Saturday, 13th April at 2PM, at 491 Grove Green Road, Leytonstone, London E11

REPORT ON LAST MEETING

he second meeting of the London Working Group was held at Torriano Avenue, Kentish Town, London, in the premises used by the Stonehenge Campaign. About twenty people were present.

At the previous meeting, initiated by the Stonehenge Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we had decided to have a look at the famed Purple Book, The Event Safety Guide, producd by the Health and Safety Executive, and if need be reduce it to something that we feel we are capable of, bearing in mind that we are not planning a commercial event. One of the members of the working group had got hold of a copy of this book, and also of the reduced version produced by a Health and Safety officer for a London council, used as the blue-print for the various licenced free events in England in the last few years, such as the Exodus festival, the Hackney Marshes Volcano festival and the Brixton Cannabis festival.

This 25 page reduced version seems to give us the framework that we need to make an impressive licence application with the relevant council, stating how we would deal with/satisfy the requirements laid out in the purple book. Starting with the assumption that you know what/where your site is, it shows how to work together with the relevant authorities, (police, fire and medical) to satisfy their requirements early on in the process, with fire access lanes clearly laid out, separation of public and most vehicles, how people will get in and out, lines of communication, stewards and fire marshalls, and so on.

The other development was that one of the group had got in touch with the organisers of the Exodus free festival, who had offered every assistance with our project. Specifically, they offered to send us a copy of their final licence application for the free festival that they did, with permission of the land-owner, a licence from the council, and a self-policing agreement with the police, in summer 2000. This event of theirs broke the ice for our project.

Based on this, the meeting felt confident that we had among our members or available to them the ability to design and get a licence for an event close to the solstice this year, and that this was the way to start identifying the problems in the process and begin negotiations to end them.

We talked about the impossible problem of knowing how many people we are trying to cater for. The summer Solstice this year will be at 14.21 pm on Friday 21st June. We assume that we will be "allowed" into the stones over the night of 20th to 21st of June, but that we are expected to move on from 8 or 9 o'clock on the Friday morning. (Even though this is before the Solstice.) The meeting felt that therefore we should be aiming for an event from the Friday afternooon until the Sunday night, with people staying on to clear up the site but no loud music to be played from either Sunday midnight or Monday dawn (more easily defined... "dont tell us it is not light now, mate, so turn it off." As Ramadan is defined.)

Assuming that about 16,000 will be at the stones this year, and a quarter of these will be wanting to move on to Glastonbury the following weekend and will be somewhere in the area, it was felt that 4000 was the most realistic number to aim for, given the short amount of time available. Other events are expected to be arranged in other parts of the country, so we dont have to try to cater for everyone on our first attempt.

It was decided to set up a web-page to publicise our project, and on/from this page to have a list of offers of help and of expertise and infrastructure for the festival, such as stages, marquees, toilets, generators, etc. We also need a list of volunteers for stewards, and a discussion page. We must also remember the non-web-site users amongst us, but those at the meeting were happy to be web-site based for now. We also started a list of E-mail contacts and of telephone numbers.

To limit it's size and keep the event in proportion, we talked about the possibility of having only two live music stages and three marquees with DJs, with something like one reggae/dub/drum and bass, one trancy and one banging sound system in the three marquees. Although we were obviously unhappy at the idea of limiting the music, we felt that it would be possible to do to guarantee that the event goes forward. Expenses were covered in Exodus festival by selling beer to the punters, and by having one large, efficient cafe, along the lines of the cafe in the Avalon field in Glastonbury, and the meeting felt that we should do the same to pay the toilets, radios and the like. Although all of us were quite clear that we are not interested in a commercial event, we felt it would be possible to raise one pound per person to give to the farmer who is letting us use his land, as well as paying the costs of leaving the site as clean as when we came, or even improved through tree-planting etc.

It may be desirable to get each person coming on the site to sign a legal disclaimer, saying that they come on the site at their own risk, as we are not a commercial festival. A topic for the discussion page and the next meeting.

It was also decided to put an ad in a local paper seeking a landowner/farmer interested in letting us use some land for a solstice gathering.

The next meeting will be on Saturday, 13th April at 2 in the afternoon, at 491 Grove Green Road, Leytonstone, E11.
~~~~~~~~~

WORKING PARTY ONE FOUNDING MEETING REPORT

We sat in a round and Roy Gillett (President of the Astrological Association) facilitated the meeting by first calling on people to identify themselves, and on a second round to explain their motivation for coming and what they wanted to achieve. For the purposes of this report, the two rounds have been combined into one.

Valentina and Dave were from the Green Lizard project.

Stephen Waterfire said he had legal experience and had been squatting in Wood Green and had celebrated with Spiral Tribe on a mountain and he spoke about "godliness through dance".

Ben-R-tek said he was a DJ and hoped the authorities might become more lenient about free parties.

Zee spoke about healing at Stonehenge.

Cornelius said he was a community activist, and Stonehenge was a resource for all people, and while there was still a lot of anger, we must be moving to build a bridge. There was in fact a discrete community, which was not identified in law. But we all had to be open and inclusive, and human rights law provided an avenue for challenging discrimination.

Richard Martin wanted the festival back in some form.

Cll. Tim Abbott responded to this by saying that recent movements both on cannabis and at Stonehenge created a climate where there might be some landowners into holding a gathering in the next few years.

Rick from Hackney said he had been in the squatting movement and spoke of city peoples' wish and need to gather in the fields in this country. We must defend the point about use of alcohol (proposals by authorities to restrict alcohol at the Stonehenge triangle). There was a movement for events free from commercialism, but in the 1980s and ever since manifestations of free organisation had come under attack.

Brian Viziondanz said he'd been shocked at the restrictions he'd experienced when first trying to visit Stonehenge at the Summer Solstice. He said we could only work with what is, but his Dad had said No to everything and so prohibition motivated him. The situation at Stonehenge was a metaphor for what went on in the whole world.

Raj from Wimbledon spoke about the Cumhela festival in India, attended by 40 million people who bathe in the Ganges river, this led to a general discussion. He also said we are a community that should be recognised.

George Firsoff said he experienced a sense of community as a graduate drop-out in 1968 and had moved in and out of that community over the years. In 1984 he'd been at the Stonehenge festival and had become a campaigner and had been arrested. He became a pagan priest and was now sitting on local and regional committees representing his faith community. He had found "Us and Them" solved nothing and in 1998 with Thomas Daffern he'd set up the Truth & Reconciliation Commission for Stonehenge which was an open forum. Every year the demand by young people for the music of their choice was heard. This could only be met by organising legally, which might take 2-3 years. If this was not possible, the law would have to be changed. This might take 5-10 years.

Brian intervened to say that he'd been part of an gathering, the police had asked if it was a rave, he'd said no, it was a picnic with music, they'd allowed it to continue. The words used could be crucial.

Tim Abbott agreed and said the authorities found adverts every Summer referring to "parties" and "festivals" very upsetting and this complicated the negotiations for access to the stones. It was best to communicate by word of mouth he thought.

Nick Chao spoke of the immense volatility of the situation he observed at Stonehenge, he was proud of what had been achieved. But there was a danger from people coming who were angry about state control and did not understand about the negotiations and their subtle nature.

Zee intervened to suggest a reception process so people lost their aggression during their walk to the stones, "a walk of initiation".

George intervened to say how druids had organised an avenue of staves to greet people in 2000, that there was a plan to open a walkway across the fields in future years, so people did not have to use the road.

James said he worked with the Liquid Connective to build communities and raise awareness, at both authorised and unauthorised events, these were not just parties but had a healing and educational focus, to share information and create a global consciousness. They did parties where there was no alcohol. How we approach and relate to people is most important. A body could be formed he thought that was a charity consisting of NGOs and collectives with a shared vision. Was there a landowner who was willing he asked?

In response Tim and George both said work and time was required on this. We had to do the planning work and then provide reassurance to local residents.

Raj intervened and said Stonehenge was a sacred space and we should call upon the help of the spirits there.

Mishal Zeera said he came from the Middle East where there weren't such freedoms and saw it all as an interesting experiment. In the modern world the rule of doing unto others was being lost, we needed to find how to organise.

Ross said he worked with James in the Liquid Connective with sounds and light and with a catering facility. He'd had a personal experience at a stone circle in Kent and at Newbury he'd learnt how a place could be special, and you could lose it, and nevertheless gain a spirit that could be taken to other places. Communication was very important, this should include leaflets and email as well as word of mouth. He wanted satellite gatherings away from the stones.

At some stage George explained about the voluntary peace stewards scheme he had facilitated in the last two years by giving people Dove in the Stones badges and organising training sessions.

Chrissie Parminter said she could recruit peace stewards through pagan meetings in London.

There followed a discussion about the issue of bad behaviour.

Andy Van Driva said he'd been a voluntary peace steward at Stonehenge and was an events manager at East Oxford community centre, there'd been a sea-change from the government, and because of the McPherson report, he recalled the Divisional Commander at meetings had kept referring to this report. He had gone round Stonehenge shaking hands with policemen and we needed many more peace stewards. He thought he could recruit his crew from East Oxford.

Tim Abbott explained he'd gone into local politics after the ending of the festival and was a long serving councillor in the town of Wilton. When he got to be Mayor he was able to initiate meetings and this had led to the setting up of the English Heritage Round Table.

Chris Riley arrived and said he wanted some kind of "festival" not at the stones but "near".

He was accompanied by Ruth and by Willy X.

Willy said he ran a stage at the Stonehenge Free Festival, and had continued to campaign for an event over the years. As regards problems with alcohol, it was advertised on TV, the Alcoholics Anonymous had tried to ban this without success, there was now even more advertising and it was targetted at young people.

There is also record of attendance from Steve and Francis Whitlock. George will share contact information amongst the group so they can network.

Some £45 was collected for the Art Organisation, this included £25 for membership of the collective, which means we can use this space again. Brian Viziondanz later filled in the forms and is responsible for this.

The contributions were complete and Rick now proposed that the group should organise to study the Purple Book and also consider licensing. There was expertise in this in Hackney where events had been held.

Zee raised the question of what will happen this year. Raves will try to set up she said. Tim Abbott argued strongly against this. Zee insisted that nevertheless it had to be accepted they would try.

George reported both Wiltshire and Hampshire police had said and would say again they would act to prevent unauthorised gatherings, and on past performance he thought they would probably succeed. He'd contacted David Griffiths, the TRC's Home Office representative to explain the situation, with a gap of five days between the time people had to leave Stonehenge and ticket holders could enter the Glastonbury Festival site. David Griffiths had failed to get a response so far from his colleagues in the SE region about this. Ideally there'd be joined up government so at least a park up could be offered, said George. This would have to come through a government initiative because the MOD were not co-operating.

The security at Glastonbury was also touched upon, some believed there would be flexibility, Tim Abbott said no, there would be no free tickets and no travellers site at Pilton, this was due to Mendip District Council.

It was suggested Michael Eavis bore some responsibility for the situation and could be induced to make a helpful public statement.

After this discussion Roy asked if there was a group that would take the work forward.

Steven, Chris, Brian, Rick and several others responded and it was proposed to meet at 99 Torriano Avenue, on April 3rd at 8PM.

There followed some discussion about the status of an event organisation, as a charity, limited company and so on. This the group should also look closely at.

The meeting continued as a social event with informal networking and music.

[From notes of George Firsoff, acting as temporary scribe.]

.

(1) To consider the feasibility of a legally authorised and properly managed Solstice event or gathering running parallel to the Open Managed Access at Stonehenge.

(2) The following requirements seem to be given (there might be others)
(2a) the practicality that this will be some distance from the Stones and probably in another County (this is a pragmatic and not an ideological issue)
(2b) if it is to achieve its purpose it must at least be affordable. (that it might be free or reccomended donation together with clever commercial funding is a technical detail)
(2c) it should meet the strident demand by young people for the music of their choice (in which case some slightly more traditional music for wrinkly people can easily be accomodated in another field)
(2d) it should allow parking up of living vehicles before and after for a sufficient period to ease the continuity problems at the Solstice (Stonehenge/Glastonbury Festival access)
(2e) the Working Party must discuss in detail the legal requirements of the Purple Book and of local authority licensing and any other legal requirements.
(2f) the Working Party should also consider the relevance of Agenda 21 and of initiatives based on social inclusion and community initiatives around crime reduction.

(3) Having carried out its investigations and produced a plan the Working Party may decide that it is not possible to produce an affordable event of this kind. It should therefore begin to lobby for a change in the regulations or in the law. In anticipation of this problem a discussion paper is appended. However it is suggested that the time frame for organising a legal event if this is possible, is of the order of 2-3 years planning and negotiation. The time frame for changing the regulations or the law is more likely to be 5-10 years. This difference must be borne in mind.

Appendix

A clear distinction needs to be drawn between a commercial event which is open to the public, and a co-operative, non-profit-making community event.

If people are paying a commercial company to attend a public event, it is clear that they are consumers and entitled to their consumer rights, including a full duty of care, with a right to sue the promoters if they are in any way dissatisfied. There is a very clear distinction between the management of the event and those who attend it. This may be the case even if entrance is free at the point of access.

What I have called a co-operative, non-profit-making community event essentially has rules of it own which diverge from the consumer model. It is necessary that in advertising the event, at the entrance to the event, and throughout the event, education and information about the special rules and ethos of the event are prominently displayed and copies are available.

The entrance point is especially important. It may be necessary for those attending to sign a legal waiver form, to agree to membership of an association, to enter into an undertaking to participate in the event in a voluntary capacity. There is no longer a clear distinction between those managing the event and those attending it. That those attending the event are asked, possibly even required, to come to meetings to discuss the program and management of the event may also be crucial.

It is considered it should be clear that this arrangement is not a sham, invented by a management organisation trying to bend the rules. Those attending must really participate, and they must have a real voice in meetings. It is probably necessary but it is not quite enough for them just to sign a piece of paper.

This is a legal distinction, which ought to be already recognised in law, and can be an arguing point in dealing with authorities in the planning of a community event of this type. To the extent that this distinction is not recognised in law, it should be, and we should be lobbying to change the law.

Practise has shown that when disasters happen with crowds it is always at commercial events where the public have no say in what is going on and the profit motive leads to bad management practises. On the other hand the requirements for organisation in considering all contingencies in admitting the public are so onerous that communities can fail to make their events affordable. This is especially difficult in dealing with communities where there is a strong degree of disadvantage or social exclusion. This model is thus relevant to a crime reduction agenda and to Agenda 21.

.