Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Brockwell Park: Annual Cannabis March & Festival 5th June 2004

get involved

Rollem said:
right, i've decided i am deffo giving the march a miss, due to being a pregnant wuss who can't walk at such a slow pace for so long - will have to get brixton hatter to carry a cardboard cut-out of me along with him or something :D

He he, no problem! :) That'll make up for my total failure to produce our "amusing" placards last year. Alternatively, you could just make me a massive spliff and I'll wave that around for a bit until it's all gone ;)

I think we should all write to as many councillors as possible to put pressure on them to a) allow the licence for the event, and b) categorise it as a not-for-profit event. Teejay has done a decent note further up the page that can be cut and pasted, and the email addresses are also on this thread. Nice one people.
 
Rollem said:
right, i've decided i am deffo giving the march a miss, due to being a pregnant wuss who can't walk at such a slow pace for so long - will have to get brixton hatter to carry a cardboard cut-out of me along with him or something :D

Haha :D Will keep a look out for the cardboard cut-out in that case. Being the lazy git I am, I'm just going to join the march from Shippou's round Max Roach park. So will have at least a good 20 mins of the march to enjoy.
 
well done, BH! I'm emailing them. and the Scrutiny people> Has anyone recently gone through the existentially futile and unproductive exercise of writing to that useless placewoman Hoey?
edited to add; well done TeeJay, for your digging out the Scrutiny 'posse' (as the yoot call it).
I think our email servers about to catch fire... ;)
 
Ok I've now finally finished emailing every single Lambeth councillor personally.

I've already had 6 replies including this statement of support from one of the local Cllrs (Tulse Hill Ward next to Brockwell Park)
The commercial rates should only be charged for organisations with a clear
commercial mission. I think it should be clear to nearly everybody that your
event has no such objective. I hope Lambeth Council charges you a
not-for-profit rate and that your event takes place successfully.

Councillor Toren Smith Labour, Tulse Hill Ward

Another 4 Cllrs have promised replies:
McHugh, Labour, Herne Hill
Bennett, LibDem, St Leonard's
McConnell, LibDem, Knight's Hill
Parry, LibDem, Bishop's

And finally this from Cllr Lumsden, Lib Dem, Streatham Hill
Issues about fees for events in parks are the responsibility of Cllr Clare
Whelan, the Executive Member for Environment. However I recall last year
when this issue arose the council agreed a one off reduction in the fee
charged to this particular event. From what I recall this was because
charges had been recently increased so we agreed to "damp" the effect by
only implementing half the increase last year for this event.

I have copied Cllr Clare Whelan who may be able to help with information on
how any application might be handled this year.

Cllr Ashley Lumsden, Executive Member for Finance

It does indeed appear that Cllr Clare Whelan (Conservative, Thurlow Park) is the person responsible for making this decision, possibly in consultation with the "Environment Committee" - although I can't details or membership of this on the Lambeth website - and maybe in consulatation with the other 7 Conservative Cllrs in Lambeth?
 
OK here's another relevant bit of information:

Many thanks for your e-mail. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me.

I'm afraid, however, that as a member of the Council's Licensing Commitee,
which I understand will be hearing the application on 20 April, I feel it
would be inappropriate for me to comment before I hear all the evidence.

Cllr Pete Bowyer (Labour, Stockwell Ward)
(Slightly confusing but, I assume the festival does have several different aspects as well as the actual *level* of the fee, where it needs green lights from the council, ie licensing conditons, police, emergency services and health and safety etc.)
 
Pressure on

Further to Teejay & others excellent suggestions and work in contacting Councillors for their opinion as to whether we are a community or commercial group.

Two other useful people to contact.

1. Regulatory Services are looking for comments for and against the festival. This will be very relevant at the Licenceing Meeting on Tuesday 20th April at 7pm, Room 8, Town Hall. (All welcome, Albert afterwards). So far we have had an objection from Friends of Brockwell Park - which has been withdrawn after our reply to them, the Herne Hill Society and one individual. It would be useful if there was scores of positive comments in favour of this free event in Lambeth.
The email to write to is [email protected]

2. Clare Whelan, Executive Member for Parks and Tory Councillor for Knights Hill and Paul Grobler, (assistant director of operations) will decide whether we are a commercial or not for profit group.
Clare Whelan can be contacted on [email protected]

3. Use of Park Fees paid in the past.
In 2003 we paid £5,250.
In 2002 we paid £2,500,
in 2001 we paid £4,000,
in 2000 we paid £3,000
in 1999 we paid £2,000.
Last year was double the price of the year before, this year Council propose to
nearly double the price for half the crowd figure.
We also pay the Council for a licence to entertain, this year only £1,300, - including the community group discount.

pressure on

shane
www.thecannabisfestival.co.uk
 
err for correspondence purposes is that Mr or Ms Pape, shane?
Top work there, TeeJay. i've just 'done' Ms Whelan, so to speak
 
I have received two further replies from:
Cllr John Whelan (Leader of the Conservative group and Deputy-Leader of Lambeth)
Cllr Paul McGlone (Labour, spokesperson for Environment)
...both of whom requested some further information. I have passed these requests on to the festival organisers and hopefully I will be able to report back their responses soon.
 
420 greetings!

I see in Shane's message that the licensing meeting is on 4-20.

Something we notice on this side of the pond. ;)

Isn't the date listed as 20-4 on your side of the puddle?

There is a busy international MMM discussion thread on this forum:
http://www.cannabisculture.com/forums/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=current

151 cities signed up so far worldwide for MMM 2004! Global Cannabis March:
City list: http://www.geocities.com/tents444/mmm2004.htm
World map: http://www.geocities.com/tents444/mmm2004map.htm
 
Allegation of Cannabis Festival Spamming

Greetings,

We have checked and got replies from most of the core group of the festival regarding allegation of spamming.
So far the festival has only sent out press notices on 26.3.04 to the media advising of the revised date for the march and festival.
If anyone has mistakenly got on our press list then please contact [email protected] to be removed, (or to be added to the info list). Our apologies to anyone who has been sent a message in error.
When we get the licence (hopefully) on Tuesday 20th April we will be sending out email flyers.

In the meantime many thanks to the people contacting councillors and Bill Pape at Regulatory Services, and the people volunteering to steward the march.

www.thecannabisfestival.co.uk
 
Licensing Committee 20 April

For your delectation and delight, relevant docs from the Lambeth website (both documents posted 8 April):

Agenda for the meeting

Report on applications (pages 9 and 10 only relate to Cannabis Festival)

Consultation:
During consultation no adverse comments were received from the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Police, Ward Councillors. Councillor Smith (Tulse Hill Ward) has submitted an Email supporting the application (copy appended). Letters of objection have been received from the Herne Hill Society and the Friends of Brockwell Park (copies appended), an objection has also been received from a resident (copy appended)

None of the consultation comments have been scanned into the version on the website. Presumably the report was drafted before Shane spoke to FoBP?
 
lang rabbie said:
None of the consultation comments have been scanned into the version on the website. Presumably the report was drafted before Shane spoke to FoBP?


FoBP have definitely withdrawn their objection.
 
Red Jezza said:
But what are your views on The Cannabis Festival, MrBC?


In favour of the objective (legalisation). In favour of parks being used for big events as long as the organisers comply with the rules. Not in favour of this event being given the lower preferential hiring rate because it is self-confessedly a national rather than community (as in local community) event.

... and looking forward to holding you to your promise of buying me a pint.
 
Mr BC said:
Not in favour of this event being given the lower preferential hiring rate because it is self-confessedly a national rather than community (as in local community) event.

Not sure if I'm right here but I thought the higher rate was meant to apply to commercial/profit-making events which this one (from the evidence of its own accounts publicly and clearly posted on its own website, links earlier) is surely NOT!

Feel free to clarify or correct ...

;) :D
 
Stig and I to be march stewards on the day ...

We've now finally got our act together and applied to be stewards for the march, as always intended/volunteered.

Email sent tonight to the march stewards address on the
http://www.thecannabisfestival.co.uk site, with a copy sent to Shane personally by PM ;)

We're responsible people, and Stig has stewarding experience, and lots of campaign experience (double ;) ). We're able to attend local training meetings (especially if they're in the evenings, midweek :D )

For technical reasons (my own email address is at work, and I have very limited Urban access at work :( ) I've not been able to email any councillors or officers, not sure if that would be advisable anyway given that I'm not a Lambeth resident.

But good luck with the hearing next Tuesday :)

By the way (corporate whore will be interested here) I'm keeping people posted regularly on the Other Festivals forum at http://www.festivals.co.uk
Beware about what times you check there though -- that website allows access to its forums at very sporadic/haphazard times, as its server seems a bit feeble to cope with very busy pre-Glasto traffic, very frustrating. To be fair the webmaster there is very short of money indeed ... there's advertising there (annoying) but not much at all.

Apologies for that semi-relevant digression. I'm very committed to this campaign, event, cause. So is Stig and she doesn't even smoke! Neither will I on the morning of the march.

I wish I had time to do more!
 
Mr BC said:
FoBP have definitely withdrawn their objection.

So the minutes for the hearing (which I've looked at) should reflect that clearly :mad:

And they don't, or don't seem to. Apologies if the minutes have been updated and that the Lambeth website is just too dozy to be updated quickly.

Notice from the minutes that there are strict conditions relating to toilets being in place well in advance following last years cock up. Were last year's toilet suppliers ever sued? Presume there are different suppliers planned this year :p

All seems fair and sensible.

I also notice that the associated alcohol licence is recommended by council officers to be only til 7. No worries there ... ;)

And that music is recommended similarly to be only til 7:45. Take note everyone!

BTW Police, Fire Service, Ambulance Service have not made any objections.
Objections seem to stem from council officers (and possibly indirectly from councillors?) only, presumably in response to one or two local objections ... or from some other place or mindset?

Can I join the organising committee next year Shane? :D
Experienced festographer needs work!
 
William of Walworth said:
Not sure if I'm right here but I thought the higher rate was meant to apply to commercial/profit-making events which this one (from the evidence of its own accounts publicly and clearly posted on its own website, links earlier) is surely NOT!

Feel free to clarify or correct ...

;) :D
err, yeah, that would be my point. Also, it would surely have entirely positive local ramifications were the campaign (of which this is an integral part) to achieve its' end aim, so...
and,c ome to think of it, Brixton's on a national stage half the time anyway, one way or another
 
William of Walworth said:
Notice from the minutes that there are strict conditions relating to toilets being in place well in advance following last years cock up. Were last year's toilet suppliers ever sued? Presume there are different suppliers planned this year :p
It is, of course, for the event organisers to ensure that there are toilets. The absence of toilets last year did lead to the park being left in a truly disgusting state and cost the council a fortune to clear up.

As I said, I support this event going ahead but I don't see why local council tax payers should subsidise a national political event.
 
Why did it cost the council a fortune to clear up? As I understand it the clear up is paid for and contracted by the festival organisers....if theres more mess it costs the event more not the taxpayer, or am I missing something?
 
Mr BC said:
As I said, I support this event going ahead but I don't see why local council tax payers should subsidise a national political event.
Well firstly this is a *free* event - one that can be enjoyed by all types of people, just like any other free event that Lambeth council or other local authorities might spend council tax money on. How much public money does Lambeth spend on events every year (eg the L.C.Show). It doesn't restrict these to Lambeth residents does it? Surely it simply holds them locally and doesn't lay on car parking or do other things to the detriment of locals etc? By your criteria, what makes the LCS a 'local' event then? :confused: What about stuff up at the South Bank or Coin Street? Surely you get people from all over the world enjoying events there? I'd love to see some actual legal criteria rather than this 'make-it-up-as-you-go-along' type stuff. If people are going to 'make it up' then I'd like to know what local councillors think. Unfortunately most of them haven't bothered replying and some who have either have refused to voice an opinion of their own or have even said they don't have any knowledge of what is going on.

Two more points about money: many of the people who come to the event will spend money in local shops, pubs and restaurants etc. Secondly, is the council actually willing to publish what it is spending this £10,000 on? It is being claimed that the council is running up costs becuase of this festival that is being provided freely to the public, including local people, who will make up a very significant percentage of people attending, noit least because it is free entertainment right on their doorstep. Is the council actually prepared to break down these costs and tell the taxpayer where it is spending the money?

In fact, the organisers are underwriting this event - they are the ones who will be finding the money and providing an event to the public for free. It is a fallacy to suggest that the council has to pay for things such as litter collection as this is done by the event organisers. In fact the people doing it have collected rubbish onj contract for the council at their evejnts in Lambeth Parks in previous years - for example at the Stella Artois films on Clapham Common etc. I have personally picked up stuff for no pay. I doubt if many current councillors ever got down and picked out cigarette butts from out public parks, so to get a lecture on how we are messing up the parks is a a bit rich. :(

The council are demanding money for the use of a public place, yet the council can't event put on a decent Brixton festival (ie one that reflects Afro-carribbean culture like the notting hill one) it doesn't really provide many 'free' public events, and in any case, unlike the cannabis festival the events are not 'free' anyway - they are paid for out of taxpayers money.

Noone is asking that the council 'subsidises' this event. We are simply asking that they set out the details of the actual costs incurred by Lambeth Council and that they are *reasonable* - just like previous administrations have been for the past five years.

It is beyond me why the Lib Dems of all people are seeking to block this event by charging well over the odds - or at least making life exteremely difficult for the festival organisers and sucking money from other areas of the event, whereas New Labour, who people would have thought of as being 'the establishment' who wouldn't want a festival that challenged the status quo - are the ones who have been the loudest in support of the festival and have been fairly reasonable on prices in previous years.

Is it a coincidence that the council has spent the best part of £30,000 trying to take the festival to court over last year, only to have the case threowbn out by a judge who asked why the council persued the case in the first place. Maybe this money is going towards trying to bring some kind of trumped up case against the festival again this year. Except they will have to top it up with another £20,000 odd from taxpayers money. :rolleyes:

And while I am at it - I'd like to know what the official Lib Dem line is on cannabis. Does anyone actually know? :( :confused:

Anyway, lets hope that tomorrow a wave of sanity sweeps over Lambeth Town Hall, eh? And they think the stoners are scatty?
 
I'm not going to try and explain the attitudes of the Lambeth administration, but the Lib Dem's national party policy is readily available on their website. It was endorsed by their Spring 2002 party conference leading to much denunciation in the Daily Mail. In particular...

[Conference endoreses the proposal to....]
Break the links between cannabis use and organised crime and release police resources for higher priority tasks by:

a) Re-classifying cannabis as a Class C drug.

b) Adopting a policy of not prosecuting possession for own use, social supply to adults or cultivation of cannabis plants for own use.

c) Repealing Sections 8 (c) and (d) of the Misuse of Drugs Act so that it is no longer a crime for the occupier or manager of premises to permit someone to use cannabis on those premises.

Permitting medical use of cannabis derivatives, subject to appropriate pharmaceutical controls and the successful conclusion of current clinical trials.

In the longer term, seeking to put the supply of cannabis on a legal, regulated basis, subject to securing necessary renegotiation of the UN Conventions.
 
The licence will be decided by licensing committee tonight (room 8, Lambeth Town Hall). Here's a C&P from the Officers' report.

Applicants Name: Shane Collins
Name and Address of Premises Brockwell Park
Ward : Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, Thurlow Park.
Nature of Application: Occasional Weekday Music & Dancing Licence
Saturday 8 May 2004 12:00pm until & 7:45pm
Liquor Licences The applicant has indicated that an application for a
liquor licence will be made.
Accommodation Figure: 4,900 persons
Fee £ 1346:00

Council records-noise nuisance etc:

Noise complaints were received in respect of the event which took place in 3rd May 2003. The Council’s duty Noise Control Officers attended the event but did not substantiate statutory noise nuisance.

Consultation:

During consultation no adverse comments were received from the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, Police, Ward Councillors. Councillor Smith (Tulse Hill Ward) has submitted an Email supporting the application (copy appended).

Letters of objection have been received from the Herne Hill Society and the Friends of Brockwell Park (copies appended), an objection has also been received from a resident (copy appended)

Comments from officers:

This is an application for grant of an occasional public entertainment licence for a free campaign event with musical entertainment and dancing in Brockwell Park. The application is for a maximum attendance of 4900 people at any one time. The event is proposed to start at 12 midday and end at 7.45pm.

The Organiser’s proposals are for a smaller event than in previous years and will have fewer sound systems and dance arenas, resulting in lower sound levels. It will also, following concerns about clearing the public from the park after the event, finish 15 minutes earlier.

The event is planned for a later date than previous years to ensure there are no tents etc in the park on the Bank Holiday Monday.

The event will consist of four music stages: unity stage, hip hop stage, small worldstage and dance tent. At the time of writing this report an application to the Council’s Parks Department for the use of Brockwell Park is pending. Ongoing consultation is taking place with the Metropolitan Police, Parks Department, Highway Services and the applicant, with regard to noise control, litter control and collection, vehicular congestion, other public safety matters, toilet facilities, stewarding, safe egress from the site and the avoidance of nuisance to the public.

Objections to this application have been received from the Friends of Brockwell Park, the Herne Hill Society and a resident (copies appended). The objections refer to control of the number of persons attending the venue, toilet provisions, damage to the park , level of sound, and the suitability of the applicant. An email supporting the application has been received from a Ward Councillor (copy appended).The applicant has written to the Friends of Brockwell park and the Herne Hill Society with regard to their objections a copy of that letter is appended. Advertising of the event has been taking place on the internet, a copy of the advertisement is appended. Should the Committee be minded to approve this application, it is recommended that the licence be granted only between Midday until 7:30pm, that the supply of alcohol must cease at 7:00pm, music tents and hip hop stage 7:15pm, the main stage and supply of refreshment must cease at 7:30pm.

Should the application be approved standard conditions will apply. It is
recommended that the following non-standard conditions also be applied to the licence:

1) All toilet facilities must be installed on site 48 hours prior to the start of the event. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in the licence not being granted.

2) As the event is free and in past years has been licenced for up to 10,000 persons it is recommended that the applicant installs sanitary facilities and provides adequate stewarding which takes into account an attendance exceeding the 4900 persons requested by the applicant

The applicant will be required to give written confirmation that all safety requirements have been complied with prior to the start of the event.

If the Committee is minded to refuse an application, or vary the hours requested, or impose additional conditions on a licence, members must be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for doing so.

A map showing the layout of the event site will be made available at the meeting.
 
Back
Top Bottom