try glasgow more

I tried to go and see the gussets prior to stumbling along to pop league. I had been informed that they were going to play for about 20 mins very soon after the club opened at 1030. We arrived early, sat around while they played some horrible music, watched loads of horrible people arrive. A band came on who sounded like a shit version of Lung Leg. We left.

Not the most amazing experience of my entire life. Pop League on the other hand....

and then woodside ho!

anyone else?

trish said her brother had booked a meal for tonight at 7pm. didn't she?

Well, my stupid brother has booked our posh food for Friday instead of Saturday. Which means we have to be at the restaurant at 7pm! V. early.

So, who will meet us for pints on Saturday instead?

-- accentmonkey (tris...), Yesterday 12:14 AM. (accentmonkey) (later)

and i cannae do saturday 'cos am being grumpy uncle simon to a six-year-old all weekend chiz chiz CHIZ.

have you read ally's latest "review"?

See, there's this thing called a taxi ...

scotstvo sadly dead-on. i have waited up to three hours for taxis on hogmanay. never again.

exactly.

which is why i'm going to have to take the sodding car :(

anyway. like i say. it'll be a novelty waking up on january 1 and not feeling like i'm staring into the fucking abyss, with vomit on my shoes.

crosspost

This has its advantages, as I can now stay in and anticipate Emma Pollock on The Music Show instead. Does anyone actually know if there is a plan for tomorrow? I will be in Glasgow anyway, so can someone text me if people are pubbing?

ally, nick, stacey: i remember seeing you in the RAF club. IIRC ally was wearing some cool specs. but i have little recollection of anything else, so i apologise for whatever drunken nonsense i was no doubt spouting.

when you're drinking triple vodkas, you know you've had a good night.

there is actually an offence of "drugging"

Drugging

(1) A person who administers any drug or other substance to another person

(a) with intent to stupefy that person or being reckless as to whether that person is stupefied;

(b) with intent to facilitate the commission of an offence against that person or being reckless as to whether such an offence is committed; or

(c) with intent that that person commits an offence, or being reckless as to whether that person commits an offence, is guilty of the offence of drugging.

(2) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply

(a) if the drug or substance is administered in the course of lawful medical or dental treatment; or

(b) if the other person, knowing the likely effects of the drug or substance, requested or consented to its administration.

(3) For the purpose of this section administering a drug or substance includes causing it to be taken.

You don't need (1) (b) or (c) on top of (a) do you? Isn't (a) enough as long as the exclusions in (2) don't apply?

The offence in subsection (1)(a) does not require an intent to do anything, or recklessness as to anything, beyond stupefying the victim. The essence of the offence is a violation of the victim’s interest in freedom of action and volition.

At common law “drugging” would generally be treated as a form of causing real injury. There is, according to Gordon, no reported instance of a charge of drugging without an ulterior intent such as theft, but various older texts, including Alison, Macdonald and Anderson are all of the view that stupefaction without an ulterior intent would be unlawful.