Headliners 2015

[Homer]

I wonder if all the people wanting Led Zepplin will care that Jimmy Page kidnapped a 14 year girl and then Married her. But people wouldnt be dissapointed with Led Zep like they are The Who, which is all it boils down to really

That was a more innocent time though - when it was all seen as being a bit of cheeky fun.

[The Nal]

Do you really believe that? (I'm not after an argument here, I'm genuinely interested if anyone believes this.)

I do yeah. Simply because they found nothing else on his hard drive or any history of it previously. Do you believe 3D from Massive Attack? They played last year.

In fairness, attempting to pay for it with a credit card in the name of "Pete Townshend" sort of shows how naive he was.

Good website here running through a lot of the controversy about it.

Edited May 5, 2015 by The Nal

[fatyeti24]

That was a more innocent time though - when it was all seen as being a bit of cheeky fun.

and why we now have operation yewtree

[Homer]

I do yeah. Simply because they found nothing else on his hard drive or any history of it previously. Do you believe 3D from Massive Attack? They played last year.

In fairness, attempting to pay for it with a credit card in the name of "Pete Townshend" sort of shows how naive he was.

Good website here running through a lot of the controversy about it.

As I remember, the 3D was accused then weirdly went away didn't it? He said it was at the time he was busy opposing the Iraq War if I remember.

[Brave Sir Robin]

Well, getting back on topic - after such an epic thread, we seem to have ended up with the worst set of headliners since, I dunno, the last time The Who headlined?

I'm sure some have a higher opinion of the three than I do, but you could still agree that the ratio of excitement/interest to inspiration is incredibly skewiff!

I reckon it's as interesting/exciting as 2011:

U2/Foos: massive if arguably dull rock band;

Coldplay/Who: huge but again, really?;

Beyonce/Kanye: huge American artist from a genre not overrepresented at G.

[Tdiz]

Hey I have been away most of the weekend so been trying to catch up this morning. So have The Who or the promoter released any kind of official statement about rearrianging the Paris show? As I havent been able to find anything or is it all still speculation?

[Winslow Leach]

Overlap with who?

No, with Belle & Sebastian.

I'll get my coat.

[Alan_C]

Seen The Prodigy in Newcastle last night, I think some people will be glad they aren't playing from the setlist they're doing. Nothing from Experience, only Voodoo People and Their Law from Jilted, the obvious ones from FOTL, 4 songs from Invaders, then the rest new stuff. They did put on a great show and full of energy but the setlist annoyed me a bit, and I can't imagine some people from here would be happy with that from stuff I have read.

[Brave Sir Robin]

Hey I have been away most of the weekend so been trying to catch up this morning. So have The Who or the promoter released any kind of official statement about rearrianging the Paris show? As I havent been able to find anything or is it all still speculation?

Nowt official as yet. But on the Who's official forum (requires registration) they are discussing the Paris gigs being rearranged, and a regular poster on there posted an email he received from a fan club about the rearrangement and refunds etc. No reason at all for them to be making that up, and difficult to believe they're rearranging it for anything other than Glasto.

[Brave Sir Robin]

On the Townshend thing, it's all very odd, but pretty strongly in his favour is that he had written a few articles about child porn and posted them on his website, months before being arrested. Here's one:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/pete-townshends-child-porn-treatise?

[Tdiz]

Nowt official as yet. But on the Who's official forum (requires registration) they are discussing the Paris gigs being rearranged, and a regular poster on there posted an email he received from a fan club about the rearrangement and refunds etc. No reason at all for them to be making that up, and difficult to believe they're rearranging it for anything other than Glasto.

Thanks for the info saves me trawling through all the new posts.

[Homer]

Seen The Prodigy in Newcastle last night, I think some people will be glad they aren't playing from the setlist they're doing. Nothing from Experience, only Voodoo People and Their Law from Jilted, the obvious ones from FOTL, 4 songs from Invaders, then the rest new stuff. They did put on a great show and full of energy but the setlist annoyed me a bit, and I can't imagine some people from here would be happy with that from stuff I have read.

Yeah but that's their own gig - would prob chuck more hits in at a fest.

[Homer]

I reckon it's as interesting/exciting as 2011:

U2/Foos: massive if arguably dull rock band;

Coldplay/Who: huge but again, really?;

Beyonce/Kanye: huge American artist from a genre not overrepresented at G.

I hate U2 but that was a hell of a booking. Biggest band in the world and don't play fests.

[Franky]

No and you clearly dont have any idea of the legal system lol. You hush now buddy

Oh really ? And what's your basis for that then ? Considering everything I have stated has been fact ! I have not passed judgement on either side of this argument merely cleared up some ambiguities.

So please qualify your statement that I have no idea of the legal system, what have you based this on? Where is your "evidence" of this. I look forward to the ramblings of such a fool.

[Alan_C]

Yeah but that's their own gig - would prob chuck more hits in at a fest.

Not really sure if they would to be honest. I think they see the likes of Omen, Take Me To The Hospital, Invaders etc hits now so if you take them and the old songs they are doing then that leaves room for maybe 6 new songs at a festival. They might have chucked in Out Of Space at a push. Be lucky to get a setlist like they done at Milton Keynes again really, where they played No Good, Charly, Weather Experience, Everbody In The Place.

[Scotdy]

When Townsend was arrested it was filmed for a tv programme. I thought although he appeared to have crossed the line, he was nowhere near the full nonce that the operation went after. It came across that he was just on the wrong side curious boredom and got caught

[Brave Sir Robin]

I hate U2 but that was a hell of a booking. Biggest band in the world and don't play fests.

True, although to balance that out I can pretty much guarantee Foo Fighters will be more fun than Bono & co were that night.

[Waapster]

Oh really ? And what's your basis for that then ? Considering everything I have stated has been fact ! I have not passed judgement on either side of this argument merely cleared up some ambiguities.

So please qualify your statement that I have no idea of the legal system, what have you based this on? Where is your "evidence" of this. I look forward to the ramblings of such a fool.

You two should think about getting a room...

[eFestivals]

This is correct, but its important to be clear what the offence was. He was guilty of signing up to the website. It was made clear that this, in itself, is an offence of strict liability - which is to say that intent is irrelevant. However, it is at the police's/court's discretion to moderate the sentence if they are convinced by the evidence that the culprit's intent does mitigate the offence, even though they did, strictly speaking, commit the crime.

That's not quite how it is.

To prove any intent to access the images, they need to have evidence to support it.

In most cases just signing up would be evidence of that intent, but with Townsend he had a plusible excuse at the ready, which they basically had to accept without them having further evidence beyond him signing up to the site.

Just because he had a plausible excuse that the police accepted as point of law doesn't actually prove anything either way about what his intent actually was. It just really says that there's no evidence to support a claim of bad intent by Townsend.

In his particular case he knew the old bill were coming for him, which gave him ample opportunity to clear out any evidence and to consult a solicitor about how he could lessen the effects back on him of the crime the police could prove he'd committed.

That's not me trying to damn him, that's me putting the full context onto what happened, to put back against the others saying he little wrong. My point is that we don't really know either way, we only know how the police concluded the case in a legal sense - which was NOT by declaring him innocent but the exact opposite.

Edited May 5, 2015 by eFestivals

[Franky]

You two should think about getting a room...

No need I suspect we won't hear from him again on this matter. I just can't stand people making statements with absolutely no evidence to back it up with. I mean come on literally everything I have posted on this matter can be looked up in any law book and confirmed so why make such a stupid statement as "clearly have no idea of the legal system". I love a good bit of banter on here as much as the next man/woman but when I was trying to help people understand a few facts of something why not just go away and research what I have said or think to yourself, hmmm maybe he does know better than me.

We can't all be right all the time ! Myself included, I mean hey are the KLF really going to headline on the Sunday night.

HELL YES THEY ARE

[Mezhyp1]

They should have booked No Doubt, and we wouldn't be having such darkened discussions

[Homer]

That's not quite how it is.

To prove any intent to access the images, they need to have evidence to support it.

In most cases just signing up would be evidence of that intent, but with Townsend he had a plusible excuse at the ready, which they basically had to accept without them having further evidence beyond him signing up to the site.

Just because he had a plausible excuse that the police accepted as point of law doesn't actually prove anything either way about what his intent actually was. It just really says that there's no evidence to support a claim of bad intent by Townsend.

In his particular case he knew the old bill were coming for him, which gave him ample opportunity to clear out any evidence and to consult a solicitor about how he could lessen the effects back on him of the crime the police could prove he'd committed.

That's not me trying to damn him, that's me putting the full context onto what happened, to put back against the others saying he little wrong. My point is that we don't really know either way, we only know how the police concluded the case in a legal sense - which was NOT by declaring him innocent but the exact opposite.

Bascially, he's:

A Famous, and

B Can afford a very good lawyer

Edited May 5, 2015 by Homer

[MEGABOWL]

It's not about 'watching somebody else' .. I certainly will be doing that.

It's the fact that they are going to be headlining a festival which has such a great ethos behind it. This kind of marks all that for me. If there is anything like this surrounding an artist - then for me they should not be playing - let alone headlining.

Maybe they should only be allowed to play the John Peel Stage

[Franky]

Bascially, he's:

A Famous, and

B Can afford a very good lawyer

This will have a huge amount to do with it ! Especially point B !

[eFestivals]

Bascially, he's:

A Famous, and

B Can afford a very good lawyer

That could be it, or he might be innocent.

All we really know for sure is that he signed up and paid for access to a child abuse website.