Republic V Camden Council – Round Two

BethPH
By BethPH Last edited 90 months ago
Republic V Camden Council – Round Two

We reported the other day that Republic’s Not The Royal Wedding street party had been vetoed by Camden council after the local authority refused to issue a traffic order which would have closed a Covent Garden road off for the event.

It appears that the spat has escalated – Roy Greenslade’s blog in the Guardian brought to our attention a statement from Camden council’s press office which denied that permission had previously been granted for the street party and that their refusal to allow it to go ahead was, despite Republic’s claim to the contrary, due to concerns from local retailers around the effect the anti-royal party would have on their sales of royal wedding tat merchandise.

Needless to say, Republic have reacted angrily to this, issuing a further statement on their website along with a PDF of emails between the organization, Camden Borough police and Camden council itself which you can read for yourself here. Republic spokesperson Graham Smith says;

‘A number of very misleading, inaccurate and possibly defamatory claims about Republic have been made by or on behalf of Camden council concerning our 'Not the royal wedding' street party. This has all the appearances of a smear campaign against us and we are demanding a full retraction from the council.'

The statement also refutes Camden’s claims that an event management plan wasn’t submitted, that the police had ‘concerns’ about the event and that local opposition was ‘widespread’, all of which the council’s spokesperson asserted in her statement to the Guardian. The Local Government Chronicle blog goes into more detail about the opponents’ various claims against each other, though we suspect that despite Republic’s wholehearted defence of their position, a local authority firmly engaged in full bureaucratic sail with the eye of the media on them will be a tough nut to crack.

Photo by SallyB2

Last Updated 13 April 2011