Gladstone

I looked at Reddit once and had the same experience as Joda Serk. It looks like a headache. Best description.

You've been in Poland for too long. You attended Mintlaw ACADEMY. Don't forget where you came from, and keep it real... Homey.

It's funny - I've seen nothing but derision aimed at BOTB on this site but as soon as I saw Fat Hippy associated with this BOTB I knew the reaction would be different... Normally people don't even look at the detail of a BOTB post before shouting it down. That said - I can't imagine Fat Hippy doing anything totally dickish towards bands because they're good guys and know what they're doing and won't look to rip anyone off. That said - I still find this weird. Are the good bands, i.e. the bands that are genuinely good going to jump on this opportunity and put themselves through the whole BOTB thing just because they know the prize at the end will be genuine and they trust Fat HIppy Records, etc.? Or, as is fairly standard at BOTB, will it just be a bunch of inexperienced, fairly shite bands that turn up. If this had been posted in 2006/2007, I would have been all over it, wanting to play and get a record deal and we were definitely inexperienced and fairly shite then. (Cue - "aye, you were fairly shite all the time", but I know what I mean - we thought we were good, but actually we were just starting out and didn't know what the fuck we were doing at all!!). I suppose the only relevant exception I can think of when we were gigging was the BOTB for places at the Wizard Festival a few years ago. A lot of genuinely good bands played at that, including established bands who had played the festival the previous year etc. The intentions were genuine, but I remember it being run very poorly (I think by someone like Northsound or Evening Express) and people (as always) questioned the judging and all that stuff. I remember speaking to the organiser (of the festival) at the time and him telling me he was pissed off with how the BOTB was being run in their name. Anyway... (that post was longer than I first intended...)

Does anyone remember back in say about 1998/99, there used to be a random "unplugged" (maybe more like "toned down") live show on STV/Grampian TV at a weird time - something like 11pm on a Tuesday night or something weird like that? I distinctly remember watching Reef with my flatmates when I was in first year at uni (which was 99/00).

Ince was no Jim Bett.

Didn't Ince once say that tackling was better than sex? I've taken part in both (twice each) and sex is definitely better.

I always recommend Fusion - they played at my wedding. It's half of Eskimo Blonde - you'll find them online - contact the singer Mike. Good mix of pop tunes and the odd Scottish dance. A lot of the people that came to my wedding booked them off the back of it, which speaks volumes.

This is quite enlightening: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2005/16/part/8/crossheading/drunkenness-and-disorderly-conduct It's an offence to be drunk and attempt to enter "relevant premises" (which I assume are licensed premises) and is also an offence to be drunk on relevant premises and be incapable of looking after yourself (as well as going on to act in a disorderly manner etc etc.) And it is also an offence to buy drink for a drunk person and to serve them drink. So - the law basically says anyone that could possibly be held responsible for someone being a drunk dickhead, will be held responsible.

"Which bar gets the blame" is what is wrong with that question. Neither bar should get the blame. I've no idea as to whether either or both have to accept a level of responsibility - I'd like to think that neither would. I also don't know about the drink driving thing. I think there is a level of responsibility attached in that if the barman knows the drinker is likely to drive home they should try to stop it. I'm not sure if that's a legal responsibility or not. What I'm thinking about is that I'm from a village in the back end of nowhere and the local barman used to demand the car keys from some locals before serving them another pint (they'd probably already had 5 before he asked...). I'm not sure if that was the barman just being a good guy and not wanting his customers to get in the shit or whether he was looking out for his own interest (or both).

Yeah - I totally agree with the sentiment of people being generally less pissed. Our society is full of drunk people all the time and it's a real problem. There are going to be a lot of completely knackered livers in the very near future. But - it worries me that the route being used to try and solve the problem is to hold the drinking establishment responsible. People need to learn to look after themselves rather than expecting everyone else to take responsibility for their actions.

But you broke his?

Why the rush? Is the rumour that you and Ben made sweet sweet love?

Yeah - I read this thread waiting for it to get good. It didn't. I am now intrigued by Jake's revelations about Ben though... I had one encounter with Ben when I was putting on gigs and he screwed me over, which was just swell of him.

Roberto Baggio? That's the guy from Lord of the Rings, right?

I would tell you if I knew more than fuck all about Everton Rovers FC.

Imagine how all destroying Berbatov would be with 10% of the effort Kenny Miller used to put in.

Everton for the title. Obviously. Bobby Martinez is the best manager in the world.

Flash - is that actually true?? Health and safety gone mad, I tell you. Our society is fucked in so many ways.

Kids always think that everyone thinks they're all trouble makers. I remember being pissed off for being demonised as a teenager. I was no angel but I wasn't a troublemaker. I don't think anyone on here is really saying kids are all trouble or anything like that. The point I was trying to make is that these guys are trying to run a business and there is definitely a perceived risk with letting a bunch of u18s into a licensed establishment. That may be misplaced and it may be overstated, but it is there. The other point I was trying to make is that they also don't have a "duty" of some sort to give kids a chance. You could argue that it may be in their long term interest (or their short term interest) but they aren't somehow dutybound to give you a gig. IF (and it is an "if"), the venue allows under 18s to attend and somehow one (it just takes one) of them gets smashed out of their tits and gets taken away in an ambulance or worse, the masses of ticket money received in that one night won't compensate for the loss of their licence or pay the costs of a potential law suit, or whatever. That's the sort of thing you have to understand that these guys will have at the backs of their minds when considering under 18s gigs. Of course, there is the risk of that happening to an adult too but at least in the case of an adult, the venue is legally entitled to sell alcohol to that adult and the press just wouldn't be as bad if an adult didn't look after themselves properly.

Someone should actually ask Flash - a 3 page long post from Flash in this topic would probably be a good read...

Well, yes and no. There is then the risk of 18+ buying drinks for the kiddies etc. It's just a potential pain in the arse for the owner/manager of the venue. Like I said above, it's not that I'm personally against under 18s going to gigs - far from it, in fact. Just pointing out why a small venue may not want to have under 18s in.

Yeah - I'm not saying that kids shouldn't be allowed in or anything like that. Just trying to look at it from the point of view of the owner/manager of a venue/bar. These places are there to make money and dealing with a (large) group of drunk teenagers (who didn't get drunk by spending money in your venue) is a nightmare. There is also the added hassle of making sure that they don't get drunk on your premises or somehow sneak a drink from the bar or whatever. It just may not seem worth the hassle of the added ticket revenue. I think if done really well, it could work. Possibly just make the under 18s nights totally alcohol free and only for under 18s. Close the bar completely and just concentrate on ticket revenue. Maybe.

Diving bastard. I didn't actually see that at the time, I was out of the room or something. Came back in just as Van Persie was stepping up. I knew it wasn't a penalty because the usually very biased British commentators were expressing massive amounts of doubt. Normally there's a "oh there was some contact" or "it was cute play" or something. But there was none of that. The guy even said some justice was perhaps done with the penalty being missed.

Aye - it was probably the best SPL match I've watched for years. Aberdeen dominated but 4 was a bit harsh on Partick. The boy's shot from the halfway line was really unlucky. Does anyone still think that Rangers getting turfed out of the league was a bad thing?