glastonbury security, are they changing the festival?

[beamends]

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.

[Greenish]

do we need a petition? "we, the undersigned, believe that nudity is acceptable at Glastonbury and that security should not get involved!"

or we could all individually contact the festival office to complain?

[eFestivals]

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.

[LRW]

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.

[MrHew]

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'.

[pman]

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.

[LRW]

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'.

[eFestivals]

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 July 3, 2009 by eFestivals

[cejx]

why are naturists always fatties?

[mikeb]

The problem is that public nudity is an offence ...

Edited July 3, 2009 by mikeb

[beamends]

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.

[beamends]

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:

[Greenish]

why are naturists always fatties?

[pedmills]

Has anyone thought about emailing/writing a letter to the Eavises or somebody? Just to clarify whether or not they mind people being naked?

At least if they say no then the issue will be clarified.

[LRW]

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.

[Messi30]

why are naturists always fatties?

[beamends]

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....

[Stuzo]

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.

[oafc0000]

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...

[LRW]

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....

[beamends]

I think your attitude exemplifies why so many things die off. The fear of change.

Stop living in the past - get over it - and move on.

And your presumtion couldn't be more wrong. I think the beetle - new and old versions - are shit cars.

[Vectrex]

isn't it ironic that in the festival programme one of the 50 things to do at glasto that is listed is to go naked...

piece of nonsense this. i think security were being a bit over-zealous there.

[eFestivals]

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.

[LRW]

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.

[commandlinegamer]

I know it's a pipe dream, but it would be nice if some of the Glastonbury spirit could be exported to society at large. Instead of worrying about modern life encroaching on the festival, can we not make the wider community a more tolerant and friendly place?