Slashdot Mirror


UK Police Raid Party After Seeing "All-Night" Tag On Facebook

An anonymous reader writes "Apparently the police like to spend their time trawling our private information on Facebook looking for criminals. 'Riot police stormed a man's 30th birthday barbecue for 15 guests because it was advertised as an "all-night" party on Facebook. Four police cars, a riot van, and a force helicopter were dispatched to a privately-owned field in a small village near Sowton, Devon in the UK on Saturday, ordering the party shut down or everyone would be arrested. The birthday barbecue was busted up before they even had a chance to plug the music in, reports the BBC. It was about 4pm when eight officers with camouflage pants and body armor jumped out of their vehicles and ordered everyone out about an hour into the party.' The event's organizer, Andrew Poole, said, 'The police had full-on camouflage trousers on and body-armour, it was ridiculous. There were also several plain-clothes officers as well ... they kept on insisting it has been advertised it as an all-night rave on the internet. The times on it were put as "overnight" in case people wanted to sleep-over, but after being explained this they were still banging on saying it was advertised on the internet. They wouldn't accept it wasn't a rave. It was in a completely isolated field.'"

22 of 628 comments (clear)

  1. Wow by inKubus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess everyone should put all night party tags on their Facebook pages tomorrow night.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
    1. Re:Wow by Tokerat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I, for one, will be tagging every Facebook event I list from now on as an all-night party in Sowton, Devon, UK. I encourage you to do the same.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    2. Re:Wow by mark_hill97 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since 1994 with the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994.
      I cant take credit for this info though, shamelessly stolen from the discussion on reddit yesterday.

    3. Re:Wow by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Funny

      Isn't that going to get kind of expensive having all your parties shut down by the cops?

    4. Re:Wow by barefoothannibal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Residents were quoted as saying "OMGWTFBBQ!?!"

    5. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since Thatcher took exception to the actual all-night raves that went on in the early nineties. The government take a dim view of anyone having fun, Thatcher (and Blair and Brown for that matter) take a dimmer view of spontaneous communities forming for the purpose of socialising, dancing and casual drug-taking. This is due to the neo-Liberal tenet that people are entirely selfish entities, plotting and scheming against one-another, the only way they should be able to express themselves is through the free market.[1] The point being that these raves were legal, but were not taking part in government-approved capitalist venues, people there were not consuming government-approved drugs (such as alcohol) and even more galling: they went against the principle that people are essentially selfish.

      So. Thatcher had to shut them down, because they went against the government's philosophy of how the world should look. It was an amazing time though, and if you meet a 40-something Brit, who wears a suit to work, has two point four children[2] and you assume they're a boring old git, think again. Chances are a few years ago they were standing in a field, listening to great old school rave[3], and enjoying a sense of community the population of Britain can now only dream of. All thanks to the jackbooted thugs who have been forcing their Cold War derived ideologies on our fair isle for too long.

      One of these days we're going to go Wat Tyler[4] on their arses.

      [1] See The Trap.

      [2] British idiom Two point four children, referring to the average number of children per-household in the UK.

      [3] Just a small example: Prodigy - Out of Space (not for everyone, but that's not the point)

      [4] Wat Tyler, leader of the Peasants Revolt.

      (captcha is 'corrupts', how apropos!)

    6. Re:Wow by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 5, Funny

      Since they replaced their training manual with 1984 and their procedures manual with Monty Python's Flying Circus.

    7. Re:Wow by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So you are the naive type of the second sort. Taking the word of the person who was stopped by the police, as retold by the Daily Mail of all things. (Are you British, do you actually know that paper?)

      You even got your reporting of what he claimed wrong, he didn't say he invited 17 people, he said 17 people "had confirmed", on Facebook. If you have any experience of events advertised on facebook, you'll know that the number of people who find out that way and actually bother to RSVP a confirmation is the tip of the iceberg of the people who go to the event.

      Now read between the lines. He talks about "taking down a sound system". For 17 people? Ridiculous. He talks of hiring a generator and a marquee. He says he spend £800 on the event. >£50 per person for a barbeque? Ridiculous.

      You are very naive.

    8. Re:Wow by coastwalker · · Score: 5, Informative

      £800 for a tent, mobile sound system, barbecue food and booze for 20 friends sounds cheap. I've spent more money on a Christmas dinner for a few friends. I think you just dont like people who break laws against people having fun. He publicized the event to his friends, not to the whole of facebook. What exactly is this Rave thing the law was designed to ban anyway? From what I remember it was introduced because entrepreneurs were organizing parties where they sold drugs and booze on land with out the owners permission with the pull of all night music. Well no one is going to make much of a fuss about putting a stop to littering peoples fields, potentially with dead teenagers. But this was a thirty-th birthday barbecue with music and a tent to hide under when the rain got too bad, set in a field so that alcohol could be consumed and slept off in your own tent. There used to be a pub in Exeter which allowed much the same deal in its field. The pub has been bought by a national chain now and camping in its field is no longer allowed. This country is becoming a vile place to live, no strike that, this country is a vile place to live.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    9. Re:Wow by DJRumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually the Facebook bit was just an afterthought. If you follow the links to the original BBC article, you would see that the local neighbors actually called the police when they saw a group of unfamiliar people gather in the same are where a rave previously took place a few days before. They called the police, who apparently then went out and investigated.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/8155441.stm

      That doesn't excuse what the police did after the fact. It should have taken at least a low grade moron to see that these people were having a BBQ. It's kind of frightening how far out of control things have gotten across the pond. It seems far worse than the US. They have surrendered some very basic liberties to the government and they don't appear to be screaming to get them back which is also confusing. This is obviously some very bad legislation that needs to be revisited. Are the elements that got this type of legislation passed still in control over there?

      They are in a very slippery slope.

  2. Time to house arrest all citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    'Had it gone ahead, it is likely that far more of our resources would have been used to police the event and there would have been considerable disruption to neighbouring properties.

    That's from a spokeswoman of the police there.

    I mean seriously, you're gonna say that because it's easier to make people stop doing something that you have suspicion it might be illegal it's better to mess up a tax paying citizen's freedom?

    To loosely quote Sam Vimes of Discworld, "It's better to say we caught the guy what done it instead of saying we caught the guy who looked like he'd do it. Especially when they say, Prove it."

    Also...

    'It was fortunate that the force helicopter was able to fly over the site as they were returning from another task.'

    Really. In the same article the spokewoman says that it cost them 200 pounds to deploy the helicopter for 20 minutes. The birthday boy spent 800 pounds to get his party RUINED by the police. Fuck you guys, seriously. What the fuck.

  3. Re:What a good idea by xdotx · · Score: 5, Informative

    Raving is not a crime.

    TFA: "[...] section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which grants police powers to remove persons attending or preparing for a "rave" (defined as playing amplified music "wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats," during the night)."

    Well, apparently it is.

    --
    Our wealth breeds emptiness
  4. RTFA - misleading summary by Cougem · · Score: 5, Informative

    1) The police didn't scour facebook - locals did, saw it, and reported it as a rave.

    2) The helicopter was out anyway, and they just asked the helicopter to fly over the site to really check if there was a party on its way back

    It was not police scouring facebook and dispatching a helicopter.

    It embarrasses and annoys me that this happened in my own country, which I do love dearly, but I wont let the usual anti-UK/US/Australia facebook crowd exaggerate it further.

    1. Re:RTFA - misleading summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apparently, they had caused problems before and were told to get a license before having the next party.

      They acknowledge this by saying they pointed the speakers away from the village to reduce the noise.

      If you have ever lived in the country, you know how far sound travels at night. Pointing the speakers in any direction would have little effect.

      They knew they had caused problems before, and were told they had to get a license befoe having another party. They failed to observe the warnings. Enough is enough. I would have them boiled in oil.

      It is amazing how Slashdot publishes articles with such misleading descriptions. It is becoming a useful exercise to try to analyze the facts as stated, then figure out what to look for to find the truth.

      Mike Monett
      Midland

  5. Re:What a good idea by salmacis2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are all kinds of stories of the lunacy going on in the States, too. Anybody reading slashdot / digg/ reddit etc would get a completely distorted view of what America is like, just as you seem to have with the UK.

  6. Re:Wow ... Oddly enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since Thatcher took exception to the actual all-night raves that went on in the early nineties. ...

    Mrs Thatcher had been out of power for 4 years when that bill went through Parliament.

    Guess you were too busy popping pills at those all night parties to notice though ;P

  7. Re:A little trust by Kreigaffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the party is too loud, I'm quite sure there would be existing laws on the books to deal with that. Noise ordinances and the like, specifically aimed at people who are just too loud, especially too loud late at night.
    If the party was held somewhere illegally -- hi mr. warehouse -- there is also a set of laws to deal with that. Trespass laws.

    No, this law was passed to stop people from having raves when it was held on private land, with permission, in areas where nobody would be calling in complaining about noise. Because of the evil MDMA and K and pot these kids were taking. It's all for the children, understand, they need to be protected via jail time and criminal records.

    We in the US had a similar deal pass, but it's not nearly so draconian or invasive... but then again, Brits will be Brits and if there's anything British it's draconian and invasive police forces (I kid, but only *slightly*).

    Why didn't they use discretion? Because that would be admitting wrong on their part. Like that would fucking happen -- nosir, it matters not that they were expecting glowstick-wielding pacifier-chewers and found 30-somethings with a grill and beer. They came to break up a party and by god nothing is going to deter them from running around in their ninja get-up barking orders at confused and upset people. You've gotta feel like you've got a big dick somehow, and admitting they goofed and called all their buddies to come help for no reason is about as far opposite a big-dick feeling you can get this side of your gramma applying ice to your boys wearing naught but a sheer negligee.

    --
    ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
  8. Fuck 'Em, And Their Law by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It became illegal about 15 years ago - from TFA, it states Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This basically criminalised raves (which at the time were being demonised from hysteria and moral panicing from the tabloids and the politicians), even if they are held on legal ground.

    AFAICT, it criminalises any gathering of over 100 people in a public place where music is played (defined infamously as "sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats"), unless they have obtained the appropriate entertainment licence, but furthermore, any it allows the police to disperse any gathering of 2 or more people if the police think they're preparing a rave, or 10 or more people if the police think they're waiting for a rave.

    No evidence, no courts, no right to appeal.

    Of course, the police deserve criticism for applying the law in a case that was clearly not in its original spirit, but let's not remember the law they used to do it is broad and draconian. The worrying thing is that the police haven't backed down and acknowledged it as a mistake - they still believe that anything advertised on the Internet as an "all-night party" should be illegal. What is this, a curfew? Telling us when bed time is? Talk about nanny-state - it's like the strict rules my college used to have about parties, where you needed permission, and parties had to be over by midnight.

    From TFA, the polic: "far more resources would have been used to police the event". In my experience of Cambridge's Strawberry Fair, these resources would predominantly have involved the police doing a fishing expedition in order to catch people with cannabis on them (I experienced this first hand when travelling through Cambridge Train Station that day - even though I wasn't going to the fair, every single person getting off the train that day was detained for about 30 minutes for stop and search for drugs).

    1. Re:Fuck 'Em, And Their Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing that would concern me most about a law like that isn't the nanny-state implications, but the ability to use it to break up political rallies.

    2. Re:Fuck 'Em, And Their Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What a load of bollocks. Our freedoms aren't being removed by the idiots PC's on the beat, and shooting them wouldn't result in anything but a life sentence or a bloody shoot-out in either the UK or the States.

      Our freedoms are being taken by law makers, politicians and lords. We don't require handguns to stop them, we just require the general public to sit up, take notice and grow a pair.

      The simple fact is that a lot of the country don't have a problem with the laws as of yet. They don't gather in large groups in public, they've never 'done drugs' and have no desire to do so - they feel safe, they are happy. I think their total twats, but then part of the downside of living in a democratic country is have to put up with the twats and recognising that not everyone feels the same way I do. Or I could take your suggestion, buy a gun and assert my demand for freedom by... shooting people that are carrying out their (albeit dubious) jobs/duty?

      Even with 50-1 odds in favour and legalised handguns would we stand a fucking chance against a fully trained and specially armed police/army joint force? No. If they had the inclination to do so, they would annihilate us - if they didn't have the inclination, guns wouldn't be needed anyway.

      If you have trouble understanding any of my reasoning by the way - try asking yourself how the American people have managed to lose so many rights will still gripping onto their handguns? Ever wonder if they waved the guns in your face to distract you while they made off with your liberty?

  9. You should read your history... by fantomas · · Score: 5, Informative

    You should read a bit of history, matey. "Never had any kind of revolution or defining moment"... "never had to struggle to get (freedom and liberty)"....

    Take a bit of time out to read some history and you might find out why you've got the right to vote, what habeus corpus is, why we we're allowed to move from parish to parish without getting permission from our lords and a whole lot more.

  10. Re:That doesn't seem to line up.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I still remember that event quite well. It was on the news about the Police attacking the Peace Convoy and me and a friend hitched down from sheffield to show support for the peace convoy.
      We got as far as the roundabout with the turn off to stonehenge, where we were told if we went in that direction we would be arrested as the area was placed under martial law.

    As we pondered what to do next an ole volkswagon combi van pulled up and we ran and jumped in, where we were taken up to the forest where what remained of the peace convoy were.

    The Police wanted to come in to the Forest but couldn't get permission to do so.

    The actions of the Police that day and many other days was criminal, but the Police being the Police were above the law.

    We saw the same sort of actions taken against the miners during the miners strike and now frameworks are in place such as the asbo to make even legal actions illegal. While asbo's can be justified, using them to clear homeless people from central London in preparation for the 2012 Olympics doesn't seem right.

    Britains got to the state where if you want to do something, protest against climate change whatever, its going to be dangerous to your health and well being. The Police will do as they like when they can get away with it.

    It's pretty much been like that most of my adult life, provided you keep your head down and don't do anything to get noticed you will largely be ok.

    I'm so glad I got out of the UK