Festival to be charged for sewage discharge breaches

[Pinhead]

Thought the plastic was there just so that they could write "urinals" in big letters on them.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Pinhead

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

 

 

Ok then

Nice one.

Getting stuff filmed/produced at professional level is something they have the skills for in-house, and the more angles they go at the problem with the more likely it is to be successful.

[ghostdancer1]

45 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

i don't think they'll solve the problem - in my view there were no end of blokes going into the area termed urinal - but they were then pissing on the blue plastic instead of the urinals themselves - hundreds of them even when you yelled them they continued, they'd even queue and replace those who had finished - unbelievable - Green Police wouldn't be able to stop that - best best take down the plastic fencing around them again - which i guess is there to make them more acceptable to Guarniad readers.

i saw this at the ones at the back of the West Holts field, and the ones between The Park and Pennards.

at both places, there were about 30 lads outside waiting to get in, people resorted to pissing on the fencing outside after several minutes of waiting, along with the people who got inside and pissed on the blue fencing because the urinals were all full. some people were pissing in the hedge beside the urinals rather than queuing for several minutes.

if you took down the blue fencing, they'd just piss in the hedge.

if there were more urinals, less people would be pissing everywhere.

 

Edited January 14, 2016 by ghostdancer1

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, 5co77ie said:

i don't think they'll solve the problem - in my view there were no end of blokes going into the area termed urinal - but they were then pissing on the blue plastic instead of the urinals themselves - hundreds of them even when you yelled them they continued, they'd even queue and replace those who had finished - unbelievable - Green Police wouldn't be able to stop that

Could they treat the blue plastic with that repellent paint that directs the piss back at you? Seems the ideal scenario for it.

[st dan]

The only real way you can stop anybody is by having the security staff ejecting anybody caught urinating anywhere other than the urinals, and being strict with enforcing it. 

It would only take a festival or so for everybody to be wary of the rule, and it would certainly make people stop and think if they knew there was a genuine chance of them being kicked out of the festival if caught. And they would only have themselves to blame.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

1 hour ago, st dan said:

The only real way you can stop anybody is by having the security staff ejecting anybody caught urinating anywhere other than the urinals, and being strict with enforcing it. 

It would only take a festival or so for everybody to be wary of the rule, and it would certainly make people stop and think if they knew there was a genuine chance of them being kicked out of the festival if caught. And they would only have themselves to blame.

Why not go the whole hog and say they need their genitals mutilated for this offence?

[stuartbert two hats]

4 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

Why not go the whole hog and say they need their genitals mutilated for this offence?

Bang on Yog. It's the only way to stop them.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

Bang on Yog. It's the only way to stop them.

It's the only language they understand. Kill them! Kill them!

[Ommadawn]

Michael looked very smart outside the Court when interviewed. Mind you they only showed his top half on the TV. Do you think they would have allowed him in Court in his shorts?

[Ommadawn]

2 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

Why not go the whole hog and say they need their genitals mutilated for this offence?

Possible job opportunity for you there maybe?

[LondonTom]

9 hours ago, 5co77ie said:

i don't think they'll solve the problem - in my view there were no end of blokes going into the area termed urinal - but they were then pissing on the blue plastic instead of the urinals themselves - hundreds of them even when you yelled them they continued, they'd even queue and replace those who had finished - unbelievable - Green Police wouldn't be able to stop that - best best take down the plastic fencing around them again - which i guess is there to make them more acceptable to Guarniad readers.

Yeah its maddening when you see that and its not like even if there is a queue for urinals that its going to take a massive amount of time for a space to open up!

Having said that, in a few of the busy areas, the trough doesn't seem to have enough capacity , and the piss ends up leaking off into the ground anyway.

Could also do with longer/straighter urinal sections as well, instead of the cramped sort of oddly shaped ones most of them seem to be.

[wwinstanley]

18 hours ago, bennyhana22 said:

Woah, woah, woah there, winstanley!

I'm 100% against people being irresponsible (even if 'tired and emotional' and just pissing everywhere, for all sorts of reasons, including potentially jeopardising the festival.

I'm 100% any more bloody cameras. Glastonbury, and festivals like it, is one of the only places I feel I can now feel a genuine sense of freedon, away from the (often essential, I realise) constraints and limitations of the world outside the Superfence, including not feeling that I am on CCTV 24/7.

Education, not draconian measures, surely...?

Ben

I agree with you there, cameras are the last thing we want. But If they were limited to just the wild pissing sites then they would have a minimal effect on our sense of freedom and only serve the purpose of catching people who are doing what they have been asked not to.

 Not sure how much more education the festival can give on the matter, I remember last year the signs everywhere, the adverts on the massive pyramid stage screens in between every set, people walking around and talking to others about it...

Unfortunately as I said in my previous post its likely that the main offenders are those who don't care much for the festival or just take it for granted. Never going to stop them.

 

[DeanoL]

I disagree with the idea that this can't be solved, because it was solved. In the early 2000s the festival ran a massive campaign over the course of several years and pretty much got it sorted. It worked. It's only been in the past four years or so I've noticed it properly becoming a problem again.

But then, there is only so much messaging you can get through at once. I'd imagine a focused campaign on "don't pee on the land" would be at the expense of "leave no trace".

I'd agree a lot of people are inherently selfish, but the previous campaign appealed to that: it made it clear that the festival was at genuine risk if people carried on. And that did stop people. And it encouraged people to stop other people.

The idea that we've regressed so much as people in the past five years that this now wouldn't work is just depressing...

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I disagree with the idea that this can't be solved, because it was solved. In the early 2000s the festival ran a massive campaign over the course of several years and pretty much got it sorted. It worked. It's only been in the past four years or so I've noticed it properly becoming a problem again.

But then, there is only so much messaging you can get through at once. I'd imagine a focused campaign on "don't pee on the land" would be at the expense of "leave no trace".

I'd agree a lot of people are inherently selfish, but the previous campaign appealed to that: it made it clear that the festival was at genuine risk if people carried on. And that did stop people. And it encouraged people to stop other people.

The idea that we've regressed so much as people in the past five years that this now wouldn't work is just depressing...

I agree with the main thrust of what you've said, tho I disagree with the last line to a large extent.

It's not (so much) that people who previously 'got it' have stopped getting it, it's that it's completely different people. The 'churn' rate of attendees is much higher than many of the 'the addicted' might care to realise.

The festival needs to realise that they need to be running a constant campaign because of the churn. New people need to be told why it matters so they understand, and that doesn't happen by magic.

Edited January 15, 2016 by eFestivals

[5co77ie]

interesting when the case has been adjourned that the reports today are saying Glastonbury is guilty - who is culpible hasn't yet been decided.

[5co77ie]

7 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I disagree with the idea that this can't be solved, because it was solved. In the early 2000s the festival ran a massive campaign over the course of several years and pretty much got it sorted. It worked. It's only been in the past four years or so I've noticed it properly becoming a problem again.

But then, there is only so much messaging you can get through at once. I'd imagine a focused campaign on "don't pee on the land" would be at the expense of "leave no trace".

I'd agree a lot of people are inherently selfish, but the previous campaign appealed to that: it made it clear that the festival was at genuine risk if people carried on. And that did stop people. And it encouraged people to stop other people.

The idea that we've regressed so much as people in the past five years that this now wouldn't work is just depressing...

so the big screen notices last year aren't part of an ongoing campaign?

I think a lot of young kids late at night thought they were using the urinals

[5co77ie]

14 hours ago, st dan said:

The only real way you can stop anybody is by having the security staff ejecting anybody caught urinating anywhere other than the urinals, and being strict with enforcing it. 

It would only take a festival or so for everybody to be wary of the rule, and it would certainly make people stop and think if they knew there was a genuine chance of them being kicked out of the festival if caught. And they would only have themselves to blame.

I agree drop any litter or piss outside of the facilities and your wristband is cut off and you're marched directly to the slurry tank (or rubbish recycling - depending upon offence) and hung over it from eagle claws in your chest for 24 hours. Then you're taken down, your face recorded with facial recognitions software and your name and address taken, before being dropped off in Minehead. You're then put on a naughty list where you're registration details are useless for the next 10 years - and offered V tickets only instead each year - that'll learn them!

Edited January 15, 2016 by 5co77ie

[___S_o_m_a__]

.

 

Edited January 15, 2016 by ___S_o_m_a__
(⌐□_□)

[___S_o_m_a__]

Not suggesting a full on water cannon but...

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

interesting when the case has been adjourned that the reports today are saying Glastonbury is guilty - who is culpible hasn't yet been decided.

Glastonbury pleaded guilty and the plea has been accepted, and so they are legally guilty.

The case has been adjourned to consider issues around what sentence they should get.

[5co77ie]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Glastonbury pleaded guilty and the plea has been accepted, and so they are legally guilty.

The case has been adjourned to consider issues around what sentence they should get.

I don't believe they've said they are guilty though have they? They have admitted the regretable accident happened, but I'm not sure they've completely taken the blame. There's a dispute over the amount of brown trout killed, and the extent of the poisoning - there's also the fact the tank leaked after just 4 years - the suppliers of the tank and the builders are also in court - it's due to last around four days

Edited January 15, 2016 by 5co77ie

[5co77ie]

Mr Eavis' defence lawyer Kerry Gwyther told the hearing, that the incident was not as 'significant' as the Environment Agency alleged. He said that not all of the 42 fish were killed by the sewage and insisted some of the deaths were a result of the water's poor quality.

Speaking outside of the court Mr Eavis said: "I'm on the opposite side of the debate, I'm trying to save the environment and trying to protect all these species. I'm obviously very, very sorry for what's happened, it wasn't entirely my fault."

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Glastonbury-Festival-founder-Michael-Eavis/story-28531305-detail/story.html#ixzz3xJ2WVptF

 

Whilst the plea is guilty the Festival's culpability is being questioned I believe - it's guilty light.

Edited January 15, 2016 by 5co77ie

[mungo57]

if the festival do bring back Green Police, I will do it for the sheer pleasure of telling these savage animalistic bastards that piss everywhere exactly what I think of them......... I wouldn't even ask for my free ticket for working either, I would go holding my own ticket and do it in my spare time, thats how strongly I feel about land pissers.

[Mezhyp1]

I am in agreement that the pissing everywhere is a big problem, but hasn't the brunt of this problem that the case is concentrating on, been caused by a leaking pipe? 

[5co77ie]

18 minutes ago, Mezhyp1 said:

I am in agreement that the pissing everywhere is a big problem, but hasn't the brunt of this problem that the case is concentrating on, been caused by a leaking pipe? 

only in 2014 - they're also in court for 2015 if you read the statement:

http://www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/statement-stream-pollution-at-glastonbury-festival/

 

"Regretfully however, during the last two Festivals (in 2014 and 2015) some pollution has unintentionally made it into the stream running through the site, due to issues including a faulty tank and through Festival goers urinating on the land."

where no faulty pipe can be blamed