festival traders- its tough out there.

[Neil]

12 hours ago, stuie said:

 

I wouldn't worry too much.  Avon & Somerset police really don't want the crime stats they'd generate if they fully cracked down on festival crews and punters.

not sure there's a crime from the old bill identifying someone who has a record.and i guess they'd hope that by keeping known lawbreakers off-site, it  would reduce the numbers of crimes. problem it mostly causes is takes away the chance for someone to work (which i'm not sure is legal).

seems like huge overkill cos crime at festivals isn't the problem it was a decade or two back.

[Neil]

15 hours ago, Kashkin said:

I was just at Arctangent and all card payments came up on my app as 'Arctangent Festival' rather than the individual trader name. 

making traders are obliged  use the festival terminals, means the festival can see exactly how much trade a trader did, so that they can then take a percentage, festivals will weed-out the less popular traders because they earn the festival less money than An other trader might do . its not a way to keep festival markets interesting, i don't think.

[MEGATRONICMEATWAGON]

4 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

 

Has this flight been verified as actually having existed? 

 

Some shots on YouTube make it look like he was really flying around, but the nearest Dominos according to Google is 2.8 miles away, so it's probably all some lame advertising attempt. I'm surprised there wasn't more said about it from Emily or at least someone at Glastonbury commenting. Maybe Dominos just gave the festival 30k for the marketing and nothing more was said. Bit disappointing either way.

 

 

[Ayrshire Chris]

No doubt if Domino’s, kfc, mcds etc got a foothold in Glastonbury they would attract custom but one of the great delights off the festival is the variety of food outlets mostly from the local area. Whether it’s a pastie or goat curry, a crumble or the tea bus. it’s all  part of the fun of the festival. Can’t see the Eavises allowing that the change. 

[gfa]

16 hours ago, Chimps said:

When you hear of food traders doing £100k turnover at a festival, think on this:-

30% + VAT to the big old festival organiser = £36k (the £6k VAT can be claimed back).
20% VAT on turnover to be given to the VAT man = £20k.
GP on food is about 70% - So food costs are £30k.

This leaves £20k!  From £100k turnover.

Got to pay staff a decent wage out of this £20k, and all the other costs associated with getting to a festival, and running a business.

Margins are now so tight on big festivals that you have to be out there at every festival every weekend busting your gut.

Glastonbury excluded as the fee is fixed for each trader and not based on turnover.

This is from a well established Glastonbury trader, who told me that they now only do Glastonbury as it is one of the few festivals left with a fixed up front, and reasonable pitch fee.
 

 

I get its tight but a festival food truck should be at a festival every weekend. that's like me complaining i have to work every week.

 

A mate of mine did Glasto and everyone got a £500 bonus last year for working 5 days, so clearly with a good business model and pitch its still possible to do well

 

14 hours ago, maelzoid said:

There was a McDonalds at IOW this year. They were giving away free fries and totally drawing customers away from other traders.

these pop-ups have been about since before covid

[stuie]

5 hours ago, Neil said:

not sure there's a crime from the old bill identifying someone who has a record.and i guess they'd hope that by keeping known lawbreakers off-site, it  would reduce the numbers of crimes. problem it mostly causes is takes away the chance for someone to work (which i'm not sure is legal).

seems like huge overkill cos crime at festivals isn't the problem it was a decade or two back.

 

Sorry, I've misunderstood then - I thought we were talking about searches and checks on site but it seems to be about PNC/CRB checks prior to arrival?  

[clarkete]

6 hours ago, Yoghurt on a Stick said:

 

Has this flight been verified as actually having existed? 

 

"What was the last scene?

The final scene was the actual pizza delivery shot. We had about 10 tents and 20 models on hand to make the shot look like a buzzing festival. The only way to do it was to line the tents up in a column pointing towards the festival stages in the distance and shoot with a decent crop to frame out the empty fields at the side."

 

https://theinspirationgrid.com/editorial/behind-the-scenes-photographing-the-viral-dominos-jetpack-pizza-delivery-at-glastonbury-festival/

[incident]

3 minutes ago, clarkete said:

 

"What was the last scene?

The final scene was the actual pizza delivery shot. We had about 10 tents and 20 models on hand to make the shot look like a buzzing festival. The only way to do it was to line the tents up in a column pointing towards the festival stages in the distance and shoot with a decent crop to frame out the empty fields at the side."

 

https://theinspirationgrid.com/editorial/behind-the-scenes-photographing-the-viral-dominos-jetpack-pizza-delivery-at-glastonbury-festival/

 

Cheers. So no festival involvement / never on site then.

[Neil]

28 minutes ago, stuie said:

hes and checks on site but it seems to be about PNC/CRB checks prior to arrival?  

yep, and from what someone said to me, you can be excluded from a festival with a record which wouldn't stop you getting into the usa. i'm not sure if these checks apply to glastonbury or just some other fests - i do know they apply to some fests.

[clarkete]

10 minutes ago, incident said:

 

Cheers. So no festival involvement / never on site then.

 

Aye who amongst us could have guessed that advertisers were duplicitous tricksters? 

 

 

[4AssedMonkey]

19 hours ago, gfa said:

Legislation put in place to stop people getting bombed at concerts...?

 

18 hours ago, tarw said:

If I wanted to plant a big bomb at a festival I would certainly try to do it as crew. Much easier to get stuff in and access to more areas. 
If they just check whether any staff are a known threat it would make it more difficult to carry anything out. 
If they wanted to check other stuff (apart from sex offenders) they can f**k right off

 

17 hours ago, gfa said:

It won't stop terrorists targeting crowds, but it will mean venues are more prepared for the risk. Is your suggestion sit back and do nothing?

 

Read into it. There's a whole list of things being implemented which when put together could be the difference. Its obviously not a silver bullet.

 

Often terrorist attacks are thwarted by staff, the plans for it would ensure staff are better trained and an intervention is more likely.

 

Would likely also help with other parts of venue security - i.e. staff more prepared for crushing.

 

Anyone employed at a festival or event should have already had background checks and identity checks carried out as employment law requires it.  Events with large crowds need to be specifically risk assessed, with training and control measures put in place as health & safety law requires it.  All Martyn's Law does is reinforce this position specifically looking at terrorism, then makes a single duty holder responsible.  If terrorism was a perceived risk (which for any gathering of crowds it is) then the assessment, training etc. should have been done already.  Martyn's Law just takes this further by making someone within the organisation a scapegoat in case it goes wrong, and means they could be facing a custodial sentence.  It's derived from a blame culture and I don't agree with it.

 

I obviously don't have any issue with the principle of trying to make events safer.  But I don't think this legislation does that.

Edited August 20 by 4AssedMonkey

[gfa]

7 minutes ago, 4AssedMonkey said:

 

 

 

Anyone employed at a festival or event should have already had background checks and identity checks carried out as employment law requires it.  Events with large crowds need to be specifically risk assessed, with training and control measures put in place as health & safety law requires it.  All Martyn's Law does is reinforce this position specifically looking at terrorism, then makes a single duty holder responsible.  If terrorism was a perceived risk (which for any gathering of crowds it is) then the assessment, training etc. should have been done already.  Martyn's Law just takes this further by making someone within the organisation a scapegoat in case it goes wrong, and means they could be facing a custodial sentence.  It's derived from a blame culture and I don't agree with it.

A scapegoat is ridiculous and i can see why you disagree with that - but it does also introduce heaps of new measures and standards to help protect people

[stuie]

47 minutes ago, Neil said:

yep, and from what someone said to me, you can be excluded from a festival with a record which wouldn't stop you getting into the usa. i'm not sure if these checks apply to glastonbury or just some other fests - i do know they apply to some fests.

 

Er... I'm not sure of the legality of that tbh.  If someone has a spent conviction and they are not on bail/conditions then they should be free to go to an event.  Of course, any event organiser can refuse admission, but that's not what we're talking about here. 

[4AssedMonkey]

1 minute ago, gfa said:

A scapegoat is ridiculous and i can see why you disagree with that - but it does also introduce heaps of new measures and standards to help protect people

 

I'm not entirely sure it does.  All safety legislation in the UK creates a duty of care, then provides scant/vague guidance on how to manage that duty.  This goes a little further on the guidance, but it's only parroting what a suitable and sufficient event/large gathering risk assessment should have done anyway.  If organisers haven't been assessing the risk of terrorism properly, then learn the lessons, guide them, offer free training etc.  You don't need to legislate.  The reason this became a Bill was that the Govt. needed to be seen to do something following what happened in Manchester.  That's why I say it's politically motivated, not safety motivated.

[efcfanwirral]

34 minutes ago, 4AssedMonkey said:

 

 

 

Anyone employed at a festival or event should have already had background checks and identity checks carried out as employment law requires it.  Events with large crowds need to be specifically risk assessed, with training and control measures put in place as health & safety law requires it.  All Martyn's Law does is reinforce this position specifically looking at terrorism, then makes a single duty holder responsible.  If terrorism was a perceived risk (which for any gathering of crowds it is) then the assessment, training etc. should have been done already.  Martyn's Law just takes this further by making someone within the organisation a scapegoat in case it goes wrong, and means they could be facing a custodial sentence.  It's derived from a blame culture and I don't agree with it.

 

I obviously don't have any issue with the principle of trying to make events safer.  But I don't think this legislation does that.

 

26 minutes ago, gfa said:

A scapegoat is ridiculous and i can see why you disagree with that - but it does also introduce heaps of new measures and standards to help protect people

Surely that will just put people off running an event? 

[gfa]

21 minutes ago, 4AssedMonkey said:

 

I'm not entirely sure it does.  All safety legislation in the UK creates a duty of care, then provides scant/vague guidance on how to manage that duty.  This goes a little further on the guidance, but it's only parroting what a suitable and sufficient event/large gathering risk assessment should have done anyway.  If organisers haven't been assessing the risk of terrorism properly, then learn the lessons, guide them, offer free training etc.  You don't need to legislate.  The reason this became a Bill was that the Govt. needed to be seen to do something following what happened in Manchester.  That's why I say it's politically motivated, not safety motivated.

Organisers and venues cut corners to save money - that's why they are legislating.

 

Just look at Brixton - had about half the security staff they were meant to have on duty during that Asake performance + a load of other failings.

 

 

Edited August 20 by gfa

[itschris]

On 8/18/2024 at 8:38 PM, stuie said:

Glastonbury don’t issue card readers or take a cut. That’s pretty much talking about Boomtown I think? 

and wilderness

[Neil]

1 hour ago, stuie said:

 

Er... I'm not sure of the legality of that tbh

legal, same as it is to be turned down for a job cos of a conviction(a very std thing), as thats what it is.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, efcfanwirral said:

 

Surely that will just put people off running an event? 

there's already a lot of legal responsibility on anyone running an event, martyn's law just states some extra specifics.

[DeanoL]

19 hours ago, Chimps said:

When you hear of food traders doing £100k turnover at a festival, think on this:-

30% + VAT to the big old festival organiser = £36k (the £6k VAT can be claimed back).
20% VAT on turnover to be given to the VAT man = £20k.
GP on food is about 70% - So food costs are £30k.

This leaves £20k!  From £100k turnover.

Got to pay staff a decent wage out of this £20k, and all the other costs associated with getting to a festival, and running a business.

Margins are now so tight on big festivals that you have to be out there at every festival every weekend busting your gut.

Glastonbury excluded as the fee is fixed for each trader and not based on turnover.

This is from a well established Glastonbury trader, who told me that they now only do Glastonbury as it is one of the few festivals left with a fixed up front, and reasonable pitch fee.
 

That's loads better than expected to be honest. £20K over a weekend. 3 on shift at a time, two 7-hour shifts a day over three days so 126 man-hours at minimum wage is £1441.44. You could pay £15 an hour instead and still come in under £2000. And because we're talking staff costs, you're not actually manning the stall yourself.

 

So £18K total. Say you work 10 weekends of the 13 over the summer that's £180K. Obviously there's work that has to be done like maintaining the vehicle, going out and securing spots and all that but it's still a tidy sum for a small business. Even if additional business costs were £80K you could still pay yourself and your partner £50K each for mostly only working over the summer.

 

Honestly I had assumed traders were just seeing £2-5k per festival weekend and deciding that wasn't worthwhile. If they're pulling in £20K I'm not sure what the complaint is to be honest. Unless it's just that the days of being able to do 4 festivals over the summer and not work the rest of the year are over at this point.

[stuie]

31 minutes ago, itschris said:

and wilderness

Wilderness clothing traders were using their own terminals this year - just checked on my bank statement! 

[stuie]

24 minutes ago, Neil said:

legal, same as it is to be turned down for a job cos of a conviction(a very std thing), as thats what it is.

 

I did say spent convictions and you can't legally be turned down for a job with a spent conviction (they don't need to give a reason though I suppose!) 

[incident]

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

Wilderness clothing traders were using their own terminals this year - just checked on my bank statement! 

 

Any idea about the Food stalls? I know they were being required to use FR/LN devices in 2021, would be surprised if they'd pulled back from that.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

3 hours ago, clarkete said:

 

"What was the last scene?

The final scene was the actual pizza delivery shot. We had about 10 tents and 20 models on hand to make the shot look like a buzzing festival. The only way to do it was to line the tents up in a column pointing towards the festival stages in the distance and shoot with a decent crop to frame out the empty fields at the side."

 

https://theinspirationgrid.com/editorial/behind-the-scenes-photographing-the-viral-dominos-jetpack-pizza-delivery-at-glastonbury-festival/

 

I'm afraid I'm still finding it hard to believe that someone flying one of those jetpacks wouldn't have to (by law) or want to wear a crash helmet when flying. It doesn't make sense not to.

[stuie]

26 minutes ago, incident said:

Any idea about the Food stalls? I know they were being required to use FR/LN devices in 2021, would be surprised if they'd pulled back from that.

 

The rest of the transactions all just say 'Festival Food' and 'Festival Bars' so yes, looks like all the wonga goes straight to FR to give the traders their share.  Bit naughty really, especially as they'll have to pay their staff and suppliers in the meantime.

 

I'm friendly with a woman who runs a festival coffee stall and she says doing business at FR events is like dancing with the devil!