A Pirate's Life for Me?

Originally published on www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

For a while now we've been seeing updates in the press regarding the crack down on film and music piracy, as some apparently god awful people have been allowing others to share files on the internet in order to listen to new albums and view the latest cinema releases for free.

Now as we all know music and film piracy is wrong, I mean who can forget the adverts at the beginning of any number of DVDs, Blu-Rays and if you can remember them VHS tapes warning of the dangers. After all it is a crime and crime is wrong, but after a recent trip to the cinema I can almost see where some people are coming from.

A few weeks ago me, my partner and another couple decided to go see the revamped 3D release of the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which is just another way of milking money out of a film that has been rehashed and re-released several times since the 1970s. Before we began our trip we assumed that a taxi there, food and a ticket should cost around £25, which is still a rather large sum of money for two people. This however was only a fraction of what the actual price was, because upon our arrival we discovered that for four tickets the price almost totaled at £50, not including anything else. Surely that can't be right? It's no wonder the Internet is now filled with websites offering free film streaming and free downloads.

Now I'm not advocating illegal downloading in any way, shape or form, but given the current economic climate where most people can barely afford to buy the bare essentials such as food and drink, you can almost see where they are coming from.

Lets look at it this way, we are constantly told that these films cost millions and millions of dollars, pounds or what ever other currencies there are to make. We are then informed about the vast sums of money these films make at the box office along with the umpteen numbers of records they've broken. I mean you would have had to have been living under a rock for the majority of last year to not know that The Avengers grossed over a billion dollars at the box office, and it's no wonder when a ticket costs around £10 a pop.

It appears that the film companies, and the cinemas for that matter have no idea just how extortionate these prices are (or maybe they do.) It feels like they don't realise that most people can't afford the prices they are charging in order to go to the cinema, therefore more and more people are turning to a 'life of crime' in order to obtain films to get some release from the hardships of day to day life.

The whole situation is quite a sad state of affairs when you think about it. Due to the greed of these companies, the general public are getting criminal records and ripped apart in the press because of a simple want of escapism, which was once a very affordable thing to do, and in the current world situation is clearly something they need. In turn because of this greed, which is turning people to a life of piracy, the film and retail industry is also suffering. Maybe they only have themselves to blame?

I haven't hopped aboard the Internet's version of the Jolly Roger to begin a life of piracy, but have instead decided to wait for the DVD release of any film I want to see in the future, as it'll cost the same price (and in some cases less) and I can watch it over and over again at my hearts content.

Review: Rita Ora - Radioactive

Originally published on www.sosogay.co.uk

Not content with having chart domination throughout the majority of 2012 with a number one album, two solo number one singles and another as a featured artist, Rita Ora is back with her fourth solo single and from the sounds of it she may get her another top ten.

Opening with a slow build up of dance music, which is slightly different to her previous releases, ‘Radioactive’ focuses on the vocals of the London-based singer before breaking into an eclectic mix of dance music that appears to be inspired by chart hits from the 90s to now.

The song itself seems a little darker than her previous singles and makes you feel like you should be dancing-till-you-drop in the darkest corner of a seedy nightclub somewhere. Although the verses are a little slower than her other singles, there’s no denying the shouty and chanting chorus will have everyone dancing along in the coming weeks.

We’re also treated to a mini musical breakdown towards the end of the track before Ora returns to the song telling everyone that ‘we rise tonight’ and to ‘unite’.

Rita Ora is a musically eclectic breath of fresh air with her mix of many dance inspirations coupled with R&B, and is most definitely on her way to becoming the British equivalent of Rihanna. However, it has to be pointed out that she has a much better voice that her bad girl counterpart.

All in all this is an excellent dance song that will have people moving around until the small hours for quite some time. With ‘Radioactive’ she definitely has another hit on her hands.

Review: Veronica Falls - Waiting for Something to Happen

Originally published on www.soundblab.com

London-based indie-pop quartet Veronica Falls return with Waiting for Something to Happen, the follow-up to their self-titled 2011 debut album. The 13 track album, produced by Rory Attwell, who has also produced work by The Vaccines, tells the story of someone slowly coming to terms with the process of growing up and learning to face adult responsibility.

The album itself is not what I was expecting. For some reason, I had it embedded in my head that this band was going to sound like some ear-puncturing second-rate group who should never have released an album. However, this couldn't be any further from the truth, as the group blend melancholic lyrics and themes into ethereal and happy, ghostly music to create something which hasn't been heard in a while.

I say this because the band appears to have drawn on 1960s, hippie influences and combined it with inspirations from a number of 90s indie-pop bands. In a way, they kind of reminded me a little of Echobelly crossed with the more recent The Long Blondes. They aren't quite as feisty as The Long Blondes but you can definitely hear the influences.

What the group are particularly good at is harmonies and the blending of their vocals. The fact that you could hear both female and male vocals, without one drowning out the other, reminded me a little of The xx, although otherwise their music couldn't be more different. When it comes to the actual songs, 'Broken Toy' stands out as does 'Everybody's Changing' with its uplifting sound, telling the story of growing up but wanting to stay young.

However, this is as far as you get with saying which songs you like, as they all kind of sound the same and blend into one. This is a bad thing, as you can enjoy dancing around to them, but as they do sound similar there is the problem of tuning out at times. Overall, this is a great second album for any band and it would be great to see them get more attention. Yet, with no standout track, it's a shame to say I feel this unusual and new work will sadly go unnoticed.

Do Gay People in Films Always Have to be Stereotypes?

Originally published on www.biggaypictureshow.com

In the past I’ve written about a number issues I have when it comes to gay men in films and films that are gay-centric in particular. One of these issues is that they are usually sold on sex, making us all fit into the sexual deviant paradigm that so many people have afforded us, the other issue I’ve written about is why we have to have gay films – after all why can’t they just be films.

This being said, ‘gay films’ are here and for the foreseeable future they are here to stay, because let’s face it, many Hollywood studios are still reluctant to release a mainstream gay-centric film, despite the success of Brokeback mountain almost a decade ago. This then brings up the issue that most of the gay men that we see in films are the flappy, fashion conscience, witty, bitchy character whose retorts and comments are used for comic affect.

These characters can be found in many rom-coms, such as Bridget Jones’ Diary, as well as teen flicks like Mean Girls. We are undoubtedly being put into more films now and being allowed to be openly gay – and all exposure is good exposure in a way, I suppose. Even if the studios are still a little worried to make us the leading star, at least we are there.

However, I can’t get over the fact that many gay-centric films made by LGBT production companies and filmmakers have to use these characters as well. I’ve reviewed and watched a few films recently that heavily feature characters like this. Yes, there are gay people like this, but would it hurt the filmmakers and studios to feature more down-to-earth, non-stereotyped gay characters in a gay movie? After all, we’re bombarded with these stock characters in nearly every romantic comedy that gets churned out.

It looks as though whilst we are getting some representation in mainstream movies, the issue of being stereotyped will always be there. It’s just a shame that gay centric comedy films and rom-coms don’t display enough diversity, to show other gay men and people in Hollywood that we aren’t all like that stock character they know so well. Perhaps if the entertainment made for the gay community were more varied in its depiction of gay people, a little more of that diversity would seep through into the mainstream.

NHS Services for Everyone?

Originally published on www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

Recently I received a survey through the post; apparently out of all the people who live in my area I was selected at random despite the fact my partner also received one, what a coincidence. However this isn't what I'm getting at, the survey was about health and wellbeing for 2013 from the NHS, I know it just sounds like so much fun to fill in doesn't it?

Anyway after flicking through the questions there was the usual; do you smoke? Yes, do you drink? Yes, how much fruit and veg do you consume a week? As you can see it was a pretty standard set of questions. Now this is all well and good and maybe just maybe the survey will help with something, I don't know what it'll help with besides helping to waste some more precious NHS money. But as I got to the end of the survey there was the typical 'about you' section, gender, age, ethnicity you get the picture. I assume this is to help them narrow down which age groups, genders and social groups are suffering the most and which ones are experiencing a happier life, but the one question that was missing was that of sexuality.

Now before you start making assumptions that I'm someone who wants to shout from the rooftops that gay people are being ignored again, I'm not, but you can't help but wonder why this option isn't there. I mean study's have found that LGBT people are more likely to suffer from mental health issues or drink and drug abuse, and by asking this question on a more localised survey by the NHS they could find a way of tackling this, instead of leaving it to certain organisations such as Stonewall and the LGF.

Not every area in the country has somewhere that gay people can turn to for help, and some may send this survey back and be found to be severally depressed or unhappy with life who may be gay, yet this will go unnoticed. I filled out an online health and wellbeing survey a while ago specifically for LGBT people, which was put together by an LGBT organisation, just so I could help out with these statistics that so many organisations such as the NHS are missing.

However it isn't just this NHS wellbeing survey that fails to ask this question. When I was at University I applied for a job at a supermarket so I could make some extra money. Me and my friend (who happens to be a lesbian) went to get the application forms and both said there's no point applying, as we wouldn't get the job. However after noticing the equal opportunities section I made a quick joke that this was our way in, however there was once again no section asking about sexuality. I didn't get the job, because I had no experience working in a supermarket and neither would I want to be given a job simply because I am gay. But it makes me wonder how a company can call themselves an equal opportunities employer and only mention disability, race and ethnicity on an application form as if they're the only reasons why people would be discriminated against when applying for a job.

Now I may have digressed into something completely different there but the principal is still the same, does the NHS not care about the well being of LGBT people? Of course they care, but how will they know the full extent of the health and wellbeing of a social group that does suffer abuse in the areas in which they live (do you feel safe in your area was a question on the survey), and are known for having higher abuse rates if they fail to include a small section in a survey?

Maybe they just forgot, maybe they ran out of space on the paper or maybe because there are LGBT groups out there who've conducted these kinds of studies in the past they felt they didn't need to. The thing is we will never know why it wasn't on there, but the other fact is; if they continue to miss this off surveys in the future then the health and wellbeing of a vast amount of LGBT people will continue to go unknown, which could be a big problem for many.

The Pink Pound and the Music Industry

Originally published on www.vadamagazine.com

In today’s music industry many artists dominating the charts take time out to lend their voice to good causes. They may relate to problems such as world famine, body issues, war and lately even gay rights. This may seem like something truly commendable as famous individuals lend their name (and hundreds of thousands of twitter followers) to a cause in order to give it a greater voice. However, in relation to gay rights just how much of this advocacy is truly on behalf of those suffering and how much is for personal gain?

This may sound a little cynical to some who believe these stars are truly helping gay men and women across the world become more accepted, which to extent they are. However, whilst having a big name star promoting a cause is a guaranteed way to make a mark for it, for the star it is also a way of gaining yourself a loyal fan base that will stick by you. The audience think you ‘get them’. The cynicism enters when thinking about gay men and women as the power of the pink pound and its appeal to PR executives everywhere is remarkable. Leading mostly metropolitan lives and statistically freer from the financial black-hole of childrearing, our demographic are often thought to have more disposable income. For many this is mostly true.

When you think about gay rights advocacy and celebrities today, one of the biggest stars that come to the forefront of most people’s minds is Lady Gaga. Now I am by no means accusing her of not believing in equality for everyone, in fact she has done quite a lot over the last few years to help LGBT advancement, but you cannot help but feel there is a slight marketing push behind it.

After watching her concert on DVD you are left with the feeling that the chanting about gay rights is a little too much overkill. Sometimes it feels as though she is trying too hard to ensure that those in the audience who are gay know that she loves them. Also when you listen to her album Born This Way, the running theme of gay rights throughout it is incredibly obvious, so much so that it starts to annoy you. It has to be said that the title song of the album was a brilliant way to gain exposure across the world for gay rights (I know it advocated rights and equality for everyone but the message for the LGBT community was much stronger), but also a great way to guarantee gay men and women would buy the single and the album and that it would be played as a gay anthem for years to come.

Now I do not want this to sound like I am ripping into Lady Gaga, after all she wouldn’t be the first star to have a large gay following, although she seems to be one of the first to specifically target them. That said her predecessor Madonna did this but in a much subtler way.

‘Vogue’ was a massive hit worldwide back in 1990 and it is well known now that voguing was very popular on the New York gay scene. Madonna helped bring this facet of gay subculture into the mainstream. However, back then it would have been much harder to publicly back LGBT people through song in the way Gaga has today due to widespread homophobia, the legacy of the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 80s and the fact that as a community, equality was still a long way away in many more countries than it is today.

So when you look at it that way pandering to a gay audience has been going on for some time, whether it has been obvious or not. Rewind to the 50s and 60s when the biggest gay icon of them all Judy Garland was selling out concerts all across the world that were known to be frequented quite prominently by gay men. However, back then there was no marketing or pandering to gays and as Judy quipped when asked about her gay following, “I couldn’t care less. I sing to people.“ I’m quite sure that if being gay wasn’t the crime it was back then, some marketing savvy individual would have had her shouting out for gay rights across the globe.

So maybe it’s not the stars, maybe it is the marketing companies and their strategic soapboxing of stars that grinds my gears. By advocating a certain fight for equality they tap into a lucrative market in an attempt to exploit it for all they can. After all, stars such as Madonna and Lady Gaga just want to sing, entertain, love their fans (so they say) and be appreciated. As most people know, companies involved in marketing, advertising and PR are out for one thing and one thing only: Money.

So yes maybe stars are pandering to the capital of the pink pound, but is it because the teams behind them are exploiting them, and in turn exploit the pockets of fans across the world? I’ll let you think about that one.

Lost in Music: Amy Studt - False Smiles

Originally published on www.sosogay.co.uk

For many that were born at the end of the 1980s and in the early 1990s they missed out on much of the singer/songwriter craze that had become so popular during the early to mid 90s, which saw the birth of music superstars like Alanis Morissette and Tori Amos. Instead they listened to the music of teen pop idols such as Britney Spears and N’Sync.

However during the early 2000’s the emergence of Canadian teen rock star Avril Lavigne gave them a peek at what they had missed almost a decade ago. Like most pop stars, there had to be an equivalent of Avril in the UK and that honour got bestowed on one Miss Amy Studt. A young 16 year old from London, Studt was branded the British version of Lavigne by the press, much like Billie Piper was the British Britney, despite releasing her début single quite some time before the phenomenon that became Ms Spears.

With the release of her first single, ‘Just a Little Girl’, Studt looked poised for chart success having reached the UK top 20. The song itself was featured on promotional videos for the final series of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. However, it was almost 12 months before we heard from Amy again, and in 2003 she released the single ‘Misfit’, which hit number six on the UK top 40 and was all over the radio and television music channels.

She now looked set for success; another top 10 single followed and a top 20 album in the form of False Smiles. The album itself spoke out for the underdog in the schoolyard, as Amy herself had admitted to being bullied whilst at school. Featuring brilliant tracks like ‘Misfit’ and ‘Ladder in My Tights’ she looked set to give teens who were experiencing the agonising daily trip to school a voice, showing those who don’t quite fit in that it was acceptable and everything would one day be OK.

However, the sales of her singles and album didn’t quite match up to her Canadian equivalent. A brief stint to try and re-market the album with a cover of the Sheryl Crow song ‘All I Wanna Do’ didn’t quite work out, failing to break the top 20. Sadly, this saw the singer being dropped from her record label.

It seems that maybe Amy didn’t quite match up to the hype or maybe the charts were looking for something a bit different, and given the fact that single sales were diminishing at the time until the second wind they found with digital downloads, Miss Studt may have just been around too early.

Fast forward five or six years later and female singers who write their own songs, with a unique sound and look are dominating the charts, just look at Adele, Florence Welch and the late Amy Winehouse. Sadly however, this is now and Amy Studt was back then, but for all those young teens that listened to the album they have a hidden gem of music that may have given them a bit of hope back in the day.

Equality is an Issue Once Again

Originally published on www.vadamagazine.com

Gay marriage, civil partnerships, civil ceremonies and religious ceremonies are a few terms that you’ve probably heard being thrown around in the press and laden across the news for quite some time now. From the looks of it these terms aren’t going to be laid to rest anytime soon. That’s right the issue of gay marriage, or whatever other name you’d wish to give it, is back under the spotlight for a number of reasons.

Today sees the Marriage Bill being debated in the House of Commons, which would enable same-sex couples to marry in consenting religious institutions in England and Wales. You can probably guess why it’s been in the news for other reasons. Yes that’s right some people just flat out are not happy about it.

Firstly there was the news that senior Tory figures were trying to delay the gay marriage vote. This was because they believed it could prove deeply divisive and cause damage to the Conservative party in the run up to the 2015 election. The issue has been gaining increasing political currency and concern amongst the Tory party with a number of people threatening to resign claiming that there are more serious issues to be dealt with.

To my mind, I just have to say that if a member of the Conservative party wants to resign because of gay marriage then that’s one less bigot in power. Quite frankly they should not be in that position with their antiquated and discriminatory values. If a member of a political party resigned because they had racist ideologies then they’d most likely be chased through London by a lynch mob and publicly and politically tarred and feathered. Just look at the way Nick Griffin is treated by the general public (and when I say that I mean most people on the Internet). No one is suggesting the same treatment will fall on these defectors, but on a sliding scale of bigotry, this should cause many to re-evaluate their suitability for public office if they refuse to recognise equality in society.

Someone should really point out to these Members of Parliament that if it is not discussed now then it’ll just be back on the agenda once again come the next election. We’re not going away guys. So you can try and brush this issue under your expenses paid rug as much as you want, but the fact of the matter is it’s not going anywhere.

Now I turn my attention to the Church of England, because you cannot have an article about gay marriage without bringing them into it (for people who dislike the idea so much they don’t half harp on about it). Many may know that the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, was formally confirmed as the head of the Church of England on February 4^th, the day before the debate in the House of Commons. A little bit controversial and risky don’t you think?

It was rumoured that on his first day he would attack the idea of marriage equality, something that Welby’s office quickly downplayed. He instead defiantly placed his flag in the middle ground, ambiguously stating “The Government wants it. We think there are issues around the way it is going forward.” However, this hasn’t stopped the Church being hit by criticism, mainly because of its 8 page briefing note on the bill that they’ve supplied to every Member of Parliament ahead of the vote.

Now it would take too long to go through all the criticism that has been levelled surrounding this, but one thing that did stick in my mind is something that Reverend Sharon Ferguson, the head of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement said. After stating that the idea of Justin Welby attacking gay marriage was ‘absolutely horrific’ she mentioned that the Church should be trying to welcome gay and lesbian couples back into its pews.

I for one could not agree with her more. Over the years religion has belittled gay people and nearly every idiotic bigot out there with a mouth bigger than their brain has used their ‘knowledge’ of religion to exclude the LGBT community. Because of this many gay people have left the Church and don’t believe in religion. Through being unable to marry, many feel it is preventing them from displaying their love for another person.

Religion by all accounts is not as big (if that’s the right way to put it) as it once was. The fact that Jedi was recognised as a religion in the census shows us that in general the populace are less God-fearing, more force-loving individuals. So why on earth would the Church continue to persecute and isolate?

This debate is ultimately stilted as after all they are their beliefs and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, bigoted or not, with the same being true of oppositional MPs.

But just think about this, 50 years ago black people in America were made to walk on opposite sides of the street, stand up for white people on buses and suffer a whole barrage of abuse because of something they could not help: the colour of their skin. An interracial marriage in the 60s was a big deal, a very big deal. Comparing these past times to the present situation in 2013 makes you realise how shocking that was, and the thought of discrimination, racist mass marches and discriminatory political speeches happening in mainstream society today is unfathomable.

So when we do see these terms for gay marriage get banded about just think it’s not just about marriage, but equality and surely everyone deserves that in 2013? Didn’t R.E at school teach us that we are supposed to love everyone.

There’s Still A Need To Cure Gays It Seems

Originally published on www.vadamagazine.com

For years now the issue of gay-cure therapy has been creeping into the news for one reason or another. The most common cause for it springing up is because some people adamantly believe that this type of therapy can work, despite a number of international health bodies saying that they are both ineffective and counter-productive, posing serious health threats to those treated.

The reason that I am bringing it up, as some of you may already know, is because at the end of January a debate surrounding therapy to cure gay people was held in a committee room within the Houses of Parliament. The event was hosted by Core Issues, who are a Christian group that have been critical of LGBT initiatives in the past. The debate itself looked at the subject of whether people should be allowed to change their sexual orientation, which they explained as ‘a debate about the legitimacy and freedom to offer sexual reorientation when many professional bodies are banning such therapies’.

Now I can’t be the only one who finds this completely and utterly insane, can I? Firstly, if you, like me, are gay then you will know that you’ve been gay for as long as you can remember. You may even remember things from when you were a child that make you go “oh yeah, I’ve always been gay.” My personal favourite is when I remember seeing Adam Rickitt’s music video for ‘I Breathe Again’ back in 1999. Yes I was only nine years old at the time, but I can remember watching that video with great intensity. I probably still would now.

I seem to have strayed a little off point there on my trip down memory lane, but if you do remember those times, then you’ll know that if you’re gay, then you’re gay and no amount of pretending to be straight can change that. The thought that this type of therapy can convert someone to being straight is preposterous. You couldn’t use therapy to convert someone from heterosexual to homosexual so how on earth do these people think that it can work in reverse?

Obviously we have all heard of ‘converting them to the cause’ which is a stupid joke about converting straight people into being gay. Some people, of the “backs against the wall lads” camp, still believe gay men and women are trying to do this. Seriously, it’s enough hassle sometimes as it is, without more of us (I joke).

But back to the point that has been made by other therapists: this gay cure therapy can be dangerous to the patients involved. This news about the debate comes during the week that it was revealed by a study from Université de Montréal and McGill University that coming out is actually good for you.

The study itself found that gay men and lesbians who came out were in better physical and mental health than both straight people and those who were still in the closet. Now I for one can believe this, as I assume many of you out there can, because when I came out it was like a great weight being lifted off my previously closeted shoulders. Many of my friends have said exactly the same.

However, the study did mention that it might only be beneficial for those in places where social attitudes and laws etc. are tolerant of gay people. If gay people are being told that they can cure themselves in a country such as Great Britain, where the laws for gay men and women are progressive, then what hope do people in other countries have? I worry that those who are still in the closet will see something like this and truly believe it. This could result in years of mental and possibly physical scarring through careless encouragement of denial, trying to resist something that can’t be changed.

It’s a sad state of affairs that in 2013 people are still churning out hate speech and proposing possible cures for homosexuality, when in actual fact we are perfectly normal. Society as a whole sees us as perfectly normal, and accepts that there’s nothing wrong with us. The bottom line of it is there’s nothing to cure.

Whilst the majority of us can go on laughing at these people who we may dub as ‘crazy’, just think about those who will be beating themselves up about the fact that they think they can change, or are subjected to intense pressure from those around them who believe the lies and denial. Others will take the presence of this debate as a validation of their bigotry and set about filling their minds with all kinds of homophobic nonsense. It makes you wonder how long it will be until the true issue of residual homophobia is cured from everyone’s minds and the reality of normality can break through.

No, You Cannot Borrow a Cigarette

Originally published on www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

As someone who smokes I am aware that I annoy a copious amount of people on a daily basis, whether it's because I unintentionally get smoke in their face, trust me I've been coughed at countless times despite the fact the person who is offended it stood about 20 foot behind me, or because I'm getting in their way as I try to light a ciggie in a crowded high street, and then there are those who just generally look down on me because of the dirty disgusting habit that they hate.

Yes I am aware that it is dirty and disgusting but at the same time I am addicted, in the same way that alcoholics are addicted to drinking or crack addicts are addicted to crack, and in most cases in the same way I'm addicted to eating like the pasty scoffing moaners who look down on me as they hastily try to make their way to Greggs only to be blocked by me and my annoying craving.

However us smokers also have a number of hates when it comes to other smokers, yes we get annoyed by the fact that non-smokers continue to moan about the smell even though we are stood outside huddled amongst some questionable people trying to get some warmth whilst the British weather hammers us with rain, wind, snow or all three at any given time. But that aside the biggest hate I find that comes with being a smoker is the exasperating question that is regularly asked "can you lend me a cigarette?"

Well quite frankly the answer to that question is no. It seems that other smokers who may have left theirs at home, can't afford to buy any or just don't want to smoke their last one quite yet, feel that as a fellow smoker I have a moral obligation to give them a cigarette because I can feel their pain. Yes I can feel your pain and I myself have felt it, but I wouldn't approach someone who is minding their own business in the street and ask for one of their fags, and then hurl abuse at them when they say they can't give you one.

Firstly I would not be lending said cigarette as I will probably never see you again in my life, therefore you will not be giving me one back in the foreseeable future, so what you really want to know is can you have a cigarette. The answer by the way is still no. Also at about £7 a pop for 20 fags that works out as 35p for one, which at the moment is frankly too much money to waste on someone I do not know.

This apparent 'moral obligation' that should be shared amongst smokers where the giving of cigarettes to strangers should be done freely does not apply to anything else though. For example I am a human, which mean I need food and water to survive and on many occasions I have been starving whilst walking past people eating, yet if I was to approach someone and ask them for a chip, a bite of their sandwich or a sip of their drink I would probably be looked at in disgust and given abuse in the same way I'm given abuse when I refuse to give someone a fag, because this is deemed as socially unacceptable, unlike the handing out of cigarettes.

This then brings me to the biggest annoyance of a smoker, the social smoker. Yes we have all encountered them at some point during our smoking life, a non-smoker who has had too much to drink and thinks they will look 'cool' with a ciggie hanging out of their mouth. Now we all had to start smoking somewhere, which probably happened when a friend who smokes gave us a fag, but these people don't smoke, won't smoke and probably look down on smokers during the daytime when they are stone cold sober. They also haven't ran out of fags on their night out prompting them to ask to have one of yours because they never brought any with them. This everyone is the most annoying, either you smoke or you don't, you cannot just decided to smoke on a whim on a night out and take everyone else's.

So next time you get annoyed whilst looking at a smoker, just stop and think about how annoyed they are at other smokers, social smokers and those who look down on them, because they are probably more annoyed than you, which is most likely the reason why they need a fag in the first place.