BGG responds to MDC
Aug. 2nd, 2009 12:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
purpletigronThe Big Green Gathering have now made a point-by-point response to the official statement put out by Mendip District Council concerning the event cancellation:
http://www.big-green-gathering.com/index.php?pageid=275
(Responses in green Ed: in the original)
Who has cancelled the Big Green Gathering (BGG)?
The organisers of the BGG agreed to cancel it and handed their event licence back to the council.
There were four conditions on the injunction:
The Big Green Gathering surrendered the Licence to an Officer of Mendip Council on Sunday 26th July at 10.49 a.m. on the advice of our Barrister, as we believed we could not meet the condition on the injunction to ensure that the road closure order was in place. Our legal advice was that the other conditions could be met. The weekend was spent trying to answer the proposed injunction. The injunction itself was founded upon an untrue assertion that BGG had "threatened" to put the event on in breach of its licence conditions. If the licence conditions could not be met, BGG had no intention of continuing with the event - and it was a recognition that that was regrettably the position that caused BGG to surrender its' licence: It was not the threat of an injunction. The BGG were subject to further ‘threats’ on the Sunday morning, one of them being that the landowner would be added to the injunction. We respect the farmer and his family and we would not want any harm to be caused to them.
Why has the event been cancelled?
There were serious concerns about potential public safety and crime and disorder, which the organisers of the BGG seem to have recognised they could not address in time for the event.
The licence was surrendered -
(a) Because the Highways authority were being intransigent and utterly unreasonable in not giving permission for the road closure;
(b) the Fire Authority were placing unnecessary hurdles in BGG's way - which were not deemed necessary at the last festival; nor at the time of the granting of the licence, nor was any objection made by the Fire Authority at the previous Licence Hearing. They made the objection on Thursday 23rd July at a multi-agency meeting held at the premises where the BGG was to be held and
(c) Valuable time was lost, which could have been spent trying to fulfil BGG's licence obligations, but instead was spent mounting an answer to a wholly misconceived application for an injunction.
Why did the council consider applying for an injunction?
The seriousness of the concerns meant that despite days of negotiations the organisers had still not complied with some aspects of their licence and other legal requirements connected to fire safety. This amounted to concerns that public safety could have been seriously undermined should the event take place in such circumstances. Therefore the council had no other option but to consider applying for an injunction, which, if successful, may have forced the event to shut down.
This is just not true. Midland Fire Services were contracted by Big Green Gathering for the event and they were performing fire service duties at Womad, which meant they could not be at the Multi Agency Meeting. Midland Fire Services were due to appear at the Big Green Gathering on the following Monday before the event and there had been no criticism of the fire plan until Thursday at the Multi Agency Meeting – just six days before the event was due to start.
When was the decision made to progress with an injunction?
During a meeting between the council and emergency services at 6.30pm on Friday (July 24). However, the injunction application was not due to submitted until Monday (July 27) which gave the organisers more opportunity to address their licensing issues.
The timing of the threat of an injunction was deliberately designed to make it almost impossible for BGG to get expert legal advice in the time available and that the decision to pursue an injunction must have been made way before Friday evening 24th July – The actual, prepared injunction was received by email at 6.54p.m. The Council were sending the solicitor copies of all the statements, draft order, application at about 7 p.m. therefore no-one could have put that lot together in two minutes.
When was the council first made aware about concerns surrounding the licence?
On July 17 we became aware there were serious issues about the licence including the confirmation that an important security company involved with the event had withdrawn their services.
Stuart Security Services were originally contracted to provide perimeter services at the BGG. They wanted their whole fee of over £70,000 paid before the event and the BGG thought this was an unreasonable request. We offered them alternative terms and they rejected them. Another Security Firm Coast to Coast was employed and the director of Coast to Coast Security (who have incidentally provided services at the Bath & West Showground) attended the Multi Agency Meeting on 23rd July, together with Green Security who were covering the internal security at the event. Both Coast to Coast and Green Security were repeatedly called by the Council to ask whether they had received monies from the Big Green Gathering. The Big Green Gathering had paid both companies a proportion of their money for their services and as a consequence has lost a large proportion of that money.
What happened next?
Internal investigations at the council alongside the emergency services flagged up other areas of concern. The organisers of BGG were invited to attend a meeting at the council offices on July 22 to help resolve various issues. Some issues were resolved at that meeting, but a number of issues remained outstanding. The council and emergency services had already arranged to meet with the organisers the following day on-site to ensure the outstanding issues had been resolved.
One of the issues was regarding South West Ambulance whose invoice was to be paid on 29th July. We have a copy of the agreement stating the payment terms. The Council was putting pressure on us to pay South West Ambulance early and we believed it was correct not to cave into this kind of pressure. If a company caves in to a Council on when and how they pay their fees for services, where would this stop? The fee for South West Ambulance was just over £9000 including VAT. We had already budgeted for this fee. We also contracted doctors, The Red Cross, Festival Welfare Services, Medical Herbalists to ensure that all medical eventualities were met. There is also a helipad landing area catered for on the BGG site plan. We also agreed to watch towers over the site and many more conditions that would appear to be unreasonable for a peaceful event primarily concerned with giving people information and advice on sustainable lifestyles.
Who would have granted the injunction?
The council had prepared a case to take to the High Court where a judge would have listened to both sides of the argument and made a decision. There is no guarantee the court would have agreed with the council, but the council felt so strongly about their concerns that it had no other option but prepare for an injunction.
The Council knew that a lack of road closure order would be a breach of the licence. Our lawyer, a QC, was pretty sure on the evidence that we could win the arguments bar the road closure.
Did the police pressurise the council into threatening an injunction?
No, the council works in partnership with many agencies. This decision was based on advice from emergency services including the police, ambulance, fire etc. Ultimately, as the licensing authority the council weighed up all the factors and risks and made the final decision.
The ambulance service was at the Multi Agency Meeting and did not appear on the injunction therefore there were no concerns about ambulance provision. From our meetings with the police and the council, it was apparent that the police were leading the discussion. At the Multi Agency meeting held on Thursday 23rd July, it was certainly the police that had most to say. The woman leading the discussions from the Council said very little and left it to the police to do the talking.
Was the threat of an injunction a political decision?
No, this was purely based on public safety and potential for crime and disorder.
We believe this was a political decision. One of our Directors (overheard by another of our staff, who holds a responsible position in the team) was told this was a political decision and that orders came from 'the highest level'. At the meeting on Sunday, we were informed by the police that this action had been planned for some time.
Why wasn't this issue sorted out sooner?
The council and other agencies have been working closely with BGG since February this year on the licence application, which was finally granted. However, there were a number of requirements that had to be completed before the event. Some of these crucial elements had not been completed.
This could easily have been sorted out sooner and there was ample opportunity to complain at the licence hearing if there were concerns. No such complaints were made on 30th June and indeed Inspector Sean Williams stated in the meeting to the Councillors that he believed we had an Event Management Plan suitable for the next few years.
Does the council not feel that this is a safe and green festival?
This is not an issue about whether it has been safe and green, but is an issue as to whether the forthcoming event would have been safe based on the fact that certain requirements were not met.
This is a complete red herring and utterly mendacious.
BGG had professional health and safety teams on site
BGG had provision for 2 doctors on site
BGG had provision for ambulance provision and Red Cross on site - South West Ambulance
BGG had provision for Festival Welfare Services on site
BGG had provision for fully qualified medical herbalists on site
BGG had engaged the services of Midland Fire Rescue
BGG had provision for400 stewards on site - Green Stewards Ltd
BGG had provision for external trained security on site - Coast to Coast Security
BGG had provision for internal trained security on site- Green Security
BGG had provision for a helipad area on site
BGG had provision for trained road people on the perimeter and on site
BGG has an exemplary record on health and safety
BGG had provision for a Challenge 21 alcohol policy
BGG had provision for a lost kids and kids area, with a strong child protection policy in place
BGG had provision for a professional noise monitoring team in place
Setting up trackway, fencing, watch towers and other infrastructure was in progress when the Council and the police visited the site on Thursday, 23rd July for the multi agency meeting on site. Gate crew and site crew were already operating.
The Council and the police knew all this – it was in the licence granted on 30th June, to which they had agreed.
Does the council not support the ethos of events such as the BGG?
The issue here is not about the ethos or messages this event wants to send out but about ensuring public safety during the event.
Again, it would appear that the Council does not support the ethos of events such as the BGG, which incidentally brings around £2million to the local economy. We are saddened by this as it is becoming apparent daily that individual action on climate change is vital and in order to take action information is paramount. BGG supplies that information and helps customers reduce their carbon footprint.
Is the council not victimising this event and those that attend?
Since BGG came to this area a number of years ago it has had significant support from all agencies in planning and running this event. Over the past couple of weeks there has been significant ongoing discussion between organisers, the council and emergency services to try and resolve the licensing issues. The organisers signed up to legal commitments associated with the licence, some of which they failed to meet, and are bound by other legislation.
Our Barrister confirmed to us that the only condition he believed that a judge would accept is that we had failed to meet was the road closure order.
Did the council not want this event to go ahead from the beginning?
The council strives to ensure that any licence application is considered properly and fairly, but it also works closely with other agencies and organisers to attempt to organise safe and well run events. We realise the potential benefit that large events create for the area and local economy. In short the cancellation of this event creates many more issues and a heavier workload for the council than if it had gone ahead safely.
We believe that the Police did not want this to go ahead. The BGG brings in £2 million to the local economy. Traders, local producers, local contractors have all lost money. The BGG had already spent over £200,000 in infrastructure and other costs on the BGG. The BGG had paid in full for the fencing, half the noise monitoring, in full for the trackway, half the police costs, significant amounts to the Security Companies, toilet providers, site crew wages, portacabins, telephone lines, hire of the land, licence application, marketing and publicity, etc..
Has the council gone health and safety mad?
No. However, the council has a duty to protect the public from potential harm, and concerns existed due to certain plans not being in place. We realise that the cancellation of this event will be blamed on the council by some and has had a huge impact, however if we had done nothing and a serious incident had happened the council would have been also blamed for not acting where concerns existed.
All events, however well run, do have a significant potential for crime and disorder issues, however, part of our role is to minimise this effect through proper licensing. We were not satisfied that this event had addressed some of those issues.
We agree that protecting the public from harm is very important and the BGG has a very good record on public safety as the Council very well know. We think that lack of a road closure order is disproportionate to the action taken and the police were very quick to enact road closure orders in order to shut down the event.
Did we have an intention of creating financial difficulties for the BGG?
No. The council would never wish to see any financial difficulties affect any local event or businesses as one of our corporate goals is to support the local economy.
The effect is not just on the BGG but many local businesses that rely on income from the BGG in these difficult financial times. For example the local farmer had organised £000’s of food to be ready for the BGG, Butcombe Brewery had laid on extra drinks, the local Bread Lady had bought supplies especially, Traders who come had bought in extra stock. Those that we employ that live in the neighbourhood have now lost out. And the BGG has lost a fortune in lost revenue. The corporate goals seems to have gone awry on what was in the most generous terms spurious arguments to stop the BGG
Did the council create problems with the BGG signing up a security firm?
No, we simply needed assurance from the BGG that they had security arrangements in place.
This is mendacious as both security contractors attended the multi agency meeting and gave assurances that they would fulfill their contracts. Some of our contractors have complained of harassment from the Council, so much so, that an officer of the BGG telephoned the Council to complain. One contractor said they were being phoned every ten minutes and the impression they received was that they should pull out of the BGG.
How much crime and disorder results from the BGG?
This is a policing issue and the BGG spent significant time working with the police on this event.
Very little compared to the number of people on site. There was an increase in tent thefts in 2007 but BGG were providing campsite neighbourhood watch and lockers for peoples valuables.
http://www.big-green-gathering.com/index.php?pageid=275
(Responses in green Ed: in the original)
Who has cancelled the Big Green Gathering (BGG)?
The organisers of the BGG agreed to cancel it and handed their event licence back to the council.
There were four conditions on the injunction:
The Big Green Gathering surrendered the Licence to an Officer of Mendip Council on Sunday 26th July at 10.49 a.m. on the advice of our Barrister, as we believed we could not meet the condition on the injunction to ensure that the road closure order was in place. Our legal advice was that the other conditions could be met. The weekend was spent trying to answer the proposed injunction. The injunction itself was founded upon an untrue assertion that BGG had "threatened" to put the event on in breach of its licence conditions. If the licence conditions could not be met, BGG had no intention of continuing with the event - and it was a recognition that that was regrettably the position that caused BGG to surrender its' licence: It was not the threat of an injunction. The BGG were subject to further ‘threats’ on the Sunday morning, one of them being that the landowner would be added to the injunction. We respect the farmer and his family and we would not want any harm to be caused to them.
Why has the event been cancelled?
There were serious concerns about potential public safety and crime and disorder, which the organisers of the BGG seem to have recognised they could not address in time for the event.
The licence was surrendered -
(a) Because the Highways authority were being intransigent and utterly unreasonable in not giving permission for the road closure;
(b) the Fire Authority were placing unnecessary hurdles in BGG's way - which were not deemed necessary at the last festival; nor at the time of the granting of the licence, nor was any objection made by the Fire Authority at the previous Licence Hearing. They made the objection on Thursday 23rd July at a multi-agency meeting held at the premises where the BGG was to be held and
(c) Valuable time was lost, which could have been spent trying to fulfil BGG's licence obligations, but instead was spent mounting an answer to a wholly misconceived application for an injunction.
Why did the council consider applying for an injunction?
The seriousness of the concerns meant that despite days of negotiations the organisers had still not complied with some aspects of their licence and other legal requirements connected to fire safety. This amounted to concerns that public safety could have been seriously undermined should the event take place in such circumstances. Therefore the council had no other option but to consider applying for an injunction, which, if successful, may have forced the event to shut down.
This is just not true. Midland Fire Services were contracted by Big Green Gathering for the event and they were performing fire service duties at Womad, which meant they could not be at the Multi Agency Meeting. Midland Fire Services were due to appear at the Big Green Gathering on the following Monday before the event and there had been no criticism of the fire plan until Thursday at the Multi Agency Meeting – just six days before the event was due to start.
When was the decision made to progress with an injunction?
During a meeting between the council and emergency services at 6.30pm on Friday (July 24). However, the injunction application was not due to submitted until Monday (July 27) which gave the organisers more opportunity to address their licensing issues.
The timing of the threat of an injunction was deliberately designed to make it almost impossible for BGG to get expert legal advice in the time available and that the decision to pursue an injunction must have been made way before Friday evening 24th July – The actual, prepared injunction was received by email at 6.54p.m. The Council were sending the solicitor copies of all the statements, draft order, application at about 7 p.m. therefore no-one could have put that lot together in two minutes.
When was the council first made aware about concerns surrounding the licence?
On July 17 we became aware there were serious issues about the licence including the confirmation that an important security company involved with the event had withdrawn their services.
Stuart Security Services were originally contracted to provide perimeter services at the BGG. They wanted their whole fee of over £70,000 paid before the event and the BGG thought this was an unreasonable request. We offered them alternative terms and they rejected them. Another Security Firm Coast to Coast was employed and the director of Coast to Coast Security (who have incidentally provided services at the Bath & West Showground) attended the Multi Agency Meeting on 23rd July, together with Green Security who were covering the internal security at the event. Both Coast to Coast and Green Security were repeatedly called by the Council to ask whether they had received monies from the Big Green Gathering. The Big Green Gathering had paid both companies a proportion of their money for their services and as a consequence has lost a large proportion of that money.
What happened next?
Internal investigations at the council alongside the emergency services flagged up other areas of concern. The organisers of BGG were invited to attend a meeting at the council offices on July 22 to help resolve various issues. Some issues were resolved at that meeting, but a number of issues remained outstanding. The council and emergency services had already arranged to meet with the organisers the following day on-site to ensure the outstanding issues had been resolved.
One of the issues was regarding South West Ambulance whose invoice was to be paid on 29th July. We have a copy of the agreement stating the payment terms. The Council was putting pressure on us to pay South West Ambulance early and we believed it was correct not to cave into this kind of pressure. If a company caves in to a Council on when and how they pay their fees for services, where would this stop? The fee for South West Ambulance was just over £9000 including VAT. We had already budgeted for this fee. We also contracted doctors, The Red Cross, Festival Welfare Services, Medical Herbalists to ensure that all medical eventualities were met. There is also a helipad landing area catered for on the BGG site plan. We also agreed to watch towers over the site and many more conditions that would appear to be unreasonable for a peaceful event primarily concerned with giving people information and advice on sustainable lifestyles.
Who would have granted the injunction?
The council had prepared a case to take to the High Court where a judge would have listened to both sides of the argument and made a decision. There is no guarantee the court would have agreed with the council, but the council felt so strongly about their concerns that it had no other option but prepare for an injunction.
The Council knew that a lack of road closure order would be a breach of the licence. Our lawyer, a QC, was pretty sure on the evidence that we could win the arguments bar the road closure.
Did the police pressurise the council into threatening an injunction?
No, the council works in partnership with many agencies. This decision was based on advice from emergency services including the police, ambulance, fire etc. Ultimately, as the licensing authority the council weighed up all the factors and risks and made the final decision.
The ambulance service was at the Multi Agency Meeting and did not appear on the injunction therefore there were no concerns about ambulance provision. From our meetings with the police and the council, it was apparent that the police were leading the discussion. At the Multi Agency meeting held on Thursday 23rd July, it was certainly the police that had most to say. The woman leading the discussions from the Council said very little and left it to the police to do the talking.
Was the threat of an injunction a political decision?
No, this was purely based on public safety and potential for crime and disorder.
We believe this was a political decision. One of our Directors (overheard by another of our staff, who holds a responsible position in the team) was told this was a political decision and that orders came from 'the highest level'. At the meeting on Sunday, we were informed by the police that this action had been planned for some time.
Why wasn't this issue sorted out sooner?
The council and other agencies have been working closely with BGG since February this year on the licence application, which was finally granted. However, there were a number of requirements that had to be completed before the event. Some of these crucial elements had not been completed.
This could easily have been sorted out sooner and there was ample opportunity to complain at the licence hearing if there were concerns. No such complaints were made on 30th June and indeed Inspector Sean Williams stated in the meeting to the Councillors that he believed we had an Event Management Plan suitable for the next few years.
Does the council not feel that this is a safe and green festival?
This is not an issue about whether it has been safe and green, but is an issue as to whether the forthcoming event would have been safe based on the fact that certain requirements were not met.
This is a complete red herring and utterly mendacious.
BGG had professional health and safety teams on site
BGG had provision for 2 doctors on site
BGG had provision for ambulance provision and Red Cross on site - South West Ambulance
BGG had provision for Festival Welfare Services on site
BGG had provision for fully qualified medical herbalists on site
BGG had engaged the services of Midland Fire Rescue
BGG had provision for400 stewards on site - Green Stewards Ltd
BGG had provision for external trained security on site - Coast to Coast Security
BGG had provision for internal trained security on site- Green Security
BGG had provision for a helipad area on site
BGG had provision for trained road people on the perimeter and on site
BGG has an exemplary record on health and safety
BGG had provision for a Challenge 21 alcohol policy
BGG had provision for a lost kids and kids area, with a strong child protection policy in place
BGG had provision for a professional noise monitoring team in place
Setting up trackway, fencing, watch towers and other infrastructure was in progress when the Council and the police visited the site on Thursday, 23rd July for the multi agency meeting on site. Gate crew and site crew were already operating.
The Council and the police knew all this – it was in the licence granted on 30th June, to which they had agreed.
Does the council not support the ethos of events such as the BGG?
The issue here is not about the ethos or messages this event wants to send out but about ensuring public safety during the event.
Again, it would appear that the Council does not support the ethos of events such as the BGG, which incidentally brings around £2million to the local economy. We are saddened by this as it is becoming apparent daily that individual action on climate change is vital and in order to take action information is paramount. BGG supplies that information and helps customers reduce their carbon footprint.
Is the council not victimising this event and those that attend?
Since BGG came to this area a number of years ago it has had significant support from all agencies in planning and running this event. Over the past couple of weeks there has been significant ongoing discussion between organisers, the council and emergency services to try and resolve the licensing issues. The organisers signed up to legal commitments associated with the licence, some of which they failed to meet, and are bound by other legislation.
Our Barrister confirmed to us that the only condition he believed that a judge would accept is that we had failed to meet was the road closure order.
Did the council not want this event to go ahead from the beginning?
The council strives to ensure that any licence application is considered properly and fairly, but it also works closely with other agencies and organisers to attempt to organise safe and well run events. We realise the potential benefit that large events create for the area and local economy. In short the cancellation of this event creates many more issues and a heavier workload for the council than if it had gone ahead safely.
We believe that the Police did not want this to go ahead. The BGG brings in £2 million to the local economy. Traders, local producers, local contractors have all lost money. The BGG had already spent over £200,000 in infrastructure and other costs on the BGG. The BGG had paid in full for the fencing, half the noise monitoring, in full for the trackway, half the police costs, significant amounts to the Security Companies, toilet providers, site crew wages, portacabins, telephone lines, hire of the land, licence application, marketing and publicity, etc..
Has the council gone health and safety mad?
No. However, the council has a duty to protect the public from potential harm, and concerns existed due to certain plans not being in place. We realise that the cancellation of this event will be blamed on the council by some and has had a huge impact, however if we had done nothing and a serious incident had happened the council would have been also blamed for not acting where concerns existed.
All events, however well run, do have a significant potential for crime and disorder issues, however, part of our role is to minimise this effect through proper licensing. We were not satisfied that this event had addressed some of those issues.
We agree that protecting the public from harm is very important and the BGG has a very good record on public safety as the Council very well know. We think that lack of a road closure order is disproportionate to the action taken and the police were very quick to enact road closure orders in order to shut down the event.
Did we have an intention of creating financial difficulties for the BGG?
No. The council would never wish to see any financial difficulties affect any local event or businesses as one of our corporate goals is to support the local economy.
The effect is not just on the BGG but many local businesses that rely on income from the BGG in these difficult financial times. For example the local farmer had organised £000’s of food to be ready for the BGG, Butcombe Brewery had laid on extra drinks, the local Bread Lady had bought supplies especially, Traders who come had bought in extra stock. Those that we employ that live in the neighbourhood have now lost out. And the BGG has lost a fortune in lost revenue. The corporate goals seems to have gone awry on what was in the most generous terms spurious arguments to stop the BGG
Did the council create problems with the BGG signing up a security firm?
No, we simply needed assurance from the BGG that they had security arrangements in place.
This is mendacious as both security contractors attended the multi agency meeting and gave assurances that they would fulfill their contracts. Some of our contractors have complained of harassment from the Council, so much so, that an officer of the BGG telephoned the Council to complain. One contractor said they were being phoned every ten minutes and the impression they received was that they should pull out of the BGG.
How much crime and disorder results from the BGG?
This is a policing issue and the BGG spent significant time working with the police on this event.
Very little compared to the number of people on site. There was an increase in tent thefts in 2007 but BGG were providing campsite neighbourhood watch and lockers for peoples valuables.
