I suspect there is a LOT we are not being told here. Sure, it's possible that a vengeful copper or two wanted to shut those troublesome activists down. But there seems to be more behind the scenes. Corporatewatch  http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=3398 and Bristol Indymedia  http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/690613 have charted how, after the financial collpase of 2007, control of the BGG has fallen into the hands of a commerical festival organiser and an extreme right-wing American millionaire.

This opens up two interesting possibilities. The first is that the new, more commercial, management screwed up the relationship the old, more idealistic team had managed to develop with the authorities in Somerset. When I was young and naive, I worked for a council planning dept, and it is amazing how many rich entrepeneurs seem to think rules only apply to other people. "Proper signage? Proper traffic management? Hwa Hwa Hwa! Have you any idea what that costs? Tell those jacks-in-offices to get lost!" So the "Jacks in Offices" close the event down.

The other possibility, of course, is that the new management wanted to sabotage and kill the event, because everything it stood for ran so flatly counter to everything they stood for. True, they will lose some money by doing so, but while the sums involved may be large by your standards and mine, in comparison with the resources they wield, they are tiny, and very affordable.

Look out for a new, slick, commercial BGG next year, rebranded, with a new image, with a lot of talk about "community" but none of the reality, and with none of the old team left.

There is also the continuing police state legislation involving licensing and security. These range from venues listing details of all performers, to trying to push through legislation involving bouncers being able to spot fines ( some clubs already take fingerprints ), plus council officers being given police powers.
Already the BGG had been hit by the Security Industry Act extension
(  http://www.thesia.org.uk/home/about_sia/news/nr_050812_ds.htm ) .
This state is one big protection racket. They say "it's for your own safety" - don't turn up or you get battoned by the Avon and Somerset pigs.
Too many fucking laws and too many people getting fat on them.

... em yeah just that

I was pretty shocked by the entrance fee, partly since I haven't paid to go any festival for at least 12 years, plus I've more antipathy for lifestylers and festival crowds in general. We are at war and the lack of serious action from these events has poisoned me to them. Nowadays I primarily associate the word Green with yankee dollars, especially with the preponderance of permaculture courses that are priced beyond the means of ordinary people. People like me who dislike the BGG attendees should welcome them all gathering in a field, it keeps them away from the rest of us for a week, probably much longer given the risk of catching swine flu.

Having said that, this does seem to be obvious police-state-corporate knobbling tactics and the folk involved should meticulously document everything that has happened and try to sue those responsible.

It is also obvious though that if you can persuade 20000 people to part with £100 for a five day event, that is about £2 million that you could invest into buying land. If individuals bought a square metre of land in a field, then no one can stop you having access to it. If other people who also happen to own a square metre of land choose to inspect it at the same time as you, why would that legally require planning permission or a police presence? If the law is fucking with you then fuck the law.
Instead of 20000 for five days, you could have smaller numbers all year around .That equates to about 300 people on site all year around on a time-share basis which would allow you to do something truly environmental with the land. Not the same thing I know, but worth considering.

£100 to feel good for few days or £100 to do something truly lasting and sustainable?

there are a large number of people who attend the big green to give workshops, talks, run campaign stalls etc and who consciously use this 'lifestyle' event as a place to network, spread crititcal/radical messages/have fun and make money! (yes, all the other events that happen throughout the year have to be funded somehow. )e.g. the last chance saloon had a fully packed workshop schedule of direct action and anarcho-anti-capitalist stuff. it is an opportunity to talk with people not already in the scene. also bristol co-mutiny was going to use the event to network a kick ass week of actions under the theme social change not climate change, bristol, 12-20th sept. check out  http://comutiny.wordpress.com/
of course some people there are paying through the nose or go there to make money selling hippy tat but its a real damn shame that all the good stuff that happens there has been shat on. BTW, Co-Mutineers will be gathering at Magpie Squat in Stokes Croft Bristol on Wedneday and Saturday to make banners etc that would of happened at BGG, if anyone wants to come and get involved.

Subsidising people who are active or friendly is schmoozing them like corporate PR. I hope we all admit that 'big corporate festivals' are a bad thing, whether we disagree that the BGG is a Big Corporate Festival.

I'm arranging a peace event just now that has some unavoidable costs. I am always broke, in debt, so I'm going to have to charge an entrance fee to make it happen. I could choose to profit from it, but please kill me if I do. There are some people who are so close to the issue that I would be a bastard not to let in for free, but that means charging everyone else more. I just want the event to be well attended, for anarchist reasons. It's a difference of a couple of quid at most but it has been bugging me. In this context, to read that the consencion price for BGG is £100 is appalling. I would have little criticism of the BGG if the concession price was £3, it's normal price could be £5000 for al I care. But to let certain friends in for free is demeaning and self-defeating.

One of the few anarchists who I still respect more than most I've met, set up a 'fare-dodger insurance' in their city. Every fare dodger contributes to a legal fund that protects the dodgers who are caught. It suceeds because few dodgers are caught and is a brilliant anarchist invention that should be repeated globally. I've got a bad word for everybody though, even those I recognise as intellectually brilliant. That person never paid their own insurance and let their active anarchist friends off with their dues. When challenged, they justified that by saying they had put the work in, while most of the people who benefited from the scheme had corporate jobs.

So "not everyone pays £100" isn't a recruiting call for me, it is an insult. Important information that should be propogated for humanitys own good, like permaculture and pacifiscm, should be propogated not just exploited for personal profit.