Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Security at entrances


Guest Duggy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah, because the police would otherwise have NO IDEA where people hide drugs would they? Twit.

Honestly, there's no panic. The police don't search at the festival gates as a rule, the general searching is done by festival/security staff as you enter. (Obviously Castle Cary, motorway service stations are frequented by police, and they may search a random amount of folk) The searches done on the gate aren't particularly hard core, and if you're sensible about it (reasonably well hidden, spread about) there's no reason to worry.

Even if you are caught with something, for the amounts needed for personal use (i wouldn't advise carrying more than enough for yourself) the usual response is that it's taken away and you're asked if you have anymore on you - with a warning that if you say no, and more is found, then you may well be passed on to the police for them to deal with, otherwise, you're allowed on into the festival.

It's much the same inside - obviously taking drugs in front of a copper or a member of the festival security usually ends up in confiscation and a warning to behave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Swiss didn't give women the right to vote until 1971, so that is a few years.

Ok, then, maybe a few years was an exaggeration!

Up until very recently blacks had no rights at all in South Africa, and that was legal, so by Redman's logic, that's ok.

I just hate the "I'm gonna do what they tell me" mentality,with no room for individual thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not an anwser "it's still illegal"

I dont see the point in me repeating what Josie's cat has already as they pretty much epitomised it.

but i do feel you should read a few more books and possibly a different newspaper.

As for, you didn't create the laws on murder, there are various things which back the view of murder being illegal or wrong.

- Religious law from God if you are that way inclined

- or more reasonably religious law which essentially derives from human instinct to progress and evolve thus they wrote it down as so, which was catergorised by the evolutionary theorists who pretty much prove it is counter-productive to get rid of someone from your own species, if your species is to survive.

Very base reasons but christ there are tons of other ways to justify the illegality of Murder but there are very few if any to justify the illegality of certain substances.

I don't understand how you can have such a passive attitude to the matter nothing would ever change if everyone was like this, it is quite shameful really, and acts to belittle people like the Suffragettes, the white rose movement, Martin Luther King....Damn them evil law breakers

I had a big thing about how i didn't agree with even the small amount of say we have towards our laws, but i was rambling and getting angry over the government so i scrapped it but ye i don't feel we have a say aside from the vote, but there isn't a valid choice any more it's all blurred into one right mess

Edited by popcornmaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all the people writing things on this thread like 'You could try bringing no drugs to the festival and you'll be fine if they do decide to search you'

Why are you even commenting on this thread?

I'm not gonna be taking anything in to the festival but if someone else wants to get shit faced on drugs all weekend why do I give a f**k!

It's called personal choice...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's legal to possess for culinary purposes, so if you can convince them you're going to knock up some whipped cream for the trifle you plan to make on the Sunday morning, good on you!

nb: Tho I'd imagine they would just go "ooo, gas cannister, not allowed".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
That's not an anwser "it's still illegal"

I dont see the point in me repeating what Josie's cat has already as they pretty much epitomised it.

but i do feel you should read a few more books and possibly a different newspaper.

As for, you didn't create the laws on murder, there are various things which back the view of murder being illegal or wrong.

- Religious law from God if you are that way inclined

- or more reasonably religious law which essentially derives from human instinct to progress and evolve thus they wrote it down as so, which was catergorised by the evolutionary theorists who pretty much prove it is counter-productive to get rid of someone from your own species, if your species is to survive.

Very base reasons but christ there are tons of other ways to justify the illegality of Murder but there are very few if any to justify the illegality of certain substances.

I don't understand how you can have such a passive attitude to the matter nothing would ever change if everyone was like this, it is quite shameful really, and acts to belittle people like the Suffragettes, the white rose movement, Martin Luther King....Damn them evil law breakers

I had a big thing about how i didn't agree with even the small amount of say we have towards our laws, but i was rambling and getting angry over the government so i scrapped it but ye i don't feel we have a say aside from the vote, but there isn't a valid choice any more it's all blurred into one right mess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok well last time i studied criminal law under one of the codes in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act the police can perform a full strip search, to perform an "intimate" search as its known the police need a RMP (Registered Medical Practitioner) with them they can and will do it. if you are stopped for doing something illegal on the gate that the police feel neccessary then they will take you into custody. Dont think they won't cos they have the facilities to do so on site.

my previous comment was a joke but they can do so if they have reasonable suspicion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was searched last year going in to the festival.

Luckily I wasn't carrying anything on me, as they are fairly thorough. Had to go through all the pockets in my rucksack, as well as emptying the stuff out of my gumboots etc. to show all the spaces.

There was an awkward few minutes when they found my stash of zinc tablets in a plastic bag and didn't recognise the pharma company's logo that was stamped on them, but luckily my sleep-deprived mind had accidentally thrown the glass bottle with the rest of them in my bag too, so they could see that they were legit.

So as it turns out, you CAN bring glass bottles in if they're for pharmaceuticals (or could last year anyway).

One thing I noted though was that they started thorough and fairly quickly got bored — I guess they have to keep things turning over pretty quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was searched last year and to be fair the dude doing the searching wasn't winning employee of the month. All my gear stayed in my bad, he just pushed all my stuuf from one side to the other before telling me to enjoy the festival.

Also my tent bag and slleping bag remained unchecked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally correct

I have to search a lot of people in the course of my work and internal searches are illegal unless permission granted individually by courts and full strip searches unless in a police station and under stong suspicion really wont happen.

Edited by SamIrvs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...