'Affluenza?' That's rich!
WIGS off to Aberdeen solicitors Andrew Ormiston and Ian Hingston.
The pair have pulled off the first successful "affluenza" defence to be heard in a city and possibly, even a Scottish court.
The pair pleaded that their clients, offshore workers Daniel Clark and Daniel Newcombe had been suffering from the effects of too much money when they launched a drunken attack on a fellow customer in Aberdeen's Pearl Lounge.
Both have a string of convictions for city centre violence.
The plea of "affluenza" as it's called is a comparatively recent defence and comes as one might expect from the USA.
There the drunken 16-year-old son of affluent parents recently escaped jail for killing four others in a car crash - because he was so rich he didn't know any better and so couldn't help himself.
Anyway, back in Aberdeen, Scotland, Mr Ormiston explained that Clark's wages were simply too much for the poor lamb to cope with and he consequently became unavoidably p****d and violent.
Mr Hingston's client, who had the dubious distinction of being the first man in Scotland to be banned from every bar in the city centre, had been similarly afflicted: too much money and not enough (if any) sense.
In Newcombe's favour, however, it was said that he had managed to go to T in the Park last summer without being arrested.
The pair faced with jail, were now, naturally, reformed characters.
Sheriff Summers who, possibly reluctant to clutter up scarce cell space with spoilt yobs, dished out community service orders. But it's Peterheid next time.
Can we now expect a series of similar affluenza pleas in defence of anti-social behaviour? It wisnae me, it wis the money.
Loads a money Excuse was like something from a Harry Enfield sketch