Wireless Sights.



  • Also with All Points East they use the facilities for local events when the event isn't running (and it's awesome).
  • cmocmo
    edited July 2019
    @HolbornFox You're completely right, I wouldn't have given it a second thought as 17 year old, but I feel the gripe isn't with the attendees, it's the organisers.

    It does feel like a money grab for want of a better phrase from the council and the organisers, none of which are teenagers. All power to the kids, I spent many an evening in dimly lit fields but hopefully in the future, the council could either a) visibly spend the money that they are earning and as one other commentator said, make finsbury park competitive against the other parks in London or b) consider the locals a hare more - maybe shifting it to once every two years?
  • edited July 2019
    Some people definitely do seem to have a gripe with the attendees though!

    I wonder if I am getting older or becoming a conspiracy theorist sometimes when I think about how we are treated by authorities but I think it is much worse nowadays, it seems they can justify taking the piss by telling you they are going to do it in advance via pretend consultations... ho hum.
  • All the money they make already gets spent on the park.

    If you want it to become a better park, it will need more events.
  • edited July 2019
    I don't see where the age, race, or inside-leg measurements of the perpetrators comes into it; the noise nuisance (and accompanying nuisances) is just the same. By all means blame it on the council and the organisers for legitimising and promoting it. Oh no, but it's just ducky because it's supposed to raise money to improve the Park. How on earth are any public works funded without rock concerts? This is just another way of councils tugging their forelocks and sucking up to the Conservative's obsessions with commercialism and austerity so the Conservatives and their high-earning chums can get out of paying taxes.

    17? Well indeed, I must have been 17 for a year once. Can't argue with the logic that anyone over 17 must have been 17 at some point. So 17 is some sort of magical age that entitles you to be a public nuisance? Why not take it to it's logical conclusion and make 17-year-olds (I really don't know why 17 was the illustration chosen in the post above) immune to prosecution! Perhaps it's an argument for bringing back National Service to protect the public! As soon as they're out of school, stick 'em in the Army (It'll make a man/woman out of them) with the option of community service: have them digging ditches, building roads, and... improving parks!

    Rules and regulations: Just like so many laws, we need them because of some people's lack of common sense, decency, consideration for others, etc, etc...

    Central London??? This is Finsbury PARK, it's not even Finsbury!
  • FP is only ten mins to Oxford Circus which is pretty central
  • Yes, Oxford Circus is "pretty central". So what? Finsbury Park is several miles away, so it isn't pretty central, is it?

    Liverpool isn't far from Manchester. That doesn't make Liverpool Manchester, though.
  • Are you quite sure that all the money is spent on the park? Because that wasn't the case previously, Haringey openly admitted to using it to subsidise their general budget to counter austerity and that only a token amount went to the park.

    I'm a regular festival goer. I'm not convinced that cities are the best place for them though, given the disproportionate impact on residents. That said I openly admit to being heavily biased in favour of greenfield festivals.
  • Yeah they have said so in freedom of information requests and it's on the website.

    Plus it's a legal requirement.
  • That's something then.
  • Scruffy time wise we are pretty central it is very easy to get to and quick. Not sure what Liverpool and Manchester have to do with this as they are two distinct cities considerably further apart on distance and travel time
  • @Ali, you seem to be claiming that by virtue of being near central London, that we are indeed IN central London. The parallel I was drawing was simply (although, clearly not simple enough) that just as Liverpool isn't Manchester even though (as cities go) they're close together, Finsbury Park is not Oxford Circus and, unlike Oxford Circus, is not in central London (whether you take central London to be Oxford Circus, Charing Cross, Trafalgar Square...) Or to put it another way, even if you think we're close to central London, we're not IN central London. "Time wise", and how quick or easy it is to get to (presumably you mean central London) is irrelevant to our geographical position (the latter doesn't change). We're only just in Inner London!
  • Everyone I talk to thinks I live in central London. Whether they be from Angel, Greater London, kent, or Yorkshire.
  • Well, @joust , everyone you talk to is entitled to what they think, of course, and sometimes it's downright cruel to divest people of their fantasies. But whether the people you talk to be from Angel, Greater London, Kent, or Yorkshire (how terribly cosmopolitan!), the facts remain the same.
  • joustjoust N4
    edited July 2019
    OK cool.
    You're right everyone else is wrong. :smiley:
  • Depending on which side of the Stroud Green Road we're on, we may not even be in inner London. The Park itself isn't.

  • Not sure if this has been posted, but Guardian article on the pimping out of parks - with particular focus on Finsbury Park.


    It's an interesting read and I'm not so sure where this money that's claimed has been spent on the park is going, because it doesn't seem to to be improving to me

    Complete with a classic Grauniad hand-wringing line.

    'Some commenters argue that there is a progressive case to be made for festivals in parks beyond raising revenues, such as disrupting staid Victorian identities and encouraging people of all ages, classes and races to use them. '

    Yes, because that's what I always think when I go to a London park in summer, this is so staid and Victorian.

  • @joust honest question - do you think all the money is spent on the park? I know its supposed to be and I don't particularly want to become conspiratorial but, it does seem as to @Arkady and @Papa 's point that it doesn't look like it. The park is still visibly home to drug dealing which isn't an overt issue in say, Clissold park which shares a similar location and makeup - it feels after dark that it becomes palpably dangerous, local news would also attest to that. I appreciate this is personal opinion and conjecture but my own sense of logic doesn't square the money made and the quality of the space.

    I love the park and I love stroud green, I love that we have a huge swathe of land to take our children to, exercise in and generally enjoy in a city that has a minute amount of green space - but go there today and walk through the albert road gate- its not pleasant, at least not for me to see 20 ft metal walls, dead grass and still visible rubbish from the festival.
  • My suspicion is that it's like parking fines and roads: It theoretically goes back into the park budget but what they do is fudge it by then not allocating money they would have had to spend on the park from the usual budget.
  • @cmo I don't know.

    I get the feeling people assume that if it makes millions of pounds it should look like alton towers. And they're just mentally scaling up what they spend on thier garden. And making a poorly judged estimate.

    It might be a good idea to do a FoI request and ask for a breakdown of park spending.
  • I was at the Friends of Finsbury Park meeting last night. Many FOI requests have been put in but the financial deal between Haringey and Wirel3ss remains obscure - although I believe a meeting with the council has been promised at which more information might be forthcoming?

    The most interesting thing for me was to hear the idea floated that, in fact, the council doesn't actually make much money from the event, but that the real reason is so that Haringey can promote itself as a holder of 'World Class Events' - in other words, bigging itself up to the world. If that is the case, though, what it has actually achieved is the opposite - to put Finsbury Park firmly on the map as the place where drug dealing, lawlessness, violence and crime are expected, even tolerated. So now Finsbury Park has a reputation. Judging from the recent spate of drugs, knife crime and now firearms in this area, I would suggest they have succeeded very well.
  • @joust. The key word for me is "incremental" spending. Diverting money somewhere else and then topping up with festival cash isn't right. I'm trying to avoid politics because it becomes about what's more important than this or that. How councils spend our money is a huge unknown and we place so must trust in them to do so properly, so for me i see a big disconnect in perceived income from festivals vs our park experience. The council is trashing the park, and if you're ok with that because you know that they are spending every penny wisely and in the right places then thats fine. Going under a blanket statement of "its because of the cuts" just doesn't work for me, its the "go to" get out of jail card on absolutely everything regardless of fact. In this case the park is shit because of council decisions about how money is spent, and that is an observed fact. I guess you're in a camp of whether that's ok or not. I'm not, because there are many other councils in London under the same pressures, delivering a much better park experience than ours.
  • @HolbornFox I'm sorry but consideration for others, respect and most of all COMMON SENSE has nothing to do with "rich people talks". I don't feel like justifying my financial situation with you or anyone else, but let's just say that yours is just clueless judgement.

    And yes, I've been 17 once. I believe along with anyone in the world who's now over 17yo. Yes I've been to festivals before. Yes I had fun before (believe it or not)! But I've never got drunk to the point of shitting myself in front of someone else's front door or brawl with fellow concertgoers or guards. Astounding, isn't it? These rich people surely know their stuff.
    I'd urge some of the most indomitable defenders of Festivals here to actually get up and spend some time in one of roads close to the Park during any of these Festival. Maybe for a few years in a row. Then come back here and leave a comment.

    And since that we're on the topic of "they raising money for the park" I'd LOVE to see where exactly, since that in my 4 years of residency here I can see very little improvement. What I know is that the area/park has a name for drug dealing and now apparently shootings. If this is the results of how well spent are the money coming from these festivals, well......
  • BrodieJ, I agree, an example I would give is that the difference between Finsbury Park and Clissold Park is stark
  • I agree with Papa: money from the festivals just replaces money that would have otherwise been spent on parks, and doesn't top it up. I used to go to FP a lot with my son; now we get on the bike and go to Clissold. FP is a dump.
    And with cmo: it's pretty horrible now, and has been for a few weeks, and will be for weeks to come as it struggles to recover.
    I also agree about that wanky Guardian line! I noted it with a sigh when I first read the article.
  • I'm sure I remember reading that practically no money is allocated to FP. And all its funding is via the events.

    I'm not happy about that. And I don't think it's how things should be. But, that is how it is. And until we have a council that fixes that I want to see that the events happen and the park thrives.
  • @krappyrubsnif I'm not so bothered how much wireless pays. I've seen the (rejected) FoI's about that. I'm interested in the years total is spent.

    Haringey do have a costing sheet. I think it's something like half a million for a 2 day festival with a few days set up and take down. Wireless is bigger than that.

    So maybe something like 1.2 million a year for FP only ?
  • Ah. Perfect.
    1.3m. I wasn't far off!

  • edited July 2019
    @frentzen The term "it's a bit rich" doesn't mean you are wealthy (or rich)!

    It is parlance that means "it's a bit strong", in the context that I used it anyway, and calling people zoo animals is a bit strong no...?

    I am glad you have never shat yourself or brawled in the street, that's an aperitif for some of the people I know.

    Anyway, I'm offski now to polish my throne and look at my property value on Zoopla, have a wonderful day :)
Sign In or Register to comment.