Glastonbury alcohol email?

[posthuman]

"nannie state"

[posthuman]

Edit: double post

Edited June 14, 2013 by posthuman

[russycarps]

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).

[posthuman]

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

[Baby On A Stick]

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.)

[eFestivals]

Neil, you've missed the important word 'reported'. Of course it makes sense that there is more crime reported if the police are actually there to report it to.

I'm not trying to suggest that there was no crime* at Glastonbury in the eighties, but I don't believe it was anywhere near as proportionately bad as it later became.

(* i'll just make clear that I'm ignoring 'victimless crime' such as drug offences within what I'm saying).

A part of that was that people took less of value that might be nicked - but of course a part of what has caused people to nowadays take stuff that might be nicked is the feeling of security the police being there gives them. Which is why I say they might be directly responsible for higher crime in years after they came on site.

Don't forget as well that crimes would often still got sorted out back then, but in an 'unofficial' manner - which probably had its own deterrent effect.

[whateverman]

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

[russycarps]

Neil

I have the upmost respect for many parts of your post and whole heartily agree on those.

Each year I guess it becomes a little more 'main stream' and that is in part due to the dictates our society puts on soo many good things. But surely there comes a point when the Festival has to ensure a tragedy doesn't happen. That would be goodnight Glasto.

My week in Somerset is my week away from the nannie state and although still great, even for a post fence fella like me, I see it getting more regulated :-(

Some of it's needed, some of it's over the top. Yesterday was the latter and if it had not been revoked, it would have been a very big nail. It doesn't look good for the future though.

The dancing, the (carried over the threshold) drink (and, err, good times), the music and the company will still be of the highest order and can't wait.

Thanks for a top site. See you in a field in the South West. x

[eFestivals]

But surely there comes a point when the Festival has to ensure a tragedy doesn't happen. That would be goodnight Glasto.

Long before there was any regulation around festivals Glasto was taking the lead with setting the standards to ensure nothing untoward happens. Essentially, Glastonbury wrote the original legal rules via the 'Pop Code'.

I'm not trying to suggest that everything was perfect with safety back then - we live and learn, and stuff has been learnt and implemented along the way.

But not everything that gets imposed on festivals is necessary.

Edited June 14, 2013 by eFestivals

[iwalker]

what sort of tragedy is likely to happen that these sorts of controls will prevent??

[russycarps]

Not sure it would lead to a tragedy, but crowd control in the area to the right of the Pyramid during peak times needs to be improved.

It really can get quite tight.

[Teddington]

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.)

[eFestivals]

I suspect we agree on many aspects of state intrusion- fundamentally I am a Libertarian.

then we disagree on almost everything.

[Teddington]

this issue is about much more than just alcohol.

A lot of the people who are outraged by this decision would not actually have been affected by it in any direct way at all. I happen to be one of those people.

Perhaps you lack the awareness to see the big picture.

Just like your beloved UKIP

[Teddington]

then we disagree on almost everything.

[eFestivals]

One thing that is interesting though is that UKIP were the only political party in the country to demand answers to the content of recent Bilderberg meeting.

only because they weren't invited, and they weren't invited because they hold no power and will hold no power.

[siblin]

One thing that is interesting though is that UKIP were the only political party in the country to demand answers to the content of recent Bilderberg meeting.

[posthuman]

(* i'll just make clear that I'm ignoring 'victimless crime' such as drug offences within what I'm saying

[eFestivals]

Now you contradict yourself.

I presume you are therefore in favour of a totalitarian state controlling all aspects of your life?

yeah, because any regulation more than we have currently makes us a totalitarian state, eh?

You must love showing how stupid you are.

[eFestivals]

I'm not sure that the relatives of the 83,000+ people that have died in Mexico's drug wars would agree that the West's recreational drug habit is victimless.

Yes some people grow at home, but by no means all.

For the record - I support full legalisation (and taxation). But until that day comes, people shouldn't kid themselves into thinking that there are no victims in the supply of their narcotics.

I was replying to a post about "reported crime". As "victimless crimes" are not reported, I was making clear they were excluded from what I was saying.

And I put "victimless crimes" within quotes precisely because I'm aware that there are victims. All the same it was appropriate to use here because people understand what it means within the context I used it.

Edited June 14, 2013 by eFestivals

[Teddington]

yeah, because any regulation more than we have currently makes us a totalitarian state, eh?

You must love showing how stupid you are.

[siblin]

I said I am Libertarian- I believe in the freedom of the individual.

[Helencholy]

This escalated quickly. Seems like only yesterday we were wondering how poor fellas in wheelchairs were going to get their cider through the gates. Now we're onto UKIP Mexican Drug Nannies.

[ICGenie]

I kinda understand ME's point of view. He busts a gut for a year laying on some of the finest entertainment the world has to offer, and all people are interested in is getting so off their faces that they don't remember anything. It does make me wonder why some people bother to buy a ticket...

[Teddington]

Does that include, say, the freedom to shoot someone? Many NRA nutjobs in the US would consider themselves Libertarians, but whilst my politics include individual freedoms, I would hardly ally myself with them!