Glastonbury fan 'loses £16k' over VIP tickets

[gherkin8r]

3 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

There is/was a strong overtone of rich privilege throughout this thread. Denying that is plain wrong. 

@Benja100 seems to regard them as an opressed minority and would like us to be nice to them (or at least not dare challenge them). Again, just plain wrong.

Meanwhile @GETOFFAMYLAWN seems to have almost paranormal skills at identifying a wrong-un from the off.

Not sure about the 'ugly', that is subjective but he's not my type ?

 

I think you're misconstuing a reluctance to accept blanket statements about a group (in this case the rich) as rich privilege. 

The principle has to remain the same though regardless of the group in question. Which is what @Benja100was saying rather than trying to make them out to be an oppressed minority.

Anyway I'm off to my silk sheets in my 4 poster bed in the east wing in case you  call me nasty names. 

[Steveyett]

capitalism is a fucker, eh?

[HalfAnIdiot]

11 minutes ago, gherkin8r said:

I think you're misconstuing a reluctance to accept blanket statements about a group (in this case the rich) as rich privilege. 

The principle has to remain the same though regardless of the group in question. Which is what @Benja100was saying rather than trying to make them out to be an oppressed minority.

Anyway I'm off to my silk sheets in my 4 poster bed in the east wing in case you  call me nasty names. 

@Benja100 compared my comments to racism.

That's bad.

Or are you saying they are the same on 'principle'???

I dispair ?

I hope you sleep well...

 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Being rich or not is a relative thing. It's all in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. One man's meat is another man's poison etc etc.

 

To conclude, someone got shafted by someone else - shock, horror, probe.

[lukethekid]

It’s not nice when anyone gets conned out of their money but the fact is that this fella was happy paying an extra 2 grand to get a little closer to the action. Doesn’t sound like he’s gonna miss his “hard earned money”. Unlucky fella. 

Probably the equivalent of me losing my number 1 panini sticker that I had on swap in 1997. 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

The term 'hard earned money' is also subjective. Not only that but lets say money comes to him easily. If it came to you easily (the person currently reading this post), wouldn't you accept easy big money? Whether you'd spend it the same way would possibly differ, but would you turn away from receiving it?

[lukethekid]

Money obviously comes to him easily if his company dissolved with a million quids worth of debt and then he’s still spending 16 grand on a “Glasto Experience”, his cash is still flowing. Would I accept it? As long as it was morally correct where the money was coming from then I would obviously accept it but if the prick’s the head of some sort of parking fine company then absolutely not. 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

15 minutes ago, lukethekid said:

Money obviously comes to him easily if his company dissolved with a million quids worth of debt and then he’s still spending 16 grand on a “Glasto Experience”, his cash is still flowing. Would I accept it? As long as it was morally correct where the money was coming from then I would obviously accept it but if the prick’s the head of some sort of parking fine company then absolutely not. 

I agree with you entirely. However, we don't know that he's the head of a parking fine company. One of my mates once got two VIP Glastonbury tickets free from the owner of a traffic management company that had a contract with GFL. This bloke wasn't slapping tickets on cars. I don't actually know what the fuck he was doing, but know that it wasn't that.

As an aside, if you ever get a parking ticket from an operator plying their trade on private property (ie. not a ticket from a council), you will notice that the Parking Charge Notice is addressed to you, if you are the owner of the vehicle. What it also says is that if you weren't the driver at that time, you should give the details of the driver, so that they can pursue them instead. So. the thing to do is to give them the details as you see fit. In my case I chose to give them the details of someone who lived in the USA, and was, therefore, out of their jurisdiction. This meant they had to drop the case and any claim for money. Please use and spread this information widely. 

[lukethekid]

3 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I agree with you entirely. However, we don't know that he's the head of a parking fine company. One of my mates once got two VIP Glastonbury tickets free from the owner of a traffic management company that had a contract with GFL. This bloke wasn't slapping tickets on cars. I don't actually know what the fuck he was doing, but know that it wasn't that.

As an aside, if you ever get a parking ticket from an operator plying their trade on private property (ie. not a ticket from a council), you will notice that the Parking Charge Notice is addressed to you, if you are the owner of the vehicle. What it also says is that if you weren't the driver at that time, you should give the details of the driver, so that they can pursue them instead. So. the thing to do is to give them the details as you see fit. In my case I chose to give them the details of someone who lived in the USA, and was, therefore, out of their jurisdiction. This meant they had to drop the case and any claim for money. Please use and spread this information widely. 

Very true, we have no clue about his company and he could be a well respected member of society. But the fact that he’s sold his story to a paper and that the details of his business are pretty vague within the article it can only draw you to assumptions. Which we obviously shouldn’t do but it’s how the world works isn’t it.

 

Excellent info to know though, thank you for the heads up. I shall pass that on. 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

1 minute ago, lukethekid said:

Very true, we have no clue about his company and he could be a well respected member of society. But the fact that he’s sold his story to a paper and that the details of his business are pretty vague within the article it can only draw you to assumptions. Which we obviously shouldn’t do but it’s how the world works isn’t it.

 

Excellent info to know though, thank you for the heads up. I shall pass that on. 

The Lord knows that I hate to be pedantic, but do we know that he 'sold' his story?

[lukethekid]

3 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

The Lord knows that I hate to be pedantic, but do we know that he 'sold' his story?

Again we don’t and it could be his way of attempting that people don’t fall for this “ticket agency’s” antics in the future which is very commendable but he still paid 16 grand for a festival ticket from some back street company, unlucky mate. 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Here's me and my pedantic's again -  he paid 16 grand for two VIP tickets plus yurt camping. As you imply though, it's tough shit. However, he didn't deserve to be shafted just because he could afford 16 grand to spend on tickets. 

[Scotdy]

Run a man down and call it a terrible thing for society for spending 16k trying to get into a festival. The same people praise and clap a singer for doing a hours work and picking up 16k at the same festival. 

[stuie]

11 hours ago, Benja100 said:

I have to say I find posts like this highly socially divisive. You may be right, you may be wrong, he may be the nicest most altruistic man on the planet, the point is you don’t know. This kind of attitude in my opinion does as much harm to society as any wealth gap. 

I might have agreed with you a week ago but my shift outside PGB, on the way to Windinglake Farm and Highlands/Love Fields included dealings with some very unsavoury rich people who made it very clear that they felt they shouldn't have to walk that far because of their pay in and that their showers were more important than drinking water for the rest of the festival.

[DeanoL]

Here's the thing: we're all 99% sure that this guy wasn't a desperate Glastonbury fan paying over the odds to get in as he loves it so much. It'd be mentioned in the article if so. This guy was not on the website in October manically hitting refresh. The guy just decided at some point he wanted to go and assumed his money could buy him that privilege. Unfortunately with Glastonbury, that normally is the case. In this case, it wasn't, so we're taking some enjoyment from this. Indeed, I'd imagine most of us would like to see all of these VIP loopholes closed.

[Henrik]

12 hours ago, GETOFFAMYLAWN said:

Would be interested to know how much the lowest paid staff at his firm are earning. A year's take-home for a lot of people the ugly dickhead pissed up the wall.

Eat the rich.

15 upvotes for calling a complete stranger an ugly dickhead.

Wow.

The comedown is real. 

 

[Alex DeLarge]

I don't really feel sorry for the bloke, I wish I had 16k to drop on a single weekend to hang out with all the #celebs 

The company that did this are also criminals, both can be true 

[gherkin8r]

34 minutes ago, stuie said:

I might have agreed with you a week ago but my shift outside PGB, on the way to Windinglake Farm and Highlands/Love Fields included dealings with some very unsavoury rich people who made it very clear that they felt they shouldn't have to walk that far because of their pay in and that their showers were more important than drinking water for the rest of the festival

I have had bad experiences with some "poor" people. It doesn't mean I just write the whole group off. 

It's almost as if dividing people into rich and poor/ black and white/ male and female is unhelpful? 

Edited July 3, 2019 by gherkin8r

[EasyUserName]

My favorite part of this thread is the irony of it all. 

 

• Involved in a company as a Director in two companies that subsequently were wound up on request of a creditor (although he had resigned as a director prior to this, in one case just over three months before the end).  Usually when the liquidators are called in, there will be a pile of unpaid creditors.  HMRC is usually the first, often VAT & other tax collected on behalf of HMRC (for all of us) by the company.  It is usual for the company finances to be legally operated to ensure that people like the directors don't lose out.  Although pure speculation, it would be reasonable to assume that Mr. Challis didn't personally end up out of pocket.  All very legal. 

In suammary, it would be fair to speculate that Mr. Challis did ok out of the company before it went under, and that it likely left all of us as citizens worse off if it owed money to HMRC.  All legal though.

 

• Then, Mr. Challis buys a very expensive ticket package to Glastonbury, via a third-party seller company that trades on the reputation of exclusiveness.  The ticket included the use of a Yurt from Wednesday.  When he arrived, and the ticket had not yet made it, he left after 24 hours.  I'd be willing to speculate that the terms & conditions of his purchase specifically allowed for this eventuality, and that by leaving before the ticket arrived, *but* by using the yurt for the night, he legally accepted the contract was valid, meaning it was him who breached the contract, meaning no refund was due.  All very legal. 

In summary, it would be fair to speculate that the contract of sale legally prevented Mr. Challis from claiming a refund, and that as he has no legal recourse, he moved on to the "court of public opinion" by going to the paper in an attempt to shame the reputation of the Event Company (which will trade in part on the exclusiveness of the packages they offer) into giving him a refund when is likely not legally due one.

 

I love the irony that in one situation I speculate he legally benefited, but in another situation he's potentially been legally stuffed - and that the second one isn't "fair" to him. 

 

If I was a creditor of the company he was a director of, I'd be personally going to the BBC and asking if they could print an article about the money I was owed, and perhaps Mr. Challis could pay me back even though he didn't legally have to.

 

Without all the information, it's hard to be sure, but it sure smells like schadenfreude to me.  Ahhhh, bliss. 

[lukethekid]

4 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

Here's me and my pedantic's again -  he paid 16 grand for two VIP tickets plus yurt camping. As you imply though, it's tough shit. However, he didn't deserve to be shafted just because he could afford 16 grand to spend on tickets. 

Didn’t say he deserved it nobody deserves to be conned out of their own money, and sorry my apologies, 16 grand I suppose doesn’t seem too bad for 2 tickets and glorified tent ?

[stuie]

8 minutes ago, gherkin8r said:

I have had bad experiences with some "poor" people. It doesn't mean I just write the whole group off.  

Fair comment.

However, the Oxfam and Festaff campsites are right next to Windinglake and the difference in attitude between the people in those camps is so noticeable you'd find it hard to disagree had you experienced it.

And no, I'm not saying Oxfam and Festaff people are all 'poor' before you pull me up on that - they just didn't pay > £1000 to be there.

 

[Alex DeLarge]

5 minutes ago, Benja100 said:

and go into other people’s tents with torches and rob them at knifepoint

you alright mate?

[stuie]

9 minutes ago, Benja100 said:

I wonder if it was the rich attendees who slash all the tents, leave 1000’s of nitrous canisters behind, and go into other people’s tents with torches and rob them at knifepoint

 

Ah, now you're talking about c**ts and criminals - not rich or poor people.

I'm pretty sure the 'poor' people don't spend £300 on a tent and then shit in it and leave it behind either.

[dulcificum]

11 hours ago, Jamie 2194 said:

How do you not know this guy hasn’t  worked 15 hour days for years to build a successful company.

Because he's obviously thick as shit and thinks he can get anything he wants by flashing some money about. His ignorance of the value of money not only makes me gag a bit but directly contributes to inequalities in society.

He also demonstrates very poor taste and a lack of common sense.

Utter flabbergasted by the apologists in this thread.

11 hours ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

People shot NOT be pulled up for questioning the actions of the rich.

Why this needs saying and explaining is utterly beyond me.

9 minutes ago, Benja100 said:

Yes thanks I wasn’t a victim of these lovely Robin Hood types and their valiant wealth redistribution policy but I’d imagine it was pretty upsetting for the victims

You don't really understand criminology 101 do you.

[gherkin8r]

This is turning into a real shit show. Unfortunately I have work to be doing.