• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Great Acts Of Stupidity

Scout leader shows how not to light camp fire
24.11.2003 1.08 pm

Napier scout leader John de Lautour gave a graphic display of how not to light a campfire on Saturday night.

Onlookers watched aghast as Mr de Lautour's lower legs were engulfed in flames after he used half a litre of petrol to get things cracking at Weka Camp at Rissington, 29km northwest of Napier, about 9pm.

Mr de Lautour put a match to the stack of wood and had turned to walk away when the stack burst into a 2m-high flame.

A scout leader for 10 years, Mr de Lautour, 36, was wearing shorts and jandals. He suffered moderate burns and rushed into the nearby Mangaone river, where he sat while campers called emergency services.

Speaking from his home today Mr de Lautour said he was embarrassed by his "foolish" actions.

"It was a silly thing to do. We know better. I look back and think, 'Why on earth did I do that?'.

"I spend all that time telling kids not to put gas near a fire and then go and do it myself.... It was a valuable lesson learned," Mr de Lautour said.

He said the correct way to start a fire was with paper or dried grass, not petrol.

Mr de Lautour was flown to Hawke's Bay Hospital by helicopter and discharged yesterday.

He will spend the next week at home nursing his wounds.

Mr de Lautour said his scouting activities had actually finished earlier in the day, and he was on a "family camp" at the time of the incident.

"Technically it was not a scout leader that did it (lit the fire using petrol)," he said.
Click to expand...
:D
 
Quicksilver said:
I filled my diesel Peaugot up to the max with unleaded the other day. That was pretty stupid. :rolleyes:

What's worse is that I reversed out of the first pump I went to because the unleaded hose was locked off. :rolleyes:

It then cost me £76.00 to have the tank drained, a new fuel filter fitted and a further £30.00 to fill up with deisel. That'll learn me, then. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
My former boss was looking forward to the day his 12 month DUI ban was complete, and he could take delivery of his custom built Porsche 911 turbo, with it's snazzy £25000 interior (on top of the £80k+ for the car itself). The day arrived and he proudly took it for a spin through the Staffordshire countryside, stopping off on his way home to fill the tank. After filling it up he went to pay, to be asked by the attendant;
'When did Porsche start making Diesel 911s?' :D Couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke ;) .
 
Quicksilver said:
I filled my diesel Peaugot up to the max with unleaded the other day. That was pretty stupid. :rolleyes:

What's worse is that I reversed out of the first pump I went to because the unleaded hose was locked off. :rolleyes:

It then cost me £76.00 to have the tank drained, a new fuel filter fitted and a further £30.00 to fill up with deisel. That'll learn me, then. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I discovered that Hubby's unleaded car has a little lock thing which comes over the petrol hole when you try to put diesel in it.
Lucky that . . . :rolleyes:
 
A CNN.com report on travel during Thanksgiving:

One egregious delay was reported at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson airport.

An AirTran Airbus A320 packed with 156 passengers bound for San Francisco, California, was delayed four hours Sunday when an airline worker noticed a sticker reading "Terrorism Equals War" affixed to the cabin door's exterior, airline spokesman Tad Hutcheson said.

Once notified, the captain returned the plane to the gate, where the sticker was deemed a possible security threat, Hutcheson said.

All passengers were ordered off with their luggage and re-screened by 12 TSA employees pulled away from their duties at the main terminal, he said.

After almost three hours, the passengers and crew were allowed to re-board, including a man who admitted having placed the sticker on the door, Hutcheson said.

The flight departed at 1:32 p.m., more than four hours behind schedule.

"It was a practical joke taken a little too far," Hutcheson said.

No charges were filed against the passenger, but he suffered another kind of punishment: "The worse thing is to fly with the 155 people he delayed," Hutcheson said.
Click to expand...
 
I like the one about the Sydney man who ate a live slug on a $20 bet and ended up contracting a nasty brain infection from parasites that were living in the slug. He was hospitalised and was sick for something like 5 weeks.
Revolt and discust are built into the brain to prevent things like this happening. I guess gross stupidity was the overriding factor.
 
Rampant Stupidity

I was meaning to start a general thread for outrageous stupdity and this story on the front page has nudged me into it:

Man challenges lion to bullfight and survives

Mon Jan 12, 2:12 PM ET

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (Reuters) - An Argentine man leaped into the lion's pen during a weekend visit to the Buenos Aires zoo, challenged one of the animals to a bullfight -- and walked away with just minor cuts and bruises.


"He jumped into the lion's pen, and when the lions didn't react, he took off his jacket and egged them on," said zoo veterinarian Miguel Rivolta. "It was an act of madness."

Television footage showed Quique the lion sitting on top of 22-year-old Lucas Tomas, padding him with his paw and leaving only superficial injuries to his head, arm and chest, doctors said.

Quique was sedated with a tranquilliser dart. The would-be matador was being examined by a psychiatrist.
Click to expand...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...m/20040112/od_uk_nm/oukoe_life_argentina_lion

A strip of images taken from the TV footage are here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040113/ids_photos_wl/ra1452271559.jpg

Emps
 
BERLIN, Germany (Reuters) -- German police are investigating after an angry man returned a computer he had just bought saying it was packed with small potatoes instead of computer parts.

The store replaced the computer free of charge but became suspicious when he returned a short time later with another potato-filled computer casing, police in the western city of Kaiserslautern said on Monday.

"The second time he said he didn't need a computer any more and asked for his money back in cash," a police spokesman said.

Police are now investigating the man for fraud.

CNN.com
 
DD: I'm pretty sure I posted that in Dumbest Criminals.

This so reminds me of one of my friends who borrowed someone elses car and gave it a bit of a bump, went and sat in the pub trying to figure out what to do and came up with the cunning plan of taking it down to the beach and setting fire to it and claiming it was stolen.

Teen burned home to hide parties

By Kimball Perry
Post staff reporter

John Layne started Christmas early last year, flying to San Diego with his wife Dec. 5 to visit his father.

Layne, 40, instructed his 16-year-old son, a sophomore at Oak Hills High, to behave and not have any parties.

That sensible parental advice fell on deaf ears, though, as "hundreds of kids" partied all week at Layne's Dent house, neighbors later told him. They were neighbors who would, on the day Layne was due to return to his Ebenezer Road home, call to report the house was burning to the ground.

Even worse for Layne, his son was convicted this week in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court after admitting he burned down the house in a desperate attempt to cover up the damage his forbidden parties caused.

"He set three separate fires and torched it with gas," Layne said Tuesday as bulldozers knocked down the charred remains of his house, a loss the insurance company estimated at 0,000 for the house and its contents. "They got him to admit on tape he set the fires."

Layne found out about the fire, but not the culprit, Dec. 13 just before he was to fly back to Cincinnati.

"You talk about a long flight home," he said with a laugh, his wife next to him watching the demolition. "I was just sick."

His pain increased, though, when he was told his own flesh and blood was to blame.

"I couldn't believe my own son would do this. He showed no remorse at the trial. He just sat there," Layne said. "It's just been a nightmare you just can't wake up from."

While his son lived with his ex-wife in Price Hill, Layne allowed his son to come to his house each morning so the teen could attend Oak Hills and ride there with a neighbor.

When they were leaving Dent for the airport, Layne's son was his usual personable self.

"He gave us a huge hug and said, 'Have a good time.' I told him I would bring him a T-shirt," Layne said.

He warned the teen not to have parties, believing the warning was enough because the teen had never been a problem.

Instead, he later found out, the teen had "parties all week" that resulted in some damage to the house -- holes in a few walls and a kitchen cabinet was scratched -- but nothing that couldn't be repaired.

The fire was so hot -- exceeding 2,000 degrees, fire officials estimated -- that the house's I-beam that supported the house buckled, forcing the entire structure to be razed.

"It's incredible to me. He burned down the house to try to cover it up," Layne said.

"It's enough to nauseate you. We've cried. We've pretty much gone through the whole range of emotions.

"It's like there is an empty hole in my stomach. You just don't understand how this happened."

Layne's ex-wife did not return calls requesting comment for this article.

Layne's nausea returned when he learned his son likely would receive minimal punishment for his admitted crimes.

The teen was convicted Monday when assistant prosecutors reduced the charges against him. They told Layne they expected the teen to receive a "slap on the wrist" and be ordered to receive counseling.

Prosecutor Mike Allen called his assistant's representation to Layne "a poor choice of words" but said it was likely accurate. Those, he added, are the frustrations of dealing with juvenile criminals who usually aren't subject to punishment once they reach the age of majority.

"I thought that they would send him away to a juvenile home until he was 18 or something," Layne said.

Layne likely will end his relationship with his son.

"The sad thing is, we lost my son in this, too. "I felt betrayed and hurt. I never want him on my property again," Layne said.

"That's probably the last I'll see of him. To do something like this is just monstrous."

He and his wife have been living in an apartment since the fire. They plan to rebuild.

"I guess we just go on with our lives," he said.
Click to expand...

http://www.cincypost.com/2004/01/10/burn011004.html
 
The stupidest person here is the father who left his 16 year old son in his house while he went gallivanting off to San Diego. :mad:


What a twit. Did he think a kid of that age was even capable of looking after himself, let alone a house?

He should have been charged with child neglect.

A teenager alone in a house like that would be a magnet for every creep and hanger-on for 20 miles. Word would have spread like wildfire that there was a house available for parties with only a kid in charge.

Something very like this happened to peeps I know. Disatrous!
 
Not only stupid but nasty too. His house was more important to him than his own child! He wants the child to be punished. What a bastard.
 
Layne likely will end his relationship with his son.

"The sad thing is, we lost my son in this, too. "I felt betrayed and hurt. I never want him on my property again," Layne said.

"That's probably the last I'll see of him. To do something like this is just monstrous."
Click to expand...


:eek!!!!: So this idiot is writing the kid off for the rest of both their lives, for what is granted, a stupid stunt, but still! This kid is 16, and has never been a problem, the father states. And now he banishes the boy from his life! I hope the kid is a raging success at whatever he wants to do and the idiot father dies alone, having never known any wonderful grandchildren who come along.:furious:
Now, I have another question, slightly OT:
The general consensus is running that the father was wrong for leaving a 16 yr old home alone. I thought in the UK seventeen was the age when a kid could leave home and live on their own and be responsible for themselves? Or have I missed something?
 
Midnight said:
The general consensus is running that the father was wrong for leaving a 16 yr old home alone. I thought in the UK seventeen was the age when a kid could leave home and live on their own and be responsible for themselves? Or have I missed something?
Click to expand...
16 in fact, legally. :eek!!!!:
Mine would have been chained to a radiator till they were 35 at least. Just as well I never had any really. :p
 
escargot said:
The stupidest person here is the father who left his 16 year old son in his house while he went gallivanting off to San Diego. :mad:


What a twit. Did he think a kid of that age was even capable of looking after himself, let alone a house?
Click to expand...
At 16 he should be well capable of looking after himself and the house. If he couldn't, I'd be seriously worried about his upbringing.
...He warned the teen not to have parties, believing the warning was enough because the teen had never been a problem...
Click to expand...
It seems he gave the impression of being a sensible lad, parents have to trust their children sooner or later.
escargot said:
He should have been charged with child neglect.
Click to expand...
...While his son lived with his ex-wife in Price Hill, Layne allowed his son to come to his house each morning...
Click to expand...
Hardly neglecting him, if he normally lives with his natural mother, close enough to travel over every morning before school. That puts a responsible adult close enough to respond to general minor disasters, like the washing machine flooding, running out of pizza...
escargot said:
A teenager alone in a house like that would be a magnet for every creep and hanger-on for 20 miles. Word would have spread like wildfire that there was a house available for parties with only a kid in charge.

Something very like this happened to peeps I know. Disatrous!
Click to expand...
..."hundreds of kids" partied all week at Layne's Dent house, neighbors later told him. They were neighbors who would, on the day Layne was due to return to his Ebenezer Road home, call to report the house was burning to the ground...
Click to expand...
Did none of these good neighbours think calling the police when "hundreds of kids" started partying next door? Or do they only get involved when their property is at risk?
..."He set three separate fires and torched it with gas,"...
Click to expand...
If he burned the house down accidentally, it would be time to get down and doing a bit of grovelling for forgiveness from his father, doing it intentionally, I don't blame his father for the reaction.
 
Filcee, I disagree entirely, and here is my evidence.

1. I have 2 daughters and 2 sons, the youngest of whom is very nearly 18, and I have never left them in the circumstances described, and never would.

2. Erm, isn't it rather obvious that, no matter whether the lad in question had never given any trouble/ was 16 years old/ had been warned not to fool around he still made a total mess of it anyway? So he certainly wasn't capable.

3. This happened in my family in the summer. I was not the adult involved and only found out afterwards. My exact words were, 'The silly ******** was lucky his house wasn't burned down!'
So yeah, it's obvious to me that someone that age isn't up to it.

And like I said, considering what did happen, I'm right.;)
 
Hmm, I guess I matured fairly fast, then. Shortly after I left school at 16, I moved down to live in my uncles caravan in west Wales for 6 months (all my mates had got jobs, I was starting an apprenticeship in September; nobody would take me on just for the summer). I lived down there alone during the week, with my uncle coming down at weekends, and my Ma & Da every couple of weeks. There were no wild parties in the caravan, despite the whole village knowing I was in there alone, and the only breakage was a tap, which I organised to be repaired without adult supervision.
Prior to that (from about 14/15), my parents regularly left me and my older brother (20/21 - straight to the pub and leave me to it :D) alone at weekends, while they went to Wales. The only damage was a broken window when my mate shut the front door in my face - once again, we were all mature enough to organise repairs without having to rely on parents or adults (although it was my brother who stumped up the cash to pay the glazier).
If a 16yo gives the impression of being reliable, you have to trust them eventually.
 
It's not about trust, actually. It's not about how sensible a person is at whatever age. It's about their own safety, and the fact that at 16 a person is unlikely to be able to exercise the same control over the situation as an adult could. I'm certain that I would have been capable of living alone for a week or so at 16 (in fact I left home at 17 and lived alone without burning anywhere down) but I might not have had the personal authority to remove any freeloaders who decided to muscle in.

At that age though I wouldn't think of problems like that and may well have naively invited people round for a spot of tea, then found things getting out of hand when their older brothers and mates turned up.

No way would I leave a 16 year old in my house for those very reasons.

The adult who did this in my family has fallen out with the teenager in question to a terrible degree- the damage will always be there between them. No doubt about it, it's the adult's fault, just for being an adult. Kids are kids.

The American kid couldn't handle the situation, whether or not he thought he could, and his father ought really to have known that.
 
beakboo said:
16 in fact, legally. :eek!!!!:
Mine would have been chained to a radiator till they were 35 at least. Just as well I never had any really. :p
Click to expand...
16??!? Are we both talking about legal age to move out and be responsible for one's self entirely?
Here, at 18 you can vote, quit school, move out, and live & do whatever you want and your parents are no longer legally responsible for you. So if you break the law you are arrested and put in jail, whereas at 17 or under if you break the law you are arrested and your parents are called and held monatarily responsible for any damages to personal or public property you incurred. They have no choice in the matter. They also have to support you, and shelter you until 18 unless a court rules differently due to extenuating circumstances.
Oh, and I started out with the same feeling about the radiator, Beak, but as it goes along and evidence of brain activity becomes more obvious you relax. Sometimes. ;)
 
Jeez, my brother was left home alone all the time in his teens, and the only reason I wasn't was because my dad was paranoid some guy would take advantage of me. I finally put my foot down and told my father that if he had faith in Dan's common sense he should have faith in mine too, and then I was also allowed.

We'd been raised to be responsible, knew how to cook and do laundry and keep the house clean (though my brother left the sink full of disgusting slimy moldy dishes a few times), and it would never have occurred to either of us to throw wild parties, though we did have friends over (we knew damn well which of our friends we could trust.)


I have a question, by the way. Just what kind of guy is this father that his kid would be so damn afraid of him finding out about the damage that he'd take such drastic action to cover it up?

Nonny
 
Yup Nonny, your last question is the most important. All is not as it seems here, no doubt.;)
 
I mean if you are going to have soemthing as daft as a remote contorl to start your car (why?) then don't leave it in gear:

Charges expected after driverless car strikes woman

16 January 2004

By MARY JANE BOLAND and NZPA


UPDATED REPORT

The police say charges are likely after a car controlled by a remote control device hit and almost killed a heavily pregnant Auckland woman.


Miranda Robbins, 30, suffered three fractures to her pubic bone and had an emergency caesarean the day after the accident.

She had taken two-year-old daughter Ella to the Albany Megacentre on December 23 when she heard a roar and saw a four-wheel-drive heading straight for her on the pavement.

The devices start car engines from afar at the press of a button. It is believed the driver had left the vehicle in gear and it bunny-hopped onto the pavement, striking and seriously injuring the woman.

"Police are investigating the incident and expect to lay charges, The injured woman and the driver have been informed of that," police spokesman Jayson Rhodes said.

Both police and the Land Transport Safety Authority said they were investigating the remote control devices and how widespread their use was.

"We are very concerned and will be investigating, but I can't say a lot until after any court case," LTSA spokeswoman Judy Cochrane said.

Mrs Robbins said: "You just don't believe it. It was such a short distance and it seemed to be travelling so fast.

"I put my arm out to protect the buggy and the car's bullbars crushed me against the hips. I was just screaming for dear life."

Mrs Robbins, who was 38 weeks pregnant, said a passer-by had to smash the four-wheel-drive's window to get it to stop. Young Ella was unhurt but very frightened.

Son Flynn was delivered the next day because doctors feared blood clots caused by Mrs Robbins' injuries could endanger his health. If his head had been engaged in her pelvis, it would have been worse.

"The doctors insinuated that the baby could have died."

She was told the car had a remote start-up mechanism installed the day before the accident. The driver left the vehicle in gear, which caused it to jolt forward, but somehow it kept moving.

"It was one of those devices where you press a button and it unlocks the car and you press a button again and it starts the car up."

Mrs Robbins is on crutches and is having physiotherapy. Doctors say it will take at least three months for the fractures to heal.

Mrs Robbins accepted the owner's apologies, but is considering legal action – possibly against the device's manufacturers and installers rather than the owner.

"I definitely want the device to be made illegal. It would be so easy for kids to get the device and press the button ... The world is getting too computerised. It's just beyond me why a device like that would be made."

The Land Transport Safety Authority said it knew of two imported cars from Japan, where such remotes were common, which already had the devices installed.

However, the installation of the remotes in New Zealand was so new that it did not know how many there were, who installed them or the cost. Those matters would also be part of its investigation.

Motor Industry Association chief executive Perry Kerr was unaware of the remotes being available on new cars, nor did he think they were common here on older cars. Any such device should have a safety mechanism that prevented it being started if in gear.
Click to expand...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2784336a10,00.html
 
Midnight said:
16??!? Are we both talking about legal age to move out and be responsible for one's self entirely?
Here, at 18 you can vote, quit school, move out, and live & do whatever you want and your parents are no longer legally responsible for you.
Click to expand...

But not drink at your own house-warming...
 
Midnight said:
16??!? Are we both talking about legal age to move out and be responsible for one's self entirely?
Here, at 18 you can vote, quit school, move out, and live & do whatever you want and your parents are no longer legally responsible for you. So if you break the law you are arrested and put in jail, whereas at 17 or under if you break the law you are arrested and your parents are called and held monatarily responsible for any damages to personal or public property you incurred. They have no choice in the matter. They also have to support you, and shelter you until 18 unless a court rules differently due to extenuating circumstances.
Click to expand...

i was going write the cants and can dos for the ages of 16, 17 and 18 year olds! but i think that it has changed a bit since i learnt then

maybe someone can come up with a list/website containing them?
 
British woman faces jail over airport 'bomb' joke
BY PA NEWS



A British student is facing six months in a US jail today after joking with an airport policeman that she was carrying a bomb, it was reported.

Samantha Marson, a 21-year-old student from Barnes, west London, was arrested before boarding a London-bound British Airways flight at Miami International airport, The Sun reported.



Ms Marson placed her rucksack on the belt at a security check, telling a screener: "Hey be careful, I have three bombs in here". Asked to repeat herself, she allegedly made the same statement twice more.

Ms Marson was arrested for making a false bomb report on Saturday and was then taken to Miami-Dade County Jail. She will be released on bail if she can come up with the £2,700 bond.

Her next court date was scheduled for February 6. Jail officials did not have information on whether she had a lawyer.

Her father, Jim, 75, of Bridgnorth, Shropshire, said: "We are beside ourselves with worry. She phoned at about 3am on Sunday and was hysterical.

"I'm sure Samantha will accept that it's a silly thing to say but she's the sort of girl who might have thought it would make people laugh," he said.

As the Foreign Office sought more details from the woman's family and from American authorities, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, the airlines, warned their passengers of the dangers of joking about security.

A BA spokeswoman said: "We will strongly advise all passengers not to make any remarks which could be misinterpreted. American authorities take this sort of thing very seriously."

A Virgin spokesman said: "With security levels so high at present, there are certain things you do not joke about it. Most Britons having had years of heightened security would realise that you have to be extremely careful about what you say."

Mr Marson had been in the US for three months with her American boyfriend and was returning to the UK to renew her visa.

A Foreign Office spokesman said today: "We are seeking more information from the American authorities and we are also wanting to speak to the family.

"We will offer her any assistance we can and ensure that she is being properly treated. But it is up to US authorities if they decide to arrest someone for making allegations."


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-970588,00.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top