Getting illegal parties legalised?

[liaphin]

Originally posted by DJ FATTMAN

can we trust them to give a true look at the parties tho, or will they pick holes and use it against us by showing the other illegal activities which go on, such as drug dealing etc. every1 knows how well the press can blow things out of proportion.

hello..
sorry for not introduce myself and post this directly.i will do it alter, just dont want ot loose the thought !
i think it really depends which media you are contacting.
we are doing a huge demonstartion next week in strasbourg, interantionalwide and hopefully with a lot of people attending and we contected the press before with a statement that is not to misunderstand.
also we contaced medias, programms that we actually know are interested in cultural, social stuff....its all up to you being offensive and dont wait till the media pick you out

[globalloon]

the queen

rupert murdoch

who has the bigger influence on 'topic of the day' ie. national thinking?

[elraveon]

the queen

rupert murdoch

who has the bigger influence on 'topic of the day' ie. national thinking?

the queen

rupert murdoch.

That’s a complicated question. And I am not clear where you stand or if you were genuinely asking but I’ll give you my answer.

Any one powerful person is only as powerful as the people he or she aligns with and that goes for the Queen or Rupert Murdoch or Hitler for that matter.

That said, as to “who has the bigger influence on 'topic of the day' i.e. national thinking?”

The acceptance of a queen and all the feudal baggage that goes with it stamps its mark on the mentality and hypocrisy that people base their daily lives. The legacy of this feudal past still influences many aspects of people’s lives including the housing market for one example and the denial that this is wrong mess’s with how people see what is right and wrong and its not hard to control what people think when their whole lives are based on a lie.

The queen is a figurehead for a feudal system of legitimized gangsters who have privilege and still exert influence and hold power and still extort payment from their tenants and subjects. She heads a government of lies and system of class and the denial of which influences the way people doublethink their daily lives away.


Rupert Murdoch is a man of this system bought and sold and is a minion compared to the Queen.

[globalloon]

fair enough

but Prince Charles often goes on about the need to be more in tune with our environment etc

i don't think many people tak any notice

if Murdoch is backing a war for oil, many people will believe him

winning over the media would be good for all of us... but it's not going to happen; free parties represent ideas that Murdochs ecomonic power would be threatened by

[USE]

i would argiue that the queen is more of a minion than rupert murdock. he owns his empire, where as who really knows what the queen thinks? she has been conditioned from birth to play a certain "role" and while she does perpetuate the feudal inequalities in society, i dont know that she as a person agres with them. when i look at her, i see a very scared, very weak person who cant be herself. a lot like most of britain really.

murdock can directly influence people with more force than her, as he has direct control of his monopoly/empire, where as she has to run thing s past her advisers, who are there to make sure the british public dont get rid of her, and by default, them. tony blair has way more power than her. he is the biggest threat to peace happiness and prosperity in this country as far as i can work out. except maybe murdock, who has blair in his pocket.

just type in "rupert murdock" into google and see what you get....

[USE]

anyway, we're way off topic here, what we i satrted this thread to resolve, was not if we can get parties legalised (lets take it as a given , for the sake of arguement, that if enough people put their minds to it, anythings possible) but how.

now ive been writing to mps for a while, and they dont give a shit, and even if they did, the commons would shout em down and tony bollock surely wouldnt give two shits, because it has nowt to do with his holy war on non-christians (except it is a pagan tradition, so he prolly wants us all hung)

what needs to happen is that this site (which is steadiy growing in numbers) develops maybe an articles section, or the top posts or whatever published in print, and even gets its own show on cable, on thextreme channel maybe. we live in a media saturated society, and while the internet is growing, it needs to be fought on two fronts. i personally think a free party docu from our perspective would blow the lid on the rave scene, which i know people are scared of, but fuck that we ahve a right to dd what we do, and we can change societies rules to accept us.

its all about the media. now, with the number of people on here, we have a formidable crew (not to memtions the hundreds of rave organisers who arent repping, the burnt outs, drop outs and those turned to legit festies, and the thousands of ravers on side) if we could harness that, we could make a seriously entertaining and elightening expose of the free party community in a way which will gather us support. thsi support could help build a platform of freespeech, a public platform fro which we can fight our corner. we dont want to change the whole world (at least not at first) we want to be treated fairly, and we can do it with style and fun.

democracy is broken. the only true power lies in th emedia. if we harness that, we wont need to wake up every day and wonder if the pigs are following us, or if our pictures are in a file somehwere, waiting to be brought up in court when we get nicked by people who think that throwing a party is antisocial.

maybe we like being underground, maybe thats why a lot of people do raves. i dont. i help make raves happen, because i think if a group of mates want to use some public outdoor land to get a lot of people together to have a good time, appreciate nature and each other, well, they should be allowed so long as they go about it reasonably. it should not be illegal.

[General Lighting]

producing more video content is a good idea provided it cannot be used to identify individuals or groups who are committing illegal activities, or create further negative publicity.

There is already a precedent of the UKG/Grime lot making and selling DVDs of their own video productions. Most of them, as you would expect have a very violent and dystopian theme, they've got stuff like footage of people actually fighting at their clubs etc (not sure if it some of this actually be staged as surely people would have got nicked if it wasn't!).

There's also a trend of making live CDs to diss rivals; one of which resulted in the offended party shooting dead the MC!

OTOH this stuff is no better than the crap already shown on the idiot box anyway....

There is no reason why people cannot however do something more positive.

TBH videos of free parties aren't that interesting for more than 20 minutes as the scenery is all the same anyway;


That still leaves a lot of scope for such things as music videos, visuals with DJ mixes and rolling message captions, documentaries on other subjects such as music / technology and the more serious stuff. If content was well-produced it could well be less controversial and more widely accepted than conventional TV as it wouldn't thrive so much on negativity and the shock value!

I am noticing the attitude of normal people slowly chaning - OTOH beforew we can fight our corner we need to address the real problems like drug addiction, crime and violence that some people get sucked into after they burn out and prevent younger people making the same mistakes made in the 90s - which this site is doing.

The more positive aspects of rave culture can make it (despite the drugs) one of the safest and most diverse youth movements worldwide....

[USE]

Originally posted by General Lighting

producing more video content is a good idea provided it cannot be used to identify individuals or groups who are committing illegal activities, or create further negative publicity.

absolutely.

There is already a precedent of the UKG/Grime lot making and selling DVDs of their own video productions. Most of them, as you would expect have a very violent and dystopian theme, they've got stuff like footage of people actually fighting at their clubs etc (not sure if it some of this actually be staged as surely people would have got nicked if it wasn't!).

There's also a trend of making live CDs to diss rivals; one of which resulted in the offended party shooting dead the MC!

OTOH this stuff is no better than the crap already shown on the idiot box anyway....

you're right, theres no danger of me going down that route tho!

There is no reason why people cannot however do something more positive.

TBH videos of free parties aren't that interesting for more than 20 minutes as the scenery is all the same anyway;

ahh, as with all video/film, its all about the editing.

That still leaves a lot of scope for such things as music videos, visuals with DJ mixes and rolling message captions, documentaries on other subjects such as music / technology and the more serious stuff. If content was well-produced it could well be less controversial and more widely accepted than conventional TV as it wouldn't thrive so much on negativity and the shock value!

yerp, good points, im stilll making the trasition from printmaker to video artist, so its a work in progress, not only that but theres a lot more party footage that i'd like to get my hands on (hint, hint lol)

I am noticing the attitude of normal people slowly chaning - OTOH beforew we can fight our corner we need to address the real problems like drug addiction, crime and violence that some people get sucked into after they burn out and prevent younger people making the same mistakes made in the 90s - which this site is doing.

The more positive aspects of rave culture can make it (despite the drugs) one of the safest and most diverse youth movements worldwide....

its all about focussing on the positive. it may seem bias, but if you inspire people to put on better organised events, i really beleive they will (my im feeling optimistic today, could have something to do with kayaking thru a flooded forest earlier on, or it could be the good food im eating, or it mught be devang and his optimism- oh, going on about myself again, what a suprise!)

anyway, im on it, if anyone wants to get involved, drop me a pm.

[elraveon]

what we i satrted this thread to resolve, was not if we can get parties legalised but how.

partys are NOT ILLEGAL

what is it you want tha is different than what we have?

Parties are not illegal, parties done for the public are not illegal either you just need a license, a procedure which covers public safety and tbh rightly so.

I think your asking the wrong question but I would like to get it clear what you are talking about because I do not see that they have made parties illegal otherwise it wouldn’t take the decision of a senior police officer to decide that.

[Raj]

parties arent illegal but the licenses that cover them are pretty daunting; i know i have applied for one

a little less red tape would be nice but i can see the point of view of most of the info required for the licence

all that paperwork makes legal parties very expensive what with insurance, etc - kind of puts folks off organising them?

[USE]

Originally posted by elraveon

partys are NOT ILLEGAL

what was the criminal justice act then?

well how come i know of over twenty rigs that have been confiscated and a stupid number of people arrested for putting them on then? and given asbo's?

and how come surrey have a rave response unit of two 4x4's and a helicopter?

how come my mate was shadowed by the feds for 6 months?

i would like to able to advertise them, for a start, and i would like some subsidies from the governement and coucil for doing socially beeficial events.

i would like designated areas decided in conjuction with the police and local authorities, so we can hold outdoor raves without fear of prosecution.

not cops coming to every single one, taking photos and descriptions, and generally making everyone feel like criminals!

squatjuice gallery has been taken down, because the photos on it have been used in court cases.

when was the last time you went raving, and how did the police react?

[Raj]

Originally posted by USE

what was the criminal justice act then?

- a draconian set of powers which most people are completely ignorant of unless they are on the wrong side of it; i was referring to the PEL situation now being enforced because they got tired of the last piece of legislation they had

i would like to able to advertise them, for a start, and i would like some subsidies from the governement and coucil for doing socially beeficial events.
i would like designated areas decided in conjuction with the police and local authorities, so we can hold outdoor raves without fear of prosecution.
not cops coming to every single one, taking photos and descriptions, and generally making everyone feel like criminals!

then you will need to learn to play by their rules and say what they want to hear [whether or not it is true]; the PEL is here to stay for now until the councils get fed up with their latest legal mallet


when was the last time you went raving, and how did the police react?
if by raving you mean an 'illegal party'; last summer and no police turned up; we did not annoy the natives so no cops came

you can either spend your time railing about how unfair it is or learn to use the system to your advantage; there are ways round all pieces of legislation

[USE]

Originally posted by rajsuspect

you can either spend your time railing about how unfair it is or learn to use the system to your advantage; there are ways round all pieces of legislation

so you're saying you applied for a public entertainment lisence for a freeaparty and got it? and paid no money? i did not know that was possible.

where did you hold it, can you post a copy of the application, have you any tips on how you managed to obtain your lisence?

i was really hoping someone would volunteer info like this, i would love to hear more. i thought PELs had been around for ages. the new legislation i was aware of was the Temporary Events Notice, but i know three crews who have applied, including my own who have been turned down.

you have cheered me up no end!

[elraveon]

what was the criminal justice act then?

The Criminal Justice act is a public order act. And the part that concerns us mostly is sec63 which is there because parties are not an illegal act in themselves so they needed the power to be able to act lawfully in circumstances of public order. Make no mistake if they couldn’t contain us and stop us or make it hard, we would grow and become a force that we couldn’t control, gangs and organized crime would have a field day. Which is why they changed the law and pursued organizers of the late 80’s acid house parties, this in turn is how freeparties came about But the fact still stands Parties are not illegal,

well how come i know of over twenty rigs that have been confiscated and a stupid number of people arrested for putting them on then? and given asbo's?

a number or rigs have been seized some have been returned, I don’t know of many that have been confiscated under sec63 and not returned, they burned missions but if you play on when its been issued that’s the risk. Public Order is and always has been taken very seriously.
A number of rigs and individuals have fallen to a lack of understanding of the licensing laws which is what freeparties were all about to avoid the Public Entertainments license.
Some problems could have been avoided and some were messages to leave areas alone, nothing new there.

and how come surrey have a rave response unit of two 4x4's and a helicopter?

Many areas have rave response teams even before the 1994 CJA but still parties aren’t illegal. You want to party in the countryside fair enough but someone else thinks they own it and its not surprising that the police are being used by those with the influence to talk to superintendents and police chiefs and hold sway with local authorities and the like.
And you might find that venues are a finite resource and areas have been rinsed and not always by caring people.

how come my mate was shadowed by the feds for 6 months?

how would I know.

i would like to able to advertise them, for a start, and i would like some subsidies from the governement and coucil for doing socially beeficial events.

You can advertise a party but it brings it into the public domain and you need a license, how do you argue that you don’t need to have one or pay for it, when others have to.

There are a number of “socially beneficial” things that come out of freeparties but that argument will be torn apart by the media and those who don’t want the great unwashed in their neck of the woods if you try and use it.

i would like designated areas decided in conjuction with the police and local authorities, so we can hold outdoor raves without fear of prosecution.

You want “areas decided in conjunction with the police and local authorities”, don’t forget landowners, locals and interested groups. Have you really thought this through?
and considered the problems it throws up.

not cops coming to every single one, taking photos and descriptions, and generally making everyone feel like criminals!

The cops quite often act reasonably or within the law as long as you understand how to behave. I have seen them go over the top and they are sometimes unpredictable especially if they want to make a point clear and more often than not they go beyond the call when they are being moved by the influence of some landed gentry, as in some of the confiscations and PEL prosecutions last year.

squatjuice gallery has been taken down, because the photos on it have been used in court cases.

Freeparty forums have been used as evidence that the parties were public and I don’t know about the all the photos but some were used as evidence that individuals or groups were there but not as evidence showing that they were guilty.

[Raj]

Originally posted by USE

so you're saying you applied for a public entertainment lisence for a freeaparty and got it? and paid no money? i did not know that was possible.

No, small mis-understanding here. We still had to pay for the PEL, and the party had a small charge, so it wasn't technically a free party.

On the other hand, it was run by volunteers, and nobody was in it for profit - the entry was just to cover the costs of getting legal (and nobody minded £25 for a 4 day party which included the camping - it worked quite well, and naturally we weren't worried if people came in who were too skint to pay but still wanted to party)

The only really important thing to remember is that you have to cap (or at least appear to) at 1000 people. Any more and you need to pay the wages for PC plod to be onsite...

where did you hold it, can you post a copy of the application, have you any tips on how you managed to obtain your lisence?

It was held in rural Scotland, and the application would be fairly useless to you, as they need to be written for the venue being used. I'm happy to give you a hand writing one for the venue you want to use though, but you will need to get in touch with your local council to get info on what they want to see in the PEL (it's supposed to be the same everywhere, but in practice there are some quite big differences between different councils) or

i was really hoping someone would volunteer info like this, i would love to hear more. i thought PELs had been around for ages. the new legislation i was aware of was the Temporary Events Notice, but i know three crews who have applied, including my own who have been turned down.

you have cheered me up no end!

Temporary event notices still require the same kind of PEL as permanent site licenses, and have a fee (which is of course not refundable if the application is turned down). Charities do get a healthy discount but the PEL must be applied for by the charity in question and it must be a registered one.


On the subject of free parties however, you legally don't need any of these licenses if you have a site (preferably in the countryside) which you have permission to use from the owner of the land or building. The party does have to be restricted to members of a private club and is therefore not technically open to the public and in this way bypasses the need for PEL. It helps to actually set up the club btw and keep the contact list off your computer as this contravenes the data protection act... [what a great excuse for not having it on a machine...]
On the night it would probably help to have some visible 'stewards' [all sound systems have these; they are crew members] in high vis vests, a first aider and kit, a way to call help if something were to go wrong at the party and some idea where your nearest A&E is. Also be aware of 'Risks' as defined in H&S documentation
There was an english party last year which flexed the PEL laws in this way and got away with it; i think they may have collected donations towards something at the party but it was not done on the door. Discretion wins every time.




To be doing free parties in this nanny state era requires slightly more work but once you have done it for the first time you can just keep recycling the same effort again and again; what the grey people want does not change all that fast.

[USE]

Originally posted by rajsuspect

No, small mis-understanding here. We still had to pay for the PEL, and the party had a small charge, so it wasn't technically a free party.

so it was a festival, sorry, i should have been clearer. im onabout getting free parties, that is non-profit, no-lisence events put on on common or national trust land taht go on all night, legalised.

On the other hand, it was run by volunteers, and nobody was in it for profit - the entry was just to cover the costs of getting legal (and nobody minded £25 for a 4 day party which included the camping - it worked quite well, and naturally we weren't worried if people came in who were too skint to pay but still wanted to party)

sounds great. but you made no money, no one got paid for stewarding (which lets face it is a shit job, i help run community events in brighton that are non profit) and the coucil did? thats gay. nice that you let the people too skint in.

The only really important thing to remember is that you have to cap (or at least appear to) at 1000 people. Any more and you need to pay the wages for PC plod to be onsite...

yerp, 1000 people is nearly reasonable i spose. 2000 would be better.

It was held in rural Scotland, and the application would be fairly useless to you, as they need to be written for the venue being used. I'm happy to give you a hand writing one for the venue you want to use though, but you will need to get in touch with your local council to get info on what they want to see in the PEL (it's supposed to be the same everywhere, but in practice there are some quite big differences between different councils) or

yea, if you could email it to me (i pmed you my addy) that would be mint. ive helped make apps for similar events, but seeing how others do it always usefull.

On the subject of free parties however, you legally don't need any of these licenses if you have a site (preferably in the countryside) which you have permission to use from the owner of the land or building. The party does have to be restricted to members of a private club

and is therefore not tec

yea, thats what i was saying about advertising.

On the night it would probably help to have some visible 'stewards' [all sound systems have these; they are crew members] in high vis vests, a first aider and kit, a way to call help if something were to go wrong at the party and some idea where your nearest A&E is. Also be aware of 'Risks' as defined in H&S documentation

check, check and check. except the high vis jackets. good plan.

There was an english party last year which flexed the PEL laws in this way and got away with it; i think they may have collected donations towards something at the party but it was not done on the door. Discretion wins every time.

yea, the club thing still makes it not a free party in my book.

To be doing free parties in this nanny state era requires slightly more work but once you have done it for the first time you can just keep recycling the same effort again and again; what the grey people want does not change all that fast.

as i said, free parties as i understand them and have been comducting them, whicle are completely morally defensable, and i owild be more than happy to go to court over them, are illegal.

i appreciate all the advice abotu circumnavagating the law, and its very relevent to other projects im involved in. thank you greatly. but i still am not ahppy with the law as it stands and want to change it. this thread was meant to be about doing that. it is possible.

[USE]

Originally posted by elraveon

Parties are not illegal

the parties i do are, and they shouldnt be.

a number or rigs have been seized some have been returned

and at least 15 are in the copshop right now. nothing to do with carrying on parties that have bee asked to shut down.

i have held parties five times on very spread out private land with the land owners written permission and the cops still come and shut us down. maybe i should have argued my case, but when you have 35 coppers, a dog section et al breathing down your neck saying they will take th rig and destroy it, its hard to keep a level head. on two occasions the onlyreason the didnt is that a mates dad came down who is a safe city proffessional and he talked the talk and they let us pack up and not take our rig.

how would I know.

you dont seem that in touch with whats going on today, if you dont mind me saying. i appreciate your experience in the matter tho.

You can advertise a party but it brings it into the public domain and you need a license, how do you argue that you don’t need to have one or pay for it, when others have to.

because the party is free and for the benefit of the community.

There are a number of “socially beneficial” things that come out of freeparties but that argument will be torn apart by the media and those who don’t want the great unwashed in their neck of the woods if you try and use it.

that remains to be seen.

You want “areas decided in conjunction with the police and local authorities”, don’t forget landowners, locals and interested groups. Have you really thought this through? and considered the problems it throws up.

yes, ive been dealing with those very groups for six years. parish meetings, rotary club, local press and wildlife action groups can all be persuaded.

The cops quite often act reasonably or within the law as long as you understand how to behave. I have seen them go over the top and they are sometimes unpredictable especially if they want to make a point clear and more often than not they go beyond the call when they are being moved by the influence of some landed gentry, as in some of the confiscations and PEL prosecutions last year.

yes, i think the influence of the media has a massive impact as well. we threw parties for years with no worries untill the press alerted the commisioners, who breathed down necks andfucked our raves.

Freeparty forums have been used as evidence that the parties were public and I don’t know about the all the photos but some were used as evidence that individuals or groups were there but not as evidence showing that they were guilty.

i cant comment on court cases that are ongoing, obviously. evidence is evidence at the end of the day. are you suggesting the evidence was in the partycrews favour?

i appreciate what you are both saying, but im saying change the law.

why are you so against that? do you agree with lisencing laws? cos thats what it sounds like.

[Raj]

I get the impression that while the law remains you still want to continue to party or are you planning to stop until it is changed?

While I would welcome a return to free and unninterrupted parties, goverments are not good at removing legislation they dont use and even less good at removing at restoring civil liberties.
If you are serious about changing the law I support that but, being fairly pragmatic, expect it not to be immediate in effect.

In the mean time we need to work within the existing frameworks even when we dont like them etc. as we will be bludgeoned with them at every opportunity especially once you exist on the authorities radar.

[elraveon]

I find this thread title misleading and I can’t understand why its been made it a sticky.
Raves are not illegal and wanting legal sites is a completely different matter.
A “Private Party” does not need a license; “a Public Party” needs a license. One way or another it’s been like that for hundreds of years. It should be of little concern to us how the state collects its revenue on booze.
To be able to keep the queens peace they have the Public Order Act and that gives them wide sweeping powers if they need them to control their subjects These Public Order Acts are entrenched in our history back to the Normans with the Justices of the Peace act to keep unruly types under control and it has grown and got more draconian over the centuries, not more liberal and I stress they take matters of Public Order very seriously. The same goes for the licenses acts, revenue acts. You can deny in the face of reality the lies that this country is built on but we shouldn’t be going along with distortion of the truth put out by the media amongst others that Raves are Illegal.

Raves may break other laws and the authorities have ample laws and powers at their disposal and for various reasons some just and others not, however I don’t think we should confirm their misrepresentation of the truth even though it feels like they are illegal.

Private parties are not illegal and that has always been so, you seem to want public freeparties which need a license so you would have to change the licensing laws just for a start. I would wish you good luck but you will need more than that.

[USE]

private parties arent free for anyone to come, so they are not free parties! read the front page of the site, it puts the thread in context.

i've changed the title, now, you pedantic old bastard. .

happpy????? no i didn't think so. people like you never are. why do you feel the need to spread you poison onto other people as well? just lock yourself away, and stay there. you've been tryong to hijack this thread to fit into your narrowminded veiw of the world from the start. and its not helping anyone.

[elraveon]

so what happened to the page four reply, oh I see UES deleted it, is this personal censorship or is it a partyvibe thing, would you please explain what I said that is so wrong or is it because you dont like being wrong or being told by "people like me" or you dont like it when your argument cant stand up by itself.

copyed from page 3 ;)

"elraveon
This message has been deleted by USE. "

I cant believe this site has come to this, Use you profess to stand for free parties, not free speach tho, wot a laff.

you might aswell put it back up and argue why you did it. I know other moderators saw it. and basicly the deleted post just quotes what this site says plus some explanation backing up my view

[elraveon]

so what happened to the page four reply I made this afternoon, oh I see "USE" deleted it, is this personal censorship or is it a partyvibe thing, would you please explain what I said that is so wrong. I am rewriting it as it wasnt long, heres all I can remember you post bandit, mostly as it was, I should of saved it as I write in word first but others saw it anyway including other moderators so some explanation would be appriecated. here it is again ;)

written by use private parties arent free for anyone to come, so they are not free parties! read the front page of the site, it puts the thread in context.

i've changed the title, now, you pedantic old bastard. .

happpy????? no i didn't think so. people like you never are. why do you feel the need to spread you poison onto other people as well? just lock yourself away, and stay there. you've been tryong to hijack this thread to fit into your narrowminded veiw of the world from the start. and its not helping anyone.

your view above is twisted and nasty.

(im sure I worded this bit better but its the jist but not as clear)
We all go to freeparties and we are all members of the public but we meet as a group of private enthusiasts and friends invite friends but public parties need tickets for all intents and purposes they seem private once a member of the public has purchased his ticket.
Private (free)parties only need an invite albeit by private means or to be more correct "not done for the public, so they can seem more open because they are not bound by the licensing restrictions but they can still fall foul of other laws. and if you don’t want to lose your system, your equipment, your records DJ’s are also liable, up to £20,000 fine and or imprisonment. You don’t say its public or advertise in the public domain as in open freeparty forums. I thought recent cases should of taught you this.

Your change of title still doesn’t make sense because raves are already legalized.

Yes I have read the front of the site and Dereks piece is very good on “what a freeparty is”

written by Derek A big requirement of a good free party is that it shouldn't be motivated by financial gain. Entry should either be free, or at most require only a small cover charge to meet the organisers' expenses. Also in this context we understand the term "free party" to mean "free" in the sense that you're being welcomed into a space without limitations imposed on expression or behaviour by the organisers.

He didn’t expand on why it is a “big requirement” perhaps he took it for granted that people understood it had to be free to not fall foul of the same license law that makes private parties exempt and requires a license for a public party.

I also read the partyvibe link “The Good Free Party Goer's Guide”

written by partyvibe 11. And above all!
YOU ARE NOT CRIMINALS!
GOING TO A FREE PARTY ISN'T ILLEGAL!
DON'T LET THE [JUDICIAL] SYSTEM MAKE YOU INTO A CRIMINAL BY BREAKING THE LAW!
Peace, Love, Unity and Respect - The party vibe collective.

[USE]

Originally posted by elraveon

so what happened to the page four reply I made this afternoon, oh I see "USE" deleted it, is this personal censorship or is it a partyvibe thing, would you please explain what I said that is so wrong.

to be honest i cam back from the pub after a really nice evening to see your thread hijacking continueing. you clearly have such a narrow mind and cannot grasp what this thread is about, so i personally decided to try and discourage you from posting here, as you are being counter productive.[

your view above is twisted and nasty.

(im sure I worded this bit better but its the jist but not as clear)
We all go to freeparties and we are all members of the public but we meet as a group of private enthusiasts and friends invite friends but public parties need tickets for all intents and purposes they seem private once a member of the public has purchased his ticket.
Private (free)parties only need an invite albeit by private means or to be more correct "not done for the public, so they can seem more open because they are not bound by the licensing restrictions but they can still fall foul of other laws. and if you don’t want to lose your system, your equipment, your records DJ’s are also liable, up to £20,000 fine and or imprisonment. You don’t say its public or advertise in the public domain as in open freeparty forums. I thought recent cases should of taught you this.

Your change of title still doesn’t make sense because raves are already legalized.

the essential arguement here between us is "what is a free party?" you appear to beleive that if we follow the law, the party is still free. i do not. by appearing to hold private parties, you are excluding members of society that would benefit from such an event. excuding them, because if you do not, the authorities will take, and i quote "your system, your equipment, your records DJ’s are also liable, up to £20,000 fine and or imprisonment" im sorry but "open to members of the public", is an essentail part of what i define a rave as, and that is what is illegal, as you have just confirmed youself.

i feel as if i have already explained this, and that is why i got annoyed with you post and deleted it. it was not trying to stifle free speech, it was trying to keep this debate which you have misunderstood going in a positive manner. have you even read the whole thread?

if you wish to talk about invite only parties, start your own thread. i started this conversation, so beleive i have a right to control where it goes. if you wish to redefine the terms of the debate, then we are talking at cross purposes and you should start your own debate about how legal parties are if youu run them the way the law says you should.

i am incredulous that a man of your apparent intelligence and experience fails to grasp what i am saying, as i have made it painfully clear. therefore i had no choice last night but to assume you were deliberatly winding me up and trying to destroy the debate. if i'm wrong, then i appologise.

[Dr Bunsen]

Originally posted by USE

to be honest i cam back from the pub after a really nice evening to see your thread hijacking continueing. you clearly have such a narrow mind and cannot grasp what this thread is about, so i personally decided to try and discourage you from posting here, as you are being counter productive.[



the essential arguement here between us is "what is a free party?" you appear to beleive that if we follow the law, the party is still free. i do not. by appearing to hold private parties, you are excluding members of society that would benefit from such an event. excuding them, because if you do not, the authorities will take, and i quote "your system, your equipment, your records DJs are also liable, up to £20,000 fine and or imprisonment" im sorry but "open to members of the public", is an essentail part of what i define a rave as, and that is what is illegal, as you have just confirmed youself.

i feel as if i have already explained this, and that is why i got annoyed with you post and deleted it. it was not trying to stifle free speech, it was trying to keep this debate which you have misunderstood going in a positive manner. have you even read the whole thread?

if you wish to talk about invite only parties, start your own thread. i started this conversation, so beleive i have a right to control where it goes. if you wish to redefine the terms of the debate, then we are talking at cross purposes and you should start your own debate about how legal parties are if youu run them the way the law says you should.

i am incredulous that a man of your apparent intelligence and experience fails to grasp what i am saying, as i have made it painfully clear. therefore i had no choice last night but to assume you were deliberatly winding me up and trying to destroy the debate. if i'm wrong, then i appologise.

My two cents, having not followed the whole of this thread but shouldn't the title say 'unlicensed' instead of 'illegal'? :)

[Raj]

Originally posted by Site

My two cents, having not followed the whole of this thread but shouldn't the title say 'unlicensed' instead of 'illegal'? :)

you may have hit the nail on the head there