The last time I blog about Ryanair. I promise.

At the risk of devoting a little too much blog time to a certain budget airline, I had to flag this up. Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary has jumped on the swine flu bandwagon in spectacular fashion and claimed that the virus will only affect slumdwellers in Asia and Mexico.

Michael O'Leary: 'A couple of strepsils will do the job'

Meanwhile, his response to the news that two cases of swine flu have been confirmed in Britain? “A couple of Strepsils will do the job.”

You’ve got to hand it to the man. He is utterly shameless in his never-ending quest to drum up publicity.  And if my apparent urge to constantly blog about him is anything to go by, it actually works!

A weighty issue for Ryanair

Yes, it’s Ryanair again.  First there was the controversial pay-as-you-go toilet plan, whereby fliers could be charged £1 to use the loos, and now the airline is back in the news with its latest proposal – the introduction of a ‘fat tax’ for obese passengers.

According to a poll on Ryanair’s website, a third of passengers back the idea and the airline is now looking for suggestions as to how to implement the charge - for instance, should people be charged per kilo over a certain weight, say 15 stone for women and 20 stone for men? Or should there be a fixed penalty if the passenger in question encroaches on the neighbouring seat?  One fairly sensible suggestion involves assigning a standard weight allowance (say 20 stone) to each passenger, which combines body weight and luggage, with any excess paid for by the kilo.

Despite the fact that the whole thing screams ‘publicity stunt’, the idea has prompted a heated debate.  Critics say it’s discriminatory, while supporters think it makes perfect sense.  I’m on the fence on this one.  On the one hand the idea makes me feel a bit uncomfortable (surely they’re not planning to conduct weigh-ins at the check in desk?!) but, on the other, I haven’t forgotton how annoying it is to get charged an arm and a leg for a couple of kilos of extra weight in my baggage only to find myself squashed up against some sweaty man who’s three times the size of me when I get on the plane.

Anyhow, in a bid to find out if anyone actually cares about fat taxes, I thought I’d conduct my own little opinion poll…

(I’m actually just looking for any excuse to use the WordPress poll feature, so please humour me!)

Film review: The International

Ruthless bankers? Check. Excessive greed? Check. Global corporate setting? Check. If nothing else, this film is certainly timely. A fast-paced conspiracy thriller, The International depicts the banking industry as a brutal force fuelled by corruption and will resonate with audiences everywhere as the world plunges into economic turmoil.

Clive Owen: Someone get this man a razor...

The latest offering from German director Tom Twyker (Run Lola Run), the film sees Interpol agent Louis Salinger (Clive Owen) pitted against fictional bank the IBBC as he attempts to expose its shady dealings in the arms trade. Paired with American investigator Eleanor Whitman (Naomi Watts) – a dull, one-dimensional character if there ever was one – he manages to squeeze in an impressive amount of globetrotting (flitting between Berlin, Milan, New York and Istanbul) in his quest to bring down the bad guys or, as he so eloquently puts it, “to get some f***ing justice!”

Salinger is fond of expletives. And the occasional violent outburst. He is your typical modern day action hero, all rugged masculinity and brooding intensity, with more than a whiff of James Bond about him. Physically, he looks pretty unkempt and in need of a good shave. Some anger management therapy wouldn’t go amiss either – at one point in the film he repeatedly punches a dead body in frustration after his pleas of “don’t f***ing die on me!” have failed to revive the man.

Comparisons with Bond are inevitable. Aside from the fact that Clive Owen totally looks the part, the film itself has all the classic ingredients of good shoot-‘em-up thriller: cold-blooded assassins, car chases, even a couple of rooftop snipers. But it lacks the humour that could perhaps have saved it from straying into generic-action-film territory. The only remotely light-hearted exchange comes early on: “When was the last time you got laid?” asks Whitman. “Why? Are you offering?” quips Salinger, with a vague attempt to muster a smile. But those expecting a protracted love story will be left sorely disappointed, as any hint of a romantic sub-plot abruptly ends here.

The International is all about action, action, and more action. This is spectacular in the pivotal scene – a thrilling, expertly choreographed shoot-out in New York’s Guggenheim Museum – but fails to impress elsewhere. The film is let down by a poor script, trite dialogue, and a flimsy, sometimes implausible, plot. It also now seems to be a requirement for action thrillers to include an obligatory rooftop chase in a foreign land (in this case Istanbul) and the film would benefit from some originality. It is an entertaining, perfectly watchable, thriller – but, in the end, we have seen it all before.

Feature: Is ketamine the new ecstasy?

 

Users say it’s fun, it’s cheap, and it’s beginning to shake off its hardcore party drug image. Is ketamine the new drug of choice for young people in the UK?

 

“I felt like a baby giraffe that was standing up for the very first time,” says Sarah*. “It was totally hilarious. Everything felt wobbly, and I remember thinking my arms and legs were made of those stringy strawberry bootlaces you get in sweetshops. You can have a lot of fun with K – what’s not to like?”

Teenagers are turning to ketamine in search of a cheap high

Sarah, a 23-year-old student, is describing her first experience of taking ketamine – also known as K, Special K and Vitamin K – and ‘fun’ is a recurring theme. “I’ve got loads of funny stories,” she declares, keen to share her and her friends’ experiences of taking the drug. “Once, after taking too much K, my boyfriend stumbled around for twenty minutes trying to catch tiny birds he thought were flying around the living room. Another time, a friend refused to get up off the sofa because she thought her feet were made of bricks.”

Such anecdotes are typical of the experiences reported by ketamine users. The effects of the drug, which is used in veterinary medicine as a horse tranquilliser and was made a class C drug three years ago, can range from a feeling that resembles extreme drunkenness to intense psychedelic hallucinations. “K is better than ecstasy and cheaper than coke,” says Sarah. “The effects can be really enjoyable, providing you take the right dose.”

But what exactly amounts to the ‘right dose’? Ketamine, which can be snorted or swallowed in liquid form, is dose specific – meaning its effects vary wildly depending on the amount taken. Typically, a low dose will leave the user feeling euphoric and experiencing synaesthesia – the sensation of ‘seeing’ music or ‘hearing’ colours, hence its popularity on the dance scene – whereas a high dose can result in an out-of-body experience known as the ‘K-hole’.

Ketamine became a popular dance drug in the 1990s

“I’ve taken too much a couple of times and ended up well and truly in the K-hole,” says musician and regular ketamine user Nathan Armstrong, 27. “It’s like you go into a tunnel inside your brain, kind of like what I’d imagine a near-death experience to feel like. It’s seriously intense, but great fun too.”

If ketamine is so much fun, why isn’t everybody doing it? Official figures suggest that overall levels of ketamine use remain low compared to cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine, with an estimated 113,000 users in the UK last year. Meanwhile, there were thought to be 2.4 million cannabis users, 734,000 cocaine users and 470,000 ecstasy users. Until recently it was seen as a dance drug, associated with the rave scene of the 1990s.

But its popularity is on the rise. According to the British Crime Survey, ketamine use increased by 10% last year and there is anecdotal evidence that it may fast be becoming the drug du jour among young people. Claire Coyle, a drug treatment worker in London, says ketamine has shaken off its image as a ‘party drug’: “Young people, especially teenagers, are embracing ketamine. It’s not as glamorous as cocaine – I mean, the ‘horse tranquilliser’ associations aren’t seen as very cool – but, it’s certainly a lot less expensive.”

Indeed, ketamine’s unique selling point is its cheapness. According to a survey by the UK charity DrugScope, the average price of a gram of ketamine has fallen by a third in the last three years and now costs £20 – less than half the price of a gram of cocaine. Ms Coyle says the drug is, quite literally, “cheap as chips” and costs less than a new film or pop album. “In some areas you can buy a gram of ketamine for as little as £10 or £12 – that’s about a quarter of the price of cocaine. It costs less than the latest film out on DVD, so no wonder it’s popular with teenagers.”

This apparent surge in popularity may also be partly due to the perception of ketamine as a ‘safe’ drug, with no obvious side effects or the comedown associated with taking large amounts of cocaine or ecstasy. “Five years ago all my friends took E, now they all take K,” says Sarah. “It’s a safe drug. After it wears off you feel completely fine, with none of the horrible downers you get from coke or pills.”

But is it really all that safe, or are people kidding themselves in their relentless pursuit of a cheap high? Many users are thought to be unaware of the potential dangers of ketamine, especially the long-term health effects of using the drug – including memory loss, anxiety and severe bladder and kidney problems. In very high doses it can trigger heart or lung failure. Martin Barnes, chief executive of DrugScope, says the dangers are very real. “Anecdotally, it’s a drug that a lot more people are talking about, and this is a real concern, especially as many users underestimate the risks involved,” he says. “Bladder problems are common – we know of people whose bladders have been completely destroyed by the drug.”

In the light of these risks, many experts have questioned the classification of ketamine as a class C drug, which puts it in the same category as anabolic steroids. “Cannabis is class B and ketamine is class C, but I would say ketamine is more dangerous,” says Ms Coyle. “It doesn’t make a huge amount of sense to me.” Martin Barnes also suggests he would welcome a review into its classification: “It is perhaps one of those drugs where the initial recommendation that it should be class C might need to be reviewed.” While the Home Office says there are no current plans to reclassify ketamine, the government’s drugs advisory body, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, says it “continues to monitor the situation”.

In the meantime, young ketamine users like Sarah and her friends will continue to take the drug, with the emphasis being very much on the ‘fun’ involved – and little concern for the risks. “At the moment I’m just doing it occasionally, maybe once every other weekend, and I’m having fun with it,” she says. “As soon as it stops being fun, I’ll give it up.”

* Names have been changed

A potty idea? Ryanair ponders toilet charge

Michael O'Leary wants to introduce a £1 toilet charge on all Ryanair flights

Budget airline Ryanair has announced that it’s considering charging customers to use the toilets on its planes (cue lots of enraged passengers and a whole raft of bad puns about chief exec Michael O’Leary ‘taking the piss’ and being ‘full of shit’ – I couldn’t resist putting one in the title!) and, judging by some of the comments posted online, people are not at all happy about the idea.

But why the fuss? Surely if you choose to fly with a no-frills airline you should expect exactly that – no frills. When I book cheap flights I know that I’m going to have to fork out for food and drinks and, in some cases, my baggage allowance too. The toilet charge is just another add-on. We’ve been paying to use toilets in railway stations for years (admittedly, most cost about 20p – which makes Ryanair’s quid seem a bit steep) and nobody complains. With low-cost airlines, you simply get what you pay for.

Having said that, I wouldn’t want to be sat next to the poor guy with an upset stomach and no cash on him…

News feature: Travelling with HIV

I wrote the following article on the travel restrictions imposed on HIV-positive people after attending an event hosted by the National Aids Trust (NAT) for City University postgraduate journalism students.

* Some names have been changed to protect the identities of interviewees

“I’m still indignant about it,” says John Edwards*, shaking his head. “But I’m just not willing to commit immigration fraud.” Earlier this year the 44-year-old discovered that he was barred from visiting China and South Korea after he failed to meet the visa requirements. Visas are routinely denied to certain people, including convicted fraudsters, terrorists and drug traffickers. Faced with the prospect of lying on the visa form or declaring his status and risking deportation on arrival, he cancelled his trip.

But Edwards is not a terrorist, drug dealer or money launderer. He just happens to be HIV-positive. He runs a successful travel company and, because of the nature of his job, is required to make frequent trips abroad. Diagnosed with HIV ten years ago, Edwards is well aware of the irony of being a travel agent who is unable to travel freely. “I had to cancel the business trip to Shanghai, Beijing and Seoul, when much to my horror, I found that I couldn’t go,” he explains. China and South Korea are just two of the countries that impose restrictions on visitors with HIV. Others include Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Libya.

Meanwhile, in the United States a similar travel ban has been enforced since 1993, despite the US Senate voting last July to overturn it. As an American citizen Edwards remains unaffected by these restrictions, but he recognises that HIV-positive people in the UK, where he now lives, are not always so lucky. “Imagine the irony: you’re a citizen of the United Kingdom and you have HIV, or you’re a specialist on HIV and you want to attend a conference on HIV in the United States. But you can’t because the US is on that list,” he says. For this reason, the International Conference on AIDS has not been held on US soil since 1993. For Edwards, the discovery that he had to cancel his business trip to China brought back home the reality of the day to day struggle that HIV-positive travellers face. “It was a salient and timely reminder, and one that humbled me, because it’s exactly what our UK colleagues feel,” he says.

Although Edwards maintains that he would never lie on an immigration form, not everyone is prepared to sacrifice travel abroad, even if it means committing fraud. He claims to know of several people who have lied on visa waiver forms: “The question they ask is: ‘Do you have a communicable disease?’ That is the very nefarious way they get around asking you the truthful dirty little question, which is ‘Do you have HIV?’ They tick no and they’re committing immigration fraud.” Edwards’s claims are borne out by anecdotal and statistical evidence that more and more people are opting to lie. Music booking agent and part-time DJ David Peters*, 31, has visited the United States illegally on five separate occasions following his HIV diagnosis three years ago. “I’m sure everyone lies on the form,” he says. “Of course there’s the chance you’ll get caught, but that’s a risk you’ve got to take. I’ve travelled to Miami twice and to New York three times, and I intend to go again. It’s not because I actively seek to break the rules – it’s not like I get some kind of thrill from it – but I need to visit America for my job. I shouldn’t be made to feel like a criminal.”

Peters is not alone in his attitude. A 2003 study by Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals found that just two of 135 respondents had travelled to the US legally since their HIV diagnosis, revealing that most opt to lie than to apply for a one-off visa which could grant them legal entry into the country. Peters believes the legal route is fraught with risks: “Not only is applying for a proper visa a very lengthy process, but if it’s rejected then they have you on the database as HIV-positive. You might never be able to visit again. It’s that simple.”

Deborah Jack, chief executive of the National AIDS Trust (NAT), claims that many HIV-positive people feel they have no choice but to lie: “It’s a personal decision, and we would never give that advice to people, but there are people who just tick the wrong box because they want to travel and they don’t see why they shouldn’t.”

But whether they wish to travel for business, a holiday or to visit their loved ones, this is little consolation for many of the 80,000 people living with HIV in the UK who see it as a no-win situation until the law is changed. Those who refuse to lie about their HIV status are prevented from travelling freely, while those who decide to tick the box anyway are effectively turned into criminals.

Advice from the experts? No thanks!

I can’t say I was surprised at the news this week that the government has rejected yet another recommendation from its own drugs advisory body. Following a 12-month study, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) suggested that ecstasy be downgraded from a Class A to a Class B drug. Of course, there isn’t a hope in hell of this actually happening. This is the second time this year that the Home Office has ignored the advice of the ACMD. Last May the council said cannabis should be kept as a Class C drug. The government went ahead and raised it to Class B anyway.

The Home Office has rejected the ACMD's recommendation to downgrade ecstasy from Class A to Class B

Now the ACMD says that ecstasy – which is currently classified alongside heroin and crack cocaine – is not as harmful as other Class A drugs. The job of the council was to objectively look at the relative harm of ecstasy compared with other drugs – and that’s exactly what it did. The statistics show that ecstasy causes far fewer deaths than other Class A drugs (in 2007 there were 58 ecstasy-related deaths, compared with 876 from heroin), so the classification is clearly misleading.

So what exactly is the point of the government asking for advice if they then refuse to take it? It’s not as if they conducted some worthless opinion poll on a few people randomly plucked from the street. The ACMD is a respected body made up of top medical and pharmaceutical experts, as well as police and lawyers with experience of the social implications of drug misuse – in other words, people who actually know what they are talking about.

But it’s the politicians, not the experts, who get the final say. Fair enough – after all, politicians are elected, advisory bodies are not – but it does rather undermine the authority of the experts if the government repeatedly ignores their advice. The rejection of the council’s latest recommendation simply reinforces what many of us knew already: that the government makes laws based on political, rather than rational, motives.

Professor David Nutt, the chairman of the ACMD, was trying to make a rational point when, in an article for the latest edition of the Journal of Psychopharmacology, he likened the dangers of taking ecstasy to those of riding a horse. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has since given him a very public dressing down, demanding he apologise to her and to the families of ecstasy victims. But why the moral outrage? Professor Nutt was simply evaluating a risk, and he shouldn’t be treated like a naughty schoolboy for making a perfectly valid point. He certainly shouldn’t feel the need to apologise.

If anything, this latest controversy demonstrates that the way drugs are ranked in this country is completely arbitrary. Ecstasy is illegal, the maximum penalty for possession being 14 years in prison, yet alcohol, which kills thousands more people each year, is freely available. Of course the government will continue to press on with its ‘tough guy’ stance on drugs because it knows it’s a guaranteed vote winner, despite the fact that classification often defies common sense and makes a mockery of the system. It seems that when issues of morality are concerned, the facts just don’t matter. And if the politicians don’t like the facts, they will just continue to ignore them.

Tweet tweet! The secret is out

I have finally joined Twitter, the microblogging site that counts Barack Obama and Britney Spears among its fans. Initially reluctant to join (does anyone really want to know that I’m eating my breakfast / writing an essay / pondering the meaning of life?!) I eventually caved in to peer pressure once I realised that most of my fellow City students had embraced it with open arms. As one particularly enthusiastic friend put it: “All the cool kids tweet!”

So I took the plunge and signed up yesterday. And so far it’s been surprisingly informative. I now know that several national newspapers have cancelled their graduate schemes (groan) and, yes, I could tell you what a couple of my friends ate for breakfast. Although I have yet to post anything myself (I know, I am far from being a bonafide tweeter) I have been religiously following my friends’ updates with a level of curiosity bordering on the obsessive.

But I’m still not convinced that I’m going to love Twitter quite as much as I love Facebook (which is an awful lot, as my long-suffering friends will attest after being bombarded with wall posts, repeatedly poked or tagged in my photos for the millionth time). Still, I set to work on finding out more about Twitter, and a quick Google search reveals an abundance of Twitter-related sites, including Twittervision, Twitterific, Twitterfeed and Twitbin.

Nothing, however, could prepare me for the bizarre (and actually pretty creepy) phenomenon that is SecretTweet, an online confessional that allows users to post their secrets anonymously. I discovered it purely by accident but I’m immediately hooked (and a little bit ashamed - it’s like reading someone’s diary). A quick peek reveals an array of weird and wonderful posts, ranging from the frankly shocking (“I don’t love my wife. I secretly hope she’ll die”) to the downright sad (“I’m desperately lonely” and “I’m making Prime Rib for one and a ‘98 Pinot. I wish I had friends to share this with.”) Blimey. Depressing stuff.

But it’s not all doom and gloom, and a couple of posts put the smile back on my face. I particularly enjoyed reading this cat lover’s candid confession: “I let my cat drink out of my cereal bowl and I let him take bites out of my sandwich. I know, I’m totally gross, but I love him so much.”  You couldn’t make it up.

Ross is back (and the ratings are up)

“All publicity is good publicity.” Ah, that old chestnut, rolled out time and again in an attempt to find something remotely positive following embarrassing PR disasters. Well, the saying seemed to ring true this week as Friday Night with Jonathan Ross returned to our screens with an audience of more than five million, up from 3.74 million prior to the Ross-Brand-Sachs scandal.

Ross’s return to the BBC following a three-month ban for making lewd phone calls to Andrew Sachs was bound to attract plenty of viewers, but I must admit that I approached it with some trepidation. Ross is known for his risqué brand of humour (precisely what got him into this fine mess in the first place) and there was no doubt that he would be forced to remove all traces of it for his first show.

So did he pull it off? Well, there was certainly no shortage of cheering fans as Ross made his entrance to rapturous applause from the studio audience. And he even managed to deliver an apology that seemed genuinely sincere without abandoning his characteristic cheeky-chappie manner.

The show boasted an impressive set of guests, including Lee Evans, Stephen Fry and Tom Cruise, swiftly allaying fears that Ross would be unable to attract the high calibre stars he is used to. And the host was his usual loveable self, simultaneously complimenting and teasing his guests to put them at ease.

Yet there was definitely something missing. We were left with a kind of watered-down Ross: no crude jokes, no innuendo and no swearing. Friday night’s show was noticeably restrained and – dare I say it – a little bit boring. Bring back the old Wossy please!

All aboard the atheist bus

A couple of weeks ago I saw this advertisement prominently displayed on the side of a bus outside Shepherds Bush tube station:

I chuckled to myself, assuming it was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek response to those evangelical Christian adverts that were plastered all over London buses last summer (you know, the ones condemning non-believers to eternal damnation and all that jazz), and thought nothing more of it. Not for once did I think that this seemingly innocuous advert would spark a nationwide debate about the existence of God.

Backed by some of the country’s most prominent atheists, including Professor Richard Dawkins, bestselling author of The God Delusion, the ad campaign was launched on buses across Britain earlier this month. I doubt even Ariane Sherine, who first suggested the idea in a Guardian Comment is Free blog, realised how far it would go.

But why are Christians so angry? Personally, I blame the slogan: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Talk about getting straight to the point. They might as well have said: “There is no God. Just get over it, will you?” It smacks of superiority (just like the original Christian adverts, in fact, so I suppose they’re even with each other now). The word “probably” was included to comply with advertising regulations, much to the chagrin of Dawkins, who apparently favoured a more steadfast declaration of Godlessness.

Of course, none of this really matters anymore. The point is that, unsurprisingly, it has pissed off a whole lot of Christians. Religious groups have been issuing press statements left, right and centre and, at the last count, the Advertising Standards Authority had received 231 complaints. One angry bus driver has even refused to drive buses that bear the slogan.

But surely that was the point, to stir up debate? It’s a pretty simple statement, albeit one that assumes religious folk are all terribly discontented (my only gripe), and it was bound to provoke controversy from day one. Why? Because in this country we all just love having something to moan about. Bring it on.