Trenton Oldfield (aka boat race ruiner)

Gourami · **Joined:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:51 pm **Posts:** 2005

Her headline says '...the politics of narcissism'???

She said that? :lol:

It doesn't get any better. This is the last line.

Quote:

Trenton Oldfield did more than capsize the Boat Race. He showed how technology is throwing up a new menace — the trouble-maker who swims under the radar and then makes a lethal and global splash.

Lethal?

Who died Mel?

*insert Bristol stool chart 'lethal and global splash' joke here*

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:34 am

ponce on the heath wrote:

But what if they told you not to play anywhere in the park because they've always used that set of posts? And the police backed them up and asked you to leave the public place.

Then I suppose they must have been granted special permission to exclusively use a public place. As long as I got that public place back after they finished and they did not take it for too long then no problem.

If I can make a justifiable case for exclusive use of public space, such as using it for the entertainment of a significant number of people, then I would like people not to interfere with me.

If someone interfered with, say, Live 8 in Hyde Park in 2005 then I would think they were dickheads too. (And I would expect the same backup from authorities).

lord_kobel · **Posted:** Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:43 am

You're equating toffs showing off with a benefit concert?

Bones McCoy · **Joined:** Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:08 am **Posts:** 7330

McSnark wrote:

You know, I think it would have been more entertaining if he had been commanding a mini-sub that popped up, strafed the boats and the spectators with machine-guns and then blew himself up. But I'm just weirdly witchy that way.

I figure this would be a great spoof video game to unveil at a "Ban this sick filth" radio phone-in.

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:30 pm

Gourami wrote:

Patrick100 wrote:

He was a prize prat , though.

He had as much right to swim there as they had to be rowing boats there, he was there first and no laws were broken. He has proven his point by getting arrested without there being a case for it. Inconveniencing some aristos is no crime. They don't own the river, even if they behave like they do.

Actually the river is closed off for the race as a security risk and so being inside it IS a criminal offence. Much in the same way as during the Monaco Grand Prix you don't see Hamilton and Vettel overtaking old blokes in Fiat Puntos.

This guy was a prize arse and I hope he gets some very large books thrown at him, and hopefully the library on a brick-by-brick basis as well. Twunt.

lord_kobel · **Posted:** Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:42 pm

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:00 pm

I think we're on a very slippery (and quite Mailite) slope here. It seems people are happy for the twat (which is what he is) to disrupt the otherwise innocent entertainment of large numbers of people on the grounds that the sport concerned is not, for various reasons, to their taste. In other words antisocial behaviour is quite acceptable if it's done to other people over whom we can manufacture some sort of sense of superiority.

Where does that end? If you are one of the people who hates cricket, is it OK for protesters to vandalise pitches? Or for defrocked priests to run on the track at Silverstone? Run in front of horses at the Derby?

As Nutter says, the river was closed for a sporting event. That's perfectly legitimate, it happens every year. A lot of people invested time, money and effort into making the event happen (which is true of every sporting event with international coverage, with the exception that this one is quite cheap, I imagine, compared to football internationals, grands prix or eventing finals) whilst others went to watch. He prevented them from pursuing their legitimate aims.

Are you saying he has a right to do that? If so, do I? Does everybody?

Gourami · **Joined:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:51 pm **Posts:** 2005

Yes, now move over, I have stumps to snap.

Fozzy · **Posted:** Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:34 pm

What Bluebellnutter and Malcolm said.

ACG · **Posted:** Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:09 pm

there are a desterblingly large number of people (and not just on the usual maily pages) who are talking seriously about posting snipers to prevent similar things happening during the olympics, (and not in "they could be carrying a bomb" terms either, just disruption and protests).

as much as this guy may have had no right to interfear with the race, and as much of a massive irritant it is to people who like the race, they, similarly, have no right to protect their leasure activity from disruption with live fucking amunition.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:13 pm

Quite true, but I don't see what that's got to do with the boat race events.

ACG · **Posted:** Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:19 pm

well it's being said of this event "this wouldn't have happened if...", "someone should have..." etc.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:21 pm

By whom? I'll worry when the Home Secretary says she'll give permission for the police or army to use live ammunition against unarmed protesters. Not when gobshites chatter.

ACG · **Posted:** Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:29 pm

but you'll worry when "gobshites chatter" about being glad something they don't like gets disrupted?

you can have your concern sparked by this, and i can have mine. all good ok?

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:31 pm

Oh yes. Of course.

Trenton Oldfield (aka boat race ruiner)

Who is online