try glasgow more

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.

coo, the things you miss when you're at the citizens' with a six-year-old watching "charlotte's web" (which, incidentally, is astonishing and joyous and beautiful).

a painfully contrite phil asked me by e-mail to mention that he's not a complete knobhead. i can vouch for that: he really isn't. even though i get the impression he behaved like one last night.

my addled brane just remembers lucy saying: "something someone ILX somewhere" and me going: "TOP I SHALL BUY MORE BEER" and then having to make up the round on the spot at the bar because i couldn't remember what anybody wanted.

next time i shall try to have enough functioning brain cells to actually talk, mooro.

I can't actually remember anything else, right enough. Except scoffing lots of Celebrations.