Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
It probably really sucks to be him right now, doesn't it?
I think I'd rather go to prison.
"do 25 hours of community service or 25 hours in jail?"
We've all been a bit naughty; In my youth I've shat in a golf hole, in someone's milk and pissed on a human. I'm sure he's been punished enough already.
details. Especially shitting on a golf course, in a hole !
my mate (who on another evening was the one I pissed on - with about five others) curled one out in the bunker.
I've told the milk story on here before and it fills me with some shame…
I don't remember it.
So the Golden Shower doesn't get an explanation too?
There was a nob-end third year in my halls when I was a first year. A real twat. So one night my mate took a shit (it was his waste but I did the deed) and I went and got this bloke’s four pinter, got a toilet brush and smeared it in. Then we sieved it and poured it back in. There was a slight brown tinge to the bottom. Nonetheless he still drunk it, I watched him have his cereal the next day. Somehow the story got out, although I don’t think he found out, and I would meet people a year or two later who would say “oh, you’re the guy who shat in the milk”. Didn’t do wonders with the ladies.
Mate passed out in a bush, we took turns pissing on him – we were 15.
but he used to wake up who he thought were the trouble makers and demand that we clean the kitchen and things like that. He was an arse about it and we were wild 18 year olds, away from home for the first time. In fact we got kicked out of the hall in the end, seperated and scattered to various parts of the campus.
Or did you let it out somewhere more practical and 'transport' it to the desired location?
Imagine if pictures of you pooping in a golf hole were all over the national newspapers and the internet, with the Daily Mail baying for justice... :D
but his life is pretty much ruined for the next 5-10 years - I'm guessing he's been thrown out of uni?
They'd be in for the suing of their lives...
surely being convicted of a crime, especially one that brings the university's name into disrepute is just cause for expulsion?
and how many have been expelled.
Personally I think 'bringing X into disrepute' type claims are always laughable but that's by the by. First if he was expelled as a result of being drunk then it would be an absolute joke and second I'd think it would be very hard for a university to have a leg to stand on in this case.
Maybe if he'd been representing the university on some sort of field day and then done something horrific or if he'd been an unrepentant little wanker or even denied it, but he hasn't been. It would simply be the university seeing a way to get a year's tuition fees for free.
Someone I was at uni with was thrown out after getting into a fight and headbutting some random in the face.
But he was an utter tool so I didn't care much
If he does decide to sue, then youre going to be his lawyer and i'll be the university's. SEE YOU IN COURT THEO
i don't think you can chucked out of uni for that kind of stuff.
Don't students have to sign up to the university's ruels and regulations. If i know small print, it's quite possible he could be chucked out, although i suppose he could just apply for next year.
If he's as mortified as i says (and i don't see why not) it really should just be community service and maybe a fine. Sending him to jail is just damaging to all involved.
and apply to a different uni i meant. And maybe take out some of the justs.
Poppyfashism gone made I tell ya.
standard £50 fine is all that is required
this is no different to pissing in the doorstep of your local jeweller
and has accused a completely irrelevant body. I'm sure no one blames the people who organise the marathons when Paula Radcliffe shits on the side of a road. (NB: I hate carnage)
Instead of prison, send him to a hospital specialising in caring for injured sodliers. Let him clear up after them, let him listen to their stories of bravery and let him feel guilty for his actions.
Mmm, blooming stone.
I can picture a scene in the wilderness where someone offers to be Bamnan's blood brother and instead he whips his wang out and pisses on his hands.
to whip your wang out in public and start urinating every which way and other. We're not in the neolithic age anymore.
and booze DOES return many men to neanderthal times......Im not excusing him he was a dick (I think even at my nearly comatose state something dull i nthe back of my brain would have screamed against weeing there) but i certainly do things when very drunk that i would not do when not drunk
Like shout the word 'milk' at the top of my voice at passing pedestrians. On those occasions where my bladder his been full to bursting though I still manage to find a secluded spot in some trees or bushes. I am quite a shy drunk though.
that is pretty random, and quite sweet.
Some people are quite nice drunks, many people are not so nice, im lucky in that i am fairly nice, maybe thats the wrong word, i mean im sociable (possibly in an annoying way).
I cant say that you can always predict what a particular person will be like when they are drunk because i have sometimes been shocked at some peoples apparent change of character/behaviour
That doesn't make any sense.
you must actually think thats complete cock right?
and disrespecting something/one aren't the same thing though. Not that this is crime of the century, mind.
isnt it the case that its recognised that he was not deliberately targeting the war memorial (beyond it being a promenant 'uppish' thing...uppish things like hedges lamposts, trees being a sort of magnet for this)
It was more that he had a lack of respect/care for what he was doing
now the accusation is that this fella has offended and upset many people, true......but the thing is that if that is so terrible then surely it is the newspapers that are carrying the story that is causing far more people to be offended and upset....the thing is without news stories, and the picture, maybe a handful of people might have heard about it and been affronted, as it is (due to the activities of newspapers) millions? will be offended by it, and many thousands might have muttered under their breath that they would like to give him a good kicking.
Seriously the event has changed from being one of drunken inconsideration, into one of being a media event and masses of more people will be upset (the very social crime he is accused of) due to media intervention......if it is a social crime to cause offence and disgust, then why don't the newspapers carry some blame too?
I have no problem with it being reported.
lots of people are offended by the BNP, but they are reported on.
my point was that the newspaper article mentioned the possibility of the lad going to fail, probably because of the upset and offence it has caused people.....although technically they might cite public indecency and public drunkeness and disorderly conduct etc or something...something that could be applied to many drunken men leaving pubs.....but the reason behind the prosecution is suggested that it is cos he has caused gross offence to people.
I am merely pointing out that the actions of the newspapers have multiplied the gross offence caused to a few and ensured that many magnitudes of people are now grossly offended, there is perhaps an inconsistancy here.......life does throw up inconsistancies, I am not suggesting that one could ban reporting of it (although why is a photo of the act actually necessary? (I would suggest that the editorial line was that 'it makes it more graphic, more dramatic' in other words 'will cause more offence in the readers')
It could have been reported more soberly and with dignity. Just as when they tend to report on funeral services and deaths of servicemen with some sobriety, it would not be considered very sober or respectful to report on the deaths of servicemen by showing the dramatic photos of their bodies or of their being blown up......so why not be respectful of the publics sensibilities here?
They could have merely reported the case and everyone would have thought 'what a stupid bum....still im sure he's going to get quite a bit of aggro over this'
Responsible reporting would not seek to make such gain from this with a photo (Remember Jamie Bulgers killers are given protection from retribution by anomynity)
As it is this fellas actions are likely to attract the attention of vigilantiism, by publishing the photo they not only increase the ire(the desire for attacking jhim), but also increase the possibility of him being targetted.......I predict several kickings for him
I predict he will not be able to go out much for quite a while, no pubs, no clubs, even got to watch supermarket trips.
He won't go to jail definitely.
but that will be the reason behind the prosecution which (as I said 'technically they might cite public indecency and public drunkeness and disorderly conduct')
i.e. the charges could be
drunk and disorderly
behaviour likely to cause a disturbance
but these are things that are normally overlooked or ignored.
The REASON BEHIND taking him to court will be 'causing gross offence' it is not a charge, but it is the reason that they would apply charges that they normally wouldnt bother with
sorry if it seems like that to you :(
Who took that picture? I may have read it and forgotten, it's just occured to me that it's taken from pretty close-up. Did one of his pals take it and stick it up online? Or did a Mail employee's outrage senses start tingling the minute Pissy McNorespect had his first shot of the night?
someone he doesn't know took it and stuck it on facebook
He's very unfortunate.
Also he was on a Union endorsed booze cruise so it seems a bit harsh it he was convicted and thrown out of uni.
does tend to make men 'go' 'up things' more so than being stoned.
I wonder if Dr Nutt should weigh in with his 'so called' 'two penneth' on this matter
he didn't saw the head off the Jebediah Springfield statue.
who organises these pub crawls is trying to make out that they're decent folk, yet the company name is CARNAGE.
good one, craig.
that this has been blown into a matter of 'national outrage'. I'm not in the least bit outraged. The guy got paralytic and made a mistake. Had that mistake been to drive a car into a playground full of kids, then yes, I'll give you 'national outrage'. At the most he should be done for urination in a public place- there's NO evidence whatsoever of any intent to cause public upset or commit some kind of sacrilege. He also seems genuinely horrified by his actions. He's not some idiotic dickwipe who's giving the finger to the press whilst grinning on the court steps.
The judge is wrong, and the press should be found guilty of harassment. He's a 19 year-old man- we know nothing about his mental health, but that makes him a prime candidate for suicide, and I bet it's crossed his mind in the last few days, the poor thing.
It's really tricky, what will all the slides, swings and roundabouts you have to avoid to get to the kids.
for reporting on what he did?....wow.
This is a big fuss about nothing though.
Some of the red-top rags have gone about trying to whip their mostly dim readership into a frenzy of outrage, which has made the guy into a hate-figure in sections of the population. I think that's massively irresponsible and I hope he complains once this whole thing is over.
he is culpable for the act that caused any outrage.
and commenting is what newspapers do,
fan the flames of hatred and offence?
He will get a disproportionate amount of bad stuff happening to him, they are making the disproportion far worse.
Every day in every town, groups of young blokes stand around on street corners, some/many groups hassle members of the public, DELIBERATELY disrespecting old people, and women making insulting and threatening remarks that offend and intiomidate and often scare some people.
some groups of youths DELIBERATELY target people in neighbourhoods sometimes deliberately urinating through letterboxes or posting poo or throwing bricks through windows or DELIBERATELY writing obscenities on walls and doors or smear stuff........
Of course it might not be commonplace, but you often hear of cases like this in newspapers, but the perps arnt identified, yet the readership shakes its head and tuts, what is this country coming too, no respect tut tut tut.
Then this student does something drunken mistakenly (in all likelyhood) yet he will reap the whirlwind now, much of that feeling of hatred for disrespectful bad youth might fall on him, a way way way disproportional ammount......the papers will have ensured that justice (real justice) will not be served,
The guy deserves a slap yes, but not multiple beatings universal hatred, predjudice, and the focussing of much other discontent......he will also recieve some anger/frustration that the almost dailiy reporting of young soldiers deaths in afghanistan raises, people feel frustrated cosa they know that there is no immediate end to the afghan situation or the UKs involvement. They also feel sorrow (if they are like me) for the (almost childlike cheribic) pictures of some of the youngsters who have died there, on more than one occassion i have spluttered 'But he's only a kid' when i see photos of dead soldiers.
It affects me like that and i was against the second armed conflict with iraq, and i am also cynical about the reporting of the armed conflict in afghanistan.
The mob is stupid and they will have no problem in hating this student or wanting to give him a good kicking and getting their frustration out on this student. Papers can skip behind the defence of 'freedom of speech' whenever they fancy (a bit like the way CG skips behind stock 'get outs')
But as i maintained earlier, they did not have to publish the photo of the incident and publish his name under it, they chose to do so, you dont need to defend the newspapers, but we cant gag them either.
I think that the correct attitude is to agree that this guy is a bit of a dick and should curb his drinking and showed a lack of respect......and that people can tut at him......but i think that people should also tut at the media reporting of it and the gleeful way in which they push the story to prominance, they also show a lack of respect for their manner of reporting and highlighting it, just cos its dramatic and gossipy and capable of causeing outrage and a furore
about a 17 yo lad that was dicking around and showing off in a car at a party and managed to kill a 14 yo girl and injure 8 others.
The repercussions of that, and the benefits of avoiding similar incidents in the future are much more worthy of our attention.
A drunk young lad p!ssing on a monument doesn't really compare.
It just so happens he got caught in the act, who the fuck here hasn't done something like this? Yes he's an eejit but for fuck sakes this is way out of control. Fine, slap on the wrists.
No culprit though.
You /could/ look at this from the bright side. The 19 yo lad possibly didn't (he does now!) know the reverence with which these things are held by older folk. So we should, on the one hand, be glad that WWI & WWII are becoming such distant memories.
(Yeah the memorial might have taken on a significance relating to more recent wars, but WWI & WWII are generally what these memorials were set up to commemorate).
And as said, the company organising the crawl he was on is called CARNAGE. I'm not really one for banning stuff outright, but I've always thought that the ubiquitous Carnage-type events operate on a pretty insidious business model. If there are gonna be new rules about the sale of alcohol (2-4-1, discounting, happy hours etc) then this should surely come under that umbrella-ella-ella-eh-eh-eh?
He really doesn't seem to be "sick" or "twisted" or whatever. Just someone who's young enough not to appreciate the sacrifices made in the two world wars and was wasted enough to make a massive error of judgement.
Having said that, his granddad did, apparently, fight during WWII.
Fair judgement? Community service. I'd say.
Should really have been the standard fine for pissing outdoors in my opinion, least they didn't 'make an example' of him and lock him in the tower of london or whatever the Mail were probably suggesting