The Head Porter at Oriel, Kenrick “Dickie” Bird, resigned last Friday in order to stand as a UKIP candidate for the North Oxfordshire seat of Banbury at the next General Election.
Mr Bird, who worked at Oriel for over three years, said he left the College to devote his time to politics. In May, Mr Bird ran as UKIP candidate for a position as councillor for Blackbird Leys Ward in the Oxford City Council elec- tions. He finished second with twenty per cent of the vote, forty seven points behind the Labour candidate.
Stuart O’Reilly, third year historian at Pembroke and Secretary of UKIP’s Oxford and Abingdon branch, was upbeat about Mr Bird’s campaign for a Commons seat, commenting, “Dickie is a top quality candidate who connects with and understands people and their concerns in the way the other parties can only dream of. He’d make an excellent MP for Banbury.”
The candidate himself was also buoyant. He pointed to polling suggesting UKIP could win a quarter of the national vote. He also highlighted the Heywood and Middleton by-election, in which Labour held off the UKIP candidate by just 617 votes. “It shows there is no safe seat in the UK,” he remarked.
But Banbury is no easy target. It sits next to Prime Minister David Cameron’s seat of Witney and is historically Conservative. Sir Tony Baldwin has represented the constituency since 1983 although he has recently announced that he will stand aside at the next General Election. He declined to comment on UKIP’s prospects there at the coming election.
At the 2010 General Election, UKIP’s Banbury candidate secured just five per cent of the vote. However UKIP’s support has risen recently, with the party gaining its first MP earlier this month.
Rupert Cunningham, fourth year classicist and President of the Oxford University Conservative Association, was confident that the Conservatives will see off any threat from Mr Bird and UKIP.
He commented, “It’s easy to get overly concerned about UKIP, particularly following the Clacton by-election. Banbury is a safe seat, however. Safer than Newark, which the Conservatives held even in a by-election against prominent UKIPer, Roger Helmer. The Conservatives will hold Banbury in 2015, though I imagine Mr. Bird will make some gains.”
UKIP, with its anti-immigration and anti-EU platform, is unpopular with large swathes of the Oxford student population.
Editor of Spiked Online, Brendan O’Neill, told Cherwell, “Sadly, it doesn’t surprise me that Oxford students are shunning those who express support for UKIP. British students, including those at Oxbridge universities, have become very intolerant lately of any viewpoint that doesn’t chime with their own.”
According to O’Neill, who will later this term attend the Oxford Union to argue in favour of the proposition that “popular support is enough to justify a platform”, there is an irony in some of the more vehement condemnations of UKIP on campus. He said, “In the name of tackling bigotry, these intolerant student activists expose their own bigotry.”
Second year St John’s PPEist Jake Hurfurt said, “Mr Bird is fully entitled to stand as a UKIP candidate for Parliament in Banbury, as he has a right to free expression and to partake in politics. Nevertheless, I do hope the constituents in Banbury see UKIP for what they are: a party of thinly veiled xenophobia with no cohesive policy platform and wholeheartedly reject them in May 2015.”
Aidan Hocking, a Global and Imperial History M.St student at Hertford, told Cherwell, “given how many international students there are at Oxford, I think it’s a bit worrying if an ex-porter is running for UKIP, which has made a name for itself for its anti-immigration policies.”
In a public Facebook post picked up by The Tab, former OUSU President Tom Rutland accused UKIP of “racism, sexism, homophobia and ableism.”
When questioned about accusations of xenophobia, Mr Bird pointed to his family, remarking, “I’ve been called a racist, but I find it difficult to be a racist when I have black family.” Asked what part of his family is black, Mr Bird said “it’s not important”.
Responding to criticism of his party’s stance on homosexuality, Mr Bird again invoked his family, saying, “I’ve been called homophobic, but I find it difficult to be homophobic when my sister is homosexual, and I love her dearly.”
Mr Bird was equally bemused at having been labelled “ableist”. “I had to look it up,” he chuckled. “I find it difficult to be ‘ableist’ when my sister is disabled and my daughter is mentally disabled.”
Recalling adverse coverage he received in the Oxford student press at the time of his previous tilt at public office, Mr Bird described such criticism as “water off a duck’s back.”
“UKIP,” insisted Mr Bird, “is not the two-headed beast people claim it to be.” Referring to allegations of racism, sexism and homophobia, Mr Bird maintained that “there are no phobias or ‘-isms’ in UKIP.”
James Eaton, a first year organic chemistry D.Phil at Magdalen, commented, “I don’t think it is any more significant for a former Head Porter of Oriel College to run as a UKIP candidate than a former baker from Scunthorpe.”
In Mr Eaton’s opinion, media coverage of UKIP is excessive when compared with treatment of the other minor parties. He argued that this focus “shows the overall media bias toward UKIP, which I feel is related to sensationalist news reporting.”
“What I must condemn,” said Mr Eaton, “is the fact that this former Oriel porter is being publicised because he is running for UKIP, which is a political party that is not considered one of the big three in British politics.”
However the Oriel Porters’ Lodge alumnus and Royal Green Jackets veteran wants to change all that. “Recent polling puts us way ahead of the Lib Dems,” he said. Standing for UKIP, said Mr Bird, is “incredibly exciting”.
Exeter College JCR is appealing for the return of a cartoon stolen from the JCR earlier this term.
The cartoon, which was replaced in its frame with a newspaper page around 26th September, depicted the College’s Bursar and Rector barricaded in college kitchens during Hilary term’s student hall boycott. Following the boycott, the College Rector bought the cartoon on behalf of the JCR for £250. At the time, Exeter students were protesting against the £840 yearly catering levy.
Following discussions between College and JCR, an amnesty has been offered for the return of the sentimenal piece. JCR Secretary Tutku Betkas explained, “our situation is currently nerve-breaking, especially considering the sentimental value of the cartoon. It was drawn in the middle of our hall boycott, when we desperately needed some motivation and when there were disparities about whether to continue the boycott or not.”
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10256%%[/mm-hide-text]
JCR President Richard Collett-White told Cherwell, “The JCR is saddened by the mysterious disappearance of the Cut The Catering Charge (CTCC) cartoon, drawn last year by the fair hand of Exonian Max Mulvany. I find it incomprehensible why anyone would want to rob the JCR of such a precious artefact, and we appeal to anyone with information to come forward.”
A new study conducted by Oxford University will see tens of thousands of secondary school students start school later in order to investigate whether it will have a positive impact on exam results.
In recent years neuroscience studies have proved that the typical teenager’s body clock differs from that of an adult’s, as teens are pre-disposed to fall asleep around midnight, and are not fully engaged with their studies until around 9 to 10am; around two hours after most adults.
The study, involving over 30,000 pupil participants across a hundred schools, and running over a four-year period, hopes to find whether timetabling school around the typical teenager’s circadian rhythms — the pattern of sleep— will improve their GCSE grades. Some pupils will have the opportunity to start at 10am, and will also be given education on the importance of getting sufficient sleep in personal, social and health education lessons.
Neuroscientists say that the ‘out of sync’ teenage body clock can affect some individuals up to the age of 19 in females and 21 in males, meaning that it may also affect many University students.
Speaking to Cherwell, Angela Stephen, a biochemistry student at Oxford University said, “if there was the option to start an hour later, it would enable me to work later into the night. I think that my brain is more active as the day goes on – I work better then, and so a later start would actually be more productive for me.”
Biological factors are not the only ones to blame for the ‘out of sync’ clock. Professor Russell Foster, Director of the Oxford University Sleep and Circadian Neuroscience Institute, said “this biology, along with the impact of social media and other sociocultural influences, delays bed and wake times and greatly shorten sleep.”
The study is led by Oxford’s Professor Colin Espie, who commented, “our grandparents always told us that sleep is very important, but it’s only recently that we have started looking at the neuroscience of sleep. We know that something funny happens when you’re a teenager, in that you seem to be out of sync with the world. Your parents think it’s because you’re lazy and opinionated and everything would be okay if you could get to sleep earlier. But science is telling us that teenagers need to sleep more in the mornings.”
He added, “society’s provision for learning is school, but the brain’s is sleep. So we’re explorong the possibility that if you delay the schools start time until 10am, that will improve learning performance.”
The effect of beginning students’ studies later in the day has been previously investigated. In 2009, Monkseaton School in North Tyneside took part in a pilot study that found that starting school just one hour later improved grades by up to 19% in core subjects.
However, the school returned to starting at 8.50am after head teacher Paul Kelley’s departure, suggesting that it may take time before the results are widely accepted. Paul Kelley is now an associate at Oxford University’s Sleep and Circadian Neuroscience Institute.
The study is part of several that are looking at ways of improving student’s academic performance. Another study being conducted by both Oxford and Oxford Brookes Universities is investigating the impact of physical education on Year Eight pupils’ classroom work, as in many cases students are not active during 50% of their Physical Education lessons.
The results of the sleep study will be published in 2018.
An Oxford tour guide is protesting on Broad Street against Oxford City Council and Visit Oxfordshire over what he claims to be a monopoly funded by taxpayer money.
Alasdair de Voil, known locally and to tourists as the “Mad Hatter”, claims that Visit Oxfordshire do not offer unbiased or impartial information on walking tours in Oxford and that council tax is being used to prop up a monopoly and undermine local tour guide operators.
He believes that Visit Oxfordshire gives preferential treatment to the tour run by the Guild of Guides, which he says does not pay the fee of £360 plus VAT a year for the partnership scheme to which tour guides in the city can join for standard membership.
This membership includes benefits such as having leaflets on display in the Tourist Information Centre on Broad Street.
Mr de Voil says that this is a private company and yet is funded by £250,000 per annum in council tax funds.
He claims that 98% of the adverts on their website are for their own “official” tours, despite not paying the partnership fee. Due to this, he believes that Oxford City Council and Visit Oxfordshire are unfriendly, inept and corrupt.
He said, “The visitor information centre does not operate for or on behalf of either the interests of independent tour operators or the general public.
“If the visitor centre were run fairly and professionally without their own blatantly gross conflict of interest to do not much else than market their own selected ‘Official Oxford walking tour’, then the marketplace would be much more accessible to us.
“Like nearly all other enterprising local individuals who have paid Visit Oxfordshire a partnership fee, we are extremely unhappy with how Visit Oxfordshire delivers the visitor information service- which is supposedly a public function tendered to them by the local council.
“Tour operators like myself have paid them partnership fees and seen almost no return on investment at all. We have also sent random people inside to check out what their staff are telling the public. They usually won’t tell you about any other tours unless you ask them to do so and because the centre’s signage and windows and reception counters only offer you one choice, most people never realise to ask otherwise.
“In any business, one has competition and as guided tours is an unregulated industry, there’s also unfortunately lots of false advertising dominating our marketplace opportunity today too.
“Oxford’s small businesses are struggling enough without having to compete with a publicly funded public service, whose remit, almost anyone would have assumed, is to support and benefit businesses like ours. Instead, we have to compete with them. This is not fair and it’s corrupt use of public money to be propping up a monopoly interest.”
Giles Ingram, chief executive of Visit Oxfordshire, said in response to the allegations, “We are not in any way corrupt and we are very open in the way our policies and procedures work, which have been examined and all been found to be above board. We have been totally above board in all our dealings.
“Our website reflects our policies and the way in which we work, which again has been scrutinised thoroughly by exterior bodies. All of these issues have been set out in our policies.”
He said in regards to the Guild of Guides not paying the partnership fee “They do subscribe.”
A quality charter has been introduced on the recommendation of the Local Government Ombudsman to which all tour operators have been asked to sign up and all other recommendations have been met in full.
He reiterated that Visit Oxfordshire had been unable to come to an agreement with Mr de Voil and he has been offered a refund of his membership.
An investigation is underway at Keble after a group of former members of the Keble rugby team attended a college bop and behaved in an inappropriate and sexist manner. Some of the offenders have since been banned from any similar occasions in future.
The bop took place after the annual match between old and new members of the Keble rugby team, and all the inappropriate behaviour is thought to have been caused by the old members.
Shortly after the bop, the JCR’s Welfare Officers circulated an email stating, “We are writing to you about the events of the bop on Saturday night. It has come to our attention that some of the ex-members (“Ghosts”) who were present behaved inappropriately. This behaviour is unacceptable and an anomaly at Keble.”
The email continued, “If you were made to feel uncomfortable in any way at the bop, please contact a member of the Welfare Team…the college is fully supportive and wants to create a safe environment for its students.”
Meanwhile, JCR President Rosie Petersen commented, “Up until this year
there have not been any incidents which have resulted in these kinds of
complaints. The complaints that have been made about the behaviour of the alumni at the bop are highly unsettling,and action is being taken.
“We are putting in place welfare provisions with the co-operation of the welfare team, the decanal team, and the peer supporters to make sure that anyone who was affected by the incident gets the support that they need.”
Referring to actions which Keble JCR would take in future to prevent a repeat of these events, she added, “We are also looking into solutions for the future, with the options of either changing the timings of the bop or the rugby match, or just ensuring that the alumni are out of the bar before the bop gets underway.
“The alumni whom we have already been able to identify have been banned from future similar events, and we are working to ensure that all of the offenders are identified. We also strongly encourage people to report serious incidents to the police.”
A Keble student who wished to remain anonymous told Cherwell, “I was at the bop and I remember seeing some older guys around that I didn’t recognise. I thought they looked a bit dodgy, but I didn’t speak or interact with them.”
An activists’ conference designed to tackle the housing crisis in Oxford continued over the weekend following eviction from a University-owned building in Osney. It eventually had to move to Cowley Road Methodist Church.
The three day conference, termed ‘House of the Commons’, described itself as an forum for “examining the current context and drivers of the crisis with the aim to explore creative solutions to these problems”.
Campaigners, who initially occupied The Old Power Station, were evicted on Wednesday. The University said, “The Old Power Station is not a disused building, but it is used for storage for the University’s museums and has hosted art exhibitions in recent years. The people occupying left the building left peacefully and we consider the matter closed.”
However, reactions to the eviction were mixed from students and the wider community, with some students criticising the move.
Xavier Cohen, a member of the Oxford Activist Network, said, “Whilst the eviction is within the law, we need to question what the law is doing here. It’s facilitating the prioritisation of private property rights over allocating housing and space to those who actually need it and will make use of it.”
The Oxford Green Party also added its voice to the controversy. Ruthi Brandt, Councillor for Carfax Ward, remarked, “We feel that the University has really let down the wider community and has squandered an opportunity to join the housing debate.”
She continued, “The Old Power Station, a beautiful big building in such a central location, has no business being practically empty and out of bounds to the public. I hope that the recent squat by the House of the Commons will remind the heads of the University that the place has stood empty long enough, and it is time to consider how it can benefit the community.”
However, a University spokesperson told Cherwell that it “intends that all its buildings will be used and we are constantly re-viewing the status of our properties. A major priority of the University is to provide accommodation for as many of our students as possible in order to ease the burden on Oxford’s rental market.”
Despite the eviction, events went on as planned as the activists relocated to Cowley Road Methodist Church. The programme of events included talks and workshops on homelessness, fuel poverty and alternative housing models.
One participant termed the conference a “wonderful success”, telling Cherwell that “so many people — from very different backgrounds and with different experiences — participated, learning about the root causes of the housing crisis, debating radical solutions, and making newconnections which are the seeds for implementing these solutions.”
University members were among those who praised the conference. Sophie Terrett, a third-year undergraduate and member of the Oxford Tenants’ Union, told Cherwell that the protest was relevant to students, saying, “In a recent NUS survey, 50 per cent of Oxford students said that they had experienced delays by their landlord when in need of house repairs and 20 per cent have experienced an animal infestation in their accommodation. This is clearly unacceptable and reflects a wider problem with student housing in Oxford and beyond.”
Danny Dorling, Oxford Professor of Human Geography, also took part in the conference, leading a presentation on inequality and the housing crisis. He told Cherwell, “In most of the country, many housing problems can be solved, given the housing stock that currently exists, by using it more efficiently, as we used to use it. However in Oxford, and especially nearby in London, there simply is not enough housing for the population any more.”
Highlighting the structural problems that this causes in the community, he added that the “lack of housing makes it hard to run universities, hospitals and local businesses”.
The protest comes as part of an ongoing debate over housing in Oxford, with a recent study showing that this is the most expensive place to buy a house in the UK, with property costing on average eleven times the salary of the average Oxford worker.
On average, homes in British cities now cost 5.8 times the typical local salary, while the price of an average property in Oxford has risen t0 £340,864, according to a recent study by Lloyds Bank.
OUSU Council has voted to provide £200 of funding for transportation to a Free Education protest scheduled for Wednesday 19th November in central London. The vote took place on Wednesday night amongst much confusion with both the debate and the voting mired in procedural issues.
The original motion, proposed by OUSU Disabled Students Officer James Elliott and seconded by OUSU Access and Admissions Officer Annie Teriba, called for OUSU “to support free education as a policy and the NUS campaign against fees and debt”, as well as to provide financial and organisational support.
However, OUSU Council only agreed to provide the financial and organisational resources requested, voting to delay debating Free Education as OUSU policy until a vote in 3rd week. The decision followed complaints from several JCR Presidents that they had not been given enough notice about the motion to consult students on the issue.
The version of the motion passed at OUSU Council requires OUSU to organise subsidised transport from Oxford to the demonstration and to sell tickets for it. The planned protest was first called by the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts (NCAFC), and has since gained support from the National Executive Council of the NUS, the Student Assembly Against Austerity, the Young Greens, as well as a number of universities including Manchester, Sussex, Brighton, Royal Holloway, Sheffield and Aberdeen. However, other student groups, such as Labour Students, have said that they will not be supporting the protest.
Speaking about the motion, James Elliott, who is also a member of the National Executive Council of the NUS, told Cherwell, “I’m delighted the vote passed, and that OUSU is standing up for students in the fight for free education. While some argued we should have sat on our hands and done nothing, I encourage those who think education is about more than profit to join us on the demonstration.”
OUSU VP for Academic Affairs James Blythe, referring to the division of the motion over various meetings, commented, “I’m glad Council decided to spend its money to allow students who are passionate about their cause to demonstrate and be part of a significant, nationwide student movement. That is totally separate from the setting of OUSU policy on education funding, which we’ll be debating in 3rd week. I look forward to that discussion in Council. All those involved are committed to having a constructive, open and respectful debate.”
The motion, which follows the postponement of cuts to the Disabled Student Allowance and the student loan book sell-off, referenced the total abolition of tuition fees in Germany earlier this month. The debate over free education at OUSU Council also comes after comments by Oxford University Vice-Chancellor Andrew Hamilton in October 2013, which suggested tuition fees should be raised to up to £16,000 per year.
However, the passing of the Free Education motion was marred by disorder when, following an initial debate, voting on whether to adopt Free Education policy was moved to 3rd week, after a procedural motion. This delaying motion was initially declared to have passed after a majority voted in favour, with a large group of primarily pro-voters leaving the meeting shortly afterwards.
However, after many of the voters had left, the chair realised that the procedural motion vote had been wrongly conducted.
A revote thus occurred, with some college representatives missing. A period of confusion then followed and the motion was eventually voted on in parts, with the decision of OUSU to fund and organise the protest transport passing 32 to 15, with 7 abstentions.
Former Chair of OUSU Council Jack Matthews commented, “Wednesday’s Council was a complete farce. Putting aside the failures leading up to Council, which restricted Reps’ ability to consult Common Rooms on this most important of issues, the meeting itself descended into chaos. Members were left confused and frustrated — at one point several people left having been incorrectly led to believe the meeting had finished. There was a complete lack of leadership and guidance from the Chair.
“The first Council of the year is always full of first time attendees — I fear their experience on Wednesday will not inspire them to return and participate. Council has to be accessible and understandable, and instil confidence that the system works. I question whether the current Chair has the ability to deliver this.”
Hertford JCR President Josh Platt added, “Myself and some other JCR presidents were very concerned that we had not been allowed any time to consult our Common Rooms on such an important issue as free education. The agenda for the meeting was not sent round JCR presidents until late Wednesday morning, so there was no way we could have effectively represented the student opinion in our colleges. Now that the debate on the substantive part of the motion has been pushed back to 3rd Week, I’m looking forward to hearing the views of our student body on how education in this country should be funded.”
In response to concerns about how the meeting was run, Chair of OUSU Council Anna Bazley told Cherwell, “We take student feedback very seriously at OUSU Council and will take everything into account following the meeting last night.
“The complete agendas for all future councils will be sent out on the Friday before council to ensure that Presidents and Representatives are able to consult their Common Rooms beforehand. We will also ensure that all future councils have a projector to re-affirm our commitment to paperless Council and to enable any changes to motions or the agenda to be visible to all members of Council.
“Regarding the procedural motion, I apologise for the fact that due to a miscommunication, proper procedure wasn’t followed. Council processes are in place for a reason and I would like to apologise to anyone who was unable to vote or voice their opinion due to this mistake, and to anyone who felt alienated or confused by the lack of order that followed. I would invite anyone to attend third week council where the majority of the motion will be debated in full.”
The pledging of £200 of OUSU funding from the campaigns budget follows Balliol JCR on Sunday unanimously passing a similar motion to support the demonstration, which was amended to provide £100 in funding — double the original £50 requested by the motion.
If you are French, German, Romanian, Mexican, American, Asian, Muslim or, most recently, Argentinian, Top Gear has talked shit behind your back – or directly to your face. There are fewer cultures left in the world that haven’t already been stereotyped, blankly dismissed or viewed with not-at-all veiled colonial contempt by Clarkson and co than are yet to be discovered by man. Like the world’s most efficient logging company, Top Gear has no qualms about felling any culture that stands in the way of a cheap laugh. After all, it seems to be a profitable vein of humour.
It is easy to forget that Top Gear is probably the most watched factual entertainment programme in the world. It is broadcast in 170 different countries, to an average audience of 350 million viewers a week. That is the equivalent of the entire continent of South America sitting down together every Sunday evening. And that’s discounting the numerous spin-offs done the world over, including Top Gear Australia, Top Gear Russia, Top Gear USA, Top Gear South Korea, and the soon to be released Top Gear China andTop Gear France.
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10251%%[/mm-hide-text]
It is by far the BBC’s most profitable programme, ahead of juggernauts like Doctor Who or Strictly Come Dancing, due to its peerless international syndication, with the production company behind Top Gear raking in £149 million in revenues for the year 2012. That is a staggering turnover for one programme. It is the most requested programme on the iPlayer, its companion magazine is published in thirty-one countries and its Stunt School app has been downloaded at least five million times. How about a Top Gear branded baby-grow, duvet cover or commemorative stamp? All available to be purchased at the click of a button.
The show isn’t just a cash cow for the BBC either. Jeremy Clarkson netted £14 million from the show last year, comprised of the dividend of the production company and his presenter’s salary. Hammond, May and most of the senior production team are multi-millionaires. It is impossible to argue that the show is anything other than a transcontinental televisual phenomenon, which has no equal in terms of viewing figures, international reach or longevity. Lest you forget, the next series will be number 22.
The route of this success can be found in both the nature of the programme and the presenters. The show is unabashedly childish and aims itself squarely at that infantile personality strand which people suppress as they age. Stunts like playing conkers with caravans or rocketing a Mini off a ski jump are not intended as high art, but are to be gawked at with a glazed expression of rapture. It’s also no coincidence that its prime demographic are middle-aged men, who tune in for the escapist delight of watching men of their own age driving extravagant cars in exotic locations, and generally having a laugh with their wanky mates.
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10249%%[/mm-hide-text]
Inevitably, Clarkson, Hammond and May are also a major selling point. All three have done television work outside Top Gear due to their popularity, and are certainly one of the most instantly recognisable presenting trios on television. But really, Hammond and May are minor satellites around the Clarkson supergiant. Let’s not forget, Clarkson is the only distinguishable one. Richard Hammond looks like he is being molested by his own trousers, and is also not a real hamster, whilst James May seems to hate himself almost as much as I hate him, but that’s as much as you can say.
The show is so geared towards providing a platform for Clarkson, it is regularly embarrassing how fleetingly the other two feature. He gives the opening monologue, leads the news, does the celebrity interview, stars in most of the major car tests and hosts the Cool Wall. And Clarkson has clearly been pressing his stamp ever harder onto the programme as the years have progressed.
The show never used to cause diplomatic crises. But it is no coincidence that as Clarkson nestled into his morally apathetic niche as the self-appointed freedom fighter against political correctness, so Top Gear’s joking went from old-fashioned to casually distasteful. It would be hard for the programme to have not changed in the face of such a deafening foghorn for thoughtless, zeitgeist-stalking rubbish.
Discussing the cultural insensitivity of Top Gear is not original, but it is crucial to flag up the irreconcilability of its success against its moral obligations. Standards are always going to lose to cold hard cash. That’s the reason why the BBC is compelled to act as the increasingly pathetic apologist for Top Gear’s imbroglios, and why Clarkson himself has yet to be fired. Because if Clarkson goes down, so does Top Gear. And then so does the BBC’s largest single programme revenue stream.
The fact that its viewing audience not only stays intact but often expands through these crises speaks volumes of the popularity of that tactless humour. The Top Gear-Clarkson brand of crass and, crucially, deliberately insensitive ‘banter’ obviously resonates with many people. Whether it’s because people actually find pseudo-racist jokes amusing, whether it’s interpreted as ironic, or whether audiences find it oddly titillating to hear something non-PC is unclear. The fact remains that it has an enormous, consistent viewing audience, so their style of chat is working, to the extent that the Top Gear brand of humour is becoming its biggest export, and its most distinct characteristic.
[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10250%%[/mm-hide-text]
To debate the morals of what Top Gear does would be to broach a labyrinth concealing a minefield. But it seems bizarre that if anti-political correctness vitriol is what they want to flog, why they don’t admit it and, as shamelessly as possible, embrace it. To constantly defend themselves by saying they’re not racist, or that the incidents are accidental, comes across as so listless as to beggar belief. The number plate H982 FKL was a coincidence? Was it fuck.
Just confess to choosing it, admit it was tasteless taunting and let the audience inevitably lap it up. After all, whenever they do something catastrophically stupid, who are their justifications aimed at? Top Gear’s innumerable critics can anticipate the pre-prepared response of non-intended offence and their audience clearly keeps watching whatever.
Let them decorate the studio with life-sized portraits of Roy ‘Chubby’ Brown, begin each programme with an oath of allegiance to Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech and wear white hoods on special occasions. At least then we’d all know where we are; the audience would continue to cackle and the rest of us would continue to cry on The Guardian’s Comment is Free page.
But if we can take only one message away from this: please don’t clothe your own darling toddlers in Top Gear branded cack.
So you’ve just arrived at Oxford, and you want to get involved in drama. You might be a director, actor, or costume designer, but the truth of the matter is, you’re not really sure where to begin. Well, fear not my fictional fresher friends, I am here to answer all your questions.
What is Cuppers?
Every year, OUDS, the Oxford University Drama Society and TAFF, the society for behind-the-scenes production staff put on a drama festival with production teams from each college where everyone involved – cast, directors, and crew – is in their first year at the university. Each team gets a thirty minute slot to perform their show at the Burton Taylor Studio some time in 5th Week. The performance is attended by a panel of judges, including at least one member of the OUDS committee, which then selects the ten best teams to put on an additional performance of their plays on Saturday.
Why should I get involved?
Cuppers is the traditional way to enter the Oxford drama scene, but it’s also a lot of fun and a great way to hang out with some people from different subjects who you might not have met yet. Plenty of people do Cuppers as a springboard into the Oxford thesp lifestyle, but lots of people just do it for pleasure and for some light relief from the sudden onslaught of essays and tutorials. You can basically do what you want with your Cuppers experience. Own it.
How do I enter?
There’s an application form online which teams need to fill in and submit, usually by the end of 2nd week. Don’t worry if you don’t have a fully rehearsed performance or polished idea, you just need to have the basics of your production and who’s involved, before getting rehearsed and ready in time for 5th Week.
How do I put together a team?
If you have some theatrically-inclined acquaintances, then you’re already half way there, but what if you need some extra cast or crew and don’t know who to ask? You could post on your college’s Freshers 2014 Facebook group (if you have one) or maybe get your JCR president to put out a notice in the weekly email. Failing that, you could always try approaching random people in the JCR. Worst case scenario, you’ll make some new friends… right?
What do I win?
Wow, you’re feeling confident. Well, there’s plenty of prizes up for grabs, from best actor and actress, to best new writing, to the much coveted ‘Spirit of Cuppers,’ for the productions which most embody the joyfulness and camaraderie that Cuppers is really all about. If you’re one of the Best of Cuppers shows, then you get the Saturday performance, but other than that, all you’ll really win is glory and bragging rights. Still, even if you miss out, getting nominated is cool, and participating is the really rewarding thing.
Any last words of advice?
I’m glad you asked me that, imaginary fresher. There are no hard and fast rules for how to get the most out of Cuppers, but I’ve managed to put together some rough guidelines for your delight and instruction, or hedonistic and wilful disobedience. Whichever works.
Do – have fun. Cuppers has a competitive element to it, sure, but there’s no need to take yourself too seriously. Better to have a great time and win nothing at all than win big but have an absolutely miserable three weeks.
Don’t – take yourself too seriously. Don’t be mean to your fellow teams, or worse, to your own team members. Cuppers isn’t the be all and end all of your dramatic chances at Oxford. Really. It isn’t.
Do – pick a play you’re enthusiastic about. Whether this means editing down a classic, or devising something yourselves, perform something you’re passionate about. Second-guessing what the judges will like might seem like a clever move, but there’s no guarantee you’ll get it right, and even you do, what’s saying they’ll like it more than your original, unique concept? Do what feels right. That said…
Don’t – try to write a play about life in Oxford. Especially if it’s supposed to be funny. Just… don’t do it. Everyone else has been here longer than you, and even if you’ve written the most on point and hilarious satire of Oxford life, odds are it’s not going to go down well with anyone who’s been here more than two months.
Do – go crazy. Put on something totally out there and bizarre. This may be one of the only chances you’ll get to create something that’s really out of the box. Go forth and do it. I believe in you, freshlings. Good luck.