Rightfield

[CaledonianGonzo]

Some of you guys need to chill the fuck out.

[**claire**]

This OP makes me miss Tommmy...

[chewbacca]

* Arbeit macht frei

[mrtourette]

Politics isn't worth getting passionate about?

[Ed209]

The troll argument is so tedious and cheap,

Anyway back on track , im sure we would all welcome a part of glasto without *blacks or queers

* Arbeit macht frei

[Trebor]

The w*nker known as Formed a band strikes again!

[love_music_hate_xfactor]

I love the atmosphere and people at Glasto. It's a real melting pot of people but it feels like a genuine community. It's integral. Everyone - regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, height, weight, dress code, inside leg measurement etc. can get along, be friendly and inclusive. It's what I wish society was like and this in itself is a political position.

I may not agree with certain outright socialist views and some of these are present at the festival, but along the line of socialist to capitalist, I'm much closer to socialist.

The ethos of Glastonbury and the principles on which it is based and run are intrinsic to what it is. It doesn't cowtow to huge, potentially lucrative corporate control (which I don't doubt has been offered) and remains independent and run not to maximise profit, but for other - and in my opinion - better reasons. Support of worthy charitable causes. Variety. Freedom. Choice - all social ideals.

I don't think you can separate the festival from it's politics. If you did, you'd be camping outside the fence, buying £25 of bar tokens every morning before entering the Starbucks arena and picking between 3 or 4 massive stages all day, every day and subjected to 30 minutes of brainwashing between acts, encouraging you to drink Carling/Coke, eat McDeathalds, buy a festy T-Shirt made in a Bangladesh deathtrap sweatshop and basically act as though you were programmed to give up your money willingly like a spendthrift robot. There would be no more Shangri-La, Greenfields, Bandstand, Circus, Kids Fielkd, Cabaret Tent, tiny intimate cafe type venues and all the generally weird and wonderful bits that make Glastonbury what it is.

[Mud Dweller]

Hmmm. Given the festivals roots/history I find this a bit odd.

I love the atmosphere and people at Glasto. It's a real melting pot of people but it feels like a genuine community. It's integral. Everyone - regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, height, weight, dress code, inside leg measurement etc. can get along, be friendly and inclusive. It's what I wish society was like and this in itself is a political position.

I may not agree with certain outright socialist views and some of these are present at the festival, but along the line of socialist to capitalist, I'm much closer to socialist.

The ethos of Glastonbury and the principles on which it is based and run are intrinsic to what it is. It doesn't cowtow to huge, potentially lucrative corporate control (which I don't doubt has been offered) and remains independent and run not to maximise profit, but for other - and in my opinion - better reasons. Support of worthy charitable causes. Variety. Freedom. Choice - all social ideals.

I don't think you can separate the festival from it's politics. If you did, you'd be camping outside the fence, buying £25 of bar tokens every morning before entering the Starbucks arena and picking between 3 or 4 massive stages all day, every day and subjected to 30 minutes of brainwashing between acts, encouraging you to drink Carling/Coke, eat McDeathalds, buy a festy T-Shirt made in a Bangladesh deathtrap sweatshop and basically act as though you were programmed to give up your money willingly like a spendthrift robot. There would be no more Shangri-La, Greenfields, Bandstand, Circus, Kids Fielkd, Cabaret Tent, tiny intimate cafe type venues and all the generally weird and wonderful bits that make Glastonbury what it is.

So, in summary, I think you're naive. And wrong.

[Trebor]

All those people who like to be snide about the sponsorship that is there need to be clever enough to realise it's a necessary evil.

[formed a band]

Dude, it's not big, hard or clever to write these things, even if you don't mean them. You're obviously bored and stupid but that has the capacity to upset some people. Give it up yeah

[formed a band]

fun fact: in my home country i could sue you for that. and i think thats a good law to be honest.

[Trebor]

There's better ways to keep them in mind than shit jokes. Is that the reason you take the piss out of people being crushed to death while watching football as well?

[Somersetsun]

To be honest you have missed the point. There wasn't much point other than my toungue being firmly in cheek. But never mind. Some people are far too highly strung

[Ed209]

I agree, but equally its important we keep these things prevalent in our minds. I've been to auchwitz, madanek too, as well as ground zero and everytime I've been troubled by what it represents but more than that I'm also reminded that despite these horrors humans are mainly good to each other

[Teddington]

Calling me naive because you disagree with my politics is weak, but it's exactly the kind of self-righteous argument I've come to expect from the left.

Let's start with this...

"I love the atmosphere and people at Glasto. It's a real melting pot of people but it feels like a genuine community. It's integral. Everyone - regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, height, weight, dress code, inside leg measurement etc. can get along, be friendly and inclusive."

Well, guess what... so do I

The idea that you have to be a socialist, or at least left-wing to have a sense of community and enjoy diversity is simply nonsense. It's like when Christians try to make out that you can't have a moral compass if you're an atheist and it just makes you look even more self-righteous. In your own words it also suggests that you're a little "naive" when it comes to understanding the politics. Your assertion that variety, freedom and choice are all left wing ideals is frankly laughable. I would suggest that variety and choice are the cornerstone of a free market.

Personally, I love Glastonbury, not just because I love the music, or the camping, or the sense of freedom and community, or the food, or the cider, but because the atmosphere is genuinely unique and 99% of the time I love the people I meet. However,I also have political opinions which don't gel with the like of Mr Bragg and probably don't align very well with the Eavis' either. I believe in free and fair markets. I believe in working hard and being rewarded for it. I believe in taking responsibility for yourself and your own actions and I also believe that those that wilfully contribute the least to society should receive the least back. I also happen to believe strongly in charity and helping those that have been dealt a terrible hand.

Unfortunately, the term "right wing" has become a byword for being a racist, a bigot and somebody who basically wants to let poor people rot, and for that reason I would never call myself "right wing", I'm definitely not "left wing" though and I absolutely refute the idea that not being a leftie makes you somehow incompatible with the festival.

[formed a band]

Spin it. Some people who don't know you at all read that and nearly spat their breakfast out because that comment did not belong where it was put. Contextually it was the equivalent of writing 'kill all gays' in the middle of a block 9 thread. Which it makes it stupid at best. By all means have a politics opinion but do at least try and frame it in terms that don't make you look like a complete idiot (a racist, ignorant, flame throwing idiot).

Unless you are a complete idiot of course, knowing nothing about you I couldn't possibly comment.

[formed a band]

Interesting, considering you spend most of your time on here being a tit and trying to wind people up

[Trebor]

You've got prior history of coming out with offensive stuff, it seems this time you've finally realised you've gone too far, as you don't normally backtrack.

[CaledonianGonzo]

The RightField can also have a children's area, but only if Billy Brit gets a slot:

[Teddington]

I've often been dismayed by the lack of consistency in peoples approaches to the Left and Right.

The fact is that Stalin, under the communist flag (the ONLY country in the world at the time to have one) murdered far more people than Hitler, yet somehow it's perfectly acceptable to show the hammer and sickle, some misguided individuals even take to wearing it. Imagine the uproar if someone wore a swastika.

There absolutely are some idiots on the "right". Equally there are some idiots on the "left", yet in places like Glastonbury the idiots on the left get way more airtime.

There is a tendancy to label people as "right wing uncaring bastards" when actually the vast majority simply believe that hard work and effort should be rewarded whilst laziness and apathy should not.

Back on topic though, the reality is that Eavis is a socialist (probably one of the very few socialist farmers but there you go!). Ultimately it's his festival and he is very very unlikely to allow a balanced political debate to take place.

This leads to two outcomes. Firstly the "lefties" take this as evidence that they are somehow "right" (if you pardon the expression ) Secondly the "righties" tend to think "leftie crap, buggered if I am going to listen to that".

End result- people have exactly the same views and outlook on life as if the Leftfield tent never was there.

Which begs the question what purpose does it actually serve?

[formed a band]

Oasis kasabian the enemy. I can imagine them performing in rightfield

[CaledonianGonzo]

I've often been dismayed by the lack of consistency in peoples approaches to the Left and Right.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Actually, the old leftwingers = Stalinists smear is just as weak as the rightwingers = Nazis one.

[Ommadawn]

Surely it was too absurd to be anything other, it was also a nod to a libertines lyric, also in other replies ive mentioned my own background as well as my experiences of the holocaust (which to be honest had nothing to do with it in the first place)

[Somersetsun]

I'm intrigued by someone's statement that: hard work should be rewarded, people who contribute less should receive less and those who get dealt a tough hand should be looked after by charities.

Who's defining the 'tough hand'? What assessment criteria are you going to use for that? What happens to those who've worked hard for 25 yrs, never claimed benefits and suddenly lose their job and can't get another one? Is that charity who sorts that, or do they get rewarded for hard work? What about the elderly? When you turn 65 is there some kind of sorting hat where if you've got 100% NI contributions you go to care home heaven and if not you got to hell? Is there a point to that when the former can afford their own care better than the latter? What if their isn't any charity money and people die because they can't afford care? Do you care, and if not, are you and your parents in the former or latter category?

I'm genuinely curious.