British Television verses US Television

I've recently been thinking about how British television compares to US television and why these differences come about. It's no real secret that in general, British series (seasons) last for much shorter, often totalling 6 episodes in comparison to longer US seasons, and the episodes themselves are often shorter, too. But the entire culture of what types of programmes get made and continue to multiple series is also vastly different, too.

In part, this is because of the unique way the BBC is funded. To watch live television in the UK, people need to purchase a television license. This is the main way the BBC gets funding. On paper, the BBC is a not for profit organisation that is accountable to the British public. (In practice, there are commercial arms of the BBC, such as BBC America, where they can sell programmes both domestically and internationally) The BBC's primary source of funding is the license fee that British people pay in order to legally watch live television. Because of this, they are held accountable to the public, and do not employ advertising on their channels.

Because there is no space for advertising on the BBC, programmes are often made for shorter slots, approximately half an hour, as opposed to forty-five minute 'tv hours' that would account for commercial breaks.

Due to this, the BBC has a responsibility to create programmes that are within the 'public interest'. This means that alongside high-budget fiction such as Doctor Who and Sherlock, they are able to create documentaries and non-fiction programming with an emphasis on quality of content.  In stark contrast, the American rating system for television puts greater emphasis on viewing figures (as the number of people who watch a particular show affects the price of advertising in that timeslot, and thus the revenue of the channel), and so programmes aim to be commercially successful over being high-quality. The BBC's official mission as set out in their charter is: "To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain." Creating entertaining programmes is only a third of their mission statement, as opposed to many American networks where it is the majority of their content.

British broadcasters almost always have to work with a smaller budget than American shows. This leads to smaller series with tighter writing, and often clever ways of writing around lack of special effects, many locations and large casts. British broadcasters excel at small dramas and comedy shows with fast-paced plots and a tight-knit group of characters, whereas American shows tend to be higher in spectacle yet an overarching plot can last three times as long as a similar British show.

All of this comes some way to explaining why American reboots of popular British television shows have done so poorly. Being Human was a surprise success in Britain (it aired on the young adult oriented BBC Three, often used as a proving ground for shows the BBC don't feel would have a wide enough appeal to put on BBC One), yet the American reboot was critically panned on both sides of the pond. America has attempted to adapt cult classic Red Dwarf twice, and both attempts never made it past the pilot episode.

Of course, there are cultural differences at play, too. A lot of successful British comedy uses a style of self-depreciating humour that simply does not translate to American viewpoints. Part of the comedy of Being Human was that being located in Bristol was part of the tragedy of the characters. The character of Lister on Red Dwarf is a likeable slob who revels in his disgusting ways, but is a preferable character to the uptight coward of Rimmer. Bad Education, The Inbetweeners, Skins, etc. all take a painfully honest look at some of the worst parts of awkward teenage years. This style of humour doesn't fully translate to American audiences, whereas Britons are very quick to utilise self-depreciation. 

A Guide to Going to University in London

As my fiancée is currently looking at coming over to London to study as an overseas student, I wanted to write a little something about what to expect from London as a student, and things new students can do to maximise their time here.

Bear in mind that rent will be high. While you might be staying in halls for the first year of your course, it's unlikely that you will have that for the entire course, and renting in the area can often be a similar or lower price than university run halls. The ideal situation is to find a few friends to rent with and split a larger house/apartment between you, saving money over a one bedroom flat and giving you some support and friendship at home.

Travel is also expensive. For most people, public transport will be the best way to get around, and a prepaid Oyster card will be the cheapest way of using the city's buses, trains and underground network. Depending on how far away from campus you are, consider investing in a pass for your Oyster card - not only will you know you can travel to class every day without wondering if it is topped up or not, but if you want to explore the city or pick up a job, it's a good option to save some money.

Check out all the free things! By which, I mean that there is a vibrant museum culture in the city, and all the larger museums (and some of the smaller ones) are free to enter. If you are studying the arts or history, they're invaluable sources of research, too. They can be lovely places to enjoy the culture, out of the loud and crowded streets. Midweek is a great time to go to avoid lots of tourists (unless you're unlucky enough to encounter a school trip.

Do socialise and check out the nightlife! This one might need no prompting for a lot of people, but you should definitely seek to find friends within your course and the wider university. Not only will it make university more fun and a good support network to have when things get hectic, but this might be the last time in your life that you have to socialise outside of a 'professional' setting. It's so much harder to meet new people after university, so take the opportunity. Don't feel pressured to drink, either - any pub or club will be happy to serve you a soft drink or juice instead of alcohol. There are many valid reasons for not drinking - religion, mental and physical health, not wanting to get drunk outside of a safe area or simply not liking the way alcohol makes you feel. Do what you want to do, and if anyone gives you a hard time over it, they probably aren't the friends you wanted to make.

Consider picking up a part time job. This depends on whether you can handle the workload of your course and still spare the time to work, but if you can, it's a good extra stream of income, gives you experience working and you have a set of colleagues outside of university to socialise with. If you aren't particularly hurting for money, I would suggest finding an internship or work placement scheme in your field of study - in most fields, just being a graduate is not enough to get you a job right away, but experience and knowing people in the industry will help you a lot to get a foot in the door.

Explore London. There is so much to the city beyond the famous sights and tourism-fuelled areas. Try looking up Time Out's suggestions on things to do and places to go. Try tiny little cafés for a drink sometime. Visit the markets. Wander around in one of the many parks.  Remember that the only one accountable for your time is you. You can definitely go out to the 24-hour supermarket for icecream at 3am. Or watch the sunrise from Tower Bridge. Feed the ducks in Regent's Park. You could even catch a train out to the countryside or the sea for a change of pace.

Try taking your essays and studying outside. Chances are, you have a pretty nice setup at your place - Internet on tap, films and games and books galore...pretty much any distraction you want, you can have. Which is why you might want to consider writing essays and studying for exams outside of your place. If it's nice weather, try a park. If not, a cafe or library. The change of pace and the limited access to distractions can be a massive help for actually getting work done. If nothing else, using the promise of a good drink or a treat to motivate you might help!

If you have any advice, comments or questions about going to university (within London or within the UK in general), please leave them below!

Piggate and British Politics

By now, the claims of David Cameron's initiation exploits have hit every corner of the online world, regardless of how true or not they actually are. It's important to mention that this story is likely not true, but at this point, the truth isn't exactly the important element of this story.

The fact of the matter is, most of the British public know that this is likely a fabricated story from a bitter politician in order to tar Cameron's name. Lord Ashcroft, the person behind the claims raised a vast amount of money for the Conservative party, and thus felt he was owed a more senior role (whether this was implied by dealings with Cameron or not is besides the point, but it was likely an informal agreement based on past political convention). When he was passed up for this role, details of this story were leaked to the biographer working on David Cameron's life story. There's certainly a motive for fabricating this story.

The British public want to believe this story based on David Cameron's politics. For those outside the UK, here's a very brief primer of what's going on. The Conservative party is a right wing political party (somewhat like the US Republicans), primarily made up of privately schooled, middle and upper-class career politicians. The majority of their politicians come from very wealthy, privileged backgrounds, and there is a wide-spread feeling that they alienate themselves from poorer and working-class families because of this. Their policies include: increasing tax thresholds for the very wealthy, separating from the European Union, 'competitive' taxes for large corporations, reducing immigration rates, scraping the Human Rights Act and increase military spending. In short, if you have money, it'll be easier to keep it; if you don't, it'll be more difficult to earn it; if you want to live and work in the UK having come from anywhere else, it will be more difficult; you lose the basic human rights that have been internationally agreed upon; and more money will be spent on waging war. These policies were taken from their 2015 manifesto - i.e. these are the policies they will openly admit to aiming for.

Keep in mind that they had already spent 4 years in power prior to this. When David Cameron was re-elected as PM, amidst some controversy, protests immediately started outside 10 Downing Street. In short, in quite a broad section of Britain, he isn't popular and he is seen to be damaging the most vulnerable people in society to the benefit of the wealthiest.

The British public aren't exactly strangers to political controversy, either, from Members of Parliament claiming ludicrous expenses on behalf of the taxpayer; Andrew Mitchell allegedly insulting a police officer by calling him a 'pleb'; and the 'Cash for Access' scandal where politicians allegedly accepted money in exchange for individual's access to influential politicians. This is all within the last five years, and is just the scandals that have enough proof to be reported on without newspapers and media outlets put in danger of being sued for libel. If something more nefarious were going on, without very significant proof, it could not even be hinted at within news outlets without risk of being libellous.

The fact of the matter is, whether or not it's true, people want to believe that the Prime Minister has taken part in a clandestine ritual involving a dead pig in exchange for acceptance into the rich and powerful 'elite' because it's easier to believe that there's this metaphorical deal with the devil that the rich need to do in order to get the power that they have. There is certainly an element of 'otherness' in how powerful people see poor and working class members of their own society, and this is a way in which that can almost be turned around, and see politicians and influential people as 'other' to them. It's a dehumanising act, and it's almost easier to believe that a person that is so instrumental in cutting support and benefits for vulnerable members of society isn't truly 'human' in the way that many of us would think of humanity.

It's easier to paint people as inhuman monsters than accept that people like this do exist, and are not only accepted in society, but run it. Piggate isn't the problem, but the fact that we can all look at Cameron and think "yeah, he totally could've"...that's the problem, and unfortunately, it's not one that has a simple solution.