig deep in your pocket and attend the cash-raking, rip-off events of the Mean Fiddler.
There are barely any vaguely 'alternative' free festivals left in London (the Deptford Urban Free has gone, as has the Hackney Homeless), so what's with all these digs and whining about a few missing toilets at the Cannabis Festival?
It was a fantastic day out. It was free. Over 10,000 people went there to enjoy the free acts, stalls, talks and events. It made an important political point about the support for the decriminalisation of cannabis. Moreover, it was a fucking great day out, all for nowt.
And seeing as steve indigenou has elected to steam in with another of his irrelevant, off topic personal attacks on Shane Collins, perhaps he might tell us what free festivals he's put on for the people of Lambeth?
The more I read his comments and personal attacks here, the more it sounds like the touchy-feely, hippy-dippy 'mission statement' on their website is nothing but empty posturing.
He'd do well to consider building bridges and concentrating on the positive rather than churning out bitter, irrelevant grudges.
You would have thought that there would be considerable synergy between his project and this site, but his conduct here has put me right off.
The charge is over licensing violations at the Cannabis Carnival held on 4th May 2003 at Brockwell Park, Brixton. The Council allege a sound system was turned on 9 minutes after the licence permitting it and alcohol was sold 13 minutes after the time permitted.
what a bunch of petty wankers. is that all they could pull him up for?
as for moving it to burgess park, really? whilst thats geat for me (just down the road) can see it being so great for the atmosphere. its a crap park.
Originally posted by editor
FFS: he helped put on a fucking excellent FREE festival.
Sure, but though it's free in the sense that the punters don't pay, it not free in the sense that it doesn't cost anything. It costs the organisers lots of time and effort of course, but it also costs the Met, the parks department and the environment department to look after it. It costs them to keep an eye on things, to clean up and to assume liability for injury to third parties. It just does - you can't get round it.
I didn't see Brockwell Park after the cannabis event but Clapham Common was a broken-glass covered shithole (I mean more than usual) after they put the TV cricket on there. Cricket for fuck's sake. And that cost a fortune to clea up. Those events last year on the beach at Brighton were the same.
Anyway, I reckon the council is well within its rights to make sure these events stick to the rules. If not, they could be sued themselves. Much as most of us on these boards like to see these events, the majority of Lambeth residents would probably rather see them happen somewhere else. I'm sure Southwark would be ideal.
Originally posted by Ol Nick
Sure, but though it's free in the sense that the punters don't pay, it not free in the sense that it doesn't cost anything. It costs the organisers lots of time and effort of course, but it also costs the Met, the parks department and the environment department to look after it. I pay for all that with my taxes, thanks. And happy to do so.
But what about the immense amount of money brought into the area by the tens of thousands of hungry/thirsty punters?
You seem to be arguing against all free festivals on the grounds of bureaucracy and a bit of litter.
What about the people who can't afford to fork out great wads of cash for ghastly corporate Mean Fiddler events - because if you don't let free festivals take place, that's all that's left.
Anna Key
26-11-2003, 11:00
Originally posted by steve indigenou
The new Lambeth adminsitration, the removal of Paddick, and the reluctance of the Council to have Brixton come to be seen as the Drugs capital of London. There's a discussion going on in Council circles about the branding of Brixton and they certainly don't want it to be too closely associated with Cannabis.
This came over (to me) very strongly with the recent "Brixton Expo" (or whatever it was called).
Business-led, anti-politics i.e. no mention of the long traditions of radicalism and activism in Brixton, but trying to be 'hip an trendy' by packaging Brixton as a "centre for creative and cultural industries.'
It was dreadful, cynical, money-grubbing, Brixton-lite, nonsense.
If Lambeth Council and their business friends are attempting to bollock Collins and the Cannabis Festival in pursuit if this agenda then Collins should get full support, and make whatever political capital he wants out of the exercise.
1) Some people don't notice the difference a free festival makes to poorer people. :mad: Pay your £15 for a fenced off event if you like. Plenty of people can't afford it. So what if the JayDay costs the Met and the council money, that's part of their job - to facilitate stuff for the people.
2) No more personal comments about Shane - final. It's not fair as Mike said. Further personal stuff will be removed. (And yes I know I contributed too but that's enough now).
3) "Destination Brixton" (while it could develop to be much better) wasn't all bad Anna Key. Remember the excellent poetry night at Plan B - a good night out and a range of talent from across the community:
http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/rocks.html
http://www.urban75.org/brixton/features/destination.html
Originally posted by Ol Nick
Much as most of us on these boards like to see these events, the majority of Lambeth residents would probably rather see them happen somewhere else. I'm sure Southwark would be ideal. why would southwark be ideal? nimby attitude or something more? :confused:
Brixton Hatter
26-11-2003, 12:55
I didn't see Brockwell Park after the cannabis event but Clapham Common was a broken-glass covered shithole (I mean more than usual) after they put the TV cricket on there. Cricket for fuck's sake. And that cost a fortune to clea up. Those events last year on the beach at Brighton were the same. Well that's the difference in the type of people that these events attract. After the event in Brockwell Park, the park was reasonably clean and most people had used the rubbish and recycling bins - and there were litter pickers to clear up what was left (and I'm believe I'm right in saying that the organisers paid for the litter pickers).
This is a complete contrast to the disgusting state that the park was left in after the "purple radio" and "Aussie" pay events held over the jubilee weekend in summer 2002.
It doesn't surprise me that the cricket fans on Clapham Common left a load of mess. Different sort of people innit.
Lambeth Council seem to want to move this "problem" out of the borough at any cost - perhaps they think it's tainting their "image"? Petty fuckers. They should be concentrating on getting our services sorted, not taking people to court.
Brixton Hatter
26-11-2003, 12:59
Ol Nick said Much as most of us on these boards like to see these events, the majority of Lambeth residents would probably rather see them happen somewhere else. I'm sure Southwark would be ideal. Who are these "majority of Lambeth residents" then? And when did they tell you they wanted rid of the festival? I don't know how you can make such a sweeping generalisation. The festival causes NO major problems, there were a tiny number of arrests (I would guess no more than on a usual Saturday) and most local people who didn't go would probably notice little difference to their saturday.
So what's the problem? I'd say it's Lambeth COuncil.
Sorry I haven't found them myself. But email and postal address please anyone?
I'm sure many of us would write to support the festival and Shane. :)
[Too many to quote. Waah. javascript:smilie(':eek:')]
Any road up, what it comes down to is loads of you guys like free festivals and believe the council should subsidise them. (Through clean up, licensing etc.)
I reckon (anecdotally, with out any demographic or psephological proof) that lots of other people -- older people, more conservative people -- don't much like them and don't much want to pay for them. The council seems to be taking these people's view against yours. If you think that there's good support for your point of view then you should be able to find some councillors to support you. Having said that, if you're given a licence for something like this, it's stupid to break its terms because it gives your enemies the legal ammunition they need.
Me, I rarely go to these festivals myself, but I'm all in favour of you chaps having a great time at them at some small expense to myself, but I've met lots of people who aren't.
guinnessdrinker
26-11-2003, 16:26
I heard the festival's moving to Burgess park, Southwark next year anyway, which I think is a good thing, give Brockwell a rest, after all it wasn't always held there.
yipee!
why would southwark be ideal? nimby attitude or something more?
if they don't want it, it's their loss and our gain:)
Originally posted by Ol Nick
Any road up, what it comes down to is loads of you guys like free festivals and believe the council should subsidise them. (Through clean up, licensing etc.)
The council subsidise loads of events. Are you against all of them?
Originally posted by Blagsta
The council subsidise loads of events. Are you against all of them?
None of them. You didn't quote that bit of my post. I bet you can find people who think they're a waste of money, though. Whether there are more people who like subsidizing the event sor more who don't I dunno. That's why we elect a council. to sort these things out.
DJWrongspeed
26-11-2003, 20:28
ol nick seems to be suggesting the council fund this in some small way. I don't think this is really a cost, it's so part of maintaining the park and policing Brixton, we all pay for it anyway over a year.
Incidentally i think my brother-in-law is one of these opponents to the festival in terms of being a resident and resenting it but really he doesn't have any case. A bit of noise on a saturday afternoon......this is london ffs.
It's a celebration of soundsystem culture, of which us Brits should be proud, As the years have gone by the Cannabis bit has become less important, it's like some kinda Rite of Spring..........ha! long may it continue.
lang rabbie
26-11-2003, 20:47
10am Wednesday 26th November. Court 3 Tower Bridge Magistrates Court,
So what happened at this morning's hearing?
Brixton Hatter
27-11-2003, 12:43
ol nick wroteAny road up, what it comes down to is loads of you guys like free festivals and believe the council should subsidise them. (Through clean up, licensing etc.) I may be wrong but I dont think the council actually subsidise the festival at all. The organisers pay for the clean up, the organisers have to pay for the licence - the council actually MAKES money from this event - and so does the local area through increased use of pubs, shops, off licences........ weed dealers he he ;) The police are paid for anyway through our council tax.
Streathamite
27-11-2003, 14:36
Originally posted by hatboy
Sorry I haven't found them myself. But email and postal address please anyone?
I'm sure many of us would write to support the festival and Shane. :)
to echo this: can some kind peeps PLEEEZ put up the URL for the festival's organisers' website, or some email link. This festival MUST be defended and continued. Time for talking stops. time to act STARTS.
I'm new to this thread very late, but I concur with everything that Mike (in particular) said and with what all those who are pissed off with Lambeth's attitude said.
I've no objection to it moving to Burgess Park ;) :D and unlike Rollem I don't think it's that bad a park at all -- plus add a few sound systems and general festie atmos. and it would be transformed.
But -- aurora, where did you get that rumour from?
I'm not THAT confident though that Southwark would be all nice and easy going about it , the narrow minded nimby element round here is pretty vocal locally. And I think the Police in Southwark would be less laid back, too.
Anyway Southwark vs Lambeth is not the real issue just now, the most important, pressing question is ...
WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF SHANE'S CASE???
Will post more about this soon. I'm very concerned at yet another possible threat to our much diminished free festival culture :mad:
W of W
guinnessdrinker
27-11-2003, 18:29
I've no objection to it moving to Burgess Park and unlike Rollem I don't think it's that bad a park at all -- plus add a few sound systems and general festie atmos. and it would be transformed.
a very good park, indeed..:) but yes there is a lot of rather petty mindedness around that might make it difficult to organise.
RE: Cannabis Festival Court Case
The Council dropped the charges of sale of alcohol, - it was being given to crew as a thankyou for working.
The charge of permitting music and dancing has been postponed until 21st Jan 2004 on a legal point.
Lambeth Council had four employees as witnesses, the Borough Solicitor and a barrister in court all day. All at a cost of thousands to Lambeth Council Tax payers.
For the festival Oz Wuncshe from Trojan, Paul from SLS, Shane Collins licencee, Dave Holman sound system co-ord, and Hugo Farmer Bar co-ord all gave evidence.
The free event, which was attended by 10 - 15,000 people, was one of 318 happening on the same day around the world. The organisers will be putting on the 6th annual march next 8th May 2004 and hopefully a free festival as well.
In taking this action the Council are in effect threatening one of the organisers of a free event with imprisonment and stopping the event happening next year in Lambeth.
Shane Collins, Licencee and Green Party London Assembly Candidate said
"This was a free event to protest at the continued prohibition of one of natures most useful plants
and a call for the huge trade in cannabis to be regulated and legalised. Reclassification will simply ensure the this trade remains in 'criminal' hands where disputes get settled violently and not through the small claims court.. This event is about getting dealers off the streets and into cannabis cafes.
Scores of people worked, unpaid, for six months to bring this event together. In a sane society we
might be applauded, instead the Council is spending taxpayers' money to prosecute one person for our efforts'.
Re Cannabis Festival Licence Court case part Adjorned part dropped.
A few points on the festi and court case.
Sat 8th May 2004 will be the 6th annual cannabis march and festi. The Council do NOT subsidise the event. We pay the Council £5,250 for use and about £3K for an ents licence. (Last year they started off trying to charge us £24k).
In the Court case The Council dropped the toilet charge some weeks ago and in court the selling of alcohol 13 mins after time. (They were being given to crew in return for helping out).
The legal point of 'is a licencee responsible for everything that happens on the day' has caused the court to adjourn to 21st Jan. The Council allege a sound system turned back on 8 mins after the Entertainment Licence ran out. Evidence was given that two lads steamed the SLS decks after they had been turned off and the compromise was they played out the one tune and no more.
btw the Bars closed at 7.30pm. Sound systems at 8pm Main Stage 8.15pm. Park closes 8.45pm.
The suggestion that me or anyone in the festival engineered this court case as a way of getting publicity for the green party assembly election campaign or festival is simply misplaced. The march and festival are enough of a 6 month headache for us without bringing more on....... - as well as being taken to court by Lambeth we are persuing in the small claims court just under £5k from the loo hire company who never delivered the loos after we paid him. He may have gone bankrupt.....
But since they have taken us to Court it provides an opportunity to make the legalisation points, and complain about the Council wasting our money on prosecuting festival organisiers instead of housing or cycle lanes or advice centres or even putting on events. And yes this frustration can also be expressed politically at the gla & euro elections next year.
Feed back and debreif from last years festival was not brillant. We felt their was too much noise and competing sound systems. We failed to have more cannabis related Marquees. So next year we are only inviting 4 soundsystems, and plan to have a Grow Tent, Cannabis College, bigger Speakers Tent, bigger kids area, Poetry ....
We are considering marching from Kennington Park to Burgess Park next May 8th. Lambeth is pricing us out and the Court case will make it harder to get a licence next year.
Streathamite
28-11-2003, 08:29
thanks for keeping us up to spec ShaneC (um, is there any practical point in observing strict netiquette, when it comes to "board names only" here? ;) ) - and please keep the info coming. Now how about PMing me with contact details for the Jayday office, or putting the URL up here, assuming you want volunteers?
just one point tho-I've only walked past Burgess park, as opposed to through it. but I can't help thinking it doesn't really look big enough for Jayday.
aurora green
28-11-2003, 08:46
Burgess park is an excellent place for the festival.
I went to that Julian Marley thing there in the summer and it was great. It reminded me of the old Exodus fesival site,
Approached from Walworth road, you walked down a long and entertaining walkway, that had a funfair at the time, but could easily accomodate smaller stalls and cafes, then onto the huge field, where the main stage and bigger tents could go. The local housing is much further away from the noise than in Brockwell park too.
I also think it is bloody outrageous that Lambeth are wasting our money on this petty prosecution.
freethepeeps
28-11-2003, 08:50
I also think it is bloody outrageous that Lambeth are wasting our money on this petty prosecution
P'raps a visible demo outside the court on the 21st might help??
Brixton Hatter
28-11-2003, 13:24
well fair play to the organisers and a big FUCK YOU to lambeth council - a good result.... so far.
If LBL want to pursue someone thru the courts, why don't they go after the Living Bar? (see here (http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61489) )
lang rabbie
28-11-2003, 15:37
Dope festival chief denies violations (http://tinyurl.com/wwc0)
The SLP haven't managed to get anyone from Lambeth to explain why they are pursuing the prosecution, but the judge's comments suggest that Lambeth's licensing team have as much explaining to do as Shane!
Just some thoughts:
Lambeth Council profit from one of the biggest entertainment centres in South London. Are councillors as strict on all the clubs and bars from whcih they receive vast amounts of business rates (and probably even campaign contributions)?
Is anyone a bit suspicious of the fact that in the same year that someone "tips off" the drugs squad that Shane is some big-time dealer/cultivator, the council first try and price shane et al's cannabis festival out of Brockwell Park, and then when this fails they (for the second year running) try to prosecute the festival on every single thing they can find in the book (sound/toilets/alcohol/litter/public order etc etc)?
Can anyone remember the council getting all serious after Tim Westwood was shot after their own Lambeth County Show? Do they police the paying events in the park which have seen massive sound levels, portaloos being overturned (yuck), heavy machinery and vehicles wrecking the place and the park being fenced off and unavilable for local residents for long periods of time? Have they fuck!
I'd like to know whether any of the people on this thread that have been making insinuations against Shane have any party political affiliations by any chance? Also do they have any evidence that he has *ever* run anyone up the wrong way? Anyone who knows him will be able to tell you that he doesn't do this - he is a peacemaker and a reasonable person who doesn't pick fights or seek to piss people off on purpose. To suggest otherwise is just bollox. It is also slanderous to say he doesn't participate fully in local life, although why going to what some people would view as simply "micky-mouse council talking shops" is the criteria to use is beyond me.
This last observation comes from someone who tried to be constructive and helped run the Lambeth Environment Forum for three years before seeing it pissed all over by the council and for them to rip up almoist every single promise they made about their LA21 action plan.
Regarding whether people who vote Green in Lambeth are just the "trendy underground" ... firstly they have to be registered, secondly they have to go and vote, and thirdly out of these people, in Lambeth 15% regularly vote Green in local/regional/Euro elections, and about 5% in General Elections. I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions from that.
On the subject of politics - it is the Lambeth Conservative party that is the most pissed off with the Green Party - since they are now the fourth party after the Greens in 14 wards in the local elections, and only have their six councillors thanks to atypically (for Lambeth) strong showing in two wards: Thurlow Park and Gipsy Hill (coincidentally neither one anywhere near Brockwell Park).
What has this got to do with the council going after Shane and the festival? Well it is no real secret that this attack has been led by the conservative councillors, and in particular Cllr John Whelan.
The LibDems (29 seats) and Conservatives (6 seats) have formed a pact to run Lambeth Council. (Labour - - in opposition - have got 29 seats). Peter Truesdale (Liberal Democrats) is now leader of the council and John Whelan (Conservative) is deputy.
Is it too much to speculate that instead of actually doing anything useful for Lambeth, Cllr Whelan is trying to distract Conservative Central Office away from their woeful election results with this blast of hot air and shameful waste of council tax money on a politically-motivated and frivolous litigation? I can only assume that the LibDems have allowed this as it keeps their coaltion buddy Conservatives sweet and out of any real council affairs.
I have noticed that some people have mentioned their doubts about the ability of the current cannabis festival organisers to run these events. But this is something that is required to be proved to the licensing authorities *before* the event. Granting a license each year and then vindictively prosecuting afterwarsd each time suggests the licensing authorities are being "schizophrenic" to say the least.
At this point I'd like to reference the Friends of Brockwell Park website... http://www.brockwellpark.com/Event02/Event02.htm
You will notice that they are up in arms about the mess and destruction caused by .... large event [which] took place in the first weekend of June [ie NOT the cannabis festival!] (it isn't clear how up to date this is - it could be referring to 2002? - but the principle remains - the cannabis festival has *never* caused damage like this - unlike several other events!)
http://www.brockwellpark.com/Event02/Ev02parkmud02_626x469.jpg
So much for the council giving a shit about the park and local people. They care about money and their political careers. There may be some decent local councillors - from various parties - I'll let them speak for themselves (if they are allowed to!)
Several people have claimed that "most local people" don't like the event, or that it "isn't good for Lambeth". The only real way of knowing how much the local people disliked the event is to find out how many complaints there were about it (relative to other events etc). I don't have the figures, but apparently there were actually a lower number about the cannabis festival than any of the other events in Brockwell Park during the year! So much for the local dislike! :rolleyes:
Sorry this has been such a long post.
Here's a link to what might or might not be "official" festival site: http://www.ccguide.org.uk/
(the actual official site was http://www.ccguide.org.uk/cannabisfestival.html but it is now a broken link)
DJWrongspeed
29-11-2003, 08:30
Does anyone know who we should email to complain about this misguided use of Council funds in pursuing this daft court case?
I'm outraged to say the least.
Cllr Peter Truesdale maybe? (leader of the sorry bunch of ******ers)
guinnessdrinker
29-11-2003, 11:08
but I can't help thinking it doesn't really look big enough for Jayday.
oy! don't slate my local park! it is a BIG park capable to hold the mother of all Jaydays:) .
Update:
RE: Cannabis Festival Court Case
The Council dropped the charges of sale of alcohol, - it was being given to crew as a thankyou for working.
The charge of permitting music and dancing has been postponed until 21st Jan 2004 on a legal point.
Lambeth Council had four employees as witnesses, the Borough Solicitor and a barrister in court all day. All at a cost of thousands to Lambeth Council Tax payers.
For the festival Oz Wuncshe from Trojan, Paul from SLS, Shane Collins licencee, Dave Holman sound system co-ord, and Hugo Farmer Bar co-ord all gave evidence.
Mr.Bishie
29-11-2003, 14:22
Originally posted by freethepeeps
P'raps a visible demo outside the court on the 21st might help??
Amen to that! Fuck work, i'll be there.
Keep on keepin' on Shane - keep it green.
Superb post there TeeJay. What are the emails to best direct protest too?
steve indigenou
29-11-2003, 15:52
First of all, qualified apologies for the all to transparent bitterness towards Shane that comes across in my posts. While TeeJay thinks him a great guy, I (and others I have worked with) have had bad experiences with him.
{edited: so he says, no more Collins slagging allowed}
But my main issue with ... some other people who post on this board, is the never ceasing negativity of many of the comments.
I'm never going to pretend that Lambeth Council is perfect and if the info about the Tory plot to harm Shane and the Lambeth Green Party is true then it deserves to be opposed. However, from my experiences, there are good people working in Lambeth, not necessarily at Councillor level, but certainly in the Regeneration department, who have responded very supportively in our discussions with them.
My main gripe is about representation - that the alternative scene in Brixton and Lambeth does not engage with people who, at first glance, might be considered to be unsympathetic but who can be brought round using the right methods.
The issue of festivals in Lambeth came up at a meeting of the 'Creativce and Cultural Industries Working Group' back in May. The point was made that festivals are a very good way of raising awareness of Lambeth outside of the borough, supporting local business and community groups etc. I mentioned that I didn't think that the Lambeth Country Show was good value for money in these terms, particularly as it was run by an event management company based in Portsmouth. Other members of the community agreed and it was resolved that it should be looked into.
Yes, the machinery is laborious, and it does require a degree of patience and resolve to make any progress, but I am getting tired of how relations between the council and the alternative scene in Lambeth always seem to be characterised by conflict, when this need not be the case.
..... It's much easier to slag off 'The Council' as bastards than to understand why they're doing what they are doing and do something to address their concerns. Of course the 'Council' is not a monolithic institution. Not so long ago, the deputy-chief of the regeneration department told me he used to act as an informal consultant for anti-globalisation groups in Bristol, and proceded to help us with our proposal for the new centre. Why? Because we explained how what we were doing would benefit the young people of the borough. So, not all the Council are bastards and to suggest they are is irresponsible, though perhaps politically more convenient.
What we need in Lambeth is a more mature form of representation and politics that seeks to build alliances with people outside our narrow circles. With Cannabis for example, all the effort should be going into convincing local people who a change in the law will benefit them, reducing crime in particular. Instead, it seems to me, the Cannabis festival is more of a self-indulgent celebration of the ganja culture, which for me is more about preaching to the converted than winning new converts.
I used to be a member of the Green Party, until seeing how it was run in Lambeth made me realise my time would be better spent elsewhere. The manifesto is excellent, but I have found that they have problems engaging with ordinary people, which is why even though many people join the Green Party each year, few of them renew their membership.
{personal opinion presented as the council attitude to the Greens removed}
Regarding the council.... I still think it's fair to say that this 'them and us' attitude is of little use in addressing the concerns of the swathes of people 'out-there' whose support is needed if any meaningful change can be brough about.
But maybe it's just easier to smoke a few spliffs in Burgess park, rage against the machne and pretend that it makes a difference.
Steve
Steve, I agree with you to some extent about not being too negative and about good people in all walks of like. However it as as up to the council to engage with the so-called underground, and the ordinary and the marginal. They have to try to understand too you know. And people do get fed up with being "consulted" by the council and then ignored.
On the subject of Shane. I now know one of the main reasons why you have a personal problem with him and I think you better drop it on here now. You may come across as bitter. I said earlier that I thought this was all getting too personal about him and told people to stop.
Therefore your further comments on Mr Collins have been removed from the above post.
Please do not post any more about him. Thankyou. :)
johnny v
29-11-2003, 16:38
2) No more personal comments about Shane - final. It's not fair as Mike said. Further personal stuff will be removed. (And yes I know I contributed too but that's enough now).
shane stands for elections and is a public figure
is all personal criticism of those who seek to govern us unfair ie bush, blair, sharon
or is it just mates of the editor who get this treatment...
big up to steve, i worked on ganja day for 4 years (resigned last year for reasons im happy to outline if you mail me personally) and i know exactly where your coming from
incidentally there is no website for the festival - ccnews is an independant magazine
there used to be a website but the web manager walked off the festival (whod initially started the meetings and the processes that led to the first festival on clapham common in 1999)
as did the publicity team (whod been involved for the last 4 years)
and the march organiser (for the last 2 years)
and the sound system co-ordinators (2 of them from last year refused to have anything to do with the event)
and pretty much the whole cannabis coalition (who set the festival up and invited shane to be a part of it)
oh yeah and the health and safety manager (of the last 4 years)
nothing to do with shane im sure
(but then of course it seems like i wouldnt be allowed to say that on this site anyway)
johnny v (chimaerasound@hotmail.com)
Steve said:
"Because we explained how what we were doing would benefit the young people of the borough."
And how exactly does it?
"What we need in Lambeth is a more mature form of representation and politics that seeks to build alliances with people outside our narrow circles."
This is a bit pompous and presumptious. Would you like to explain to me who is in my* "narrow circle". Do you know everyone I know then? Speak for yourself.
*or anybody's really.
I'll leave that comment Johnny V, taking into account your views on censorship and "mates of the editor".
But PLEASE keep this discussion more general now. You've both said your piece on Shane Collins.
Please...... :)
(And yeah, maybe there is censorship here occasionally. Any moderator has to use their own discretion. But I did say myself that I don't think the sun shines out of Collin's arse. I think some criticisms of him are legit. I do like him tho and I think that's enough now. If you don't like my decision then tough, it's not up for debate).
steve indigenou
29-11-2003, 17:08
Thank you Jonny,
at last some truth is emerging.
Hatboy - yes you now know one of the reasons why I have such a profound dislike of Shane but to think that this is the only reason is to make a big mistake. The main reasons are those outlined by Jonny, and the other reason is just another manifestation of the original ones - the tendency to take over other people's dreams and visions and claim them for your own.
Read what Jonny says well, do you think that the Cannabis festival was Shane's idea ? No, loads of other people used to work on the project (I even worked alongside Shane on the pro-cannabis campaign for some time).
Shame on you for your censorship. Shane is an important public figure and should not be shielded from criticism in the way you are doing.
You gonna censor this too ?
Steve
Originally posted by hatboy
Superb post there TeeJay. What are the emails to best direct protest too? Go straight to the top:
Councillor Peter Truesdale (Lib Dem Leader of the Council & Cllr Bishop's Ward)
c/o Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW
tel: 020 7582 5798
email: ptruesdale@lambeth.gov.uk
surgery:
* 2nd Wednesday 6.30-7pm Waterloo Action Centre, Baylis Road SE1
* 4th Wednesday 6.30-7pm New Briant TA Room, Ground Floor, Briant House, Hercules Road, SE1
Councillor John Whelan (Conservative Deputy Leader of the Council & Cllr for Thurlow Park Ward)
c/o Members' Room, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW
tel: (020) 8244 9265
fax: (020) 7926 2845
email: jwhelan@lambeth.gov.uk
surgery: * Every Saturday 10.30-12.00 noon, Dulwich and West Norwood Conservative Association, 495 Norwood Road SE27 (020) 8670 0677
* Last Friday of every month, 4.30 pm - 5 pm, Rosendale Road Peabody Estate Office meeting room - (This surgery is the SE24 end of Rosendale Road) - commencing 28th June 2002.
Or maybe write to South London Press? Or both? :confused:
Or maybe people can suggest other ideas for protest or lobbying... maybe something that will embaress the people concerned to back off and pick some other issue to entertain themselves with. Obviously this all depends on what you think really motivates these people. Maybe the approach will be different for the Lib Dem people and the Conservatives.
Another tack would be to get someone friendly from the Labour party "opposition" make an issue of this. I'm sure one of them would get a kick out of it ... what with an election year coming up and everything. ;)
Originally posted by johnny v
or is it just mates of the editor who get this treatment... It's never OK to post up seriously defamatory comments about people, especially if those being attacked haven't the right to reply.
And that applies whether they're 'mates' of mine or not.
From the Posting FAQ:7. Racism/personal abuse/defamatory postings/gratuitous swearing etc is not allowed. We welcome lively and robust debate and have no problem with swearing (where appropriate) but posters using these forums to re-enact infantile playground battles will be clipped around the ear by the milk monitor. Please respect people's privacy and refrain from posting up personal details without their permission. Remember the admin team run this site in their own time and for no profit, so unprovoked or sustained personal attacks may result in a ban - show some respect for their hard work!
Originally posted by steve indigenou
...I have such a profound dislike of Shane ....Shane's...Shane.... blah blah blah You're getting a bit obsessive now, and it's really fucking boring.
steve indigenou
29-11-2003, 17:35
Mike,
look at the original title to this thread : "Cannabis Festival Licencee Charged "
This thread is about Shane, or can't you see that ? You posted the thread Mike, I responded.
Just because some people (and not just me) haven't fallen for the predictable "save Shane !" response, and have come up with criticism about the guy, doesn't make what I am saying defamatory.
Nothing I have said is defamatory, and judging from Jonny Chimera's post, it seems what I say resonates greatly with what other people feel too.
You don't like me slagging of your mate ? You want to stifle discussion about one of Brixton's most public alternative figures ? Do you consider a discussion of Shane's poltical methods as inappropriate discussion material ?
Yes, I do enjoy tackling a few issues and when I see other people who have experienced the same exploitation as I have posting in support of what I say, so that other people who are not Shane's mates can see the other side of the story, then I think the effort is not wasted.
On no occasions have I used abusive language (in contrast to your style) and I have not made any allegations that I cannot back up fully. Shane has come on the board to defend himself once, let him do so again in response to what Jonny is saying.
Or would that be too boring for you ?
Steve
A couple of points:
"the tendency to take over other people's dreams and visions and claim them for your own."
I also think he does do this sometimes. But I don't know how intentional this is or that it makes him such a bad person. I haven't got any more to say about it really.
However, it's not quite right to say he cannot respond Mike. He can respond, he is registered on u75 but has chosen not to respond.
Enough now though eh?
:)
steve indigenou
29-11-2003, 18:19
Hatboy (who comes across as more and more balanced as the discussion progresses) :
The answer to your question is yes, it does make him at the very least a severely flawed person if he goes around hijacking other people's dreams and visions, particularly if they've invested considerable emotional and physical energy in them. It's called exploitation, which is surely incompatible with the status of a leader of the 'alternative' movement which seeks to address the ills of the world caused by capitalist exploitation. The word hypocrite springs to mind.
You should contact Jonny Void to read his more detailed explanation of why he resigned from the Cannabis festival. Apparently there's more info besides too...
As should you Mike. When you read it, maybe you will question whether what I am saying is so defamatory after all. I've suggested to Jonny that he post an edited version for all to see, as it's really very informative on these issues.
Issues that need resolving if the alternative movement in Brixton, and the Cannabis Festival (the subject of the thread) is to move forward.
Not swept aside, Hatboy and Mike.
Steve
"But PLEASE keep this discussion more general now. You've both said your piece on Shane Collins".
And:
"...maybe there is censorship here occasionally. Any moderator has to use their own discretion. But I did say myself that I don't think the sun shines out of Collin's arse. I think some criticisms of him are legit. I do like him tho and I think that's enough now. If you don't like my decision then tough, it's not up for debate".
What is the point of me saying this? Jeez. Please respect it now.
Originally posted by steve indigenou
Issues that need resolving if the alternative movement in Brixton, and the Cannabis Festival (the subject of the thread) is to move forward. What's this "alternative movement in Brixton", then?
I've never heard if it. Who's in it?
Originally posted by steve indigenou
It's called exploitation, which is surely incompatible with the status of a leader of the 'alternative' movement which seeks to address the ills of the world caused by capitalist exploitation. What 'alternative movement' is Shane a 'leader' of?
Who's in it?
And who elected him?
And who, where and what does he 'lead'?
And while you're at it Steve could you answer these previously asked questions too:
Steve said:
"Because we explained how what we were doing would benefit the young people of the borough."
And how exactly does it?
"What we need in Lambeth is a more mature form of representation and politics that seeks to build alliances with people outside our narrow circles."
This is a bit pompous and presumptious. Would you like to explain to me who is in my* "narrow circle". Do you know everyone I know then? Speak for yourself.
*or anybody's really".
Don't mention Shane in answers to my questions. Mike's question above will require you to mention him ONCE again (nice work Mike!), but mine don't.
Talking of 'censorship' Steve, you may want to censor this thread (http://www.thesynergyproject.org/forum/view_message.asp?messageId=159&f=0) on your bulletin board. It's a money making scam.
With all this good advice, I really am being a thoughtful and generous chap, aren't I?
lang rabbie
29-11-2003, 19:51
Some quick responses to matters raised by TeeJay
Originally posted by TeeJay
Lambeth Council profit from one of the biggest entertainment centres in South London. Are councillors as strict on all the clubs and bars from which they receive vast amounts of business rates (and probably even campaign contributions)?
I’d suspect Lambeth actually loses out in cash terms– for the last decade business rates have been paid over to a central Government pot. Meanwhile the Council has extended street cleaning in Brixton (in theory) to eighteen hours a day.
There was a period in the mid-nineties when Lambeth bought the notion that a 24 hour club and bar based economy was the only route to salvation of Brixton, and many people had suspicions that only “pro-nightlife” councillors were selected by the party whips to sit on the licensing committee so that the council’s “anti-business” reputation would be lost.
In more recent years (and I think it predates the change of administration) Lambeth’s licensing committee has been tougher on licensees (though nowhere near as puritan as Westminster), and they’ve been willing to go to court to defend turning down late night licences.
I’ve never heard a serious allegation that a politician or licensing officer has been “bought” by a club owner, although (unproven) allegations have surrounded individual town planning officers about bar/club conversions. There is a serious question over how competent some of the licensing officers are – reinforced by their inability to bring all the evidence along in the current Cannabis Festival case!
Originally posted by TeeJay
I'd like to know whether any of the people on this thread that have been making insinuations against Shane have any party political affiliations by any chance? Also do they have any evidence that he has *ever* run anyone up the wrong way?
My own old fashioned liberal affiliations are well known from other postings. I’m not cheer-leading for Lambeth, just pointing out that anyone organising an event faces the same licensing hassles.
Originally posted by TeeJay
Is it too much to speculate that instead of actually doing anything useful for Lambeth, Cllr Whelan is trying to distract Conservative Central Office away from their woeful election results with this blast of hot air and shameful waste of council tax money on a politically-motivated and frivolous litigation? I can only assume that the LibDems have allowed this as it keeps their coaltion buddy Conservatives sweet and out of any real council affairs.
Unlikely to be to please Conservative Central Office – it might make sense as a strategy if the Tories are serious about expanding out of their Norwood Nationalist confines by appealing to the instincts of those Poets Corner/Herne Hill residents who don’t want any events in Brockwell Park.
If the LibDems were complicit in a politically motivated prosecution, then I’d be amongst the first to say it stinks.
Originally posted by TeeJay
I have noticed that some people have mentioned their doubts about the ability of the current cannabis festival organisers to run these events. But this is something that is required to be proved to the licensing authorities *before* the event. Granting a license each year and then vindictively prosecuting afterwards each time suggests the licensing authorities are being "schizophrenic" to say the least.
The issue (as I well know from running events on open spaces over the last fourteen years, and organising anti-roadbuilding marches what feels like a lifetime ago) is that you if you are running something like this on a voluntary basis it is one thing to say to the authorities we have X volunteers to steward, maintain backstage security, help with litter collection etc. etc. etc. – and quite another on the day it always transpires that some of them fail to turn up. The pisser is that as licensee, or as the Met’s nominated organiser of a march, you are personally responsible for the failure of all those friends, supporters, bullied, cajoled and press-ganged individuals to turn up on time or stay until the bitter end.
The explanations that were given in court for the breaches may well mean that Shane shouldn’t be held criminally culpable, but they still raise a lot of questions about whether the current arrangements for the festival can guarantee to deliver an event that is both safe and fun.
It's a shame this thread has descended into score settling in respect of Shane Collins, who seems a reasonable enough type whenever I've met him. Sure, he's a politician but that in itself doesn't damn him utterly.
The real issue is why is the Council using what seem to be petty issues to undermine the Festival, following on attempts earlier in the year to impose crippling charges. And do to so in a way that will incur considerable cost to the local taxpayer.
There may well be a diversity of views in the borough as to whether the festival is a "good thing" and as to whether it is properly resourced. In which case those views should be properly made and debated in the Council chamber - that way we can see where our elected representatives stand, and cast our votes accordingly next time round.
As it is, it appears that officers working on the instructions of some (unnamed) councillors are using back door methods to achieve their objectives.
Ive read nearly all this thread.A few comments.
1)Steves argument that people should engage with Council via Brixton Forum. I used to go to Forum meetings until I got sick of not being listened to by the Council.I can well understand why Shane does not go down on that route.Consultation is a two way thing.The Council uses it for its own benefit-see my report on the Secondary School thread about the Forum meeting on a new school posted up Sat
2)I remember going to a Herne Hill ward Brixton Forum meeting a few years ago(I was in that ward before the boundary changes).The issue of the Cannabis Festival came up.The people speaking wanted to now why the Council was supporting a Cannabis Featival as Cannabis is illegal.The meeting was dominated by middle englanders who wanted to stop the Festival full stop.
3)The case against the Licensee.I find it sick making that the Council have pursued this case so vigourously when places like the Living bar and the old Dogstar dont/didnt get such close scrutiny.Its obvious thats this is politically motivated to stop the Festival.Whether Shane runs it or not IMO the present Council is out to stop it.
4)I agree with Anna on this.The "Brixton Expo" and "Cultural and Creative" need to be treated with the upmost caution.I think their is something in what Anna says.Such free feativals(and Mike is right their are only a few left in London)are not totally under the control of the Council and their "consultative" bodies.It does not fit with the image that the Council wants for Brixton.Intersted in Lang Rabbies comments on the licencing committee as that was my experience as well at the time.
5)I do try not be personal in my posts but if Steve Indigenou has views on how someones politics is pursued thats a valid debate.Its gone on on the Fitchett thread recently.Shane can reply if he wants.The posts Steve has put up here and on Synergy show the problems in doing things in an alternative way and how to be Deomocratic about.Also the problems of "going mainstream" and keeping ones credibilty.
Originally posted by Gramsci
I do try not be personal in my posts but if Steve Indigenou has views on how someones politics is pursued thats a valid debate.I'd love to, and I could, debunk a lot of what he said, but I don't even want to dignify his accusations with a serious reply or drag lots of details into a public forum. It is important to understand that Steve has had a long running problem with Shane, and more recently has fallen out in a very big way over a *personal* issue, which involves other people, is a private matter and which is really noone's business to discuss here, believe me.
While I'd like to let Shane speak for himself, the problem is that steve has now also made several accusations that directly concern several groups for example the Green Party Drugs Group and the Lambeth Green Party, with which a lot of people have put in a lot of hard work. I am not going to stand aside and listen to him shit all over these people's achievements due to his own personal-motivated grudge, and will be coming back on several of his claims and accusations very soon.
I am not bothered by comments about Shane's “style” and I am not going to talk about the details of the personal dispute ("dispute X") mentioned as it involves (an)other person(s) and is a private matter, but I want to set the record straight regarding Shane’s honesty and about the Lambeth Green Party and the Green Party Drugs Group.
Originally posted by steve indigenou Cooltan did not have a formal structure and was hijacked by Brixton's Favourite Politician, who is said (by people I know personally who were involved in the project) to have re-directed funds in an informal way to support his own activities because the accounting systems were insufficiently transparent to prevent him from doing so. As I understand it you were not involved in CoolTan (1991 to 1995). Originally posted by steve indigenou I was not involved in Cooltan, but went to their parties I was not involved with CoolTan either, and I first met Shane through the Lambeth Green Party, which was sharing offices with Ecotrip in the squatted Jan Rebane Centre in 1997. I did a massive amount of stuff with him from then until 2001. I do know that Shane was still doing stuff with Ecotrip right up until at least 1998 (I helped out too) so whatever this second-hand gossip about "re-direct[ing] funds", it is strange that that many of the same people were still working with him, and I never heard anyone accusing him of theft, which you seem to be.
Many people are probably now wondering exactly what you are talking about? Are you in fact saying that Shane was asked to set up a CoolTan info stall/resource centre, given a budget, ordered some Green Party leaflets for re-sale without first telling everyone? A disagreement about the political content of an infostall along with clashing egos ensues? Or *what* exactly? Surely if you *do* actually have a good case against someone you wouldn’t be shy about setting out *explicitly* what they are meant to have done! Which you have failed to do - preferring generalised phrases like "corrupt practises". I can only assume that this is the centre-piece of your case since you go on to say the following:Originally posted by steve indigenou I was ... the founder of Ecotrip, which kinda followed Cooltan in Brixton and had first hand experiences of funds made at parties being directed towards purchasing Green Party publications without the knowledge or consent of the other members. I was the one who audited his accounts and found the discrepancy, which he had tried to cover up. I am also reliably involved by people who WERE involved in Cooltan that similar things took place then.
So basically you are saying that Shane is "corrupt" because he ordered some stuff for an Ecotrip infostall which you didn't agree with politically? Presumably he had been tasked with putting together the infostall? Was he told specifically to check with all the other members about every single leaflet or publication that he ordered for the infostall? Had he been specifically ordered to *not* get Green Party stuff? Was any of this this stuff for sale (ie the price would be recouped)? Did anyone else actually have any useful input to make on the info stalls at all, or was this all just bitching after the fact and yet another clash of egos and excuse for people to get one up on each other? BTW – who *did* all the money to start up Ecotrip come from in the first place?
It is also strange that you yourself were still proposing to do stuff with Shane up until very recently - 2001 or 2002 was it? This sudden decision to denounce Shane as corrupt doesn't have anything to do with "dispute X" that has occurred since then has it? I mean why wait 8 years to denounce Shane over CoolTan – and about something that you have only heard about at second hand?
Originally posted by steve indigenou Yes, he's ripped me off (more than once) and Synergy is, to a certain, extent, inspired by his dodgy and corrupt methods to implement a more ethical and sustainable alternative.Really? Care to actually enumerate any of these "rip offs"? Or is that just another careless turn of phrase? It's true that Shane can drive a hard bargain and also could blag for England, but all the time I worked with him (about five years all in all) I never saw him rip someone off. My experience is that if he owes money he always comes good on it, and it'll take more than someone with a personal grudge to effect his reputation with the hundreds of people who deal with him, for example at festivals, events and other things.
Originally posted by steve indigenou Anyone who thinks that the Green Party are any different in their approach from the other political parties is sorely mistaken.I must be sorely mistaken then! For a start the GP is not funded by the unions or big business (or any type of business really). It is funded by annual membership fees, which currently stand at: waged £28.00, low/unwaged £9.50 and student £4.00. Much of this goes to towards the national office and wages of a handful (3 or 4 maybe?) of staff. A bit comes back to local parties, but generally local activists typically put their own money in to keep things running or raise it somehow. This means taking *every* opportunity to generate publicity with no money for billboards or glossy colour leaflets. Also journalists always focus on named people/faces who they get to know, even when this doesn’t reflect the Green Party internal structure – it is the only national party with no “leader”.
The Lambeth GP isn’t just Shane - at the last local election Lambeth GP had 27 people standing across all 21 wards in the borough. He has never been the "leader" of Lambeth GP - no such position exists. There is a treasurer, membership secretary, and election agent. You are confusing it with the Green Party Drugs Group (GPDG), which *is* run by Shane and isn't the same as the local party. He does much of the voluntary work for the Lambeth GP, but his main focus has always been the GPDG and he is the *national* spokesperson for the GP on Drugs - so this makes total sense. He gets himself into the media as much as possible to promote the Green Party policy nationally even to the detriment of winning himself a seat on Lambeth Council, on the London Assembly or in Europe. I have also been there when he argued on standing firm on the drugs policies when others wanted to avoid the tabloid heat on the GP and backtrack on them. He spends less time in endless meetings than many other “political” types - something which is to his credit - preferring to actually *do* stuff. In effect he has operated as an unofficial GP "youth wing" and the idea of talking to otherwise cynical and non-political club-goers, for example doesn’t have the immediate "pay-back" for Shane as courting middle-class Nimby-type voters in his own ward but in the long run is something that switches people back onto politics. The people at festivals won’t vote for Shane in Tulse Hill but they might become politicized.
Originally posted by steve indigenou in terms of building a broader coalition to support meaningful change in Lambeth, as the results show, his strategy is not working.Again you are confusing a national policy on a single issue (drugs) with the local GP. In any case, you obviously don't realise that Dulwich and West Norwood recieved one of the highest GP votes in the country in the last General Election, and that in Lambeth in local, Euro and Assembly elections the Green Party is regularly getting around 15%. Hardly a failure! True - it has yet to translate directly into council seats, but the GP is second only to Labout or the LibDems in several wards and if there was actually PR in local elections we would have a significant number of councillors.
Originally posted by steve indigenou Shane holds little influence with the Council, who probably see him for what he is and have grown weary of his repeated (and real) licence breaches.If you really have any evidence of licence breeches I suggest, seeing as you are on a mission to denounce Shane, you go and tell the court about them. I doubt however that your evidence would fare any better than the rubbish that the council seems to trot out every time it actually gets to court (whoops - I forgot my notes (again)). You also mention the toilets - despite the council having dropped this from their case after taking legal advice. Have you been studying some law books then?
Originally posted by steve indigenou I used to be a member of the Green Party, until seeing how it was run in Lambeth made me realise my time would be better spent elsewhere. The manifesto is excellent, but I have found that they have problems engaging with ordinary people, which is why even though many people join the Green Party each year, few of them renew their membership.
I can’t remember exactly when and for how long you were a member but as Lambeth GP membership secretary between 1997 and 2001 we had a fairly solid and gradually increasing membership base. The biggest factor in losing new members were delays in getting their names and details from national office meaning someone's initial enthusiasm could be lost. Shane never made people feel any less than welcome, and all members were invited to all meetings and everyone had an equal vote on everything. There are in fact a lot of issues and challenges regarding how to effectively build support and win local elections, and I'd happily discuss them if I was't convinced that you are just looking for almost any way to knock Shane.
johnny v
01-12-2003, 13:34
Surely if you *do* actually have a good case against someone you wouldn’t be shy about setting out *explicitly* what they are meant to have done!
don't tempt me...
Any comments from Shane or supporters?
steve indigenou
01-12-2003, 18:57
Wow, an impressively detailed post...
Ok TeeJay, you asked for specifics, here they are.
In about Janurary 1997, a meeting of the Ecotrip collective was held at the Porden Road squat and it was resolved that an audit of the accounts (kept by Shane) should be made and until the audit was completed, no further cheaques would be signed. Shane and his girlfriend Chloe were the two signatories on the chequebook. I was assigned the job of doing the audit.
Over the next few days, I ploughed through the books, coming across a number of errors and, to my dismay, a cheque for about £500 signed by Shane and Chloe on the day after the meeting. It was to pay for Green Party publications for the Ecotrip stall, in direct disregard for the unanimous decsion of the wider group.
It was not possible to recover the money and the fact that Shane and Chloe had acted in this way prompted the departure of certain key members of the group. The stall was not Shane's respnsibility, but was run by Theo, who now runs Comtech.
Whatever words you use to describe this, 'embezzlement, misappropriation' or whatever, it highlights Shane's tendency to assume that his interests (and those of the Green Party) are those of those working around him. He is a charismatic guy, but one who has not learned that a more plural approach would sustain the involvement of those around him, such that the projects he works on would not lose good people all the time. Have you checked Jonny Voids post about the no of people who have left the Cannabis festival ? His letter of resignation is very informative and supports my experience and comments.
This is the extent of my experience with Shane, but is supported by many of those who have worked with him since. I would also like to point out that :
my greivances with Shane predate the personal issues of which some are aware by about 5 years. Please don't be so gullible into thinking that the ONLY reason I have a grievance with him is because of this personal issue - though this also demonstrates his modus operandi perfectly.
It's also totally untrue to say that I have been seeking to work with Shane since we parted company in Ecotrip in July 1997.
TeeJay, I am surprised we don't know eachother. I founded Ecotrip and was one of the three coordinators (with Shane and Chloe) in the Jan Rebane Centre throughout Ecotrip's time there. Ecotrip was constantly troubled by people complaining about Shane and Chloe's management style and their failure to consult properly with people before taking key decisions that affected us all.
My understanding of the Cooltan experience is informed by discussions I have had with key people involved, namely Steveidge, Paula and Precious. My understanding of his work with the Green party is informed by my direct experience of him and through discussions with others such as Ryan, Tim, Sarah Green, Tony Maloney and Gareth. I know what happened up at the Greenhouses, as I have seen the letters of complaint from Green Adventure people about the turn of events and I have read with interest Jonny Chimera's account of how Shane has hi-jacked the Cannabis festival.
Funny thing is, in a way I only wish Shane would learn more progressive management techniques as we would all benefit from some Green Party representation. I personally have learned much from him, as I too made similar mistakes when I was starting out.
Do you still deny that I am not alone in making these points about Shane's management style ?
Steve
Steve, whatever the rights and wrongs of this I opened this thread again to allow Shane and people who would disagree with your views on him to come on here and say their piece.
Do not post on this thread again until Shane has had his say. That is fair. If you do your posts will be deleted without further explanation from me.
Thanks. :)
steve indigenou
01-12-2003, 19:30
Ok, about this issue of engagement with authority.
I do agree with those who say that the whole consultation process is not an easy one. Council officers do have a tendency to be lazy and pay lip-service to what they consider to be the marginal concerns of the alternative fringe. This means that the whole process of consultation and engagement is a laborious one, requiring much persistence and resolve for it to be successful.
However, if you read some of the policy documents, such as the Urban (or is it Neighbourhood) Renewal Strategy, you will see that in policy terms, there is much we have in common with 'The Council' and if the right approach is adopted, then they can become aware how working in partnership with people like us can be in their interests. Also, participating in the community fora can help build alliances with other people in the community who you wouldn't otherwise meet. On many occasions I have spoken up, been dismissed by Council officers, only to see loads of more mainstream commuity people pile in to support what I have said. Building these kind of alliances is a key need for anyone wishing to have a significant impact at local level.
The first challenge is credibility - breaking down their images of us as hippies, squatters or whatever negative images they may harbour. Being properly constituted, having a well documented track-record of delivery, particularly if it benefits the wider, and not parochial, community and showing that you follow 'best practice' in terms of how you manage your affairs, particularly money, then you can enlist their support.
You cannot wait for them to come to you. They already have their existing network of 'community' groups, that while not necessarily that representative, are nicely established and easily on hand. Though they regularly have an underspend in terms of some funds they adminster, they do not bother to do any outreach. This is their failing, but creates the environment in which we are working, like it or not.
My points about 'narrow circles', 'the Green Ghetto', and the 'alternative movement' are informed by about 3 years working as a squatter and a protestor. Because it takes a lot of effort and time, non-one bothers to reach out to authority, partly as it involves a more pragmatic approach than many of the more ideologically inclined prefer. Many feel profoundly alienated from the mainstream, but this alienation can also breed an alienating attitude on 'our' part, which completes the vicious cirlce.
The process of getting the £41k from the Council for the Centre has been woefully laborious, but as they are giving us this much money, who can complain ? We have also learned shed loads about their way of thinking, which has prepared us well for our future efforts to engage with them.
One of my big grievances from the old days was that it was impossible to pay good people who were putting in hours and hours of good work, because it was always assumed that people would work for free and would support themselves by signing on. This then maximised the amount of money that could be put toward more overtly poltical work that benefitted the more overtly politically inclined.
In my experiences in running the small arts education charity, Indigenous People, and more recently with the Synergy Project and Centre, an area that needs vital prioritising is that of mundane admin, such that the people doing it need to be paid. Unless this happens, you cannot sustain the work and people bugger off. Things like engaging with Council are very mundane but can ultimately be very rewarding, such that time and money invested can be very fruitful.
As for how the wider community will benefit from the Centre, Hatboy, I believe I've sent to a copy of the proposal which describes this is considerable detail.
Though this does not answer all the questions, I hope it makes some progress. I can only speak from my experience, which covers both ways of working, against or in cooperation with authority. Though it has been a very demanding challenge, I have no doubt that the strategy of cooperation and engagement is by far the more fruitful.
But in oder to be able to do it, you need to have a team of good people, with whom you regularly consult to insure they feel as if they have a stake in the project and not assume that what's in your interests are necessarily those of those you are working with.
Steve
steve indigenou
01-12-2003, 19:34
Hey,
can't you see that TeeJay is speaking on Shane's behalf ? He is clearly a close colleague of Shane's and has access to info that can only be known from having worked with Shane over a long period of time.
My comments were in direct response to his questions, as was the other post in response to yours.
Please, try not to be so heavy handed. It's partly your (and Mike's) procedural interventions that have raised the heat at times. There's alot of useful stuff coming out, let if flow.
No more until TeeJay comes back...
Steve
I guess you were writing while I was telling you off there Steve. DO NOT POST ON THIS THREAD AGAIN until Shane has a say.
Originally posted by steve indigenou
Please, try not to be so heavy handed. It's partly your (and Mike's) procedural interventions that have raised the heat at times. You may have the run of your own tumbleweed-strewn, whisper quiet boards, but don't think you can steam in here and start telling the admin team how to act.
Originally posted by steve indigenou
can't you see that TeeJay is speaking on Shane's behalf ? He is clearly a close colleague of Shane's and has access to info that can only be known from having worked with Shane over a long period of time. I am *not* speaking on Shane's behalf. I did work closely with Shane between mid-1997 and 2001, but I haven't even spoken to him about the contents of this thread (yet) - I haven't spoken to him for several weeks. I was not around when the alledged events regarding CoolTan and Ecotrip were said to have occured. My main reason for saying what I did was
1. To defend the integrity of the Lambeth Green Party and Green Party Drugs Group (with which I have been very involved) - they are not, and have never been, in any way, shape or form "corrupt" or "dishonest".
2. To stick up for Shane, who I consider a friend and who I know to be, while not perfect, an honest and kind person.
I've already said what I wanted to say on this matter in my previous post and in fact it isn't really my place to go into this any further.
sinclair
02-12-2003, 09:26
As event manager for the cannabis festival since its inception in 1999, I have read this thread with interest. Perhaps I should say that the role of event manager is handling the licensing, health and safety of the event, running it for its one day duration working with the authorities, stewards and security, gates etc, booking all the major contractors ( inc the toilets!) and planning and managing the budget. Whereas my role is concerned with the production and practicalities of the event, I am not ultimately responsible – that is the role of the licensee.
I do however have to work closely with, and, the nature of the cannabis festival being what it is (i.e. under-funded, under resourced and always teetering on the edge ) ultimately I must trust the licensee. I feel obliged to say that I have always enjoyed working with Shane, and he has never given me any reason not to trust him.
I would also give credit for the amount of voluntary unpaid work Shane ( and everyone else) does for the festival. Without the dedication and lets face it downright stubbornness of Shane in putting his ass on the line year after year, and the generosity of people that believe in him and the festival, we would have no festival at all.
I picked the following quote out of an earlier post:
“I really would like to believe that Shane isn't stringing Lambeth officers along - in the hope of obtaining publicity for his election campaign along the lines of the 1967 Times leader that punishment was a "primitive" impulse to "break a butterfly on a wheel". However, the tone of the press release makes me wonder...”
I have to say that we have stringently tried to adhere to all licensing conditions, and as an event organisation on the ground, we have no real difficulty in doing so, even if there were, as somebody said, an extra 5000 people all who had a couple of pints more! In fact that would be perfect as it would mean we would break even financially. Instead of breaking even we are left in a position with the licensee having to shoulder much of the debt personally, and the festival maintaining itself on the faith most people have in the licensee to make good.
We are a professional, albeit underpaid, group of individuals, well versed in event management. The allegations are based on the flimsiest of evidence, with no mention anywhere about possible Health and Safety breaches, and they do our professional and personal integrity no justice. The situation is that the council, ill-informed and misguided though it is, seem determined to drive us out of the Borough , for whatever reasons, and I think it is absolutely correct of Shane, and the rest of our organisation, to stand up and fight. I can however understand why Shane would want to publicise the Court case itself, and try and expose the politics that lay behind it where possible as the council are determined to push ahead.
Shane has definitely not been stringing the council officers along to gain political headway. The court case can do anything but increase his potential for putting on large free events in the future, and is not set to benefit the organisation in any way. Even if we win, we only get to NOT pay a fine! If the council win they get to smear our names, jeopardise future events, and bring the issue of cannabis generally into disrepute. Everything we don’t want to happen.
Thankfully the council seems intent on making a fool out of itself, again, impressively displaying a huge amount of ineptitude and showing a complete lack of understanding about what its job actually entails in the first place!
As for this, somewhat hazy, allegation of past financial misappropriation, as it was put, I should say my experience of under resourced voluntary groups is that it is always difficult to maintain transparency and clarity in pressurized situations, and individuals often have differing viewpoints and priorities. Having worked closely over five successive years with Shane managing the Cannabis Festival budget, there has never been an occasion when I have been in doubt as to his honesty and integrity.
As for the comments by Jonny V, they do not reflect in any way my understanding of the cannabis festival situation.
We have not had the health and Safety officer(s) walk out – both individuals declined due to other commitments, and we engaged the services of another experienced group for the job for the last 2 years - who did a great job. The sound system co-ordinator who started with us in 1999 is still on board, and we have the pleasure of working with many experienced event individuals who work with us year after year. Not to mention the numerous people who regularly work on the event voluntarily.
I know JV has experience of voluntary organisations, and he should know that often in under resourced high pressure groups there are levels of stress, and people tend to do as much as they can voluntarily until it becomes unsustainable for them to continue. This has unfortunately been the case with the cannabis coalition. It is unreasonable and unfair to attribute all the organisations’ shortcomings to the licensee.
We should of course admit that there are shortcomings and try to rectify them. Well before this year’s event, JV, and others, suggested reforming a core group, re-stating the principles by which we work and trying to better the event. Shane, myself, and other members of the organisation agreed to attend whatever meetings were going to be arranged to discuss issues they might like to raise. Sadly this did not happen, but nevertheless those people who remained committed to the event went ahead and did it anyway – and it was one of the best. It really does JV, and others, no credit to be sniping at us from the sidelines.
Streathamite
02-12-2003, 10:01
2 comments
1) steve's last post is the first where he's put his money where his mouth is, rather than hazy, factless non-substance allegations
2) Steve: your prime beef STILL seems to be that "personal" issue you have with Shane. You may have sound issues for not giving the full spec on that-but in that case, it's unfair to raise it on-board, where it can be fully discussed.
And I too would like to hear Shane's comments on all of this. Shane?
aurora green
02-12-2003, 10:21
I'm sorry but I dont think Steves personal dispute with Shane has any relevance to this thread really.
By attacking Shanes character publically, what does that achieve? It certainly wont help the future of the cannabis festival.
You sound properly bitter to me Steve.
And whilst you may of had a bad experience working with Shane, I myself move in activist circles, and I have worked with Shane, though not as closly as others here perhaps, and I have known him for about ten years, and found him a decent, straightforward and ethical, hard working individual.
Let's concentrate on the real baddies here-
Lambeth bloody council!!
Originally posted by aurora green
By attacking Shanes character publically, what does that achieve? It certainly wont help the future of the cannabis festival. Indeed. You couldn't blame people for concluding that Steve would like the whole festival to be be scrapped just because of his personal problems with Shane.
Streathamite
02-12-2003, 12:46
Originally posted by aurora green
I'm sorry but I dont think Steves personal dispute with Shane has any relevance to this thread really.
Let's concentrate on the real baddies here-
Lambeth bloody council!!
agreed nem con, on both counts! I merely tried to say that tossing something in the pot which he refuses to clarify or enlarge upon, is just not on.
Now-sha-aane ? c'mon, this is important
William of Walworth
02-12-2003, 20:43
Major respect to Sinclair's post. Reminds us how much sheer hard work is involved.
Shane and Sinclair -- if ANY more help is needed to help get the 2004 march and Fest off the ground, Stig and I would be very happy to help at any point, and we live locally ....
I'm with Jezza, editor and aurora -- Steve's posts look very much like his personalised vendetta with Shane.
Stig knows Shane also from a while back (Ecotrip at Glasto etc.), and doesn't recognise the portrait of him that Steve presents. Plus plenty of others seem to have a more balanced picture of the man who for all I can see works VERY hard with his compadres to keep this wonderful campaigning festival alive. There is no point or relevance in him taking all this flak when the main priority is to save the Festival from Lambeth's apparant determination to give it grief.
Since I asked aurora where the Burgess Park rumour came from, Shane comfirmed himself that they were thinking about switching the fest to there, in his second post. A reduction in the number of sound systems and an increased emphasis on campaigning and education stalls etc. may improve the chances of getting a licence from Southwark. But as I posted earlier, I still foresee potential problems in gaining acceptance, because the nimby element is probably that much more conservative and vocal around this part of Southwark than it is in Lambeth. The Southwark News while an informative local paper is far from outward-looking in its perspective, it's very much a locals local paper, and it has a lot of influence over councillors. Plus the Southwark Police distanced themselves (I believe) from the Lambeth Police at the time of 'The Experiment', and I suspect they might prove a bit of a hasslesome nuisance to relaxing festie goers and marchers, much as I'd personally love to see the march wending its colourful way down Walworth Road :cool:
The above is all speculation I suppose, I hope not unduly negative, but it is based on some local knowledge -- perhaps others know more than me and will contradict me in a more optimistic way, I hope so!
Whatever, I'm sure many around these forums will be watching out for the outcome of the case on 21 Jamuary and will be offering Shane a lot of support and good luck wishes at that time. Plus we'll all be wishing next year's march and festival all the best too.
And as I said before, many of us will be very willing to offer help (reliably) for the preparations if required.
I suppose there is always the option of going back to full-on cannabis *protests*. I seem to remember the Trafalgar Square lions having a great day with their six-foot long joints! :D
This was emailed to me by Paula, who has asked me to post it up here on her behalf (I hadn't had chance to activate her registration):
Hello Steve
I'm writing to take issue with some of the comments you've made about Shane's honesty and integrity with regards to CoolTan's finances.
Especially as you have used my name to justify your criticisms.
"My understanding of the Cooltan experience is informed by discussions I have had with key people involved, namely Steveidge, Paula and Precious."
Steve, I've hardly spoken to you in the last 10 years so I'm surprised you've used my name. And although I'd agree that Shane can be a stubborn, even infuriating, collaborator at times (and in this, trust me, he was not alone); I have never suspected or accused him of dishonesty. I think he's basically a good person, who has a massive amount of energy and drive.
For those of you who don't know me: I was heavily involved with CoolTan from 1991 - 1993/4. Shane was my boyfriend for all of that time and a bit beyond it. We lived together, worked together, played together.
I probably know him as well as anybody does, warts and all, but I have never suspected him of dishonesty in any way, shape or form.
I was passionately dedicated to CoolTan for most of my there. And I would have got very upset if anyone abused CoolTan, because they would have been abusing me and many other people like me who freely contributed an awful lot of time, hard graft, optimism and ideas.
I've organised many events for CoolTan, many with Shane: Fun stuff like running cafes, film screenings, kids workshops and art exhibitions. Also dud stuff like cleaning post-party loos, mopping floors, undertaking building repairs, confronting a few dodgy people, and even dealing with the aftermath of a nasty stabbing.
I attended Monday night meetings every week for several years where we reviewed and planned events, discussed housekeeping and financial matters.
As well as all this I lived with Shane for most of the time that I was involved.
1) In all of this time I never once suspected Shane of any financial
impropriety, "misappropriation" or any other nefarious activities. I'm sure if anything untoward had been going on, I would have had some hard evidence or at least suspected it. I have neither.
Naturally, as an ex-girlfriend, I could cite many frustrating and annoying facts about Shane's personality and behaviour at the time I worked with him, but none of these override my basic view that Shane is honest.
I know he's unpopular with several people apart from you Steve. He seems to be one of those "love him or hate him" characters. But I suspect most people who know him love him.
2) I'll have nothing else to say on this matter, so good luck with
everything. I hope you will be able to move on from all this petty stuff.
3) Who is Precious?
Paula
steve indigenou
06-12-2003, 18:22
How did this all begin ?
Ah yes, I remember, with the whole 'Synergy-Cooltan Revisited' thread. Joespeh made an unfortunate mistake, loads of people, including the editor of this board, leapt in and accused us of being capitalist exploiters. I then defended the Project by making observations about the differences between Cooltan and Synergy, not actually mentioning Shane by name, but alluding to his role so as to avoid personally attacking him.
The Cannabis thread then came up, which is also something I know something about, and wanted to point out
i) why the Council has lost faith with Shane and the Cannabis festival and therefore no longer wants to support him / it.
ii) how and why the way Shane organises and operates mitigates against commanding credibility in these and other circles.
It seems to me that some Urban 75 members feel that it is fine to dis a project of which they have no knowledge (and then only to be contradicted by those who have actually attended events) and then get very upset when the same spotlight is turned closer to home. This smacks of hypocrisy.
It has been interesting to read Sinclair and Paula's remarks. What Sinclair says, I have little issue with, if only to diasgree with the suggestion that the way in which the Cannabis festival is organised, and how this impacts on people's motivation, is not Shane's primary responsibility. I don't know whether what Jonny V says is true, but it reasonates profoundly with my personal experiences of working with Shane and with the reports I have had from others of their experiences.
Basically, for me this whole discussion has been about organisational methods, surely a legitimate discussion when it comes to political representation and the organisation of an important local festival.
The personal issue has clouded the waters. For me it is only relevant in that it just illustrates how Shane operates, but it was not me who brought it up, but rather something that supporters of Shane keep bringing back into the discussion to try to discredit my position.
It's interesting that no-one has addressed the issues about how to go about engaging with the Council in order to win support - for me this is the real issue. But much easier to ignore for others, perhaps. Basically, they have no answers, so it's much easier to speak in such simplistic terms as 'the real enemy - Lambeth Council.'
It's a shame Jonny V has not gone public with his statement (made to me in private) that he has other damning information about Shane's methods. Other's who have shared my experiences are also not on hand to represent this strand of opinion, but Shane has done a good job of getting out his vote, so the issue will probably be left here as far as this board is concerned. I'm hardly going to call up all my mates and get them to post in support of what I'm saying.
The way this issue will really be resolved, however, is by seeing how well the different methodologies work in achieving their stated aims. I prefer a strategy of engagement, which demands a certain way of working in order to command credibility in influential circles. Some may dismiss this as 'selling out' or becoming 'capitalists', as they have done on this board.
Others prefer a more informal approach, with no formal structure, little transparency and the (deliberate or otherwise) 'tyranny of structureless' and the dominance of a charismatic individual who considers his own interests to be equivalent to those of the supporters who surround him. I think this is a recipe for exploitation, and also a profoundly unsustainable way of working. If you look at Shane's track record, I think it supports my case :
Cooltan - unsustainable
Ecotrip - unsustainable
The Greenhouses - unsustainable
The Cannabis festival - ...
Having worked in both environments, I have no doubt whatsoever which is the more effective. Whether or not Shane choses to change is less of a concern, for as Paula observed, he can be very stubborn.
What concerns me most, however, is that people should consider Shane's political leadership as likely to command any influence where it matters or that it will have a beneficial impact on the lives of people living outside of the Brixton Green Ghetto, in which he apparently still enjoys much affection.
As for what I would like to see happening with the Cannabis festival ? A new, properly structured, incorpoated organisation with proper financial transparency, democratic decision making and, in order to stand any chance of getting a licence, a new licencee.
So, Shane, (cos I know you read this, though you don't answer !), let's just see what happens, for...
after Ecotrip came Synergy
after the Jan Rebane comes the Brixton Synergy Centre
and out of person x comes....
Well, let's just hope the trend continues.
We'll see what Karma brings.
Steve
Originally posted by steve indigenou
It seems to me that some Urban 75 members feel that it is fine to dis a project of which they have no knowledge
Personally I was dissing it based on the cod-mystical shite on the website.
Originally posted by steve indigenou
We'll see what Karma brings. Does that come before the tooth fairy and after Santa?
Dubversion
07-12-2003, 03:38
Originally posted by steve indigenou
Cooltan - unsustainable
Ecotrip - unsustainable
The Greenhouses - unsustainable
The Cannabis festival - ...
so let me see.
all the worthwhile interesting projects - unsustainable.
the deeply compromised, ultimately hollow projects - sustainable.
hmm...
how odd. maybe i need a lie down to figure THAT one out.
I think next year its going to be on Hackney Marshes.
Steve, you might think you're coming over as reasonanble. But your last post is clearly still really bitter, personal and nasty.
I'm sure you've probably put alot of people off yourself and Synergy with your clear personal vendetta.
AS aurora said:
"I'm sorry but I dont think Steves personal dispute with Shane has any relevance to this thread really.
By attacking Shanes character publically, what does that achieve? It certainly wont help the future of the cannabis festival.
You sound properly bitter to me Steve.
And whilst you may of had a bad experience working with Shane, I myself move in activist circles, and I have worked with Shane, though not as closly as others here perhaps, and I have known him for about ten years, and found him a decent, straightforward and ethical, hard working individual.
Let's concentrate on the real baddies here-
Lambeth bloody council!!"
THE END
vBulletin® v3.6.10, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.