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 😎

glastonbury security, are they changing the festival?


Guest wweerr208

Recommended Posts

There was an "article" in the free Q paper mentioning "naked Police" or something, so it does indeed seem that nudity is banned by the festival. Returning after 25 years I have to say I have come away with the overall impression that the festival is badly broken - no dogs, no nudity, over zealous security, blatant commercialism, far too crowded etc etc. The only officials that seem to have a grasp on what the festival should be about are the bloody Police for gods sake!

We'll be thinking long and hard before deciding if we want to go again - it's a great time in many ways, but it's not Glastonbury anymore by a mile. And indeed it's not just the organisers who seem to have lost their way - the intolerance displayed by so many in threads on this site leaves me wondering if many of the punters actually get it at all and would be better going to festivals where the only issue is who is headlining and are the crowd all under 25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin
Unfortunately and personally i think Glastonbury is changing for the worse it may become a clean non drinking non drugs non smoking non fun place to go and if it did Glastonbury would become a total and utter wash out and will eventually end so if Glastonbury does let the pinko get their own way Glasto will just be one big memory and will never run again.

While I'd agree that Glastonbury is changing, I'd say that those changes are being forced on it by 'the outside' rather than being changes that are being driven from within.

Think about it .... over the last 20 years, the subcultures that used to be at Glastonbury have in the main faded away; smoking has become a social no-no; from that, smoking dope is less common; while drinking has now replaced illicit drug-taking as the drug of choice at festivals, drinking is starting to be frowned on; etc, etc, etc.

Glastonbury is not leading these changes within society, it's having these changes forced on it by wider society, and if wants to stay on the right side of the law it has to go along with them.

So .... if you don't want Glastonbury turning into the bland safeness that is much of the modern world then you need to be fighting against that bland and safe society that some would like. We have allowed ourselves to walk into a managed-by-govts scenario, where each restriction exists only so that criticism from any misfortune can't be directed at the govt; we either need to start to reject the total management of our lives and environment to allow us to explore our lives and ourselves, or accept that's the way we're going and give up on expectations of anything being outside that safe and managed world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an "article" in the free Q paper mentioning "naked Police" or something, so it does indeed seem that nudity is banned by the festival. Returning after 25 years I have to say I have come away with the overall impression that the festival is badly broken - no dogs, no nudity, over zealous security, blatant commercialism, far too crowded etc etc. The only officials that seem to have a grasp on what the festival should be about are the bloody Police for gods sake!

We'll be thinking long and hard before deciding if we want to go again - it's a great time in many ways, but it's not Glastonbury anymore by a mile. And indeed it's not just the organisers who seem to have lost their way - the intolerance displayed by so many in threads on this site leaves me wondering if many of the punters actually get it at all and would be better going to festivals where the only issue is who is headlining and are the crowd all under 25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that public nudity is an offence and what is against the law outside the festival is against the law within the fence. Personally I think it's a realy shame that the security/police can't turn a blind eye to such things and see that such things are part and parcel of the 'festival culture'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'd agree that Glastonbury is changing, I'd say that those changes are being forced on it by 'the outside' rather than being changes that are being driven from within.

Think about it .... over the last 20 years, the subcultures that used to be at Glastonbury have in the main faded away; smoking has become a social no-no; from that, smoking dope is less common; while drinking has now replaced illicit drug-taking as the drug of choice at festivals, drinking is starting to be frowned on; etc, etc, etc.

Glastonbury is not leading these changes within society, it's having these changes forced on it by wider society, and if wants to stay on the right side of the law it has to go along with them.

So .... if you don't want Glastonbury turning into the bland safeness that is much of the modern world then you need to be fighting against that bland and safe society that some would like. We have allowed ourselves to walk into a managed-by-govts scenario, where each restriction exists only so that criticism from any misfortune can't be directed at the govt; we either need to start to reject the total management of our lives and environment to allow us to explore our lives and ourselves, or accept that's the way we're going and give up on expectations of anything being outside that safe and managed world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that public nudity is an offence and what is against the law outside the festival is against the law within the fence. Personally I think it's a realy shame that the security/police can't turn a blind eye to such things and see that such things are part and parcel of the 'festival culture'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
I think (but not 100% certain) that isnt strictly true. It is not an offence purely just being naked.

I believe you're correct - isn't the offence "offending public decency" or something? In which case someone needs to be offended for there to be an offence being committed.

Unfortunately, anyone who might be telling someone to cover up can claim to be the offended party. So there's not really any way someone can fight against a charge of that kind.

But who the f**k is offended by the human body? We've all got one. Presumably such people turn themselves in if they catch a glimpse of themselves in a mirror having got out of the shower. :angry:

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....

Im sorry, were you saying something there? I seem to have nodded of as soon as you started speaking....

Do you think perhaps YOU dont get what its about anymore? Because pehaps, just perhaps, what it is 'about' now may be different to what it was 25 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you're correct - isn't the offence "offending public decency" or something? In which case someone needs to be offended for there to be an offence being committed.

Unfortunately, anyone who might be telling someone to cover up can claim to be the offended party. So there's not really any way someone can fight against a charge of that kind.

But who the f**k is offended by the human body? We've all got one. Presumably such people turn themselves in if they catch a glimpse of themselves in a mirror having got out of the shower. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see an intelligent reasoned response. If the festival is indeed where it's at then yes, I don't get it - it's not Glastonbury Festival any more, just a long weekend piss-up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it IS stilll Glastonbury Festival (the evidence is in the name). Its just different to what it was. IF it had remained as it was, it would of lost its licence and would be no more.

So I for one am GLAD it has changed in the way it has....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you can take much from the article in the Q daily about 'naked police' or 'naked man arrested' as most of what was written in their was nonsense made up in the name of entertainment.

The lack of clarity from the festival organisers on what is and isn't allowed is what needs to be addressed.

The way the rules of the festival allow for individuals to decide for themselves what is and isn't acceptable works brilliantly from the point of view of those inderviduals (faced with unusual levels of freedom people are on the whole more cautious and respectful of their environment, compared with a tightly regulated environment were individuals look to push the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable). The problem comes when you employ private security contractors; they are not used to environments with relaxed rules where they have to make a call on what is and isn't ok.

It's difficult to see how best to bring the 2 situations together in a way that will work for everyone. I'd suggest that having clear rules for security guards to follow that ensures they know what behaviour is acceptable at Glastonbury that may not be elsewhere (I've no idea what currently exists, I'm sure there is something in place but given the reaction of security on this occasion I'd suggest it is not sufficient) but maintaining more vague message to the punters that you can do what you think is ok as long is it isn't unsafe for others, damaging to the environment or likely to upset your neighbours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disgusted to see the security concerning themselves with this stuff.... So some guys and girls want to walk around naked... Let them go for it!!!

No doubt some demented mother will start screaming "will someone think about the children"...

Always amazes me how something as beautiful as naked human body can cause so much of a fuss... Get over it...

I grantee the vast majority of children would find it hillours to see some random naked fat guy walking around...

I thought it was a shame that the nude guy felt he had to justifie himself and mention he actually had children etc etc

If you dont like naked people, if you dont like drugs, if you dont like maddness, if you dont like people expressing themselves and being themselves and if you feel your thoughts and feelings are the only ones that need to be considered.... then dont come to f**king glasto...

And Neil is bang on about the wider world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your attitude exemplifies exactly why it's NOT Glastonbury Festival any more. Presumably you think the current VW Beetle is the same car as the old one simply because the name is the same? Good grief....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
Yes, things do change, and not always for the better. When something, anything, is past it's sell by date its time to pack it in and re-invent it, not trade on past glories.

I guess the fact that Glastonbury has had to re-invent itself in order to continue has passed you by then. ;)

Eavis had a choice: either conform to what the authorities insist on, or stop doing the festival - you know which one he chose.

While that might not suit you, that's not your choice to make but Michael's. And while his choice might not suit you, the ticket sales show that it suits an awful lot of people.

I noticed in one of your earlier posts that one of your gripes was that it no longer allows dogs. Yet the simple fact is there's not a single festival in the UK that allows dogs - the licencing system simply won't allow it for health and safety reasons. So that gripe is one to take up with society and not the festival - and that's the case for the majority of your other gripes too; they're things forced on the festival by society, not necessarily changes that Eavis would choose to make if he had free reign over such things.

Yet even so, Glastonbury still exists waaaaay out there compared to other fests. Because of it's long history it's allowed to continue to do very many things that no other festival would be permitted to do. While Glastonbury is a long way from what it was (I've gone to every fest since '86), it's still a very long way from being as tame as just about every other festival is.

Your gripes are gripes you should be having with society as a whole and not with the festival, as it's society driving the changes. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, so you don't even bother reading what's written! Who said anything about Beetles being good, bad, indiferent or anything else other than a name.

Yes, things do change, and not always for the better. When something, anything, is past it's sell by date its time to pack it in and re-invent it, not trade on past glories.

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

    • Ah, well. Never mind, hey.
    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...