The narrow refusal to ban was less a vote of confidence than a rejection of the cleanest remedy. Yes voices outnumbered No voices, and the floor’s most-respected argument called it “an expensive, out-of-control and dangerous event”, but the chamber stopped short of treating disorder as disqualification.
The No case was a case for control, not laissez-faire. Its strongest voices wanted ticketing, metal detectors, curfews, stewards and organisers paying for the public burden; one called an outright ban “needless fun-policing”, while another’s briskest defence was simply: “Arrest show security works.”
The ban side answered that the problem was not an isolated failure of policing but the event’s design and cost. Its most forceful formulation was that “If an event needs an army and a pre-ban list, it has failed”; others pointed to boarded-up homes, sexual-assault safe zones and the strain on local residents. A few Yes contributions slid into attacks on Caribbean identity, including “We are British not Caribbean”, giving the case a harsher edge than its central safety argument required.
Yet the two sides often argued past each other. No voters compared the arrests with the millions attending and treated them as evidence that security was containing a minority; Yes voters treated the need for thousands of officers and extensive precautions as evidence that containment itself had become untenable. Even among No voters, the verdict was conditional: “Banned no, moved somewhere more suitable yes.”
That is the room’s clearest qualification. The vote did not endorse the carnival exactly as it stands; it rejected abolition while leaving a substantial appetite for relocation, ticketing and organisers carrying the cost. The ban lost, but the status quo did not win.
27 Opinions
It isn’t a celebration of culture. It’s the use of culture to justify an expensive, out-of-control and dangerous event. Any event that needs to have safe zones for victims of sexual assault should not be allowed to take place.
It should be heavily regulated - metal detectors, curfews, more police, whatever is necessary to crack down on crime. But an outright ban? That's needless fun-policing.
I can't think of any event that would continue to go ahead with such a poor record.
This is just an annual showcase of degeneracy & criminality. If I was West Indian I would be thoroughly ashamed that my culture can only be expressed through violence murder theft assault & rape. And if the native population behaved this way those praising this ‘ diversity’ would be the same ones demanding the closure of this annual event. It’s overt degeneracy.
Banned in its current form yes. It should have to generate the finances for policing and location itself as though a major sporting event. Organising committee should take some responsibility for anti-social behaviour thus improving accountability.
It should be run like any other ‘festival’….paid for privately and by ticket sales, on a secure site, providing its own security and not taking up huge amount of police resources. It’s ridiculous that so much tax payer money is spent on this! Also I don’t see much ‘diversity’, apparently that’s a huge problem these days…..
Absolutely. What an utter joke that the police called this event a success!
When you consider how many people attended the carnival (millions) the number of arrest is negligible when compared to how many arrests you get when the alt right & left have their marches (of a few thousand) If we're going to cancel the Notting Hill carnival because of the arrests we should also cancel all those marches too as percentage wise the numbers arrested compared to the numbers attending show that those marches should go first However I think both should continue
We are British not Caribbean…….. Has everyone lost their minds?
Time has run out for this "festival " , I don't know Londonstan so don't know about suggestions to move it to Hyde Park, however I do believe it should be paid for by organisers like every other venue