Lamb of God and the stage-diving toss-pots

June 27^th – At what point in a series of events (unfortunate or not) do we become responsible for the outcome? OK, those of a nervous or easily offended disposition read no further. You have been warned.

Let’s discuss two true cases and one personal true story and see if we can’t tease out where the responsibility lies and what the H&S ruling might have been.

Case 1)

Uroko Onoja, a practising polygamist with six wives, was caught by five of his other wives having sex with the sixth. She was by far the youngest of the spouses and the other five, who were jealous of her, threatened Uroko with knives and sticks, demanding he have sex with them…and right now! After servicing four of them in quick succession, and before mounting the fifth, Uroko complained of chest pains, stopped breathing and was dead within a few minutes. Now, where does the blame lie?

Is it with Uroko for submitting to the demands of the wives, by not saying;

‘I don’t think so, ladies; I’ve got a headache and I don’t feel like sex.”

Does the blame lie with the wives who couldn’t control their own sexual urges and jealousies? That his regular conjugal attention of the youngest wife had nothing to do with Uroko wanting a younger model in preference to the mid-range wives he’d already got but because she was vulnerable and insecure and needed much more comforting?

Would the H&S Executive have been satisfied if Mr. Uroko had been allowed a fifteen minute recess between bouts?

Would it have satisfied current legislation if Mr. Uroko had been allowed to get the wives to join in with a six-some, or would this have infringed the rights of the wives to ‘obtaining a participatory orgasm with a male partner’?

From the male perspective, does it really matter?

Case 2)

Kenneth Pinyan died of acute peritonitis after receiving anal intercourse from a stallion. Info-Grabber: His case led to the criminalisation (this was in 2005, btw…those Yanks, huh? Such a God-fearing bunch and so full of fun) his case led to the criminalisation of bestiality in Washington State… 2005…? Right… You really do have to re-read that then shake your head at the human race at times, don’t you? Right. OK, so, onward. Who is to blame?

Should it be Mr. Pinyan for believing that a horse would find him in the least bit attractive and want to spend the rest of its days with him as a partner…other than the fact he’d offered his body as an incentive?

Is it the legislators of Washington State by failing to protecting the good people from the advances of amorous stallions?

Would the H&S Executive have been satisfied if the Horse Racing Betting Levy had been informed as to the odds of Mr Pinyan surviving such a union and been able to open a book on the outcome?

Case 3)

I was sat in a hospital canteen when my late father was ill, just before visiting time started, having a cup of tea … now there is a H&S calamity; hospital tea… and reading a paper when a couple of nurses sat at the next table in front of me. They began chatting and I continued reading, only slightly aware of their conversation when, gradually, my attention was grabbed as I heard the one nurse say;

“…so we had to get the snipe-nosed tweezers and pull the blue-tack out; only way we could do it, his penis and urethra were in such a bad way by then…”

Who is to blame?

Is it the makers of blue-tack for designing something as sexually charged as a blob of blue squidge that just oozes fornication?

Is it the makers of blue-tack for creating something that is mouldable into a million sexually charged shapes that scream “erotica!” at the passing shopper?

Is it the makers of blue-tack and should they be up in the dock, alongside the makers of bubble-wrap and parcel aircushions?

Would the H&S Executive have been satisfied if the blue-tack had been of a firmer manufacture and so would have required a larger orifice for secretion and sexual gratification?

These are the kind of weighty problems, living in the age of Health and Safety legislation that we have to consider. I mean, where do you stand on allowing a customer in a pub to carry a tray of drinks back to his/her table if he/she hasn’t received the correct training in carrying a tray of drinks? Can you see the inherent dangers in having knives in a kitchen? Would we better off erecting scaffolding to change a light bulb rather than using a ladder? You see? We are beset with major decisions about how far we are prepared to push the envelope of stupidity in order to either enjoy ourselves or get the job done.

This is the sort of dilemma that faced Randy Blythe of the heavy metal band, Lamb of God when he returned to Czechoslovakia on this day in 2012 after a two-year gap. When he was there the last time he’d pushed a stage-diving tosser (SDT) off the stage; unfortunately, said SDT had whacked his head and had died two weeks after the incident. Lamb of God had left the country by then as their tour continued and it was only on his return that Mr. Blythe was arrested for manslaughter. So, where does the blame lie?

Is it with Mr. Blythe, who was probably sick to the back teeth with having individual wankers coming to their gig and showing off to their friends by stage-diving, regardless of whom they inconvenience and had decided that one less body on stage would make more room for the band and, because he was a stage-diver this person would be leaving the stage with some force at some point so, sooner rather than later?

Is it with the concert promoter for designating areas of the floor in front of the band an area where individual wankers can barge their way into other individual wankers in what they euphemistically call ‘the mosh pit’ regardless as to whom they inconvenience?

Is it with individual wankers being allowed into concerts at all?

The defence rests.