Lerwick Up Helly Aa

[mcconnachie]

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/2/0/7/6/5/7/kkjjj-28368416809.jpeg

[shetlandpeat]

There could be other issues not mentioned here so far. The legalities of having passengers in the back of lorries may be the issue. Although accepted, there of course could be issues if there were a serious accident.

 

A bit of a [typically] over reaction to the statement, I doubt very much that they would stop the public from viewing the outward face of Up Helly Aa and is, possibly there to prompt a reaction of which has little or no bearing on the message.

 

The public see the outward face, as having helped out in the past, there is another face that is generally accepted but not so wildly publicised, until now it seems.

 

As for the damage done to halls and the express wishes of the hosts who invite the squads of what goes on in their halls, I agree with the stance taken there. As mentioned on these threads, halls are struggling, why should the greatest fire festival in the world put additional burdens on the fabric of the buildings and go against the wishes of the hosts, who are ultimately responsible for folks safety and well being?

[EM]

... maybe not the full story...

Of course not. Just another attempt to stir up discord where none exists.

 

As part of its role in managing the many aspects of the festival, the Committee routinely keeps the squads informed of procedural changes, as well as issues needing to be addressed. This has always been going on, and is perfectly sensible, particularly with matters relating to safety.

 

Is UHA on the verge of becoming a private party?

In certain respects it always has been. It is many things to different people, amongst which is a collection of parties. Although the guests at the halls come from the public, technically, other than the Town Hall (or the TA at one time), they are all private parties. On the other hand, UHA activities which take place in the streets are clearly, of and for, the public.

 

Will the next step be to try and prevent the general public from attending/videoing the procession or going to halls and videoing squad acts...

Certainly not.

 

... omitted in the media report, presumably to add a certain element of sensationalism.

This seems to be the ST agenda generally these days. To be expected I suppose, given the disintegration of the local press industry more widely.

[EM]

Second last Tuesday again, so, as usual...

 

Mass meeting 19:30 at the Anderson High School Games Hall.

[Colin]

Second last Tuesday again, so, as usual...

 

Mass meeting 19:30 at the Anderson High School Games Hall.

You forgot;

 

PS: NO VIDEO CAMERAS OR MEMBERS OF THE PRESS

[Ghostrider]

^ Could be interesting. I suspect that maybe one or two with local press connections may also be guizers.

 

Of course, they may be as adept at only wearing the correct hat for the occasion, as SIC Councillors assured us they were when sitting as the SCT, which would obviously solve any and all "conflicts of interest"....wouldn't it.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Ghostrider

[UpHellyLeaks]

http://www.uphellyleaks.co.uk

[Scorrie]

http://www.uphellyleaks.co.uk

 

So....

 

Let me get this straight....

 

Barbara Streisand tried to remove her house from Google Earth.... and it 'backfired' on her.....

 

....are we saying that some some Shetland folk in fancy dress were involved in this 'backfire'?

 

What did they do? Throw burning torches in through the lavvy window?

 

[owre-weel]

http://www.uphellyleaks.co.uk

Not sure what your trying to achieve here ?

 

In my opinion the Up Helly A committee has once again gone about things in the wrong way, but I can understand their desire to do what they can to ensure the fire festival runs smoothly and is seen as something that is spectacular, not the drunken carry on some can turn it into.

 

With modern technology, people can be posting their photos, clips etc within seconds and these are often available world wide. So it would be irresponsible of the committee to do nothing.

 

Perhaps a reminder to squads would have been more appropriate, rather than what seems to be another issue which will be difficult to police. Unfortunately the committee have come across as spoilers of fun rather than guardians of the festival.

 

Developing a site to encourage people to put up material, which the world can veiw all the possible negative antics squads and others get up to, is in my opinion not a sensible approach to the issue.

 

Challenging the committee's actions would be a better approach.

[Wheelsup]

What an excellent idea for a squad act!

 

and any publicity is good publicity... nothing like creating a bit of sensationalism.

[Infiltrator]

There could be other issues not mentioned here so far. The legalities of having passengers in the back of lorries may be the issue. Although accepted, there of course could be issues if there were a serious accident.

 

I thought the lorry issue had been resolved by everyone using buses nowadays, certainly last time I took part we'd given up our artic/container for a heated bus...

 

Is this not just a dawning realisation by the committe about changing society and their overall responsibility of the entire event? Gone are the days of Nazi uniforms or Jimmy Saville, or anything else that could offend someone by it being taken out of context. It's also no longer acceptable to allow excessive drunkenness, and given DLT's current problems it looks like any sort lecherous behaivour could end you up in court.

Any bad news that ends up in the media related to the event will end up with the media looking for someone to blame, and that'll probably be the comittee whether they feel responsible or not.   

[Ghostrider]

^ Whether or not any of the above is actually the forces at work, is the "problem" with the "edict" issued, insofar as its been drip fed to the public, that the Committee appear to have painted themselves in to a corner, by giving the impression that they are trying to control aspects of the occasion that they cannot in fact have any more than minimal control over.

 

The gist of what has been made public (albeit in such a way as the original context cannot be determined) is that they disapprove of certain types of "unwelcome" behaviours being filmed and released to the general public, and that (presumably) anyone doing so will wherever possible be sanctioned.

 

Not putting too fine a point on it, their ability to identify whoever is behind a camera is very minimal, and their ability to identify who uploaded any video to the web is only marginally less so. The scenario as presented is virtually impotent - spin - flannel - hot air, call it what you will, and as I see it, it is that absurdity that is generating the flack.

 

Had the Committee been going after the aspects of "unwelcome" behaviour and attempting to clamp down on guizers acting in such a way that *if* it happened to be filmed by anyone, and *if* that film then ended up on the web, that it could show the event in a negative light, that would have been one thing, and they might have had a reasonable chance of identifying anyone breaching it. However what has come out seems to be pretty much saying, "do what you must, but just do it quiety and out of sight" - "let the world only see the pretty pics to keep them sweet, and sweep the unsavoury stuff we know goes on equally as much, right under the carpet", which rapidly drags the word "hypocrisy" to mind.

[CHUCK NORR1S]

http://www.uphellyleaks.co.uk

This is obviously either a wind up or part of an act. Hilarious!

[Frances144]

Website down.

[Roachmill]

Someone looking for a leek?

 

http://s30.postimg.org/57bmg36wx/Up_Helly_Leeks.png

 

Opps. My mistake