|
 As
of the 3rd November 1994, the noxious Criminal Justice and
Public Order Bill became an Act, i.e. law, and approximately
90 arrests have already been made. The majority of these
have been for aggravated trespass in connection with hunt
saboteuring. As of December [1994] there appears to
have been no arrests (or 5000 pound fines) for squatting,
nor for party (or as the Act defines it 'rave')
organisations or sound systems confiscated. This article
will mostly concern the latter. Party and festival
organisers and attenders must remain optimistic; it is the
very intention of this legislation to engender an atmosphere
of fear, that is the true deterrent power of the law. It may
be a long time before this Act is rigidly enforced, the
police (whom in several cases opposed the Act) will remain
unsure both of the details of new powers and their ability
to enforce them.
 For
instance, although the police now have the power to legally
roadblock parties (thus admitting that this was previously
illegal), the practicalities of arresting what could amount
to hundreds of people on a weekly basis are not realistic.
It would require a huge police operation for each party,
soon bankrupting most forces. The real way that the Act
could work against us is through collective fear and
ignorance. If all present cross police roadblocks en masse,
it will be impossible for them to enforce. All party-goers,
therefore, and for that matter everyone affected by the Act
should understand it and carry on raising a collective two
fingers.
The
Act operates as a scare tactic, and the police themselves
are split in their appraisal of the CJA. In two recent
issues of Police Review, two particular articles have
demonstrated this division. In the Nov. 94 magazine, David
Wilmot (Chief Constable of Greater Manchester and successor
to the greatest Moses imitator of recent times) basically
argues that the police are 'the most visible representatives
of the State' and are being pushed unwillingly into civil
(i.e. non-criminal) areas. He admits that 'the pressure on
us is to deliver what is, in essence, civil-law
enforcement'. So, one copper thinks that the Act goes too
far.
However,
one week later (Nov 25 issue Police Review) Detective Chief
Inspector Ray Newman argues that the Act goes nowhere near
far enough. This is where party organisers/sound
systems/party-goers can take some cheer. He proceeds to
outline what he sees as the flaws (i.e. positive points for
us) of the Act in relation to 'raves'. These are the exact
arguments that can be employed at the party site, or if the
worst comes to the worst, the police station. Mr. Newton's
ideological stall is set out with no messing: "legislation
was clearly needed to deal with people attending unlawful
raves, and to empower officers to enter sites without
warrants and disperse those present - organisers or ravers -
and to seize all equipment'!!! To whom was this clear? Is it
clear to all that party-goers need dispersing?
He
goes on to say that the Act 'may not be as extensive as the
police had hoped, or as ravers had feared '! His first moan,
and our first ray of sunlight, is that the Act only applies
to 'raves' in the open air. He concludes that 'factories,
warehouses and aircraft hangars would appear to fall outside
the legislation' - so plenty of parties available there, in
the police's own words. Next he examines the 'serious
distress' section and concludes 'some distress is not
enough, it must be serious'. So if a party is more than a
couple of miles away from the nearest village/town/city, it
would be very hard, according to DCI Newman, to prove
serious distress. Also it apparently replaces the police
power to use public nuisance in 'minor level distress ' to
the community.
The
next admission that Newman makes is that 'careless handling'
of systems belonging to innocent parties should be avoided
as it may lead to the police being sued. He advises taking a
photo and keeping the system on site until the owner can be
traced . One way in which many systems have avoided
confiscation is by someone playing the straight hire
company/having receipts for the equipment/a contract and
having a good story, especially as the Act makes allowance
for 'forfeiture' ( i.e. no get back!) unless the order may
affect the owner's livelihood. Mr. Newman's next problem
with the Act (our next loophole) is that Motorway exits and
roads cannot be closed/blocked more than 5 miles away from
the party site. This would presumably make last summer's
blocking of the M5 by the police unlawful.
The
next area of interest to us is the section which states that
the Act applies whether those present are 'trespassers or
not'. The meaning of this is unclear, as these three words
fundamentally alter the law, until now the police have been
very reluctant to move in on private land, where the party
is happening with the landowner's consent. Although this is
apparently changed, it is unlikely that the police will
start to get heavy handed and seize systems from private
land, and so a party on permissioned land will probably be
left alone. Generally DCI Newman has a moan because he feels
the new powers are insufficient to deal with 'unsafe,
unlawful raves'. Although a marquee in a field is probably
the safest form of mass entertainment available (compare it
to a club or a football match), we must take heart from
police uncertainty.
Remember
most plod don't understand the Act any better than we do,
and will often gain their knowledge from articles such as
this. Know your rights and remember that actually talking to
the cops , rather than shouting at them (even if this takes
superhuman effort against frequent police aggression), the
party may go on and the system may make it home. Whatever
the law, senior police will not create public order problems
where they can avoid it. The real result of the new
legislation will not be to kill off the free party but the
big free festival. It is this, in the wake of Castlemoreton,
that the powers are designed to deal with, and it is
realistically very difficult to envisage any more huge
festivals next summer. However these things are cyclical,
and will at some point return. Although we all know that the
police often act outside their power, whatever the law, and
negotiation is often not on their agenda, it is the climate
that the Act creates, rather than the letter of a largely
unworkable law.
So cheer up and party
on!
For more information about
the Criminal Justice Act please contact: RIGHT TO PARTY,
P.O. BOX CJA,15 GOOSEGATE, HOCKLEY, NOTTINGHAM. ALAN LODGE,
E-Mail: 100653.3666@compuserve.com.
or
LIBERTY, 21 Tabard Street,
London SE1 4LA. Tel: 0171 403 3888. Fax: 0171 407
5354
You should also contact
LIBERTY at the above address if you wish to report a
CJA-related incident as part of their Public Order
Monitoring Project.
|
