Flares or Not?

[grumpyhack]

There's a lot of conflation of ideas going on here.

Forget the law of the land and concentrate on the Festival's Duty of Care - both to those who will be attending this year and those who may wish to go in future years.

GFL wants people to have a safe, enjoyable festival.  That, at times, will call for a balance between people wanting to have a bit of fun and looking after the safety of others.

It might be a bit of fun to let off a distress flare - for a few seconds it will look pretty impressive.  But there is a risk that someone else could be injured, possibly permanently - for example a child being hit in the face by a poorly-aimed flare.  Imagine the consequences for the festival if an accident like that happened.

Judging by the posts about booze and other substances there will be a lot of people at Glastonbury who will be far from sober.

At the moment the laws of the land are enforced in a fairly relaxed way at Glastonbury because GFL have shown that most people exercise reasonable self-control.  But the idiots could destroy all that goodwill very easily and we could end up with the levels of intrusive policing seen at some other big events.

They could also put the festival's future in jeopardy.  Glastonbury's future is dependent on the goodwill of local people, the police and the licensing authority.

 

[4AssedMonkey]

I get Russy's point about having the law laid down.  I am and always have been firmly of the opinion that legislating to encourage or discourage behaviour is the wrong thing to do.  There are better ways to engage with people for the benefit of all.  So having an all parliamentary group potentially wanting to make banning flares at festivals into law is, in my eyes, a bad thing.

I do however understand why their use in large compacted crowds of high/drunk people, by high/drunk people - some of whom are clearly Olympic standard bell ends - should be discouraged.  I therefore support the festivals request to not bring them and use them.

Personally, I'm not sure they add anything to an atmosphere either.  Yeah, they look good in photos, but when you're stuck in a crowd and can't see a fucking thing because of smoke or mild arc-eye and are choking then I don't get it.  If the entertainment or atmosphere is so crap that you need to bring your own pyrotechnics then it's a shit show.  Move on to a good one.  There's plenty around.

[Yokel Again]

6 minutes ago, 4AssedMonkey said:

I get Russy's point about having the law laid down.  I am and always have been firmly of the opinion that legislating to encourage or discourage behaviour is the wrong thing to do.  There are better ways to engage with people for the benefit of all.  So having an all parliamentary group potentially wanting to make banning flares at festivals into law is, in my eyes, a bad thing.

I do however understand why their use in large compacted crowds of high/drunk people, by high/drunk people - some of whom are clearly Olympic standard bell ends - should be discouraged.  I therefore support the festivals request to not bring them and use them.

Personally, I'm not sure they add anything to an atmosphere either.  Yeah, they look good in photos, but when you're stuck in a crowd and can't see a fucking thing because of smoke or mild arc-eye and are choking then I don't get it.  If the entertainment or atmosphere is so crap that you need to bring your own pyrotechnics then it's a shit show.  Move on to a good one.  There's plenty around.

Sensible conclusion on the subject in my eyes. 

[Rumblestripe]

12 minutes ago, 4AssedMonkey said:

I get Russy's point about having the law laid down.  I am and always have been firmly of the opinion that legislating to encourage or discourage behaviour is the wrong thing to do.  There are better ways to engage with people for the benefit of all.  So having an all parliamentary group potentially wanting to make banning flares at festivals into law is, in my eyes, a bad thing.

I do however understand why their use in large compacted crowds of high/drunk people, by high/drunk people - some of whom are clearly Olympic standard bell ends - should be discouraged.  I therefore support the festivals request to not bring them and use them.

Personally, I'm not sure they add anything to an atmosphere either.  Yeah, they look good in photos, but when you're stuck in a crowd and can't see a fucking thing because of smoke or mild arc-eye and are choking then I don't get it.  If the entertainment or atmosphere is so crap that you need to bring your own pyrotechnics then it's a shit show.  Move on to a good one.  There's plenty around.

I would just add to that that one thing about the Glastonbury "experience" is a sense of community. See someone in trouble help them, pick them up if they have fallen, buy them a pint if they're skint. It is not about "stuff you I'm going to do this because I want to and stuff the fact that it will impair your enjoyment of the entertainment in front of you".

[guypjfreak]

On 19/05/2016 at 9:47 PM, eastynh said:

I come from the generation of white gloves, glow sticks and whistles mate. I thought they were over doing it then as you always got one goon who thought it was funny to split the glow stick and wipe it in people faces. Flares are just too far off the scale for my liking.

If you want people to look at you, then pull some shapes and do a funny dance. That way you will not piss off the people around you and you never know, it may get a pretty little ladies attention. To this day I have never heard of a bloke copping for a lady by letting a flare off in the crowd.

init old son ..old skool glow sticks ect no harm ...new skool flares chokes people stings your eyes and no fucker can see anything ......BUT its hey mummy look at MEEE ...right next to that great big fucking flag that is also stopping people seeing the stage lol

[Gnomicide]

What would really help would be throwing something at the person holding the flare. That'll be the safest thing to do. 

[fur_q]

24 minutes ago, guypjfreak said:

init old son ..old skool glow sticks ect no harm ...new skool flares chokes people stings your eyes and no fucker can see anything ......BUT its hey mummy look at MEEE ...right next to that great big fucking flag that is also stopping people seeing the stage lol

Innit, glowsticks > flares 

 

youve just reminded me to get on eBay and order a fuckton. 

[eastynh]

34 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

What would really help would be throwing something at the person holding the flare. That'll be the safest thing to do. 

The safest thing would be to not light a flare. Only dickheads behave like that. Thankfully on my one visit to Glastonbury I did not see many, if any dickheads.

There were lots of people with silly beards and bad taste in music. To my knowledge though, no one ends up being hurt at a concert because of either these days. A bad haircut and the wrong clothes may have got you beaten up in the 70's, thankfully we have moved on from then.

You are right, throwing something at them would be a ridiculous thing to do.  There would be no way that I would accept someone doing it beside me. The worry then is that you could end up on the receiving end like the poor lad at Parklife who lost his life due to dickheads behaving like dickheads. 

Anyone behaving in such a manner is a selfish bastard. Hopefully Glastonbury will not be full of selfish bastards.

[Madyaker]

If someone sparked one up near me they'd be getting carted off to a medical tent to have it removed from their arse. They're dangerous if lit in a dense crowd and they ruin the experience for anybody near them.

[russycarps]

2 hours ago, Madyaker said:

If someone sparked one up near me they'd be getting carted off to a medical tent to have it removed from their arse. They're dangerous if lit in a dense crowd and they ruin the experience for anybody near them.

Apart from the fact there's no evidence to suggest they're dangerous, good point.

 

[eastynh]

21 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Apart from the fact there's no evidence to suggest they're dangerous, good point.

 

At sea, in a wide open space and a ship in peril they can be life savers.

In a tight and confined space at somewhere like a festival and in the hand of an inebriated person, then surely you can see they they could cause a danger?

They are not toys, that is certain.

[russycarps]

18 minutes ago, eastynh said:

At sea, in a wide open space and a ship in peril they can be life savers.

In a tight and confined space at somewhere like a festival and in the hand of an inebriated person, then surely you can see they they could cause a danger?

They are not toys, that is certain.

And yet they've been around for years and there have been no incidents.

Someone will soon be able to get a criminal record for doing something that is perceived to be dangerous, but that the evidence proves is not actually dangerous. 

 

 

 

[eastynh]

19 minutes ago, russycarps said:

And yet they've been around for years and there have been no incidents.

Someone will soon be able to get a criminal record for doing something that is perceived to be dangerous, but that the evidence proves is not actually dangerous. 

 

 

 

Would you let someone fire one at you? You would be a bit of a fool if you did, and yet you don't strike me as any kind of fool. They burn at stupidly high temps and emit noxious fumes.

Now I am not here to infringe on anyones civil liberties, but I think a degree of common sense is required here. Yes they have been around for years but their use is generally in isolated events. If people are encouraged to use them and their use is more widely accepted, then it is only a matter of time before injuries start to occur.

I honestly do not see what they actually add to any event anyway.

Edited May 21, 2016 by eastynh

[russycarps]

44 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Would you let someone fire one at you? You would be a bit of a fool if you did, and yet you don't strike me as any kind of fool. They burn at stupidly high temps and emit noxious fumes.

Now I am not here to infringe on anyones civil liberties, but I think a degree of common sense is required here. Yes they have been around for years but their use is generally in isolated events. If people are encouraged to use them and their use is more widely accepted, then it is only a matter of time before injuries start to occur.

I honestly do not see what they actually add to any event anyway.

It seems to me that the people who think they are dangerous have never actually experienced one first hand. For example the Tory mp who wants to make criminals out of people for using them, and most of the people in this thread.

During arcade fire one went off right next to me and the little pellets hit me and i suffered no injury at all. 

Laws should only be made in extreme cases. Flares are far from an extreme form of behaviour that warrants a criminal record.

They will never become more widely used than they are now because most people simply can't be arsed with them.

I am absolutely opposed to people being given criminal records for doing something that might cause injury but in actual fact does not.

If someone shoves a flare in someone's face (which has never ever happened and probably never will, why would anyone do such a thing?) then there are already laws in place to punish that sort of behaviour.

The festival is sanitised enough. Why do people want to impose more laws and oppression on a place that promotes the absolute opposite of that? And being imposed by a Tory mp who hates the festival and everything it stands for no less.

It's baffling.

[Junglist1981]

10 hours ago, Gnomicide said:

What would really help would be throwing something at the person holding the flare. That'll be the safest thing to do. 

Throw more flares at them.

[eastynh]

21 minutes ago, russycarps said:

It seems to me that the people who think they are dangerous have never actually experienced one first hand. For example the Tory mp who wants to make criminals out of people for using them, and most of the people in this thread.

During arcade fire one went off right next to me and the little pellets hit me and i suffered no injury at all. 

Laws should only be made in extreme cases. Flares are far from an extreme form of behaviour that warrants a criminal record.

They will never become more widely used than they are now because most people simply can't be arsed with them.

I am absolutely opposed to people being given criminal records for doing something that might cause injury but in actual fact does not.

If someone shoves a flare in someone's face (which has never ever happened and probably never will, why would anyone do such a thing?) then there are already laws in place to punish that sort of behaviour.

The festival is sanitised enough. Why do people want to impose more laws and oppression on a place that promotes the absolute opposite of that? And being imposed by a Tory mp who hates the festival and everything it stands for no less.

It's baffling.

Russy I agree with you from a political point of view but in this instance I disagree. Flares are not harmless toys. Do a quick google search and you will find instances of people being killed and injured due to their misuse. Admittedly it is not huge amounts, but then again they are not misused in huge amounts either.

Now I look at things on a risk/reward kind of scale, does the reward justify the risk that is taken. I have strong views that recreational drugs should be legalised and people should definitely not be criminalised due to it. Yes people have died taking ecstasy, but that never stopped me taking it as I thought it was absolutely fantastic. Imo the reward far outweighed the risk. In regards to letting off flares, I just do not understand what the reward is. When I took ecstasy any risk was fully on my part, the only person I was putting in any danger was myself. With flares you are putting totally innocent people at risk and often into a position they would in all probability rather not be in, for absolutely nothing. That has nothing to do with politics, sanitisation or taking away someone's rights. It is purely down to selfish, attention seeking individuals. Why on earth would anyone want to watch coloured smoke billowing up in the air, when they are there to see a band?

Now I have no experience of flares but in a time long long ago, we used to pinch detonators off trains and let them off. Now all they did was make a really loud bang when you threw a brick on them. The problem was that they emitted a spinning metal disk at the speed of sound. Lets just say that I seen someone get extremely lucky when one of the discs struck him. How he did not die I still to this day have no idea. Now it is the same thing, there was absolutely no reward for pulling this stunt apart from a loud bang. The risk far, far, far outweighed the reward. It is fair to say that since that day, with anything like this I generally air on the side of caution.

[dentalplan]

42 minutes ago, russycarps said:

The festival is sanitised enough. Why do people want to impose more laws and oppression on a place that promotes the absolute opposite of that? And being imposed by a Tory mp who hates the festival and everything it stands for no less.

Why would the Tory MP that's chair of the parliamentary committee for music automatically hate Glastonbury and everything it stands for?

As I've said already; it's a bill backed by multiple parties and it's not just to ban it at Glastonbury - it's to ban it at all music festivals, some of which might have bigger problems with irresponsible idiots with flares. You're twisting it to fit your own agenda.

Edited May 21, 2016 by dentalplan

[Hugh Jass]

3 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Russy I agree with you from a political point of view but in this instance I disagree. Flares are not harmless toys. Do a quick google search and you will find instances of people being killed and injured due to their misuse. Admittedly it is not huge amounts, but then again they are not misused in huge amounts either.

Now I look at things on a risk/reward kind of scale, does the reward justify the risk that is taken. I have strong views that recreational drugs should be legalised and people should definitely not be criminalised due to it. Yes people have died taking ecstasy, but that never stopped me taking it as I thought it was absolutely fantastic. Imo the reward far outweighed the risk. In regards to letting off flares, I just do not understand what the reward is. When I took ecstasy any risk was fully on my part, the only person I was putting in any danger was myself. With flares you are putting totally innocent people at risk and often into a position they would in all probability rather not be in, for absolutely nothing. That has nothing to do with politics, sanitisation or taking away someone's rights. It is purely down to selfish, attention seeking individuals. Why on earth would anyone want to watch coloured smoke billowing up in the air, when they are there to see a band?

Now I have no experience of flares but in a time long long ago, we used to pinch detonators off trains and let them off. Now all they did was make a really loud bang when you threw a brick on them. The problem was that they emitted a spinning metal disk at the speed of sound. Lets just say that I seen someone get extremely lucky when one of the discs struck him. How he did not die I still to this day have no idea. Now it is the same thing, there was absolutely no reward for pulling this stunt apart from a loud bang. The risk far, far, far outweighed the reward. It is fair to say that since that day, with anything like this I generally air on the side of caution.

Very good post.

[Crazyfool01]

They look fantastic from a distance , but ive never been near enough to get hurt by one , or known/seen evidence of  anyone that has ,until that happens they are fine with me .( subject to change )

[Mezhyp1]

How much better is ecstasy than flares, if they were going to ban flares are permit ecstasy, I'd get so behind that, the festival would be such a happy place 

[Splonk]

 

[fur_q]

Shoutout to the 3 people I saw who'd accidentally bought smoke flares instead of light emitting ones.

[Funkyfairy!]

So many flares this year, and for coldplay I was standing near(ish) to one, found it scarey, and was covered in ash stuff, plus my eyes were really hurting afterwards (from the smoke I think) --- they look pretty but I really dislike them personally especially as the people who seem to have them are not sober etc and waving them around

[Mezhyp1]

A long time supporter of these at music festivals, have used them myself over the years and at LCD Soundsystem on Sunday night, it just proved to me why I think they make an already magical atmosphere even better. The surge of energy in the crowd when everyone goes red around one or a signal one flies up into the air is just magic. KEEP KEEP KEEP

[Quark]

Tricky one.  

Smoke ones are bloody annoying as they just get in the way and choke the hell out of everyone.

The red handheld ones look cool and do add atmosphere, but they also burn at (I believe) about 1,600 degrees C.  I don't think anyone's going to purposefully do something dickish with them, but nor do I particularly trust the guy or girl who's been bang on it for 5 days solid and is currently off their tits not to accidentally drop it or trip and stick it in my ear.

The actual distress flare rockets are even worse.  I have even less trust for said gillespied individual not to shoot me with it.  Again, by accident.

There's no way they should be criminalised, but I can't pretend to feel entirely safe around the things.  And I repeat my opinion on the smoke ones.  Shite.