Publicans and 12 pubs of Christmas

Spoilsports or not?

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR NY Times
Bring Drunken Santas Under Control
By JASON O. GILBERT
Published: December 12, 2013


ON Saturday, a festive, besotted mob of 20- and 30-somethings, decked out in various measures of Santa Claus dress and undress, will descend on the bars of lower New York City and rain down Christmas cheer like spoiled eggnog.

This obnoxious event is SantaCon. For those living in peaceful oblivion, SantaCon is an annual tradition in which revelers dress up as Kriss Kringle (or, at least, put on a Santa hat) and participate en masse in an often literal bar crawl, cramming 12 nights of Christmas boozing into a single afternoon.

Though its exact origins are somewhat murky, SantaCon as we know it probably first occurred in 1994, when members of a prank-happy urban adventure club stormed the streets of San Francisco in Santa outfits as a subversive expression of anti-commercialism and protest theater. Since then, the Saint Nick takeover has shed its dissident roots and expanded into a more traditional booze-athon, with SantaCon events taking place in more than 300 cities in 44 countries.

The largest is in New York City. Though the tradition may have started as a counterculture act, participating in the Big Apple’s version of SantaCon is about as anti-establishment as a trip to Disney World.

The Santas — and if you need to imagine a typical participant, just think of Billy Bob Thornton in “Bad Santa,” if the character were 24 and worked at Bain Capital — generally arrive via bridge, tunnel, subway and, perhaps this year, CitiBike. In the past, they have convened in Midtown and marched down to the East Village, where the majority of the day’s jubilations typically occur; those who were still conscious then took the train to terrorize Brooklyn. Chronologically, SantaCon lasts from about 10 a.m. until whatever time the last Santa passes out on a park bench somewhere.

Indeed, SantaCons of years past have been distinguished by sexism, drunkenness, xenophobia, homophobia and enough incidents of public vomiting and urination to fill an infinite dunk tank. Despite these rampant violations, the departing police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, recently praised SantaCon, claiming that it “makes New York New York.”

Perhaps most distressing about SantaCon is its size and the way that it shuts down and befouls dozens of blocks. Any East Villager (I am one) can tell you that the event makes doing absolutely anything beyond one’s front stoop an impossibility, unless you own swamp waders and a riot shield. Last year, an estimated 30,000 carousers participated in the festivities.

But really, it’s not the disruption or the noise that rankles. New Yorkers can endure street closures and inconveniences for any number of events so long as there is a beneficent impulse, or an obvious reason for the disruption. For a New York City event of its size, however, SantaCon is distinctive, and arguably impressive, in that it contributes absolutely zero value — cultural, artistic, aesthetic, diversionary, culinary or political — to its host neighborhood. Quite simply, SantaCon is a parasite.

SantaCon apologists point to its sizable charitable donations (a $10 donation to charity is required to “officially” participate), and the sugar rush of money injected to local business (especially alcohol business) owners. But the ends don’t always justify the means; and when the means include a neighborhood of kids having to watch simulacra of beloved childhood figures stumbling around, picking fights with passers-by — well, the ends aren’t justified. Charity is not a quid pro quo proposition.

In November, a New York police lieutenant, John Cocchi, wrote an open letter urging his district’s bar owners not to serve obviously inebriated Santas, and it appears that the melee will skip Midtown this year. More recently, The Daily News reported that SantaCon’s organizers would work more closely with the Police Department, providing detailed information about the traditionally secret bar crawl route, and stationing 80 “helper elves” along the route to ensure that things don’t get out of hand.

That’s a good start, but it seems a bit like closing the stable door after the reindeer have bolted. It’s unlikely that some well-intentioned volunteers will be able to control a meaningful fraction of the boozed-up mob. Meanwhile, history has proved that SantaCon Santas are incapable of self-governing: Years of lax regulation have emboldened them to spill their base instincts on the streets, without consequence.

What seems required, then, is a Police Department approach that is less Ray Kelly and more John Cocchi: one that recognizes SantaCon as disruptive, rather than benign. If our police force can actively prevent the abhorrent behavior that residents have become accustomed to — either by more aggressive ticketing, or just through an increased presence that discourages misdemeanor crime — SantaCon should be allowed to proceed as the charitable, cheerful, harmless festival that event press officers paint it as.

Otherwise, perhaps New York should banish the Santas to the North Pole.

mud wrote: »

Me and my mates have had a Christmas Jumper Night since 1996! Night after Stephen's, prizes for the ugliest

Pretty long fad, although I must admit, more people seem to be wearing them lately.

One or two people wearing them in 1996 wasn't a fad. Everyone and their antelope wearing one these days is.

Are ye actually serious about wanting to ban it? It's once a year and it's a bit of craic. Publicans that complain about it are fools. They complain constantly about people drinking at home due to cheap booze and that but when when people on an annual thing waltz in then they don't want their business.

I don't know about ye but I'd drink more than 12 pints on a night out assuming I was out at around 7/8 or out for a match first.

I like going on the 12 pubs, it's a bit of craic with the rules and that, most of your friends end up on it and it's something different. Are you trying to tell me that this is bad but it's ok for people to get absolutely wrecked drunk in front of their work colleagues and act the prick just because they are in once place?

Do me a favour :rolleyes:

Can't wait for mine next week BTW

sscruff2007 wrote: »

This particular pub was turning us away tuesday until we said it was our second pub. Grant you some people were asked to move away from a certain seat at the bar so a regular could sit down. Needless to say we didnt stay there too long

`

That's generally what's meant to happen on the 12 pubs.

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

So how about you tone down that condescending attitude

No thanks. People being so very precious about their Christmas-jumper wearing is way too much fun.

April O Neill II wrote: »

It's not "something different" at all, it's bogstandard. And 12 pubs groups tend to be far louder and more obnoxious than people staying in the one place or maybe two places for the night.

I left a pub last night because the 12 pubs were so unbearable, and I've never left a pub because of a few drunk people before. The pub was on the trail and there was a lot of them in, and they were obnoxious.

Of course it's something different, what other time of the year do people do the 12 pubs? Maybe you should have stayed at home then if you're that easily upset.

I think you just like to complain for the sake of it.

BNMC wrote: »

Of course it's something different, what other time of the year do people do the 12 pubs? Maybe you should have stayed at home then if you're that easily upset.

I think you just like to complain for the sake of it.

Meh, if that's you'd like to believe, go right ahead.

Of course it's only at this time of year, the clue is in the name. But they are banal at this stage, and very commonplace.

But, OMG, the bants!!!!!

mud wrote: »

*cups hands around mouth* NICE COMEBACK!

You replied, so it must have been. But hey, no comeback can beat "Whatever you say" - that's in the pantheon of witty, urbane ripostes. How could I ever compete?

I think one would need to be a bit unobservant not to see how prevalent the ironic Xmas jumper thing has become.

ibarelycare wrote: »

The arguing in this thread is embarrassing.

My childish side couldn't resist.