Odd. Not that Michael Eavis told the Mail On Sunday there would be no Glastonbury in 2012, but the reason he gave:
Michael Eavis told the Mail on Sunday that both issues were a concern. On the subject of hygiene, he said, "We realised early on that it was going to be a big problem. We have our own stock of portable toilets but we always need more. We shop around with four companies to get the best price, but we are not bothering for 2012.But the Eavises had already announced that there would be no Glastonbury in 2012, shifting the usual fallow year back one; at the time they said it was to avoid a busy summer.
"There will be a huge demand for Portaloo toilets in London, so everyone will push up their prices and I can see it getting very expensive."
But the cost of portaloos is suddenly the reason? Seriously? Why would an event a month later push up prices for Glastonbury? Isn't the whole point of a portaloo that you take them where you need them, when you need them?
And will there really be a huge demand for portable toilets anyway? I know we're a bit rubbish in this country, but we're surely able to build stadia that have actual plumbed toilets in them?
But let's assume there is going to be some sort of manic peak in the price of portaloos a month before the Olympics, given that Glastonbury hires tonnes of the things year-in, year-out, couldn't Eavis just do a deal for five years with a locked in price? Isn't regular demand a pretty strong bargaining chip?
You could respect the idea to give Worthy Farm a rest from the churn and chunder of thousand upon a thousand wellies; why start embellishing the decision with bizarre toilet claim?