Do you think Glastonbury 2021 will go ahead? 2.0

[Copperface]

12 hours ago, eFestivals said:

That can be read in all sorts of ways, but there's still the line in the sand of the expiry of the current covid law at the end of March. While it might get renewed in some ways I also think it's very very likely to get watered down in some manner.

Just to highlight that the bulk of the powers, including the Health Protection Regs Coronavirus 2020 which I think you are referring to, flow from the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. 

Most Health Protection Regs can be issued by SI in urgent circumstances but do need reratification etc by Parliament.

The main use of the Regs is to change the way public services and bodies operate to streamline procedures.

However, a lot of the powers are already present within PHCDA 84 and there is quite a lot of overlap between the two. The HPA regs have been changed a few times to cover specific circumstances, in a lot of cases dealing with stuff that is somewhat technical and administrative (how to deal with corpses, powers to return people to hospital, border control and quarantine powers etc) and don't really affect normal life for most of us. In fact most of the specific powers are actually already in existence spread around various other acts, but the Regs just bring a lot of them together specifically under the banner of Covid19 and they are duplicated. The Act was actually formulated to simplify matters and reduce bureaucracy and increase flexibility in a variety of areas (at a cost to democracy and transparency? - probably)

But the main point is that the power to issue Covid regs by SI from a minister is not going away as it is an integral part of the PHCDA, and the majority of powers which affect daily life for most of us stem from the latter, not the regs.

The provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 actually last for two years, so do not expire as such in March, although MPs have to vote on the continuance of the Act every six months and it is this six month vote which coincides with a debate in March as it marks a year since implementation.

The key for festivals is that the powers to limit gatherings and events do not need to be put before Parliament. The relevant minister can simply make a direction.

While some of the powers for that derive from the Regs, any vote will be on maintaining the Act, not the Statutory Instruments that come from it.

I can't see MPs voting down the Act in March because much of it does not deal in particulars, and the main powers in confers will remain essential to public services for a long time yet.

 

[Tartan_Glasto]

Too early to tell at this stage. However, and even though I don’t have a ticket I wouldn’t want this to be the case, I don’t see them rolling over tickets for a second year. 

[sisco]

1 hour ago, jannybruck said:

Unlike most other European festivals that use either existing sites and infrastructure or fairly consistent builds in terms of staging and production and hospitality, Glastonbury just has so many moving parts to it. I feel like one of the main things that's unfortunate in Glastonbury's case is just the sheer size and scale of it. It's so massive.

I think, for example, All Points East or Primavera or Mad Cool have a much easier time of decision making in terms of things going ahead than something like Glastonbury.

I still have faith in some combination of vaccine, rapid testing, hygeine measures etc enabling it to go ahead, but I think a lot of other festivals will have an easier time making it happen.

I’ve said for a while that IMO outdoor day events will have started by May/June with temperature checks etc... but will be closer to the time decisions.  Sadly like you’ve mentioned Glastonbury will need a decision earlier than that to run.  Still can’t see the local council being happy for 200k people appearing in their little town either. 
 

Praying I’m wrong 

[Leyrulion]

4 hours ago, Copperface said:

Just to highlight that the bulk of the powers, including the Health Protection Regs Coronavirus 2020 which I think you are referring to, flow from the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. 

Most Health Protection Regs can be issued by SI in urgent circumstances but do need reratification etc by Parliament.

The main use of the Regs is to change the way public services and bodies operate to streamline procedures.

However, a lot of the powers are already present within PHCDA 84 and there is quite a lot of overlap between the two. The HPA regs have been changed a few times to cover specific circumstances, in a lot of cases dealing with stuff that is somewhat technical and administrative (how to deal with corpses, powers to return people to hospital, border control and quarantine powers etc) and don't really affect normal life for most of us. In fact most of the specific powers are actually already in existence spread around various other acts, but the Regs just bring a lot of them together specifically under the banner of Covid19 and they are duplicated. The Act was actually formulated to simplify matters and reduce bureaucracy and increase flexibility in a variety of areas (at a cost to democracy and transparency? - probably)

But the main point is that the power to issue Covid regs by SI from a minister is not going away as it is an integral part of the PHCDA, and the majority of powers which affect daily life for most of us stem from the latter, not the regs.

The provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 actually last for two years, so do not expire as such in March, although MPs have to vote on the continuance of the Act every six months and it is this six month vote which coincides with a debate in March as it marks a year since implementation.

The key for festivals is that the powers to limit gatherings and events do not need to be put before Parliament. The relevant minister can simply make a direction.

While some of the powers for that derive from the Regs, any vote will be on maintaining the Act, not the Statutory Instruments that come from it.

I can't see MPs voting down the Act in March because much of it does not deal in particulars, and the main powers in confers will remain essential to public services for a long time yet.

 

You are of course absolutely technically correct. Politically though right now that March renewal of the Coronavirus Act feels like it could be a significant moment where pressure to make change comes to bear. 

You already saw the 42 conservatives rebelled against the 10pm curfew, with opposition support that number is scarily close to the government facing defeat. 

Indeed because most of the day to day restriction isn't actually covered by the act MPs could feel emboldened not to renew it. 

A week is a long time in politics and five months right now might as well be a lifetime!

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, Copperface said:

The key for festivals is that the powers to limit gatherings and events do not need to be put before Parliament. The relevant minister can simply make a direction.

that's been 'devolved' to local authorities (it's for them to make the decision on whether any individual event can go ahead). It's specifically stated in one of the guidance docs I read.

So it doesn't look like there'll be a blanket ban on festivals by govt - although something like the current 'rule of six' does have that effect in reality.

[eFestivals]

5 hours ago, Leyrulion said:

You are of course absolutely technically correct. Politically though right now that March renewal of the Coronavirus Act feels like it could be a significant moment where pressure to make change comes to bear. 

You already saw the 42 conservatives rebelled against the 10pm curfew, with opposition support that number is scarily close to the government facing defeat. 

Indeed because most of the day to day restriction isn't actually covered by the act MPs could feel emboldened not to renew it. 

A week is a long time in politics and five months right now might as well be a lifetime!

yep, that's pretty much my view. 

And I think it's going to be a game-changing point in how the country approaches dealing with the virus - because if there's no 'special' laws needed for control, the default becomes "everything can go ahead" unless the local authority can give stand-up-in-court reasons for why any specific event can't go ahead.

Today it'd be easy to make that case but we're dealing with the mongol hordes, which comes in waves. The spring should look different and the summer gives a very different scenario. If bars are not being closed then it gets difficult to make a public health case that a less risky scenario can't go ahead.

Edited October 15, 2020 by eFestivals

[Lycra]

The polling on this thread seems to reflect a general negativity for 2021 which is observed on other forums/FB.  Some who claim association with Pilton & neighbouring farms are particularly negative.

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, Lycra said:

The polling on this thread seems to reflect a general negativity for 2021 which is observed on other forums/FB.  Some who claim association with Pilton & neighbouring farms are particularly negative.

local infections for local people.  

[Copperface]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

that's been 'devolved' to local authorities (it's for them to make the decision on whether any individual event can go ahead). It's specifically stated in one of the guidance docs I read.

So it doesn't look like there'll be a blanket ban on festivals by govt - although something like the current 'rule of six' does have that effect in reality.

Local Authorities do have that power and that is designed to be used locally for specific events. However, it's not devolved completely. The Sec of State also has the power to control/limit/ban events and gatherings on a wider scale.

So the local authority could designate Glastonbury as a threat to public health and ban it. But as you said in March when I raised this, it's unlikely they would do this 

and then followed by this

Unlikely that one single event would be restricted (although specific events can be dictated), more likely that it would be part of a national or regional package of restrictions which would come from the SoS as a directive in relation to types and sizes of events/gatherings.

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Copperface

[Redwinevino]

On 10/14/2020 at 7:02 AM, eFestivals said:

one of the Oxford vaccine bods reckons normality by July at earliest.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8836891/Vaccine-expert-warns-facemasks-social-distancing-needed-summer.html

Tho Glastonbury doesn't need normality, it's an outdoor event and therefore intrinsically safer.

Ultimately, it's about what measures the govt is able &/or wants to have in place, and those are going to change when the current law expires at the end of March.

Glastonbury needs normality more than most surely, with things like hugging strangers, people sharing joints/balloons at stone circle, sharing drinks etc etc

[eFestivals]

38 minutes ago, Copperface said:

Local Authorities do have that power and that is designed to be used locally for specific events. However, it's not devolved completely. The Sec of State also has the power to control/limit/ban events and gatherings on a wider scale.

I accept that, but the guidance pretty much makes clear he's not going to and that decision is to be a local one.

40 minutes ago, Copperface said:

So the local authority could designate Glastonbury as a threat to public health and ban it. But as you said in March when I raised this, it's unlikely they would do this 

the situation has changed from a year ago, with guidance being given mid-summer for how it works from then on.

[squirrelarmy]

29 minutes ago, Redwinevino said:

Glastonbury needs normality more than most surely, with things like hugging strangers, people sharing joints/balloons at stone circle, sharing drinks etc etc

Glastonbury will be going ahead as normal. It won’t work if there’s any restrictions. 
 

What may happen is that they treat the festival as a holiday destination and you’ll be advised to isolate on your return and you attend at your own risk just as if you were going to Blackpool, Italy or any other potential covid hotspot.
 

What the festival should do is give existing ticket holders the option to defer their tickets to 2022. For those not willing to take the risk in 2021 or unable to due to other reasons such as exams being moved they should be allowed to retain their ticket for the next year.

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

What the festival should do is give existing ticket holders the option to defer their tickets to 2022. For those not willing to take the risk in 2021 or unable to due to other reasons such as exams being moved they should be allowed to retain their ticket for the next year.

that's a great idea.

[squirrelarmy]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's a great idea.

Let Emily know 😉

They should also ask people to make the choice whether to defer or not before the announcement of the line up. This will stop people deferring just because Foals and 1975 are headlining. 

[Crazyfool01]

5 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

Let Emily know 😉

They should also ask people to make the choice whether to defer or not before the announcement of the line up. This will stop people deferring just because Foals and 1975 are headlining. 

she's the one downvoting us  

[swede]

13 hours ago, stuie said:

Think it’s that same guy. 

I had it years ago, one guy downvoted every post I made until I was -80, the things retards do for fun !!

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, swede said:

I had it years ago, one guy downvoted every post I made until I was -80, the things retards do for fun !!

its the price of having an opinion, some are always going to disagree.

And as opinion here is mostly in the same sort of ballpark, if they disagree they're likely to disagree with many posts.

Edited October 15, 2020 by eFestivals

[parsonjack]

42 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

What the festival should do is give existing ticket holders the option to defer their tickets to 2022. For those not willing to take the risk in 2021 or unable to due to other reasons such as exams being moved they should be allowed to retain their ticket for the next year.

Good shout.  They could tie it in with forfeiting your £50 deposit to do so, with that money going to supporting causes that lost out through this years cancellation.

[zahidf]

Oliver Dowden mentioned at the DCMS Select Committee that he's aiming for end of March or early April timeline for theatres to go back to full capacity but is reluctant to give a firm date because of what's going on at the moment.

[Copperface]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I accept that, but the guidance pretty much makes clear he's not going to and that decision is to be a local one.

the situation has changed from a year ago, with guidance being given mid-summer for how it works from then on.

The guidance hasn't changed from what I can see, merely an update to the Regs in July where none of this applies.

I think we'd agree that Glastonbury could be regarded as an event (or setting) of national importance, what with national TV coverage and movements of large numbers of people from many areas.

As such the LA cannot unilaterally take action - they have to work in conjunction with T&T and the relevant Govt minister. 

"They should not be applied to settings of national importance without prior consultation with the setting owner and the NHS Test and Trace Regional Support and Assurance team, who will work with the relevant government department to determine the best course of action.

Ministers have similar powers to take action against specific premises, places and events, as well as a power to direct UTLAs to act and to consider whether a local authority direction is unnecessary and should be revoked (including in response to representations from those affected by it). Detail on the legal powers with effect from 18 July is set out in annex 2.

To address more serious and wider-spread cases, ministers will be able to use their existing powers (under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984) to implement more substantial restrictions (regulations would be produced – and approved by Parliament – on a case-by-case basis) which could include:

closing businesses and venues in whole sectors (such as food production or non-essential retail), or within a defined geographical areas (such as towns or counties)

imposing general restrictions on movement of people (including requirements to ‘stay at home’, or to prevent people staying away from home overnight stays, or restrictions on entering or leaving a defined area)

imposing restrictions on gatherings – limiting how many people can meet and whether they can travel in and out of an area to do so

restricting local or national transport systems – closing them entirely, or introducing capacity limits or geographical restrictions

mandating use of face coverings in a wider range of public places"

 

Any decision to restrict Glastonbury would have national effects and be classed as a setting of national importance and as much as the LA might want to either restrict, or keep it open, I can't see the decision being theirs.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Copperface

[squirrelarmy]

Just now, Copperface said:

I think we'd agree that Glastonbury could be regarded as an event (or setting) of national importance, what with national TV coverage and movements of large numbers of people from many areas

I know I’m sounding like a broken record but Cheltenham Festival would also fall under the same category. 
 

Regulations for that festival to go ahead will be in place before the build starts for Glastonbury. 

[Copperface]

1 minute ago, squirrelarmy said:

I know I’m sounding like a broken record but Cheltenham Festival would also fall under the same category. 
 

Regulations for that festival to go ahead will be in place before the build starts for Glastonbury. 

Yep. Fully agree, especially with the large travelling Irish contingent to consider.

[thewayiam]

14 hours ago, crazyfool1 said:

next time anyone questions why you get downvoted to this level I will refer them to this post !!!

And there was me thinking people could take a bit of tongue in cheek. 

[philipsteak]

On 10/13/2020 at 4:01 PM, squirrelarmy said:

 

If The Nal says no then in that case it’s guaranteed to be on. 

With perfect weather

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, thewayiam said:

And there was me thinking people could take a bit of tongue in cheek. 

It’s tough to see that sometimes with text ...