Glastonbury alcohol email?

[deschwah]

new management this year and a fundamental and very worrying fuckup.. the fact that Sir Michael has had to step in and effectively tell the world that the idiot who sent out the email is just that, says it all

pray it doesn't get too muddy this year otherwise we'll run out of food never mind booze. they've changed the basic and extremely well tested/proven overnight HGV delivery system and the critical part of it relies on un-made tracks to deliver the goods

rest assured, it really isn't what it used to be and i just hope that something really serious doesn't go wrong

[siblin]

But everyone who bought tickets has that e-mail, not eveyone who bought tickets will see the retraction. Like russy said, they aren't stupid.

[russycarps]

I dont think it was ever planned that way. Nobody would deliberately make themselves look incompetent.

Edited June 14, 2013 by russycarps

[mrtourette]

I dont think it was ever planned that way. Nobody would deliberately make themselves look incompetent.

Edited June 14, 2013 by mrtourette

[pedmills]

new management this year and a fundamental and very worrying fuckup.. the fact that Sir Michael has had to step in and effectively tell the world that the idiot who sent out the email is just that, says it all

Edited June 14, 2013 by pedmills

[JoBalls]

I say, if in doubt print off the page of the website and have it to show to security.

And also I will be putting my crates inside a couple of big ikea bags before I put them on the trolley, so that if I HAVE to pick them up and carry them through the gate I can.

[DTichborne]

I'll just stick my oar in and say that I'm glad Eavis has clarified this, but that I also agree with him that I wish people would drink less. Drunk people can be very, very tedious. They can also be fun, but think about how every year when you come back from a festival, there's always a thread about idiots and some people saying "never again". There's a reason why this happens.

[DTichborne]

PS. I do like a drink, I'd say I probably average about three pints a day at Glasto, so I'm not being puritannical...

[snipe]

pray it doesn't get too muddy this year otherwise we'll run out of food never mind booze. they've changed the basic and extremely well tested/proven overnight HGV delivery system and the critical part of it relies on un-made tracks to deliver the goods

rest assured, it really isn't what it used to be and i just hope that something really serious doesn't go wrong

[scaryclaireyfairy]

I still haven't got an email retracting the original email

Not everyone reads these forums or the main website.

These fuckers know exactly what they are doing

[ghandi]

Though not everyone is hooked to this site, like me! Or on Facebook, twitter etc, surely most will check into the GFL official site for updates leading up to the festivals for information and news and will have seen the retraction so i doubt very much that the amount of peeps NOT realising the email had been retracted will be a many as you would think.

[sinhala]

We don't even know (for sure) what was behind the original announcement ?

Was it :-

1) to aid higher sales at the bars and bigger profits for Carlsberg

2) an off-the-cuff remark by ME about drink consumption that was then mis-construed by someone

3) an attempt to put a stop to people bringing beer onto site just to sell on

4) an attempt to reduce the amount of "stuff" brought on site in an attempt to reduce the rubbish left behind

If I was cynical I would say 1), but suspect it was really 2)

Would be nice if we were told though, would it not, then we could understand better what was going on ?

Edited June 14, 2013 by sinhala

[eFestivals]

I had totally forgotten that! That of course explains all this.

yep, i think that's probably behind it.

The licencee is legally and personally responsible for the implementation of the licence and its conditions - and if he's been hassled by the council about cracking down on under-age drinking then he'll be needing to cover his arse to show that he's taken steps to reduce it.

[sinhala]

yep, i think that's probably behind it.

The licencee is legally and personally responsible for the implementation of the licence and its conditions - and if he's been hassled by the council about cracking down on under-age drinking then he'll be needing to cover his arse to show that he's taken steps to reduce it.

[siblin]

who looks incompetent though? We have no idea who sent that email, so no one to really blame.

seems to me they didnt expect the massive backlash. Got michael eavis to put his name to that hastily written statement, then knew full well that if they just left it at that, tens of thousands of people will follow the advice of the email

meanwhile, the rest of us are appeased because we read a statement with our hero michel eavis's name on it

[scaryclaireyfairy]

Agreed. because of the new mgmt changes whoever wrote the original email probably didnt anticipate the backlash.

[DeclarationOfWar]

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130427122541/yogscast/images/5/56/Well_that_escalated_quickly.jpg

[siblin]

which makes me wonder if they're in the right job.

[eFestivals]

Then why not just come out and say it instead of the half-baked ambiguous statement that we got.

why do we need to know the internal workings of the festival? You wouldn't expect it from (say) Tesco.

The important thing from our end of things is what the rules are - and that's been clarified. That's all we need to know.

I'm sure that the fest has or will address any internal issues about this, to try and ensure that no further 'off message' messages go out due to any confusion about where responsibilities for decisions lie.

But (if the email was driven by the new licencee) it's not really any surprise that a person who holds legal responsibility for certain things is taking his responsibilities seriously and trying to ensure he's doing what is legally expected of him - it would be more worrying if he wasn't.

From various convos with festival organisers (both within and outside of Glasto) over the years, Glasto works things in a different way to other festivals. At other festivals the licencee fully accepts the licence conditions and tries their utmost to comply with them all, whereas Glastonbury often challenge what is asked of them and uses evidence from 40 years of festivals to demonstrate that what is being asked isn't necessary.

So my guess is that here the new licencee has blindly gone along with what the council has asked of him, without referring upwards whether it's something he should be challenging.

All the same, if it has been council-driven then I guess the festival will come under increasing pressure over coming years to do what they're pushing for.

[Teddington]

This thread is hilarious.

Nevermind threads about the rights and wrongs of society, whether the festival is "left wing" or not, whether Mumford and Sons are a decent band. A little debate but not much.

But an email, effectively limiting the amount of booze (or at least making it more expensive) that one can drink at the festival, and HOLY FUCK do people respond!!!!

I think we have found what people are really interested in out of Glasto!

Which actually is quite refreshing (if you pardon the pun).

[Amii]

This whole issue could have been addressed so much better.

Given the massive respect and connection that so many Glastonbury goers have for the festival, if the original email had simply addressed the fact that they needed to meet the requirements from the council, people would have listened, respected, and responded (for the most part). Putting See in charge for a huge mistake.

We're all very aware that health and safety and alcohol has become more of an issue, I'm under no impression we won't see more changes, it's just a matter of addressing them in the right way, being open and honest.

[posthuman]

Just my tuppence: I drink a fair bit at the festival, but frankly I support the move to encourage a bit more moderation.

I really cannot see how someone working their way through three cases of beer (=72 cans) doesn't become another one of the pissed-up arseholes that frequently barge their way through crowds, throw abuse at people, and, frankly, detract from other people's festivals.

And if you get drunk and injure yourself or pass out and get serious sunburn, you're just increasing the festival's medical costs, which ultimately everyone has to pay for through ticket prices.

[eFestivals]

But an email, effectively limiting the amount of booze (or at least making it more expensive) that one can drink at the festival, and HOLY FUCK do people respond!!!!

There's more to it than just the new rule in itself. It's yet another step towards Glastonbury being the same bland event as nearly every other festival.

Once upon a time no police were on site, and no police were needed. The police are on site now, but they're still not needed.

Once upon a time there was no issue with how many people turned up. Now there's a fence around the place that's bigger than the fence around Auchwitz.

Once upon a time entertainment could go all night.

Once upon a time the main stages ran till 00:30.

Once upon a time the festival had spontaneity. Now spontaneity requires prior approval.

Once upon a time there were unauthorised traders all over the site.

Once upon a time your Glastonbury ticket didn't look like an ID card.

Etc, etc, etc.

Another nail in the coffin, where notyhing is able to be done unless authorised and approved by our nannie state.

It wouldn't be so bad, but those who now own the 'nannie state' - the global corporations - don't have anything like the same pushed on them. Their mantra accepted by govts of all shades is minimum regulation ... and yet the same freedoms are not granted to the people within the state.

The country has already sold our souls and our freedoms. The country is now reigning in the few remaining outposts.

(this is not a left and right political issue, because both sides want to try and perfectly manage the country's population. We do not vote for govts now, we vote for a management team to - badly!! - manage our lives for us.)

[UEF]

Once upon a time no police were on site, and no police were needed. The police are on site now, but they're still not needed.

[eFestivals]

Ah yes, the good old days - when all those rapes, tent thefts, assaults and deaths looked after themselves.

yeah, cos there were loads of rapes and deaths and assaults, eh?

Any crimes back then were dealt with no less effectively than they're dealt with today... but actually, the reported crime back then was proportionately less then compared to now and so the police being on site could be claimed to have increased crime and not reduced it.

And while that sounds a wacky idea at first thought, if you give it proper thought that could very likely be true - that the police being on site have been the direct cause of increased crime (I'm hoping that you're able to get the reasons why so I don't have to type the long explanation it would need).