‘One person stresses that the rowing club committee said it was “impractical” for the club to fine members who killed ducklings. Another person says it’s always gone on. It certainly would be impractical. Why? Because the acts are criminal, under the Countryside and Wildlife Act 1981. Any club might be in an awkward position if the way it deals with criminal behaviour is by imposing its own private fines and not informing the police. Imagine if a darts club took the same line on dogfighting.

I think this is an excellent issue to be addressed by whoever is standing as ‘Mr ASBO’ for police commissioner. It’s easy for everyone to understand: why should rowing club hooray henries, these disgusting excuses for human beings, be allowed to get away with acts which practically everyone in the non-toff population thinks are obscene and vile, and which are also very clearly unlawful? “Mr ASBO” should call for the full force of the law to be brought down on their heads. Posters could go up around Cambridge talking about these foul rowers who “dunk the fluff” for fun and somehow manage to stay out of the dock’

Original comment from  prosecute toff  scum now

It is clear that the Trinity boat clubs are actively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to hide evidence of widespread and  illegal wildlife killing by their members.  I’m checking whether this offence is liable to citizens arrest.

*****Citizens arrest not applicable for this offence.




Filed under Uncategorized



    I like the way the committee doesn’t even think it’s a matter for the Police- they see themselves as being well above the law, and yet, a lot of these fuckers seek a career in it- funny that, innit?

  2. Loveaduck

    Working classes deal with duckling kilers; people on local housing estate put up a reward for the killers.

  3. Porkbeast

    Its not just ducklings the toffs want wiped out to enjoy their “sports”

  4. Unlawful citizens arrest constitutes an assault, so I’d suggest not performing a ‘citizens arrest’ for something that presents no immediate danger to the public. People also have an inherent right to self-defense and the rowers are likely to be significantly stronger than you…

    • don't start

      The ‘law breaking’ Mr Bone describes is a lie. And if someone had ‘intentionally’ ‘killed or removed’ a duck ‘out of season’ you’d be unable to claim that you had strong, meaningful suspicion that any of the individuals you might meet on the march had done just that. And as the crime would not have taken place under your witness, their having a permanent, easily found address and no history of evading police would make it impossible for you to claim they were absconding before a constable can assume responsibility for him.
      If an illegal citizen’s arrest is made, someone else could ‘citizen’s arrest’ you and use reasonable force (like pinning down or holding) to stop you running off. If you fought back, they could fight you in self defence. Given that rowers have an average height of about 6’2″ and do A LOT of weight and fitness training, I wouldn’t advise starting what could end badly.

  5. duckling lover

    If you actually read beyond the first few sentences of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, you would see the following:

    “a person shall not be guilty of an offence by reason of any act made unlawful by those provisions if he shows that the act was an incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably be avoided.”

    A cox or rower who accidentally injures a bird while rowing is no more committing a criminal offence than a driver who accidentally hits a bird in his car. It would only be a crime, and therefore a police matter, if you imagine that rowers are taking to the river with the express purpose of killing ducklings, which is nonsense (and would be unprovable even if it were true). I would humbly suggest that you don’t try arresting people who aren’t breaking the law.

    • Joe Bloggs

      Past events seem to suggest that Ian Bone may not be quite the law abiding and upholding citizen he tries to style himself as being…

      A better analogy may be to consider the number of hedgehogs and squirrels killed by cars in the course of a day (which I see regularly, i.e. at least once a week). And that ignores the effects of pollution by road vehicles on wildlife… Why not protest against car drivers (who are usually the better off anyway) as well?

  6. Anonymous

    I didn’t think I’d be shocked, but this forum has plumbed new depths. There is no hope for change in this country if you are the ones seeking it. To consider Trinity rowers liable for arrest for proposing a measure to promote safer rowing shows a warped and biased approach to this. At no point does anything say that Trinity are responsible for killing wildlife – in my experience, F&T crews are some of the better steerers on the Cam anyway!

    Wsome 100,000 foxes, 50,000 badgers and between 30,000 and 50,000 deer are killed on UK roads every year” (

    Go and protest against motorists, then. Oh wait, they wouldn’t be a stereotypable minority like Cambridge students. The original post is lazy, simplistic, biased, and hypocritical.

    • specious arguments

      These are amazingly stupid ‘arguments’ from F&T defenders whose posh social confidence outdoes any sense they might have. If rowers are deliberately killing ducklings, which can obviously be avoided, then of course they are committing a crime. Since when was Trinity College any student’s “permanent” address, by the way? Not that it matters. Killing ducklings for fun is fucking disgusting. Ask anyone. Oh no, wait, our opponents think they are everyone.

      • grumpy rower

        i) Having rowed at FaT for a number of years, I have yet to come across anyone who has deliberately killed any ducklings (or ducks, cygnets or swans for that matter). The number of unintentional collisions is also small.

        ii) The college is a ‘permanent’ address for those of us pursuing graduate study. I live here all year round (for ~4 years) and have no other address…

  7. ‘Anonymous’ (if that IS in fact your real name): I’ll take that bet

    • I sincerely hope you do. It will not end well for you.

    • Necand

      That’s obviously not his real name, Mr. Derby.
      Quite frankly, given the fact that some of you seem to advocate the execution of your fellow human beings, none of you are in any place to become holier-than-thou about some dead river fowl. Unless, as someone rightly pointed out above, we are to hold a state funeral and arrest the culprit every time someone runs over a fox/pigeon/any animal. Furthermore, given the fact that you don’t identify as citizens of this current oppressive regime, none of you really have a leg to stand on as far as performing a citizen’s arrest goes.
      But please, hit me with your hateful, poorly thought out, pseudo-philosophical invective.

      • weaselblender genderstink

        Piss off you posh twat.

      • ‘Piss off you posh twat’

        A retort that will echo through the ages: concise, witty and articulate, it is hard to imagine an intellect as impressive as yours.

      • specious arguments

        Holier than thou? How many of us do you think have any truck with killing ducklings for fun? Clearly none of us are in any “place” to criticise anything that posh cunts do, right? Your analogy with accidental roadkill is moronic; your rhetorical reference to a state funeral (meaning of course, that we care too much about the animals that posh cunts kill for fun) is pathetic. You also seem to think that “citizen’s arrest” is a legal term. It isn’t. However, the lawfulness of a citizen’s arrest does not depend on the are lawful does not depend on the character of the person making it, nor on a comparison of his character with the arrestee’s. But…yeah mate…it’s our invective that’s ever so poorly thought-out, not yours? You can’t look at yourself, mate. You’re losing this one. You’re not all stupid, not by a long chalk, but a hell of a lot of you are. I mean, doing weights and spending hours each day rowing along for a College – you don’t half look a bunch of charlies, and a lot of you are just knuckle-heads. You’re LOSING, and a lot of you are too stupid to know it. Those on your side with any sense would tell you to shut it, but you seem incapable of doing so. Your inbred feeling of superiority is too strong. You’re not Cambridge, mate. Nor is the university. Most people who live in Cambridge are working class, and many fucking hate you strutting cunts in May Week and on the river. We’re going to win. End of.

      • specious arguments

        “A retort that will echo through the ages: concise, witty and articulate, it is hard to imagine an intellect as impressive as yours.”

        Ha ha! You’re arrogant and sarcastic, but you can’t write! Do you even know what a comma splice is? 🙂

      • Yes. The correct use of a comma is a matter of some debate. The most notable example is the Oxford comma, but there are many other contentious permutations. I should, perhaps, have used a semicolon but it felt too strong in that instance. I personally don’t think that a comma should be used infront of conjunctions (see ‘, but’ above) except in rare circumstances, but I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

        As for us losing: you may perceive that to be the case, but all I can see is you lot getting very angry and us lot having enormous fun laughing at you.

      • AnnoyingPerson

        “End of” doesn’t make you right. A lot of talk and no walk. You dismiss things without explaining them. Why should I have a problem with myself? How is rowing different from any other hobby. Are you going stage a class war against jigsaw puzzles next?
        Cambridge is not just the town either, without the uni it would be a dull village in the middle of the fens. May Week is 7 days: every weekend evening of the year locals get pissed and behave in exactly the same way.
        And you certainly care more about animals than people who disagree with you. I don’t see a problem with the roadkill comparison at all.

        Losing at WHAT? All you do is yell and call people names. You should take a look at the pigeon meme that’s floating around. I would repost it, but I’m not a fan of calling people “retard”.

  8. GlasgowGirl

    I find this whole mess actually heartbreaking. I am a third year student at the University, but I am only here thanks to the amazing inclusive attitude of the colleges and the University in general – my family and I are from a council estate in Glasgow, I went to a local comprehensive, and if it were;t for the combination of my good grades and the funding that the University has offered me (far more than any other, less ‘posh’ institution) I wouldn’t be at University at all. I, and the many others I’ve met here like me, am extremely grateful for the opportunity to gain an excellent education!

    While I’ve been here, I’ve had the chance to try sports like rowing which I would NEVER be able to afford to try outside of Cambridge, because my college subsidises all it’s sports teams including the boat club. I have made so many amazing friends, the people are fantastic and committed and I’ve really enjoyed it. I’m really sad to be graduating this summer, as this whole experience is something I would never otherwise get, and I’m going to miss rowing a lot.

    Then, ignorant people like you, who claim to be working class and in solidarity with people like me and my family, and you just want to screw up my last chance to compete in Bumps and be involved in this fantastic sport and the chances of all the others like me, insult the University that has done so much and given away so much money to fund people like me, and call us all toffs when the truth is far from that – we’re not Eton or Harrow for goodness sake, this is a meritocracy not an elitist culture!

    The whole situation with Mr ASBO is sad, and I wish there was a way that he could have been happy sharing the Cam with us rowers (town and gown alike) without being as stressed and angry as he was. I hope he’s happy where he is now. If you really want to protest against his removal, however, rather than any ridiculous idea of Cambridge being an elitist institution, go and talk to the Cam Conservators – they’re the ones who moved him, not us common students who just like to get out on the river now and then.

    I really hope you can all realise what fools you’re making of yourselves and of our class, and that you can at least recognise that the University is not quite the elitist institution you misrepresent it to be. If you can’t recognise the meritocratic opportunities given to the working class to get educated and eventually get employed based entirely on our own merit and not on handouts from the upper classes, then I would refuse to call you working class – you refuse to actually work for our benefit, only to hinder the chances the rest of us have to make our way in the world independently.

    • Fellow Student

      Finally, someone who talks sense! I’m in a similar situation to you, Cambridge has given me some of the best times of my life. I didn’t get here because of my parents, both have low-skilled jobs and about 3 GCSE’s between them. We are not the exception, people are here because they deserve it, nobody gets into Cambridge because they are rich.

      Also, how can you blame hitting a swan on the rowers? They face backwards and have very little control of steering. The cox is the steerer, and even then I’ve never met one who had a penchant for killing ducks.

      • harry

        Look – there may be 4 or 5 of you a year out of 10,000 who match this story. There may be even a few thousand who went to state school but who are otherwise middle class (parents are teachers, doctors and lecturers usually). But I expect that within 10 years you will all be indistinguishable from the elite and your children will be indistingushable from the other children of the elite. Well done on gaining access.

        You just don’t seem to get what this is about do you ? For every 1 who escapes a poor background to join the elite, there are 9,999 who have no fucking chance. Most kids have a better chance of making it through professional boxing than through the education system. Having the odd scholarship here and there at Eton and Cambridge does not make a meritocracy. It is a screen and a poor apology for the elitism.

      • Researcher

        I can’t really comment on the ‘4 or 5 of you a year out of 10,000 who match this story.’ Since the statistics on that sort of thing aren’t really kept. However I can tell you that in the 2011 cycle (courses starting last September) 3274 undergraduates were admitted, with a 60-40 split between state schools and independents. The percentage of applicants getting in from state schools is about 1/4, and the percentage getting in from independent and grammar schools is about 1/3. Incidentally 97.6% achieved A*AA or equivalent, discounting subjects like general studies. Given that you can see from all the school league tables that generally independent and grammar schools get better exam results, and because most of these schools select on ability, I personally cannot see much room for the admissions prejudice you seem to be imagining.


      • Anonymous

        The point is that you do not need a scholarship. Tuition is covered (by a loan, but it’s still covered), while living costs are met by maintenance grants and bursaries. Rents are subsidised (the cheapest uni rents I’ve heard of), and meals are relatively cheap. There should be no material reason why someone couldn’t study at Cambridge. You insist on seeing the world with your class-based (and essentially Marxist) dogmas. If there was a revolution based on class, society would not be classless, because class would have been the only thing giving the revolution legitimacy, so it would be repeated.

      • Sal

        It’s not just the odd scholarship, Harry, Cambridge guarantees a full bursary of £3,500 to every single person on full government grants, no matter how many people that is. They actually give you more money than the government do. If your household income is under £46,000 then you can get some form of bursary from them. You’re quite right, private schools like Eton are elitist; you have be able to pay the fees to attend. Unlike private schools, Cambridge will accept you no matter what your income or background. All that matters is your passion for your subject.

        I’d argue that the 9,999 don’t have a chance because their schools have failed them, not because Cambridge has. The education system in this country is awful, it’s a postcode lottery as to whether you end up in a great school or not. But that isn’t Cambridge’s fault.

        I don’t think it’s necessarily true to say that we will blend in in 10 years time. My course has a very high percentage of state school-educated people on it; the most common ambition it to finish our degrees and then go and teach in state schools. We’ve benefited from amazing teaching, and we believe that others should too, regardless of background. I know that you and many others who will read this dislike Oxbridge, and dislike it in the name of equality. I can guarantee you that most Cambridge students would like equality too. It’s just our idea of equality is that everyone can attend fantastic universities and have the opportunities that we have been lucky enough to have, rather than that no one can.

    • Guy

      If class is defined in terms of ones relationship to capitalist production, with other aspects of class being sociological effects of those relationships. A working class revolution, as in seizing control over production, would destroy class.

  9. gitanex

    Infant swans are called cygnets. Ducklings are infant ducks. Just thought I’d mention it to y’all.
    Are the rowers targetting baby ducks or baby swans ? If the former is the case then this is surely a more heinious slaughter of the innocents comrades. Fox hunts have resulted in the slaughter of domestic cats and dogs with apologies and cash offerings for compensation for the “mistake”.
    What next? The infants of chavs and proles enjoying a pic nic on the Cam beaten to death with an oar or mowed down by the scythes of gardeners who have been recruited from the ranks of unemployed terrier men.
    Fuck Spartacus ; its time to stand up and shout “I am a duckling!”.

  10. dave

    I’ve seen some anecdotal, at best, evidence here that at least one working class person went to Cambridge University and is quite enjoying it. That argument has convinced me entirely that Cambridge University is not an institution that perpetuates class based privilege. I think you nasty, quite awul people should stop your horrible protest and recognise that Cambridge University is in fact a place where the majority of the working class could get admitted to if they were intelligent enough.

    Any argument to the contrary just enforces the argument that working class people must be stupid. Can we now stop this silly argument and recognise that rich people are just more intelligent.

    • yes

      Well put! For fucking decades, when I’ve gone on about class exploitation, there have been idiots who stand up and say I must be wrong because someone who was the son of a dustman once became a medic or whatever.

      • Joe Bloggs

        Ah yes. That convinces me entirely. Because there is a University where more rich people tend to go the lower classes are being exploited. Because the state on average can’t provide a good enough education to prepare people for the demands of such an educational institution we have exploitation of the working class. For fucking decades I’ve been wrong and thought there isn’t any exploitation because only students with the required intelligence AND prior knowledge are gaining places at these universities, which is recognised at being pretty good across the whole world. And all these academics which are doing research that is recognised as being leading across the world (even though most academics there studied elsewhere previously) are such toffs, purely because they happen to do research at this place. All this research which improves our lives is so exploitative, since it stops us dying at a young age, lets us travel easily, lets us communicate more easily etc.

      • yes

        Reply to Joe Bloggs: your thinking is so confused, and your style of sarcasm, together with your stating of arguments made by your opponents in a way that clearly shows you haven’t understood them, suggests that you don’t care about dealing with your confusion and probably don’t even recognise it. Sorry mate, I haven’t got the patience to help you here.

        Except I will say: hypocrisy is the ransom that vice pays to virtue.


    Bollocks to all you Cambridge and Oxford twats-

    “The glass ceiling has been scratched but not broken,” said Mr Milburn, adding that the figures in his study illustrated “social engineering on a grand scale”. They showed that:

    * 83 of the 114 High Court judges were privately educated and 82 went to Oxford or Cambridge;

    * 43 per cent of barristers went to fee-paying secondary schools, and a third graduated from Oxbridge;

    * 54 per cent of top journalists were privately educated, with a third going to Oxbridge.

    The former Health Secretary reserved some of his strongest criticism for the politicos. He pointed out that 59 per cent of the 2010 Cabinet was privately educated, up from 32 per cent in Gordon Brown’s government. The proportion of MPs who went to private schools has risen from 30 to 35 per cent since 1997 and 13 private schools now provide 10 per cent of all MPs. About 62 per cent of House of Lords members were privately educated, with 12 private schools supplying 43 per cent of peers.

    • anotheranon

      You’re right that there is a disproportionate representation. However, I feel you are attacking the wrong part of the process.
      To become a lawyer you need a law degree and a pupillage. Oxbridge is likely to get more into pupillage as the degree is highly respected as thorough. The same applies to other professions as the Oxbridge degrees are seen to be of at least a certain level.
      A good example of it not mattering is medicine: because the degrees are externally examined and the bar set the same, no one cares were you got the degree.
      The problem lies in the level of education at public schools not being available to all. If money were no issue, all schools could offer the same opportunities for great teachers, plenty of sports and other extra curricular activities. Unfortunately it is. Therefore I would favour a streaming system that would allow the brightest and hardest working to be pushed further, whilst the slower pupils receive the style of teaching that lets them achieve their best.
      It is wrong that public schools dominate media and politics. But there is a risk of suggesting an equal crap system instead of an equal good system.
      Finally, Oxbridge selects based on grades and interviews, it adjusts grade requirements for those from worse schools. The interviews tend to allow those whose backgrounds have hindered their grades to display their joy of the subject and intelligence. Granted public schools have better preparation for interviews but doesn’t this suggest there should be better preparation in the state sector?

      • Ungrateful

        FFS – for people who claim to be the brightest of the bright you just don’t get it. We don’t want a fairer system of exploitation and hierarchy, in which X% of the working class have the opportunity to join you in lording it over the rest of us who don’t get 3A* Levels. We want a fairer, society for all, in which everyone has access to the productive goods of society, not just those capable of jumping over often arbitrary academic hurdles. For instance, did you know that (except at the extremes, ie 4A*s versus 2Es) – A Levels and highers are poor predictors of what classification of degree you’ll get.

        You seem to think there is some sort of value neutral examination process is possible. But there isn’t. The exam system exists to reaffirm class rule, and to make those of us who ‘fail’, blame ourselves for not having the opportunities for self-development we all deserve. Any system of examination has a bias in it, its because the bais will inevitably be in favour of the wealthiest that you do’;t notice it. the wealthy will always ensure that they progeny have an unfair advantage (hire tutors, summer schools, endowments).

        When the system is ‘biased’ against them the privileged classes will alter the system. For instance in the 1960s-70s, the proportion of working class to middle class students at university was higher than today (now whilst more working class kids do go to University, its a tiny fraction of the working class as a whole, whilst nearly every middle class kid goes there as an expected right).The Tories changed this as lots of middle class parents were annoyed that not only were their kids losing out, but that they were paying for it to happen through their taxes being used to pay for grants and free University education. With the eradication of grants and the introduction fo student fees, the situation is ‘normalised’ – the days of think-but-wealthy Tarquin missing out at the degree factory are over (just a sghame that equally thick, but poor working class kid still can;t go).

        Think how Etonians would fair if the examination process was instead:
        1. Written exams were expressed entirely in street slang or written in txt spk (and had to be written as such).
        2. To text initiative, without access to their netowrk of friends, family or school colleagues, find £200/day, a dealer who has what they need and avoid arrest – for 3 months. maybe even drug addicts have greater initiative than most Oxbridge undergraduates.

        Mind you if the system was changed to this – Eton would only buy in specialist tutors to train their privileged customers in house-breaking and text messaging.

      • Greg

        As has been stated many times, the State sector is managed and overseen by people that have been to…….yup you’ve guessed it

      • anotheranon

        So don’t vote for them, and dislike THEM, not me. I’d like a fair education system and society but I’d also like to build bridges so I’m doing engineering. Does that make me a bastard? or evil? or scum?
        I didn’t choose my parents (I actually rather like them as it turns out) so I wouldn’t describe it as fair to hate me for that. I was sent to public school before I’d started thinking about politics and when I did I saw how unfair it was. I still wanted to build bridges, and my friends were at that school, and leaving would be a detriment to getting to do that.
        I think it’s really misguided to do things like have a go at CURRENT Eton pupils. Also to attack Cambridge for being something it’s not.

      • AnotherAnotherAnon

        No exam system can have a bias towards the wealthy, unless rich people are bribing examiners to get the questions in advance! There’s absolutely serious inequality between private, paid-for education & free, state education, and further inequalities within the state sector. Exams reaffirm rule by those who are well educated, intelligent or good at exams. Obviously, people with powe or wealth can exploit it. But to say it’s all about how much you paid for an education is very demeaning to anyone who didn’t. And to suggest Cambridge admits students based on wealth is plainly absurd. It admits them on ACADEMIC ability – and this usually correlates with the quality of the school you attended. As AnotherAnon says, that’s the part of the system which generates inequalities.

      • Anon.

        “For instance, did you know that (except at the extremes, ie 4A*s versus 2Es) – A Levels and highers are poor predictors of what classification of degree you’ll get.” – False, Trinity College did some heavy statistical analysis of admissions a few years back and found that there is a linear relationship between final degree class and AS level attainment, with a third corresponding to ~90%, and a first as 97+%. This now underpins the reason that you are now asked on the SAQ for your AS grades, they understand that they are such a GOOD predictor that they want to see them, beyond a simple A/B/C etc

        “Think how Etonians would fair if the examination process was instead:
        1. Written exams were expressed entirely in street slang or written in txt spk (and had to be written as such).
        2. To text initiative, without access to their netowrk of friends, family or school colleagues, find £200/day, a dealer who has what they need and avoid arrest – for 3 months. maybe even drug addicts have greater initiative than most Oxbridge undergraduates.”

        Okay first off, Eton actually offers a large amount of full scholarships and bursaries, so that anyone who passes the Eton List Test (taken at 11 and widely regarded as the most challenging exam at that age) will be able to attend.
        Secondly as regards your suggestions
        1. Retarded – what is the purpose of adapting to a language which evolved as a way to save characters on mobile phone texts? Also do you really think that Eton, a school where you are required to study Latin and French (and have the option for Ancient Greek, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic etc) are really going to find it difficult to cope with the occasional ‘innit’?
        2. What is the point of imposing a requirement to £16,800 over a three month period, via illegal means or no? Such a system would detract from their ability to study. Don’t get me started on the idea of the government requiring all students to contact the criminal underworld…
        Lastly, the verb you were looking for was ‘to fare’ as in ‘to perform in a certain way in a particular situation or over a particular period of time’ not the adjective ‘fair’ which is what you are hoping the system would be.
        Troll harder.

  12. Guy

    “The spectacle is the ruling order’s nonstop discourse about itself, its never-ending monologue of self-praise, its self-portrait at the stage of totalitarian domination of all aspects of life. The fetishistic appearance of pure objectivity in spectacular relations conceals their true character as relations between people and between classes: a second Nature, with its own inescapable laws, seems to dominate our environment.”


      Never a truer word…
      To be honest, I’m fucking sick of these knobs pleading their case here. Time for more proletarian voices, since these bastards dominate every other form of media…?

      • genderblender stinkweasel

        Agreed comrades Guy and Incubus.
        There is only so much gibbering it’s possible to take without being driven insane. Don’t forget that these are the people who are being groomed to defend and perpetuate their entitlement for generations to come. To the extent that they believe their own bullshit.
        “…acedemic merit…working class parents…you’re jealous…I worked hard to get here..etc etc ad nauseum”.

        I say let them talk themselves into a self satisfied trance, then strike hard with the old sneakaroo when they think weve died of servile boredom.

  13. gitanex

    It’s an open and shut case. Social division increding, unsustainable economic programmes, no new inititiaves, visionless etc. All managed by an Oxbridge majority. The Oxbridge brand is failing on a grand scale.
    A handful of anarchists and an abused swan riles their intellect to absurd heights (or lows as they have shown).
    The Oxbridge brand is on the same evolutionary path as Woolworths; out of touch and doomed.

  14. Boondocks

    Forget the anecdotal stuff, but what is wrong with being the child of teachers who squirrel away money to get their child into a career they’re happy with? What is wrong with being an accountant, a university lecturer (a job based purely on intelligence). May Week is embarrassing at times, but it’s no different to the locals in Cambridge piling up and down Regent Street on Friday and Saturday night and throwing drinks everywhere, EVERY WEEKEND. Do I like it? Do I bollocks, but each to their own.

    I can’t stand the priviledge private schools allow, but most of the idiots reading this blog think “SMASH ALL THE RICH TWATS”. Cambridge, Oxford, (and Imperial, Bristol etc.) should never make a single apology for their existence. They interview EVERYONE. NOBODY gets in because of connections. If they’re privileged, so be it. The university isn’t an agent of social change. It exists to further the intellectual culture of this country, and the world. If it wasn’t for universities and research, where would we be?

    Things would change if you had any capability of mobilising sensible public opinion, but it will only be incremental in any case. The likes of Incubus seem to think that by dismantling all of the structures of the state, everything would be brilliant. It wouldn’t. Nobody should be saying it’s a great, but it’s just as ludicrous believing that Jeremy should suffer for having well-to-do parents as believing that Wayne should suffer because Mum and Dad got caught in a culture of social neglect.

  15. Sal

    I really don’t understand the hatred. Some of you seem to genuinely hate us and want to hurt us, without having met us. We don’t hate you. The reason that this blog is getting so much student attention is because we don’t like being told we are the embodiment of evil, that we are bastards who are groomed for entitlement, that we kill animals for fun, and that we are all rich toffs who go round laughing at poverty. It’s just not true. We have assumed that you are all normal, decent, hardworking people who want social justice, and therefore that you would be open to a discussion. Apologies if we were wrong.

    This whole thing started because the local authorities moved a swan from the Cam to a nature reserve. A swan that attacked houseboats, kayaks, canoes, and rowers from both town and university clubs. It didn’t care who or what it attacked. The move wasn’t because of Cambridge University, it was because of pressure from all river users. Either you think that everyone in the city of Cambridge is an elitist toff, or you have to accept that the swan wasn’t a class warrior who was brutally silenced by the evil “hooray Henrys”, and that it was just an angry swan. Why attack just rowers? The Cam is used by town rowers and University rowers equally; most of the races are held by town clubs. The Bumps themselves are open to both Anglia Ruskin and Cambridge University. This isn’t an elite sport, at least not in this city. If you want to attack the rich people at Cambridge, go for polo. In fact, if you genuinely want to protest against Cambridge University then march on Senate House, and instead of attacking the students, protest to the tutors or the heads of the university. Wage your class war against the people in charge, not against a group of students

  16. Az

    “Forget the anecdotal stuff, but what is wrong with being the child of teachers who squirrel away money to get their child into a career they’re happy with?”

    I don’t think there is any thing wrong being the child of a teacher or the child of aristocracy (of have been privately educated for that matter), its what you do and think that matters. Exploiting capital and the capitalist system to acquire/maintain privilege is perpetuating human degradation and exploitation inherent in the system. So if you aspire to be part of the ruling capital class, leverage you’re class position, or you want your children to become part of that class, you engage in the exploitation of the many for the few. Teachers squirreling away a bit of money… fine, using that money to buy their children privilege in the form ‘elite’ education, which is as much about buying them connections, I see as wrong. Pretending what you’re doing is none of the above… well that makes you delusional.

    “What is wrong with being an accountant, a university lecturer (a job based purely on intelligence)”

    On the whole, a worker is a worker is a… so having a job which requires specific skills, maybe acquired through a lot of studying (say at a university), I don’t see as inherently wrong, but ‘pure intelligence’ is a myth.

    “Cambridge, Oxford, (and Imperial, Bristol etc.) should never make a single apology for their existence. They interview EVERYONE. NOBODY gets in because of connections. If they’re privileged, so be it. The university isn’t an agent of social change.”

    Oxbridge is a brand, they control their image, and sell themselves as the educators of the elite… the ruling class that will manage capital and exploit the working class through the media, finance, politics… etc. The social hegemony is almost totally controlled by people slid along a line of privilege, Oxbridge being the last point on that line.

    “Nobody should be saying it’s a great, but it’s just as ludicrous believing that Jeremy should suffer for having well-to-do parents as believing that Wayne should suffer because Mum and Dad got caught in a culture of social neglect.”

    I Jeremy doesn’t see the error his ways and those of privilege, and perpetuates the exploitation of Wayne… fuck him and all his kind.

    • Sal

      You make some interesting points, although currently Oxbridge is trying to distance itself from the educators of the social elite image, rather than reinforce it. And to some extent their image isn’t under their control; the mainstream media loves the stereotype that Oxbridge is only for the wealthy, meaning that for the majority of people this is the only view of Oxbridge they ever see.

      Out of interest, what would be your solution to the whole situation?

      • Anonymous

        “Out of interest, what would be your solution to the whole situation?”

        Hmmm that’s a pretty big question and I don’t pretend to have all the answers… but something along the lines of a proletarian revolution, workers seizing control of production (the work place) through revolutionary unions and organizing for human need and not profit i.e socialism. That may sound pretty naive but I live in hope.


      They sell themselves, as do ALL universities, as providing connections and support to you when you choose to pursue your career. Yes, there is a disproportionate number of people who work in financial services, academic, teaching, political research etc., but to point this out is a truism. As soon as the political class decided to introduce tuition fees, it became a market, and every university needs a brand. Well done for recognising this.

      “pure intelligence” may be a myth, but more accurately, it is, or was, a job based on academic merit. There is no performance difference between anyone from a state or independent school once they arrive at Cambridge.

      What do you do Az? Please tell me, it might help me to understand why you’re driven by prejudice and want to bring everyone down to the floor.

      • Az

        When you say ‘what do you do?’ I’m not fully sure what you mean or how it will help you understand my viewpoint, also could you explain how I want to bring every one to the floor? Anyway I’m a student of mathematics and physics and a part time gardener… does that help? No didn’t think so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s