1. I have tried to build up an understanding of what happened at Stonehenge early on June 21st. This could be called a compilation of opinions about what happened, including where I have indicated this, my own interpretations. It seemed useful to begin with to see events through a simple sociological perspective of communities with fixed attitudes about each other and this was brought into the report, with a view to finding the road forward for the peace process generally. It then became clear that this was not universally or continuously the case, but at times of crisis like that at the dawn 21st June, and for some time afterwards, this tribalistic vision tended to take over, but it was modified through fact finding activities including the discussions around this report. Statements by the press have not been seen or used in this exercise. Some journalists and a BBC South team made their own way to the stones that morning, but the media people approved by English Heritage, due to arrive with the special access party before dawn, never got there. I believe fanciful reports have appeared along the lines that police lines were breached by an army of people and a violent assault made on the stones. The media seem to love this scenario and trot it out on any occasion they can imagine it. But it is clear that nothing of the sort happened on this occasion.

2. Vehicles reported to be 150 in number were parked at Airman's Cross overnight. It is clear that this was by arrangement with police. People estimated at 800 in number were in the road and in the field with permission (and a few were also down the track). The fence came down at 2AM and some people entered the stones and some, largely different people as they were removed and replaced during the morning, were there until 7AM or 8AM. Most witnesses claimed this breach happened spontaneously and was not part of any general plan or concerted attack except in that a group who pushed down the fence obviously must have co-operated in this venture. It seems wirecutters were not used, this argues against there being any preparation, however some 100 people are said to have been involved in pushing down the fence. This makes sense, as it is reported that the metal posts which are fixed into the ground were bent, and had to be straightened before the stones could be opened to the public. I am not able to confirm this, but it is claimed that the occupation came suddenly at 0200 hours exactly, as if part of a military precision plan. That a core of activists planned and instigated this action is certainly possible but definitive proof is lacking, and this will continue to be a topic of debate.

3. An interesting account tells us of a group of loud youths who were swearing and abusing each other and everybody else. The speaker said they were generally considered to be assholes and people avoided them. This unconfirmed account gives it that this group instigated pushing down the fence and then climbed up on the stones. They are said to have come from South London and may have experienced or been involved in some of the confrontations at the June 18th action in London - not to draw any conclusions here about that event - except that people may have come fired up from a previous confrontation. It is claimed these individuals were not known to the Stonehenge community. I was cautious about this report because it is a classic community manoeuvre to polarise some group of strangers and try and make them responsible for any trouble that occurs. But I also feel this may be an objective account. Class War supporters shouting violent slogans have also be reported. Again these people would not normally be at Stonehenge, but would be likely to have been practising their aggressive brand of politics on June 18th.

4. Reports show people exercised some discipline within the stones. Those who entered the centre came out after about ten minutes so others who were waiting could take their place. A group of political sloganeers was surrounded and had their spray cans taken away. The only damage reported by English Heritage are from cigarette butts, bootmarks on the stones from those who climbed them, and related damage to the lichen. This last is important not only botanically but structurally it seems, as small flakes of stone come away with the lichen. It seems the lichen slowly affects the stones, botanical concerns contradict an attempt to preserve the stones, but people climbing on the stones obviously introduce an additional disturbance. Between 9:30AM and 10:30AM the fence was resecured and English Heritage staff also cleared up much dog poo. The public were seen entering at about 10:50AM.

5. Several witnesses confirmed widespread stories of police officers seeming to harrass individuals in the area that night by giving them unreasonable instructions or winding them up with phoney prohibitions. The general sense of this was they were disrespectful, treating people as if they shouldn't be there, and harrassing and intimidating them, for what purpose is not clear. One example brought to my attention was prams and bicycles being banned as vehicles, while another noted, that for a road supposedly closed to all traffic, there were a lot of police vehicles moving on it. People on the track, which was also closed, complained about large gravel loaders moving there at 4AM. It does not seem clear why, except as a tactic to disturb people in the lane.

6. Alongside this, it must be mentioned that some police officers complained of the abusive treatment they received, for example "piss off, you fascists", while the manager of Stonehenge was barracked by individuals who didn't like her accent, and didn't think it was a Wiltshire accent, and was pursued by an irate person who called her an "f***ing whore" in front of the world's press.

7. One view that several went along with was the suggestion that reported harassment was just "normal" behaviour on the part of Wiltshire police towards the Stonehenge community. In other words, institutional racism at work, and the fault was that the officers had not been given sufficient instruction in behaving any differently. It has been confirmed that briefings stressed that this was a normal policing event and officers should respect people's cultural differences. To ask them to be lectured about this and then come onto the site and be insulted by members of this ethnic group may be a lot to ask. Not enough work may have been done to change macho attitudes or habitual valuations of the people they were dealing with. One comment on this was that one was asking people to change the very core of their cultural identity, which was difficult but that speaker thought, in the end, not impossible. Similar comments apply of course to those who insulted the police.

8. An alternative view from somebody who said they knew the Wiltshire police was that harrassment was not normal behaviour but must have been orchestrated for some objective, as some kind of provocation. It was suggested, cynically, that this might be to secure their overtime. This should not be dismissed out of hand, we do know that Solstice duty is seen as a nice little earner. That officers might have their own subliminal, unofficial network of canteen culture falling a bit short of insubordination might not be too surprising a suggestion. Some also believe harrassment was entirely deliberate and secretly planned, to provoke an occupation of the stones, to create at least what might be seen as a riot, to get more resources and stiffer laws to support the police. Both MP Robert Key and Jack Straw seem to jump at the bait. That sounds outrageously paranoid, except of course there was a conspiracy in 1985, the ambush and "clean up" operation at the Beanfield, and analysis of the events of 1988 shows police carried out steps consistent with escalating tension and creating a riot situation, the result of which was to secure many years of the so-called "exclusion zone". Further, examination of the June 18th 1999 events in London, suggest to many that police provocation quickly turned a carnival into a confrontation. Why wasn't it the same on June 21st? Perhaps because police took some steps not to create a confrontation and it could be argued that at Stonehenge they worked, not with complete success, to avoid an occupation or a confrontation. Obviously these are issues that will continue to be debated. A weaker version of the conspiracy theory, is that police did a liitle bit less than they might have done, to inform people, and avoid difficulties, but to claim this was "deliberate" after the fact is not very credible.

9. There is certainly some agreement that treatment by the police built up frustration that contributed to people's decision to go into the stones. Of course once the fence was down, and before police deployed in the gap, there was a stage when people could just walk in. Not everybody who did this may have realised that they were going in because the fence had been pushed down. If asked why people went into the stones it might be said generally that they believed this was the only way they would ever get admission. The last similar kind of admissions on Solstice day had been in 1984 and perhaps 1987. The atmosphere inside the stones was not aggressive but was described as pleasant, people who arrived met old friends. To quote from an interesting personal account on the Internet "About 200 people had crammed into the centre circle along with a couple of acoustic drummers hammering out a wicked rhythm which seemed amplified 10 fold by the Stones. Some were dancing, some chanting or meditating but most, like me, were wandering around in total disbelief at the situation or in total awe of the monument itself." This was shortly before police began ejecting people.

10. Most witnesses I spoke to had negative views about the intentions of the police and English Heritage. These negative views tended to be set attitudes, so these people were impervious to suggestions that free access might ever be achieved, that any dialogue could be meaningful, or that it was useful for people to make public accounts of their experiences which I was urging. Some people I spoke to were negative about the people who were there considering them undesirable and in general thinking of them as an undifferentiated other. In short talking to people soon after the events revealed a lot of polarisation of attittudes, there is still an "us" and a "them" at Stonehenge.

11. One "positive" attitude I encountered was based on the notion that English Heritage would be seen to be so incompetent that they would be exposed and ruined in a short space of time. I cannot agree with this. Wiltshire Constabulary carried out many illegal operations over the years and wasted many millions of public money not solving these problems, yet they were widely applauded, and recognition of these criticisms has been slow within the police and the public. Even if English Heritage were thought incompetent in some sense they will carry on managing the stones in the forseeable future as I do not believe the government has any plan to alter this.

12. It appeared to me therefore that attitudes expressed negativity because the speakers were refusing to countenance any change in their own polarisation, which might seem a threat to their identity. If the others were worthless one did not have to speak to them and this avoided one having to do any painful re-evaluation of one's own cultural fixations.

13. Witnesses agreed that police were restrained in their operations to clear the stones, targetting groups of people and sectors and pushing them out while police who were in other areas were standing down and doing nothing. On the other hand there seemed to have been plain clothes "snatch squads" targetting people in the crowd and grabbing them and I hear some people have reported (but not directly to me) that they acted with some violence. At least while a final sweep of the area took place about 3:30AM, with horses leading officers to press people through the gap about dawn, there was an aggressive attitude and shouting from both sides, truncheons were used, some missiles were thrown at police, so it is in these circumstances to be commended that "they did not go completely berserk" as one person put it. Police command has informed me that officers were carrying their "Arnold batons", long truncheons used in public order situations. Use of these or other weapons has to be reported. There were no such reports filed. Therefore if anybody saw any person struck by truncheons, or suffered any such attack, they should complain, there is a disciplinary breach involved, due to a failure to report this. One officer was injured with minor scratches, one member of the public lost their breath on the A344 due to congestion. These were the only injuries police knew about, even if one includes Arthur's broken ribs, we see this was not a particularly violent incident compared to other major British riots.

14. I have no TV or any knowledge of TV so I am confused about the possibility of films showing violence. What was shown on lunchtime news caused English Heritage in London, most unwisely, to pull the plug on special access in the evening and following morning. In the House of Commons the Home Secretary referred to "terrible events" and "dreadful disorder" at Stonehenge. I really must question what he meant by that. At dawn most people had been pushed out but the occupation continued as others went over the fence, and apparently many were seen "strolling" through a gate that must have been forced open in the west perimeter and people also came in from "all three sides". Obviously there were not enough officers to control the perimeter nor do I imagine this would have been a reasonable operation to mount.

15. Consideration should be given to the fact that many of the people in the area, probably over half of those present, did not go into the stones at all, fearing what was happening and in sober mood believing there was a future objective to be secured if they were restrained. Tim Sebastion led a druid circle on the grass and some who were in the stones came out to join this. This corrects reports that there was no spiritual inclination on the part of those present, who included at least some who would call themselves druids. It needs to be added that a number of young children had been brought for blessing in the stones, informally by couples or at a ritual if this had happened. I imagine almost everybody watched the sun rise. Yes, the sun was actually seen to rise. However I take on board a report that a few people, including some up on the top of the stones discoursing on their mobile phones, had their backs turned to the sun. After dawn some of the people began to disperse.

16. The bus carrying the special access party was diverted to Amesbury where it waited in hope that the situation might be resolved and the special access go ahead. When this was deemed impossible the bus did not proceed and participants had to proceed on foot if they decided to do so, arriving after sunrise. While the special access was cancelled, there did not seem to be any instruction given to druids by English Heritage that they were not to go into the stones. A paper from the Loyal Arthurian Warband suggests some at least of those in the stones would have welcomed members of the party joining them, and others have confirmed this to me. This is despite an individual who said "F*** the druids" in response to appeals to come down from the stones. I was among those who imagined druid leaders in addition to Arthur might have assisted by talking to those still there. However it appears that a tradition going back at least to 1990 was followed of not entering disputed territory. English Heritage would feel with their public body hat on that it was unprofessional to permit access into an area they did not control with the obvious consequence of liability that might, in some contingency, arise. In addition they would have advised people not to enter. This largely because of the view that those in the stones included aggressive militants suspected of instigating the occupation.

17. There was no reason, and no reason has been given me, as to why access for the evening and following morning was cancelled. It should have been clear that there were no longer groups of vehicles in the area. Those who were present before sunset on 21st June took part in a pagan circle on the Avenue and could have negotiated to join the party in the stones had this in fact happened. Not to allow the arranged access parties was an unreasonable decision on English Heritage's part. It would have been good to say that (possibly with the exception of The Stonehenge Cricket Club) all people who had asked for access were granted access. However the events led to the fact that NONE of the people who were granted access at least on 21st & 22nd June were actually given access. This has a major negative impact for English Heritage and has fuelled doubts about the organisation's credibility and real intentions. It is perhaps useful to mention that the access for The Druid Order on June 23rd was also cancelled, but later reprieved on advice from staff on the ground.

18. A statement was prepared to be given out to the public by the police and by English Heritage, explaining that there had been negotiations and there was a process around access. I understand these flyers were prepared but were not given out because it was dark. It was planned to give them out at dawn. In view of some of my remarks above, I believe it was a pity that at the very least, all the police officers did not recieve a copy of this, innocuous but somewhat informative document. It has been pointed out that police in previous years had not refrained from giving out "exclusion zone" leaflets in the dark. I was critical of the document itself only in that English Heritage found themselves unable to speak of even trying to move towards free and open access to Stonehenge. This reinforces the negative critics who believe that English Heritage do not intend to ever allow free and open access. Of course if this is the case there can never be an end to restrictive policing, to fence jumping and fence downing, and all the negative fixation in the Stonehenge Community would be proved objective. Despite these doubts I wanted this document to be published, and I think in hindsight it should have been given out from the weekend 18th June onwards. It is clear that many did not perceive the difference between the ending of the exclusion zone and free access to the stones. That many brought babies to be blessed indicates this. The leaflets would clearly have helped.

19. There is also a question in my mind about whether police had developed rapport with the community through a network of speakers or messengers, to explain what they were doing, and deal with complaints. The other approach is to have a formal welfare team who provide this contact. Some complaints which festered at this gathering might have been resolved and been seen as misunderstandings when the full context was known. It seems likely that there would be objections to fires lit in the middle of the road, apparently police kicked these and threatened use of a truncheon. This incident preceded the downing of the fence and may have precipitated it. Later The Fire Brigade arrived which was unecessary as the fires were small and an attempt was made to cancel the fire engine. The firemen seem bemused at the task they had been given. People wanted fires to keep warm. They also provide a positive focus of attention. There does appear to have been a lack of liaison here. Police command confirms the fire brigade incident took place after the fence went down. It is just one example of something that could have been handled better. Plans have been around for a long time to use braziers to avoid damage to the grass, on this occasion that would have been too "organised" but one wonders if some sensible "organisation" is not what is needed on a future occasion.

20. I began this process following up lurid stories of some totally unexpected and unknown people suddenly invading the stones with scenes of violence and preventing organised access, and ended up seeing that most of the people thus pictured were the people who would normally be expected to come, what I call the Stonehenge Community, and a disaster if it was that, compounded of confusion, muddle and in some aspects, poor preparation. The widespread arousal of polarised attitudes has to be carefully set alongside objective tests as to whether the facts woven into those attitudes may be authentic. This is a difficult task leaving the compiler of this report with many questions. Also all communities need to learn to bring down their mutual fear barriers which is an enormous task. In this respect the spiritual groups must hold the key, as having the most enlightened approach to this in general. I say this despite the rivalry and feuding that sometimes exists between individuals.

21. The other aspect that needs focussing on is that the spiritual groups have been talking to English Heritage about spiritual access, but most of those whose reason for going is more personal (by this I do not necessarily mean not spiritual, but less organised) seem unwilling to compromise in any way and are just waiting, without a great deal of hope, for English Heritage to somehow change and let them in at the Summer, as of course generally happens again at the Winter and the Equinoxes, after some years of prohibition. This is not an astronomical or calendrical problem, but a historical one, rooted in cultural perceptions. Mutant Dance rave organisers, after gathering in Amesbury car park told the police Commander, they were not going to Stonehenge, but moving North, which they were allowed to do, towards an undisclosed destination. This proved to be on Great Cheverill Hill, which is on army land, and arrests and confiscations of sound systems were carried out by MOD police while support units from Wiltshire, who had been called for assistance, were standing by. No attempt was made to set up a festival on private land at Stonehenge. But the issue of permitted camping areas, on National Trust or Army land, or somewhere, is going to have to be raised for the future. What about toilets? Stories of urination in or on the stones, the inadvisability of digging holes in the thin soil in archaeologically sensitive land, the lack of bushes on the plain, create special conditions here.

22. My reading of the situation is that if the Stonehenge Community want to go forwards, they need to recognise and deal with the problems of insulting behaviour, climbing on the stones and control of dogs, and somehow join the access discussions. I hear that access at the equinoxes and Winter may also be "reviewed". I think they would have to agree and accept some possibly permanent and some perhaps temporary limitations on a gathering that I know they would like ideally to be entirely spontaneous and open ended. In regards to access to the stones this might mean being able to agree and plan a day, a time, numbers, stewarding and practical measures for fires, toilets etc. I appeal to them to set aside their cynicism and renew their willingness to engage. Whatever the many disappointments people have suffered over the years, it is a fact that unrenewed willingness, comes across as unwillingness. Careful negotiations should eventually encompass some level of "event" or "gathering" that included acoustic music, no amplified music in the Stonehenge area, and an agreement to honour this. On the other hand, the vastness of the plains surely provides some site where sound systems will not cause a nuisance. The bitterness of many years has to be overcome and enough trust built by those who act as messengers in this process. It seems any trust is very tentative and any setback brings us back to a very polarised position, at least for a while.

23. A crisis in an opportunity and despite the tribal solidarity that was seen at and soon after the crisis, there are a number of different viewpoints coming out from the experience. On such issues as, for an offer of tickets one goes in or stays out, for a popular occupation one goes in or stays out, whether police work to increase confrontation or minimise it, the role played in the occupation by activists, people who might normally be considered to work together, do not necessarily agree. This suggests that many people are re-evaluating their positions and some who have not joined in discussions may now do so.

24. Having said that it has to be recognised there is a conflict of interest between various people who want to go to the solstice dawn (or might want to go if conditions were different) and have a structured/ unstructured, noisy/quiet, controlled/uncontrolled, prebooked/ spontaneous event and these issues require discussion and compromise. To say "let everyone in" is mere rhetoric as the first to arrive will fill the stones, what then arises is an unstructured noisy and uncontrolled event which excludes people with other aspirations. This is approximately what happened this year. To call this "free and open" access is misleading. It would not satisfy most pagans and druids if every year was like that, and serious ritual, one of the purposes for which the stones were certainly built, was to be squeezed out by the mere pressure to be there. I have to say these are very difficult problems.

25. Much has been said about "spiritual access" and "religious access" but these come across just as extensions of personal access. However we need also to think of "magical access" which is for practitioners to work with the energies of the stones and the main moment for this, the moment of dawn of the longest day, is also the moment every member of the public wants to be in the stones, so I end up fearing that even if practitioners could agree what is to be done, there will no "space" for them to do it. We need to ask, not only what do we want, but what is Stonehenge for, and what work do the stones need?

26. I want to thank the many individuals whose phone conversations, and e-mail exchanges, have helped construct this report.

8th July 1999

George Firsoff