Notting Hill residents aren’t known for their love of Carnival. Some take refuge in their country cottages to escape three days of crowds, chicken bones and sound systems that make their fine porcelain rattle on the dining table. The wealthy denizens of some of Europe’s most desirable urban addresses lobby MPs, councillors and media to stop the annual ordeal of having to watch people enjoying themselves.
It’s a surprise, then, to come across a pro-Carnival group: Residents for Carnival (RfC). A recent six-page statement explains that RfC, founded in 2017, is “a network of people who reside and live in the Notting Hill Carnival area”. It’s not signed, but the style is suggestive of some of those who were involved in the Reclaim Our Carnival movement of a few years ago.
The statement is, in effect, a manifesto calling for fairer treatment of Notting Hill Carnival by politicians, police and media and a more community-minded approach to its organisation.
Since being appointed as organiser by the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBKC) in 2018, the event has been run out of offices in The Tabernacle, Powis Square, by Notting Hill Carnival Limited. NHCL is a subsidiary of Carnival Village Trust (CVT), headed by Matthew Phillip (CEO). NHCL, CVT and Ebony Steelband Trust are all chaired by barrister Ian Comfort JP.
While decrying the relentless media focus on drugs and crime, the RfC statement highlights community concerns about poor crowd control and ineffective stewarding. It criticises the secrecy of a recent report on safety, commissioned by NHCL and reportedly funded by the Greater London Authority with £100,000 of public money.
The group maintains:
“The authorities do not consult during the planning stage for Carnival with the people who experience Carnival and have the expertise. The authorities have their own agenda. They ignore the advice and demands of those who experience and participate in Notting Hill Carnival.”
The statement is especially critical of the Metropolitan Police in its handling of crowds and says that some police actions actually contribute to crowd density and crushing.
RfC is highly critical of what it says is the organiser’s “lack of representation, accountability and transparency.” It continues: “NHC Ltd are notoriously difficult when it comes to accountability and transparency to the Carnival Community.”
The authors of the statement cast doubt on the degree to which Matthew Phillip performs his leadership role as CEO, suggesting that he is merely the “frontman” for Ian Comfort.
The Residents for Carnival statement concludes by calling for Notting Hill Carnival to become financially independent by tapping into the estimated £400 million the event generates for the London and wider UK economy. The group urges a cultural renewal:
“We must have a new vision with a strong business plan devised by young business minds dedicated to Caribbean Carnival culture and the development of Notting Hill Carnival. A large proportion of the money generated must be shared equally amongst Carnival bands, musicians, artists and creatives for the production of sustainable Caribbean Carnival music and mas bands.”
The criticisms made in the RfC statement are, in fact, broadly representative of those being made daily by many members of the Notting Hill Carnival community, from all the arenas (mas, pan, calypso, sound systems and soca on the move). Soca News reporters have heard increasing levels of dissatisfaction with the way the event is being run, funded, represented, policed and stewarded.
The lack of openness and transparency, including in the allocation of funds received, is a particular and serious concern, given that so much of the event’s funding is public money. Neither the Carnival community nor the taxpayers of Kensington, Chelsea, Westminster and Greater London have any way of knowing where this money is being spent. Attempts by Soca News and others to obtain more detailed information have been ignored or rebuffed.
The statement does come from a particular segment of the Notting Hill Carnival community. However, that does not invalidate the very real, public-interest concerns it raises.
