Fide Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 So, as far as I can make out, all the raging Britnats (and I include Ad Lib in this, as he is one) think that Government's should not inject any money into anything like this. We should just raise ticket prices? Is that about the size of it? Or do they have their knickers in a bunch because it's the SNP? I wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I'm fairly sure that if you added £1 to the cost of every TitP ticket, it would still be a sell-out while also raising more than the £150k the SG put in. I am pretty sure that it wouldn't, TITP does not sell 150,000 tickets nor was it sold out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 So, as far as I can make out, all the raging Britnats (and I include Ad Lib in this, as he is one) think that Government's should not inject any money into anything like this. We should just raise ticket prices? Is that about the size of it? If an event is capable of being commercially-viable, then no a government shouldn't put money into it. Or do they have their knickers in a bunch because it's the SNP? I wonder. The irony being that the only reason you're getting your "knickers in a bunch" over people objecting is because it's the SNP. I am pretty sure that it wouldn't, TITP does not sell 150,000 tickets nor was it sold out. Fine, £2. If you're spending £180+ anyway then that's hardly going to put you off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 If an event is capable of being commercially-viable, then no a government shouldn't put money into it. The irony being that the only reason you're getting your "knickers in a bunch" over people objecting is because it's the SNP. It's not ironic to enjoy pulling people up when they hysterically shriek SNPbad, yet murmur not a word when a Tory Government is responsible for much worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 It's not ironic to enjoy pulling people up when they hysterically shriek SNPbad, yet murmur not a word when a Tory Government is responsible for much worse. Where have I shrieked "SNPbad"? I replied to a thread with my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Where have I shrieked "SNPbad"? I replied to a thread with my opinion. Would you be similarly up in arms if Westminster injected 150k into Glastonbury? I'm sure you'll say you would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 DF certainly made a rip roaring c**t of it by leaving Balado and serving up a truly horrible experience from a large portion of attendees and refused to take any blame for it. Get them to f**k and get someone else to organise the festival back where it belongs. They were force to leave Balado for security concerns as it sits on an oil pipeline. Why these concerned came about after so much time is strange, perhaps information about a potential attack was found by security services. Regardless they were forced to find a new site and then faced all the usual NIMBY hurdles on top of environmental studies, new orginasation procedures, layout of campsites, stages, running power and all that stuff. Most of this stuff is a one off cost. And it wasn't of their making. It seems reasonable that the government should help out to ensure that Scotland's largest music festival goes ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Would you be similarly up in arms if Westminster injected 150k into Glastonbury? I'm sure you'll say you would be. Clearly there's no answer I can now give that you'll be satisfied with. For the record, yes I would. It's up to you whether or not you're prepared to believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Well it needs to be somewhere quite close to a major road network, anyone could tell you that! I worry for the future of the festival Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Would you be similarly up in arms if Westminster injected 150k into Glastonbury? I'm sure you'll say you would be. I would if it was on a last minute request from one of David Cameron's former advisers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 They were force to leave Balado for security concerns as it sits on an oil pipeline. Why these concerned came about after so much time is strange, perhaps information about a potential attack was found by security services. Regardless they were forced to find a new site and then faced all the usual NIMBY hurdles on top of environmental studies, new orginasation procedures, layout of campsites, stages, running power and all that stuff. Most of this stuff is a one off cost. And it wasn't of their making. It seems reasonable that the government should help out to ensure that Scotland's largest music festival goes ahead. How do you work out that the one off costs "weren't of their making"? It's just ridiculous to suggest that without that grant it wouldn't or couldn't have gone ahead. Tea in the Park no more has a right to exist and to use a specific patch of land it does not own than you or I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 In some ways this thread is quite heartening. Some folk who are quite strong SNP in general have been prepared to criticise both the particulars of this situation and the generality of this relationship between corporations and Bute House. This is healthy and to be credited. Then there's Fide. Not so much SNP-Bad as SNP-pretty-please-let-me-suck-your-boaby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 In some ways this thread is quite heartening. Some folk who are quite strong SNP in general have been prepared to criticise both the particulars of this situation and the generality of this relationship between corporations and Bute House. This is healthy and to be credited. Then there's Fide. Not so much SNP-Bad as SNP-pretty-please-let-me-suck-your-boaby. I'd rather suck SNP boaby than be anywhere near the most busted of flushes. Now that WOULD be embarrassing. I'm more than prepared to have at the SNP if I feel it's required. A mere glance at the Michelle Thomson thread will confirm that. Still, by all means continue with the cheap jibes. I'd expect no more from a deposit-losing Lib Dem PPC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I'd rather suck SNP boaby than be anywhere near the most busted of flushes. Now that WOULD be embarrassing. I'm more than prepared to have at the SNP if I feel it's required. A mere glance at the Michelle Thomson thread will confirm that. Still, by all means continue with the cheap jibes. I'd expect no more from a deposit-losing Lib Dem PPC. On the Michelle Thomson thread you have said "if she's guilty she can get fucked" and "the media will shoot their load over this". Hardly the mark of someone who believes in systematic scrutiny of elected officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 How do you work out that the one off costs "weren't of their making"? It's just ridiculous to suggest that without that grant it wouldn't or couldn't have gone ahead. Tea in the Park no more has a right to exist and to use a specific patch of land it does not own than you or I do. The actions of DF concerts had nothing to do with the necessity to change sites for T in the Park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 The actions of DF concerts had nothing to do with the necessity to change sites for T in the Park. This assumes that they are inherently or presumptively entitled: 1. To exist 2. To hold their concert at a specific venue 3. To hold their concert more than once 4. To hold their concert repeatedly at the same venue Why should the state create any of these presumptions or compensate a private company on the basis of those presumptions not being held to? If DF Concerts want a permanent site, they can buy one and do the proper diligence as to its long-term suitability and take into account the possibility of the site subsequently becoming unuseable. Otherwise they can suck it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I'll say it again. The HSE concerns about the Forties pipe has been a live issue for years. In 2013 they made it clear that unless 2014 was the last event at Balado they would raise an objection with the Scottish Government about PKC granting a license. I have no issue with the state supporting the arts but not where those arts are otherwise commercially viable, and indeed make profit for corporations and their shareholders. I'm also interested to know what the process is for obtaining such a grant and uncomfortable if it is shown that a case of " who you know" gets direct access to decision makers that is not available to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 On the Michelle Thomson thread you have said "if she's guilty she can get fucked" and "the media will shoot their load over this". Hardly the mark of someone who believes in systematic scrutiny of elected officials. To be clear - If Michelle Thomson is found guilty of ANY wrongdoing, I expect her to vacate her seat, either forcibly or of her own volition and for a by-election to be held. Clear enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I will admit to never having attended either but TITP is, in terms of public financing, great value compared to National Opera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Considering the amount of trouble associated with T in the Park,... Bing drinking, assaults, attempted murders, rapes etc... I do find it ridiculous the government would think its a good idea to pay a private company to make sure hey hold this event, especially given its attitude towards football fans and alcohol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.