Sussex landowners urged to report illegal raves (From The Argus)

A couple of words of advice to the police: "it's none of your business".

bibble wrote:
A couple of words of advice to the police: "it's none of your business".

luckily for the general population any congregation of the great unwashed soapdodgers intent on causing mayhem to the detriment of normal people is the business of the police.
holders of raves are just as bad as doasyoulikies believing they can turn up and occupy any old bit of land, car park or warehouse etc, no respect for peoples property and in the case of raves no respect for people who have to suffer intolerable noise
plus a huge amount of unwanted vehicular traffic
personally i think that people who attend raves should be pegged to the floor infront of a loudspeaker and left to find out if they still like the music when they are sober

Rather strange really because when you report a rave F all happens because police do noy have the resource!

Strange they are concerned about moving raves on quickly, but not travellers. They both do a lot damage

A rave is normally over in a few hours, and the people gone.
'Do as you likeys' stay illegally for months blighting the area for normal people. (Whitehawk).
Could it be that raves are an easier target - as the police are far less likely to have to deal with very violent hard men who live totally outside the law?
I would argue that raves do far less damage than a group of 'do as you likeys'.

stan bailey wrote:
Strange they are concerned about moving raves on quickly, but not travellers. They both do a lot damage

I think raves do a lot less damage.

Once a rave is over, that's it. Small clear-up.

When travellers are in town, there is a CONSTANT clear-up, thefts, crimes...

Osama bin there wrote:
A rave is normally over in a few hours, and the people gone. 'Do as you likeys' stay illegally for months blighting the area for normal people. (Whitehawk). Could it be that raves are an easier target - as the police are far less likely to have to deal with very violent hard men who live totally outside the law? I would argue that raves do far less damage than a group of 'do as you likeys'.

Completely right.

It's rather patronising of the police to tell farmers that raves can damage crops, as though they didn't know. It's rather like telling people they will get wet if it rains.

The police approach to this "problem", is problematic in itself. I can very easily forsee that the police will (try to) prevent people going about the countryside just because they MIGHT be going to a rave. But it's an easy win for the police. They can grab a headline the next day, and the people who still "believe" in the police (based purely on faith, treating the press announcements as some sort of gospel) can feel satisified.

What is "suspicious activity" anyway?

If I hum a tune while looking across a field, is that suspicious? Am I going to have a rave?

If I have dreadlocks, am humming a tune while looking across a field, and overhead to say "yeah man" is that superduper suspicious?

Raves move on. "Travellers" stay put.

Etards are not a threat, other than to people allergic to glow sticks.

The council is upet they aren't in on the revenue stream.

Oh how this made me laugh.
If a farmer can make more money by allowing a rave than a EU hand out they will hold a rave.
However, if a farmer doesn't want a rave, they will set their monkeys on you.
I was once paid £25 an hour to remover ravers from a sheep grazing site.
I earned good money pulling skinny brown girls and pathetically thin blokes off a rave site. They were al;way posh and a little stupid.
I made good money so I am sure farmers can deal with a load of old ravers who are too tired or poor to travel to Thailand for a full moon party.

bibble wrote:

Osama bin there wrote: A rave is normally over in a few hours, and the people gone. 'Do as you likeys' stay illegally for months blighting the area for normal people. (Whitehawk). Could it be that raves are an easier target - as the police are far less likely to have to deal with very violent hard men who live totally outside the law? I would argue that raves do far less damage than a group of 'do as you likeys'.

Completely right. It's rather patronising of the police to tell farmers that raves can damage crops, as though they didn't know. It's rather like telling people they will get wet if it rains. The police approach to this "problem", is problematic in itself. I can very easily forsee that the police will (try to) prevent people going about the countryside just because they MIGHT be going to a rave. But it's an easy win for the police. They can grab a headline the next day, and the people who still "believe" in the police (based purely on faith, treating the press announcements as some sort of gospel) can feel satisified. What is "suspicious activity" anyway? If I hum a tune while looking across a field, is that suspicious? Am I going to have a rave? If I have dreadlocks, am humming a tune while looking across a field, and overhead to say "yeah man" is that superduper suspicious? Raves move on. "Travellers" stay put.

Easy target for the police,good for the statistics, Just use anti-social behavior or terrorism legislation based on the argument that the police say they think there might be a problem,lots of fixed penalty tickets issued and our cowardly and supine magistrates giving the police all the support they need if the police abuse their powers or act beyond their remit.