Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Given that alcohol has the effect of removing self-control at certain dosages and this person would have been encouraged to drink more than he was used to given the circumstances, then since all he did was crap on the floor and he didn't put anyone in hospital (unlike the imbecile that put my son in hospital for no reason)then these things will happen- unless of course alcohol is banned!
We are all assuming that the incident was intentional - even if the intention was 'warped' by the intake of alchohol. However I have known those who are 'very, very, drunk' to have quite genune accidents where their ability to get to and use an appropriate receptacle is overtaken by events (or even where they are unsure that they have reached an appropriate place). I suspect that most of the near, and not so near, misses in pub lavatories are associated with this, rather than with an intent to shock and dismay. The 'friends' of the stag in question all appear to be arguing that this was not an intentional action on anyone's part, and that at least, as far as my own expertience of alchohol fuelled festivity, is not implausible.
If it was one of the stag party and it was an accident (still grim and not easy to forgive imho), then the appropriate thing would have been for one of the perp's mates to at least offer to clean it up. And they should have left a hefty cash apology behind the bar.

cle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I love this thread. Might a big group of lads on a

> big night out have been guarding the toilets and

> ensuring who came in and out for another reason?



If you're getting at what I think you're getting at, it would be more likely they'd guard the cubicle than the whole thing. Far too obvious.

Could it be possible that one of the lads had seen some stray urine on the floor of the toilet and - fearing a slip by another unwary EDT punter (leading to a possible no win/ no fee claim) - had resolved to guard the door until the manager could be fetched and a yellow warning sign placed?


Then, coincidentally during this time, could not a sudden and unexpected earth tremor have dislodged an unflushed log and threw it out of the pan and onto the floor?


Surely this is possible? We can't go round making accusations until all the possibilities have been explored.

"However I have known those who are 'very, very, drunk' to have quite genune accidents where their ability to get to and use an appropriate receptacle is overtaken by events "


Well fair enough then, the old under-the-influence get out clause, "I was pissed so it doesn't count".

- Oh I shat on the floor in the public loos - but i was pissed ! Oh, well no problem then, perfectly acceptable in that case.

- I ran over your daughter - But i was pissed ! Oh well, be my guest, I hope your car wasn't too badly damaged, can I contribute to the cost of some new panels ?

- I gave my girlfriend a black eye when we argued - but i was pissed ! Not a problem, please don't feel bad about it.


No problem. If you can't handle your alcohol, it's not your problem, it's everyone else's.

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "However I have known those who are 'very, very,

> drunk' to have quite genune accidents where their

> ability to get to and use an appropriate

> receptacle is overtaken by events "

>

> Well fair enough then, the old under-the-influence

> get out clause, "I was pissed so it doesn't

> count".

> - Oh I shat on the floor in the public loos - but

> i was pissed ! Oh, well no problem then,

> perfectly acceptable in that case.

> - I ran over your daughter - But i was pissed !

> Oh well, be my guest, I hope your car wasn't too

> badly damaged, can I contribute to the cost of

> some new panels ?

> - I gave my girlfriend a black eye when we argued

> - but i was pissed ! Not a problem, please don't

> feel bad about it.

>

> No problem. If you can't handle your alcohol, it's

> not your problem, it's everyone else's.



This.

Surely if being pissed was the problem he would have taken his "deposit" home with him in his pants rather than managing to pull them down before he even got to the cubicle.


Then again, he was wearing a dress and maybe he wasn't wearing pants? Which I guess would make facilitation of the whole incident much easier whether it was on purpose or an accident.

BunnyBurrow Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely if being pissed was the problem he would

> have taken his "deposit" home with him in his

> pants rather than managing to pull them down

> before he even got to the cubicle.

>



Exactly!


Let's stop giving this person thw benefit of the doubt, it was a prank that they thought was hilarious at the time, simple as that.


But also agree with KK. I've regretted a few rhings I've said or done whilst under the influence, but I was still responsible for those things, the booze didn't somehow give me license to be a prick.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...