Hi,

I'm wondering if there will be any report regarding security and policing at Glade? Is TVP obligated to provide those kind of report (under Freedom of Information act?).

I really would love to see the number of arrests/interventions made by TVP. And by security.

I personaly witnessed 2 muscled interventions by Stuart security, personaly I found them a bit too heavy handed (pushing and mainting someone head in the mud for more than 5 minutes, waiting for the van), but the guy tried to do a runner.... and "acting" on some girl who was topless (come on guys no one will be shocked by a pair of painted breasts).

Didn't see any TVP intervention, their presence on site was quite limited (as I suspect they really had better things to do due to the circumstances), 4 PCs on arena site, a few at entrance.

I really would love to compare those stats to other events in the area (Reading festival, ...). I'm quite convinced that it would resolve any licensing objection by TVP at license application next year

word was it was 40 a day that got done...

we honoured those 40 fallen every day ;op

i thought the security were good. I had a brief 'encounter' with them and they were fine with me. A nice bunch really.

People who break in and get caught deserve all they get as far as im concerned...

I heard that tent theft was down 60-70% on last year. Could be wrong on that though.

Stephane, what is this obsession you have with festival security all about? It seems to be your pet topic on this board, I'm curious to know why you spend so much time watching security guards rather than enjoying the festival.

http://www.nuskoolbreaks.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=78907

[Mod edit: the link is to a forum post by someone who was searched at Glade and now faces criminal proceedings on drug charges. Please say what a link is about in future rather than just sticking up a link.]

brokenshaman wrote:http://www.nuskoolbreaks.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=78907

Would have been helpful if you had given a brief description to accompany the link.

It's about someone who was searched at the site after allegedly being caught rolling a spliff and then searched and other substances allegedly being found...

As it happens, I have met that guy (Mr Minimax) and am shocked to hear of what has happened to him. Get yourself a good solicitor and good luck, mate...

It is absolutely illegal for any security staff to search you and confiscate illegal substances WITHOUT a police officer present.

Very unlucky for the guy.

Just goes to show - keep it discrete and if you have anything to hide, HIDE IT...

indeed.

shame really. the scare-mongering applied to all parts of the site.

some people think that, when they're in, they're in.

a lesson to be learnt.

brokenshaman wrote:http://www.nuskoolbreaks.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=78907

Shit man. Thats really bad....

Tec wrote:It is absolutely illegal for any security staff to search you and confiscate illegal substances WITHOUT a police officer present.

It was a condition of entry to these private premises that people "consented" to the security staff having such powers on site. I'm afraid that such terms and conditions are perfectly legal.

The phrase "temporary cells" implied to me that he was searched by police officers anyway, but it's not clear either way from the post.

I met one guy who was seen by security rolling a spliff and they escorted him to the police. He was then searched and they found half an ounce of weed and a couple of pills, which were all confiscated and he was given a caution and allowed to re-enter the site.

And then a friend went out to his car in the car park at 9am on the Saturday morning. He approached the entrance barrier and realised that he was the only person entering the site and there were about 15 security guards there, doing sod all at that time. Hence, they decided to do a full search of him. He had only popped out to grab some rizzlas but whilst at the car thought he'd grab a couple more supplies as well and had stuck them in his scarf which was wrapped around his neck. Upon being searched he had to take his scarf off and they fell out. He was then taken to the police and given a caution and then allowed back into the site.

I was surprised that they allowed people re-entry as I've always been chucked out of whatever venue I've been at if something went wrong during the night... The only problem with confiscating someone's drugs is that they are then going to want to buy some off a dealer inside, which the police and organisers are probably even less keen on that individuals having their own supplies....

brokenshaman wrote:http://www.nuskoolbreaks.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=78907

Assuming it goes to court, he'll probably be done for possession. Theoretically he could be done for possession with intent with that many pills (and if it was a one-night event he definitely would be), but I think it's unlikely since the CPS would need watertight evidence of intent to supply. It'll be unlikely to go to Crown Court, unless he's charged with possession with intent and pleads not guilty. If that does happen, it'll become a Jury trial, and the case will rest on whether or not the CPS can prove that Minimax intended to supply the drugs to another, NOT whether or not he had the drugs.

Personally I'd be surprised if it went that far - I've seen a guy charged with possession (rather than possession with intent) when he had 1.5Lb of heroin, and about 1/3 Lb of coke, so 30 pills is unlikely to result in a massive sentence. That said, he'll be up against provincial magistrates, who tend to be harsher on certain crimes (drugs especially) than those in big cities. Assuming he's not got any previous convictions, he'll probably get a twelve-month Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order, with supervision (which means he'll have to visit probation every week) and/or unpaid work. If he keeps his head down, he might even convince his Probation Officer to apply for a revocation of the order on the grounds of good progress (it's unusual, but I've seen it happen).



If you're wondering, I'm a Probation admin.

Tavdy, when do those new Home Office guidelines come in? You know the ones I mean, the ones where possession of certain amounts (10 in the case of E) mean a mandatory charge of possession with intent to supply?

The guidelines come in when the police can prove the case. Just because Whitehall says something doesn't mean the police are thick enough to follow it to the letter! They can prove possession, I doubt they can prove possession with intent. Part of my job involves preparing court reports, which are used by magistrates & judges as a guideline for sentencing, so what I wrote was based on the 1000 reports (or thereabouts) that I've dealt with.

tavdy79 wrote:The guidelines come in when the police can prove the case. Just because Whitehall says something doesn't mean the police are thick enough to follow it to the letter! They can prove possession, I doubt they can prove possession with intent. Part of my job involves preparing court reports, which are used by magistrates & judges as a guideline for sentencing, so what I wrote was based on the 1000 reports (or thereabouts) that I've dealt with.

It's great to have someone commenting on here about how the process really works, rather than just heresay. Thanks for your informing earlier post.

Here's some more 'hearsay' about what the Home Office wants:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... drug08.xml

The Home Office has written to the Government's experts, the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs, telling them that ministers are minded to set the threshold for cannabis possession at just 5g - enough to make between 10 and 20 joints - compared with the 500g first proposed.

For ecstasy the limit would be five pills against 10 in the earlier plans while the limit for amphetamines would be 14g in line with the original proposal. Possession of cocaine, heroin or crack cocaine would be just two grammes against the seven proposed.

If the Home Office's frankly bonkers guidelines are still being ignored by people on the ground, good. But this country has been moving in a direction towards increased control freakery and away from personal liberty for a long time now and I've seen no sign of this trend being reversed. So the Home Office hasn't had its way with these thresholds yet - but that is no guarantee that they will never come into force.

hope they don't involve glade licensing politics in the case, & make an example of him. i would think they would take into account it being a long weekend.

i was caught with 20 beans for one night some years ago. didn't seem to make a difference though, they seemed to be just going through the motions & processing people. i was lucky to get cautioned for that.

fingers crossed eh...

Sperge wrote:Here's some more 'hearsay' about what the Home Office wants:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... drug08.xml

Shows just how clueless they are!!! A limit of 5 pills yet 14g of speed wtf