Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Sneaking in story


waynewdk

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Security need more manpower would be my call … there were some obvious places that didn’t have any where previously they would have done . 

 

Security used to do a site sweep on the Wednesday to remove anyone without legit wristbands.

Not sure when or why that stopped.

There did seem to be less security this year. The "back entrance" to the SE corner, which avoids the one-way system was left unguarded this year. Thankfully very few seem to know of it, and I ain't telling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gnomicide said:

Ooo.... How were RATM?

Ahh, yes they were v good…was odd with ZDLR sat on a box though!

played all the hits and some were on stage for about 1 1/2 hrs didn’t say anything to the crowd though! Started with Bombtrack which got everyone going!

I paid $145 for a seat in the front row 😳.  Standing was about $300!  A pint of Heineken was $17.50! 

on a side note there are a lot of crack heads around MSG/Penn station!

0E3E37E6-4FF3-47A4-AAD3-A7C494C8FDBF.jpeg

0D08CC53-BE3E-4490-9FDB-793086E0849F.jpeg

661BE735-CC50-49AD-B704-6C87ACFBB81B.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, parsonjack said:

Yup that's the Cockmill Lane ford seen from south side to my earlier photo.  Im guessing this might be the tree stump...?

 

Screenshot_20220817-170624.png

I think that’s what I presumed and it wasn’t so I had to climb back onto the road again and go a bit further 

69B6ECA5-9FBE-415D-BF51-8CC0B410E20A.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gooner1990 said:

Why are people filming themselves breaking in and then putting it online?, surely this renders the method useless in future if the organisers see the video?

My thoughts exactly.

It's definitely legit but there's gonna be a lot of angry Liverpudlians now, because that Scouse tunnel will be no more when the festival get their hands on that footage

Edited by mufcok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mufcok said:

My thoughts exactly.

It's definitely legit but there's gonna be a lot of angry Liverpudlians now, because that Scouse tunnel will be no more when the festival get their hands on that footage

Cash free wristbands coming soon. Harder to sneak in if you can't buy anything on site. 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

That could kill it for me, although I buy very little on site anyway.

It's what everyone said before BoomTown and I am now a huge convert to it.  

If crowd management into site is getting harder then they might have to think about more ways of making it harder/less inviting to sneak in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leyrulion said:

It's what everyone said before BoomTown and I am now a huge convert to it.  

If crowd management into site is getting harder then they might have to think about more ways of making it harder/less inviting to sneak in. 

Here's Shambala festival organisers view on RFID, which I believe is what was used at Boomtown:

Quote

we are uncomfortable with the ethics and some elements of implementation of current RFID schemes available and are not going RFID cashless at this year’s Shambala.

Shambala are, to the best of my knowledge, the most forward thinking and ethical festival in the UK, if they don't like RFID then it's likely to be dodgy in some way. Although they do have their own cashless scheme:
 

Quote

 

At Shambala 2022 all our festival bars, food traders, merchandise points, our public info point and the tobacco kiosk, will accept contactless card payments (including chip and pin processing and mobile phone activated payments such as Apple pay). 

Our bars, merchandise points, the tobacco kiosk and the public info point will not accept cash. In order to spend cash at these locations you will need to visit the Kiosk (next to Public Info) to exchange and load your cash onto Cash To Card.

Cash to Card can be used at;

Festival Bars (excluding some micro-bars)

Public Info (full merchandise range available here)

Tobacco kiosk

Any other participating vendors

Cash to Card is a biodegradable wallet sized card with a unique (and anonymous) QR code. This can then be used to pay for goods at any of the above locations.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

That video has made it to a news story in The Mirror, no doubt it will soon be picked up by others now.

That route in may as well be written off now.

Tbh I think the festival might be a little pleased that this is the one that went viral, it still makes it looks impossibly hard to get in and is an easy fix for next year. 

It's the guy that looks to have just walked past Oxfam stewards at a busy period a few pages back that I'd be worried about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Leyrulion said:

Tbh I think the festival might be a little pleased that this is the one that went viral, it still makes it looks impossibly hard to get in and is an easy fix for next year. 

It's the guy that looks to have just walked past Oxfam stewards at a busy period a few pages back that I'd be worried about.

Fair point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Leyrulion said:

Cash free wristbands coming soon. Harder to sneak in if you can't buy anything on site. 🤣

Not a chance. Not even close to a chance. Even ignoring the unpleasant ethics of it, just imagine the sheer logistics involved with trying to do that at Glastonbury. Specifically, consider all of the different virtually self governing enclaves that'd have to be brought onside and coordinate their traders - for example places in the Craft and Healing Fields amongst others are invited in by the respective area organisers rather than being centrally managed. Getting anything close to universal takeup would be an extra unnecessary strain on both GFL and the various areas, and the amount of internal harmony/goodwill it'd cost just wouldn't be worth it.

Actually let's not ignore the unpleasant ethics. The primary reason you see unethical Festivals introducing schemes like this is simple - it's so that they can track you and your money. They can collate all the data and see exactly what someone bought, and where, and when, and can identify patterns - which they can then use to work out how to squeeze more cash out of both punters and traders in future years. How many people at Glastonbury will accept their entire financial activity being tracked across a Festival weekend?

I just can't see Glastonbury introducing something so obviously surveillant, even if that's just because they'd want to avoid the inevitable shitstorm that'd follow - which obviously would be several multiples louder than the one at Boomtown because the media will jump on anything vaguely Glastonbury related while largely ignoring Boomtown most of the time. GFL probably will put QR Codes or RFID chips on the wristbands sooner or later - but realistically it'll only be used for access control at the gates rather than anything more nefarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2022 at 1:20 PM, kingbadger said:

Dick the bookie from the barside at Layer Road, Colchester U's old ground, is a notorious blagger. Genuinely is a case of seeing him pop up at sporting events he just blags into. Been in the ring after a Mayweather fight, celebrating Hamilton winning a F1 race, led back a Cheltenham Gold Cup winner. Bloke blagged his way into Leonardo Di Caprio's birthday or something when he was out in Vegas. Legend. 

If its the same bloke I'm thinking off he was leading in cameron Smith an few weeks ago after he won the open golf. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These guys are a bit like anti-hack security specialists. Find the flaws, share them, help GL fix (some) issues.

"OK what do we have:

- Hey someone fit through the tunnel gate, note for next year, make sure those fences are tight

- Noted boss"

I do hope the Oxfam folks from the previous vid don't get in too much trouble though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, incident said:

Actually let's not ignore the unpleasant ethics. The primary reason you see unethical Festivals introducing schemes like this is simple - it's so that they can track you and your money. They can collate all the data and see exactly what someone bought, and where, and when, and can identify patterns - which they can then use to work out how to squeeze more cash out of both punters and traders in future years. How many people at Glastonbury will accept their entire financial activity being tracked across a Festival weekend?

Or y'know, they could use it to make a better festival all around. The Growler was always a popular market stall but they dumped it as it didn't fit with what they wanted the food offering to be. Pieminister were very popular but were dropped because they got too big. I don't think the approach to the markets at Glastonbury has ever been driven purely by profit.

So assuming having loads of data on exact what people are buying would lead to them working out how to squeeze the most cash out of folks as possible doesn't seem right to me. Given that that doesn't seem to be how the markets operate right now. Collating the data is not inherently ethically bad. And I'm pretty sure they already do collate data from traders on sales, etc. It's how you use it. Yes, in most cases it's used for "evil" but since when have Glastonbury been "most cases"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DeanoL said:

Or y'know, they could use it to make a better festival all around. The Growler was always a popular market stall but they dumped it as it didn't fit with what they wanted the food offering to be. Pieminister were very popular but were dropped because they got too big. I don't think the approach to the markets at Glastonbury has ever been driven purely by profit.

So assuming having loads of data on exact what people are buying would lead to them working out how to squeeze the most cash out of folks as possible doesn't seem right to me. Given that that doesn't seem to be how the markets operate right now. Collating the data is not inherently ethically bad. And I'm pretty sure they already do collate data from traders on sales, etc. It's how you use it. Yes, in most cases it's used for "evil" but since when have Glastonbury been "most cases"?

Hold on a second, I think you're arguing against a point I didn't make. I'm literally saying Glastonbury won't do that. They won't implement a system like this, and so they won't (mis)use the data it generates.

There is obviously a huge difference between the "broad strokes" data they currently collect (which roughly speaking will be how much the trader sold per product per day, with no individual or even demographic info attached), and being able to track the entire itemised purchase history of every individual attendee so don't see how that's relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, incident said:

Not a chance. Not even close to a chance. Even ignoring the unpleasant ethics of it, just imagine the sheer logistics involved with trying to do that at Glastonbury. Specifically, consider all of the different virtually self governing enclaves that'd have to be brought onside and coordinate their traders - for example places in the Craft and Healing Fields amongst others are invited in by the respective area organisers rather than being centrally managed. Getting anything close to universal takeup would be an extra unnecessary strain on both GFL and the various areas, and the amount of internal harmony/goodwill it'd cost just wouldn't be worth it.

Actually let's not ignore the unpleasant ethics. The primary reason you see unethical Festivals introducing schemes like this is simple - it's so that they can track you and your money. They can collate all the data and see exactly what someone bought, and where, and when, and can identify patterns - which they can then use to work out how to squeeze more cash out of both punters and traders in future years. How many people at Glastonbury will accept their entire financial activity being tracked across a Festival weekend?

I just can't see Glastonbury introducing something so obviously surveillant, even if that's just because they'd want to avoid the inevitable shitstorm that'd follow - which obviously would be several multiples louder than the one at Boomtown because the media will jump on anything vaguely Glastonbury related while largely ignoring Boomtown most of the time. GFL probably will put QR Codes or RFID chips on the wristbands sooner or later - but realistically it'll only be used for access control at the gates rather than anything more nefarious.

The ethics aren't that bad, just different. 

But we agree on the main point about RFID being used to manage access. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brendan84 said:

If its the same bloke I'm thinking off he was leading in cameron Smith an few weeks ago after he won the open golf. 

Most likely, he got spotted leading in McIlroy by someone in one of our Col U WhatsApp groups 

IMG-20220717-WA0008.thumb.jpg.3816cb5c1ee3b9cd813d1aae7d373881.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only issue with RFID payments is that at the fests I’ve used it at, there’s a charge for the first top up, and the cheeky bastards charge you for refunding anything left too… I assume this is the ‘ethical’ issue with the companies currently offering the service to fests in the UK… Not the tracking… 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, incident said:

Hold on a second, I think you're arguing against a point I didn't make. I'm literally saying Glastonbury won't do that. They won't implement a system like this, and so they won't (mis)use the data it generates.

There is obviously a huge difference between the "broad strokes" data they currently collect (which roughly speaking will be how much the trader sold per product per day, with no individual or even demographic info attached), and being able to track the entire itemised purchase history of every individual attendee so don't see how that's relevant.

I'm just saying gathering the data isn't inherently unethical. And indeed it can be used for ethical purposes. I agree your other points are reasons they won't do it, but I think if they could, they would.

For example, we know Glasto has a sort of sliding scale on costs of food market pitches: more unusual food gets cheaper spots than burger and chips places. This is to encourage a diverse selection of options and ensure caterers who can't do more than X people per hour because of the reality of what they're making, aren't priced out because they have to reach the same speed as a burger truck.

With this sort of data, they could tune that even better. They're not going to just use it to maximise profits, because Glasto could already do that with the data they have: they make more money of the burger traders, so just charge everyone that price and accept a lower quality of food. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...