Calm down; Kate Moss also dresses like a wife
Kate Moss has, once again, done what she does best: insult the general public.
This time, she has taken her claws to married women, by stating, in an interview, that although British women show too much flesh, her husband would go ‘mental’ if she looked like a typical wife.
And the general public has also done what it does best: gasp in horror and take offence. Let’s be honest, it doesn’t take a lot, does it?
But girl-folk everywhere have criticised what they have taken to be a dig at married women.
So what exactly are you implying, Kate, in suggesting that we dress like ‘wives’? Forgive me for my ignorance, but I’m not even sure what that means anymore.
And not only am I not sure what that means anymore, but I was under the impression that, you, too, Mrs Hince, dress like a wife.
For if dressing like a ‘wife’ is supposed to conjure up a Stepford Wives image of modestly cute flowery dresses and the like, then Mrs Hince, I am afraid you are guilty as charged. For lest we forget the Pete Doherty era (2005-2007), in which tea dresses became your thing, so much so, even, that they made up an integral part of your Topshop range.
And what about your, perhaps less enviable, ‘heroin chic’ look which you so famously popularised? Do you really think you are the only ‘wife’ with this look? Nicole Richie, Victoria Beckham; both married.
Your hotly criticised love for animal fur? Unfortunately you are not alone. Jennifer Lopez, Kelis, Mary J Blige, Liz hurly, Madonna, Aretha Franklin; all fur-wearing wives/ex-wives.
Your obvious desperation to distance yourself from ‘dressing like a wife’ becomes obvious through your stating that you dress like a rock chick for your husband, as if this is the furthest thing from spouse-style. But need I remind you that both Pink and Avril Lavigne were both married?
And finally, you may think that by wearing cut-off denim shorts and flashing the flesh, there is absolutely no way that anybody could view you as a ‘wife’ through your fashion, but I hate to break it to you – Katie Price is about to embark on her third marriage.
So women everywhere, do not be insulted by Mrs Hince’s words. After all, when implying that we Brits ‘dress like wives’, she is obviously referring to our love of her Topshop and Mango collections.
David Cameron: A Prime example of an ordinary man
David thought she was with Samantha. Samantha thought she was with David. “Poor Nancy Cameron”, we all exclaimed, amidst wider concerns that this could prove embarrassing coming on the same day the government re-launched its troubled families programme.
Well, I say wider concerns. But let’s be honest; the majority of the comments following news that David Cameron left his eight-year-old daughter in a pub by accident have been mocking; at a push, satirical. We could not be happier that our Prime Minister has screwed up so royally, nor that this clearly proves his inadequacies as this country’s leader.
“It’s frightening the Prime Minister of Britain can forget something so important as his own daughter”, a pub insider said.
Really? Are we really going to use this isolated incident which, let’s be honest, many parents have been guilty of at least once, to judge his politics?
Any comparisons to the troubled families programme, which is meant to identify and help families that drain an estimated £9 billion a year from the taxpayer is frankly not only embarrassing but also devalues any other valid criticisms we have of him. Because many, quite rightly, complain that David Cameron is “out of touch” with the voters. The silver spoon he was born with has clearly been re-moulded into blinkers, as budgetary decisions which seem to reward the rich at the expense of the poor continue to perpetuate. It is no wonder, therefore, that his government has come under constant attack, not only from 82% of the voting public, but also from some of his very own backbenchers. Nadine Dorries, as an example, recently branded he and George Osborne as “two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition and no passion to want to understand the lives of others”.
The country has been divided between criticising and laughing at our Prime Minister, following pubgate. But what about finally treating him as the normal man we want him to be? By acting so disbelieving of what is little more than a simple human error, we are perpetuating the notion that he is superior to us. He is not. He is not superhuman, and whilst he may not have to worry about his own personal finances, his job description demands that he damn well worries about ours. Reminding him that this could, and does, happen to anyone, instead of keeping him up on the pedestal he seems to be afraid of descending might actually be beneficial for us in the long run.
The Diamond Jubilee: Another side to the Queen-imprinted coin
I never thought I’d write anything about the Jubilee. To be honest, while I am in no way anti the monarchy and do enjoy a spot of patriotism, I’m not all that bothered about the pomp and ceremony. I suppose you could say I am, and was, somewhat indifferent to the celebrations taking place across the UK in honour of the Queen’s 60th year on the throne.
But following the scandalous news to emerge yesterday surrounding the ‘Jubilee stewards’ who were made up of unpaid jobseekers on the government’s wok programme, I feel that any further indifference on my part would be unfair.
The government’s work programme contracts jobseekers out to various companies and charities, selling itself on the basis that it will provide invaluable skills to those out of work, thus increasing the likelihood of landing a secure job in the future. It is basically a glorified work-experience placement, except for the matter of it being a government-based initiative and the small payment allowed for by a jobseekers allowance.
And so, these stewards were ‘employed’ by security firm, Close Protection UK to sleep under London Bridge overnight, change into security gear in public, endure no access to toilets for 24 hours and work 14-hours straight in the pouring rain before being taken to a swampy campsite outside London, according to the Guardian.
Lord Prescott has since accused the government of ‘exploiting cheap labour’, and thus controversy has ensued. But whilst spokespeople from Downing Street have called it an ‘isolated incident’ and the treatment a ‘one off’, I beg to differ.
Unlike other critics, I do not know enough about the government’s work programme to judge it, and this blog is not intended to question it. But what I believe it does show, is that despite the Jubilee escalating this particular scandal into the public eye, the struggles of the vulnerable are not only not new, but also the struggles of us all.
We may read the stories with disgust, and sympathise emphatically with the exploited jobseekers. But before we sit on our proverbial throne and look down at these loyal subjects who helped provide us with the entertainment enjoyed by millions over the weekend, I think it’s high time that we realised the similarity of our own situation.
“UK business confidence on the wane, study shows”, one article read this week. Cuts are still rife, pension changes aplenty – the jubilations of this week may have served as a distraction, but do not be fooled – this country is still suffering from an economic downfall.
No one is sure exactly how much the Jubilee has cost yet, but we do know that at least £1m of public money, our money, has gone towards it, with further estimations that the extra bank holiday cost Britain’s economy £1.2bn.
We, too, are the stewards, propping the Queen’s celebrations up when we have very little ourselves. We, too, have been exploited, manipulated into thinking that it will be a worthy investment for the future, for our future.
But what investment for the future has it really given us, other than a few days of national pride? Most retail experts believe that, although the Jubilee may have been excellent for general confidence and ‘lifting the national mood’, it was not necessarily translated into money at the tills. Especially as analysts all seem to be in agreement that the economy is still down overall.
“The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee is a once in a lifetime celebration … but it is also an opportunity to showcase to the world the very best of London and the UK”, said a spokesperson from the Department of Culture Media and Sport. Just like the ‘one off’ scandalous treatment of the unpaid jobseekers - once again, it simply comes down to showcasing that which we do not have.
Am I anti-monarchist? Of course not. Do I resent the Jubilee celebrations? Heaven forbid. But maybe it’s about time we start facing up to our reality and act within our means, instead of hiding behind the sparkle of some diamonds. After all, the sooner we accept it, the sooner we can change it.
The curse of the green-eyed monster
Being a celebrity nowadays is not what it used to be. You are no longer famous for a single talent, but a multitude of them. Even if you break into the scene as a singer, within the year you can be sure to have added dancer, actress, perfume creator and clothes designer to your CV.
But if this is mildly cute to some, annoying to others, it’s nothing compared to other aspects of society which seem to be following in its footsteps.
I was horrified to discover this week, on booking a flight through Easyjet, that the popular airline, well-loved for its ‘cheap’ prices, has started charging extra for a piece of checked in luggage. I mean really! Could it not just stick to what it does best and provide budget prices for a budget experience?
And that’s not all.
Facebook, of the social networking fame, has decided to turn its talents to creating its very own smartphone. Aside from the obvious criticisms surround the questionable privacy lax (I mean, could you really imagine entrusting your offline, as well as your online life, to the internet giant notorious for its lack of boundaries), it is frankly just unnecessary.
But even this is not the worst it gets. Because doctors have announced that they are to be the latest group of unhappy professionals to go on strike, in defence of their £50k pensions.
It seems that everyone wants to do everything, wants to own everything. It’s a simple case of greed, but ultimately comes down to borrowing what we don’t have – be it money or skills. Universal celebrity: just because you can sing, does not mean you can design clothes. Easyjet: just because you’ve dominated a large part of the airline market, does not mean that your customers will stay loyal to you if you start charging more. Facebook: we love you for what you have given us, but we’ve been coping just fine without you in the smartphone arena, really. And doctors, arguably the most serious of all: we are clearly not in the economic situation to be providing you with £50k+ pensions at the moment, and quite frankly, I’d count your chickens if I were you - many people don’t even earn half of what your pension allows for.
I can see why, in this day and age, everyone is scrambling to count the pennies. But ultimately, it will simply just damage the brand in the long run, not to mention the patients who will have to suffer without a doctor for the day. Kind of questions the drive behind why they do what they do, doesn’t it?
Let us not forget how we got into this situation in the first place.