“Worst law ball ever” prompts refund demands

“I did have a great night-despite the ball”

Hundreds of Bristol students were left irritated, angry and aggrieved after last night’s underwhelming Spring Law Ball. The UBLC ball- long feted as the premier event in the Bristol social calendar- descended into farce and recriminations as many of the advertised attractions failed to materialise.

Having promised that the £27 “Ents tickets will give you access to the best set of entertainment ever seen in a Bristol Ball alongside your own Champagne reception!”, many attendees failed to even get the complimentary drink upon arrival.

Bristol RAG students turned up to run the casino only to find organisers hadn’t laid on a table for them, prompting them to mill about for the rest of the evening. “What’s going on?” turned out to be the most used phrase of the evening as confusion and discontent ran amok amongst the increasingly sober revellers.

Final year lawyer Ashleigh Guest told The Tab: “All in all I’m actually gutted as it was my last ever ball and it annoys me that they’re going to get away with it. We arrived to the Marriott at 9:45pm (the Ents tickets said it opened at 9pm), to be told by the security that we weren’t going to be allowed in as it was only for those with dinner tickets. So we were shoved out in a tent on College Green with portaloos- not a great match with ball gowns and heels. Then because the queue for Pampams was huge (where the “official afterparty” was) we went to Mbargos instead.”

Bristol languages student Becky Adam told The Tab: “Can’t believe I paid 27 pounds for that shit” whilst second year Economist Rob Angel added: “It was just average vibes. Probably more disappointing than Brexit”. Angry attendees took to the event FB page to complain, with many asking for their money back and one student even claiming he had written a drunken 500 word critique of the night. On the plus side, apparently the chocolate fountain was good.

One typical message received by The Tab read: “It took 25 minutes to get into College Green. Even if you arrived before 9 you couldn’t access the ‘ents’ till 9:30 but our tickets said 9 and nothing was set up and ready to be ‘used’ before 9:30-9:45. We asked several security people where ‘Itchy Feet’ were and they told us they didn’t know who that was and that all the entertainment was outside so half of us missed that.

“Also there were 4 portaloos for 600 people, no flooring around the loos so everyone shoes are wrecked and no cloak room so everyone is losing shit from having to keep it in the corner of a marquee. Half of the headphones for the silent disco didn’t work and we all had to share having a go with them on so can we pls have our £27 back”.

Such stories were in abundance, with law student Lucy confirming this dire account of the evening: “Was it the lack of promised champagne upon entry? Was it the muddy feet and ruined high heels? Was it the flooded portaloos? Was it being declined entry into the Marriott and finally being allowed in to find it was closing in 15 minutes? Was it struggling to find a pair of headphones – a pair actually worked! Was it the unnecessary queue for a stamp at PamPams? It was all of these things and more”. She added: “Might as well have just dressed up with my mates and stood around College Green for 3 hours”.

In a joint statement, the organisers of the ball commented: “Over 800 students attended the UBLC Prohibition law ball last night. The vast majority of guests had a very enjoyable and memorable night and whilst RAG casino was unfortunately not available there was a helter skelter, laser quest, a silent disco, gelato, chocolate fountain, photo booth, music from both the Hornstars and Itchy Feet and an after party at Pam Pams.  As a committee we worked tirelessly to make the ball even bigger and better than last year. Photos and the ball video will be available on our Facebook page very soon”.

Following a tidal wave of complaints, the admin of the Facebook event appears to have deleted all the negative comments about the evening, with further comments or complaints now requiring “approval” before being posted.