Twilight review.

I have written much about things I really like, but any critical blog needs something to slag off. So I thought to myself what do I despise enough to write a long winded rant and publish to the world wide web, then it came to me - Twilight. The books, the film, the whole franchise. I have read the books because someone told me "I'm sure you'll enjoy it, you loved Buffy the vampire slayer back in the day. So I sat down one weekend and read all four books without stopping, trying to convince myself that a plot line was going to come along or eventually the writer would remember literacy requires some form of literate grammar. But alas, when I closed the books I was thoroughly disappointed and realised I'd wasted an entire evening on what I can only describe as bollocks.

There are many dark reasons I hate the book, I've seen one film as I was dragged along and I used the time wisely to catch up on beauty sleep. I ask myself time and time again why the book is so popular when the literature is so crap and the storyline so weak? The answer is Bella is so pathetic and has no personality that any teenage looser can put themselves in her shoes. Hopefully these girls are so indoctrinated by Meyer that they spend their whole lives waiting for a man like Edward that they never procreate themselves.

My main issue with twilight is the explicit sexualisation of violence, it gives the message to young girls that it's okay to love a man who could easily hurt you, in fact it's sexy. Bella finds it highly arousing that Edward has to fight off all desire to drain her of blood and murder her senseless. Edward is an emotionally unstable, manipulative and aggressive, constantly he is warning Bella what he could murder her at any second and that when he first met her he wanted to kill her. Apparently fans were desperate to see Edward’s “headboard-busting” sex and his wife Bella’s black and blue bruised body, because this my fellow readers is "the perfect honeymoon". He may be presented as the ideal gentleman, who is chivalrous, thoughtful honorable and protective, however, anyone who has studied the symptoms of abuse will know that these "justifications" are exactly the sort of thing victims will tell themselves and others, just read this extract for yourself and consider it in context of what we've just discussed: "There was a faint shadow across one of my cheekbones, and my lips were a little swollen…The rest of me was decorated with patches of blue and purple. I concentrated on the bruises that would be the hardest to hide—my arms and my shoulders. … Of course, these were just developing. I’d look even worse tomorrow. "Sounds just like a monologue or soliloquy you'd hear from a battered wife. The film is intensely erotic whilst highly dangerous, this is very worrying when you consider that one in three women will be abused in their life. A 2005 survey showed that 37% of teenage girls believe it's okay for their boyfriend to abuse them if they believe they've been cheating on them.  Is this really the message we want to send out to our young girls? That it's acceptable for a man to be aggressive, how is this even attractive? Having myself been in a manipulative relationship once I find advocating this behaviour unacceptable. Is Stephanie Meyer oblivious to this evil monster she has created, or is she sick and twisted enough to want to ruin everything Pizzey and the rest of the 1970's feminist movement stood for? Perhaps Meyer should read Scream quietly or the neighbours will hear you before she writes any more novels romanticising domestic violence. 

Another vile reason I cannot stand this vile piece of awful literature is it's clearly mormon proganda. Meyer belongs to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and whilst I can appreciate the advocation of chastity and criticising our "abortion on demand" state, what really concerns me if that Meyer clearly believes abortions are unnaceptable full stop, even if the fetus is killing you in a horrific manner. Edward even drops his traditional beliefs and begs Bella to have an abortion, but no, she would rather die than kill the evil half vampire monster inside of her. Whilst she's in labour her spine physically cracks in half and even then she refuses and abortion. Then Bella dies all so this creature could be brought safely into the earth. Luckily Bella is surrounded by vampires who bring her back from the brink of death and then they all realise how wrong they were to ask her to abort the thing, she only died you know guys. It's a clear anti-abortion message seductively packaged as a true-love fairy tale. I'm not a fan of the way many young slappers treat abortion as a contraception and I genuinely believe people should be in a loving and stable relationship if they are going to embark on naughty relations but the extreme view that a mother should die for her baby is not what we should be advocating, many pro life supporters even agree that this is the only time when an abortion is acceptable. Everything feminist bitches worked for over the last century has literally been destroyed by Meyer, lets chain her to the kitchen sink and get her husband to beat her - with a stick no wider than his finger of course. It's a good job Meyer deviated far from the original standards and rules for vampires, in Buffy I clearly remember the only way someone could become a vampire was if they sucked a vampires blood in return. This implies a blood transfusion, and we all know where this would lead. 

So these are my major huffs with Twilight. Men wearing eyeliner and glittering doesn't even bother me that much, if all the girls want to fancy those skinny douches then it saves the rugby players for us real, sane women! There's about as much emotional depth in the movies as a teaspoon, a teaspoon that has been flattened. And nothing actually happens, there's a lot of whining, fretting about a potential threat, gazing at Edwards dead sparkly face, pining after Edwards dead sparkly face, cheating with a hairy brute of a man who actually loves you but you'd rather pine after the dead, violent man. Meyer has also managed to destroy all precedent and universal definitions of a vampire within a minute paragraph:  "...how can you come out during the daytime?"    He laughed anyway. "Myth."    "Burned by the sun?"   "Myth."    "Sleeping in coffins?"    "Myth." ... "I can't sleep." So effectively she's created a completely different type of supernatural creature, but taken one of the most popular myths of modern culture and forever more tainted the reputation of all other vampire novels and films.

I do wish that Edward caved into his vampire instincts and just killed Bella when he first met her. Tht would have been a much better story and we wouldn't have a world infested with twihards.

The [Legally Voidable] Wedding of River Song.

Everyone has been asking for a review from me on this episode. I guess the fact River Song made an honest man out of the Doctor had everyone thinking I'd be enraged that my least favourite character EVER has actually married the doctor. And you are right, I was disgusted. But I actually rather enjoyed that episode up until that point. Infact I've been enjoying all the episodes recently, I've just not blogged about them because I've been very busy, not even watching the episodes until a week later, being in paris and moving back to uni, which actually takes longer than it does for me to get to bristol airport, get a plane to charles de gaulle, get on the RER, change at challet les halles, get off at Chatou Croissy, and walk to my bourgeois mansion in villa lambert. (yes I stayed in a real mansion, my boyfriend has friends in high places) So I'd happily go back to paris any day rather than drive to Abersytwyth wich my travel sickness. But as I was saying, The God delusion was brilliant, I love a psychoanalysis study of faith and Doctor Who deconstructing this was just excellent. I also enjoyed last weeks episode, despite my hatred for James Corden. I believe he's only funny when he's been scripted for, he himself, is an annoying man who can't take other people calling him fat, when his sole career has been built on the fact he's tubby. Which is why that episode actually worked, but I kept worrying the baby was suddenly going to be announced as the evil one, I just seemed to be inclining that way.

But obviously you want my opinion on this episode, the season final. Although thanks to the huge gap mid series, I'm left feeling rather deflated and short changed. There was a distinct lack of fluency and clarity in the script. Matt Smith quickly goes from morbid to exuberant faster than light and this inconsistency makes the episode weak. On a positive note, Matt put in much effort in every one of his scenes, despite poor writing.

The best part was that the conclusion was actually relatively simple. Something my boyfriend who isn't a whovian could actually follow. It irks me the need to over complicate Doctor Who these days, too much technobabble and not enough story line. The idea that is wasn't the Doctor who died, but actually the doctor was hidden inside a teselector double. Basically the Doctor in a doctor suit. Brilliant. And when River looked into his eye it was hilarious to see him flamboyantly flouncing about. Moffat wrong-footed us by making us think it would be the Flesh Doctor on the beach, it’s still in essence the same get-out clause – a double. I also rather enjoyed the way the Doctor's morbidity and sense of self hatred which had been darkening out saturday evenings was overturned and he was finally portrayed as the much loved hero he is. The whole universe wanting to help him and appreciating him. It took us back to the Tennant times when the doctor was viewed by the universe a a saviour, not a fearsome warrior and I much prefer it that way.

As a law student however, I was to comment on the legitimacy of the marriage. I don't believe it's a valid marriage and would be declared void under any court ruling. Firstly, since 5 November 2007, a couple getting married are required to to give notification in person of their intention to marry to a Registrar at least 3 months before the intended date of the marriage, this is to allow people the chance to come say "I object" if they do so know of any unlawful reason that would void the marriage. This clearly did not happen, it was very spur of the moment and quicker than a Vegas ceremony. Unless the doctor uses his time machine to go back three months and publish the wedding, but I highly doubt any objectors would be able to find the marriage ceremony. Which leads to my other argument on the invalidity of the marriage, technically, the marriage never even happened. River reassured her mother that she hadn't really killed anyone so therefore if the murder never happened, then neither did the marriage. 

Furthermore, I'm pretty certain it wasn't performed in a legalised and registered location, The Marriages (Approved Premises) Regulations 1995 allow civil marriages to take place regularly in hotels, stately homes, pubs and football stadiums without compromising the fundamental principles of English marriage law and Parliament's intention to maintain the solemnity of the occasion. the validity of a venue requires prior agreement of the superintendent Registrar. Marriages and it must take place in readily identifiable premises to prevent marriages taking place in the open air, in transport or any other unsuitable location. - may I point that the ceremony in question was actually in open air and it certainly was not a "readily identifiable location". It must also be a dignified place in good state of repair, I do not believe the collapse of time itself is deemed a dignified place, it also lacked the fire precautions required by the fire authority. Yes I am being petty, but it annoyed me that much. 

Also. This one's a bit far fetched but it's a reasonable argument. The vows are "til death do us part". Technically River is already dead on the Doctors' timeline. Therefore death has parted them. And if the doctor is believed to be dead, the state won't recognise the existence of their marriage. Moreover, technically River married the robot doctor, not the actual Doctor. It wasn't the doctor who spoke the words, it was the robot. Therefore I deem the marriage totally void. I like to think the Doctor is fully aware of this and is simply having a bit of fun with no strings attached. Even so, he has genuine grounds for divorce under s1(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Clauses Act. Killing him is almost certainly classed as "unreasonable behaviour".

Moving on from my legal rant... Since the great Tennant years, we've always been warned of "fixed points in time" and finally we see what happens if one is messed with. To be quite honest I would enjoy living in a world where Dickens was regularly gracing my television. But surely as the Doctor didn't actually die, the "fixed point in time" has still been messed with? This episode had some great bits, some quality acting and a great storyline up until the wedding. It was so random and unneeded. There genuinely is no sexual tension between the Doctor and River, no matter how many flirty lines you throw around the script, there is just no spark. She has no endearing qualities about her and up until now the Doctor has always seemed surprised and cautious whenever she's made a move on him. There has been no change of heart nor any moment where we as viewers have seen him fall in love with her- discovering she's Amy's daughter wasn't a pivotal moment in their relationship romantically.  So I'm very confused as to when this change of heart happened.

So the time old question is Dr Who? It will probably end up being something completely mundane and it's a question that should never be answered as it would undermine the sanity of Dr Who's mystery. What is more important is the Christmas episode, featuring my West Country homeboy Bill Bailey, it's about time Dr Who had the slice of the West. Billy Piper is from Swindon (my nearest city AND she went to my ballet school) however she ignored her home roots, ditched the pompous farmer accent in favour of a Landan' twang. Shame on her. I hope Bill Bailey doesn't follow suit.

Are law students over worked or just plain neurotic?

It's been four months since those ghastly examinations and we've had a beautifully long summer to recover from the stress. Many students, law students in particular, strain under the monumental amount of pressure exams cause. I've known relationships to break up because of it, friendships fall apart and mental breakdowns too. I personally end up very ill around exam times, firstly my wrist can't cope with the strenuous and avid essay writing I put it through, I end up with blisters on my fingers, a swollen wrist and a locked arm. Also I become physically exhausted but too scared to sleep more than the recommended seven hours in case I am wasting valuable revision time. I get headaches and nausea from the consistent reading and note taking, only to be made worse by the inevitable crying fit i'll have induced by blind neurotic paranoia that "i'm going to fail, my life is over." And even after the exams are over we all seem to be in a post traumatic daze, it's as if there's an empty gap in our lives, to be precise a 17 hour gap. What do we do with ourselves now exams are over? Of course we drink, and part of the "post traumatic daze" is probably just a hangover but I do find myself rather confused and lost after the exams. 

I'm not suggesting  those who take other subjects don't feel the stress but obviously I'm so self absorbed in my own stress around these times I only notice how other law students are coping. But I do feel law students are under a hideous amount of pressure to do well in exams. We're under pressure from ourselves, there's pressure from your parents, who've proudly told all their friends, the other mum's in yoga class and the dad's on the golf course that their precious child is a lawyer and now you have to live up to this high expectation. There's also the pressure to beat cocky students who tell you to only expect low grades as you "spend far too much time partying and not in the library like me" just to prove to them that playing World of Warcraft in the Library doesn't make you a legal eagle. There's also the dreaded moment when you've decided you've done enough revision today, log onto facebook or twitter and see everyone else proclaiming how much more revision they've done, "I've done three all nighters" or "I've written 15 pages of notes on easements, your spider diagram is so concise", pressuring us to keep up with them. There's also the fact we're applying for training contracts and these companies expect the highest marks, passing is not enough, we know that we're competing against oxbridge students who's parents have already put in a good word for them at the firm. Those who aren't aiming for a particular career have the luxury of doing "the best that they can", there's no pressure to get a particular mark, a 2:2 in Literature, Maths or any subject really is highly respectable, sure a 2:1 would be better, but at least a 2:2 wouldn't mean the end of their career. So there's slightly less pressure there, for us though it's a case of Do excellent or you've basically wasted three years, vast amounts of money and lost all sanity. 

The sort of people who obnoxiously claim a 3rd in law is better than a first in any other subject are kidding themselves. I'll be the first to admit I am quite snooty about "proper degrees" but I include degrees other than law in my list of what I deem to be a respectable degree, such as literature, maths, medicine (obviously) etc. but yes, there are certain degrees that I do turn my nose at and deem worthless which I dare not mention publicly. However, I could never believe a 3rd in law is better than a 1st in Literature. A first in Literature would open so many doors for you whereas a third in law closes all desirable ones. 

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, we as law students are under immense pressure to excel, for we have aimed so high and are so determined to achieve that elusive training contract, we cannot allow ourselves to only achieve good marks, we need exceptional ones, else all the hard work is for nothing. This is why we crack during exams & go insane, ironically this actually affects exam performance negatively. It's a catch 22. 

I know four months seems excessive for a summer holiday, most degrees could easily be completed in 2 years if we had a normal 6 week holiday like we did back in compulsive education. Which would save much money, especially considering the extortionate prices students will have to pay as of next year. But I feel I needed the 4 months to recover from the trauma. I also had a chance to do a months work experience and visit the legal practice centre in which I hope to go to next year, this reignited my passion for law and reminded me why I was taking the degree in the first place. 

So in answer to my question, I don't believe we are over worked more than other students, sometimes we have a heavier timetable whereas other degrees have more coursework and this balances it out. We have set our own standards and expectations too high that we tend to panic and develop neurotic tendencies and whats worse, if we fail to meet those expectations once those results have come out, we make every excuse under the sun. I've seen it all from people claiming it's a harsh marker, to people telling their family that "no one gets above a 2:2 in law" to the worst of all, "well a 3rd in law is better than a high class degree in any other subject so it doesn't matter". We need to relax more as students, revise hard of course, but we need to be realistic about what we are capable of achieving and the amount of pressure our bodies can cope with. we will exceed far better if we could learn to revise effectively rather than trying to out do each other. 

Legal Eagle: Is Nutella false advertising? ...

...Or are Americans just idiots?

Nutella is my guilty pleasure, I don't enjoy eating chocolate bars or ice cream, I'm normally a savoury cheese board kind of girl or a citrus tangy cheese cake for after dinner. However, I have been known to eat Nutella straight from the jar on a spoon. Just one spoon, perhaps two, when I'm needing a sugar hit. I'm no fool, I'm fully aware it's about 100 calories a table spoon. After all, it is a chocolate spread, spread implies "fat" like butter or margarine, and everyone knows chocolate is unhealthy, only a complete moron would genuinely believe consumption of nutella can be part of a healthy diet. 

Only one mother did. An American mother of course, this is the sort of story that would only happen in the jurisdiction of the US of A. The Californian "Mom" (or Mum as we correctly say in this country) Athena Hohenberg is genuinely suing Nutella for misleading advertising that led her to believe Nutella was a healthy breakfast option for her daughter. 

Nutella advertises its product as being enriched in Hazelnuts and wholegrain. Which is true, it's just also full of saturated fats and sugars. The crazy mother has kindly asked that any monetary judgment be divided among "all persons who purchased on or after January 2000 one or more Nutella products in the United States for their own or household use." Assuming this case isn't laughed out of court... but then again, this is America we're talking about. 

We have to be serious, what are the boundaries between free speech and false advertising? The most prominent case illustrating this question is Nike v Kasky. Any law or business student that has studied Corporate Governance will be familiar with this case. Acting on behalf of the public, Kasky filed a lawsuit in California regarding Nike newspaper advertisements. The plaintiff brought this action seeking monetary and injunctive relief in the hope to curb false advertising and unfair competition. Plaintiff alleged that defendant corporation (Nike)  made false statements of fact about its labour practices and its working conditions in it's factories,  this was to induce consumers to continue buying products after public complaints about Nike's corporate responsibility. Kasky claimed that these representations by Nike constituted false advertising. Nike responded that the representations were merely an expression of opinion; they were not intended to be an advertisement and therefore, were entitled to First Amendment protection (protection of free speech). Although the local court agreed with Nike's lawyers, the California Supreme Court overturned this ruling, claiming that the corporation's communications were commercial speech and therefore subject to false advertising laws. Although there was going to be a review of the case, the parties settled out of court before any accuracy of Nike's statements was found or proven, subsequently leaving the California Supreme Court's denial of Nike's immunity claim as precedent. This basically illustrates the flummoxing and delicate line between a right to free speech, and false advertisement.

The point I’m trying to make here, is that if we are to claim Nutella is falsely advertising, then surely all advertisements must be reviewed? Are Mcdonald’s guilty of false advertisement? Do we really believe that their “whole chicken breast burgers” are good for our children? Or that just because a cheese string contains a “whole glass of milk” it is a super healthy snack for our children? It is after all cheese. Should we sue Cravendale for claiming milk is a good source of calcium but neglecting to mention in the advert the calorific content of it’s full fat milk? Surely this contradicts the point of advertising, the purpose of which is to highlight to good points to consumers? Not to manifest the negatives along side. So should we sue every company that has ever advertised for “stretching the truth” a little, or do companies have the right to assume their consumers have a little common sense? You as an adult consumer have the responsibility to use your own brain when shopping.

To conclude, Athena has no leg to stand on. Yes Nutella advertises itself as rich in calcium and whole grain, because it is. The company has no obligation to broadcast every nutritional fact on it’s commercials. KFC don’t should about their calorific content on the adverts yet they do rave about it being “fresh, on the bone, chicken.” What the company IS obliged to do, is print all nutritional information on its label, which is does. If you were to turn the jar over and read the label, you’d clearly see the calorie, sugar and saturated fat content. Then it’s up to you to make an informed decision regarding it’s purchase. I say the plaintiff has no leg to stand on, but we have to remember this case is being tried in America, stranger things have happened over seas. Only in America would someone claim to be “shocked” at the high fat and sugar content of a chocolate spread. Athena, I’m sorry, but Nutella isn’t the reason your daughter is fat, it’s because you are too lazy to read the label and have no common sense.  

Dr Who Overdose: Lets kill Hitler.

The long awaited and much anticipated return of Doctor Who. I changed into my sweat pants, gorged down pizza and garlic bread and settled myself down for what I was expecting to be a fantastic night of Matt Smith oggling. The elusive title of "Let's Kill Hitler" had already caused much controversy but there was one thing distinctly lacking from tonight's show, Hitler.

Yes he was in it, for a few minutes, then they promptly locked him in a cupboard and forgot about him. Obviously I'm not a Hitler fan, but don't name the title in such a way to imply the story will revolve around him and not deliver, this was a clever ploy by Moffat,  we all spent the entire summer courting a minor controversy over casting the Fuhrer in a family show, this was fueled by the teaser implying that the Tardis crew save his life. I was intrigued as to how they'd created a storyline about such a contentious character, I was hoping the doctor had some part in his downfall, perhaps he'd provoked his conscience or used his knowledge of history to trick Hitler into halting the blitz and turn his attention to Russia. Or perhaps it'd turn out Hitler was a vile alien? Alas, there was little point in me pondering this throughout summer, for Hitler barely spoke two sentences and it became quite clear that the writers and producers simply used Berlin as a background, the actual story line could have been done anywhere really. 

One of the highlights was Rory, he finally came into his own as a character, he made some great one liners and punched Hitler, this was a refreshing change from the useless entity that aimlessly ambles around the tardis, occasionally dying and resurrecting. And we had some fine acting from Karen too. Matt Smith, despite the fact he spent most of the episode writhing on the floor, did manage to squeeze in two fantastic costume changes. It seems he has a new longer (still tweed) coat. It was rather dashing but I was slightly disappointed. I've spent all year convincing my boyfriend to buy a tweed jacket like the Doctors, and just as he buys a swell vintage one, the doctor dons a longer coat instead. I was more impressed with the dapper suit he changed into. I hope he keeps that one up. 

But on the down side, River Song/Melody Pond featured heavily. Firstly we saw her at 2nd regeneration, as Mel, Amy's best friend. Then she regenerates into the Riversong we all know. She and the Doctor indulge in some mind games, ending with River pointing a banana at his head. And she's even more of a slut. I don't understand why people went crazy about Hitler potentially featuring in a family show and yet no one ever complains at her promiscuous behaviour. Right in front of her parents she was girating the doctor, spreading her thighs and basically acting like a low class hooker. They should ground her there and then. It’s clear straight away that Melody Pond has been part of Rory and Amy’s life for far longer than either has realised. Specifically, in the form of Mels. Mel is the one who made Amy realise Rory wasn't in fact gay, but actually in love with her. The ultimate time paradox was created- not only did "Melody get her parents together- which sub-sequentially led to her own birth. But also Amy named her daughter after... well her daughter. It's all timey whimey confusing stuff. 

Many questions were answered, yes, River Song can regenerate, but she also gave the rest of her cycles away to save the Doctor and we learn where River Song got the diary. I think it's safe to conclude now that River is in prison for killing the doctor, and it's likely she is the one who killed him back in Utah. However, new questions were raised. It turns out the silence aren't a race, they are a religious order- so what were those creepy things in the impossible astronaut? There's the slight confusion that River Song is perceived to be a greater criminal than Hitler. And what is the Academy Of The Question? Also, how were the Doctor's regeneration's disabled? this implies something mechanical and is altogether quite confusing. And now the Doctor knows when he will really die, so it'll be interesting to see how his attitude will change now he believes to be living on borrowed time. (although I refuse to believe this is the end of Doctor Who)

Mark Gatiss has written the next episode- Night terror. And it looks unbelievably terrifying. But then again so did the trailer for the "rebel flesh" and that turned out to be a let down in the terror stakes. However, surely there is nothing more terrifying in the universe than a child's bedroom? Regardless, I'm so glad Dr Who is back in my life. I'm terribly sad but I enjoy my saturday nights with a takeaway, wine and Matt Smith. What more could a girl want? 

What if...

A level results day has got me thinking. Two years ago, I was fortunate enough to have no worries as I’d received an unconditional sholarship to Aberystwyth uni. I had personal reasons for wanting to move far away and the offer of 1000 pounds meant I was happy to settle for the small town. I guess I feared failure. I convinced myself I was better suited to a small town uni, being from one myself, rather than going for some where new, vibrant and exciting. 

Aberystywth uni is a very respectable uni and with entry grades of BBB you have to be reasonably intelligent to go there. It’s got an obscene amount of pubs but only two nightclubs. One is a tiny, grubby place full of tits and chavs, the other is much nicer but no one ever seems willing to pay for quality. I couldn’t be more sick of hearing students gush about “the aber bubble” and claiming they forget there’s a world outside the town. It makes me ever so claustrophobic.There are times I wish I’d tried for the uni’s I really wanted rather than take the easy route. I’d had my heart set on Bath or Bristol. I had applied to read literature and had been accepted and I was intending to do the GDL (a law conversion course) afterwards. I'm not sure why I am moaning about chavvy night clubs. My main beef with the uni is the crap the Law department has put us through and the fact I've met some proper arses there. I assumed a small, friendly town would have friendly people. Don't get me wrong, most of the people I know are lovely, especially the law students, it's almost like we have a bond- the bond of depression and hardship. But there have been some people who have managed to ruin the uni experience for me and make me loose my faith in humanity. So I guess that's why I'm so bitter about the place. I shouldn't be anymore though, i'm moving back to uni halls and so these people will be a distant memory come september. Perhaps i'll review the place in October with a more positive spin.

But I can’t complain, law at Aberystwyth is hard enough as it is. I met my wonderful boyfriend there and I’ve had some good times. I can imagine if I went somewhere more exciting I’d be partying too hard too study. I’ll be moving to either Chester or Bristol next year to do the Legal practise course so I will get a student life in a more vibrant environment, a taste of it at least. I'll probably realise it's not for me and then long for the quiet seaside town. 

Just a note

My deepest sypathies to all those students awaiting their results. I remember the pain & terror the night before a-level results, the sleepless night, tossing and turning, worrying about whether I'd got the grades to get into university... 

Just kidding. I had an unconditional scholarship.

I slept like a log beetches.