Drunken mistakes understood but not excused (From Daily Echo)

'We all make mistakes' I can hear them say, well I hope someone is around to remind this brat of his. There's another wiser saying about not 'defecating' on your own doorstep.
So come on University, remind your 'representative' of his responsibilities and the consequences of his actions. You would then do well to let us know-via the Echo- that the warning had been given.

Well Superintendent, firstly, are we sure this guy is a University student (maybe this has been confirmed previously and I've missed that?). Secondly, perhaps as you say; "...the majority of them (students) abhor drunken stupidity and criminality in the same way most of us do", but I can tell you for a fact that very many students still nevertheless think getting drunk and messing about in a drunken state is all great fun. And that is just the problem. Unless or until so many people think differently about the consequences of the abuse of alcohol and the effect it can have on their health and behaviour, and accept that 'letting their hair down' so to speak, can be done without it, then this kind of thing will always happen. But then this behaviour is not exclusive to students anyway though, is it? And thirdly, do many people really believe anyway, that the University would take any meaningful action (assuming it should by the way) against him? I mean outside his study time and away from their property, I can't see that it's their responsibility nor obligation to. But then there are plenty of people in positions of responsibility in Universities, who have a certain kind of anti-military attitude, and would never seriously reprimand a student for what they would see as a very trivial action anyway. But assuming just for a moment
that this perpetrator is a student, essentially away from there, in his own time, he is his own person and has exclusive individual responsibility to behave himself and show respect for the law and others' feelings. But then as we all should know, alcohol is a behavioural altering chemical, and consuming too much of it can cause any person, given the right situation, to behave erratically and with unacceptable irresponsibility. There's no doubt that if it was invented today it would be a classified drug, like marijuana, cocaine and the rest. It's only because it's consumption has become 'accepted' throughout society over the years and the fact that to try and ban it now would be impossible and extremely unpopular with many voters that it's not. Personally, I've never, ever understood why consuming so much of it is so popular anyway.

Ian Murray's comments in today's Echo '...there are elements of our pampered young generation that simply do not understand the sacrifises made on their behalf' really highlights the issues orbiting this story, such as the inherent ageism and social shortcomings that crop up every time a rogue student behaves so abhorrently.

Put simply, the culprit was wrong to take a pee on the Cenotaph. Most students know, agree with and accept that. It's no cause for you to lump every student and young-person together under some myopic commentary on our 'pampered generation'.

While we're not the generation facing the horrors of the blitz, the uncertainty of the cold-war or the tight-fisted, cold-iron days of Thatcherite Britain, we've got our own problems in the face of massive unemployment, random terror attacks (which are really quite scary when you think about it. At least during the blitz they got air-raid sirens), bent politicians actually *getting away* with their crimes, financial crisis, restricted lifestyle, racism, xenophobia, an ineffectual justice system (we're always hearing how much better it was in the 'old days', so how pampered are we as a generation, really, if we have to endure YOUR generation letting murderers roam the streets?)

Then there's University and student-life. Not all students want to go out and get wasted all the time, but our older generations greed culture (see I can generalise too) has turned University from a hub of intellectual pursuit into yet another get-rich-quick cash cow. The sheer number of submissions to Uni reflects not only this generations terror at having to become part of the atrociously run, exploitative and ultimately failing employment industry (again, where does the blame lie? Those old enough to have elected both Thatcher then Major and finally Blair?) and the utter ridiculousness of the worth of the degree. You -need- to have one because everyone has one, but the bright stars and hard workers will get lost amidst the number of students out there.

The loan's don't help either, but they wouldn't need to be there if the government weren't trying to bleed every student dry of their money and ensure that everyone's under their thumb through the good ole' debt system of control

If I were still a student, with the state of affairs in this country? I'd probably drink myself to near death as well and try to enjoy it before having to go into the **** storm you've created for us.

I've just realised I commented in entirely the wrong place.

Oops!

Marmalade_Prophet wrote:
Ian Murray's comments in today's Echo '...there are elements of our pampered young generation that simply do not understand the sacrifises made on their behalf' really highlights the issues orbiting this story, such as the inherent ageism and social shortcomings that crop up every time a rogue student behaves so abhorrently. Put simply, the culprit was wrong to take a pee on the Cenotaph. Most students know, agree with and accept that. It's no cause for you to lump every student and young-person together under some myopic commentary on our 'pampered generation'. While we're not the generation facing the horrors of the blitz, the uncertainty of the cold-war or the tight-fisted, cold-iron days of Thatcherite Britain, we've got our own problems in the face of massive unemployment, random terror attacks (which are really quite scary when you think about it. At least during the blitz they got air-raid sirens), bent politicians actually *getting away* with their crimes, financial crisis, restricted lifestyle, racism, xenophobia, an ineffectual justice system (we're always hearing how much better it was in the 'old days', so how pampered are we as a generation, really, if we have to endure YOUR generation letting murderers roam the streets?) Then there's University and student-life. Not all students want to go out and get wasted all the time, but our older generations greed culture (see I can generalise too) has turned University from a hub of intellectual pursuit into yet another get-rich-quick cash cow. The sheer number of submissions to Uni reflects not only this generations terror at having to become part of the atrociously run, exploitative and ultimately failing employment industry (again, where does the blame lie? Those old enough to have elected both Thatcher then Major and finally Blair?) and the utter ridiculousness of the worth of the degree. You -need- to have one because everyone has one, but the bright stars and hard workers will get lost amidst the number of students out there. The loan's don't help either, but they wouldn't need to be there if the government weren't trying to bleed every student dry of their money and ensure that everyone's under their thumb through the good ole' debt system of control If I were still a student, with the state of affairs in this country? I'd probably drink myself to near death as well and try to enjoy it before having to go into the **** storm you've created for us.

Lot of words(waffle), some blame attributed to The Echo-as people do, of course-but do you condemn or condone?

Scrutinizer wrote:
Well Superintendent, firstly, are we sure this guy is a University student (maybe this has been confirmed previously and I've missed that?). Secondly, perhaps as you say; "...the majority of them (students) abhor drunken stupidity and criminality in the same way most of us do", but I can tell you for a fact that very many students still nevertheless think getting drunk and messing about in a drunken state is all great fun. And that is just the problem. Unless or until so many people think differently about the consequences of the abuse of alcohol and the effect it can have on their health and behaviour, and accept that 'letting their hair down' so to speak, can be done without it, then this kind of thing will always happen. But then this behaviour is not exclusive to students anyway though, is it? And thirdly, do many people really believe anyway, that the University would take any meaningful action (assuming it should by the way) against him? I mean outside his study time and away from their property, I can't see that it's their responsibility nor obligation to. But then there are plenty of people in positions of responsibility in Universities, who have a certain kind of anti-military attitude, and would never seriously reprimand a student for what they would see as a very trivial action anyway. But assuming just for a moment that this perpetrator is a student, essentially away from there, in his own time, he is his own person and has exclusive individual responsibility to behave himself and show respect for the law and others' feelings. But then as we all should know, alcohol is a behavioural altering chemical, and consuming too much of it can cause any person, given the right situation, to behave erratically and with unacceptable irresponsibility. There's no doubt that if it was invented today it would be a classified drug, like marijuana, cocaine and the rest. It's only because it's consumption has become 'accepted' throughout society over the years and the fact that to try and ban it now would be impossible and extremely unpopular with many voters that it's not. Personally, I've never, ever understood why consuming so much of it is so popular anyway.

Come on, another fence-sitter? Condone or condemn? Do you think the Uni are enpowered to take some action? Or is this another opportunity to bash Police, Social services or the Echo, whilst doing nothing ourselves?

LOCAL YOUTHS DUN GOOD headline.

Well done Max Brick and Tom Daly for Gold in the synchronised diving, and to Andy Vernon and John Beattie for going in against the Kenyans in the 10k on the track. You are all a credit to the area.

lowe esteem wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote: Well Superintendent, firstly, are we sure this guy is a University student (maybe this has been confirmed previously and I've missed that?). Secondly, perhaps as you say; "...the majority of them (students) abhor drunken stupidity and criminality in the same way most of us do", but I can tell you for a fact that very many students still nevertheless think getting drunk and messing about in a drunken state is all great fun. And that is just the problem. Unless or until so many people think differently about the consequences of the abuse of alcohol and the effect it can have on their health and behaviour, and accept that 'letting their hair down' so to speak, can be done without it, then this kind of thing will always happen. But then this behaviour is not exclusive to students anyway though, is it? And thirdly, do many people really believe anyway, that the University would take any meaningful action (assuming it should by the way) against him? I mean outside his study time and away from their property, I can't see that it's their responsibility nor obligation to. But then there are plenty of people in positions of responsibility in Universities, who have a certain kind of anti-military attitude, and would never seriously reprimand a student for what they would see as a very trivial action anyway. But assuming just for a moment that this perpetrator is a student, essentially away from there, in his own time, he is his own person and has exclusive individual responsibility to behave himself and show respect for the law and others' feelings. But then as we all should know, alcohol is a behavioural altering chemical, and consuming too much of it can cause any person, given the right situation, to behave erratically and with unacceptable irresponsibility. There's no doubt that if it was invented today it would be a classified drug, like marijuana, cocaine and the rest. It's only because it's consumption has become 'accepted' throughout society over the years and the fact that to try and ban it now would be impossible and extremely unpopular with many voters that it's not. Personally, I've never, ever understood why consuming so much of it is so popular anyway.

Come on, another fence-sitter? Condone or condemn? Do you think the Uni are enpowered to take some action? Or is this another opportunity to bash Police, Social services or the Echo, whilst doing nothing ourselves?

Well firstly, on the general theme of so called, as you put it, "fence sitting"; people who accuse others of such a position tend to be of a type who believe everything should be seen in purely black and white terms - with no shades of any other colour. Unfortunately the bad news for these people is that real life in the real world very frequently isn't so nice and cosy and clear cut as that! Also, the police etc should always be open to criticism, though what I've said previously can hardly be interpreted as bashing the police, social services and the dear ol' Echo (though the Echo do get the facts wrong from time to time and deserve the occasional, as you put it, "bashing"!). But anyway, with specific reference to this story; essentially I've it made clear, that I condone and blame the PERPETRATOR for what he did. Oh and it's still not clear by the way that this guy is a University student, or is it? Has that been established for a fact? If so fair enough. But anyway, again, assuming for a moment that he is, I still do not believe the University has responsibility for his action, which has occured away from their premises and in his own time. No, no matter whatever organisation or institution he might belong to, it is ultimately down to HIS lack of personal self-control, in HIS his own time, by allowing himself to consume too much alcohol and thereby put himself in a postion whereby he could commit anti-social (more accurately and appropriately, criminal actions). Obviously Universities can help by educating and advising their students, but people are not owned by any institution. Of course if damage and other innappropriate behaviour occurs on University property, well then obviously that has to be clamped down on by thw authorities. But ultimately an individual is his/her own person with his/her own personal responsibilities in life.

Another Bumper Bundle of the Bleedin Obvious that goes without saying and doesn't bear scrutiny, i refer the Tottonian One one to my original comment before he addressed the Superintendent with his verbose garglings.