Another "H&S reason for not upholding the law"
Discussion
Daily telegraph said:
A police force has admitted it is powerless to break up illegal raves - because it is too dark when they are in full swing.
Chief Inspector Gill Ellis, of Kent Police, blamed the lack of action on 'health and safety' regulations when tackled by locals who are fed-up with all-night raves in a wooded area near Sevenoaks.
Chief Supt Ellis said that it was not safe to disperse revellers in remote locations when it was dark - insisting safety regulations meant officers had to wait until sunrise to break up the bashes.
And the force said it could also be dangerous to disperse ravers because they may get into their cars to drive home while still high on drink and drugs.
Article continuesadvertisement
Chief Supt Ellis told the meeting: "We will wait until daylight hours for reasons of health and safety before making interventions."
But one district councillor pointed out a bash in March, which took place at Longspring Woods near the village of Shoreham, had been allowed to go on until 1pm the following afternoon.
Colin Dibsdall said: "I would have thought once daylight came they could have gone into the site and turned it down or off."
People living in surrounding villages, many of them elderly, had tackled police over the problem because they were fed up with loud dance music and open drug taking.
Cllr Phil Hobson, an IT consultant in his early 50s, said: "It's ridiculous that a rave would be allowed to go on all night and into the afternoon.
"The biggest problem is lack of sleep. On that night there were probably about 500 people who were kept awake. There about 1,000 dwellings in the vicinity that could be effected at any given time, depending on the direction of the wind.
"What the police told us is if a rave is happening and they don't know about it significantly in advance they can't get the man power there to stop it.
"I think it is disgusting. The police are there to catch criminals and stop illegal activity.
"We know some people came from as far away as Somerset which means that they must have had several hours' notice about the rave.
"So why then, with so called 'Intelligence Led Policing' which has replaced officers on the street, are they not able to find out about them?"
Retired engineer Clive Evans, 66, said: "We couldn't believe what the police came out with - I've never heard so much rubbish in all my life.
"How on earth can fully trained police officers be worried about forcing a bunch of hippies and druggies to go home?
"What sort of thing did they expect to have to do when they signed up for the police force?"
Remember my (modified Soviet) joke about "Why do PCSOs go round in threes"? Well, now it's Kent Police officers Chief Inspector Gill Ellis, of Kent Police, blamed the lack of action on 'health and safety' regulations when tackled by locals who are fed-up with all-night raves in a wooded area near Sevenoaks.
Chief Supt Ellis said that it was not safe to disperse revellers in remote locations when it was dark - insisting safety regulations meant officers had to wait until sunrise to break up the bashes.
And the force said it could also be dangerous to disperse ravers because they may get into their cars to drive home while still high on drink and drugs.
Article continuesadvertisement
Chief Supt Ellis told the meeting: "We will wait until daylight hours for reasons of health and safety before making interventions."
But one district councillor pointed out a bash in March, which took place at Longspring Woods near the village of Shoreham, had been allowed to go on until 1pm the following afternoon.
Colin Dibsdall said: "I would have thought once daylight came they could have gone into the site and turned it down or off."
People living in surrounding villages, many of them elderly, had tackled police over the problem because they were fed up with loud dance music and open drug taking.
Cllr Phil Hobson, an IT consultant in his early 50s, said: "It's ridiculous that a rave would be allowed to go on all night and into the afternoon.
"The biggest problem is lack of sleep. On that night there were probably about 500 people who were kept awake. There about 1,000 dwellings in the vicinity that could be effected at any given time, depending on the direction of the wind.
"What the police told us is if a rave is happening and they don't know about it significantly in advance they can't get the man power there to stop it.
"I think it is disgusting. The police are there to catch criminals and stop illegal activity.
"We know some people came from as far away as Somerset which means that they must have had several hours' notice about the rave.
"So why then, with so called 'Intelligence Led Policing' which has replaced officers on the street, are they not able to find out about them?"
Retired engineer Clive Evans, 66, said: "We couldn't believe what the police came out with - I've never heard so much rubbish in all my life.
"How on earth can fully trained police officers be worried about forcing a bunch of hippies and druggies to go home?
"What sort of thing did they expect to have to do when they signed up for the police force?"
- Streakystreaky said:
Daily telegraph said:
A police force has admitted it is powerless to break up illegal raves - because it is too dark when they are in full swing.
Chief Inspector Gill Ellis, of Kent Police, blamed the lack of action on 'health and safety' regulations when tackled by locals who are fed-up with all-night raves in a wooded area near Sevenoaks.
Chief Supt Ellis said that it was not safe to disperse revellers in remote locations when it was dark - insisting safety regulations meant officers had to wait until sunrise to break up the bashes.
And the force said it could also be dangerous to disperse ravers because they may get into their cars to drive home while still high on drink and drugs.
Article continuesadvertisement
Chief Supt Ellis told the meeting: "We will wait until daylight hours for reasons of health and safety before making interventions."
But one district councillor pointed out a bash in March, which took place at Longspring Woods near the village of Shoreham, had been allowed to go on until 1pm the following afternoon.
Colin Dibsdall said: "I would have thought once daylight came they could have gone into the site and turned it down or off."
People living in surrounding villages, many of them elderly, had tackled police over the problem because they were fed up with loud dance music and open drug taking.
Cllr Phil Hobson, an IT consultant in his early 50s, said: "It's ridiculous that a rave would be allowed to go on all night and into the afternoon.
"The biggest problem is lack of sleep. On that night there were probably about 500 people who were kept awake. There about 1,000 dwellings in the vicinity that could be effected at any given time, depending on the direction of the wind.
"What the police told us is if a rave is happening and they don't know about it significantly in advance they can't get the man power there to stop it.
"I think it is disgusting. The police are there to catch criminals and stop illegal activity.
"We know some people came from as far away as Somerset which means that they must have had several hours' notice about the rave.
"So why then, with so called 'Intelligence Led Policing' which has replaced officers on the street, are they not able to find out about them?"
Retired engineer Clive Evans, 66, said: "We couldn't believe what the police came out with - I've never heard so much rubbish in all my life.
"How on earth can fully trained police officers be worried about forcing a bunch of hippies and druggies to go home?
"What sort of thing did they expect to have to do when they signed up for the police force?"
Remember my (modified Soviet) joke about "Why do PCSOs go round in threes"? Well, now it's Kent Police officers Chief Inspector Gill Ellis, of Kent Police, blamed the lack of action on 'health and safety' regulations when tackled by locals who are fed-up with all-night raves in a wooded area near Sevenoaks.
Chief Supt Ellis said that it was not safe to disperse revellers in remote locations when it was dark - insisting safety regulations meant officers had to wait until sunrise to break up the bashes.
And the force said it could also be dangerous to disperse ravers because they may get into their cars to drive home while still high on drink and drugs.
Article continuesadvertisement
Chief Supt Ellis told the meeting: "We will wait until daylight hours for reasons of health and safety before making interventions."
But one district councillor pointed out a bash in March, which took place at Longspring Woods near the village of Shoreham, had been allowed to go on until 1pm the following afternoon.
Colin Dibsdall said: "I would have thought once daylight came they could have gone into the site and turned it down or off."
People living in surrounding villages, many of them elderly, had tackled police over the problem because they were fed up with loud dance music and open drug taking.
Cllr Phil Hobson, an IT consultant in his early 50s, said: "It's ridiculous that a rave would be allowed to go on all night and into the afternoon.
"The biggest problem is lack of sleep. On that night there were probably about 500 people who were kept awake. There about 1,000 dwellings in the vicinity that could be effected at any given time, depending on the direction of the wind.
"What the police told us is if a rave is happening and they don't know about it significantly in advance they can't get the man power there to stop it.
"I think it is disgusting. The police are there to catch criminals and stop illegal activity.
"We know some people came from as far away as Somerset which means that they must have had several hours' notice about the rave.
"So why then, with so called 'Intelligence Led Policing' which has replaced officers on the street, are they not able to find out about them?"
Retired engineer Clive Evans, 66, said: "We couldn't believe what the police came out with - I've never heard so much rubbish in all my life.
"How on earth can fully trained police officers be worried about forcing a bunch of hippies and druggies to go home?
"What sort of thing did they expect to have to do when they signed up for the police force?"
- StreakyTo properly deal with a rave would take most the officers on duty in the county in most county forces and fill up their cell capacity.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
I'd blame it on lack of officers to do the job at night rather than an un-willingness to do so.
To properly deal with a rave would take most the officers on duty in the county in most county forces and fill up their cell capacity.
how many do you need to confiscate the generator? its not like a few kids on pills and shrooms are going to kick off is it?To properly deal with a rave would take most the officers on duty in the county in most county forces and fill up their cell capacity.
the complaint was about the noise. i assume 'properly dealing with it' means giving a load of young people having fun a hard time and drug cautions, completely crippling much chance of them ever having decent careers. great work.
Edited by fbrs on Friday 9th May 11:19
fbrs said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
I'd blame it on lack of officers to do the job at night rather than an un-willingness to do so.
To properly deal with a rave would take most the officers on duty in the county in most county forces and fill up their cell capacity.
how many do you need to confiscate the generator? its not like a few kids on pills and shrooms are going to kick off is it?To properly deal with a rave would take most the officers on duty in the county in most county forces and fill up their cell capacity.
the complaint was about the noise. i assume 'properly dealing with it' means giving a load of young people having fun a hard time and drug cautions, completely crippling much chance of them ever having decent careers. great work.
Edited by fbrs on Friday 9th May 11:19
There was one over the weekend near Milton Keynes. Officers from all over the force were called in to deal and a mutual aid request was made to beds police.
With so many people in woodland on poor terrain with little or ni lighting who DO want to fight back then its a nightmare.
I have been to a small rave and we entered to shut it down. We were out numbered and quickly had to "withdraw" due to these kids on drugs litterally getting tooled up and goading us to fight.
fbrs said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
I'd blame it on lack of officers to do the job at night rather than an un-willingness to do so.
To properly deal with a rave would take most the officers on duty in the county in most county forces and fill up their cell capacity.
how many do you need to confiscate the generator? its not like a few kids on pills and shrooms are going to kick off is it?To properly deal with a rave would take most the officers on duty in the county in most county forces and fill up their cell capacity.
the complaint was about the noise. i assume 'properly dealing with it' means giving a load of young people having fun a hard time and drug cautions, completely crippling much chance of them ever having decent careers. great work.
Edited by fbrs on Friday 9th May 11:19
As usual no idea what your talking about and your also saying you think they should have been left to it. Contradict yourself in your own post.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
streaky said:
Daily telegraph said:
A police force has admitted it is powerless to break up illegal raves - because it is too dark when they are in full swing.
Chief Inspector Gill Ellis, of Kent Police, blamed the lack of action on 'health and safety' regulations when tackled by locals who are fed-up with all-night raves in a wooded area near Sevenoaks.
Chief Supt Ellis said that it was not safe to disperse revellers in remote locations when it was dark - insisting safety regulations meant officers had to wait until sunrise to break up the bashes.
And the force said it could also be dangerous to disperse ravers because they may get into their cars to drive home while still high on drink and drugs.
Article continuesadvertisement
Chief Supt Ellis told the meeting: "We will wait until daylight hours for reasons of health and safety before making interventions."
But one district councillor pointed out a bash in March, which took place at Longspring Woods near the village of Shoreham, had been allowed to go on until 1pm the following afternoon.
Colin Dibsdall said: "I would have thought once daylight came they could have gone into the site and turned it down or off."
People living in surrounding villages, many of them elderly, had tackled police over the problem because they were fed up with loud dance music and open drug taking.
Cllr Phil Hobson, an IT consultant in his early 50s, said: "It's ridiculous that a rave would be allowed to go on all night and into the afternoon.
"The biggest problem is lack of sleep. On that night there were probably about 500 people who were kept awake. There about 1,000 dwellings in the vicinity that could be effected at any given time, depending on the direction of the wind.
"What the police told us is if a rave is happening and they don't know about it significantly in advance they can't get the man power there to stop it.
"I think it is disgusting. The police are there to catch criminals and stop illegal activity.
"We know some people came from as far away as Somerset which means that they must have had several hours' notice about the rave.
"So why then, with so called 'Intelligence Led Policing' which has replaced officers on the street, are they not able to find out about them?"
Retired engineer Clive Evans, 66, said: "We couldn't believe what the police came out with - I've never heard so much rubbish in all my life.
"How on earth can fully trained police officers be worried about forcing a bunch of hippies and druggies to go home?
"What sort of thing did they expect to have to do when they signed up for the police force?"
Remember my (modified Soviet) joke about "Why do PCSOs go round in threes"? Well, now it's Kent Police officers Chief Inspector Gill Ellis, of Kent Police, blamed the lack of action on 'health and safety' regulations when tackled by locals who are fed-up with all-night raves in a wooded area near Sevenoaks.
Chief Supt Ellis said that it was not safe to disperse revellers in remote locations when it was dark - insisting safety regulations meant officers had to wait until sunrise to break up the bashes.
And the force said it could also be dangerous to disperse ravers because they may get into their cars to drive home while still high on drink and drugs.
Article continuesadvertisement
Chief Supt Ellis told the meeting: "We will wait until daylight hours for reasons of health and safety before making interventions."
But one district councillor pointed out a bash in March, which took place at Longspring Woods near the village of Shoreham, had been allowed to go on until 1pm the following afternoon.
Colin Dibsdall said: "I would have thought once daylight came they could have gone into the site and turned it down or off."
People living in surrounding villages, many of them elderly, had tackled police over the problem because they were fed up with loud dance music and open drug taking.
Cllr Phil Hobson, an IT consultant in his early 50s, said: "It's ridiculous that a rave would be allowed to go on all night and into the afternoon.
"The biggest problem is lack of sleep. On that night there were probably about 500 people who were kept awake. There about 1,000 dwellings in the vicinity that could be effected at any given time, depending on the direction of the wind.
"What the police told us is if a rave is happening and they don't know about it significantly in advance they can't get the man power there to stop it.
"I think it is disgusting. The police are there to catch criminals and stop illegal activity.
"We know some people came from as far away as Somerset which means that they must have had several hours' notice about the rave.
"So why then, with so called 'Intelligence Led Policing' which has replaced officers on the street, are they not able to find out about them?"
Retired engineer Clive Evans, 66, said: "We couldn't believe what the police came out with - I've never heard so much rubbish in all my life.
"How on earth can fully trained police officers be worried about forcing a bunch of hippies and druggies to go home?
"What sort of thing did they expect to have to do when they signed up for the police force?"
- StreakyTo properly deal with a rave would take most the officers on duty in the county in most county forces and fill up their cell capacity.
s2art said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
streaky said:
Daily telegraph said:
A police force has admitted it is powerless to break up illegal raves - because it is too dark when they are in full swing.
Chief Inspector Gill Ellis, of Kent Police, blamed the lack of action on 'health and safety' regulations when tackled by locals who are fed-up with all-night raves in a wooded area near Sevenoaks.
Chief Supt Ellis said that it was not safe to disperse revellers in remote locations when it was dark - insisting safety regulations meant officers had to wait until sunrise to break up the bashes.
And the force said it could also be dangerous to disperse ravers because they may get into their cars to drive home while still high on drink and drugs.
Article continuesadvertisement
Chief Supt Ellis told the meeting: "We will wait until daylight hours for reasons of health and safety before making interventions."
But one district councillor pointed out a bash in March, which took place at Longspring Woods near the village of Shoreham, had been allowed to go on until 1pm the following afternoon.
Colin Dibsdall said: "I would have thought once daylight came they could have gone into the site and turned it down or off."
People living in surrounding villages, many of them elderly, had tackled police over the problem because they were fed up with loud dance music and open drug taking.
Cllr Phil Hobson, an IT consultant in his early 50s, said: "It's ridiculous that a rave would be allowed to go on all night and into the afternoon.
"The biggest problem is lack of sleep. On that night there were probably about 500 people who were kept awake. There about 1,000 dwellings in the vicinity that could be effected at any given time, depending on the direction of the wind.
"What the police told us is if a rave is happening and they don't know about it significantly in advance they can't get the man power there to stop it.
"I think it is disgusting. The police are there to catch criminals and stop illegal activity.
"We know some people came from as far away as Somerset which means that they must have had several hours' notice about the rave.
"So why then, with so called 'Intelligence Led Policing' which has replaced officers on the street, are they not able to find out about them?"
Retired engineer Clive Evans, 66, said: "We couldn't believe what the police came out with - I've never heard so much rubbish in all my life.
"How on earth can fully trained police officers be worried about forcing a bunch of hippies and druggies to go home?
"What sort of thing did they expect to have to do when they signed up for the police force?"
Remember my (modified Soviet) joke about "Why do PCSOs go round in threes"? Well, now it's Kent Police officers Chief Inspector Gill Ellis, of Kent Police, blamed the lack of action on 'health and safety' regulations when tackled by locals who are fed-up with all-night raves in a wooded area near Sevenoaks.
Chief Supt Ellis said that it was not safe to disperse revellers in remote locations when it was dark - insisting safety regulations meant officers had to wait until sunrise to break up the bashes.
And the force said it could also be dangerous to disperse ravers because they may get into their cars to drive home while still high on drink and drugs.
Article continuesadvertisement
Chief Supt Ellis told the meeting: "We will wait until daylight hours for reasons of health and safety before making interventions."
But one district councillor pointed out a bash in March, which took place at Longspring Woods near the village of Shoreham, had been allowed to go on until 1pm the following afternoon.
Colin Dibsdall said: "I would have thought once daylight came they could have gone into the site and turned it down or off."
People living in surrounding villages, many of them elderly, had tackled police over the problem because they were fed up with loud dance music and open drug taking.
Cllr Phil Hobson, an IT consultant in his early 50s, said: "It's ridiculous that a rave would be allowed to go on all night and into the afternoon.
"The biggest problem is lack of sleep. On that night there were probably about 500 people who were kept awake. There about 1,000 dwellings in the vicinity that could be effected at any given time, depending on the direction of the wind.
"What the police told us is if a rave is happening and they don't know about it significantly in advance they can't get the man power there to stop it.
"I think it is disgusting. The police are there to catch criminals and stop illegal activity.
"We know some people came from as far away as Somerset which means that they must have had several hours' notice about the rave.
"So why then, with so called 'Intelligence Led Policing' which has replaced officers on the street, are they not able to find out about them?"
Retired engineer Clive Evans, 66, said: "We couldn't believe what the police came out with - I've never heard so much rubbish in all my life.
"How on earth can fully trained police officers be worried about forcing a bunch of hippies and druggies to go home?
"What sort of thing did they expect to have to do when they signed up for the police force?"
- StreakyTo properly deal with a rave would take most the officers on duty in the county in most county forces and fill up their cell capacity.
Going in without sufficient resources would, in itself, make a potentially dangerous situation worse.
I can see how not having enough officers connects directly with health and safety.
It's the kind of risk assessment that is made everytime officers approach any situation.
If there are not enough officers available, wait until there are.
I can see how not having enough officers connects directly with health and safety.
It's the kind of risk assessment that is made everytime officers approach any situation.
If there are not enough officers available, wait until there are.
Chrispy Porker said:
Going in without sufficient resources would, in itself, make a potentially dangerous situation worse.
I can see how not having enough officers connects directly with health and safety.
It's the kind of risk assessment that is made everytime officers approach any situation.
If there are not enough officers available, wait until there are.
Agreed. But how many is 'enough', and what happens if you've never got that number spare? Do you (the Police) just let it happen, powerless to intervene?I can see how not having enough officers connects directly with health and safety.
It's the kind of risk assessment that is made everytime officers approach any situation.
If there are not enough officers available, wait until there are.
...and if so, what use are you? If you can use "H&S" or another excuse for "insufficient numbers" not to intervene, what happens when a gang of say 10-20 lads goes on a mugging/assault spree?!?*
- I ask because this exact thing (random mass-assaults for the fun of it) DID happen (also in Kent) and my brother and a mate ended up hospitalised as a result, and another chap waiting at a bus-stop lost his eye - all totally unprovoked. Police knew who they were, knew they kicked off somewhere in Medway every Sat (Fri? I forget.) night, yet it went on for weeks...and in the end they had to prosecute some of these scum for non-violent offences! WTF???
havoc said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Going in without sufficient resources would, in itself, make a potentially dangerous situation worse.
I can see how not having enough officers connects directly with health and safety.
It's the kind of risk assessment that is made everytime officers approach any situation.
If there are not enough officers available, wait until there are.
Agreed. But how many is 'enough', and what happens if you've never got that number spare? Do you (the Police) just let it happen, powerless to intervene?I can see how not having enough officers connects directly with health and safety.
It's the kind of risk assessment that is made everytime officers approach any situation.
If there are not enough officers available, wait until there are.
...and if so, what use are you? If you can use "H&S" or another excuse for "insufficient numbers" not to intervene, what happens when a gang of say 10-20 lads goes on a mugging/assault spree?!?*
- I ask because this exact thing (random mass-assaults for the fun of it) DID happen (also in Kent) and my brother and a mate ended up hospitalised as a result, and another chap waiting at a bus-stop lost his eye - all totally unprovoked. Police knew who they were, knew they kicked off somewhere in Medway every Sat (Fri? I forget.) night, yet it went on for weeks...and in the end they had to prosecute some of these scum for non-violent offences! WTF???
As for your example - knowing someone is a nutter or likes having fights is not a reason that we can arrest or preventatively detain. They would have prosecuted them for what they could proved beyond a reasonable doubt, i'm guessing they could not prove stuff so went after them another way - which is a good thing surely?
havoc said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Going in without sufficient resources would, in itself, make a potentially dangerous situation worse.
I can see how not having enough officers connects directly with health and safety.
It's the kind of risk assessment that is made everytime officers approach any situation.
If there are not enough officers available, wait until there are.
Agreed. But how many is 'enough', and what happens if you've never got that number spare? Do you (the Police) just let it happen, powerless to intervene?I can see how not having enough officers connects directly with health and safety.
It's the kind of risk assessment that is made everytime officers approach any situation.
If there are not enough officers available, wait until there are.
...and if so, what use are you? If you can use "H&S" or another excuse for "insufficient numbers" not to intervene, what happens when a gang of say 10-20 lads goes on a mugging/assault spree?!?*
- I ask because this exact thing (random mass-assaults for the fun of it) DID happen (also in Kent) and my brother and a mate ended up hospitalised as a result, and another chap waiting at a bus-stop lost his eye - all totally unprovoked. Police knew who they were, knew they kicked off somewhere in Medway every Sat (Fri? I forget.) night, yet it went on for weeks...and in the end they had to prosecute some of these scum for non-violent offences! WTF???
We are talking hundreds of drug / alcohol fueled people who dont want the party to finish.
Sometimes to get the required numbers of officers it may take a while for a large rave, usually we would contain and refuse entry to surrounding roads to prevent the numbers increasing.
Its the nature of the event which makes it un predictable and dangerous.
Also the "atendees" will walk for a couple of miles into the field to get the the rave.
You cant leave officers that far away from quick support and extraction. Also getting near to the center you can find resistance so its running battles, Much better to have large numbers as they seem to think twice about taking on a hundred riot trained officers. But they are quite happy to take on 50 non riot trained.
^Slider^ said:
havoc said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Going in without sufficient resources would, in itself, make a potentially dangerous situation worse.
I can see how not having enough officers connects directly with health and safety.
It's the kind of risk assessment that is made everytime officers approach any situation.
If there are not enough officers available, wait until there are.
Agreed. But how many is 'enough', and what happens if you've never got that number spare? Do you (the Police) just let it happen, powerless to intervene?I can see how not having enough officers connects directly with health and safety.
It's the kind of risk assessment that is made everytime officers approach any situation.
If there are not enough officers available, wait until there are.
...and if so, what use are you? If you can use "H&S" or another excuse for "insufficient numbers" not to intervene, what happens when a gang of say 10-20 lads goes on a mugging/assault spree?!?*
- I ask because this exact thing (random mass-assaults for the fun of it) DID happen (also in Kent) and my brother and a mate ended up hospitalised as a result, and another chap waiting at a bus-stop lost his eye - all totally unprovoked. Police knew who they were, knew they kicked off somewhere in Medway every Sat (Fri? I forget.) night, yet it went on for weeks...and in the end they had to prosecute some of these scum for non-violent offences! WTF???
We are talking hundreds of drug / alcohol fueled people who dont want the party to finish.
Sometimes to get the required numbers of officers it may take a while for a large rave, usually we would contain and refuse entry to surrounding roads to prevent the numbers increasing.
Its the nature of the event which makes it un predictable and dangerous.
Also the "atendees" will walk for a couple of miles into the field to get the the rave.
You cant leave officers that far away from quick support and extraction. Also getting near to the center you can find resistance so its running battles, Much better to have large numbers as they seem to think twice about taking on a hundred riot trained officers. But they are quite happy to take on 50 non riot trained.
Less than 40 I would say.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
As usual no idea what your talking about and your also saying you think they should have been left to it. Contradict yourself in your own post.
WTF are you talking about? where do i say they should be left to it? their behavour is completely selfish and anti social. take the generator. job done. where's the contradiciton? the complaint was about noise. shut the noise off. you want to "fill the cells up"! 30 feds at a rave would NOT cause an issue unless handled REALLY badly. you'd scare the living s
t out of them. as for all the 'drunk idiots' - i'd suggest you weren't at a 'rave'.of course if you did successfully shut it down you'd have a much bigger problem of people leaving before they had 'sobered up' - in which case you'd need hundreds
Edited by fbrs on Friday 9th May 14:10
fbrs said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
As usual no idea what your talking about and your also saying you think they should have been left to it. Contradict yourself in your own post.
WTF are you talking about? where do i say they should be left to it? their behavour is completely selfish and anti social. take the generator. job done. where's the contradiciton? the complaint was about noise. shut the noise off. you want to "fill the cells up"! 30 feds at a rave would NOT cause an issue unless handled REALLY badly. you'd scare the living s
t out of them. as for all the 'drunk idiots' - i'd suggest you weren't at a 'rave'I have. Therefore I know what I'm talking about.
fbrs said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
As usual no idea what your talking about and your also saying you think they should have been left to it. Contradict yourself in your own post.
WTF are you talking about? where do i say they should be left to it? their behavour is completely selfish and anti social. take the generator. job done. where's the contradiciton? the complaint was about noise. shut the noise off. you want to "fill the cells up"! 30 feds at a rave would NOT cause an issue unless handled REALLY badly. you'd scare the living s
t out of them. as for all the 'drunk idiots' - i'd suggest you weren't at a 'rave'We cannot get to the generators to shut the noise off. Its not about nicking them its about shutting it down.
If you have a group of people who number i nthe hundreds who do not want the rave to stop and are drug / alcohol fueled they will fight.
they are not scared as safety in numbers.
30 BiB will not be enough to force a rave to stop if its big enough.
Blatantly do not have a clue what is involved and the levels of violence offered towards anyone who tries to stop the rave.
fbrs said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
...you think they should have been left to it...
WTF are you talking about? where do i say they should be left to it? Mr_annie_vxr said:
When have you ever tried to turn the generator off? Ever? No?
duh! 15 to 5 years ago people didnt get drunk at ravesGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff