At Exeter University a minority of people label the majority ‘rahs.’ The criteria for being a rah, according to this minority, is to have a bad attitude and more money than sense, as well as to dress in a certain way (though the second is not necessary but is common, and very interesting). The stereotypical female rah is epitomised by a number of ways in terms of their fashion; they often have bleached blonde, backcombed hair, which is thrown to one side to create an extreme side parting. Big scarves and hooded jumpers (preferably with their public school name or the lacrosse team emblazoned on it) are common, as are the very short denim skirts and the essential ‘Ugg’ boots. It seems that no rah is complete on campus without a pair of these boots. The cheapest of these boots retail at about £140 minimum (after exchange rate).

                It is because these boots are so expensive that they are so desired; it is clearly not for how they look (as they are widely agreed to be hideous) or because of how they feel (as one can get a similar product for a fraction of the cost). The girls that wear these boots are unconsciously saying to others wearing them; ‘Look, I too can afford these boots, please include me in your clique,’ and to those who are not wearing them; ‘Look, I can afford these boots, unlike you. Respect me.’ They are, to these people, a way of dividing the sheep from the goats.

                Being accepted by the ‘rah’ community is important enough for some of the less rich girls that they feel the need to buy a pair of faux-Uggs from Primark. These however have a mythology of their own, as they show that this girl probably has the arrogant attitude but insecure and does not the money to back herself up with.

                Thought the hideousness of the boots is, of course, subjective, it takes a large stretch of the imagination to believe that the only people who think they are ‘UGGly’ are ‘non-rahs’ and those who think they look good are ‘rahs.’ They are not flattering nor are they individual, which implies that there is an ulterior motive for reading them. Some ‘rahs’ may have come from very expensive mansions in the home counties; perhaps the caveman-style Ugg boots, combined with the backcombed hair, are an attempt to look like Raquel Welsh in the primitive environment of University, and to try and fit in with the neanderthallic ‘chavs’ (non-rahs).

                A possible reason for the number of Ugg-sporting rahs in Exeter University is the high concentration of Oxbridge rejects. Their pride wounded, they are embittered by this and feel the need to flex the only muscle they have left; their families’ wealth. The Ugg boots therefore give them a way of saying; ‘We were not intelligent enough to get into Oxbridge, but it’s OK. We are richer, classier and come from better families than the rest of these chavs and riffraff that this university has let in.’

                The Ugg boot, according to them, has the connotation of opulence and luxury, contrasting with the battered converse or standard trainers or pumps that the rest of the university might wear. This is due to the sheepskin lining of the boot, which is ironic because in wearing them they become sheep themselves because everyone else wears them (making them a kind of Berserker, invoking the spirit of an animal by wearing its skin).

                The boots are androgynous. They do not conform to the stereotype of ‘feminine’ clothing, such as a tapered ankle, leg hugging shape or high heel as they are almost completely cylindrical all the way down, and the feet parts are gigantic, and thus do not flatter the ‘feminine’ leg shape or dainty foot size. However they equally are not ‘masculine’ due to the impractical shape and material; they could not be used on a building site for example. Effectively what we have here is a style of shoe that suits no-one, which perhaps would make it less androgynous and more completely genderless. Perhaps this is an intentional fashion choice as it marks these individuals out as superhuman, above such minor details as gender, and part of a super race, the crème de la crème of today’s society. The Future™.

                The biggest irony of this is that they originated in Australia, stereotypically the country of convicts, and this style was populated by the biggest ‘peasants’ of them all; shepherds. They clearly are no longer used for their original purpose – keeping one’s self warm – as they are most often worn with very short skirts in the grim and frostbitten winter. That they have been adopted by the upper and middle classes as a symbol of wealth seems very strange, in particular that they are effectively an unofficial uniform worn by the faux-aristocracy: a ‘suede badge of lineage.’ However, this is flawed as (providing they have the funds) anyone may buy a pair and thus ingratiate themselves with them.

                This said, the majority do not. This is effective in maintaining the social order within the microcosm of the university, highlighting the hierarchy that exists, dividing the upper and upper-middle classes from the lower middle and working. A lot of the people who cannot afford them also do not want them; and thus they segregate themselves into an alternate class themselves. Thus the segregation happens regardless of whether or not both parties are willing. And all this happens from the simple sign of the Ugg Boot. The crucial question is whether it causes the division or is merely a sign of it. Either could be argued; it is very plausible that the divide exists through some Masonic guild of public school students, segregating them from the rest, and that the boot is just a way of marking themselves out, like a big furry hat with horns.

Dear editors,

Without hearing the BNP speak on campus, the ‘No Platform’ policy is only informed by other people’s conceptions – until they actually speak one cannot really know what their points are. I think that banning them before they have the chance to this is a terrible shame and I feel that from this my own personal liberties are at stake. If the Guild Executive feel that they can block elements with ideas that they don’t like, then (among others) all of the Christian societies on campus are at risk. As a Catholic I OBVIOUSLY am both a raging homophobic and an anti-Semite– at least this is what the cliché says at any rate. Now this precedent has been set I feel it is only a matter of time until the Guild Executive decides to try and ban CathSoc and the others, probably without giving us a chance to speak for ourselves and explain exactly what and why we believe what we do.

I am also unclear what John Cox believes would happen if there was a debate involving the BNP – does he believe that Nick Griffin and his cronies would kick off a fight, or that a crowd of neo-Nazis would descend on the campus? No, this whole affair stinks of censorship – and more insultingly – DUMBING DOWN.

Yours sincerely,

Seán Wright

Soon-to-be-driven-underground-Catholic.



I don't know, i just feel like it all seems a little ill-informed. I mean, I'm cut off from the television and I don't read the papers so I had no idea about all this shit that was happening at Oxford with them, like that they brought heavies onto campus. I mean, there are obvious points to make; the heavies are designed to protect THEM not to cause trouble but still. Also I don't think I really made it clear in there that I disagree with their beliefs. I mean, I shouldn't need to really and it should be obvious but urgh. Recently people seem to have had trouble understanding my sarcasm - probably because I spend too much time around Edd! But yeah, they probably won't understand that I'm NOT a homophobe or an anti-semite or a racist etc. To me, it seems perfectly obvious that I'm being sarcastic... and the way I signed it too. Someone will probably take it too seriosuly. I mean I don't ACTUALLY think the Guild is going to implement a No Platform policy for us too, but still, it's the principle, which I do still stick to. I feel a bit bad about John Cox too, because he's such a lovely guy. But he's a big boy I'm sure he won't be offended by it.

I do feel very strongly however that the No Platform policy is dumbing this university down. I mean, I really do feel for the ethnic minorities if they feel threatened, but come on, this is the real world and there are going to be racists and stupid arseholes everywhere, and creating a little bubble here is unwise. The campus should be a safe place but come on, a debate is not a fucking angry mob is it? And until we can best the BNP in a debate we give their views a power that is unwise, and could be easily eradicated by a debate. The only mob that is going to come out of a BNP debate is going to be the anti-BNPers, or possibly the SOCIALISTS.

And that's another thing, why are the Reds allowed a Platform but the facists aren't? Because they're tolerant? Fuck that, they'd supress everything given the chance. Either that or they're a bunch of posers (which I think is quite possible) in berets. Either way, if we're banning the extreme right we should ban the socialists too. In fact, all political parties should be allowed or banned on campus. But even then, it's not like there is a fucking BNPSoc is there?!?!? Can just imagine that at the Squash next year. Here are some potential names for them

NazSoc

Aryan Union

NSDAPSoc

The Facist Future Society

WhiteSoc

Argh, fuck me, I hate politics. Back to Freud.

My right eye is fucking bloodshot... it had a load of conjunctivitis type stuff in it earlier but now it is BRIGHT RED.... and my right hand is feeling funny, and now my eye is throbbing... am I about to die???!?!