[matilda] 6am etc etc late events etc etc

[atw]

Jez>   Right, first off I would like to state that I, unlike
Jez> others, do not endlessly mail this list creating nothing but over
Jez> stuffed in-boxes. This should be an indication of the degree of
Jez> emotion that the last few posts on this topic has evoked.


First off Jez I would like to thank you for taking the time to write
down your concerns regarding all night parties. It's a great shame if
people feel hesitant about writing to the list though through fear of
their contribution not being worthy. The email list is really the only
space where peoples concerns can be discussed without limits. Monday
meetings are almost always too short. I hope you feel like writing
more not less since communication is essential to resolving
differences of opinion.




Jez>    I will start by setting out my stall, I would like to
Jez> re-iterate the point that prominent members of the gig collective
Jez> have stated, that it is, and should be the case that events
Jez> finish at midnight and once a month an event is allowed to run on
Jez> until 2am.


My understanding of this is that so the gig collective can get on and
organise what they want without having to seek permission for every
single event at the Monday meetings. It was not intended to apply to
other events at at Matilda.

Maybe I'm wrong here. If so I'll ask again, where in any set of
minutes was that agreed.





Jez> I do not feel it is necessary or at all desirable that any event
Jez> should go on 'till 6am, for various reasons, firstly being that
Jez> it is far to much to ask of people to work these events for such
Jez> a long time, considering the fact that it is always the same old
Jez> faces who are burdened with these tasks. And yes these people are
Jez> not obliged to do this, but it is simply that there are not
Jez> enough other people coming forward to facilitate the smooth
Jez> running of events. It's all very well signing up on a rota and
Jez> doing an hours stint and then disappearing, but some of us
Jez> realise that there is far more that needs to be done and that
Jez> just doesn't cut it.
   
Jez>    You may well argue that someone putting on an event
Jez> could bring all their own people to cover the bar and door, but
Jez> this I feel would still necessitate Matilda people being there to
Jez> make sure that the building is left secure and in good order,
Jez> this is in no way to cast aspersions on anyone who might wish to
Jez> run an event, but how could they ever be expected to care for the
Jez> building as much as someone who has spent countless hours trying
Jez> to breathe life back into it?.



Well thanks again Jez for stating this. I have had for a long time a
vague suspicion that some people might feel like this but no one as
actually said so. However it makes impossible to respond to things
when no one actually says what their problems are.

Firstly I actually find it quite sad that some people feel obligated
to run events. As I said before acting of guilt is never a good motive
to do something. Personally I don't get involved in anything at
Matilda unless I fully support it and want to be a part of it. I
strongly recommend others do the same. If there aren't enough people
to run the event then it shouldn't go ahead. That way no one can feel
resentful that they've had to stay at something they didn't want to be
part of.

However I am very concerned by this statement:

"how could they ever be expected to care for the building as much as
someone who has spent countless hours trying to breathe life back into
it"


This implies a hierarchy at Matilda. Those who have done the most work
there should get the most say as to what goes on. I don't like
hierarchies but maybe hierarchy comes automatically with property
ownership. I don't know. It's an interesting question.

However if we are to have some kind of hierarhy then it should be
visible and accountable. This is neither.


   
Jez>    Also any real damage to the building or people has
Jez> happened when events have gone on into the small hours, Steve you
Jez> seem to be suffering from some sort of myopia when it comes to
Jez> the negatives that have occurred, namely personal injury, the
Jez> police, the repeated repelling of undesirable elements at the
Jez> gate, damage to the building and general mess that is not dealt
Jez> with after late events.


Thanks again for stating these issues Jez.

First personal injury. well accidents happen and yes they are more
likely to happen when people are pissed etc. The longer an event also
increases the liklihood. This is a political issue and depending on
peoples politics people will have different views. I could probably be
labled as an 'anarchist'. I'm totally against some people taking
responsibilty for others because implicit in that is control of one
group over the others. I feel very strongly about this and it's
probably something that we'll never agree on so I won't go on about
that anymore.


Secondly the police. I appreciate that we all have different
experiences and backgrounds. I've been involved in quite a bit of
political activism and also free parties. In both these things police
interest is almost inevitable. If you were to not do something through
fear of police interest then, to be honest, you wouldn't do anything
at all. As Schnews is always keen to point out the safest thing to do
in all circumstances is to stay at home and watch TV.

At probably almost every free party I've been to the Police have
turned up at some time or other during the proceedings. Only twice
have the parties been shut down by the police. I don't see the visits
to Matilda as some kind of police conspiracy to shut down the
building. Their visits have been totally routine and inline with the
general policing of the city. The incidents at Matilda have been so
minor compared to what else goes on in the city centre on a typical
Saturday night: fights, broken bottles shoved into people's faces,
gangs etc. etc. etc. We are really NOT a prime concern of theirs.

This undue concern with the police actually bothers me quite a bit. It
shows just how much Matilda has changed in the past 8 months. We've
gone from a base for action against the G8 summit - one of the most
powerful groups in the world - to talking ourselves out doing
something simply because the police _might_ show up. The spirit of
defiance and confrontation has been replaced with fear and paranoia.
This is really very sad.

"repeated repelling of undesirable elements at the gate". Hmmm. I
don't know how to judge a person as 'undesireable' but it sounds like
a kind of prejudice. However I'll trust you on this, yeah there are
some people who no doubt would cause trouble and we had some in
already. However if the only way to avoid such is to simply not to put
an event on then that's really sad too. Surely we can sort such out.
The proposal for the Artist party seems to adress this problem anyway
- its invites only.

"Damage to the building and general mess" Are these really serious
reasons to pull an event? This sounds like the kind attitude a parent
would give their kids for not having a party. But it's not our
building, and it's probably going to be pulled down anyway. The
putting of property before people bothers me. We should make use of
the space whilst we've got it.




   
Jez> All the positive points that you have stated are great, but they
Jez> can all be achieved at an event with an earlier finish, which I
Jez> would whole heartily support.


Surely one of the nicest things about having our own building is the
ability to let a party run it's course. This is one of the things that
could make Matilda so different from all the other corporate run
events in our city centre. Freedom to do what we want. Not chucking
people out at a pre ordained time. At least one party was run like
this. I missed most of it as I was away but from what I've heard it
was one of the best Matilda parties.




Jez> It is also farcical to equate the slightly late, convivial
Jez> drinking sessions after some socials, with late night 'Banging'
Jez> parties, the numbers, and who all the people are, are in an
Jez> entirely different league, with a far higher chance of negative
Jez> things occurring with the latter.


Well who decides on how much risk to take? For those who like band
gigs where the tradition is finish earlier there is no incentive at
all to support something that _might_ be more risky, except of course
the spirit of trusting others to get on and do what they want to do.


   
Jez> After all I've said I hope this event will go ahead, with an
Jez> earlier finish time. The people who proposed this event should
Jez> not feel that I am against them in any way, and I warmly welcome
Jez> them to Matilda, this is merely an issue that existing members
Jez> have to contend with.


Thanks again for your thoughts Jez. For the artist event I'll try to
work out something that addresses your concerns.

Your email has given me a good chance to think about stuff and no
doubt I'll continue thinking about. It seems to highlight some deep
political divisions within Matilda. These won't be resolved easily
(and possibly not at all). However as a start perhaps we need an extra
Monday meeting to talk about these things (and continue chatting about
it on this list).

cheers

steve


PS. A note on late nights. I was chatting to a friend today. She said
quite a few people knew about Saturday's event but didn't go because
they heard it was finishing at midnight. It ended up going on to 1.30
and there was no problem at all.



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/265 - Release Date: 20/02/2006