October 2003


http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=13547

This is not really a use for a cam phone, they’re too far up the pole, usually, still, though I’d give it a go.

http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=13547

As part of the traffic congestion scheme in Nottingham, you can view the output of cameras on the internet.

I wondered if I went to a road junction, I could view the webpage on my Sony Ericsson P800 mobile phone, take a screengrab, and save the full image. Amazing eh! All while stood here in the street. Then uploaded the images and text to these pages, for you to see.

Ok, the quality is hopeless, but this is the start of some possibilities .. .. .. ..

Here is the links for the camera I used.

Mansfield Rd / Hucknall Rd, camera-41

http://www.itsnottingham.info/tvcam41.htm

Really though, if you have any interest in this subject, please check out my main website, at these ‘direct’ links:

surv – start: http://tash.gn.apc.org/surv_10.htm

surv – watched: http://tash.gn.apc.org/watched1.htm

surv – face recog: http://tash.gn.apc.org/face_rec.htm

surv – Nomad: http://tash.gn.apc.org/nomad_10.htm

surv – mayday 2000&1 http://tash.gn.apc.org/surv_mday1.htm

Big Brother Awards: http://tash.gn.apc.org/big_brother.htm

17th October 2003. It questions the legality of Home Office plans to snoop on the phone and Internet activity of the UK population.

Privacy International reports:

“The Opinion, which relates to the EU framework directive on the retention of communications data, has ramifications for ten EU states that have implemented, or are planning to implement, measures to place communications users under blanket surveillance. The UK is in the early stages of implementing such measures.”

The Opinion, provided by a prominent global law firm, has unequivocally concluded that the government’s plans would be unlawful.

The Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) maintains its recommendation to ISPs that they do not subscribe to the voluntary code of practice under the Home Office’s data retention proposals.

Read ISPA’s concerns:

http://www.ispa.org.uk/html/media/RIPA&ATCSA170903.html

Meeting, organised by PI and FIPR (Foundation for Information Policy Research): ‘Scrambling for Safety 7’, on October 22nd.

http://www.privacyinternational.org/conference/sfs7/

The meeting aimed to address a number of key issues:

 Has the Home Office addressed any of the concerns expressed by the public last year?

 How much remains to be fixed? Are the Statutory Instruments a useful way forward? What further legislation might be required?

 How will government agencies use their new powers?

 Is it appropriate to use emergency powers to impose surveillance requirements on ISPs and phone companies?

 Are the government’s proposals legal under the Human Rights Act?

Prior to the meeting, GreenNet had decided not to participate in the voluntary retention as we remain deeply concerned that the voluntary code laid before parliament is not compliant with data protection principles and Human Rights standards. It was therefore interesting to note that other Communication Service Providers (CSPs) had grave reservations about the voluntary code, yet the government has not carried out any survey of the potential take-up of the code amongst CSPs before proposing it.

Discussions highlighted the main concerns that CSPs have about a voluntary code of conduct:

 it doesn’t give legal authority to retain the data. Although the

Secretary of State will write a letter giving his support to the voluntary code, service providers (SPs) don’t have legal protection.

 it is not legislated for because it may be in breach of Human Rights

(as detailed above)

 the cost of storage and retrieval systems. The voluntary code of data retention is asking that CSPs retain data for up to one year. Currently GreenNet stores the majority of user data for 7 days.

At the meeting, a representative from Intellect, the association for the UK IT, telecommunications and electronics industries, stated that the code puts businesses in an uncomfortable position whereby the liability and cost are shifted to the industry and alongside this, they run they risk of abusing customer trust at a time when the public at large are increasingly concerned about what personal information is stored.

Read their latest press release on the issue here:

http://www.intellectuk.org/press/pr/press_release_22_09_03.asp

To date, it appears that a voluntary code would be implemented in breach of Human Rights and in an effort to cut costs. The legality of the code will be addressed at a further meeting as there was too much to go into detail about at the meeting on Wednesday.

Visit the PI site for updates. Simon Davies of Privacy International can be reached for comment on 07958 466 552.

In the meantime, GreenNet calls on other UK ISPs not to subscribe to the voluntary code of practice under the Home Office’s data retention proposals. This is in line with with ISPA’s (Internet Service Providers Association) recommendations.

Read the GreenNet user and data retention policy:

http://www.gn.apc.org/userpolicy.html#Data

See what specific information GreenNet stores here:

http://www.gn.apc.org/Communications%20Data.html

Read other responses and the public consultation document here:

http://www.fipr.org/retention.html

The Judicial Review brought by Liberty against the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police over the use of anti-terrorist legislation against protesters picketing the arms fair in London’s docklands was heard earlier this month.

The judgment is expected by the end of October. The will be a protest at the High Court in London when judgment is given.

For further information and the date when known see:

http://www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk/44

For earlier info, check:

http://tash_lodge.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_tash_lodge_archive.html#106443652443868806

http://www.reclaimthebases.org.uk

The Reclaim The Bases site has been renewed !

In an attempt to centralise access to known information on UK military bases that is currently scattered around the web (or elsewhere), it now contains many resources, in particular :

* A list of military bases with (more or less) detailed information on each base (overview, location, address, web, campaining groups, latest developements, latest and upcomming events, …)

Also included is a clickable map of UK bases.

* A list of activist groups who campaign against military bases.

* Information on the latest developments at military bases.

* news page.

All this information will be updated on a regular basis – but for this to happen, we need you to send us what you know! If your favorite base or group is missing, or if you see incomplete/incorrect entries, or if you know of anything of interest, don’t hesitate to send us a mail mailto:email@reclaimthebases.org.uk . Alternativly, join the RtB mailing list (See the website for joining details) and let everyone know at the same time !

Don’t forget the Reclaim The Bases Weekend of events at military bases – 17 and 18 January 2004 (See website for more info)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/opencountry_20031011.shtml

Helen Mark travels to the South West of England to find out about sustainable living.

Her first visit is to Tinkers Bubble, in Somerset. It’s a self-sufficient community that has been in existence for almost ten years now and has provided inspiration for the hundreds of other people who have set up their own communities or individual homes in woodlands around Britain.

Listen to the program, here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/opencountry_20031011.ram

* * * * * *

An environmentally sensitive human settlement, Tinkers’ Bubble is a working example of sustainable living.

http://www.tlio.demon.co.uk/tinkers.htm

http://www.lag.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=90471

The Anti-Social Behaviour Bill received its second reading in the House of Lords on the final day of the parliamentary session. Compared with the Criminal Justice Bill, this is a tiny piece of legislation – but with a significance disproportionate to its size. It is part of the government’s wider campaign against anti-social behaviour, originating with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which has infiltrated a variety of measures – including the Homelessness Act 2002 and the latest proposals on housing benefit sanctions.

The government’s rhetoric on this issue is that of war. The language of the Home Office is of ‘armouries of weapons’, of ‘guts’ and of ‘glory’, and of heroes who ‘take a stand’. Prime targets are those who are perceived by the government as modern day rogues and vagabonds – Travellers, neighbours from hell, feral children and acquiescent parents. But the war is not only being fought against ‘yobs’. It is also being fought against the liberal judges who deny the problems and accuse the Home Office of populism; lawyers who use public funds to silt up the criminal justice system; and those police and local authorities that have failed to use all the powers available to them.

The government’s war against anti-social behaviour is being fought, like most wars, in the name of freedom. The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, in a speech delivered in New York last April, talked of a new understanding of freedom appropriate to these times: ‘a broad definition of liberty based on people’s ability to engage in government and contribute to their communities – not just a passive definition of freedom from interference’. Those who threaten the new freedom are regarded as ideological enemies – they commit the crime of hooliganism against the state.

Yet nothing in the bill promotes active citizenship. The new powers are given only to state authorities; victims of anti-social behaviour have no means of compelling the authorities to take action against perpetrators. Moreover, active citizenship is more contentious than the government acknowledges. For many people, it would encompass engaging in protest or flyposting – both activities that are restricted by the bill.

The bill contains extensive measures to control the behaviour of ‘deviant’ children in ‘dysfunctional’ families. It allows for the dispersal of a group of two or more young people under 16, merely to prevent the risk of disorder. There is no need for anyone in the group to commit a criminal offence, or even threaten a breach of the peace. The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) criticised this provision as a ‘potential intrusion on private life and liberty’, and commented on the difficulty of ensuring that the new power would be used proportionately to a ‘pressing social need’.

Clause 59 of the bill, which the government introduced quietly at a late stage, epitomises LAG’s concerns. It amends the Public Order Act 1986 so that the police can impose conditions on ‘public assemblies’ consisting of two people, instead of 20 as at present. The JCHR points out that the original power was designed to prevent serious public disorder, damage to property, intimidation or disruption caused by large groups of people – and that without clarification of the mischief that is being targeted by this amendment, it is impossible to assess its legitimacy.

LAG does not deny that anti-social behaviour is a real problem. David Blunkett may be surprised to learn that many lawyers and advice workers have experienced it at first hand. We share concerns about victims and accept that there should be some redistribution of the resources devoted to criminal justice to give a higher priority to the violence, harassment and fear that often plagues the lives of disadvantaged people.

However, LAG also fears that those who will be the target of the bill’s powers are likely also to be the ‘victims’ that it claims to protect. People who depend on the state for housing, income, education and support services are always subject to the changing fashions of welfare provision. They suffered from an individualised consumer culture that was created under successive Conservative governments, and which rolled back the inherent protections of a universal welfare state. The resulting insecurities that such people experience make them more vulnerable to this current moral crusade.

As LAG has commented previously, anti-social behaviour is a complex issue that is often deeply rooted in a range of social and personal problems. Heaping yet more punitive measures on top of those that already exist is unlikely to prove effective in altering the way that people behave. From the government’s point of view, the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill is more important for what it says than for what it does – but, unfortunately, it will also manage to impose some extremely oppressive controls on vulnerable people.

http://www.lag.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=90471

more background and links, on my blog at:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act .. .. .. .. AND NOW, PART 2

http://tash_lodge.blogspot.com/2003_10_05_tash_lodge_archive.html#106569213958283190

Statewatch has submitted a dossier covering 22 concerns on civil liberties issues to the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights (the Network was set up to follow up the Charter on Fundamental Rights) for its report on the year 2003:

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/oct/22swsub.htm

The introduction to the submission says:

“It is our view that the effects of the “war on terrorism” is having a detrimental effect on peoples’ rights and liberties and democratic standards both at the national and European levels. There has been a “sea change” since 11 September 2001 which is not temporary but permanent. The “war on terrorism” has replaced the “Cold War” as a legitimating ideology in the EU and the USA which requires the surveillance and control of those entering and the wholesale surveillance and control of their own populations.

There is no longer a balance between freedoms and liberties on the one hand and the demands of security on the other. The demands of security, the law enforcement and internal security agencies are dominant and “emergency powers” are becoming the norm.

Left unchecked basic freedoms and democratic standards – freedom of movement, freedom of expression and the right to protest, freedom from surveillance in everyday life, accountability, scrutiny and data protection – will be whittled away one by one threatening the very democracy being defended by the “war on terrorism”. Your Network, together with many others in civil society, can play an important role in attempting to halt and reverse the present direction.”

The submission covers:

A. Surveillance and data exchange

1. The use of biometrics in identity documents (Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter)

2. Data protection and the exchange of data outside the EU (Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter)

3. Passenger data: recording and use of by USA and EU (Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter)

4. The surveillance of telecommunications (Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter)

5. The development of the SIS and SIS II (Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter)

B. The rights of migrants and refugees

6.The removal of migrants by land and air (Articles 2, 4 and 19 of the Charter)

7. Deaths and injury during deportations (Articles 2, 4 and 19 of the Charter)

8. Deaths at borders (Articles 2 and 18 of the Charter)

9. The targeting of migrant communities (Articles 2 and 18 of the Charter)

10. UK government AND UNHCR plans for camps (Articles 18, 19, 47 of the Charter)

11. Readmission agreements (Articles 18, 19 of the Charter)

12. Development of an EU border police (Articles 18, 19 of the Charter)

13. Contamination of EU development agenda (Article 6 of the Charter)

C. Policing and security

14.The policing of protests and the gathering of intelligence on protestors (Articles 7, 8, 12, 45, 48 of the Charter)

15. Police Chiefs Operational Task Force (Article 42 of the Charter)

16. The development of Europol (Articles 7, 8, 42, 47 of the Charter)

D. Judicial cooperation, criminal law and constitutional issues

17.EU-US agreements (Articles 7, 8, 42, 47 of the Charter)

18. Terrorist lists (Articles 42, 47, 48, 49 of the Charter)

19. The proposed committee on operational control of activities concerning internal security (Article 42 of the Charter)

20. The mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters (Articles 42, 47, 48, 49 of the Charter)

E. Access to EU documents, accountability and scrutiny

21. The failure of the EU institutions to implement the Regulation on access to documents (1049/2001) (Article 42 of the Charter)

22.The failure to produce an annual report on activities carried out under the Schengen acquis (Article 42 of the Charter)

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/oct/22swsub.htm

A day out, photographing autumn at Black Rocks, near Cromford, in the Derbyshire Peak District. Such a wonderful day, the low light just right in hue, and angle, to pick out the details of the rocks.

Some pictures from my camphone at:

http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=11746

Map of the area:

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=429280&Y=355760&A=Y&Z=3

European Day of Media Monitoring which is being organised in mid November this year. The actual dates will be announced shortly. This is an important campaign designed to build a picture of just how the media is covering refugee and asylum issues across Europe.

PressWise and the Refugees, Asylum Seekers and the Media Project (RAM) are co-ordinating this activity in the UK and want to hear from individuals and organisations willing to take part. We assume there will be a large number as this campaign goes right to the heart of our concerns about UK media coverage.

We have suggested a week of monitoring rather than just a day as planned by other European colleagues in order to give a better picture of what is happening in the UK. This may mean, for example, you deciding to check a national newspaper or a local evening of weekly newspaper during that week. You may decide to monitor TV news.

Straight forward monitoring forms will be available and the results fed into a European report which will be launched in mid March 2004 – possibly by Neil Kinnock – and will result in a Day of Action throughout Europe designed to draw attention to bad reporting and promote good coverage.

If you want to join in or would like more information, please E mail RAM’s National Co-ordinator, Terry Williams on williams.t@blueyonder.co.uk or ring 07945 343055 as soon as possible.

I knew about the anti-social behaviour orders etc and the main ideas of the bill, being to do with estates yobs and intimidations etc.

But, didn’t have the idea, that the CJA and Public Order acts were being strengthen also.

Bollox! Oh no, not again. I’ve been through about five of these ‘tightenings of the screw’ and at 50 yrs now, god, am getting tired!!

Actually, living in the city, I’m against some of the things that the Home Sec is trying to deal with, it influences my own life, living in a ‘red light district’ and what I find in my yard, in the light of the morning.

BUT, law treads on us, while it is trying deal with that.

Have just been listening to Blunkett on the telly, his act followed by the Prime Minister, they were talking to a conference in London, launching the new initiatives. Respect for neighbours, dealing with intimidation, Reclaim the Streets [exactly :-)] , environmental measures and investment in local community. All very fine. But I was listening to them, and thinking, how would this apply to a traveller, gypsy, enviro community. Because the assumption made by politics is that we mean supporting the established community OVER our alternative ones.

I think we are about to trampled under-foot, again.

Make you own judgements, the main Home Office main site had just announced all this

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk

with the press release at:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/n_story.asp?item_id=639

and the bill intro pages with links at:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimpol/antisocialbehaviour/index.html

* * * * * *

here are some of the proposals, debated in the Lords

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act .. .. .. .. AND NOW, PART 2

http://tash_lodge.blogspot.com/2003_10_05_tash_lodge_archive.html#106569213958283190

Many readers of these pages, will know well, of the violence metered out to my tribe, by the authorites, in the past, and still ……

Specifically, actions related to event at and around Stonehenge.

I wrote an account of the action, and susequent court case. You can read at:

http://tash.gn.apc.org/sh_bean.htm

Had recently received this email and thought it an inspirational account, so, I emailed him back and asked to use it here. He said ok.

* * * * * *

Re: battle of the beanfield

no worries mate use it as you see fit.

Your right the kids today do need a bit of inspiration today. They are wild but in a different way.

Us we just wanted to be free.

I hope you still are

bro

one love JJ

* * * * * *

Hi tash

wow your site bought back some amazing memories. It seems that every body you meet was at the beanfield these days. But I was and I wonder if you remember me. I just missed the beanfield ambush. I arrived on the lord something or others site riding a jet black 250 kawazaki. I couldnt believe what had just gone down. And i was just going from van to van trying to concole everybody.

Just then a giant red gold and green bus with two family of rastas appeared. It limped into site with a busted radiator I think. I suddenly realised that here was an opportunity. I asked the rastas if I could get the money would they take me to their frontline in birminham to score a big bag of weed.

Looking round at the people they quickly agreed. So I then went round every tent collecting money. You must remember that the old bill were not far from the opening and still searching everybody coming in and out of the site so there was a risk on our part but we went with a “if we get caught fuck it attitude.”

The travel up to birmingham was brilliant, we smoked some weed and started to get to know each other.They interduced me to the game of if the other guy dont drop his headlights, blind him with yours.This game made me slightly nervious so I gently persuaded them to drop this.You must realise it was a long boring journey, so we filled it with reasoning. Basically we deduced that these rastas wernt that different from the rastas that I knew, the only real difference being the accent; which me being a dyed in the wool londoner found bloody funny. anyway we decided that when we got back to the rest we were just going to front it with the beast. So when we got there the Rasta who was driving his car actually bibbed his horn and gestured for the old bill to get out of our way. And they did and the rest is history.

We arrived in camp with a blackbinliner full up with weed. The people started to gather round to take their share( or whoever put money in the pot. It was weird because as that weed went round the whole atmosphere of the camp changed. I saw smiles appearing on peoples faces. And later a party did start. I remember the rastas got their sound system from out of their bus and put them up in the trees.

And as I looked around at the smiling faces, this brixton boy thought he had made a difference. a small one, but one worth making

all the best.

justin

* * * * * *

More about all this on my main site at:

Stonehenge: http://tash.gn.apc.org/stones1.htm

Solstice Ritual: http://tash.gn.apc.org/solst_0.htm

Beanfield: http://tash.gn.apc.org/sh_bean.htm

The Story so far: http://tash.gn.apc.org/history.htm

http://www.uhc-collective.org.uk

Their latest show:

10th October until 18th October 2003

Don’t Cross the Line is an artist-led project consisting of three interventions/installations in Manchester city centre. These will explore the broad theme of cultural imperialism, focussing specifically on notions of liberty, security and enforced relocation.

ACTIVIST TOOLBOX http://www.uhc-collective.org.uk/toolbox.htm

During the recent anti-war protests we were amazed by the sheer number of people involved in the movement. While many had been politically active before, others were new to it all. To enable people to pick up the skills to take effective action and learn from the mistakes of others we decided to compile a training CD – the complete toolbox for any activist. From organising in groups without leaders to how to set up a road blockade, it’s all here – over 200 files taken from sources worldwide, compiled onto one CD that fits in your wallet. Subjects covered include; organising and decision making, tools for taking action, public order situations, dealing with the press and legal resources.

It can be browsed from: http://www.uhc-collective.org.uk/toolbox/index.htm

‘Twas last July, when i contributed some of my police surviellance work to NATO in Manchester, [That’s the Northern Arts Tactical offesive, by the way] … another colaboration between them and BeyondTV.

Blog entries at the time, tell you all about what they / we /me, were trying to do.

nATo in Manchester

http://tash_lodge.blogspot.com/2002_07_07_tash_lodge_archive.html#78897980

nATo show in manchester,

http://tash_lodge.blogspot.com/2002_07_28_tash_lodge_archive.html#79699044

Hansard entry:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds03/text/31007-33.htm

Oh no!!!! Those that understand the progress of the Law, against us, will know of the Public Order Act 1986, that first made it as difficult as it for festivals and travellers to gather. Then, in 1994, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, section 61 – 70, tightened those laws, and lowered the threshold of numbers attending, to trigger those actions against us.

It was / is, the end of a lifestyle that resulted in so many friends going abroad, simply to listen to some music in the countryside, and gather with your mates ….. All these TORY laws from the 1980’s and 1990’s had implications across festival. event, protest, assembly, in fact, any activity involving gathering together without a licence!!!!

Well, there has been a change of government from the last set of bastards. HOWEVER, look what the next set of bastards have in mind for us.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 200ZA:

After Clause 59, insert the following new clause

“RAVES

(1) Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (powers in relation to raves) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for “100” substitute “20”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert

“(1A) This section also applies to a gathering if

(a) it is a gathering on land of 20 or more persons who are trespassing on the land; and

(a) it would be a gathering of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) above if it took place on land in the open air.”

(4) In subsection (2) omit “in the open air”.

(5) In subsection (7) for “this section” substitute “subsection (6) above”.

(6) After subsection (7) insert

“(7A) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he knows that a direction under subsection (2) above has been given which applies to him, and

(b) he makes preparations for or attends a gathering to which this section applies within the period of 24 hours starting when the direction was given.

(7B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (7A) above is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.””

The noble Lord said: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for raising the issue of raves. He, like me, during our many years in local government, probably experienced the unpleasant side effects of raves in our postbags and on our telephones at weekends from members of the public, who were understandably and properly complaining about them and the anti-social behaviour which can arise.

We all know that raves can disrupt the peace and tranquillity of many local communities, in particular during the spring and summer months. I could regale noble Lords with certain unpleasant experiences during my time as leader of my local authority. Because of the hour I shall not do so. However, it should be understood that the Government understand the impact of raves on local communities and we are keen to deal with the problem. We are also grateful that that keenness to act is shared across the Committee.

I recognise that the effect of raves is not limited to the duration of the event itself. These gatherings can bring noise nuisance and traffic congestion on small, wholly unsuited roads. Rubbish may be deposited in often very attractive surroundings.

The legislation relating to raves goes back to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It was introduced as a response to what the government of the day saw as the growing phenomenon of the rave and the difficulties that this type of unstructured event were likely to cause. Since the introduction of that legislation, we know that the tactics of rave organisers have changed and we recognise the need for the legislation to be updated.

In my experience, rave organisers are clever and use the best of modern technology, in particular the mobile phone, to make their arrangements. It is therefore necessary to disrupt those tactics and, in essence, that is what this proposed legislation seeks to do.

* * * * * *

{Lord Bassam of Brighton is the chap that piloted the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 through Parliament, and now appying those provisions, designed in helping to combat terrorism amoungst other things, now applied to partys}

* * * * * *

The issues relating to raves were raised during the Commons stage of the Bill. Further, it is a matter often raised by members of the public in correspondence. We are pleased to have this opportunity to table amendments in this Bill to Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Raves have been organised in buildings such as barns and disused warehouses. In the past the police have been powerless to act as the current legislation applies only to land in the open air. We therefore propose to extend the legislative powers to include indoor trespassory raves.

Rave organisers have been restricting the number at events to below 100 people in order to frustrate the operation of current legislation, so we propose to amend it to include indoor and outdoor events where 20 or more people are present. This aims to ensure that it is no longer commercially viable to organise an unlicensed rave. It should be noted that, for the organisers, raves have been highly profitable events. When speaking to young people who have attended them, many believe that they were badly ripped off. They may have had a good time at a rave, but they certainly paid for it.

Finally, the police have reported many occasions where rave organisers who have been given a direction to leave have simply moved to another area a fallback position to set up another rave. Again, I came across that problem during my time in local government. We propose to make it an offence for a person on whom a direction has been served to attend another trespassory rave within 24 hours of the direction being given.

The proposals will not be perfect and catch every event, but we think that most of the events that in the past have led to problems should be curtailed. The Government believe that these amendments will strengthen the current powers so that the police can provide relief to communities. They will be warmly welcomed by the Association of Chief Police Officers and, no doubt, by officers working on the ground.

I hope that the noble Lord opposite will welcome these government amendments and that, in the circumstances, he will not feel the need to press his own amendments. I beg to move.

* * * * * *

Anti-social Behaviour Bill [an extract]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldbills/108/03108.46-49.html#j6666

Part 8

Public order and trespass

62 Public assemblies

In section 16 of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) (which defines public assembly for the purposes of the power in section 14 of that Act to impose conditions on public assemblies), in the definition of public assembly for 20 substitute 2.

63 Raves

(1) Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (powers in relation to raves) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) for 100 substitute 20.

(3) After subsection (1) insert (1A) This section also applies to a gathering if

(a) it is a gathering on land of 20 or more persons who are trespassing on the land; and

(b) it would be a gathering of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) above if it took place on land in the open air.

(4) In subsection (2) omit in the open air.

(5) In subsection (7) for this section substitute subsection (6) above.

(6) After subsection (7) insert

(7A) A person commits an offence if

(a) he knows that a direction under subsection (2) above has been given which applies to him, and

(b) he makes preparations for or attends a gathering to which this section applies within the period of 24 hours starting when the direction was given. (7B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (7A) above is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.

64 Aggravated trespass

(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 68 (offence of aggravated trespass), in subsection (1) (which defines the offence by reference to trespass on land in the open air and lawful activity on land in the open air) omit in the open air in both places where those words appear.

(3) In section 69 (powers to remove persons committing or participating in aggravated trespass), in subsection (1) (which confers the power by reference to trespass on land in the open air) omit in the open air in both places where those words appear.

* * * * * *

Just remember, who ever you vote for, the government still gets elected……

Have been a listener to the Archers on BBC Radio4 for xxxxxx years. Can’t help it, think it’s great. !! I learn loads.

It’s not just about, when you ‘do’ your sheep etc, but is a bit of a ‘barometer’ with technology. Use of GPS in crop management, satelite photos etc, have all made an appearence.

On this last tuesday addition. A mobile camara phone has just arrived in the Aldridge household as a present. Amazing eh?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/drama.shtml?archers_tue

The show will be there for next 7 days……

For those interested the Archers has a website, all of its own.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/archers

Next Page »