Epigram editorial claims paper was censored by university staff

If you’re not a hawk-eyed, loyal reader, you could easily have missed the controversial editorial of Epigram this fortnight, which made allegations of censorship by UoB, implicating Simon Hinks.

In it, Epigram claimed both the Sports and Veterinary Science departments had refused to stock issue 259 “due to a sentiment amongst managerial hierarchy that certain articles presented an unfavourable image of the specific department or the university as a whole”.

The issue in question ran a story about the living conditions in Hiatt Baker as its front page, illustrated by a picture of HB looking not unlike a cesspit full of shiny bulldozers.

Photo: Epigram

Epigram however, believe the article which fuelled such hostility was the dramatic ‘breakdown’ of their online story, which was critical of an email sent by Simon Hinks, the Director of Sport.

The editorial’s implication was Hinks, potentially acting rather beyond his remit, had intercepted the delivery of Epigram to the Department of Sport (AKA the Gym), on the basis of some sort of personal vendetta against the publication.

However, when The Tab approached UoB’s Press Office, we were informed there “certainly wasn’t a formal or official decision not to stock Epigram by either department”. And, furthermore, no one senior has been able to shed any light on the matter.

Indeed, the only admission of guilt was from the Veterinary Science department, who are a venue for the interviews of prospective students. As Epigram reported, a spokesperson conceded they decided not to give out the paper because they were concerned the negative reports regarding Bristol accommodation might “put potential students off!”

This deliberate hushing up of the reality of life at Hiatt Baker is likely to spark yet more anger from its rather marginalised inmates. As resident Tom Bassett comments, “This is yet a further admission of guilt from the university as to the appalling living conditions we’ve been forced to live in, without sufficient warning”.


Whatever the motivation, it’s strange no one, bar a delivery man and an unnamed member of staff from the Veterinary Department, seems to want to discuss what actually led to the resistance to stock Epigram in two departments, or acknowledge it happening at all.

Neither the VP for Activities, nor Simon Hinks have opted to comment on the incident, suggesting this is something Bristol would like to sweep swiftly under the rug.

Even more bizarrely, when The Tab approached the Editor and Deputy News Editor of Epigram, both kept schtum about the supposed censorship of their own paper.

Odd, we were sure they were amongst our most loyal readers.