Glastonbury fans left fuming as show is pulled off air in technical blunder
Was it working for you?
PASS THE REMOTE Glastonbury fans left fuming as show is pulled off air in technical blunder
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
GLASTONBURY fans have been left fuming as the show is pulled off air in a huge technical blunder.
Music enthusiasts wanted to tune into the BBC and their iPlayer streaming service to watch the latest from Worthy Farm.
Sign up for the Entertainment newsletter
Sign up
5
The BBC's Glastonbury coverage has been plagued by technical blunders
Credit: PA
5
The BBC was forced to apologise on screen as it suffered a huge technical blunder
5
Many viewers complained that they missed out on watching the Scissor Sisters perform (pictured in Denmark)
Credit: AP
If you wanted to watch the likes of Scissor Sisters and Charli XCX then you would have to switch the channel.
The BBC coverage of the 2025 Glastonbury Festival has been dogged by technical errors.
Even at the festival itself, the opening ceremony was branded a flop by disappointed festival-goers.
During a set on The Other Stage, the screen cut to black for many BBC viewers today.
And it's no better online for those watching iPlayer as the main Saturday feed also suffered from a huge technical difficulty.
Those wanting to watch Scissor Sisters were greeted with an apology message that was emblazoned on the screen.
It read: "Sorry for the interruption. We're working to fix this."
Glasto fans flooded social media in their droves as they were left fuming by the blunder.
Writing on X - formerly known as Twitter - one expletive-filled fan fumed: "F****** hell @BBC you cut Blossoms short and now Scissor Sisters when it's just a black screen. Sort it out."
A second stated: "Scissor Sisters have been on stage 8 minutes and the screen is still black!
Fury as Glastonbury crowd chants 'death to the IDF' during Bob Vylan set aired live on BBC
"I've only wanted to watch them, Jade, and Raye all day and now it's not even working for Scissor Sisters!"
"#Glastonbury Jeez put up with watching that Winehouse wannabe Raye screen goes blank for Scissor Sisters," exclaimed an angry user.
While a fourth asked: "Having to watch Charli because no streams on iplayer I don't even know what she sings #Glastonbury."
"Cmon BBC Iplayer…where's Charli xcx?", enquired someone else.
Glastonbury backlashes
Glastonbury Festival has been going for 54 trailblazing years - but at times it has been a stormy ride Here, we look at the biggest backlashes to hit the iconic music event.
The Smiths (1984): One of the first bands to divide the early Glastonbury purists were Manchester indie stars The Smiths. The band's set even sparked a full scale stage invasion as they introduced the crowd to their guitar-driven, post-punk romanticism music. Guitarist Johnny Marr described their usual fanbase as "cup final supporters", adding: "Eventually, I did manage to instigate a stage invasion, which raised a few eyebrows. One fan was trying to climb on stage, I helped pull him up, and then a few more people followed, and all of a sudden we'd managed to turn it into a Smiths gig."
The Fence (2002): It wasn't a band or musician that sparked controversy in 2002... it was a fence. Organiser Michael Eavis came under fire when he organised the erection of a £1million fence around the site. The ring of steel was brought in to protect ticket holders and those who might inadvertently endanger themselves by breaking in. Diehard Glasto fans, however, felt it was at odds with the event's hippy ethos of peace and love. Eavis and co refused to back down, though, and the fence remains in place today.
JAY-Z (2008): Despite its long history, Glastonbury had never welcomed a rapper for a headline set - until 2008. Jay-Z's top bill booking was met with a flurry of digs, including some from Oasis's Noel Gallagher, who claimed hip hop had no place at the festival. In a perfect clap-back, Jay-Z walked out to a version of Wonderwall before launching into his powerful hit 99 problems. Seven years later, his pal Kanye West followed in his Glastonbury footsteps and topped the bill.
Metallica (2014): Thrash metal rockers Metallica were met with raised eyebrows when they were announced as Glastonbury headliners. Some critics claimed they lacked mainstream appeal, while others felt they were past their prime. However, frontman James Hetfield managed to quickly win the crowd round thanks to his good humour and polite manners.
Adele (2016): Although Adele wowed both festival goers and music fans at home with her headliner set, the British songstress did cause a stir by turning the air blue. She warned the crowd about her "potty mouth" but not everyone was impressed with with the 30 plus expletives she dropped on the stage during her headline set, which aired on the BBC.
And a sixth added: "Since iPlayer is so useless this weekend you only have what's on BBC One and Two of #Glastonbury."
On iPlayer, if you wanted to catch the action from The Other Stage, you would have to swap to the dedicated feed which was still working.
5
Viewers would have had to switch to a dedicated feed for The Other Stage on iPlayer to watch Charli XCX perform (pictured in 2022)
Credit: Redferns
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
27 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Glastonbury Festival 2025 ends after weekend of controversy and surprises
The 2025 edition of Glastonbury Festival has come to an end after a weekend of controversial moments and surprise performances. Punk duo Bob Vylan and Irish rap trio Kneecap have seen both of their sets on Saturday being assessed by Avon and Somerset Police to decide whether any offences were committed. Bobby Vylan, of Bob Vylan, led crowds on the festival's West Holts Stage in chants of 'death, death to the IDF', before a member of Irish rap trio Kneecap suggested fans 'start a riot' outside his bandmate's upcoming court appearance, and led the crowd on chants of 'f*** Keir Starmer'. Sir Keir had said in the run-up to the festival that he thought Kneecap's set was not 'appropriate' at Glastonbury. On Friday, festival goers were treated to surprise performances from alternative pop star Lorde, who played her new album Virgin in full, and Scottish singer Lewis Capaldi, who played two years after a set at the festival during which he struggled to manage his Tourette syndrome symptoms. The 1975 took to the Pyramid Stage to headline that night, with a set which saw singer Matty Healy joke he was his generation's 'best songwriter', with the band playing songs such as Chocolate, Love Me and About You. Pulp were revealed to be Patchwork appearing on the Pyramid Stage on Saturday to a backdrop paying homage to their classic 1995 stand in headline set. The Jarvis Cocker-fronted band performed some of their best known songs such as Common People, Babies and Do You Remember The First Time?. Their appearance came 30 years after their breakthrough headline performance at the festival when they stood in for The Stone Roses after the Manchester band's guitarist John Squire was injured in a cycling accident. Candida Doyle, the band's keyboard player, had previously appeared to confirm the band would not perform at the festival, despite being keen to play, telling BBC Radio 6 Music last week 'they (Glastonbury) weren't interested'. Also on Saturday, Haim made a surprise appearance on the Park Stage opening with one of their best known songs in The Wire, before performing a mix of older songs such as Summer Girl, and new singles including Relationships. The day saw veteran rocker Neil Young headline, performing some of his best known songs including Cinnamon Girl, Like A Hurricane and Rockin' In The Free World, at one point in the set he performed with Hank Williams' guitar. Brat star Charli XCX headlined the Other Stage on Saturday, performing tracks from last year's summer sensation such as 360, Von Dutch and Club Classics. Performing the viral Apple dance, during the song of the same name, was US singer Gracie Abrams, who had played on the same stage a day earlier. Sir Rod Stewart performed in the Sunday legends slot, bringing out former Faces bandmate Ronnie Wood for Stay With Me, Lulu for Hot Legs and Simply Red's Mick Hucknall for a performance of his band's If You Don't Know Me By Now. He was also joined by the festival's founder, Sir Michael Eavis, who was wheeled on to the stage by his daughter, organiser Emily Eavis. Bagpipes had signalled the arrival of Sir Rod, who kicked off his afternoon performance with 1981 single, Tonight I'm Yours (Don't Hurt Me). Sir Rod's set also included hits such as Maggie May, You Wear It Well and Da Ya Think I'm Sexy?. The Pyramid Stage was headlined by pop rocker Olivia Rodrigo on Sunday evening, who brought out The Cure frontman Robert Smith to sing his band's songs Just Like Heaven and Friday I'm In Love. As the 66-year-old indie-goth star arrived on stage on Sunday night, Rodrigo said: 'Glastonbury would you please welcome Robert Smith, give him a big welcome, come on.' At the end of Just Like Heaven, the pair hugged, before Rodrigo said 'give it up for Robert Smith you guys' before adding she was 'so honoured to play with him tonight'. The weekend saw many acts express their support for Palestine, with singer Ellie Rowsell of indie rockers Wolf Alice telling the crowd: 'We want to express our solidarity with the people of Palestine, and we shouldn't be afraid to do that.' Their Other Stage set saw them climax with their best known song Don't Delete The Kisses, which came after they had played snippets of The White Stripes' Seven Nation Army and Black Sabbath's War Pigs. Irish country star CMAT, real name Ciara Mary-Alice Thompson, chanted 'free Palestine' during her set, which included Take A Sexy Picture Of Me, from her forthcoming third studio album Euro-Country. While frontman Dan Hoff of Irish noise rockers Gurriers said during their Woodsies set: 'Free Palestine, unlike other bands we know where we stand politically.'
Spectator
34 minutes ago
- Spectator
The bluster and waffle of George Freeman
Retromania is well and truly upon us. Neil Young just headlined Glastonbury. Noel Edmonds is back on the telly. And a Tory MP has been turned over by a Sunday newspaper in a cash-for-questions scandal. Tonight we're gonna party like it's 1997. The humiliated party this time around is George Freeman, a former science minister in Rishi Sunak's government. He left frontline politics before frontline politics had the chance to leave him – and he was last heard from moaning in 2024 that he was unable to afford a £2,000-a-month mortgage on his £118,000 ministerial salary. After that, he found a side-hustle that better answered his needs – advising an environmental monitoring company called GHGSat, which paid him £5,000 a month for just eight hours of work between last April and March this year. When he took the job, he quite properly consulted Acoba, the regulator that presides over the ethics of private-sector appointments for former ministers and civil servants. GHGSat have said that they 'retained George Foreman MP for a brief period' and that their agreement with him 'did not include any lobbying activities'. Since Foreman remains a trade envoy and a member of the Science and Technology Committee, Acoba quite properly went out of its way to warn him that given 'this is a company that is interested in government policy and decisions relating to the civil space sector and emissions… there are risks associated with your influence and network of contacts gained whilst in ministerial office'. Acoba says Foreman specifically assured it that he had 'made it clear to the company that [he would] not lobby government on its behalf'. Anyway, now he's in the soup because the Sunday Times has established that while he was in this company's employment he appears to have tabled several written questions in relation to the areas of GHGSat's commercial interests, in consultation with – and in some cases adopting the exact language of – the company's senior executives. (It's merely the icing on the cake that he appears to have further contravened ethics rules by using his parliamentary offices to host meetings related to his outside commercial interests.) Foreman asked his staffer to tick 'any 'interest declaration' box if there is one', when he tabled the questions, which tells parliament that an MP has asked a question relating to one of their registered interests. The facts appear to be undisputed. He took money from this company. He was specifically warned against using his position in parliament to the company's advantage, and he gave undertakings not to. He then went on not only to table several parliamentary questions the answers to which may have been to the potential commercial advantage of this company, but leaked emails show he asked the company's managing director in writing for advice on 'what to ask about'. It's not just that all this is what the young folk like to call a bad look. It's the pious inanity of his response that really hoists the old eyebrows. No doubt under the advice of some spin-doctor telling him to 'get out in front of the story', he made great show of referring himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. His statement to the Sunday Times when all this came to light was as follows: As a longstanding advocate of important new technologies, companies and industries, working cross-party through APPGs [All-Party Parliamentary Groups] and the select committee, I regularly ask experts for clarification on technical points and terminology, and deeply respect and try to assiduously follow the code of conduct for MPs and the need to act always in the public interest. Throughout my 15 years in parliament (and government) I have always understood the need to be transparent in the work I have done for and with commercial clients and charities and am always willing to answer any criticism. I don't believe I have done anything wrong but I am immediately referring myself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and will accept his judgment in due course. We can ignore most of that long feather-puffing opening sentence and all the long feather-puffing second one. And at the third, we can laugh aloud with great merriment: here is such a stickler for the rules, such a deep and assiduous respecter of the need for full transparency, that he voluntarily hands himself in to the Commissioner for Standards the moment that his emails are leaked to the Sunday Times. I imagine transposing the same situation to my own home The nub of all that bluster and waffle appears to be that his defence to the charge of asking questions on behalf of the company is that he was asking questions on his own behalf and simply consulting the company to help him get the technical language right. These things he was asking about were just things that he, personally, happened to be interested in – or at least thought would serve the public good – and it is the merest coincidence that they are also things that the company which paid him £60,000-odd could stand to profit from. Perhaps, indeed, this defence stands up. Even parliament is not without its Candide-like innocents. But it seems to me that if he really was all that determined not only to behave with exemplary probity, but to make sure that not a whiff of an ethical lapse should attend him, it might have occurred to him to mention the whole thing to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards beforehand. Just, y'know, to know where he stood on the whole thing. I imagine transposing the same situation to my own home. Let us say I discover (not at all an implausible situation) that the box of chocs I have deposited in the fridge for the teacher's end-of-term present – and which I specifically told the children not to help themselves to – has vanished. I imagine confronting my daughter. 'Did you eat the chocolates I told you not to eat?' 'Certainly not. I should say that as a long-term champion of secondary education and our hardworking teachers, I have from time to time found it appropriate to make sure that no educators are in danger of eating potentially poisoned chocolate.' 'There's chocolate wrappers on the floor of your room, and an empty chocolate box in your bin.' 'I have striven, throughout my career as a child and now young adult, at all times assiduously to obey parental instructions, and I have no recollection of knowingly doing anything to contravene them. Filial duty has always been my watchword, and my conscience is clear. But in keeping with my determination to uphold the very highest standards in domestic life, I'm voluntarily referring myself to the independent ombudsman and will accept his judgment in due course.' 'What are you talking about? There's literally a smudge of chocolate on your chin.' 'I don't think it would be appropriate to pre-empt the findings of the inquiry, do you?' 'I'm stopping your pocket money for a week.' 'Actually, I think you'll need to raise my pocket money to help pay for the independent investigation into the matter. I have always been a firm believer in going through the appropriate procedures.' Anyway, we'll await the judgment in due course and lay in some chocs to munch for when the time comes.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
BBC staff ‘ashamed' over Glastonbury ‘death to IDF' chants
Last week Tim Davie, the director-general of the BBC, emailed all staff announcing new editorial guidelines which would, among other things, prevent the broadcaster from screening 'hate speech'. Days later, staff were dismayed as chants calling for the deaths of Israeli soldiers were broadcast live on BBC iPlayer as part of the corporation's Glastonbury coverage. The incident has plunged the organisation into another crisis, with insiders telling The Times they felt 'ashamed', and led to an intervention by Sir Keir Starmer, who has demanded to know how the scenes were allowed to air. The prime minister said: 'There is no excuse for this kind of appalling hate speech. The BBC needs to explain how these scenes came to be broadcast.' Davie emailed staff on Tuesday, telling them that the new guidelines would 'set the editorial values and standards for all BBC output'. It was the first time the guidelines have been changed since 2019. In that period the corporation has faced criticism for controversies including a Gaza documentary that had to be pulled after it emerged it was narrated by the teenage son of a Hamas official. The updated guidelines state: 'Material that contains hate speech should not be included in output unless it is justified by the context.' They added that broadcasting hate speech could constitute a criminal offence 'if it is intended or likely to stir up hatred relating to race, or intended to stir up hatred relating to religious belief'. However, viewers of Saturday's Glastonbury coverage would have seen Bobby Vylan, the singer of the punk group Bob Vylan, leading thousands of people in chants on the festival's West Holts Stage. Vylan, 34, from Ipswich, whose real name is Pascal Robinson-Foster, urged the crowd to repeat 'Free, free Palestine' and 'Death, death to the IDF' (Israel Defence Force). He also told the crowd 'from the river to the sea Palestine … will be free, inshallah'. The singer delivered a monologue describing working at a record label for someone who supported Israel and describing him as a 'f***ing Zionist'. BBC staff have questioned how the performance — which has been condemned by Jewish groups — was not only broadcast live but also remained available on iPlayer for more than five hours. One insider said that Saturday's scenes were particularly galling as the BBC had won an Emmy only last week for a documentary about the massacre at the Nova music festival during the October 7 attacks in Israel. One BBC staffer said: 'There is no excuse for it being live. It takes a second to cut a feed. The guy was allowed to continue for more than 20 minutes and he was loving that he was live on the BBC. 'He kept reminding the crowd. As soon as he started to tell them how he had had to work for a 'f***ing Zionist' they should have cut him off. 'And now they say it wasn't available to watch on demand but the whole unfiltered show sat on iPlayer for anyone to watch for more than five hours.' Another added: 'This Glastonbury debacle has crossed a line. News coverage will always raise difficult questions and tackle difficult subjects but this was entirely unnecessary and avoidable. The BBC should have been alert to this risk and the live feed should have been cut within seconds.' The Bobby Vylan performance was the last before the Belfast rap trio Kneecap took to the stage. The BBC decided not to screen Kneecap's show live after one of its members, Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, was charged with a terrorism offence for allegedly displaying the flag of Hezbollah, a proscribed terrorist organisation, at a gig last year. He has denied the charge. Instead, it broadcast highlights of their performance. Starmer said the band should not be given a platform 'and that goes for any other performers making threats or inciting violence'. Subsequently it was announced on Sunday that the Metropolitan Police had decided not to prosecute members of Kneecap over comments allegedly calling for Conservative MPs to be killed, made at a concert in November 2023. Glastonbury Festival issued a statement saying the organisers were 'appalled' at the statements made by Bob Vylan. 'Their chants very much crossed a line,' it said. 'There is no place at Glastonbury for antisemitism, hate speech or incitement to violence.' Lord Walney, the former government anti-extremism adviser, added his voice to criticism of the BBC. 'After all the furore over Kneecap, it is incredible that they allowed the 'death to the IDF' and 'from the river to the sea' chants to be broadcast from the Bob Vylan set without immediately pulling the feed,' he said. 'There is no excuse for this dereliction of duty by our national broadcaster. Tim Davie must immediately get a grip of this crisis or he is going to face serious calls to step down.' A BBC spokeswoman said: 'Some of the comments made during Bob Vylan's set were deeply offensive. During this livestream on iPlayer, which reflected what was happening on stage, a warning was issued on screen about the very strong and discriminatory language. We have no plans to make the performance available on demand.'
