Police close down illegal rave in fields behind Sompting

Police close down illegal rave

Police close down illegal rave

First published in News by

More than 35 people held an illegal rave in fields behind a residential road.

Officers shut down the rave off Halewick Lane, Sompting, earlier this morning (June 8) They were called by a dog walker to say 35 people with vehicles and large music speakers were on land next to the nearby recycling centre.

As officers moved in, more people were arriving in taxis.

The party goers packed up and left the site around 9am.

Chief Superintendent Tony Blaker said: "The earlier that police are alerted to a rave taking place, the greater the chance of preventing them becoming established, disrupting them and dispersing those responsible for their organisation.

"In this case we were able to respond swiftly and the revellers left without causing any disruption."

The gathering follows a larger rave held at Devil's Dyke two weeks ago. It was estimated 2,000 people attended th event.

Did you witness the Sompting rave? Call reporter Ben James on 01273 544536 or email ben.james@theargus.co.uk.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:59pm Sun 8 Jun 14

TIMBURRY says...

What would have happened if it had been 35 caravans?
What would have happened if it had been 35 caravans? TIMBURRY
  • Score: 20

1:23pm Sun 8 Jun 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

TIMBURRY wrote:
What would have happened if it had been 35 caravans?
The council would have rushed down there to throw piles of our cash at making them comfortable and asked if their bolt-cutters needed sharpening?
[quote][p][bold]TIMBURRY[/bold] wrote: What would have happened if it had been 35 caravans?[/p][/quote]The council would have rushed down there to throw piles of our cash at making them comfortable and asked if their bolt-cutters needed sharpening? From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: 22

3:26pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Old Ladys Gin says...

The police are alerted to a rave taking place ;)


http://vc10.net/
The police are alerted to a rave taking place ;) http://vc10.net/ Old Ladys Gin
  • Score: 0

8:13pm Sun 8 Jun 14

MikeTheKnight says...

So the answer to hold a rave is to tow a caravan with your bits in and you'll be fine
So the answer to hold a rave is to tow a caravan with your bits in and you'll be fine MikeTheKnight
  • Score: 8

9:13pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Watchdog50 says...

This is the second of two stories that I've read this evening. Neither of which has anything to do with travelers. Despite this, both have been hijacked by the anti traveler brigade. WE GET IT....YOU DON'T LIKE THEM!!! I'm not particularly fond of their antics myself but I don't use every thread as a platform to air my views on them. Please give it a rest. Some of us are actually interested in commenting on the subject at hand.
This is the second of two stories that I've read this evening. Neither of which has anything to do with travelers. Despite this, both have been hijacked by the anti traveler brigade. WE GET IT....YOU DON'T LIKE THEM!!! I'm not particularly fond of their antics myself but I don't use every thread as a platform to air my views on them. Please give it a rest. Some of us are actually interested in commenting on the subject at hand. Watchdog50
  • Score: -3

10:14pm Sun 8 Jun 14

NickBrt says...

Good job sompting not got green councillors or police would never be allowed to stop a rave.
Good job sompting not got green councillors or police would never be allowed to stop a rave. NickBrt
  • Score: 0

10:56pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Vigilia says...

Watchdog50 wrote:
This is the second of two stories that I've read this evening. Neither of which has anything to do with travelers. Despite this, both have been hijacked by the anti traveler brigade. WE GET IT....YOU DON'T LIKE THEM!!! I'm not particularly fond of their antics myself but I don't use every thread as a platform to air my views on them. Please give it a rest. Some of us are actually interested in commenting on the subject at hand.
All comment on traveller issues is censored in the Argus under pressure from the Green administration. Consequently, the deeply frustrated residents of this City will use whatever opportunity they have to express their condemnation of traveller behaviour.
There is no anti traveller brigade. Merely hard working, Council Tax paying local residents with substantial investment in the City who object to having to provide for the chosen alternative lifestyle of assorted "travellers" who invest the City year after year.
The law the police assiduously pursue in relation to raves is the selfsame law applicable to unlawful traveller encampments. Sections 61 & 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 applies to traveller encampments whilst Section 68 relates to raves. The public doesn't understand why raves are dealt with almost instantly whilst unlawful encampment, causing infinitely more disruption, can be tolerated for anything up to 150 days.
[quote][p][bold]Watchdog50[/bold] wrote: This is the second of two stories that I've read this evening. Neither of which has anything to do with travelers. Despite this, both have been hijacked by the anti traveler brigade. WE GET IT....YOU DON'T LIKE THEM!!! I'm not particularly fond of their antics myself but I don't use every thread as a platform to air my views on them. Please give it a rest. Some of us are actually interested in commenting on the subject at hand.[/p][/quote]All comment on traveller issues is censored in the Argus under pressure from the Green administration. Consequently, the deeply frustrated residents of this City will use whatever opportunity they have to express their condemnation of traveller behaviour. There is no anti traveller brigade. Merely hard working, Council Tax paying local residents with substantial investment in the City who object to having to provide for the chosen alternative lifestyle of assorted "travellers" who invest the City year after year. The law the police assiduously pursue in relation to raves is the selfsame law applicable to unlawful traveller encampments. Sections 61 & 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 applies to traveller encampments whilst Section 68 relates to raves. The public doesn't understand why raves are dealt with almost instantly whilst unlawful encampment, causing infinitely more disruption, can be tolerated for anything up to 150 days. Vigilia
  • Score: 7

11:18pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Roundbill says...

Maybe the police just don't like gabba?
Maybe the police just don't like gabba? Roundbill
  • Score: 4

9:32am Mon 9 Jun 14

Watchdog50 says...

Vigilia wrote:
Watchdog50 wrote:
This is the second of two stories that I've read this evening. Neither of which has anything to do with travelers. Despite this, both have been hijacked by the anti traveler brigade. WE GET IT....YOU DON'T LIKE THEM!!! I'm not particularly fond of their antics myself but I don't use every thread as a platform to air my views on them. Please give it a rest. Some of us are actually interested in commenting on the subject at hand.
All comment on traveller issues is censored in the Argus under pressure from the Green administration. Consequently, the deeply frustrated residents of this City will use whatever opportunity they have to express their condemnation of traveller behaviour.
There is no anti traveller brigade. Merely hard working, Council Tax paying local residents with substantial investment in the City who object to having to provide for the chosen alternative lifestyle of assorted "travellers" who invest the City year after year.
The law the police assiduously pursue in relation to raves is the selfsame law applicable to unlawful traveller encampments. Sections 61 & 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 applies to traveller encampments whilst Section 68 relates to raves. The public doesn't understand why raves are dealt with almost instantly whilst unlawful encampment, causing infinitely more disruption, can be tolerated for anything up to 150 days.
Vigilia, I agree with you for the most part. I understand the frustrations faced by those who toe the line while others seem to be able to do what they want with impunity. I do also find it strange that comments are immediately disabled on any traveler related topic in the Argus. Trust me, I probably have more reason to dislike travelers than most others. However, it really gets boring listening to some commentators, who have probably never had any direct contact with that particular group and are probably just jumping on the band-wagon so as to get a few guaranteed 'thumbs ups' A little sad really.

But okay.....at the risk of skewing the thread further, let's compare this rave to a group of travelers and examine why the police would deal with one and not the other. 35 people at the rave. Probably about the same numbers as a typical traveling group. So the police move in and break up the rave. At that early stage it would probably take maybe ten officers and a couple of hours. Everyone packs up, disperses and goes home. Job done. Dealing with travelers would be completely different. There are so many more factors to consider. Let's leave aside the accusations of discrimination against the police (which the media would be only too happy to support if it suited their agenda that week) and focus on the practicalities. Travelers don't respond to reasonable requests like most other people. They will contest and argue EVERY point. They will try and muddy the waters just to make things awkward (i.e. "The people from that caravan aren't here and we don't know them anyway" or "We don't know who owns that van or where the keys are"). Of course, that's if they'll communicate at all. Often they'll simply not answer the doors to their caravans meaning that further court orders are required for police to gain entry (as the caravans would be regarded as dwellings and camping illegally is not an indictable offence meaning that the police could not enter without a warrant being issued). Then there are child welfare issues. The police can't just go in and start turfing toddlers out. But let's say they did. The police turn up mob handed (which in itself would be a job these days) with recovery vehicles and court orders, don't take any nonsense and order the travelers to leave within the hour. It doesn't end there does it. The travelers move 500 yards down the road and the whole thing starts again. The only way to prevent this is to effectively surround each traveling convoy with police officers who will be required to predict and block any conceivable pitch. We know that the CPS and courts don't regard illegal encampments as 'real crimes' worthy of their attention. No. In their eyes it's better to just let an over-worked and depleted police force scrabble about and take the flack from an unimportant and easily ignored law abiding general public.

In addition (and this won't be a popular view at all) but people are fickle. Do you think that any of those who were affected by the rave in Sompting came out and said to the police, "No, leave them to party. There's a group of travelers in Brighton that I'd much rather you dealt with" or "Stop harassing the travelers at the end of my road and go and deal with that rave in Devil's Dyke!" Of course they didn't. In the ideal world the police SHOULD do both. However this isn't the ideal world and those who think it is need a reality cheque (or is it check?..I'm never sure).

Sorry for the rant. You see....Travelers bring out the angry side of me too which is why I don't like to read about them in just about every thread.
[quote][p][bold]Vigilia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Watchdog50[/bold] wrote: This is the second of two stories that I've read this evening. Neither of which has anything to do with travelers. Despite this, both have been hijacked by the anti traveler brigade. WE GET IT....YOU DON'T LIKE THEM!!! I'm not particularly fond of their antics myself but I don't use every thread as a platform to air my views on them. Please give it a rest. Some of us are actually interested in commenting on the subject at hand.[/p][/quote]All comment on traveller issues is censored in the Argus under pressure from the Green administration. Consequently, the deeply frustrated residents of this City will use whatever opportunity they have to express their condemnation of traveller behaviour. There is no anti traveller brigade. Merely hard working, Council Tax paying local residents with substantial investment in the City who object to having to provide for the chosen alternative lifestyle of assorted "travellers" who invest the City year after year. The law the police assiduously pursue in relation to raves is the selfsame law applicable to unlawful traveller encampments. Sections 61 & 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 applies to traveller encampments whilst Section 68 relates to raves. The public doesn't understand why raves are dealt with almost instantly whilst unlawful encampment, causing infinitely more disruption, can be tolerated for anything up to 150 days.[/p][/quote]Vigilia, I agree with you for the most part. I understand the frustrations faced by those who toe the line while others seem to be able to do what they want with impunity. I do also find it strange that comments are immediately disabled on any traveler related topic in the Argus. Trust me, I probably have more reason to dislike travelers than most others. However, it really gets boring listening to some commentators, who have probably never had any direct contact with that particular group and are probably just jumping on the band-wagon so as to get a few guaranteed 'thumbs ups' A little sad really. But okay.....at the risk of skewing the thread further, let's compare this rave to a group of travelers and examine why the police would deal with one and not the other. 35 people at the rave. Probably about the same numbers as a typical traveling group. So the police move in and break up the rave. At that early stage it would probably take maybe ten officers and a couple of hours. Everyone packs up, disperses and goes home. Job done. Dealing with travelers would be completely different. There are so many more factors to consider. Let's leave aside the accusations of discrimination against the police (which the media would be only too happy to support if it suited their agenda that week) and focus on the practicalities. Travelers don't respond to reasonable requests like most other people. They will contest and argue EVERY point. They will try and muddy the waters just to make things awkward (i.e. "The people from that caravan aren't here and we don't know them anyway" or "We don't know who owns that van or where the keys are"). Of course, that's if they'll communicate at all. Often they'll simply not answer the doors to their caravans meaning that further court orders are required for police to gain entry (as the caravans would be regarded as dwellings and camping illegally is not an indictable offence meaning that the police could not enter without a warrant being issued). Then there are child welfare issues. The police can't just go in and start turfing toddlers out. But let's say they did. The police turn up mob handed (which in itself would be a job these days) with recovery vehicles and court orders, don't take any nonsense and order the travelers to leave within the hour. It doesn't end there does it. The travelers move 500 yards down the road and the whole thing starts again. The only way to prevent this is to effectively surround each traveling convoy with police officers who will be required to predict and block any conceivable pitch. We know that the CPS and courts don't regard illegal encampments as 'real crimes' worthy of their attention. No. In their eyes it's better to just let an over-worked and depleted police force scrabble about and take the flack from an unimportant and easily ignored law abiding general public. In addition (and this won't be a popular view at all) but people are fickle. Do you think that any of those who were affected by the rave in Sompting came out and said to the police, "No, leave them to party. There's a group of travelers in Brighton that I'd much rather you dealt with" or "Stop harassing the travelers at the end of my road and go and deal with that rave in Devil's Dyke!" Of course they didn't. In the ideal world the police SHOULD do both. However this isn't the ideal world and those who think it is need a reality cheque (or is it check?..I'm never sure). Sorry for the rant. You see....Travelers bring out the angry side of me too which is why I don't like to read about them in just about every thread. Watchdog50
  • Score: 2

1:08pm Mon 9 Jun 14

theargusissoinformative says...

Watchdog50 wrote:
Vigilia wrote:
Watchdog50 wrote:
This is the second of two stories that I've read this evening. Neither of which has anything to do with travelers. Despite this, both have been hijacked by the anti traveler brigade. WE GET IT....YOU DON'T LIKE THEM!!! I'm not particularly fond of their antics myself but I don't use every thread as a platform to air my views on them. Please give it a rest. Some of us are actually interested in commenting on the subject at hand.
All comment on traveller issues is censored in the Argus under pressure from the Green administration. Consequently, the deeply frustrated residents of this City will use whatever opportunity they have to express their condemnation of traveller behaviour.
There is no anti traveller brigade. Merely hard working, Council Tax paying local residents with substantial investment in the City who object to having to provide for the chosen alternative lifestyle of assorted "travellers" who invest the City year after year.
The law the police assiduously pursue in relation to raves is the selfsame law applicable to unlawful traveller encampments. Sections 61 & 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 applies to traveller encampments whilst Section 68 relates to raves. The public doesn't understand why raves are dealt with almost instantly whilst unlawful encampment, causing infinitely more disruption, can be tolerated for anything up to 150 days.
Vigilia, I agree with you for the most part. I understand the frustrations faced by those who toe the line while others seem to be able to do what they want with impunity. I do also find it strange that comments are immediately disabled on any traveler related topic in the Argus. Trust me, I probably have more reason to dislike travelers than most others. However, it really gets boring listening to some commentators, who have probably never had any direct contact with that particular group and are probably just jumping on the band-wagon so as to get a few guaranteed 'thumbs ups' A little sad really.

But okay.....at the risk of skewing the thread further, let's compare this rave to a group of travelers and examine why the police would deal with one and not the other. 35 people at the rave. Probably about the same numbers as a typical traveling group. So the police move in and break up the rave. At that early stage it would probably take maybe ten officers and a couple of hours. Everyone packs up, disperses and goes home. Job done. Dealing with travelers would be completely different. There are so many more factors to consider. Let's leave aside the accusations of discrimination against the police (which the media would be only too happy to support if it suited their agenda that week) and focus on the practicalities. Travelers don't respond to reasonable requests like most other people. They will contest and argue EVERY point. They will try and muddy the waters just to make things awkward (i.e. "The people from that caravan aren't here and we don't know them anyway" or "We don't know who owns that van or where the keys are"). Of course, that's if they'll communicate at all. Often they'll simply not answer the doors to their caravans meaning that further court orders are required for police to gain entry (as the caravans would be regarded as dwellings and camping illegally is not an indictable offence meaning that the police could not enter without a warrant being issued). Then there are child welfare issues. The police can't just go in and start turfing toddlers out. But let's say they did. The police turn up mob handed (which in itself would be a job these days) with recovery vehicles and court orders, don't take any nonsense and order the travelers to leave within the hour. It doesn't end there does it. The travelers move 500 yards down the road and the whole thing starts again. The only way to prevent this is to effectively surround each traveling convoy with police officers who will be required to predict and block any conceivable pitch. We know that the CPS and courts don't regard illegal encampments as 'real crimes' worthy of their attention. No. In their eyes it's better to just let an over-worked and depleted police force scrabble about and take the flack from an unimportant and easily ignored law abiding general public.

In addition (and this won't be a popular view at all) but people are fickle. Do you think that any of those who were affected by the rave in Sompting came out and said to the police, "No, leave them to party. There's a group of travelers in Brighton that I'd much rather you dealt with" or "Stop harassing the travelers at the end of my road and go and deal with that rave in Devil's Dyke!" Of course they didn't. In the ideal world the police SHOULD do both. However this isn't the ideal world and those who think it is need a reality cheque (or is it check?..I'm never sure).

Sorry for the rant. You see....Travelers bring out the angry side of me too which is why I don't like to read about them in just about every thread.
I think you've highlighted travellers' sneaky and aggressive behaviour for what it is. I've also experienced this in passing. They are just technically obstructive, and would do Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister proud. Such technical detail has to be matched by new laws that counteract this detail, and covers all eventualities for their behaviour, so that they have nowhere to hide. Caroline Lucas, are you interested?.........
..
[quote][p][bold]Watchdog50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Vigilia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Watchdog50[/bold] wrote: This is the second of two stories that I've read this evening. Neither of which has anything to do with travelers. Despite this, both have been hijacked by the anti traveler brigade. WE GET IT....YOU DON'T LIKE THEM!!! I'm not particularly fond of their antics myself but I don't use every thread as a platform to air my views on them. Please give it a rest. Some of us are actually interested in commenting on the subject at hand.[/p][/quote]All comment on traveller issues is censored in the Argus under pressure from the Green administration. Consequently, the deeply frustrated residents of this City will use whatever opportunity they have to express their condemnation of traveller behaviour. There is no anti traveller brigade. Merely hard working, Council Tax paying local residents with substantial investment in the City who object to having to provide for the chosen alternative lifestyle of assorted "travellers" who invest the City year after year. The law the police assiduously pursue in relation to raves is the selfsame law applicable to unlawful traveller encampments. Sections 61 & 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 applies to traveller encampments whilst Section 68 relates to raves. The public doesn't understand why raves are dealt with almost instantly whilst unlawful encampment, causing infinitely more disruption, can be tolerated for anything up to 150 days.[/p][/quote]Vigilia, I agree with you for the most part. I understand the frustrations faced by those who toe the line while others seem to be able to do what they want with impunity. I do also find it strange that comments are immediately disabled on any traveler related topic in the Argus. Trust me, I probably have more reason to dislike travelers than most others. However, it really gets boring listening to some commentators, who have probably never had any direct contact with that particular group and are probably just jumping on the band-wagon so as to get a few guaranteed 'thumbs ups' A little sad really. But okay.....at the risk of skewing the thread further, let's compare this rave to a group of travelers and examine why the police would deal with one and not the other. 35 people at the rave. Probably about the same numbers as a typical traveling group. So the police move in and break up the rave. At that early stage it would probably take maybe ten officers and a couple of hours. Everyone packs up, disperses and goes home. Job done. Dealing with travelers would be completely different. There are so many more factors to consider. Let's leave aside the accusations of discrimination against the police (which the media would be only too happy to support if it suited their agenda that week) and focus on the practicalities. Travelers don't respond to reasonable requests like most other people. They will contest and argue EVERY point. They will try and muddy the waters just to make things awkward (i.e. "The people from that caravan aren't here and we don't know them anyway" or "We don't know who owns that van or where the keys are"). Of course, that's if they'll communicate at all. Often they'll simply not answer the doors to their caravans meaning that further court orders are required for police to gain entry (as the caravans would be regarded as dwellings and camping illegally is not an indictable offence meaning that the police could not enter without a warrant being issued). Then there are child welfare issues. The police can't just go in and start turfing toddlers out. But let's say they did. The police turn up mob handed (which in itself would be a job these days) with recovery vehicles and court orders, don't take any nonsense and order the travelers to leave within the hour. It doesn't end there does it. The travelers move 500 yards down the road and the whole thing starts again. The only way to prevent this is to effectively surround each traveling convoy with police officers who will be required to predict and block any conceivable pitch. We know that the CPS and courts don't regard illegal encampments as 'real crimes' worthy of their attention. No. In their eyes it's better to just let an over-worked and depleted police force scrabble about and take the flack from an unimportant and easily ignored law abiding general public. In addition (and this won't be a popular view at all) but people are fickle. Do you think that any of those who were affected by the rave in Sompting came out and said to the police, "No, leave them to party. There's a group of travelers in Brighton that I'd much rather you dealt with" or "Stop harassing the travelers at the end of my road and go and deal with that rave in Devil's Dyke!" Of course they didn't. In the ideal world the police SHOULD do both. However this isn't the ideal world and those who think it is need a reality cheque (or is it check?..I'm never sure). Sorry for the rant. You see....Travelers bring out the angry side of me too which is why I don't like to read about them in just about every thread.[/p][/quote]I think you've highlighted travellers' sneaky and aggressive behaviour for what it is. I've also experienced this in passing. They are just technically obstructive, and would do Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister proud. Such technical detail has to be matched by new laws that counteract this detail, and covers all eventualities for their behaviour, so that they have nowhere to hide. Caroline Lucas, are you interested?......... .. theargusissoinformative
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree