— Emma Pearson contributed with this report
A drunken prank went too far last month when two students wearing disguises broke into a flat at the Junxion, terrifying the residents. The student flat was terrorised in the early hours of the morning by intruders wearing horse-face masks entering one of the bedrooms.
Julie Knapp, a second-year psychology student who lives in the flat, says: “I was very frightened that someone was capable of getting into our flat. It is believed they did so by taking the keys from one of the residents’ bags. I am very disappointed that students who are meant to be mature and grown up would find it amusing to intrude [on] a person’s flat to play pranks on them at 4am in the morning.”
She also explains how the prank, which left her very shaken up, reached a whole new level when the mask-wielding intruders got into her flatmate’s bedroom, awakening her. Julie explains that her flat mate “woke up terrified”, and when she got up to confront the people involved they ran out only to return again once she had got back into bed, shouting “I’m back!”
When the flat’s residents complained about the intrusion to the Junxion’s staff, they quickly reacted by changing the flat’s locks, and were apologetic about the incident. Knapp says: “I am very happy about the locks being changed. Within five minutes of the complaint we had a knock at the door with maintenance wanting to change our locks.” She also says that she would have no issues with approaching the Junxion office again as they were “very helpful with the situation and very sorry that it had happened.”
Ross Cummings, a fine art student from the same flat, says: “This was disgraceful behaviour and was a very difficult experience for the whole of the flat [who] felt it was necessary to have the locks changed to keep our minds at rest.”
Knapp also told The Linc how she discovered the identity of one of the intruders after he bragged about his involvement to her at a party. She says: “He was very apologetic when we said to him that he had frightened us and said he felt as though maybe him and his fellow flatmate had gone too far with the prank.”
Daniel Gahnstrom, one of the intruders, admits he loves to play drunken pranks. He says: “[Pranks are] so much more fun when you’ve had a few. You don’t care about the consequences, or who you upset and make cry, because you’re drunk and it’s good fun.” However, he believes that pranks shouldn’t be violent, “just funny so you upset someone in a non-physical way.” He also claims he plays drunken pranks regularly, admitting to knocking over bikes on the street and smashing plant pots. “We once put a fish through somebody’s letter box. It was funny. We once climbed on someone’s roof and then fell off pulling the guttering down with us,” says Gahnstrom.
Daniel Gahnstrom, whats funny about pulling down someone’s guttering? Though oh well, you aren’t going to foot the bill, are you Gahnstrom?
Plus this horse mask prank is not new, this happened last year in the Junxions as well! I was in a friend’s apartment on the top floor when we saw two guys in horse masks. Suddenly they were in our flat just stood by the door going “Hellllooooo”. We laughed as we thought it was someone we knew, turns out it wasn’t and these guys had just managed to somehow let themselves in, and leave straight away (possibly as we weren’t intimidated). No damage was done however and I have to admit it was pretty funny.
These guys are t**ts. They should get their asses kicked for this, especially by the uni. If this goes unpunished then why bother reporting it? For entertainment? Linc, if you’re prepared to put it online, then why not get involved? Pretty sick prank.
Oh well this is an interesting article isn’t it? Tell me Emma, was this cleared with Mr. Gahnstrom? Because I don’t think it was. In actuality I know for a fact that these questions were put to Daniel under the pretense of being for a “psychology report”. Do you think you’re presenting a Channel 4 Investigative documentary? Because you’re not, and clearly by the quality of this story/writing. What you’ve done here is morally questionable and tantamount to libel. Risky ground for such a righteous writer.
Also interesting is the fact that Dan KNEW these people, they’re from the flat next to his and they talked after the prank. The fact that one soppy flatmate didn’t understand the joke doesn’t justify this exaggeration.
So, The Linc, if you’re done doing your pillar-of-the-community act, stop acting like 50 year olds and get out and enjoy university.
If you’ve got a problem then please take it up with our Reader’s Editor, Sam. You can find the contact details on our Editorial Team page.
It would be nice if you didn’t hide behind anonymity, too. What are you afraid of?
Todd,
It is not the role of the journalist to interfere with things just simply bring them into the public eye.
By reporting on the prank we hope that similar pranksters will think about how their actions effect people or maybe people will learn to take better care of their keys.
Does that sound ok?
Thanks for the comment.
Thornbob,
Here is the definition of libel for you:
A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person’s reputation.
It seems that the quotes from Gahnstrom are in fact correct (not a false publication) and I can quote you here:
“I know for a fact that these questions were put to Daniel,” said Thornbob.
Your issue seems to be with Gahnstrom being presented these questions under false pretense which I regret. If Gahnstrom would like to get in touch it would be much more helpful.
Thank you for voicing your concern.
With regards to the comments made by Daniel himself and as quoted in my article, if there was such an issue with his name being printed surely the mature and appropriate thing to do would be too approach me personally and maybe answer when questioned rather than post what would try to be an intelligent comeback written probably by someone else.
As for the “pyschological report” comment, Daniel himself knows I am a journalism student and knew that the questions I asked were possibly going to be printed on online, if he cannot come to terms with the possible mistake he made agreeing to this, then maybe that is something he should take up with himself.
As for the “libel” issue, there is no libel issue as everything that he wrote in an email was used in the article and still stands as proof he sent it, so nice try!
Morally questionable? I would re-read the other comments made on this article and ask yourself J.Billy Thornbob whether entering someones property and venturing into someones personal space falls under this category?
What I find rather questionable is whether the issue at hand is really to do with the prank and not some other personal reason. I dont know whether I’m the only person who this seems to be blatantly staring at in the face; but if Daniel’s reputation is the worry of others, surely by commenting and starting what could possibly be a further issue, you are actually bringing the name Gahnstrom to light more than ever.
I agree that university should be a fun experience…so what is fun about carrying this on? When I was at university I didnt have time to worry about these things… move on guys and learn from the experience!
With reference to J.Billy Thornbob, “I know for a fact that these questions were put to Daniel under the pretense of being for a “psychology report”
If I where you I would check my sources before claiming they were fact, if you indeed read the psychology questionnaire given to yourself I’m sure even you could distinguish between a report on SWINE FLU and a prank!
Plus, Gahnstrom did not even take part in this pyschological report it was other flat mates.
Ok, well, I’ll concede that using libel was a mistake considering I clearly didn’t know the real definition, and evidently my facts are flawed, but my point still stands. If Gahnstrom and his flatmates knew the flat they entered, which they did, the issue is moot. I’m no detective, but it seems to me like Miss Pearson saw an opportunity for a story, regardless of whether it damaged someones reputation.
The story would not stand and have been written if it wasnt for Daniel’s own actions, therefore if it wasn’t for his initial behaviour the story wouldn’t have a source, so he has flawed his own reputation, nothing to do with the writer.