My random theories: drinking, domestic violence and ducks.
Why can’t Micklegate be more like Europe?
Perhaps the best thing about going to Europe is the general atmosphere. It’s just the relaxed attitude they have, whether in their houses or out in bars/town. Recently I was sipping beer in Brussels (as one does) from a 200ml glass. ‘200ml glass?’ I hear you shout. Yes, and it was plenty. It was nice to just sit and enjoy the beer and sample three or four varieties.
The bar ran a ‘bill’ system, paying at the end, which of course requires a degree of trust between bar and clients. Surprisingly, it worked. In fact, the only bars without it seemed to be those attracting the Brits on holiday or stag weekends.
The ‘binge drinking’ problem is well-documented. While it’s nice to have a few drinks, and occasionally in ‘large’ quantities, somewhere in the evolutionary cycle the Brits obtained a ‘must-drink-to-have-a-good-night’ gene.
While other countries, such as Sweden, have used taxes and government legislation to rid them of these problems, they don’t seem to be able to curb the issue over here. I thought long and hard about the possible cause. What does England/Britain have a hell-of-a-lot of that Sweden, Germany and Belgium don’t? Thugs? No. Hen and stag parties? Nope. One thing is somewhat less obvious though - Starbucks!
But how is Starbucks to blame? It’s as tedious a link as Dan Brown may make, but maybe copious amounts of poor coffee and tea consumption ruins one’s taste buds, making drinks such as Fosters and Carling acceptable. The logic is there, I promise. Obviously coffee and alcohol consumption aren’t linked but if only we could respect our tastebuds and all enjoy a small glass of something more palatable, such as Leffe, I think that the town at least would be a much prettier sight, particularly at the weekends.
Why would I waste a column on this ill-prepared theory? Well, living on Micklegate brings its rewards, but also the obvious perils, such as sick and kebabs (aren’t they synonymous?) on the doorstep. So please, next time you want to throw up, find somewhere politer, like a bin.
A social theory of daytime television
Over the summer I had a tedious job doing data entry, but one of the perks was that I worked from home where I could watch TV. The downside of this, however, was that although I managed a year of university only watching football and Neighbours, I can now recite the entire daytime tv schedule.
One of my new daytime TV legends is Jeremy Kyle, famed for his outlandish and harsh views of people. Surprisingly for daytime TV, one of his shows actually got me thinking. It involved a case of man ‘A’ hitting his lady, ‘B.’ Kyle verbally attacked ‘A’ for aggression towards his partner, and rightly so. However, he claimed that ‘men don’t hit women’ and to do so strips him of his label as a male.
The presenter may have been making a reference to it being almost animalistic behavior, but it does raise an interesting childhood experience. While I certainly don’t condone violence, the sex of the offenders and victims is irrespective. It harks back to the playground rules of it being ok for girls to hit boys, but not for the boys to hit girls. I remember dinnerladies (or Midday Assistants as they’re now known) excusing the girls’ vicious attacks (and yes, they were vicious!) by pointing out that the girl was not in the wrong, even if she was the instigator. Or perhaps this is unintentionally instilling a sense of inferiority into the young and susceptible brains of children.
Obviously it doesn’t have a widespread effect, but could it be the early nudge for socially unstable children towards a more distorted view of inter-gender relationships? Another observation is that at no point in these cases does he ask the abuser about their consumption of Stella. However, Jeremy Kyle does somehow manage to reel in a wide selection of people with their ‘interesting tales.’ While the mental instability of ‘wife beaters’ is unlikely to be solely attributable to this early socialization in the playground, I’d like to think that the next little kid struck down by a girl twice his size will get justice.
Greg Dyke’s duck jibe at Alistair Campbell
Greg Dyke isn’t your normal football chairman, with a status that somewhat outshines that of his team, and mine, Brentford FC. After a pre-season ‘meet the board’ session, it seemed a good time to question him about his second most important role, that of being Chancellor of our wonderful University.
Like Brentford’s new stadium proposal, it’s the sports facilities on the controversial Heslington East development which Dyke believes to be ‘key to the success of the development.’ He also believes that the development won’t detract from the close feel that is integral to the appeal of York (reaffirmed by the recent Sunday Times rating of York in the top 10 universities in the country).
Although reluctant to discuss the ‘big’ issues of last year, such as the bar campaign and AUT strikes, he was willing to offer his views on possibly the most important issue hitting campus (or at least Langwith) - naming THAT duck. Anyone accustomed to Facebook navigation will no doubt have noticed the Fit Duck/Trevor/King Duck debate, but if you haven’t come across the golden bird then there is quite a ruccus developing around his mantle.
I put forward a few of the names mentioned, and offered a photo to jog his memory. Not impressed, he enquired into why this particular duck is special. It’s only when I mention the duck’s short temper that he looks up, and with a hint of a smile, says, ‘well, if it’s an aggressive and persistant bugger, then surely there’s only one name – the Alistair Campbell duck.’
It’s easy to see why the man is a hit amongst Brentford fans. Here is a chairman who has time for the fans, doesn’t expect preferential treatment and shares the same hopes and fears of this small club as people who have attended it for many years. Perhaps an extra appearance or two around the university could help lift spirits in the way it has at Brentford.
