The ‘Wankergate’ Scandal
I was (un)fortunate enough to be in charge of Trevelyan College Bar the night that a group of students, under the guise of a Hatfield rugby team, decided to break as many laws as possible within the space of two minutes. On the face of it, they were good-mannered, friendly, and sober (enough) for me not to ask for any of their campus cards. They were even well-behaved when seated around 2 tables with their pints. However, without warning the group erupted into frenzy, covered the floor in beer (it is mildly amusing that they couldn’t even consume their drinks) and set about demolishing the bar; they upturned and broke tables, chairs, glasses and sofas. Worst of all, one or two of them felt it acceptable to place their genitals into the faces of unsuspecting women. What the idiots in this group failed to realise is that this university is not exempt for the laws that bind the rest of the country – these students had not only vandalised private property, but had also sexually assaulted other members of the university. The best I could manage was to pull one of them off of the single remaining sofa before they sprinted out of the bar. The word ‘cowardice’ comes to mind.
But not all was lost – one of the group emerged from the toilets after a good ‘chunder’ and was swiftly apprehended by security staff so that he could set about promulgating the ‘Hatfield college’ lie. As it turns out, the group were part of a deluded and immature drinking society from Castle that aims to create as much damage as possible on their socials. On the same night they set about pulling up college signs, throwing buckets of vomit over other Castle students and causing hundreds of pounds worth of damage in their own bar. The university were quick to ban the criminals (for that is what they are) from the all college bars, and the matter was passed onto the police. I am not sure whether they are on the sex offenders list or not (I have heard differing reports), but the Castle bar chair was among those removed from his position in the college for serving the group, and continuing to do so throughout the evening; this is in itself illegal given the inebriation of the students and although undoubtedly a frequent occurrence, to serve people who were doing what they were doing, and lacking any visible sign of sobriety, is one step too far. This was the right course to take and, if anything, not enough, for the ban appears to have been lifted from some of the college bars (though certainly not from Trevelyan College) and as far as I am aware no formal charges were made (probably because the same university mentality that led these people to behave in the way they did also led the students who were affected to remain silent). I guess the university succeeded in keeping the matter as quiet as possible…
For me, the most infuriating part of this whole debacle was that Castle felt it necessary to call an emergency meeting in support of the impeached Bar Chair, rather than making an example of the behaviour of these students and the Chair for indirectly condoning their actions. In doing so, they too are indirectly condoning vandalism, sexual assault and whatever law-breaking activities this group of students can think up, and seemingly what the rest of their college are happy to go on in the university and in their college. I wonder how the same people in that meeting would react to having genitals shoved in their faces? I for one know that the women involved were horrified, as was the interview student that was in Trevelyan College Bar that evening. It was unsurprising to see the supposedly unbiased and ‘representative’ Palatinate reported on the meeting with a focus on the dismay of the students and the long term implications of reducing the JCR’s right to appoint who they want, rather than what events actually took place – It solely referred to an ‘incident’ that took place weeks before. The Bar Chair was still committing a criminal offence, one that I imagine he has not been fined or charged for, and his dismissal has to be upheld if the members of that group are not willing to publicly concede guilt; the university has to be seen to be pro-active in countering such behaviour. It would certainly be interesting to know what college the author of that piece was a member of, but luckily this article is here to let people know exactly what criminal activities this group of students got up to on their ‘social’.
I look forward to hearing what, supposedly, the top few percent of the country’s intellect have to say on the matter, especially those Castle students who thought that it was wrong for the university to act against the only person who could be publicly affiliated with the events of that night. Should he really be reinstated into a position where he would be running one of the college’s central institutions – one that was both vandalised by the people he continued to serve throughout, as well as the site of attacks upon other students whilst under the watch of its own Chair?
Did students rise up in support of the college officers that were caught embezzling the university for thousands of pounds? No, because they were not students and as such would not be likely to have been personal friends of anyone in the JCR. This does not appear to be the case with these Castle students, but friend or not, the actions of those students were nothing short of despicable. Running to their defence, even if indirectly, is intolerable – it could only take place at a university, and would be met with laughter anywhere else.
Jonathan Dixon
A couple of questions: there’s no by-line given. Did the author of this piece submit it anonymously, or ask to not have their name put on it?
Secondly, the author thought the offending group were sober enough to serve them at Trevs bar, but one of the main complaints the author levels against the Castle bar chair is that they served the group when they were clearly intoxicated. So did the incidents at Trevs occur early on the evening, with the party then decamping to Castle?
I should add that, as far as I’m aware, I don’t know any of the people involved, and have no axe to grind, I’m just interested in precsiely what happened.
Seems like the lack of byline is just a quirk, as the name of the author appears at the bottom of the article. That’s true of your review on the ComedyFest, too.
In response to ‘Donnchadh’, Yes. The events took place at roughly 8.30pm, and their surprising sobriety makes their actions all the more calculated in my opinion.
Oh, and the ‘posted by’ line at the top of posts has been removed due to articles going through us editors, which means that the articles no longer look like they have all been written by ourselves until you reach the bottom!
As Jonny said, I’ve removed all posted by lines. There should now be a byline at the bottom of each article – please flag it up if you find one without and we’ll add it in!
Having rather pathetically come up with ‘Cuthsgate’ the other week, I’m very glad that ‘castlegate’ has now been replaced with ‘wankergate’. I’d hate to see the bad habit spread! It should be pointed out, though, that ’scandal’ is redunant.
And, Jonny, why is ‘Donnchadh’ in inverted commas? I’m genuinely intrigued.
I think this article is missing the point somewhat about the JCR meeting, and indeed in its attempts to get the facts straight.
For a start, do you know why the Bar Chair was fired? No. Do you know what was said in the Emergency JCR meeting? No. Do you understand the context behind the Castle JCR anger which runs far deeper than this event? No. Do I know what happened in Trevs bar that night? No.
So thank you for clarfication on what happened in your bar that night, and it is an absolute disgrace what happened and no-one can deny that. Indeed banning them from you bar seems the least of the punishments which they could expect and I for one agree with that. However, as has been pointed out, they were served in your bar, and so, technically, you have broken the law too and you have committed a criminal offence too. Technically.
But know this; Castle is angry about issues that run much, much wider than this event and the JCR meeting was called as a response to a lack of understanding about what was happening. People cared about the incident, their friends, the reputation of the college and the university, offence that had been caused, a whole host of things that are not be banded about the internet to spew more rumours from people who think they know everything. How were JCR members to know what to feel regarding the events if they didn’t know what had happened? The Durham rumour mill had taken hold, and by the look of this article 5 months down the line it is still going strong.
To be frank, your polemic here filled with wild hyperbole does nothing to gain a greater understanding of what happened that night. There is still a police investigation underway, and any conclusions that that draws up will undoubtably be heeded by everyone involved, but until then your wild accusations and speculations about event beyond what you saw on your sofas should be kept to yourself. Please get your facts straight next time, because you could have had a good point with what happened in Trevs, but nothing more…
a spectator: Why shouldn’t this be something that concerns the wider university community, not just members of Castle?
I think what Jonny didn’t make clear was that they visited Trevs at the start of the night when they were all sober enough to get served (bar the one throwing up in the toilets). By the time they made it to Castle, by all accounts they were in such a state that no one with any sense would have served them.
As for A spectator’s comments, perhaps it would be more helpful to actually explain, why you believe the Bar Chair was fired, what was said in the Emergency JCR meeting and the context behind the Castle JCR anger which ‘runs far deeper than this event’. You can hardly blame Jonny for being annoyed at what a lot of people percieve to be the Castle JCR trying to defend the indefensible. It seems to me that Jonny’s view is perfectly valid unless evidence to the contrary is produced.
I assume Jonny put Donnchadh in inverted commas because he does not believe it to be a real name…
Jonny,
thanks for the reply. I have no idea how I managed to miss your name. At the bottom of the article. In black and white.
Mr/Mrs/Ms Spectator, just to be clear, I didn’t ‘point out’ that Jonny broke the law at Trevs, I just wanted to clarify the sequence of events, which Jonny did in his reply.
Did anyone from the Castle JCR enquire as to what happened in Trevs , before the JCR meeting was held? If they didn’t, pleading ignorance of what happened seems like a weak excuse.
BTW, Donnchadh is my name. If I was going to trade under a pseudonym, I’d be a little more creative.
Firstly, I’d like to ask you Jonny, if you asked anyone in Castle about what happened or did any real investigation into why the JCR meeting was actually held before you decided to write a factually incorrect and semi-libellous article?
Your opening paragraph about the incidents in Trev’s may be accurate.
HOWEVER, your rant about the actions of the Bar Chairman and the subsequent meeting, seem to me, to be a collation of rumours you have gathered from the ‘ever reliable’ Durham gossip grapevine.
Yes the JCR were entirely aware of what happened at Trev’s that night and in no way does anyone in Castle condone the actions of EPC. That wasn’t want the JCR meeting was about. It was to discuss the Bar Chair’s sacking from his job by the licensee for not upholding licensing laws because he hadn’t trained the bar staff properly. A job which he isn’t legally responsible for, as he is basically a glorified supervisor and JCR figurehead on the bar; not a paid bar steward. This was something the JCR felt strongly about because the Bar Chair happens to be a cracking lad who has worked his arse off for the bar over the year and is very good at his job. In no way had he broken any license regulations and as such they felt that if responsibility for this offence in serving drunken people should lie with anyone it should be the licensee. As such the meeting was called to discuss the situation on a wider level, for the benefit of its students, both individuals and the whole body.
The meeting had nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of the EPC. That matter has been dealt with separately, all the boys involved have been dealt with and punishments have given out by the College Officers. As for police investigations, they are still going on.
In future perhaps you should consult with people more informed on the situation outside of your own bar before you write more inaccurate statements.
Cheers Mr Observer, you said it much clearer than I could…
Of course the wider University community have every right to be concerned, but spewing crap heard on the grapevine over the internet without any proper research does no-one any favours…
To ‘An observer’ (Do you have a name?),
What exactly in my article was not accurate? Most of my information was gathered from our president, many of our college officers who were in the university meetings that discussed the events, and the info regarding the JCR meeting was taken from the palatinate article (how would I have access to the meeting anyway?) – I clearly laid out that it was in support of the impeached Chair, nothing more. The sacking of the Bar Chair for not training his staff properly WAS due to them selling alcohol to absurdly inebriated students – for the record they were NOT drunk when trashing our bar and sexually assaulting students, which as I have said above only makes their actions more despicable. Our bar regularly refuses to serve such idiots.
The crux of the issue is that the firing of the Bar Chair is, to the rest of the university, the only visible signs of any sort of worthwhile punishment – it is frankly a joke that the ban from college bars has now been lifted. Regardless of how much of a ‘cracking lad’ he is, if the decision were to be overturned it would look like your JCR was refusing to accept any responsibility for the events of the night. It is also worrying that you dignify the group with a name.
Also, the use of hyperbole is completely necessary – No one seems to want to accept what really went on that night; neither do palatinate (which is obviously heavily censored by the DSU), and the university expectedly kept things rather quiet. The events of that night really were extraordinary.
Finally, I have every right to express my views on the matter, and publicly, especially given that this hasn’t been done so already. Why couldn’t the JCR just accept what went on and publicly condemn those involved, rather than complicating the matter? Had that happened, maybe this matter wouldn’t still be hanging around 5 months down the line…
Jonny
I completely agree with Jonny. I think that you misunderstand his article completely. Your JCR Representatives dont seem to have in any way condemned the actions of the bar. In my opinion, you believe that you can stamp your feet and complain when in reality it’s fair. And to be honest, a shallow ‘we condemn their actions’, does not really work. As for questioning the legality of Trevs bar staff serving them: they were actually meant to be ’sober’. Despite this, some of Castles members (of which one was bar chair) trashed the bar, then lied about which college they were from to people from Trevs. In essence, I would bloody throw them out: I am always proud to say which college I am from, and I would never renounce that at all. Perhaps the 5 months and its still being discussed issue could have been stopped by your JCR doing something to respond to the actions of these people. I think it’s a disgrace that we try to suggest to the University that we are reponsible adults, then not only do idiots go and behave like this, you have a bunch of children stamping their feet. Honestly.
If they were sober, why was one of them throwing up in the toilets?
Well there is probably no accounting for anomolies. Saying as he was throwing up he probably wasnt trying to get served at the bar and thus they didnt have a reason to not serve them. I think that this concentration on such issues is a bit off the point: this is what seems to be being questioned when in effect it should be whether we want such people in our University.
The firing of the Bar Chair is to do with his supposed improper training of Castle bar staff, and must be separted from the EPC incident. That is what Castle is stamping its feet about for the various reasons defended above.
The punishment of the EPC boys is dependent on the result of a Police investigation, so whilst they have had some action taken against them by college, the incident is by no means closed yet.
As for the sources of your information, Palatinate is hardly fantasically reliable. They couldn’t even print the right version of the article…
What is complicating the matter are the rumours circulating everywhere, which is what the JCR meeting set out to stop.
The sacking of the Bar Chair is not the only visible punishment for the incident so lets just get on with things.
At the end of the day, people messed up badly (really badly) and the repercussions are far from over. But until the Police come out and say what has happened, nothing more can be done with regard to them. As for the Bar Chair, that is a different matter and the negotiations with college office goes on (Castle still haven’t agreed a procedure for choosing next year’s, for example).
So expressions of opinion are all very well and good, until they are based on factual inaccuracies like this. Of course the JCR condemns the actions of some its members, and to think that they don’t is ridiculous; they’re not idiots!
Lets put this into perspective. The above mentioned drinking society has been around for years, is well supported, and has been well supported for a long time. Before we focus in on the individuals involved, look at the other organisations that behave in a similar manner on a regular basis: Carrots of Hild Bede, the various uni rugby clubs, rowing clubs out on socials etc. We are students. At times we behave like students – whatever happened to forgive and forget?
To condone their behaviour by saying that other groups behave in similar ways is absolutely disgusting. Yes sport socials may get drunk and do stupid things, for which alcohol is no excuse but I have not heard of them committing crimes such as sexual harassment or trashing bars to the extent that the offending group did that night. In my opinion damaging your own liver is up to you. And though I did not personally witness the events that took place, if anybody had shoved their genitals in my direction, being asked to forgive and forget is the last thing that I would expect to hear. As stated by Johnny, it is a criminal offence and I don’t hear the courts saying “Come on guys, let’s just forgive eachother and forget this ever happened.” The waste of police time if investigations really are still going on is a crime in itself. If the event had not occured they would be left to get on with solving real crimes and would not be disciplining drunken show offs.
Lastly, as previously pointed out this ridiculous behaviour does not only affect those who took part, witnessed events or even just the members of Castle JCR. It is part of a much wider debate on the freedom of students to drink what they like. The university is already clamping down on sponsorship from bars which will negatively affect the experience of generations of students at Durham university, and this is a nasty example of a few people ruining things for everyone, the university will use it as proof for treating us all like children.
I’m not saying I condone it, but i’ve seen this type of thing happen many times in Durham. In most cases people have just laughed or shrugged their shoulders. In the most extreme cases, people might get a bit annoyed but thats about it. I’m also pretty sure those accused are innocent until proven guilty, and until such a time I prefer to believe that real justice will prevail, the Castle lads will be found innocent, and those making the accusations will be brought to account.
To ‘concerned’,
Innocent until proven guilty?! You think they will be found innocent?! I saw with my own eyes what they did, and it seems that you certainly do ‘condone’ what they got up to…
‘this university is not exempt for the laws that bind the rest of the country’: you said it yourself Johnny…and yes, that means innocent until proven guilty.
Your’s is one side of the story, published without response from those involved. Without hearing the full evidence I for one refuse to pass judgement.
A spectator said “how were the JCR supposed to know how to feel if they didn’t even know what had happened?”
while
an observer writes “the JCR were entirely aware of what happened at Trevs that night.”
One of you is either mistaken or lying. Can we please have some clarification. Also, why is punishment being delayed until the police investigation is concluded? If the JCR is aware of what took place in Trevs (or if it is now following the eyewitness account of at least THAT part of the proceedings)then surely they are duty bound to hand out some form of punishment regardless of what the police find.
Also to “Concerned” you have already passed judgement by saying the Csastle lads will be found innocent and those making accusations will be brought to account. So please do not claim moral high ground you have already given away.
Listen I think this is a well-balanced article!
These brain dead animals need the book thrown at them as far as I’m concerned! This is not Lads being Lads but criminal activity! This whole episode is to the detriment of a grass routes and community based Uni, and I for one WILL NOT stand for it!
To Concerned, GET OF THIS THREAD!
To Perplexed: As you say, there are many discrepancies in the story, and somebody is either wrong or lying. How, with that in mind, can a fair punishment be given out to those involved without a full and comprehensive investigation first taking place.
Also, I think you’ll find that the moral high ground was lost by the author in the title of this one sided piece. How can such an offensive term be used by someone so quick to take offence.
Derek. Thanks for that input. Now go and have a quiet word with yourself.
Can I ask why not a single person defending the actions of the ‘boys’ and Castle JCR seems to be willing to give their name (and yes, I know the odd person from the other side hasn’t either, but most have)? If you’re going to defend the indefensible you really should have the courage to admit who you are. It only damages your argument by making it look as if you’re hiding something, so it would be in your own interest to give a name.
As regards the article itself, of course it’s impossible for anyone not there from start to finish of the event to be completely sure what happened, but Jonny clearly knows what happened in Trev’s (on its own completely unacceptable, criminal and incredibly juvenile). For that alone the ‘boys’ should have been thrown out of the university, as they would have been in any other organisation. As for innocent until proven guilty- that is a fundamental basis of our legal system, yes, but Al Capone was never convicted of anything but tax evasion; presumably we can agree he was not innocent.
Concerned: In fairness the author witnessed a sexual assault, and is writing an opinion piece – which last time I check was a piece that expresses an opinion. Of course it is one sided, he is not claiming this an unbiased news report on the situation.
A full and comprehensive investigation doesn’t mean you have to wait for the police – especially if the JCR are aware of who was on this social, and what took place in Trevs. If the JCR do not know these things should they not be actively persuing it, not just leaving it to the police?
Unless the two people involved in the more serious allegation can be positively identified, a blanket punishment for the group would be totally inappropriate. In my PERSONAL OPINION, it would therefore be better to wait for the conclusion of the police investigation. For me, the JCR should not really be involved in this one.
As for the rest of them who turned over chairs and spilt drinks? Maybe pay for any damage, but I think even Derek TBar has witnessed worse things in his time here
A blanket punishment for the group is appropriate if they are choosing to stay silent over which individuals specifically were involved. They have made that decision, and so should be fully prepared to take the consequences. Futhermore I understand they are, in essence, a drinking society. So at the very least they should be disbanded until an investigation is held.
Also I am deeply cynical about how much information the police will actually manage to produce, although I may indeed be proved wrong. I take your point about JCR involvement, but I can’t help but feeling that if they know who is involved they can take action – while the police would obviously require a substantial amount of evidence + someone willing to prosecute before anything would be done.
I’m fairly closely involved with Palatinate. I’m happy to state that the newspaper knew EVERYTHING (and I mean ABSOLUTELY everything) about what transpired in Trevelyan and beyond before publishing the story.
With respect, Jonny boy, the paper knew a great deal more than you about matters. I can honestly say the paper was far, far better informed than you.
Palatinate wasn’t allowed to publish what it knew because, frankly, DSU was shitting itself about getting sued.
Let me reiterate: Palatinate knew more than you, or anyone else, about what happened that night. That this wasn’t published, well… go have a chat to DSU about it.
Yes its true i know everything! One of the lads had a bag of cheese and onion before leaving castle. Another called his mum the day before. Yet another was wearing purple undies with yellow spots on.
Why on earth would i have a chat with DSU? It’s full of people who wirte for the palatinate! IN FACT, 90% of DSU members are members of college drama socs! I would rather lick the A69 from Durham to Carlisle than chat to the DSU.
I have recently been provided with an up-to-date commentary on what transpired.
Clearly this has been blown out of all proportion!
As a previous recipient of some of the more harsh banter from the Castle lads, namely the now infamous “upside down reversible man papoose” I can see how some offence might have been taken.
HOWEVER, it seems to have lost all proportionality! The last thing we want as a University is to get Dibble too involved!
PLEASE CAN SOMEONE GO KNEE DEEP AND NOW PRINT THE TRUTH!
Now I’m not about to stick my conk in to this one but I think the serious issue of the Palatinate has come to the fore. Having read a recent NATIONAL review of University newspapers the most positive comment on the Palatinate was “rudimentary toilet paper”!
“Incredible”, I think we might meet half way along the motorway with a mouth full of asphalt.
Speaking of asphalt, has anybody seen the state of Bede Car Park? I had to dance the double chod hop on the way to the JCR.
It’s just a case of “Chod’s law” – as soon as you clean up the Hatfield Ents room, the Hild Bede car park goes to the dogs!
Hi there, I used to be a member of Hild Bede and thouroughly enjoyed my time particularly success on the rugby and cricket fields. It is not really the on filed activity that I miss the most but the banter and chat afterwards. I t has got me thinking that perhaps this site needs an article on the upcoming Lions tour to get a bit of sport debate going. If anyone is keen for this please leave a post below. I’ll leave this message at the bottom of a few articles to drum up support. Thanks, LA Jack.
Jack, there seems to be a bit of response to this on one of the other threads.
These people are clearly disgusting and deserve to be punished for their actions. “Concerned” has claimed that such behaviour can be shrugged off, suggested the old “forgive and forget”- that is not how things work. Sexual assault, however “minor”, is a criminal offence, it is disgraceful and should never be shrugged off by anyone. Indeed, for victims of sexual assault, “laughing it off” is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Blaming those working at the bar for serving these yobs is simply pathetic as far as I’m concerned. As Jonny has pointed out, the purpose of the society is to cause damage- as such, their intentions stemmed from when they were sober, rather than as a spontanous result of them being served an unacceptable amount of alcohol.
I don’t know any of the people invovled, nor do I know any of the facts regarding the subsequent emergency meeting at Castle. As such, I wouldn’t like to comment on any of the debate which has arisen from that aspect of the story. But I’m dismayed by those who have commented on this story seeking to transfer blame to anybody other than those members of this disgraceful society.
Lastly, just our of curiosity, what is Carrots of Hild Bede? I haven’t heard of it before and am intrigued…
Although her use of the word ‘disgusting’ makes her sound like one of the more deluded members of the Question Time audience, I believe Nicole (I’d page up a couple of times) has made more sense than most on this topic. There seems to be far too much emphasis here on punishing a hapless bar steward, than condemning the actions of a group of students he was not directly involved with. I wasn’t there of course (and the chances are neither were you!), but it seems these guys went too far and do need a serious bollocking, from their own college more than anyone else, and of course a police investigation relating to any complaint that has been made. But let’s leave it at that; the last thing you need in situations like these is a big discussion and idiots like me weighing in on the matter…
p.s. Derek Tbar, why go to the effort of constructing an argument when you’re going to undermine it with something as stupid as “grass routes”? Come on!
p.p.s. “I would rather lick the A69 from Durham to Carlisle than chat to the DSU,” while completely unhelpful here, is tremendous chat. I hope it’s your own.
Carrots of Hild Bede was a gentlemen’s society; persecuted, hated, loved, loathed and all but erased. Many a good man has gone on from carrots to greater things, and it can count several politicians, businessmen and even international sports stars amongst its members. Not strictly confined to Hild Bede, memebers would meet three times a year, an air of secrecy always prevailing. The theme always different, Carrots was unique. Those who forced its withdrawal from mainstream college life in 2004 should hang their heads in shame. Carrots is now dead…or is it?
@ incredible
Errrrrr, you seem to have a very limited sense of what the DSU is. Unless you’ve signed an opt-out form YOU are a member of DSU if you’re a Durham student (and if your not a Durham student then why are you on D21?). Interestingly what involvement have DSU had in this matter? Considering Palatinate’s obviously hushed up coverage there must have been some. (But no more Palatinate bashing please, D21 has enough of that already).
bollocks!
Leave your response!
Most Commented