Glastonbury fan 'loses £16k' over VIP tickets

[danmarks]

Thank me later.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I know of a very wealthy member of the landed gentry. Has millions and millions in the bank, own huge tracks of land, and isn't a c**t because of his wealth. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Michael Eavis. Discuss?

[HalfAnIdiot]

52 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I know of a very wealthy member of the landed gentry. Has millions and millions in the bank, own huge tracks of land, and isn't a c**t because of his wealth. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Michael Eavis. Discuss?

I don't think anyone been calling the wealthy cu*ts (but I've not read every post). My point was that they need to be held to account for what they do with that wealth for the betterment of society (I am getting board of repeating that simple point but it seems to continually misinterpreted).

I'd say Mr Eavis' has accounted for himself fairly* well ?.

 

 

 

*Applying typical British understatement there of course.

 

P.S. I'm not sure he would regard himself as gentry ?

Edited July 4, 2019 by HalfAnIdiot

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

14 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

I don't think anyone been calling the wealthy cu*ts

That was just me reading between the lines. Everybody else seems to declare a right to do so, after all.

17 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

My point was that they need to be held to account for what they do with that wealth for the betterment of society (I am getting board of repeating that simple point but it seems to continually misinterpreted).

I wasn't arguing against that proposition. I just want to also get over that this bloke, in my opinion, was shafted, and as a result, I think that it was fair game that he went to the press. 

 

20 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

 

I'd say Mr Eavis' has accounted for himself fairly* well ?.

Who dictates where the moral yardstick falls? The man is virtually beatified on these boards, but going with your angle, do he or his children need the considerable wealth that they possess? Yet again, who controls the yardstick?

 

25 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

 

P.S. I'm not sure he would regard himself as gentry ?

I'm sure he wouldn't, but his position fits quite snugly with one definition that I looked up.

[bombfrog]

We seem to have moved away from the original argument here, which is that people here definitely seemed to hate this guy because he can afford to spend £16k on Glasto tickets. You don't really need to read between any lines to see some pretty nasty attitudes earlier in the thread towards those with more money. HalfAnIdiot keeps repeating that these people need to be "held to account", without ever explaining what his interpretation of that is and how it relates to the person who  bought the tickets.

All I've taken from this whole thing is that some people on here seem to think earning more money than other people is wrong.

I've seen nothing that would convince me that that is true, but plenty of arguments, quite a bit of condescending, judgemental nonsense and all it's done is remind me that although I love the festival and the majority of people there (and on these boards), it really does attract the Wolfie Smith types, doesn't it.

Edited July 4, 2019 by bombfrog

[Losing my hair]

7 hours ago, Spindles said:

I had "calling out typos" as the bonus ball, do I win a tenner?

Only if you give it to the state or deposit it in an offshore bank account.

[gizmoman]

You may have to explain "Wolfie Smith" to the younger ones on here!

[bombfrog]

12 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

You may have to explain "Wolfie Smith" to the younger ones on here!

Well, you know the dad from 'My Family' ?

Edited July 4, 2019 by bombfrog

[HalfAnIdiot]

1 hour ago, bombfrog said:

We seem to have moved away from the original argument here, which is that people here definitely seemed to hate this guy because he can afford to spend £16k on Glasto tickets. You don't really need to read between any lines to see some pretty nasty attitudes earlier in the thread towards those with more money. HalfAnIdiot keeps repeating that these people need to be "held to account", without ever explaining what his interpretation of that is and how it relates to the person who  bought the tickets.

All I've taken from this whole thing is that some people on here seem to think earning more money than other people is wrong.

I've seen nothing that would convince me that that is true, but plenty of arguments, quite a bit of condescending, judgemental nonsense and all it's done is remind me that although I love the festival and the majority of people there (and on these boards), it really does attract the Wolfie Smith types, doesn't it.

I've no real view on the guy in question or how people choose to "do' Glastonbury. I have made that clear previously.

I've read (or written) nothing that implies nastiness to those with more money or that earning more money is somehow wrong. I have seen you and others infer that tho.

My interjection in the thread was as an objection to a rather rude pull-up of someone questioning pay disparity. That, interestingly flushed out some rather extreme neo-liberal views held by some here.

 

 

Edited July 4, 2019 by HalfAnIdiot

[Zoo Music Girl]

Not getting into the wider debate but on the Thursday entry thing: coach tickets cost the same whether it's a Wednesday or Thursday entry, which suggests to me the festival don't consider Wednesday to be a proper part of the festival and part of the ticket price. Just saying.

[HalfAnIdiot]

1 hour ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

That was just me reading between the lines. Everybody else seems to declare a right to do so, after all.

I wasn't arguing against that proposition. I just want to also get over that this bloke, in my opinion, was shafted, and as a result, I think that it was fair game that he went to the press. 

 

Who dictates where the moral yardstick falls? The man is virtually beatified on these boards, but going with your angle, do he or his children need the considerable wealth that they possess? Yet again, who controls the yardstick?

 

I'm sure he wouldn't, but his position fits quite snugly with one definition that I looked up.

Theoretical we do through the democratic system of electing leaders that set the financial rules (taxation etc). In reality tho, I do wonder.

I believe that anyone in a position of wealth to improve the lot of the world should take on the responsibility to do so. Be that a small charitable donation or giving up half you wealth to charity as Jeff Bezos has recently done. 

[bombfrog]

47 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

My interjection in the thread was as an objection to a rather rude pull-up of someone questioning pay disparity. That, interestingly flushed out some rather extreme neo-liberal views held by some here.

Bollocks.

Your very first post on this thread was....
 

On 7/2/2019 at 9:58 PM, HalfAnIdiot said:

Poor guy, what a shame....

Spindle's first post was....

On 7/2/2019 at 10:20 PM, Spindles said:

We shouldn't eat the rich.  We should just build a big fucking pyre out of money and watch them throw themselves on it.

I bet you both probably think you're lovely, charitable, fair-minded people.

You're not.

You've both displayed in this thread that you're actually nasty little jealous, judgemental people, neither of which have a basic understanding of the macro economics or the socio-economic politics that you seem to have very strong views on. You've been outclassed in this debate by people that are clearly more intelligent and knowledgable about the subject matter than you (not me, I'm thinking about people like @Benja100 and @gherkin8r, and when they point out why you're wrong or ask you a difficult question you just ignore it or change the question.

Seriously guys, you spend a few hours in the Leftfield tent listening to Billy Bragg talk shit about how unfair it is that some people earn more than other people and you think you've got it all sussed out. I'm kind of embarassed for you.

 

[HalfAnIdiot]

22 minutes ago, bombfrog said:

Bollocks.

Your very first post on this thread was....
 

Spindle's first post was....

I bet you both probably think you're lovely, charitable, fair-minded people.

You're not.

You've both displayed in this thread that you're actually nasty little jealous, judgemental people, neither of which have a basic understanding of the macro economics or the socio-economic politics that you seem to have very strong views on. You've been outclassed in this debate by people that are clearly more intelligent and knowledgable about the subject matter than you (not me, I'm thinking about people like @Benja100 and @gherkin8r, and when they point out why you're wrong or ask you a difficult question you just ignore it or change the question.

Seriously guys, you spend a few hours in the Leftfield tent listening to Billy Bragg talk shit about how unfair it is that some people earn more than other people and you think you've got it all sussed out. I'm kind of embarassed for you.

 

The first point I'll concede. It a long thread. He doesn't need my sympathy tho.

The rest is arrogant and presumptive and again resorts to oh so cleaver personal insults. Your seeing what you want to see not what has been written.

I've no problem with personal wealth. I've far more than most to be honest. I DO have a problem with those that believe they are entitled to it because they 'work hard' and everyone else is just lazy. @Benja100 has made some particularly obnoxious statements in this line. You seem to have aligned yourself to these views too, that's disappointing.

Edited July 4, 2019 by HalfAnIdiot

[HalfAnIdiot]

BTW have you seen Billy Braggs house.

Not a bad looking pad but not really my style.

 

Edited July 4, 2019 by HalfAnIdiot

[bombfrog]

7 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

I DO have a problem with those that believe they are entitled to it because they 'work hard' and everyone else is just lazy.

Do you think that people should be rewarded for working harder? Do you think that people whould be rewarded for taking risks? Creating jobs? Creating products and services which people want to buy?

Nobody is saying that all poor people are lazy. Junior doctors work bloody hard for far less money than any decent person thinks they should earn, but the thing is that we all think they should earn more because they deserve it, preciely because they work hard.

I think the major problem here is that you think the following two statements...

"I work very hard so I think I should earn more than somebody who doesn't"

and...

"Anybody who doesn't earn good money must be lazy"

are the same thing, they're not.

Once we stop rewarding people for putting in the effor then that's basically communism and everything goes up the shitter.

[bombfrog]

15 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

I've no problem with personal wealth. I've far more than most to be honest.

Half the problem with following an online discussion which is over 100 replies long is that you start to lose track of who said what. You and Spindles have been arguing on broadly the same side for most of this thread so I may have begun to attribute some of your views to him and vice-versa.

It's hard to understand your point about "holding rich people to account" when you say that you're not arguing for wealth distribution and you're not against personal wealth because it kind of sounds like you are to be honest. It certainly sounded like you weren't keen on somebody having enough money to splurge £16k on festival tickets.

[babyblade41]

When I looked at the story I didn't really take much notice of how much this guy paid  but isn't it really all about offering a service for "X" amount , someone paying "X " amount to buy the service and then not getting that service.

 

It's irrelevant how much  was charged and how much was paid , thankfully we live in a free world and can choose how and what we all spend it on

 

In this scenario Mr so and so can afford to pay for it and the service provider will make quite a bit out of him therefore  the service should have been provided.

 

No offence to the person who stated that it may have been for the Thursday onwards  because the ticket itself is valid from 8.00 Wednesday so whoever buys off site accommodation  as a package, it would be a reasonable assumption that the accommodation is available from the opening of the festival too, unless stated on the t's and C's.

 

It's a bit of a shame  that it has descended into this  sadly .  I don't care who I stand next to at the festival and although I vote I have learnt on here and on another forum   I frequent there are very strong views politically

 

That is fine and understand we all come from different points of view  and that is also a good thing ...I hope next year all of us won't be in my "what are you doing to cope with not having a ticket" thread next year and we can all have a get together at the cider bus.

I'll even buy the first pint... trust me that doesn't happen often 

 

ME had great artistic vision all those years ago and I'm sure like many parents he is happy he can hand the  torch onto his children  I think he needs to make Emily a director as one of the last Glastonbury accounts  read she was not., I stand to be corrected if that has changed 

 

When you look at the accounts the outgoings are eye watering  and the actual profit after taxation  is minimal IMO so I have to give hm 10 out of 10 for wanting to keep  hosting it , and also as much as living in the vicinity of it might, for us be great, I can imagine not everyone feels the same way 

 

Still lets calm the waters and get ready for October   where we will all be equal whatever we think/vote/feel/ so good luck to everyone of you then xxx

 

Don't forget that first pints on me ❤️❤️❤️❤️

[TheGoodWillOut]

Are we done with the rich and moved onto the wealthy now? 

[gizmoman]

1 hour ago, babyblade41 said:

When I looked at the story I didn't really take much notice of how much this guy paid  but isn't it really all about offering a service for "X" amount , someone paying "X " amount to buy the service and then not getting that service.

 

It's irrelevant how much  was charged and how much was paid , thankfully we live in a free world and can choose how and what we all spend it on

 

In this scenario Mr so and so can afford to pay for it and the service provider will make quite a bit out of him therefore  the service should have been provided.

 

No offence to the person who stated that it may have been for the Thursday onwards  because the ticket itself is valid from 8.00 Wednesday so whoever buys off site accommodation  as a package, it would be a reasonable assumption that the accommodation is available from the opening of the festival too, unless stated on the t's and C's.

 

It's a bit of a shame  that it has descended into this  sadly .  I don't care who I stand next to at the festival and although I vote I have learnt on here and on another forum   I frequent there are very strong views politically

 

That is fine and understand we all come from different points of view  and that is also a good thing ...I hope next year all of us won't be in my "what are you doing to cope with not having a ticket" thread next year and we can all have a get together at the cider bus.

I'll even buy the first pint... trust me that doesn't happen often 

 

ME had great artistic vision all those years ago and I'm sure like many parents he is happy he can hand the  torch onto his children  I think he needs to make Emily a director as one of the last Glastonbury accounts  read she was not., I stand to be corrected if that has changed 

 

When you look at the accounts the outgoings are eye watering  and the actual profit after taxation  is minimal IMO so I have to give hm 10 out of 10 for wanting to keep  hosting it , and also as much as living in the vicinity of it might, for us be great, I can imagine not everyone feels the same way 

 

Still lets calm the waters and get ready for October   where we will all be equal whatever we think/vote/feel/ so good luck to everyone of you then xxx

 

Don't forget that first pints on me ❤️❤️❤️❤️

If the service had been offered by Seetickets as an official package then your point would be spot on, he would have had a legitimate complaint and everyone on here would be supporting him. The fact is he used a high end touting service to try to obtain tickets "not usually available" the touts let him down and so he moans, he knows just as we all do that Glastonbury tickets are hard to get but thought that by paying over the odds he would get in, he took a chance and it didn't work out. If I sold my Glastonbury ticket to another efester for an inflated price and they failed to get in with it would they have a valid claim against me? We would be BOTH in the wrong as the tickets are not transferable and trying to beat the system doesn't give you the same right as if you bought a ticket legitimately.

[HalfAnIdiot]

10 hours ago, bombfrog said:

Do you think that people should be rewarded for working harder? Do you think that people whould be rewarded for taking risks? Creating jobs? Creating products and services which people want to buy?

Nobody is saying that all poor people are lazy. Junior doctors work bloody hard for far less money than any decent person thinks they should earn, but the thing is that we all think they should earn more because they deserve it, preciely because they work hard.

I think the major problem here is that you think the following two statements...

"I work very hard so I think I should earn more than somebody who doesn't"

and...

"Anybody who doesn't earn good money must be lazy"

are the same thing, they're not.

Once we stop rewarding people for putting in the effor then that's basically communism and everything goes up the shitter.

I do agree that people should be rewarded for working hard. Risk takers not so much, simply because the very nature of a risk is that it does not guarantee reward. A risk is a gamble, gamblers win and loose, I'm happy with that until it gets out of hand for an individual and they suffer, there are however some safety nets in our society ( I'm assuming you are UK based).

Do you think that the people designing and making the products and services are fairly rewarded? I would contend that they are significant wealth creators. Without their products there would be no jobs. I would also contend they are often not fairly rewarded.

In a recent employment of mine the CEO earned the same as a semi skilled shop floor operative in the first 3 days of the financial year. It's not uncommon, is that equitable, they both worked 'very hard' (this goes back to the point that triggered my interjection)? 

I'm not conflating the two statements above. Someone on here who dipped out a while ago rather shockingly equated poor to lazy. I pulled him up on it. Working 'very hard' doesn't guarantee high earnings and never will, I happen to believe society doesn't get the balance right tho, it worries me that others are happy to pass this by and focus on only arguing for the currently wealthy.

Your last scentance is a bit of a straw man. We certainly don't reward people for putting effort in equitably now (who would argue that unpaid child carers are rewarded for their efforts).

I do get a little cross when the Marxism/communism card is played (you're the second to do it) when I question the actions of those that have the ability to improve the lot of society. I seem to have waved a red (pun intended) rag to a few bulls around here. The results surprised and disappointed me.

Edited July 5, 2019 by HalfAnIdiot
Typo

[babyblade41]

32 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

If the service had been offered by Seetickets as an official package then your point would be spot on, he would have had a legitimate complaint and everyone on here would be supporting him. The fact is he used a high end touting service to try to obtain tickets "not usually available" the touts let him down and so he moans, he knows just as we all do that Glastonbury tickets are hard to get but thought that by paying over the odds he would get in, he took a chance and it didn't work out. If I sold my Glastonbury ticket to another efester for an inflated price and they failed to get in with it would they have a valid claim against me? We would be BOTH in the wrong as the tickets are not transferable and trying to beat the system doesn't give you the same right as if you bought a ticket legitimately.

Sorry I wasn't aware this wasn't a bona fide package seller.  I possibly didn't read it all ..I'll move along now ? 

 

[fred quimby]

1 hour ago, babyblade41 said:

Sorry I wasn't aware this wasn't a bona fide package seller.  I possibly didn't read it all ..I'll move along now ? 

 

I read it same as you. I thought he bought a package that included some hospitality ticket and yurt

[incident]

1 minute ago, fred quimby said:

I read it same as you. I thought he bought a package that included some hospitality ticket and yurt 

He did, but he bought it through a company not authorised to offer tickets - so exactly the kind of people the festival repeatedly warn about dealing with and take steps to try and stop.

[fred quimby]

1 minute ago, incident said:

He did, but he bought it through a company not authorised to offer tickets - so exactly the kind of people the festival repeatedly warn about dealing with and take steps to try and stop.

ah. Got it. ta

[BambooShanks]

1 minute ago, incident said:

He did, but he bought it through a company not authorised to offer tickets - so exactly the kind of people the festival repeatedly warn about dealing with and take steps to try and stop.

Exactly.  The man took a (very expensive) gamble which didn't pan out as intended.  I'm not sure if he was fully aware of the risks involved (tbh I can not be bothered to go through and check) but I'm sure the vast majority of us would do similar if we had the same level of disposable income. 

Personally I feel sorry for the guy, I've fallen victim of a scam in the past (fortunately only lost £45 as was fairly sure it was a scam) so to see someone lose an eye watering amount of money and a place at the greatest party is a terrible thing, no matter how much the guy earns.