It was a few days after my 19^th birthday, and I went to pick up my prescription from the doctors. Handing the prescription to the pharmacist, I perused the store whilst I waited for her to prepare it, thinking about mundane things like what I was having for tea and how the price of that gateau I like from Tesco Express had gone up by an extortionate twenty pence!

Yeah, you read that right. Twenty pence.

Okay, okay, so I don’t really think it’s an extortionate amount, but as a student, I’m always skint. So I’d rather the extra twenty pence wasn’t there, then maybe I wouldn’t feel so guilty buying myself a cholesterol-clogging treat whilst in dire straits.

“Miss Campbell?”

After confirming my address, the pharmacist handed me my prescription. I turned to walk away, but looking somewhat affronted, she said: “That’s £7.65, please.”

“Sorry?”

She explained that since I was now over 18, I had to pay for my prescriptions.

“But I’m in full time education,” I protested.

That didn’t matter, she informed me. I was 19 now, and apparently it was about time I shed the cotton wool I’d been wrapped up in for the past 18 years, and coughed up my much-needed cash for medication.

Not expecting a charge, I didn’t even have my purse. I had to trek back to my flat and grab my purse, before resignedly squelching back to the chemist’s in the pouring rain, cursing my badly chosen canvas footwear. (You’d think I’d have learned by now not to wear non-waterproof shoes in England).

Whilst £7.65 isn’t too much to pay once or twice, it all adds up for me and other students who have to get prescriptions once a month or more. I’m sensible with my money; I scout the aisles with anticipation for deals on food and toiletries, and unlike most students, I don’t buy alcohol unless it’s a special occasion. Yeah, you’re much more likely to find me curled up in my pyjamas, watching the IT Crowd with a mug of hot chocolate and belly full of Asda own-brand pasta than you are to find me in a club drinking the night away. I’m one of those types. Yet I still find that money gets tight, and the extra £91.80 (at least) per year would definitely help with the costs of student living. Last year, I had to pay £90 on exams alone, after the £45 I spent on books to revise for the exams in question. And then there’s obviously rent, internet bills, phone bills, travel costs…all essential, all money-draining.

Yes, like I said, £7.65 doesn’t seem like too much to pay, but to me, it seems grossly unfair that people eligible for income-based jobseeker’s allowance and income support are entitled to free prescriptions, but not students. If a person is on a low income, they receive government help for living costs. If a person is looking for a job, they receive financial assistance to help them find their feet. And so they should. But what is a student if not on low income? Why do students attend university if not to find jobs?

A sign that fits every student- get yours for just £1! Oh wait, you can't afford it.

When asked why students don’t receive free prescriptions, the Department of Health explained that other forms of support, such as state-funded education and child benefit, end at 19.  Now, I don’t know about you, but I think that was less of an explanation and more of a slap in the face. You’re not a child anymore, so there goes your child benefits, and you won’t get any benefits as an adult. Hah!

Prescription fees should not be cast under the umbrella of other student costs. Preliminary research says that 70% of students would avoid getting a prescription if it incurred costs. Seems like an odd thing to do, I know, but when you’re really hard-up, it’s easy to justify feeble excuses like “Oh, I’ll survive without it” or “Ah, I’ll wait a few weeks then ask my parents to get it.”. By which time, it could be too late. Ranveer Bassey, a Guardian online contributor, discovered that a current student had thought along the lines of the latter excuse and waited until he could go home to Wales. Unfortunately, his condition only got worse, ultimately prolonging his treatment and costing him more. Wow, way to kick a guy when he’s down.

There is one low income based financial help a student may be eligible for. You must apply for a HC2 form from the NHS Low Income Scheme, which involves filling out a hefty, daunting form full of questions such as how many breakfasts, lunches and dinners the student applying eats per week. (Well, that’s irrelevant anyway; we spend our cash buying food, hence why we need monetary assistance with prescriptions). When you’ve sent off the chunky document (after realising you’ve spent at least half an hour ticking boxes and explaining how much grub you eat per week), you still might not receive any help. It seems a luck-of-the-draw style scheme is in play, as some students say they’ve applied one year and received no help, then again the next year, in the exact same circumstances, and been offered assistance.

To those who oppose the idea of prescriptions being free for students, I urge you to think like the Welsh.  Wales opted to make prescriptions free on the basis that penniless students were unlikely to shell out for their prescriptions, which in due course makes their conditions worse, and the cost incurred by just one extra GP consultation is £36-over 4 times the amount a prescription costs.

Another point to make is this; why are we entitled to discounts on things like clothes and DVDs, but not essential medication?

We’re not asking for a lot. We’re not asking for this to be lifelong. But whilst we try to get the qualifications necessary to get a job and contribute to the state, give us a helping hand?

“Did you see Aidan and Luke at lunch today? I asked them to play footie but they said no ‘coz they were going to the library to do Science project research. It’s not even due in til like, next month, they well could have come out and played with us.”

The second lad, features composed into a smug, slightly malevolent mask, smirked and said: “Maybe ‘come out’ is what they need to do!”
Cue guffaws and noises of manly approval.

“Always thought Luke was a fag anyway.”

Teeth. Grinding. Shudders down spine.

Why, in a society that has evolved to accept almost everything, can we not accept gay people? And why do we have such negative words to refer to them?

When I asked someone I knew, they said they didn’t like gay people because “it’s wrong”. Why, I asked them, is it wrong? “Well, it’s not natural.”

“Neither’s your hair colour.” I retorted. “Is that wrong?”

The answer I got, as you might expect, ranged from “that’s a completely different thing” to “anyway, the Bible condemns it.”

Right. This is the argument that really gets on my nerves.

People cite the Bible as a reason to completely cast off and isolate millions of decent people, without so much as having read any of the ‘Holy Book’ apart from, at a push, the Ten Commandments in primary school. If they had read it, and decided to meticulously follow every single thing the Bible said, I might be less contemptuous towards them, but I can assure you, they do not.

And I know they don’t without even asking.

How? Because the Bible also states that we stone disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21),  and that men are worth more than women (Leviticus 27:1-7). Not that this matters anyway, since women were only created to accompany men, so who cares, right? (Corinthians 11:9 will tell you this). It also teaches that it’s wrong to give bread to the blind or otherwise disabled (including anyone with a flat nose or scurvy, anyone with scabs, dwarves, those with other blemishes in their eyes and the ‘brokenfooted’, ‘brokenhanded’ or ‘crookbackt’-Leviticus 21:17-21).

Needless to say, your stereotypical hipster-with-facial-fuzz is a sinner, since he probably has tattoos and he definitely has a smattering of facial fuzz or a manicured beard, and the Bible says we shouldn’t make tattoo marks on ourselves (Leviticus 19:28), and that men aren’t allowed to trim their beards or shave their heads. (Leviticus 21:5).

Look at the sinner, in all his groomed, facial-fuzzy glory! Just look at him!

And for any girl who’s ever absent-mindedly donned her boyfriend’s t-shirt; I’ve got news for you. You’re going to hell, girly, and your boyfriend too if he’s ever gotten chilly and nicked your fluffy dressing gown after a shower, because Deuteronomy 22:5 says that men and women who wear clothes meant for the opposite sex are an “abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

Whilst on the subject of clothes, you’re probably going to hell anyway, as if you wear a garment made of more than one fabric, you’re to be cast into the fiery pits of Lucifer’s lair. (Leviticus 19:19-wow, the Levites seemed like nice chaps).

The Bible also states that you’ll be off on a not-so-merry voyage downwards for more obvious things too, like adultery. But did you know that if you divorce your spouse, then marry someone else, you’re still committing adultery? Off to hell you go.

Prostitution is punished by burning the woman at the stake, and it’s absolutely fine for fathers to sell their daughters into slavery. (Leviticus 21:9 and Exodus 21:7-10).

Oh, and then there’s the fact that God killed every living thing in Soddom and Gomorrah for engaging in homosexual acts in Genesis 19:24-25, which is obviously the only thing you need to pay any attention to, as apparently you just pick and choose which parts of the Bible you pay attention to. Hey, you can even use the Bible as a way to justify sexism, abusing children and selling them!

So next time you hear a person slagging off gay people, ask them why. Wait patiently for them to cite the Bible offhandedly, then inform them that they too are sinners (with proof) and watch in joy as they stumble backwards down the non-Bible route, which now seems very, very feeble.

Smugness is acceptable on your account.

There was a time when people protested against black people socialising with white people. Looking back now, how stupid do they look? I hope a similar thing happens very soon, and being homophobic is considered outrageous, not a common occurrence.

Wow, you look stupid now.

References:

http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/ash-bibleshocking.shtml

http://thegrio.com/2012/05/11/10-things-banned-in-the-bible-but-done-anyway/#s:tattoo-guy-jpg-2

The government are considering passing a law against ‘fatism’, the discrimination of the overweight.

And whilst this may be a good thing, I fear the focus on the average to overweight women of the world is creating a new social pariah: the slim woman.

Issa designer Daniella Helayel designs clothes for “real women”, who “like (herself), are full of curves”.

The Guardian’s Jess Cartner-Morley says Maria Grachvogel’s autumn collection is “completely wearable for real women as well as beanpoles”.

Even Victoria Beckham, “the original stick insect” according to Amanda Platell in the Daily Mail, has designed her range around ‘feminine curves’.

The word ‘real’, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means actually existing, genuine. And whilst the designers may be attempting to celebrate body diversity by making their ranges accessible to larger ladies, they’re again creating a divide between different body types.

We’ve all seen the image circulating Facebook; a photo of a woman in the sea who looks to be about a size 8 next to a photo of Marilyn Monroe, a size 14, posing on the beach. The caption under the image reads “This (referring to the Miss Monroe) is more attractive than this.” (referring to the smaller woman). The image had been bombarded with comments such as “Ew, she’s so skinny!”, “Ugh, that’s not sexy at all.” and “Real women have curves!”

Almost unwittingly, people are creating a polar opposite of ‘fatism’: “skinnyism”. What is a real woman? There’s no strict size definition, but it seems that if your clothes tags don’t feature at least double digits, you’re not ‘real’.

Well, I’ve got news for you. We are. We’re as real as the women who fit into the clothes boasting double digit size tags.

The size zero craze was arguably the first of recent body debates. Most of the hype fell under two categories: the “I want to have a perfect body like that” section, and the “Nobody looks like that, it’s unhealthy” section. Here, skinny women were held up as a shining example, making larger women feel less ‘dainty’ or ‘feminine’, but some disagreed and suggested such women were unreal, unattractive and unhealthy. After some time, the debate seemed to end, with the concurrent statement that zero isn’t a size. And whilst being literally size 0 is in fact unhealthy for a fully grown woman, this debate sparked a disdain towards slimmer women, which eventually grew into the fiery idea that slim women are not real women. A ‘curvy’ woman is a real woman, yet ‘curvy’ seems to refer not to body shape, as you’d think, but body size.

Now, slimmer women are made to feel inferior and waif-like for not having the body of Christina Hendricks. Body diversity is good. Body diversity is normal.It doesn’t matter if you’ve got no boobs, or if you get a muffin top when you sit down. It doesn’t matter if you’re a size 6, a size 10 or a size 12; as long as you’re a healthy weight, it shouldn’t matter. Who are to call others unattractive?

It’s about time the ‘real woman’ image the media favours reflects the real woman the world features.

One of the new Lego playsets feminists saw, ahem, pink about

Lego. A staple childhood toy, turning children’s imaginations into reality in the form of brightly coloured plastic houses and ceiling-scraping towers.

Lego has been around for years and has sold excellently, but is its recent release, Lego Friends, as sexist as people are suggesting? Feminists everywhere have been angrily scribbling down their names on a petition to stop the supposedly sexist playsets, but is it really reinforcing gender stereotypes to children?

Lego Star Wars remains Lego’s biggest seller, and previously, the privately-owned company only sold playsets of scenarios such as policemen and their cars, dinosaur adventures, or menacing miniature pirates. Boys have always been Lego’s biggest buyers. With Lego Friends, Lego evolves into the girl-oriented land of cafes, pooch parlours and pretty pink houses. The Danish company have even veered away from the time-revered square-set characters, in favour of softer, more rounded figures.

Pink Stinks, a campaign group, believes that girlhood is ‘pinkified’, which has detrimental effects on the young and old, male and female alike. But whilst they’re kicking up a stink about pink, Lego’s profits have risen by 35%, to a massive £213m, which to me, suggests they must have done something right.

Abi Moore, co-founder of Pink Stinks, said: “It’s not surprising that profits are up, but they probably are for toy makers who are gender-stereotyping everything in sight.” She added: “We want toys that offer all sorts of opportunities to all children. We think that cupcakes, parties and having everything revolve around leisure is just tiresome and heavily stereotyped.”

Lego argued that girls like construction toys, but want it to be relevant to them. As a girl growing up in a male-dominated house, I played with dolls with my sister, then scampered off to play-fight with my brother’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle figures. I understood that they were considered boys’ toys, but I didn’t care. I wanted to play with whatever was fun, because that’s all children care about, not whether or not it’s socially acceptable to be seen playing with it.

Gender-neutral toys are, for the most part, a silly idea, as children choose toys based on whatever appeals to them, not what their gender dictates they should play with. Therefore, if little girls want to play with plastic pooches or have a coffee with their friends in a rosy-roofed restaurant, who are we to stop them? Would you really stop your young daughter and say: “No dear, you can’t play with that, because you’re a girl and you’re giving into stereotypes.”?

Whilst I disagree with sexism of any sort, and disagree with the fact that the new Lego sets are said to be easier to construct, I don’t see the problem with the concept of Lego aimed at girls specifically. If the feminists are so bothered, why don’t they boycott Baby Born, or ban Barbie? Surely the early acceptance of becoming a mother, or a perfectly made-up bimbo focussed only on hair, clothes and meticulously groomed men is much worse? And whilst on the subject, isn’t it equally gender-stereotype-reinforcing to only feature boys in the adverts for Nerf Guns and Hot Wheels sets? I don’t see feminists protesting that young girls should be featured in those adverts.

I say let the kids have their fun. I grew up playing Mum to baby dolls and playing make-believe with plastic fairy cakes and ovens, but I don’t think it reinforced gender stereotypes and made me feel obliged to behave a certain way. All it did was let me have my fun, and in time, I grew up and discarded whatever I didn’t find interesting. I still bake, and hope one day to be a mother. I own items that are pink, not because it’s considered girly, but because I like the colour. I also own items that are blue, play video games, watch action movies and read comic books. Toys didn’t shape me. Toys are merely a stepping stone in a child’s development, before they grow up and find what truly defines them.

References:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/aug/31/lego-friends-profit-rise?INTCMP=SRCH

Fearne announced the news via Twitter on Wednesday, “Jesse and I have some news!!!!! [We] are very happy to announce we are having a baby.”

Fearne has been dating Jesse Wood, son of Ronnie Wood of the Rolling Stones, since last July, and says she’s ‘over the moon’ to be expecting their first child together.

Senior Wood approves wholeheartedly of Fearne and has even suggested he’d love Miss Cotton to be his daughter-in-law, saying: ‘Fearne’s a beautiful girl. They’re lovely together. I met her when she came to a Faces gig with Jesse at Cornbury Festival. I very much approve. She’s rock ‘n’ roll. I do wonder if she’ll become my daughter-in-law any time soon.’

I wouldn’t be surprised, as the couple are said to be ‘head over heels in love’ with each other. Recent snaps show the couple sharing a tender kiss in the car before a cheerful looking Fearne left to go to work.

Wonder if celeb BFF Holly Willoughby’s kids, Belle, 1, and Harry, 2, will be over for play dates with Cotton Junior in the near future?

Congratulations, Fearne!

References:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2186563/Pregnant-Fearne-Cotton-looks-radiant-despite-morning-sickness.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/celebrity-gossip/rss/fearne-cotton-announces-she-is-pregnant-with-first-child

Christian Bale and Tom Hardy as Batman and Bane

With the likes of the Dark Knight Rises and the Amazing Spider-Man attracting the masses recently, it makes a person think: will comic book movies always be so popular?

Comic book films quite often sell out in a single weekend, and inspire toys, clothing and everything else you could possibly imagine with a superhero’s face on it. (Seriously, I once found a Superman toilet roll holder. And as if that isn’t odd enough, it wasn’t the Superman logo or something like that; it was literally Superman, bursting through the wall, with an arm extended conveniently so you can hang your loo roll at ease.)

Whilst I’m a self-confessed comic book lover, it has to be said that the classic heroes are quite often given a makeover and blasted back onto the big screen with a slightly different outfit or a new super villain. Superman, for example, is currently being remade for the 12^th time in movie form, has been adventuring through the comic book landscape since 1938, and has even been made into a soap opera style show- Smallville. Yet despite the obvious happy ending, we all flock to the cinema to see the inhabitants of the Marvel and DC Universes battle it out with their nemesis time after time.

So why do comic book movies retain their popularity so well?

Amanda Berry is an assistant professor of literature at American University whose research includes comic books and graphic novels.

“During the last 5 years, Hollywood studios have released 21 films adapted from comic books,” she said. “While all but four of the 21 films generated a profit, the amount of money made by extremely successful comic book movies vastly outweighs the small losses by a margin of 8:1.”

Berry also reckons that the comic book fan community boasts a superpower of its own: superloyalty! (insert appropriate jingle here). This ‘superpower’ helps drive the popularity of comic books and therefore, the popularity that surrounds every comic book escapade on the silver screen.

Comic books, somewhat like your average soap opera, are serial adventures that require a diligent attention to detail to an ever-growing archive.

“Comic books can be read as single issues of course, but the serious fan understands that each single issue also relies on years and years of accumulated textual history,” Berry said.

One of the theories is that the serious comic book reader revels in the idea of absorbing the enormous project of reading and thinking about a huge, and still expanding, archive of material.

This intense devotion to the world of comics means that the fans inspire interest and anticipation for the films in other audiences, due to their sheer enthusiasm.

“What may seem like escapism to an outsider is a deeply pleasurable opportunity for endless learning and study for the ‘fanboy.’” reckons Berry.

For less comic book oriented fans, theories suggest that filmgoers seek escape from real life hardships, but this theory hardly correlates with the movies, which feature relevant issues including drug abuse, death, poverty and crime and violence.

A more plausible explanation could simply be the basic appeal and comfort of good emerging victorious over evil, or the way the audience identifies with the protagonist; an average Joe with a tremendous secret identity as an unfalteringly brave, popular saviour. Or, if you’re anything like me, you watch the movie and wish you, too, could possess some kind of superhuman power.

Even more simply, audiences just watch the film for the dazzling special effects.

Well, regardless of any of these theories, comic books and the adapted movies don’t seem to be leaving us anytime soon. They allow people to relive their childhood, belong to a family of likeminded people and have that ever-existing anticipation for the latest comic book or its on screen counterpart.

I don’t know what any of you guys think, but the comic book universe is welcome to stay in my opinion.
Who’s your favourite comic book hero? Leave a comment!

Kate's private life for all to see! Is it the norm to treat royalty this way?

With the Queen’s recent visit to DMU still fresh in everyone’s minds, a divide has become apparent in the student body. There are those who care about the Royal Family as our country’s monarchy, and those who are completely indifferent to the Royals unless their faces are gracing a glossy magazine. With such a distinct division in society’s views, should we view them as celebrity or Royalty?

Years ago it would have been heinous to admit you had no interest in the Royal Family. In 1953, an estimated 20 million viewers watched the young Elizabeth II crowned. Years later, in 2005, the second wedding of Ken and Deidre Barlow on Coronation Street drew in a staggering 12.9 million viewers, whilst viewing figures show Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles’ wedding attracted a measly 8.7 million in comparison.

What has provoked the sudden nosedive in concern for the monarchy? A De Montfort student said:

“I think the Queen and the Royal Family are good for other countries’ benefit, as something to associate Britain with. But then again, the same could be said about fish and chips, or tea and biscuits.”

It’s shocking to suggest that the monarchy are no more important to our country than what we eat or drink, but is it, in fact, the truth? It’s somewhat ironic that nowadays, the Royal Family are available on more platforms than ever before, but fewer people bother to watch. In the 1960s, 70% of the population tuned into the Queen’s speech on Christmas Day, but viewing figures dropped from then on, finally levelling out in the early 2000s.

Are we now down to the monarchist hardcore who seek to maintain their former glory amongst today’s apathetic British citizens? Or have we reached an entirely new era, where royalty merges with celebrity?

Whilst interest in the Queen herself seems to be diminishing, the attention has turned to our future King and the young Windsors. Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding was watched by a total of 36.7 million viewers, whilst his grandmother’s Christmas speech attracted less than a quarter of that amount. (8.2 million, if you were wondering).

Could this be due to the younger royals’ frequent appearances in gossipy magazines such as Hello! and Heat?

It would be naive to deny that the line between celebrity and royalty has blurred. Recent press involving the new Duchess speaks less of the expected, i.e. her alliance with the Queen on her Diamond Jubilee tour, and more of things such as being “spotted in second hand frocks, high street coats and pieces pinched from her sister” and what she named her new dog. (Lupo, just fyi).

Peter Phillips is not a prince, but as the Queen’s eldest grandson, he’s as close as it gets. According to The Telegraph, Hello! magazine paid a whopping £500,000 for 20 pages of exclusive, intimate snaps of Phillips and his fiancée, Autumn Kelly, the night before their wedding.

It’s safe to say most of us wouldn’t know the first thing about the young Windsors without these sorts of articles. Or, if we did, we’d have to have a genuine interest in the monarchy as just that: the monarchy. The British public today seem more interested in Prince Harry’s latest scandal, or what dress the Princess is seen out in, rather than them as Royal figures who head our country.

What are you views; celebrity or royalty?