is it?

nothing here suggests it's an introductory offer.

I bought 20 rolls of 36 exp Kodak Roal Supra Gold for ?32 which is ?1.60 per
roll.
The postage was 1.95 for the lot.

Several reasons.

1. I like the mechanicality of a film camera. No "Menu/Set" "<" ">"
buttons, no LCD. I prefer turning the aperture dial on the lens
directly rather than having to go through an "interface" thingie.
2. Even a quality compact like a Minox GT-E, with an over 80 lpmm
sharp lens and a good technique (f8, minitripod.. etc), at under
200gms of weight and a small size that makes it easily pocketable,
with a quality fine grained film, produce images that if needed can be
film-scanned at 4000 dpi or more, beating most digital cameras if not
all. I like the comfort in trusting my image to photochemical
molecules rather than manufactured pixels, and the knowledge that i
can get more out of it either now profesionally or in the future as
affordable scanner technology gets better. With a 5 or 6 megapixel
camera that's all you'll ever get out of it. My quality compact 35mm
at £100 can give me 10 megapixels and my Fuji GA645 at £300 can give
me 30 megapixels. I can concentrate on my photography and don't worry
much about gear for a long time.
3. I don't have to worry about batteries and their recharging. A
battery in a mechanical camera lasts for a very long time and so does
a film. I'm almost always ready to pick the camera and go out whenever
i want to, or if it's in my belt pouch and there comes a photo
opporutnity i just reach for it and click. It's true that i'd only
have 36 images on a film inside it but same argument applies to
digital camera and its memory capacity. With a camera i'll take
another film with me and just walk out, heck, i'll take 10 if i need
to, it only costs a little over a £1 per film, not same with digital,
how many memory chips do you need to shoot at film's equivalent in
resolution and how much does each cost?
4. I had a digital camera for 2 years now and i found it totally
uninspiring. It sat in the drawer msot of the time. I don't know what
it is but there's something about film that feels more real.
5. My film cameras are classic and compelling in their design and
beauty. I love to own them and hold them and use them. I am yet to
find a compelling digital camera that i could like as much. I have an
olympus XA that i've been wanting to put on ebay since i have too many
quality compacts and the olympus is relatively inferior but it's been
quite difficult to part with it. Not same with any current or past
digital camera. They also (film cameras) depreciate less as most are
bought by collectors and enthausiasts; who else would buy a 1979
camera with manual aperture/focus/advance/winder/asa?
6. I love the discipline that film requires. Shoot less and think more
about each shot. Not same with digital.
7. film is a great archival medium. It lasts a long long time. Not so
with digital. I would argue that a film bought at £1 (superia xtra
100) and developed for another £1 from truprint (it's good enough)
would be a better than an equivalent resolution digital (huge files)
stored on archival grade CDs (not cheap and yet less durable and
proven than film). Film has lasted for decades, "CD rot" or CDs
becoming unreadable is very common.
8. film doesn't require a computer. I do have a computer but i prefer
my photography as a hobby to be associated with healthier outdoor
activities like phototrekking than be dependent on spending time on a
computer.
9. I like the fact that sometimes i can forget what images i took a
fortnight or more ago and when i get them in the post i'm pleasantly
reminded. Using a 1-hour lab is costly, unnecessary and unsatisfying;
it just feels like a premature ejaculation.

I can have more reasons... but these are enough for now