Thursday, March 29, 2007

In The Dock: Glastonbury

(If you're wondering what this is all about, click here.)

By a serendipitous twist of fate (and recent alterations to the schedule), this week's subject is actually topical...

This week's subject: Glastonbury

The case for the prosecution (Martin)

Right. Sleeves rolled up, lucky statue of St Jude in position, here we go.

I love Glastonbury. Whether working or just turning up I've had some great times there. I've seen landmark gigs, discovered a love of weapons-grade scrumpy and Iranian cuisine, seen theatre and comedy, been educated and bonded with strangers through the joy of music in the sun and litter picking in the mud. I've made a friendship that has lasted for over a decade. I’ve never had the same experience twice and thoroughly enjoyed every minute I've spent at the Pilton Pop Festival, knowing that I'd heard good music in the company of like-minded people and contributed to charitable causes. Glastonbury is the best ever Duke of Edinburgh expedition with a soundtrack and hallucinogens.

And now it has to stop. Forever.

In 1970 Glastonbury was attended by some 1,500 hippies who paid a pound to see T Rex. Each one was given free milk. It was a truly unique experience, a claim the organisers still make today.

In 2007 it will be attended by over 100,000 people who will pay £145 for a ticket. Some will fly to stay at Windinglake Farm for about two grand. Others will spend the weekend in Camp Kerala for three times that price, or hire a tipi for £1,620. Most will queue for cash machines provided by high street banks and enjoy the services of a mobile phone provider. You want wireless internet with that? You got it. Prefer to stay at home and watch from your living room? Have it your way.

Glastonbury is not a unique experience. It's a victim of its own success, attracting competitors and corporate interest. It's big business, and big business will feed us more of the same for as long as we'll pay for it. It's been fortunate to have Michael Eavis at the helm, and the prosecution suggests that it should be laid to rest with him. I come to bury Glastonbury Festival and praise its founding spirit.

I'm not denying that hosting a large event doesn't cost money. It makes sound business sense to be funded by commercial interests but those interests are bringing the corporate world into Glastonbury. It's the thin end of the wedge.

Neither am I denying its contribution to charity but it has no lasting effect. It raises money and awareness (as does Children In Need, and I'm not about to defend that either) but what most people apply for the rest of the year is questionable. There's an obvious ethical contradiction in giving money to environmental charities while providing a car park the size of an airport. People think differently for a weekend and relatively few change their behaviour. They buy into an ideal for a few days.

Glastonbury cannot be defended on the grounds that it is unique. Pardon my pedantry but anything can be unique if you make it. You can see a band in a club or a different field whenever you like. There are all kinds of cultural experiences on our doorsteps if we take the time to find them. They're cheaper, don't involve as much travel and they're more significant in the context of everyday life than once a year in a field. Scores of smaller gatherings all over the country benefit from not being in the same overpopulated place at the same time. It's sad that people are prepared to pay £145 or more for a pre-defined "unique" experience when they could participate in smaller events (festivals, gigs, comedy clubs, theatre, local ethical / charitable / political associations, etc) for less money, and enhance them by contributing. The activities at Glastonbury could take place anywhere. If you want a yearly fix of them all in one place why not move them to somewhere more central and accessible? It's just a place. If you lose the location everything will happen somewhere else. If you focus on the location you limit the experience.

I'm prosecuting Glastonbury to encourage the promotion of its constituent elements on a more regular basis throughout the country. I love the festival but not the corporate encroachment and the laziness it encourages. It should be laid to rest at the same time as Eavis to prevent its further decline into just another corporate music festival. Glastonbury should be an inspiration to find and create experiences much like Eavis did in 1970. They're outside our front doors every day, not in a field in Somerset once a year.

The case for the defence (Swiss Toni)

Without wishing to do my opponent here a disservice, I can hear many of the arguments against Glastonbury already: it’s too expensive, too corporate; the fence has ruined it and it’s now attended more by lawyers than by hippies; it’s safe; it’s boring; it’s all over the TV and you’d be better off watching it from your own sofa.

I’m not going to bother denying them. Some of them are true. But they could *all* be bloody true and Glastonbury would still be better by miles than most of the other festivals. Have you been to another festival recently? Have you queued up for beer tokens? Have you eaten from the brown vans selling barely cooked burgers of dubious origin? Have you been swept out of the arena by surly stewards and found yourself back at your tent by 11pm and within 10 minutes of the headline act leaving the stage? I have, and I’m telling you that even a Glastonbury Festival that might not be as good as it used to be is still streets ahead of Reading or Leeds or V or Download or almost any other festival you might care to mention. Glastonbury do things differently to other festivals.

At Glastonbury the beer tents are organised by the Workers Beer Company. Yes, it’s now sponsored by Budweiser, but the workers give their time for free and the profits go to the trade unions, charities and some left-wing campaign groups. The stewards are not hired thugs from the local community centre, they are volunteers organised by Oxfam who receive a free ticket and free food in exchange for their work. In return, the festival makes a donation to the charity. Refuse on the site is not just burned or buried, it is carefully sorted and separated for recycling. In 2004, 300 tonnes of waste was recycled and 110 tonnes composted. The site is also becoming increasingly self-sufficient with its sewage processing. Long before it became fashionable, the carbon footprint of Glastonbury has always been relatively small and it’s getting smaller every year. Hell, they even use wooden cutlery at all of the many and varied food stalls. The festival makes a profit, sure, but a good chunk of that profit goes directly to various charities: in 2002 Greenpeace received £200,000 and Oxfam and WaterAid picked up £50,000 each. The total amount of money given to various charities out of the profits that year was £1m. It’s not just about the money though, as all of those charities are given a forum during the course of the festival where their message can be heard by a captive audience of over 100,000 people. The festival might be expensive, but at least you can guarantee that a good chunk of that money is going to be distributed to some really excellent causes.

Not convinced by the ethical argument? What about the fact that Glastonbury has to be one of the only festivals where you could spend a happy three days without once setting foot in front of one of the main stages. Lost Vagueness alone could probably keep you mesmerised for the whole weekend, never mind the plethora of other smaller stages and tents. In fact, my festival highlights almost always come from something I have stumbled across and not from a band at all. My favourite ever Glastonbury moment is deciding to give the Stereophonics a miss and running instead into a ballerina performing whilst suspended underneath a hot air balloon.

You think the fence has ruined it? Did you go to the festival before they put the fence up? My first Glastonbury was in 1993 and although I had an amazing, eye-opening time, there is simply no denying that the festival was crowded with people and that I was offered hard drugs every time I walked between the two main stages. I’m not naïve enough to think that there the site is now free of hard drugs, but the festival has felt an awful lot safer since 2002 and there are still plenty of scallies trying to sell you a warm can of Stella and you can still be assured of the availability in the Green Fields of a hash truffle that will blow your head off.

Glastonbury might have changed over the years, but it’s still the best weekend of the year by miles. 2006 was empty without it and I can’t wait for June.

Good luck on Sunday everyone. I hope to see you there.

* * * * *

Thanks to Martin and Swiss Toni for their contributions. Now it's over to you. Guilty or innocent - YOU decide. The comments box is open and awaiting your comments - you've got until Good Friday to make up your mind...


Blogger Ben said...

Bloody hell. Such was the quality and cogency of Martin's argument that this Glastophile was for a while seriously considering voting for the prosecution.

But then Swiss Toni's case brought me round and reminded me why I and thousands of others will be getting up at an unholy hour on Sunday morning.

The problem with Martin's case for me - as good as it is - is that it could be interpreted as a variant of the old "things were so much better in my day when it was all fields" argument. It's a dangerous game to play, looking back with rose-tinted glasses, even if the evidence does point towards an increasing corporatisation. In suggesting that the festival should be laid to rest there's a danger of coming across as twisted old cynic- and I really don't need to give any more evidence of my mutation into a bitter old man...

As ST notes, it's still light years ahead of all the other major festivals. He mentions the issue of the arena, and that's a key one for me - you are at liberty to wander freely around the site, rather than having to surrender any food or drink upon entering an arena and thus being forced either to make frequent trips to and from the campsite for refuelling (thereby missing the action) or to pay exorbitant prices from unscrupulous traders.

At the risk of sounding instead like an ageing hippie banging on about leylines, man, there IS something special about the location. It's marvellous to have a large-scale festival in a natural and beautiful setting rather than on a purpose-built showground like Reading or in the manicured grounds of a country house - even if that does mean the drainage can be an issue...

11:51 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not guilty.

My mother was at the first Glastonbury and loved it. My first Glastonbury was after I finished my A-level exams in 1997 when Radiohead (and so so many others) played and I loved it!

I'd been to Reading for GCSE year and Phoenix for lower 6th form, but Glastonbury really was superfantastiche. It was because of the site and the attitude of the crowd - everyone appreciating how special the place was and putting usual crowd aggro on hold. Comparing that with say the O2 festival day I went to last year, wow, an event that has instead of a soul a carefully researched demographically directed marketing simulation of fun, Glastonbury is all the more important.

And where else can the young learn about trenchfoot?

5:07 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I went to every Glastonbury between '95-'04 and had some of the most fantastic 'holidays' of my life. I've got sunburned, rolled around in the mud, seen some amazing performances and had my first experiences of quite a few things, both legal and naughty.

But I really can't be bothered anymore. I don't really know why. Maybe the festival has changed for the worse or I'm just getting too old for it. Bestival has been a fine stand-in for the last couple of years, the crowd as friendly as the best Glasto-goers but without the gangs of chavs or wide-eyed Coldplay fans who don't know how to party.

My happy memories of Glastonbury are enough for me to vote Not Guilty, but I reckon it'll be a while before I go back there myself. I'll be at some random European festival this summer, it's cheaper to fly to Poland and get into a big festival than buy a single Glasto ticket. So nernerneenerner.

8:39 am  
Blogger Damo said...

Not guilty. Not guilty not guilty not guilty. Incidentally, Budweiser no longer sponsor the beer tents - I think Eavis wasn't happy with some of the ethics of Anheuser Busch - it's now, erm, Carlsberg.

I agree with the prosecution that there's other things you can find more local to you (mind you, I live 15 miles from the Glastonbury site), but that doesn't take away from the uniqueness of this event.

I also agree that it's a shame in a way about the big fence... except:

1) Every year until the fence, I had stuff nicked when I went there. EVERY year. Because if you're jumping the fence, you've got to travel light so "on-site procurement" is the order of the day...
2) I genuinely thought I was going to die in one particular crush in 2000 - the only time I've ever felt this way, however busy it has been at a festival
3) I resent people getting in for free to that event. I do. You look around - you CAN see where the money's gone. A lot of money, especially if you're not on much? Yes. But my salary has never been that huge and - like any other holiday - I saved up. And I got fed up with people actually laughing at me for buying a ticket. If you went on holiday to Spain, would you smuggle yourself into a luggage hold, then break your way into an unoccupied hotel room? Probably not. Glastonbury's the only festival where this seems to be 'acceptable'. Why not try it at one of the festivals that isn't giving something back?

Rant over. Once more, not guilty. (...and good luck to everyone on Sunday)

8:48 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems that typing with your fingers crossed doesn't always work!

I'm not denying the fact that Glasto's a good time - I've had some fantastic ones (including '97, caskared, which is a personal highlight) but I'm prosecuting its continued existence. It's not a case of things being better in my day (heck, I've got some grey hairs but it still *is* my day!) but I think it's been going downhill during my day - it's getting more like its rivals when the ideal would be the other way round. I'm not a twisted old cynic (well, I am...); I'm suggesting sustainable alternatives rather than condemning out of hand.

Regarding the location, there's no doubt that it feels special. However, it feels special because that's what people make it. The greatest power source on Worthy Farm is attached to the pylons. If you contribute you can make anything special. What I'm saying is that Glasto isn't all that.

Admittedly Glasto's miles ahead of Reading and Phoenix, but remember that that they've both come under the wing of Vince Power. That's the same Vince Power who owns about 40% (I think - not much time for Googling at work) of Glastonbury. I might be doing him a disservice, but there's a difference between a figurehead who says 'I want to do that' and one who says 'I want some of that.'

Regarding crowd attitude, it can be fantastic when thousands of people are singing along to the same chorus, but I've honestly found the Glasto crowd to be as bad if not worse than everywhere else; the fence-jumpers of years ago (when things definitely weren't better), tent-robbers, muggers and queue jumpers. It's still all me, me, me. That's not unique. I've had stuff nicked, seen someone defending their stuff hit in the face with a brick, and realised that the best place to get in used to be the Green Party workers camping area (please, let me clean up your crap at 5am after a sleepless night having my tent walked over). Feel free to hail Michael Eavis if you like, but entirely disregard his Methodist attitude that to get things done you have to work hard for them. It's entirely hypocritical and utterly selfish.

On the subject of working, most volunteers I spoke to couldn't believe the abuse they got for making the place tidier and more organised. In '97 several groups picking up litter as small as fag butts for the Green Party at 5am in horizontal rain were threatened with violence. Why? Because people wanted our bin bags to keep their feet dry. It was easier than stumping up £20 (in cash machine-less '97, remember) for a pair of pound shop wellies from Joe Bananas. If we didn't return with full bags we didn't get our work cards stamped and despite working the weekend we then had to pay for entry to the festival, much of which we hadn't seen. These weren't isolated incidents. Deliberately dropping litter in front of litter pickers and laughing at them or hassling car park staff because you're in a hurry and obviously more important than the other 99,999 people there is utterly disrespectful but hey, you're having a good time, right?

Anyway, rant over - that's not why I'm prosecuting and it wouldn't stop me going again if I thought it was worth it. At the very least I'll be sticking to Dot To Dot ( this year. And I'll get a lie-in on Sunday! Good luck if you're after tickets, though.

12:03 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK I've heard a lot and i've got to comment.
Martin said some very interesting things - initially - but his later comments descended into a rant that I - honestly - don't quite believe ( esp abpout litter-pickers - not the ones I met) and I too have experience of the festival - from both sides of the fence so to speak - as punter and as worker / volunteer.

The reality is that yes things have changed since 1970 - the whole world has!
As quaint and idealistic as the festival was then - there may have been better ones at the time even.
The needs, desires and the chances people have in life have changed and yes it is all more technologocal in the world now. However, the ideals of the festival - and indeed many of the festival-goers including the bands - are probably wider now than they were before.
How much discussion of the Third World or of ecological issues was there in 1970? Look at the foootage of Julian Temple's excellent film of it all and see how ramshacle it all really was!

Few have mentioned the immense investment in the areas such as circus - there from the beginning ( that spawned the Circus of horrors touring now for 10 years) - as well as that many other artistic displays and experiences that help to shape festival-goers' perceptions.

The other festivals - as difficuklt in several ways as some might be - have actually taken a leaf from Glastonbury's book.
More people are now experiencing more festivals - of all shapes and sizes than ever - and who's to say that their way of doing so is invalid.

Why just because I am going to Glastonbury do I have to be propelled back to the 1070s, just to fulfill someone else's nostalgia? Shall we hanker after the electricoity strikes, the 3 day week, race riots, sex discrimination etc that went with it too?

What Glastonbury actually does is use the importance that it undoubtedly has on the world stage to make its point for the best, in terms of charitable donation and in terms of political change - and that's before you consider the enlightenment of the audience attending.

Economics was mentiomed; I think it is £5 million added to the local economy and then there are suppliers who are kept in work from elsewhere.

I joined Oxfam's Stewarding crew in 2004 in front of the Pyramid stage and have never looked back. One more Glastonbury and 6 other festivals of work later I can tell you that yes it is hard work, but rewarding and it is good to be part of the festival. We have to do a professional job too in what has become a difficult world - don't forget that either. The world in 2007 is full of legislation that never existed before, but Glastonbury has used it to its favour - with a credible, competent plan for a 4 year licence for the first time that has been granted - with respect and the blessing of the authorities - who else could do that!

The fence makes all the difference - the professional robbers, that I have had to assist in dealing with the consequences of, at other festivals, were mercifully absent from Glastonbury in 2004 &5 ( probably before in years I missed) and so differeent from 1993 when I last attended before that.
The ambience now is good and very mellow. Remember it is the ticket-holders who make the festival and maybe many are younger - but listen to what they are getting out of it - it's all a positive experience and every bit as valid as the excitement of free milk in 1970.

As for economics. It is good value for money and a word on the traders - it is expensive for them too, believe me and you can chooose what you buy.

The thing is - go with an open mind and the desire to enjoy the festival - you'll find that many other people wanting to do the same, ready to have a good time with you - but don't expect to turn the clock back to 1970 with rose-tinted spectacles or you will be disappointed.

I am lucky, I know I am going and I am passionate about it - but good luck on Sunday morning to everyone - look out for me there (if you make it) in my dayglo waistcoat at midnight somewhere and enjoy.

Des. (

12:08 am  
Blogger Ian said...

Some excellent arguments all around, I've been hemming and hawing all the way through the comments - but I'm going to go with Guilty this time.

5:25 pm  
Blogger Unknown said...

Since I also volunteered to have a shot at the prosecution, I am compelled to hurl myself at the guilty camp. Having said that, listening to people's anecdotes did cause me to waver, and lead me to think that perhaps what I wanted was to simply put an end to all such arenas, venues etc.

I have been three times: 89, 90 and 92. In 89, I was there alone, and saw hardly anyone. But it was an amazing time. I just wandered on and off site - hung out with the travellers, saw bands playing from the boot of their car, wandered back again, saw some huge bands, chatted to complete strangers. In 1990, it was more of a hassle. Some friends camped off-site, but it was still a great experience - and I had my only genuinely enjoyable acid experience (and my last).

However, in 1992, the mood had shifted. The dealers seemed more cynical (I got ripped off), the prices were skyrocketing, the bands less interesting, and since there were was no free area for the travellers, there were less and less interesting things tucked away.

Now it is clear that most of you guys have been more recently than I and have had great times. And no doubt, if I wasn't such a lazy, bitter old bastard, I would not find it so appalling myself. However, it is no longer a festival in my eyes. It is just another big, empty, soulless, corporate gig and like other empty, soulless, corporate gigs, it will leave me feeling cold. That is not to say that it is all bad, but overall, I do not feel after such events that the world is a richer place for it.

Guilty (as well as V, Reading, etc. etc. etc. ......)

2:44 pm  
Blogger swisslet said...

how did everyone find the ticketing today? I personally couldn't get a sniff of a connection, but luckily one of my friends seemed to have a "magic link" that always came up, and so she ended up doing more or less everyone and we all got sorted.

It's always a drama, isn't it?

Who else got lucky??


6:13 pm  
Blogger Dead Kenny said...

Good arguments on both sides, but GUILTY. Before anyone has a pop I did attend Glasto twice - in 95 (hot and sunny) and 97 (up to my knees in mud) so feel entitled to express this view.

No-one is seeking to take away people's good memories but Martin's main arguments are sound - it's become a big clunking media circus monster and people genuinely concerned with environmental causes would do much better to invest their time and money participating in local arts happenings.

It's not where you are, it's where you're at, man! Which is why I'm happy top leave it for the kids and the hippies for yet another year.

9:29 pm  
Blogger Mark said...

I vote for Glasto. Viva Glasto.

11:26 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ST: I got lucky - I had a lie in! ;-P

Dead Kenny: You've got my argument exactly - I'm not wishing to deny memories of good times; I've had enough of those there myself. However, I'm pretty sure that the rose-tinted specs are on by most peope every year regarding how good it is now. Has anyone else ever come back thinking that it was ok but, you know, just 100,000 people standing in a field?

Having said that, I hope everyone who wanted tickets got them. Running Capitalist Pig-Dogs ;-)

11:40 am  
Blogger Ben said...

Martin: I can honestly say I've never come back from Glastonbury going "Meh, that was a bit dull". Every year, even when the bill's been poor and the weather intermittently or permanently atrocious, I've come back with a grin on my face. If the time comes when I don't have a brilliant or even just a good time, then I might think about packing it in - rose-tinted visions of the past would be outweighed by my most recent experiences - but I don't anticipate that happening any time soon.

Kenny: "It is just another big, empty, soulless, corporate gig and like other empty, soulless, corporate gigs" - really? I rather think not. The spectre of corporatisation may be looming larger over Glastonbury these days (few, I think, would deny that) - but to suggest that it's no different from the likes of V? I don't buy that for a second. I play the "I'm a Glasto regular" card reluctantly, but I think you'd appreciate there's still a world of difference if you'd been within the last ten years.

On Martin's arguments on the question of Glastonbury's money- and awareness-raising aspect earlier: I'm a fairly cynical sort, but following the logic of my In The Dock piece about musicians dabbling in politics, surely it's better that people buy into a worthwhile ideal for the duration of the festival than not at all? The fact that Glastonbury supports charitable causes sets it apart - just because not everyone who goes then makes radical changes to their everyday behaviour (and I think you underestimate how much people do take from what they see and hear) doesn't mean that Michael Eavis shouldn't abandon the charitable and political ethos of the festival. As ST rightly says, it's one of the key things that sets it apart from the "empty, soulless, corporate gigs" - and long may it continue.

5:33 pm  
Blogger Ben said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5:33 pm  
Blogger Kwok said...


I went in 97 and 99. Had a great time. But think I've out grown it.

I too will leave it to the kids and hippies. (And IT consultants and trainee accountants.)

5:39 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ben - I've never thought it was dull, but while I've been there I've thought 'some things never change.' By that I'm not saying they were better the first time I went, however.

I wouldn't say it's empty and soulless, but I wouldn't say the other festivals that people seem to be dismissing out of hand are either. It's difficult to find a place that doesn't have an ounce of festival vibe but despite the curfews and the beer tokens that exists because of what people bring to it in my opinion. That's why I'm espousing alternatives rather than dismissing Glasto out of hand. If we can make something happen there we can make it happen somewhere else. And remember - Vince "I've got the" Power. Look at his other festivals. They've all got secure fences (and rightly so) but in order to keep his wad by keeping the local council sweet you'll see other draconian safety measures creep in.

Regarding the idea of people buying into something for a short period rather than not at all, the thrust of my argument is that I think that's worse. I don't think I do underestimate what people take away based on their general behaviour while they're there. I'm not claiming the moral high ground by saying that I do (wild horses won't get me near a dry toilet...) but the charitable donations are peanuts compared to the sum total given to the artists and I firmly believe that Glastonbury preaches to the converted or those who like the sense of well being without the effort. I argued the same against The Levellers.

I don't doubt Eavis' sincerity but I don't think it's particularly effective for more than a week or two a year. On the subject of donations and the money brought into the local community, the latest stats I can find via Google show that the festival pays for less than 50% of the local constabulary's costs. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but that's not particularly community-minded as far as I can see. Also, sorry to harp on about litter-picking again (although it was the best year I've had there by far) but workers are instructed to pick up fag butts because they poison cows. They're one of the most common forms of litter, they're a pain in the arse to find in mud and they poison the animals that live there - Worthy Farm and its surroundings might be a good place to hold a festival but it's tough on its inhabitants for the remaining weeks of the year.

That's a little petty, but I'm trying to say that while the site's good for the attendants, they aren't necessarily good for it.

Just because it feels right, doesn't mean that it is.

(Desmond - glad you've had good times at Glasto - I believe we all have - but believe the veracity of my comments even if it isn't your experience. Oddly enough, a weekend eating the Green Party's vegan food got rid of a mild skin irritation I'd suffered for years. Turns out that free milk in 1970 wouldn't have suited everyone!)

8:02 pm  
Blogger swisslet said...

I just got into trouble for suggesting this weekend that Glastonbury is always the best weekend of the year and no doubt will be this year too.

Someone quietly pointed out that I was getting married this year.

On a weekend.

Anyone for a ceremony at the chapel in Lost Vagueness?



9:25 pm  
Blogger Dead Kenny said...

Ben, I'd just like to point out that you misquoted me again, and even had the chutzpah to put quotation marks around your loaded precis of part of my argument!

Has Glastonbury really become less corporate and institutionalised in the last 10 years? If not, my argument still stand and my experience(s) still relevant.

12:39 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've never been so have to abstain. I hope the defence are right though as I'm going this year.

2:27 pm  
Blogger Martin said...

See Simon's post above this one. So many reasons to prosecute!

8:33 pm  
Blogger swisslet said...

alison - out of interest, what is it about Glastonbury that's making you go this year but isn't enough to shift you off an abstention?

(and this debate aside, I actually am interested in what it was that is taking you down there this year)


9:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not guilty. Sadly not enough time to tell you why. Good as the prosecution was there were flaws in the arguement. The defence gets it.

N.B. Buying 4pts of moonshine scrumpy in a plastic milk bottle, that is 1 part apple to 99 parts methanol, will give you a proper bastard-behind-the-eyes hangover before you've managed to find a pitch for your tent. Just a tip from one who has made that mistake ...

9:48 pm  
Blogger Ben said...

Apologies Kenny - no idea what I was doing there. That's why probably why you shouldn't comment when drunk and sleep-deprived...

The argument still stands, though the point is directed at James instead...

6:31 pm  
Blogger Martin said...

"Not guilty. Sadly not enough time to tell you why. Good as the prosecution was there were flaws in the arguement."

drmigs - You are Mr Williams, my A Level History teacher, and I claim my five pounds.

1:57 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Buying 4pts of moonshine scrumpy in a plastic milk bottle, that is 1 part apple to 99 parts methanol, will give you a proper bastard-behind-the-eyes hangover before you've managed to find a pitch for your tent."

martin - or am I Mr Kerr, your trainee GCSE maths teacher? I'll have that fiver back ... (eh what?).

7:47 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home