Community Service for Ticket

[stuartbert two hats]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

That's a really weird take on having a family.

Honest question - do you have kids?  I have one and strongly relate to what @shuttlep said - anything that uses up my "spare" time I normally think of as coming out of my family's allowance of my time. I might be relaxing when I'm with them, but I'm still giving them my time.

By the way, I bring my daughter with me when I litter pick, so maybe there could be a way round it.  But that's not always feasible.

[Clareno7]

This system kind of already exists. 

[shuttlep]

32 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Honest question - do you have kids?  I have one and strongly relate to what @shuttlep said - anything that uses up my "spare" time I normally think of as coming out of my family's allowance of my time. I might be relaxing when I'm with them, but I'm still giving them my time.

By the way, I bring my daughter with me when I litter pick, so maybe there could be a way round it.  But that's not always feasible.

Exactly family time is highly treasured, I work hard and long hours so when i do get the chance to spend time with the family i do. Glastonbury is my one escape per year.  Next year he will be coming with me (it's not the wifes thing) so if i had to spend extra time away just to be able to try to get a ticket m, that would be too much for me.

 

 

the existing system isn't great I have missed out on tickets before and had to watch from home. So I understand the pain. The way it works now I think is the best system , it's not perfect but it works

[mattiloy]

20 hours ago, Superscally said:

There's never any harm in a carrot... So surprised at the negative reaction to this. Can't see what bad could come from it. Pretty cynical to think that people would do a half arsed job. Maybe it could be the spark for some people to change the way they went about their path on this world.

No harm, but it runs against the nature of voluntary work. In a round about way, you are remunerated.

Furthermore; whiff of the sanctimonious, competitive do gooder about it which nobody likes. 

Also voluntary work is a very narrow way to define people’s goodness/contribution to society, or worth to the festival. Give me a busy parent raising their kid well, with no spare time to volunteer over some gap year douche any day.

Also, I think some people do get changed by going to the festival, you would deny them the chance to have their views influenced for the better simply by participating in our wonderful festival that we all love so much.

Its a bad idea.

[CaledonianGonzo]

10 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Its a bad idea.

Pfffft.  Was  *this* a bad idea?

[Superscally]

30 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

No harm, but it runs against the nature of voluntary work. In a round about way, you are remunerated.

Furthermore; whiff of the sanctimonious, competitive do gooder about it which nobody likes. 

Also voluntary work is a very narrow way to define people’s goodness/contribution to society, or worth to the festival. Give me a busy parent raising their kid well, with no spare time to volunteer over some gap year douche any day.

Also, I think some people do get changed by going to the festival, you would deny them the chance to have their views influenced for the better simply by participating in our wonderful festival that we all love so much.

Its a bad idea.

Some great points, but I still feel, managed well it could be a real positive thing if done in the right amount. Organisations that Glasto favour, put in the hours, get rewarded twofold. It wouldn't be a competitive thing. Limited amount of places say, had to sign up before ticket day. Can't see how it wouldn't be for the good of the world. 

[Mr.Tease]

3 hours ago, Superscally said:

I have a job and a family and do charity work. Seem to fit it all in ok. 

See, this is my issue with people posting their ideas under the guise of making it 'fairer', when really they've just devised a system to give themselves an advantage.

I've done a lot of voluntary work over the years, and I'm in a fortunate position now to get paid working for a third sector organisation, but I don't think you have to do charity work to make a worthwhile contribution to life- everybody contributes, even people doing the most mind numbing call centre or office job contribute by paying taxes that fund our public services and communities. People contribute by being a good mum or dad, or brother or sister or partner or friend. Not sure how only one form of contribution (community work) makes someone more worthy of attending a music festival.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I've got a very very briefly (and most likely ill) thought out idea, away from the current community service debate. Now bear with me because it involves the Coca-Cola company, which may raise the hackles in some people.

 

It goes like this - we are constantly being told that our children (and ourselves) aren't eating well, and often not getting the five a day we need. So, my plan is to get the Innocent Drinks Company (now 90% owned by Coca-Cola), to run a competition similar to the Willy Wonka one. They'd be five Golden Glastonbury Tickets up for grabs in the competition.

 

The result would be that parents would almost force feed their children with nutritious Innocent drinks. Parents themselves would almost burst from drinking the stuff in such quantities themselves.

 

The only downside of this is that these drinks are expensive, and are only affordable by rich people. However, I've thought this one out too. Poor people could just nick their drinks, either from the supermarkets, or by breaking in to the Innocent factories overnight - presumably by abseiling down through open sky lights.

 

The country would go Glastonbury Golden Ticket mad, and in doing so, would eat itself healthier, and take the strain off NHS budgets.

 

Thoughts?

 

PS - I've got lots of great ideas, if anybody wants to hear any more!

[mashedonmud]

??????????????

[Crazyfool01]

17 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I've got a very very briefly (and most likely ill) thought out idea, away from the current community service debate. Now bear with me because it involves the Coca-Cola company, which may raise the hackles in some people.

 

It goes like this - we are constantly being told that our children (and ourselves) aren't eating well, and often not getting the five a day we need. So, my plan is to get the Innocent Drinks Company (now 90% owned by Coca-Cola), to run a competition similar to the Willy Wonka one. They'd be five Golden Glastonbury Tickets up for grabs in the competition.

 

The result would be that parents would almost force feed their children with nutritious Innocent drinks. Parents themselves would almost burst from drinking the stuff in such quantities themselves.

 

The only downside of this is that these drinks are expensive, and are only affordable by rich people. However, I've thought this one out too. Poor people could just nick their drinks, either from the supermarkets, or by breaking in to the Innocent factories overnight - presumably by abseiling down through open sky lights.

 

The country would go Glastonbury Golden Ticket mad, and in doing so, would eat itself healthier, and take the strain off NHS budgets.

 

Thoughts?

 

PS - I've got lots of great ideas, if anybody wants to hear any more!

fantastic idea ... i would pay off the lorry drivers delivering them to the supermarket I work in  ... and corrupt the orders so the store got all the innocent drinks for the region  

[Smeble]

aren't there already 60000 people on site  who get a freebie for a few hours work? That’s more than enough.

[dotdash79]

17 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

The result would be that parents would almost force feed their children with nutritious Innocent drinks. Parents themselves would almost burst from drinking the stuff in such quantities themselves.

Innocent drinks are full of sugar in some cases more than a can of Coke. It would probably cause loads of pre-diabetes and rot people’s teeth. 

[mashedonmud]

1 minute ago, dotdash79 said:

Innocent drinks are full of sugar in some cases more than a can of Coke. It would probably cause loads of pre-diabetes and rot people’s teeth. 

Win win situation,  they'll either be to fat to attend or busy at the dentist. ?

[Crazyfool01]

2 minutes ago, dotdash79 said:

Innocent drinks are full of sugar in some cases more than a can of Coke. It would probably cause loads of pre-diabetes and rot people’s teeth. 

im ok I've already got full blown type 1 ... will take one for the team  

[Mr.Tease]

33 minutes ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

I've got a very very briefly (and most likely ill) thought out idea, away from the current community service debate. Now bear with me because it involves the Coca-Cola company, which may raise the hackles in some people.

 

It goes like this - we are constantly being told that our children (and ourselves) aren't eating well, and often not getting the five a day we need. So, my plan is to get the Innocent Drinks Company (now 90% owned by Coca-Cola), to run a competition similar to the Willy Wonka one. They'd be five Golden Glastonbury Tickets up for grabs in the competition.

 

The result would be that parents would almost force feed their children with nutritious Innocent drinks. Parents themselves would almost burst from drinking the stuff in such quantities themselves.

 

The only downside of this is that these drinks are expensive, and are only affordable by rich people. However, I've thought this one out too. Poor people could just nick their drinks, either from the supermarkets, or by breaking in to the Innocent factories overnight - presumably by abseiling down through open sky lights.

 

The country would go Glastonbury Golden Ticket mad, and in doing so, would eat itself healthier, and take the strain off NHS budgets.

 

Thoughts?

 

PS - I've got lots of great ideas, if anybody wants to hear any more!

In 2005, a week before the festival, the two people I worked with came down with a flu illness that in their words "made you feel like you couldn't enjoy anything". The day before setting off, I felt myself coming down with this flu illness and I was so terrified, I drank so many innocent smoothies that it hurt when I wee'd. I've no idea what was in them that caused this, but somehow it prevented the illness and I was returned to rude health. 

Does this make them a good or a bad thing? 

[Superscally]

1 hour ago, Mr.Tease said:

See, this is my issue with people posting their ideas under the guise of making it 'fairer', when really they've just devised a system to give themselves an advantage.

I've done a lot of voluntary work over the years, and I'm in a fortunate position now to get paid working for a third sector organisation, but I don't think you have to do charity work to make a worthwhile contribution to life- everybody contributes, even people doing the most mind numbing call centre or office job contribute by paying taxes that fund our public services and communities. People contribute by being a good mum or dad, or brother or sister or partner or friend. Not sure how only one form of contribution (community work) makes someone more worthy of attending a music festival.

That wasn't my intention at all. Chuggers get paid to help charities. They contribute immensely to charities' budgets. They also expose a large number of people who do it to the resultant work of the charities. Are they a bad thing? No. Would it be better if they did it for free? Probably. This is a way that the festival linked charities could be helped for a fair reward. Maybe I'm being over sensitive on this, but I'm genuinely disappointed with some of the comments on here. I'm not saying it does make anyone more "worthy", but it would be a nice reward for those who did work in advance of the festival, maybe more hours than stewarding to help the charities concerned. For those who say you can steward, yes, you can and I found it a great experience, but it is a different expereince. Some prefer it, some dont. I really don't understand why people are so against the "tweaked" idea. Can't be arsed arguing anymore. I feel like Theresa May... 

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

1 hour ago, dotdash79 said:

Innocent drinks are full of sugar in some cases more than a can of Coke. It would probably cause loads of pre-diabetes and rot people’s teeth. 

For this campaign, nearly all the sugar would be taken out of the drinks. People would still drink it until they pissed themselves. The scenes on the streets would resemble Hogarth's Gin Street. The Let's have a party Party would win in a landslide election. 

 

Please don't think that I haven't thought this through, for at least a good minute or so.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

1 hour ago, Mr.Tease said:

 

Does this make them a good or a bad thing? 

For the purposes of this campaign the drinks will be deemed to be a good thing. This will be backed up by an official Papal Bull.

[carlosj]

On 8/12/2019 at 7:22 AM, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

Look - if anybody's going to milk the yoghurt based jokes around here, then I think it should be me.

Soya gonna ignore milk free alternatives?

 

I've already got my coat.

[Winslow Leach]

15 hours ago, Superscally said:

I feel like Theresa May... 

With all due respect, you sound like it too.

[DeanoL]

15 hours ago, Superscally said:

That wasn't my intention at all. Chuggers get paid to help charities. They contribute immensely to charities' budgets. They also expose a large number of people who do it to the resultant work of the charities. Are they a bad thing? 

Yes. No-one wants to be harassed on the street, they're a blight on society!

[DeanoL]

19 hours ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Honest question - do you have kids?  I have one and strongly relate to what @shuttlep said - anything that uses up my "spare" time I normally think of as coming out of my family's allowance of my time. I might be relaxing when I'm with them, but I'm still giving them my time.

No I don't. It was just a notion that "people with a family would be penalized" I found quite baffling. Generally, having a family is a choice people make, they do it because they want to, and it's a positive in their lives.They would already consider themselves better off than they would be if they did not have a family. Presumably there's no-one here that has a family that would have chosen not to have one if it made getting Glastonbury tickets easier, right? Which is why it struck me as odd. Everyone's time is precious - but it's like me saying "oh I wouldn't like this system, I own loads of board games, and time spent volunteering would mean I would be spending less time playing board games". It's ridiculous, because clearly that's something I want to do and enjoy.

The original post was basically acting like family was some horrendous obligation that they would be penalised for having.  

[guypjfreak]

My wife would be front of the queue.. She's volunteered to look after me and has been for 34 years lol 

[fred quimby]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

They would already consider themselves better off than they would be if they did not have a family.

mmmm, haven't met my kids then in the fully blown teenage years

[strummer77]

17 hours ago, Superscally said:

That wasn't my intention at all. Chuggers get paid to help charities. They contribute immensely to charities' budgets. They also expose a large number of people who do it to the resultant work of the charities. Are they a bad thing? No. Would it be better if they did it for free? Probably. This is a way that the festival linked charities could be helped for a fair reward. Maybe I'm being over sensitive on this, but I'm genuinely disappointed with some of the comments on here. I'm not saying it does make anyone more "worthy", but it would be a nice reward for those who did work in advance of the festival, maybe more hours than stewarding to help the charities concerned. 

See you seem to be taking this personally, when you shoudln't be. It was a well intentioned idea but people's criticisms of the initial post were valid so I think it's a bit odd to say you're 'genuinely disappointed' as if we're letting people down.

You have tried to say it wasn't competitive (although the first post clearly suggests it is), that it would definitely be useful to organisations (as some of us in this field have pointed out, its not that simple) and many have pointed out it would cost huge amounts to administer and regulate on the scale initially suggested (probably more money than the volunteer time is worth).

We're not against volunteering in the community at all, we're just pointing out its a flawed metric as to who gets to go to Glastonbury

Edited August 13, 2019 by strummer77