[Non-edicated] Yes. A bit stereotypical, but yes.

Another summary. They are: human, linked to crime in a general way, some (more than five) alive today and some not, disreputable, generally male, uneducated, usually of fixed abode, unlikely to read a book, eligible to vote, oiks, a one-word answer in the singular, linked by a psychological characteristic, more numerous after 1900.

They are not (as a defining characteristic): flat-earthers, musical, honest politicians, a sports team, all having the same name, competition winners, Prime Ministers, US Presidents, members of a profession, connected to TV or radio, to do with hats, inhabitants of a small remote place, members of a group one must apply to, linked to a country, linked by a physical characteristic, age-related, sport-related, fans of something, royalty, the Illuminati, Centenarians, astronauts, related to hair, stunt-men, on death row, on parole, the Krays, organised crime, transport-related, kleptomaniacs, cannibals, related to fraud, related to treason, victims of crime, trespassers, to do with war, anti-vaxxers, beginning with P, beginning with G, hackers, Julian Assange, clones, wearers of a uniform, identity thieves, toffs, chavs (applause), welfare scroungers (applause), spivs, barflies, black marketeers, oiks, the underclass, beggars, zombies, dwarves, eunuchs, kings, ghosts, queue jumpers, creators of anything, recognisable at sight, lottery winners, related to religion, derelict about library fines.

Yes! However I see 'oiks' in both the am and the isn't sections. They're oikish individuals. But 'oik' is not the AOTC.

[Bouncers] No. But that's also worth a clap. And I suppose some of them might be bouncers.