Michael Eavis Controversy

[garethslee]

From his wikipedia article.

"In June 2011, Eavis was quoted as lamenting the decline in political activity associated with the Glastonbury Festival.Days later, however, a protest by Art Uncut at the Glastonbury Festival against U2's alleged hypocrisy on matters of taxation was stopped with force by festival security."

He seems remarkably unblemished when you consider how many years he's been involved in what can be a very controversial business.

[mrtourette]

He's a very clever man. You don't get to be at the helm of a massive and profitable business venture while still maintaining political and social credbility for so long by being an idiot.

[russycarps]

Nobody's perfect.

Possibly he thought that protest could damage the festivals chances of getting big acts in the future

[taff 5]

The Wikipedia entry for Michael Eavis is dreadful.

It's woefully inadequate, poorly written and researched. He deserves better.

[eFestivals]

He's a very clever man. You don't get to be at the helm of a massive and profitable business venture while still maintaining political and social credbility for so long by being an idiot.

Or alternatively....

He's not played the businessman game at all and has remained a 'honest' farmer in all respects and not become a billy-bullshitting-businessman - which earns it own respect on a different basis.

Businessmen compromise in the direction of big bucks and for the benefit of big bucks. Eavis has, in the main, had to compromise due to regulations forced onto him and not because of what those compromises might bring him.

Regarding that protest at U2, was it Eavis which had the security move in, or were those security acting on their own recognizance and on the basis of how 'normal' festivals and big businesses would expect them to 'police' the event they were contracted for?

I don't know the real answer to that one. Do you?

[dan05delaney]

from my view the security during U2 wasn't festival related, they were different security than the standard festival ones and seemed to be there just so king knob bono wasn't upset, so worked on their own to make sure there was nothing taking the lime light away from U2

[ThomThomDrum]

They advertised that protest and so ran the risk of something like that happening. They should have kept their mouths shut and it would of probably lasted a little bit longer than 10 seconds.........

Irrespective of what ME thought about it a bored, mindless security guards looking for something to do will jump at the chance to stop such a protest. (not that all security are bored and mindless, but they do exist in high numbers)

http://youtu.be/qdDNwh66axE

Edited May 24, 2013 by ThomThomDrum

[Teddington]

Or alternatively....

He's not played the businessman game at all and has remained a 'honest' farmer in all respects and not become a billy-bullshitting-businessman - which earns it own respect on a different basis.

Businessmen compromise in the direction of big bucks and for the benefit of big bucks. Eavis has, in the main, had to compromise due to regulations forced onto him and not because of what those compromises might bring him.

Regarding that protest at U2, was it Eavis which had the security move in, or were those security acting on their own recognizance and on the basis of how 'normal' festivals and big businesses would expect them to 'police' the event they were contracted for?

I don't know the real answer to that one. Do you?

[Ruwise]

To be honest it seems ironic to me that British people are so worried about how much tax U2 are paying as they would be paying it in Ireland and there seems to be little of the same negativity about The Rolling Stones who are totally merciless in their money grabbing/ tax avoidance ways and are actually British. At least Bono does do a huge amount of work and give a huge amount of money to charity. I know he is not to everybody tastes and I fully appreciate the reasons why but I actually trust Bono to do more good with the money than the Irish government in the first place.

[Teddington]

Fair point.

It's interesting isn't it.

My first reaction to Bob Geldof saying "Just give us the fucking money" was "if you are getting so excited why don't YOU give some of your money, you have far more than me".

Whether or not Bono gives "enough" is subjective, but there is no doubt he helps good causes.

Any tax would indeed be swallowed up by the Irish govt (who are in a worse state than us atm).

[eFestivals]

I'm sticking my neck out here, but are you left wing by any chance?

Nope. I just don't have my head up my arse.

I'm sure he would have preferred no protest.

Possibly.

I'm 100% sure he'd have preferred that there was no reason for anyone to feel the need to protest. You know, if Bono wasn't a tax-stealing hypocritical c**t.

Quite clearly he is not out to "maximise" profit, (though anyone who thinks that he is not onto a "nice little earner" is naive).

He's very clearly not out to maximise profit. It's called "not greedy", a concept which is intellectually beyond some people.

And after 40 years of running that festival and his farm he's clearly financially comfortable. That's no different to anyone else with a 'high level job' and 40 years of success at it - but what is different is that he's chosen to not take everything he can.

Fact is though that as the "boss" he is responsible for the actions of security.

And as able to monitor and control their every move no differently to how a parent can control their child.

My own view is that he decided (rightly in my opinion) that removing the protestors was the best of a bad bunch of options.

Why am I not surprised?

A right wing anti-freedom solution in support of tax robbery is suggested by the raving right winger who claims he supports freedom.

[eFestivals]

.. there seems to be little of the same negativity about The Rolling Stones ...

erm ... this website has been calling them "The Rolling Taxdodgers" since it first started.

But there is a difference with U2. The Rolling Taxdodgers have been upfront about their beliefs, wants and actions, rather than saying one thing whilst doing another.

It's Bono's hypocrisy that so many find to be more offensive.

[eFestivals]

Any tax would indeed be swallowed up by the Irish govt (who are in a worse state than us atm).

which is of course nothing to do with their tax-race-to-the-bottom, which has them striking agreements with the likes of Apple for them to pay less than 2% in tax, and which is then used to blackmail the USA govt into reducing tax rates for the exceedingly rich (not that the US govt needs much blackmailing, but Apple do it anyway).

[Wooderson]

Like lots of people on this website, I've met Michael. He has a gravitas/presence whatever you wanna call it. I've no doubt that he gets his way completely when he wants.

[Ruwise]

erm ... this website has been calling them "The Rolling Taxdodgers" since it first started.

But there is a difference with U2. The Rolling Taxdodgers have been upfront about their beliefs, wants and actions, rather than saying one thing whilst doing another.

It's Bono's hypocrisy that so many find to be more offensive.

[Teddington]

which is of course nothing to do with their tax-race-to-the-bottom, which has them striking agreements with the likes of Apple for them to pay less than 2% in tax, and which is then used to blackmail the USA govt into reducing tax rates for the exceedingly rich (not that the US govt needs much blackmailing, but Apple do it anyway).

[Wooderson]

Bono takes his business affairs out of Ireland to benefit from more palatable rates elsewhere.

Tim Cook sends all his money into Ireland to benefit from (his words) 2% tax rate he negotiated with our government "all special like".

Mad country.

[Wooderson]

No actually that has a lot to do with it imo. The Irish got greedy and are now reaping the penalties.

Ultimately you cannot cheat productivity (as the PIGS are now finding out)

[Wooderson]

Always preferred Tom from Show Me Show Me anyway...

[eFestivals]

I'm not defending their actions for the record I would rather they just paid their taxes but with U2 there are 5 equal votes and it does mean that Bono may not have even voted for the arrangements they have but have to live with them.

that's a cop-out against the realities of tax 'arrangements'.

While Bono might not have had (if what you say is true) any choice in U2's tax affairs being moved to Holland, there's nothing to stop him setting up other tax arrangements to repatriate his portion of the pie.

After all, if it's possible for tax affairs to be "arranged" to your personal benefit it's no less hard to arrange it to not-your-benefit as well.

Back in the real world, if anything is done in an unnatural manner for the tax benefits, it's a DELIBERATE CHOICE to rob other people.

Edited May 24, 2013 by eFestivals

[Teddington]

That, Sir, is bullshit.

[Paul ™]

from my view the security during U2 wasn't festival related, they were different security than the standard festival ones and seemed to be there just so king knob bono wasn't upset, so worked on their own to make sure there was nothing taking the lime light away from U2

[eFestivals]

Wrong, it was the stage security who removed the item.

Paul, do you happen to know if they were instructed to by the festival, or if it was their own doing?

[ThomThomDrum]

Is it really?

As Efest pointed out, remind me again of the corporation tax rate in Ireland?

[scaryclaireyfairy]

regarding the comment about michael eavis being remarkably unblemished, i'm with what neil said. it's cos he doesn't play the role of the big businessman or great 'i am' that he's so respected. he's a man and he does what he thinks is right. he doesn't particularly preach, he just gets on with it. that earns him the right to make mistakes and not attract ill-feeling.