Not Welcome ...

[Station]

I would certainly class myself as libertarian and at the freedom of expression end of the spectrum. I think you can draw a line though between advocating right wing views and advocating illegal behaviour e.g. Child abuse.

Even then the thing which people who are too dogmatic about freedom of expression like gizmorman fail to appreciate is that you can support anyone's right to say anything e.g. I would stand for the right for someone to argue the age of consent for sexual activity should be abolished. It should not be illegal to express these views but the crucial point is that the rest of us reserve the right not to listen e.g. I would not let someone into my house to express those views. Censorship by the state may be the road to totalitarianism but a private festival deciding who it doesn't want on its land is not.

Glastonbury is a festival with a liberal and charitable history and i think Michael Eavis has the right to invite whoever he wants.

[diddly-dee]

Personally speaking, i'd like to see U2 banned - simply because Bono's a smug tw*t and he wears sunglasses indoors.

Hmmm, i wonder if there's a theme this year with the booking of artistes who wear sunglasses indoors; bono, stevie wonder? anyone think of any others?

[disasterplan]

Agreed, that was kinda my point all along, of course people have the right to express their views and opinions (no matter how screwed up I or anyone else may think those views are) but it is best done at an appropriate/relevant time and/or place. If the BNP were granted the right to make party political broadcasts in a prime time tv slot I could not state catagorically that "it should not be allowed" because the TV watchdog would have already decided that it is allowed but what I could do (and hopefully millions of others along with me) is protest against and boycott that particular TV channel(s) on the grounds that I believe that their (BNP) policys are destructive and negative BUT...and heres my main point...one would hope that the TV watchdogs/channels would have the sense and foresight to realise the outrage and uproar that would cause amongst (hopefully) the majority of it's veiwers and not go down that road in the first place.

The trouble is that in my experience people who are right wing/racist or are influenced by such views are not particularly intelligent/enlightened people - thats just in my experience -

To sum up - yeah everyone is entitled to their individual veiws/opinions but if the majority of intelligent, well informed people think you're wrong/out of order then you probably are

[In transit]

I think Peter Tatchell illustrates the point very well here:

Shawn Holes, an American Baptist evangelist touring Britain, was fined £1,000 for telling passers-by in Glasgow city centre: "Homosexuals are deserving of the wrath of God – and so are all other sinners – and they are going to a place called hell."

Tatchell:

"Shawn Holes is obviously homophobic and should not be insulting people with his anti-gay tirades. He should be challenged and people should protest against his intolerance.

“However, in a democratic, free society it is wrong to prosecute him. Criminalisation is not appropriate.

“The price of freedom of speech is that we sometimes have to put up with opinions that are objectionable and offensive.

“Just as people should have the right to criticise religion, people of faith should have the right to criticise homosexuality. Only incitements to violence should be illegal.

"If I had known about this prosecution in advance, I would have gone to court to defend Mr Holes’s right to freedom of expression and to urge that the charges against him be dropped."

[Jack Attack]

Happy to have lots of "unwelcomes", so long as they don't clash

There will always be someone else to go and see.

[In transit]

I'd like to highlight a point I made back when Nick G was on Question Time last year. Everyone harped on about freedom of speech and having faith in the British public to reject his views and all the rest... but at the same time, broadcasters are bound by just as many regulations not to broadcast material that's likely to incite racism, homophobia, xenophobia and everything else that party stands for. Freedom of speech is indeed a pillar of democracy but in the media there's a lot more factors that come into play...

[Aragorn]

Oasis

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Which acts do you believe aren't welcome at Glastonbury. Or is everybody given a chance ?

I mean this in terms of bands/performers who are not welcome in the first place, or have performed before, and wont be asked back.

Sorry if this has been discussed before but i did a search and didnt find anything.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Rufus Gwertigan

[mandypants]

The BNP All Stars (featuring the All ni***rs must die Showcase)

edit: was that a little OTT?

[hatman]

pretty sure i remember eavis saying he had fallen out with paul weller and wouldn't put him on again

and after that show a few years back perhaps primal scream are on his blacklist

as someone else said he never seems to have much metal on the bill, though one or two heavier bands go under the metal xray scanner each year

[strudders]

The BNP All Stars (featuring the All ni***rs must die Showcase)

edit: was that a little OTT?

[muddyslingbax]

It's simples

if you don't like it, don't listen

go for a pint/pie/pee and stumble across something really unusual

Couldn't give a toss who's on; it's the discovering of the unexpected, random loveliness that makes Glasto for me

[DaveMac]

I was going to say Eugene Terreblanche and his Big Band

But it seems they have cancelled....

Edited April 4, 2010 by DaveMac