The Weight Debate

Having been mute for quite a while, I read something earlier that intrigued me and I decided to pipe up.

TOPSHOP was earlier forced to remove a particular photograph of one of their models from their website, after backlash from eating disorder groups.

I have to say, after learning this model was a size 8 I was fairly shocked. Either my idea of shapes and clothes sizes is warped, this photograph has been severely photo-shopped or the angle of the camera has captured the model in the wrong lighting. Having been taken by a pro for a widely-visited website, however, I'm of the opinion it has been photo-shopped. But why? What is it that Topshop are trying to promote with that image, exactly?

Before I go any further, I would just like to state that despite being a size 12 with the desire to being a size 10 again, I will not be sitting here slandering the slimmer models. People are quick to slag off campaigns with 'skinny models', and I am not naive to the fact that there are some pretty ill-looking girls on the catwalks, but what about when we're talking about naturally thin girls with a healthy appetite and an interesting look to her? Should she be ostracized for her size and cast aside, for fear of healthy groups going mad? I know some beautiful, slim girls, one of whom is fondly termed as the 'human dustbin' and if she's reading this now I hope she'll smile, who have just as much right to live their lives in piece without being scrutinized and publicly lashed. Eliminating the percentage of people who simply have no empathy or common decency, you wouldn't publicly criticize a plus-size model for shedding her clothes.(Beth Ditto, the voice behind The Gossip, was praised for her decision to pose naked for a magazine for 'shedding her weight-issues and leading the way for all plus-size women'. Go her.) People tend to embrace it, regardless of whether they avert their eyes or push away their forks at the mere sight, they do at least accept it. You wouldn't find it fair or courteous to brand a person fat for all to see, so how can it be any less hurtful for those who are branded 'skinny'?

It's the media's ability to make everybody appear slimmer, thus the public want to BE slimmer, thus sympathy for those who are branded 'too skinny', however untrue or hurtful, is few and far between.

I have a younger sister who is nineteen. She has a beautiful, slender figure. She has a stomach as flat as a pancake, yet she has hips and she has shape. Growing up, as the sister slowest to develop, she was often called (not by me, I should add) names such as 'scrawny' and 'skinny-ring-ting' and so on and so forth. She still harbours insecurities about her slim figure to this day, while I continue to envy her for it. On the other hand, I have a brother who was 'a bit on the chubby side' growing up, yet nobody 'had the heart' to tell him so. It was deemed 'rude' and 'unkind' to state the obvious in this particular case.

The girl from this particular photo is a size 8. That is not too skinny at all. I daresay she sits at the table with her family most Sundays and gorges on a plate of roast potatoes and lamb.

Groups have slammed Topshop further for simply changing the image, and not the model. This is an absolute outrage. How dare they speak out so negatively about a girl whose only 'fault' is that she is slim? How many of our friends do we hang around with the same size that we do not question or interrogate about eating habits?

Topshop's crime was to photoshop this image to within an inch of its life, distorting this model's features and making her appear skeletal. The newer image Topshop released in its place depicts a much fresher-faced, healthier looking girl...regardless of her being slim.

I do understand the importance of taking responsibility for the influence models, advertising, retailers, etc has on young girls and women everywhere, but I fear people are beginning to lose sight of the line and are now querying every naturally-slim woman in the public eye.

There are enough insecure girls in this world, whether they be slim or plus-size, without groups and campaigns sticking their ore in.

Naomi's latest disgrace.

In my eyes, Naomi Campbell has always been a spoilt brat, whose ego far exceeds her actual 'talent'. Having been clouded with bad coverage over the years, ranging from diva tantrums, public brawls to physical attacks on her staff,and her possession of blood diamonds that she claimed, falsely, she had no idea about, I thought Naomi could sink no lower.

I then read about Naomi's apparent fury about Cadbury's newest advert, branding them racist.

The 39 year-old supermodel is supposedly offended that the chocolate company used her name in an ad for their Dairy Milk Bliss bar.

Speaking directly to The Independent of her shock and upset to be 'described as chocolate, not just for herself but for all black women and black people', she is reportedly considering 'every option available' after Cadbury initially refused to block the ad.

Activist groups in the U.K are said to be calling for a boycott on the brand; a ludicrous attempt to exempt the long-standing chocolate company from the market.

Is it me, or does this just scream 'attention-seeking' and 'I haven't done any projects lately, what an easy way to make some cash'?

I can't condone racism, but I also can't stand it when the term is used for actions that clearly aren't racist.

It becomes a sad day when marketing groups have to pull good adverts or review projects, purely on the basis that somebody may cry 'racist'.

It's clearly not a racist or vindictive advert, merely highlighting a well-known fact that Naomi Campbell is a control-freak, over-paid diva, and using it to invoke humour and familiarity within an advertising campaign.

A spokesperson for Cadbury insists that even though the ad was a 'light-hearted take on the social pretensions of Cadbury Dairy Milk Bliss, the ad was no longer in circulation'.

Had the ad been based on white chocolate, Naomi would not have a leg to stand on and everybody would see it as a dig at her bad publicity and image, but instead of seeing the humour in it, she thought straight away of colour. Surely by making these ads, the company itself is reflecting the lack of thought they put into skin-tone and colour and more the idea of familiarising the hottest new snack to one of the world's hottest super-stars, and Naomi is being over-sensitive.

If Cadbury had any idea of the allegations that could have been made against them, I'm sure several of their officials wouldn't have given it the green light.

"Racism in the playground starts with black children being called 'chocolate bar'. At best, this is insensitive, and at worst it demonstrates Cadbury's utter disregard for causing offence," a member of the Operation Black Vote said. "Its lack of apology just adds insult to injury. The Eurocentric joke is not funny to black people."

I have run this storyline past black, white and asian friends, all of whom have sputtered at the sheer indignity of her reaction to what the majority of us see as another one of Cadbury's 'weird, yet wonderful' adverts.

In hind-sight, with so much political correctness flying around, it surprises me that Cadbury did not foresee this. Whether they were oblivious to the scandal it could cause, or indifferent to it due to the innocent view in which they were conducting it, it was clearly a mistake they must now deal with.

In other news, Lewis Hamilton has also apologised for his 'maybe it's because I'm black' quip, quoting a famous Ali-G slogan, when speaking of the stewards' decision to penalise him twice.

What's with all the sensitivity? It was clearly said in jest, and like Cadbury's, a foolish judgement on his part to make such a comment. Having cameras in your face, the adrenaline of just racing, not to mention the emotions he was feeling at the time, makes us all awkward at times, often resulting in saying the wrong thing.

If surrounded by friends, he would probably have been comfortable with joking about something similar to this, as many people of black origin do. It was naive of him to believe he could approach the public with the same light-hearted attitude, but that was his only crime.

The public can't critisize Naomi Campbell, which they have, for being 'too sensitive' and in the same breath condemn Lewis Hamilton for being the opposite.

Both Cadbury and Lewis Hamilton have acted foolishly, but it comes down to us as a society that issues like these are still raised.

Race Scandal

Celebrity hair-stylist James Brown yesterday apologised for a drunken, racist rant at a TV host.

James Brown had recently taken to the screen as mentor for E4's 'The Great British Hairdresser', but following his actions, E4 may want to review their decision to work with him in the future. In my opinion, his behaviour displays nothing relating to the words 'great' or 'British'.

Having seen his attitude and bitchy demeanor throughout the series, I had already decided that I wasn't keen on Brown. I understand that Fashion and Beauty is a cut-throat industry where opinions and facts are told brusquely everyday, but I think he put himself across as nothing short of ill-mannered and, to a point, relatively two-faced in numerous situations.

As well as being a celebrity Hair Stylist, he is also a 'close associate' of Kate Moss, and is clearly a second-rate celebrity eager to cling on to anybody famous.

On the night in question, Brown verbally attacked his then friend, Ben Douglas, by calling him a 'n****r's bitch'. He repeatedly used the N-word and drew attention to the fact that Ben was insulted by it.

The incident took place at the Bafta TV Awards, making this shameful act even more audacious; not only was this person able to use such vocabularly, he did it publicly, uncaring as to the ugly scene he had created.

After Ben refused to name the 'star' following the incident, Brown 'came clean' on Twitter, making a full apology for his actions.

He blamed his apparent 'issues with alcohol' for which he would seek immediate, professional help. He described the attack as an 'eye-opener' to his drinking problem and told how he was embarrassed and ashamed by his actions.

This is all bollocks, of course. Vocabulary as vile as that doesn't just appear from nowhere, intoxicated or not. I have been drunk on numerous occasions, and I have used language that I'm not proud of, but I have never been racist, sexist or discrimatory in any way. If you're not familiar with using racist terms, you will never 'accidentally' let slip racist terms when drunk. Simple as.

Typically, Brown immediately defended his actions by insisting that he had black friends, whom he referred to as 'brothers', a common slang term used for black men, and that members of his family had married into the black community.

So what? I am mixed-race but I know for a fact that certain family members are, if not racist towards the black and asian community, then down-right ignorant towards them and their culture. We all have associates or are connected to various races in some way or another, and to use these as an example of not being racist is ridiculous as well as insulting.

E4 should severe all ties with this loud-mouthed, ill-behaved racist, if only to put across the right message to viewers. The rules should be the same across the scope of Show Business and celebrity, and if Andy Gray can be sacked for his sexist comments live on air during a football match, then James Brown should be handed the same fate for publicly being racist at one of Television's most appraised and prestigious programmes.

It's just another display of selfish, irresponsible 'celebrities' with too many freebies and not enough reprimand.

As for his 'apology', I think somebody ought to show him the meaning of the word in the dictionary. Tweeting about how sorry he is, is not my idea of an apology and he should be focused on apologising directly to the only person who matters in this vindictive story-line- Ben Douglas.

His tweets tell me he is more concerned with saving face and his career, than the actual hurt and disgust he has caused many people who witnessed or read about the event afterwards.

Has the whole world gone mad?!

Apparently, Vin Diesel has announced on Facebook that a sequel to 'The Chronicles of Riddick' could shoot as early as this Summer. The only 'set-back' is that Diesel will have to accept a pay-cut.

He explained that in order to make a true R-rated film, he must work for scale upfront.

This means that he will receive minimum wage, as well as whatever profit share his agent is willing to negotiate. If the film's budget is over 1.3 million, which it is expected to be, the minimum wage for an actor is £1,200 a week. Diesel has been quick to complain that his new wage paled in comparison to his usual salary, £9 million per movie.

Critics are calling it a 'gamble' for the actor, who may not profit from the new movie at all, but those closest to him within the industry have urged him to focus on the success stories from those who have taken the same route in the past.

Vin Diesel posted on Facebook: 'Grrrrr.[David Twohy] the writer/director just landed in New York with the good news. We can start filming this summer. However, there is a catch...in order for us to make a true R-rated film, I must work for scale upfront.'

I don't know about you guys, but I personally could do without reading stories like these. His £1,200 a week salary PALED compared to his £9 million per movie basic? I can understand this is a huge drop for an established actor, but it pains me to see such advanced pay-cheques for actors, footballers and such when the rest of us have to struggle to work our way to the top.

It reminds me of a story by Ashley Cole, now famously known as Cashly Cole, who openly complained about being paid less than the rest of his team-mates. This was a big error. We all want to be paid the same as our colleagues, but in a world where a woman is paid considerably less for doing the same job as a man and a footballer can be paid millions for kicking a ball around when a nurse is paid a pittance in comparison, I'm afraid there is just no room for sympathy when it comes to these selfish, over-paid 'super-stars'.

Vin Diesel ought to feel ashamed of himself, not to mention down-right foolish, for believing he would receive good coverage by notifying the world of his 'pay-cut'. What did he aim to achieve, exactly? Those on his Facebook are either fellow show-business friends or world-wide fans. Did he really expect to gain sympathy from either? Did he think that by making a point of it he was putting himself across as self-less, happy to receive a cut in order to produce a good film? I admire his passion for the sequel, as few actors would subsequently halve their own pay-packets for the sake of a film, but I still disagree with his decision to broadcast it.

It's a slap in the face for those of us who can only ever dream of earning that much.

It's a slap in the face for me, particularly, who is having to work for free in order to get a step closer to my dream job. Who is having to cut back on my own hours at Pizza Express and be paid considerably less, just to get a sniff at the industry I am so desperate to work for, all the while paying out of my own pocket to travel to and from Richmond.

It's an insult to nurses who are working around the clock, after spending years specialising in their preferred subject, saving lives for just a percentage of what entertainers are paid.

It's a joke to anybody in public services who risk their own lives for the sake of ours, every single day.

It's all common knowledge that the system is wrong; that show-business will always pay more due to the consumer society that we are.

It's no revelation that the balance is wrong and unfair.

But then one day, you get one spoilt, over-paid super-star who is happy to whine about income to the rest of us and it will just unleash a kind of hatred you never knew you possessed.

Well, that's what happened to me anyway.

I did see a story that lightened my mood, though. Keanu Reeves, the protagonist in 'The Matrix', chose a profit-share payment for the sequels of the blockbuster hit. It apparently allowed for more of the budget to be invested into the special effects. That's what I call pure commitment and passion for a film. It was also alleged that after the film was made, Reeves donated £30.6 million of his £43 million pay-cheque to the special effects team and, as a result, each member earned an estimated £1 million for their involvement in the film.

That's the kind of story that I like to read.

Cheryl Cole Vs Simon Cowell

I hate to jump onto the band-wagon for this tedious story-line that has corrupted our tabloid newspapers for three days running, but with it being the talk of the office as well as, it would seem, the entire country, I find sharing my own opinion hard to resist.

Cheryl Cole shot to fame as part of the UK's biggest girl-band, Girls Aloud,and upon their withdrawal from the music scene, she was hand-picked to be a judge for one of the country's biggest television programmes, The X Factor. Nice timing, it would seem. From there, through her own actions, she has become the Nation's Sweetheart. The X Factor, and being famously cheated on by her footballer ex-husband, Ashley Cole, helped her to warm the hearts of those who tuned in to watch the show. She was, it was repeatedly said, a role model for those who came from an under-privilidged background and a young girl whom others could relate to. Having appeared on Piers Morgan's show, she gave a heart-felt rendition of the events that had turned her world upside down, further solidifying her image as the 'girl next door'.

Following her success on the screen, she was snapped up by Loreal and has since been seen in shampoo and make-up adverts.

Rumours of her insecurities surrounding being temporarily replaced by pop-sensation Nicole Sherzinger, while she battled with Malaria, also helped women everywhere to relate to this young woman. No matter how many lads-mags you pose for, or how many times you win beauty-polls etc, you will always have certain insecurities and you will never be immune to adultery.

Being snapped up by names such as Will.I.AM also indicate that yes, although having mediocre talent when it comes to singing, she is clearly able to form relationships with the right people. Looks go a long way, but her personality must have shone through to be picked out of the vast competition, and Simon Cowell saw something in her that he knew the public would love.

Her rocky relationship, her alleged spats with fellow band-mates and her tendancy to speak her mind, often resulting in well-known rivalries, provided a stronger, sassier side to her vulnerable, sweet-natured image.

I don't doubt her actions have been nothing short of honest, and from the appearances I have seen her in, I have thought her to be genuine. This is all relative, however, because I, like most people, have derived my opinion through the Media and through television appearances.

This 'X Factor Row' has been embellished considerably, with quotes from 'family friends' here, there and everywhere, and although Cheryl Cole has had a big impact on The X Factor, surely she shouldn't be worthy of such a big up-roar?

In the same week that Cheryl was 'dropped' by Simon, so was Danni Minogue. Just for the record, Danni was proven to be the public's favourite judge out of the four of them, and yet there has been hardly any coverage of her dismissal in comparison to Cheryl's.

Danni Minogue was at the centre of a similar 'X-Factor' storm some years back, when Simon opted for her over her predessor, Sharon Osbourne. Recently, the tables were turned when her status as a judge was threatened with the arrival of her younger, prettier fellow judge, Cheryl.

Now there are allegations that a feud has erupted between Cheryl and Danni, over rumours that Cheryl failed to alert Danni of her up-coming dismissal.

Newspapers everywhere are having a field-day.

Although Simon formed a 'friendship' with the Nation's Sweetheart, and had supposedly taken on the role as her 'mentor', Cheryl Cole is a big girl and can surely handle whatever comes her way. She was privilidged enough to have been selected for the US version of X Factor, having seen Dermot O'Leary snubbed in favour of a bigger name. Issues such as her accent were risks in Simon's eyes, but he decided to give her a chance anyway.

In earlier years, he publicly dropped his longest associate in the music business, Louis Walsh, for fear that he was 'losing touch' with the audience. Cheryl can hardly feel like a victim, when his actions mirror earlier decisions he has chosen to make for the sake of his own career.

The fact is, Cheryl Cole, although already established in the music scene, is where she is today because of Simon Cowell. He provided her with a stage to shine on, as an individual, which she did. But her talents, personality, shine, or whatever it was that the UK loved, couldn't stretch to as far as the US. Simple as.

Simon Cowell is a business-man, who sees pound signs in whatever talent he comes across. He is shrewd wherever nessecary, and he does what he has to in order to succeed and to keep his hard-earned assets and businesses going.

We all saw his hatred for Jedward, but he soon cottoned on to the amount of money they could make for him and towards the end of the show we saw him relenting from his usual critisism and warming towards the 'entertainment' they provided the nation.

In recent news, US X-Factor was still considered to have been a success, regardless of the press concerning Cherly's drop, so it's no wonder Simon hasn't been affected by it all.

And as for Cheryl Cole, I'm sure this coverage will further cement the UK's adoration for her. Once again, she has been depicted as the 'victim' and has reportedly flown home to be comforted by friends and family. The latest row tells how she may be refusing to join the UK panelist, but that would be foolish. Don't let emotions get in the way of business, in a cut-throat industry where 'friends' back-stab on a daily basis, and put on that much-loved smile for the UK, high-lighting that America's loss is our gain.

She should use this as a way to show that, yet again, she has 'bounced back' instead of staying behind closed doors.

If she's not careful, the public will tire of her 'victim' status and begin to wonder why these so-called bad things happen to her in the first place.

The 'Angry Londoners' Commute

Due to start work at 10.00am, I left the house at ten to nine to pursue my forty minute train journey to work. On the way there, I was confronted with what can only be described as 'the angry Londoner's commute'. Commuters jostled by me, not looking back as they barged me out of their paths, thrusting their tickets or slamming their Oyster cards on the scanner. I won't critisise; I too will be that angry commuter if, God willing, I get a job in London. Cramming together on the platform as the train snaked its way towards us, we were like a pack of hungry wolves awaiting our prey. I held back; it was my first day and I wasn't about to turn up half-dead and trampled by a percentage of the Capital's population.

Unsurprisingly, I didn't get a seat. I stood by the doors, leaning against the window, with my book in my hand. What sickened me, however, was the amount of suits, all pompous and self-important, sitting up straight and without shame as an elderly woman struggled to stand as the train shot towards Clapham Junction. Some ducked their heads behind The Metro, feigning ignorance at her existence. Her thin, wispy hands clung tightly to the rail in front of us, and I had an over-whelming desire to hold her up straight just so that she could relax her frail arms. I stopped her from falling as the train swayed and she lost her footing, and in doing so, I shot the filthiest glance I could muster at the nearest man sitting down, young and fit and more than able to stand.

I've seen a lot of things in my time, but I haven't felt loathing like that in a long time. The little old dear looked as though she may have collapsed at any moment and when she got off at Richmond, the same stop as me, I had to physically stand up straight around her, her protector if you will, to keep from others pushing into her. I left that train with no faith in humanity whatsoever, and I felt reluctant to turn in the opposite direction when she turned right and headed towards the suburban area of Richmond.

It has to be said that the daily commute brings out the devil inside all of us. I've seen people trample on children just to catch the train (slight exaggeration here, but still it's vaguely true). And the Tube. What the hell is that all about? People lunge themselves into those things as though another isn't due for at least four hours. I take one look at the sweaty, packed out train, people's cheeks pressed to the glass and their body parts all mangled and think, 'fuck this, I'll wait two minutes for the next one'. I don't iron my clothes in the morning just for some moron to come and sit on my lap or trample the bottoms of my trousers.

Today, on my way home from Richmond, I attempted to push my way towards the doors as the train approached Clapham Junction, my stop. The doors opened and nobody gave way. I made to squeeze through the shoulders and legs in front of me, but I became jammed, and the owners of these body parts continued to chew gum or listen to their i-pods, oblivious to my being stuck between them. I tried, in vain, to reach the doors before they closed once more and my protests went unnoticed until it was too late. The train began to move again, taking me further towards central London, effectively adding at least twenty minutes to my journey home. The fury omitting from me must have been evident; I failed to catch the eyes of the two imbociles who had held me back through their sheer incompetence, instead they chose to look away, unwilling to negotiate in confrontation. The lack of recognition for their actions infuriated me even more. Was an apology really that difficult to muster? I'm no amateur to it all; I've had my fair share of commuting via train to get to work and back, but I haven't lost the manners and the general good-will towards other human beings in doing so. Perhaps it takes a few years of doing so to harber this attribute, but it's something I hope I can hold off for as long as I can.
And that's another thing. What is so difficult about merely acknowledging somebody else's existence? When a commuter knocks a bag flying, why can't they spare two seconds to turn around and apologise?
If a lady in a wheelchair is being helped off of the train, as I witnessed on my way to work this morning, why would you gather around impatiently, checking your watches and making angry comments at those merely trying to get on with their lives with no intention of holding you up for the three moments of your life that they dare to exist.

Once, when I was in London, a train had been delayed due to somebody falling onto the tracks in front of in-coming train. The delay was forty-five minutes, and people all around me were angrily stomping around, complaining at the ticket-office and demanding refunds. I simply took out my phone, called my manager at work and explained the situation. I cannot condone or begin to comprehend the sheer obscenity of complaining at such a time. A man had fallen. FALLEN. Not jumped, but fallen. He, too, may have been trying to get to work. He, too, had a life and was on his way somewhere. But now he was dead. And somebody would have to inform his family, somewhere, that their son, husband or daddy was never coming home. Yet people on their way to work were acting as though the end of the world had presented itself, because of the loss of just forty-five minutes. Disgraceful.

Being impatient, irritable, or even down-right ratty after work is understandable, and I can vouch for this feeling when I'm heading back to Surbiton after a long day anywhere, let alone a nine-hour shift in front of a computer screen, but to be completely exempt of general courtesy and manners is inexcusable, and if you have to take it out on anybody, it should be somebody your own size. Not a girl who is half your age and size who is just trying to make it to her first day of placement. So if you happen to be the arsehole whose elbow caught me in the face this morning and you're reading this, I hope you managed to get to wherever you were in such a rush to get to, on time. I hope it wasn't work because you looked like shit and your shoes weren't even clean.

So yes. When you're travelling, do try to bear in mind that others exist around you.

And if there's a frail old lady who can't stand up, give her your bloody seat.

Rant Over.

The choices we make

While I have been flitting between placements and Pizza Express, my vain attempt at getting a job with my 'mickey-mouse' degree, my boyfriend's sister was clinching the step on the ladder to her own career. With exams due to be sat in June, and Graduation still looming, she has somehow managed to be one of the few graduates who can walk straight into a career upon leaving University.

Of course I was over the moon, and later on in the day when I was speaking to a friend,a fellow graduate, I told her.

'Lucky cow,' my friend said, genuinely annoyed at one person's success, due to the fact that she herself was still struggling to find a job.

I pondered this later; was my friend really justified to be this agitated or was it simply a case of 'better degree, better chance'?

Arti, Jaimin's sister, has dedicated three years of University to Optometry, a specific Medicine course specialising in eye-care. She teamed this with a Management course, with the ambition to one day own and run her own business. Clever girl.

This brings me back to my musings in an earlier Blog.

I wouldn't dream of slandering courses that the media term as 'mickey-mouse' or 'irrelevant', such as Media Studies or Fashion. What I will say, however, is that out of the hundreds of graduates unable to find a job, only a small percentage of these have a degree in Medicine.

I graduated almost a year ago in a course that I chose and that I loved. In High School I loved English and Science, both of which I excelled in, but my true calling was writing. I dreamt of being an Author. Later on I would decide that I wanted to be a Magazine Editor, with no idea of the cut-throat industry that Magazine Journalism is.

My parents have always supported everything I have ever wanted to do. When I told them I would be studying English instead of Science, they encouraged me. They saw a talent in me and they urged me to pursue my dream.

But is this support right? Or is it naive? I don't wish to judge or criticize my parents' decision or attitude towards my education, but as a woman with experience on her side, I can't help but feel I should have been pushed into studying a more 'specified' course, with a higher employment rate.

I won't blame anybody but myself for the choices I have made, and I don't regret the degree I chose to do, but I can't help but wish I opted for the easier choice.

Whenever I feel this way, however, I am confronted with somebody with a similar degree to my own who seems to be getting closer to their goal. This urges me to be positive.

My boyfriend's housemate, Charlotte, has a boyfriend who studied Journalism. After a long, agonizing wait, he is now set to do placements both in The Independent and in The Guardian. Just in case you hadn't cottoned on, this is a big deal and will more than likely help him get a job immediately afterwards.

So all is not lost for those of us who have chosen a less prestigious degree than Law or Medicine, I guess.

Then there is the case of my boyfriend who, infuriatingly, dropped out of University and gained no qualifications. He was able to display solid work experience on his CV and managed to get a good job as an Account Manager for an IT distribution firm in London; it raises the very good point that Education is not for everybody and that some people have the ability to work their way up rather than study. I chose to study and I am now having to work for free for a number of months before I can get a whiff of a good job.

Go figure.

But to end on a high note, I am still, regardless of my own situation, thrilled to pieces for Arti who has, through her own choices and actions, managed to grab her career by the reins before graduating from University. Hers should be something others aspire to and I hope my children, when the time comes, are able to look up to her and do the same thing.




For more about this topic find my earlier Blog, 'The Forgotten Generation'.