Monday 25 February 2008

Raving Mad


I don't know if East Anglia is the centre for Raves in Britain today but you'd be forgiven for thinking it. There is regular regional news coverage of huge police actions against dishevelled groups of party-goers. From the editorial the audience are clearly meant to be reassured by the sight of riot police surrounding a village hall, but often the impression I get is of a heavy-handed and disproportionate response to a pretty minor problem.


Michael 'the Blood Donor' Howard as Home Secretary brought in some pretty draconian laws under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 when the popularity of raves had already started to wane. They even tried to define rave music as "sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats" a classic from the HO lawyers. This legislation allows the seizing of equipment, generators etc and anyone refusing to leave can be arrested for public order offences, obstruction or trespass. More than enough police powers to poop the party you would have thought.

But one of our local MPs, Christopher Fraser (SW Norfolk) wants yet tougher laws and has his own Private Members Bill, the Criminal Justice (Raves) Bill. He addressed Parliament last week about "how devastating raves can be for farmers, local residents and the surrounding environment and wildlife". But then he offered hardly any evidence or examples.

He would like to introduce two new offences: "of organising a rave, and of transporting sound equipment for use at a rave". For a start, these Bills almost never make on to the statute book, secondly it would be impossible to bring these vague wishes into a from you could call legislation. If it were an offence to transport such equipment the police would be empowered to arrest anyone buying a new sound system from Currys. Nevertheless Mr Fraser's Bill gets its second reading on 6 June he was supported by another local MP Bob Russell.

The fact that the Government did not bother to send a Minister to respond shows this law is going nowhere.

No comments: