h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: A Brief History of the UK Free Party Movement - A3060145
Author: blunderdog - U923868

Hi crew!

Well, I've been lurking for a while but I've finally come up with my first entry. Hope someone finds it of interest. Look forward to getting some feedback...

Ali

'this new social lubricant'

'For party-goers different vices of choice came to the fore, with the sociable drug angle of E...'

Ecstacy is a Class A drug: methylenedioxomethamphetamine. It kills people. This entry at least has to acknowledge the fact that it is dangerous. As it stands, it doesn't mention this angle whatsoever. I also detect a note of snobbery that prevails among people who take drugs: they tend to look down on other who take other drugs with a worse reputation.

The entry links to the forthcoming Edited Entry on Ecstacy, which does outline the many issues surrounding the drug. Could you suggest a way round this that wouldn't upset the flow of the entry (which looks mighty impressive to me)?

A fair comment about the danger of drug use - thanks. No, it doesn't mention that angle; it is however a very accurate summary of events, and that particular drug was very significant in the evolution of that sub-culture. For the record, I don't take drugs, but I have done and I know the dangers well. I have also lost friends to drug use. This submission isn't meant to be either pro or anti drugs, and certainly wasn't intended to sound 'snobby' at all.

I think it's easy enough to weave in something about the dangers of drug use without polarising the article or disrupting the flow.

Thanks for the feedback.

OK, that's good. Also, I'd ask you to think hard about the way you write about the response to raves as being a 'civil liberties' issue. Some years ago, we had a tenant in a house who didn't pay his rent, then moved out without telling us and rented the house out to a bunch of people who decided to hold a mini-rave in it. It kept the entire street awake all night. We called the police who threw the ravers out. One of the neightbours walked past and shouted at them 'if you do this again, I'll firebomb the place'. People get severely pissed off at loud noise late at night, and they have every right to those feelings. I suspect that the laws were put in place not to oppress but to protect those liberties that all of us take for granted, mainly an undisturbed night's sleep.

Thanks again for the fair comments - clearly our experience of ‘raves’ vary greatly. Genuinely sorry to hear about the hassles with your house though, which sound pretty unpleasant. I'm not debating the fact that people have the right to sleep… I like my sleep too and get pretty angry if people keep me up by making noise. Within sound system culture, organising parties with such blatant disregard to residents is heavily frowned upon, as is causing damage or leaving litter; they are basic unwritten rules. However, you’ll always get some people who couldn’t care less – and, with respect, student households have been keeping streets awake for decades before ‘ravers’ entered the fray.

I'm certainly not going to defend the right to 'rave' until I’m blue in the face (indeed, I'm pretty disheartened with that scene these days, as the text following the paragraph on the CJA details). And yes, in the interests of balance and transparency the reasons behind the implementation of the act could certainly be elaborated on in the entry, as far as free parties are concerned. But as for the civil liberties issue, well, having witnessed first-hand elements of the CJA employed to (literally) crush protests and other proactive movements, intimidate visitors to this country and make law-abiding citizens feel like criminals, I’d say the whole act infringes pretty heavily on many areas of civil liberties. The CJA might have been pushed through in 1994 largely to outlaw the practice of ‘raves’, but in reality there were big implications for us all. For example, if you take section 63 of the CJA to its logical conclusion, police have the power to close down a church picnic if there's amplified 'beat' music playing. I’m not going to argue the finer points, but I feel many of the clauses are open to misinterpretation and abuse, and during the 90s these new powers were used to put the boot into something which provided youth culture with something much more creative and unifying than I see the ‘yoof’ partaking in these days. I really hope I’m making myself clear here.

[/rant]

Sorry, by that final line I meant 'I hope this makes sense', rather than being overtly provocative.

No, I didn't take that as a provocative statement. I think that what I was trying to say is that it's more complicated than authoritarian reactionary state against a whole set of bright young things who just want to party and have a good time. And when I read your analysis I thought it came across as being a bit simplistic. From the thoughtful nature of your responses so far i'd say you'd be doing yourself a disservice to allow me and others to continue reading the situation as such.

I personally have no problem with anybody who wants to party in a field or deserted aircraft hangar, providing they behave with due consideration for others who don't. Likewise, on the drugs issue, if people want to ruin their health and minds with the stuff, then that's up to them. All one can ask is that they're in a position to make an informed judgement about it, and they don't feel pressurised into acting in a certain way because that's what everyone else they know does.

Thanks. I agree, the entry on a whole does appear a little simplistic. I really do appreciate the points you've made and will work in revisions to the piece as soon as I get a chance.

Ali

Great! When you've had a chance to do that, pop back here and let us know, and we'll come take another look.


Mikey

Hmmm... the author does appear to be a bit AWOL -- should we consider moving this thread to the Flea Market?

Yes, there is some interesting stuff in it, so it deserves a run out in the FM

Sorry all. I've not gone AWOL... Just had a really hectic couple of months since I registered with H2G2. There are a few things I'd like to do with the article but I've just run out of time of late. Bear with me - I'll get on the case!

Thanks for the feedback.

Hi.

Let this one go a bit I'm afraid - it's been a hectic six months for me! Anyway, I've woven in some of the points made in the discussion - I may add some more when I get some time. I think the link to the Ecstacy article (now it's an Edited Entry), coupled with a couple of additional footnotes, makes the piece appear more neutral on the issue of drug use.

Look forward to any comments (and I promise I'll be less tardy with my responses this time!)