BBC4 always seems to have the best music at this festival meanwhile all BBC3 do is mess around and play autotuned music. Haven't seen BBC2 as that hasn't started. Red Button is okay.
Oh come off it! Glastonbury is part-owned by Clear Channel Communications, an enormous, American, mass media company.
Greenpeace is about pushing leftist politics. I also dislike the way they harass fishermen and oil companies. Their 'activists' also physically damage property. Greenpeace is a HIGHLY controversial organisation. Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Greenpeace
Oxfam had uncomfortably close links to New Labour and is a political body, which has in recent years campaigned for a financial transactions tax. Oxfam said former CEO Lady Stocking was due to paid £119,560 in 2012/13 - which means that her pay increased by 19 per cent from £100,008 in 2009/10.
Glastonbury is as politicised and as corporate as any other festival, if not more so. Big business makes money from it.
As for the person who challenged me on climate change, believe me, there is HUGE debate within the scientific community as to whether mankind is to blame. You just have to look beyond the propaganda that the EU and its allies at the BBC feeds you. It's worth remembering that until very recently, the BBC Trust was chaired by Lord Patten, who receives a pension of £100,000 from the EU, which is removable if he criticises the EU in any way.
This is not a festival or a group of causes the BBC should be giving three days of free publicity to.
What Lord Pattern the ex Tory? It is a music festival and the BBC is not giving free publicity to anything other than the music. Oh and I would still like to know how water aid is a leftist organisation? Unless you think that anyone who raises money for good causes is a leftist?
What Lord Pattern the ex Tory? It is a music festival and the BBC is not giving free publicity to anything other than the music. Oh and I would still like to know how water aid is a leftist organisation? Unless you think that anyone who raises money for good causes is a leftist?
Erm, yes, he was (and might still be, I'm not sure) a member of the Conservative Party. What does that prove? It was a Tory, Edward Heath who took us into the EEC, it was a Tory, John Major, who signed us up to the Maastricht Treaty without a referendum. Patten and Heath wouldn't be out of place in the modern Labour Party. Neither hold views that would be out of place in a Blair Cabinet. They're leftist europhiles.
Has anybody bothered to ask whether it's ethical that the BBC is giving so much promotion to an event that is so closely linked to left wing political causes and illegal drug use?
I'm sure a few utterly tedious right-wing anti-BBC types have, yes.
Erm, yes, he was (and might still be, I'm not sure) a member of the Conservative Party. What does that prove? It was a Tory, Edward Heath who took us into the EEC, it was a Tory, John Major, who signed us up to the Maastricht Treaty without a referendum. Patten and Heath wouldn't be out of place in the modern Labour Party. Neither hold views that would be out of place in a Blair Cabinet. They're leftist europhiles.
Leftist? If you think Major and Patten are leftist you must be right of the tea party?
Leftist? If you think Major and Patten are leftist you must be right of the tea party?
Now you tell me three ideological differences Chris Patten would have that would prevent him from serving in a Blairite Cabinet.
You ask about my values, they are: National sovereignty, a low-tax economy, the traditional family, law and order, and proper education. Me and Lord Patten are far apart.
Now you tell me three ideological differences Chris Patten would have that would prevent him from serving in a Blairite Cabinet.
You ask about my values, they are: National sovereignty, a low-tax economy, the traditional family, law and order, and proper education. Me and Lord Patten are far apart.
Traditional family? What the hell is traditional family? And what is proper education? And what the hell does any of it have to do with the BBC's coverage of a music festival? Oh and you do realise that Blair was not left wing?
Irrespective of whether people think the presenters are inane or not, show me one other channel that broadcasts anywhere near as much live music as the BBC.
Traditional family? What the hell is traditional family? And what is proper education? And what the hell does any of it have to do with the BBC's coverage of a music festival? Oh and you do realise that Blair was not left wing?
You brought the discussion across to Patten. We're going off-topic, I know. The traditional family means a husband and wife, a man and a woman, usually with or planning to have children. Proper education means grammar schools, selection, rigorous teaching of English and maths, proper history, and training opportunities as tradespeople for those who are not academically-minded.
Conventional wisdom about Anthony Blair is entirely wrong. Blair himself was a self-obsessed weirdo with very little interest in the nitty gritty of politics. The New Labour project was very left wing indeed, with its policies on redistribution, constitutional change, continued assaults on traditional family life, surrendering to terrorists in Ulster, continued support for comprehensive education, expanding the public sector massively, by more than one million workers, while pushing us further and further into the EU project.
Who actually cares? It's a music festival.
I don't see many protesters.
Elbow are on. Sit down and listen to them.
It's never just been a music festival.
There's been a "Left Field" tent there for 10 years, which is all about left-wing activitism and left-wing speakers, this year it's being curated by Billy Bragg, Michael Eavis has a history of activism, campaigning for CND and the miners during the strike.
It's no coincidence that the BBC covers this particular festival.
You brought the discussion across to Patten. We're going off-topic, I know. The traditional family means a husband and wife, a man and a woman, usually with or planning to have children. Proper education means grammar schools, selection, rigorous teaching of English and maths, proper history, and training opportunities as tradespeople for those who are not academically-minded.
Conventional wisdom about Anthony Blair is entirely wrong. Blair himself was a self-obsessed weirdo with very little interest in the nitty gritty of politics. The New Labour project was very left wing indeed, with its policies on redistribution, constitutional change, continued assaults on traditional family life, surrendering to terrorists in Ulster, continued support for comprehensive education, expanding the public sector massively, by more than one million workers, while pushing us further and further into the EU project.
Anyway, let's get back on topic shall we?
So in other words someone who lives in the past. No we have moved on thankfully from stupid views on traditional family. What is it got to do with you how people live their lives? There is no assault on 'so called' traditional family. There is just something called equality which is something you don't like.
There's been a "Left Field" tent there for 10 years, which is all about left-wing activitism and speakers, this year it's being curated by Billy Bragg, Michael Eavis has a history of activism, campaigning for CND and the miners during the strike.
It's no coincidence that the BBC covers this particular festival.
Oh FFS does the BBC broadcast from this left field tent? I suppose the BBC's left wing bias is why Andrew Neil presents so many political shows on the BBC?
Oh FFS does the BBC broadcast from this left field tent? I suppose the BBC's left wing bias is why Andrew Neil presents so many political shows on the BBC?
Andrew Neil and Jeremy Clarkson, the only two right-wing people at the BBC, that proves the BBC is not left-wing then.
This whole BBC, Labour Party, the Unions, Greenpeace, CND, Oxfam, The Guardian etc left-wing mafia is very much real, it's the same people, they move from one to the other, they leave the Labour Party, and go and work for Oxfam or the BBC.
So in other words someone who lives in the past. No we have moved on thankfully from stupid views on traditional family. What is it got to do with you how people live their lives? There is no assault on 'so called' traditional family. There is just something called equality which is something you don't like.
A married couple bringing up children is a 'stupid view' in your book is it? I call it the backbone of a civilised society myself, and is the basis of most societies in most mainstream civilisations around the world, over many centuries.
It's no coincidence that the BBC covers this particular festival.
So it's nothing to do with it being one of the largest music festivals in the world, and an iconic piece of British culture then? You learn something new every day!
So it's nothing to do with it being one of the largest music festivals in the world, and an iconic piece of British culture then? You learn something new every day!
I've been catching up with Friday's Daily Politics. There was a very good feature on there about just how political an organisation Oxfam is nowadays. Its recent campaign poster could easily have been mistaken for a Labour poster.
'Glastonbury's an 'iconic piece of British culture'? Most people I know couldn't care less about it. It's of interest to a narrow segment of society - mostly middle-class, fairly well-off types who consider themselves 'free thinkers' and are part of the liberal, metropolitan elite. It's of little or no interest to the rest of the population, which is why 90% of Britain won't be watching the extensive coverage the BBC gives it.
Oh come off it! Glastonbury is part-owned by Clear Channel Communications, an enormous, American, mass media company.
Greenpeace is about pushing leftist politics. I also dislike the way they harass fishermen and oil companies. Their 'activists' also physically damage property. Greenpeace is a HIGHLY controversial organisation. Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Greenpeace
Oxfam had uncomfortably close links to New Labour and is a political body, which has in recent years campaigned for a financial transactions tax. Oxfam said former CEO Lady Stocking was due to paid £119,560 in 2012/13 - which means that her pay increased by 19 per cent from £100,008 in 2009/10.
Glastonbury is as politicised and as corporate as any other festival, if not more so. Big business makes money from it.
As for the person who challenged me on climate change, believe me, there is HUGE debate within the scientific community as to whether mankind is to blame. You just have to look beyond the propaganda that the EU and its allies at the BBC feeds you. It's worth remembering that until very recently, the BBC Trust was chaired by Lord Patten, who receives a pension of £100,000 from the EU, which is removable if he criticises the EU in any way.
This is not a festival or a group of causes the BBC should be giving three days of free publicity to.
To argue that Glastonbury is corporate simply shows that you have never been.
Any connections with Clear Channel Communications are extremely tenuous. Clear Channel UK was once part of that, but since becoming Live Nation, that is a separate company not owned by CC. And they only owned a stake in Festival Republic, who Glastonbury severed ties with in 2012.
My understanding was always that those connections were really for on site security as much as anything. As far as I know the festival generates a lot of revenue for the three main charities, but I would be interested to know more about this corporate stuff.
Having attended the previous 10 festivals, I can absolutely say that the festival is barely corporate on site at all, and far less so than other festivals. All the stalls and food are non branded, often local. Its not as though McDonald's are on site. EE provide phone charging in a couple of tents, but that's about the only visible big brand, and they are providing a useful service for free.
The festival is huge - far bigger than what you see on the television away from the main stages, and as far from 'corporate' as you could possibly imagine, from the Green Fields to Shangri-La. Having been so many times, its difficult to take seriously the comments from someone who has never been trying to argue that Glastonbury is 'corporate' solely on the grounds that they've read about connections with Clear Channel.
On the subject of the politics - I would probably agree about Greenpeace to a degree, but would still think that their general ethos is valid.
As for Oxfam, I guess you could focus on a couple of imperfections rather than the enormous amount of good work they do. As for that salary, charities don't run on pixie dust unfortunately. What would a salary be in a comparable position in a non charity private company? I'm guessing several times that figure.
On climate change - as is the case with a lot of science it is just a theory, rather than absolute proven fact. But there is an overwhelming consensus that supports that theory. Any serious debate on the subject is between a small minority and an overwhelming majority.
I've been catching up with Friday's Daily Politics. There was a very good feature on there about just how political an organisation Oxfam is nowadays. Its recent campaign poster could easily have been mistaken for a Labour poster.
'Glastonbury's an 'iconic piece of British culture'? Most people I know couldn't care less about it. It's of interest to a narrow segment of society - mostly middle-class, fairly well-off types who consider themselves 'free thinkers' and are part of the liberal, metropolitan elite. It's of little or no interest to the rest of the population, which is why 90% of Britain won't be watching the extensive coverage the BBC gives it.
If 10% of the population view, I think the bbc will be very happy and well worth sending so many employees.
There's been a "Left Field" tent there for 10 years, which is all about left-wing activitism and left-wing speakers, this year it's being curated by Billy Bragg, Michael Eavis has a history of activism, campaigning for CND and the miners during the strike.
It's no coincidence that the BBC covers this particular festival.
I'm guessing the BBC cover it because its the great festival that it is, not because of the flipping LeftField tent.
In recent years the Leftfield tent has scaled down in size, and moved to a less prominent location, and is a tiny part of the festival, and certainly doesn't feature predominantly on the BBC's coverage. Its not as though its one of their live streams from the festival.
As someone else said, I don't know why charities are being labelled as 'leftist' as though its a bad thing.
I've been catching up with Friday's Daily Politics. There was a very good feature on there about just how political an organisation Oxfam is nowadays. Its recent campaign poster could easily have been mistaken for a Labour poster.
So despite the BBC's apparent leftie politics, you watch the Daily Politics? And despite these lefties leanings, there they were running a feature along similar lines to what you were just saying. Gotta love the irony there.
I think big charities having to be more political these days is probably just a necessary evil, rather than anything particularly sinister or ominous though.
Maybe you could expand on why its a bad thing, and how their causes suffer as a result? As an argument it doesn't seem much better than why don't people who work for charities donate all their salary to the charity?
None of which is to say there aren't downsides or negatives, I'm just not convinced by the reduction of the argument to Oxfam are more political therefore is an unequivocally bad thing.
'Glastonbury's an 'iconic piece of British culture'? Most people I know couldn't care less about it. It's of interest to a narrow segment of society - mostly middle-class, fairly well-off types who consider themselves 'free thinkers' and are part of the liberal, metropolitan elite. It's of little or no interest to the rest of the population, which is why 90% of Britain won't be watching the extensive coverage the BBC gives it.
What about something like The Proms? I'd say that was also an iconic piece of British culture.
Are you confusing iconic culture with massively populist?
Again, having actually been several times, I can say that there are sorts there. Elite my arse.
So it's nothing to do with it being one of the largest music festivals in the world, and an iconic piece of British culture then? You learn something new every day!
That's right.
Its all because of one, very small tent on a site the size of Bath.
'Glastonbury's an 'iconic piece of British culture'? Most people I know couldn't care less about it. It's of interest to a narrow segment of society - mostly middle-class, fairly well-off types who consider themselves 'free thinkers' and are part of the liberal, metropolitan elite. It's of little or no interest to the rest of the population, which is why 90% of Britain won't be watching the extensive coverage the BBC gives it.
It also became part of "the season" for the aristos but even they have now said "Glastonbury's over".
Comments
I don't see many protesters.
Elbow are on. Sit down and listen to them.
Erm, yes, he was (and might still be, I'm not sure) a member of the Conservative Party. What does that prove? It was a Tory, Edward Heath who took us into the EEC, it was a Tory, John Major, who signed us up to the Maastricht Treaty without a referendum. Patten and Heath wouldn't be out of place in the modern Labour Party. Neither hold views that would be out of place in a Blair Cabinet. They're leftist europhiles.
I'm sure a few utterly tedious right-wing anti-BBC types have, yes.
Now you tell me three ideological differences Chris Patten would have that would prevent him from serving in a Blairite Cabinet.
You ask about my values, they are: National sovereignty, a low-tax economy, the traditional family, law and order, and proper education. Me and Lord Patten are far apart.
You brought the discussion across to Patten. We're going off-topic, I know. The traditional family means a husband and wife, a man and a woman, usually with or planning to have children. Proper education means grammar schools, selection, rigorous teaching of English and maths, proper history, and training opportunities as tradespeople for those who are not academically-minded.
Conventional wisdom about Anthony Blair is entirely wrong. Blair himself was a self-obsessed weirdo with very little interest in the nitty gritty of politics. The New Labour project was very left wing indeed, with its policies on redistribution, constitutional change, continued assaults on traditional family life, surrendering to terrorists in Ulster, continued support for comprehensive education, expanding the public sector massively, by more than one million workers, while pushing us further and further into the EU project.
Anyway, let's get back on topic shall we?
It's never just been a music festival.
There's been a "Left Field" tent there for 10 years, which is all about left-wing activitism and left-wing speakers, this year it's being curated by Billy Bragg, Michael Eavis has a history of activism, campaigning for CND and the miners during the strike.
It's no coincidence that the BBC covers this particular festival.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUpS2exRwm4
Andrew Neil and Jeremy Clarkson, the only two right-wing people at the BBC, that proves the BBC is not left-wing then.
This whole BBC, Labour Party, the Unions, Greenpeace, CND, Oxfam, The Guardian etc left-wing mafia is very much real, it's the same people, they move from one to the other, they leave the Labour Party, and go and work for Oxfam or the BBC.
A married couple bringing up children is a 'stupid view' in your book is it? I call it the backbone of a civilised society myself, and is the basis of most societies in most mainstream civilisations around the world, over many centuries.
So it's nothing to do with it being one of the largest music festivals in the world, and an iconic piece of British culture then? You learn something new every day!
I've been catching up with Friday's Daily Politics. There was a very good feature on there about just how political an organisation Oxfam is nowadays. Its recent campaign poster could easily have been mistaken for a Labour poster.
'Glastonbury's an 'iconic piece of British culture'? Most people I know couldn't care less about it. It's of interest to a narrow segment of society - mostly middle-class, fairly well-off types who consider themselves 'free thinkers' and are part of the liberal, metropolitan elite. It's of little or no interest to the rest of the population, which is why 90% of Britain won't be watching the extensive coverage the BBC gives it.
Oh, there's plenty more than that, but nice conspiracy.....
To argue that Glastonbury is corporate simply shows that you have never been.
Any connections with Clear Channel Communications are extremely tenuous. Clear Channel UK was once part of that, but since becoming Live Nation, that is a separate company not owned by CC. And they only owned a stake in Festival Republic, who Glastonbury severed ties with in 2012.
My understanding was always that those connections were really for on site security as much as anything. As far as I know the festival generates a lot of revenue for the three main charities, but I would be interested to know more about this corporate stuff.
Having attended the previous 10 festivals, I can absolutely say that the festival is barely corporate on site at all, and far less so than other festivals. All the stalls and food are non branded, often local. Its not as though McDonald's are on site. EE provide phone charging in a couple of tents, but that's about the only visible big brand, and they are providing a useful service for free.
The festival is huge - far bigger than what you see on the television away from the main stages, and as far from 'corporate' as you could possibly imagine, from the Green Fields to Shangri-La. Having been so many times, its difficult to take seriously the comments from someone who has never been trying to argue that Glastonbury is 'corporate' solely on the grounds that they've read about connections with Clear Channel.
On the subject of the politics - I would probably agree about Greenpeace to a degree, but would still think that their general ethos is valid.
As for Oxfam, I guess you could focus on a couple of imperfections rather than the enormous amount of good work they do. As for that salary, charities don't run on pixie dust unfortunately. What would a salary be in a comparable position in a non charity private company? I'm guessing several times that figure.
On climate change - as is the case with a lot of science it is just a theory, rather than absolute proven fact. But there is an overwhelming consensus that supports that theory. Any serious debate on the subject is between a small minority and an overwhelming majority.
If 10% of the population view, I think the bbc will be very happy and well worth sending so many employees.
I'm guessing the BBC cover it because its the great festival that it is, not because of the flipping LeftField tent.
In recent years the Leftfield tent has scaled down in size, and moved to a less prominent location, and is a tiny part of the festival, and certainly doesn't feature predominantly on the BBC's coverage. Its not as though its one of their live streams from the festival.
As someone else said, I don't know why charities are being labelled as 'leftist' as though its a bad thing.
So despite the BBC's apparent leftie politics, you watch the Daily Politics? And despite these lefties leanings, there they were running a feature along similar lines to what you were just saying. Gotta love the irony there.
I think big charities having to be more political these days is probably just a necessary evil, rather than anything particularly sinister or ominous though.
Maybe you could expand on why its a bad thing, and how their causes suffer as a result? As an argument it doesn't seem much better than why don't people who work for charities donate all their salary to the charity?
None of which is to say there aren't downsides or negatives, I'm just not convinced by the reduction of the argument to Oxfam are more political therefore is an unequivocally bad thing.
What about something like The Proms? I'd say that was also an iconic piece of British culture.
Are you confusing iconic culture with massively populist?
Again, having actually been several times, I can say that there are sorts there. Elite my arse.
That's right.
Its all because of one, very small tent on a site the size of Bath.
That then receives virtually no tv coverage.
Who knew?
It also became part of "the season" for the aristos but even they have now said "Glastonbury's over".