Celebrity marriage problems: are they any of our business?

As a nation, why are we so obsessed with the world of celebrity affairs and divorce? Are we finding a way of escapism from our own sometimes mundane lives, or is it the more slightly voyeuristic side to our personalities that love prying into other people’s business?

The press give us coverage of the times Kate Moss goes to a party or an MP is found to be doing something normal. Do we really care? They seem to think we do, that's why it makes the front pages. Can I just point out right now that celebs are human too, they are (mostly) not some kind of awe inspiring entity that makes it right to follow them around while they eat, chat to friends and just generally try and live a normal life outside of work. Because let’s face it when they’re not promoting, filming, on telly, modelling, in commons, playing a sport, making music etc they are trying to take on some wind down time like the rest of us.

Every time Kylie set foot out her front door, then there are the paps, the pictures end up in the Mail where they don’t really have a story to write about, but just comment on what she is wearing or how tired she may be looking.

The whole John Terry saga made me realise that the public take too much pleasure in berating someone in the public eye before any of the real facts are known. Yes, we know John Terry had an affair, that much is clear, but why was nothing else made of the fact that the person he was having an affair with – Vanessa Perroncel – has generally worked her way around the married ex players of the Chelsea team?

I’m not for a second saying that John Terry has the butter wouldn’t melt look about him, but what about her? It takes two to tango. Other than those juicy bits of gossip we have nothing else to go on about why and how the situation unfolded, how both parties felt and even if the whole mess is entirely true. Why? Because no parties have said a thing or set any record straight, we therefore do not know what really went on, but are made to speculate.

The whole ‘affairgate’ has been splashed around with no concern for both party’s families, the team mates of JT and Wayne Bridge and also the World Cup preparations – do the press not want the team to be focused come South Africa? Anyway, across the gossip columns today was the happy couple – JT and Toni all smiles having worked things out in Dubai. Good. We are not to judge her decision as we don’t know the couple. Hopefully a line is now drawn under this and captainless Terry can now focus on his job as a footballer.

But wait, what’s this today? Ashley Cole has apparently now done the dirty on Cheryl. Does Cheryl know about this or is she to find out about it in the papers like us? So the press are going on the say so of the secretary he was supposedly bedding. Right OK, call me a cynic, but becoming a WAG, or bedding a footballer and selling the story is big money, some girls will stop at nothing to get a slice of the action. Who are we to say that this is how it happened or whether it’s fair for Ashley to be portrayed as a ‘scumbag’. This again focuses on another star player of the Chelsea and England team before vital matches.

As a woman and a football fan, I am disgusted by the apparent behaviour of quite a few members of the England football team. However, as a football fan, I believe that the players should be left to play. John Terry and Ashley Cole are both world class players and their football does the talking on the pitch. Many men are found out the be cheating every day, some more high profile than footballers, normal men do it too - this is a factor in why the divorce rate in the UK is so high.

I believe the sooner we stop glamourising the world of footballers and WAGS these kind of sensationalist stories will stop.

Do think tanks ever think about the consequences?

Two news stories have bemused me this week and both have come from reports from think tanks.

The first was reported on Timesonline on Thursday. The think-tank Policy Exchange announced that middle class parents should be forced to put up their house as collateral against their children's student loans. In addition, they also suggested an interest charging private loans scheme for wealthy students which would be repaid when they left university, rather than when they reach the earnings threshold.

Two things come to mind when I read this story. Firstly, who are they to judge who is a middle class parent or wealthy student, and secondly, in this age of recession and record house repossessions, what if the so-called middle class parents are renting a house?

Not content with brandishing class tags on families, the think tank also said that tuition fees must rise to £5,000 a year "in order to protect the quality of universities", or rather, what I personally believe, to plug the gap in spending scaled back by the government.

Surely if this think tank's plans were taken seriously, it would just be an excuse for universities to attract more foreign students as they are 'lucrative buisness'. It is disgraceful that foreign students are charged so much anyway when they are just doing the same course and same work as the rest of the student body.

Here's an idea: instead of worrying about maintaining the quality of universities do something about it. There are numerous course and subjects at university which have a reputation of being the 'easy way out' while the student decides what they want to do with his or her life. A good portion of these students will go through three years of university with doing just enough work to get by and turning up to just enough lectures to avoid getting kicked off the course. Why not prevent these people from going to university in the first place and attract those who really want to?

The UK could even adopt systems like that of other countries. In Brazil only those who pass an entrance exam are admitted and receive free education. In Italy students pay low tuition fees and are based on the wealth of a family. they acitively encourage children from porr families to go with scholarships handed out in different regions. This is all, of course, based on working hard.

Excuse me for pointing this out, but the decision on whether children go to university or not should not be decided on a class or wealth system, but whether they are intelligent and wish to do a course that could benefit both them and the economy.

The second think tank story I came across was today on the BBC News website. A think tank has said that the working week should be cut to 21 hours to help boost the economy and improve quality of life. it is claimed that the reduction in hours of work would help to ease unemployment and overwork.

Now, I'm not saying for a second that the people at the New Economics Foundation are a bunch of work shy so and so's, but how an earth do they envisage working less will help heal the economy?

The average working week is 37.5 hours so if this is cut down to 21 hours a week, people will on average, not be working for about a third of the year, which means a hefty chunk out of the pay packet. What do people do when they realise they don't have enough to live? That's right, they find an additional job. This will take you back to square one with unemployment figures. In addition, if people are out of work will they all necessarily have the skill set to fill the new vacancies by those working 21 hours a week?

The recession in this country hit the manufacturing and construction industries the hardest with over 115,000 jobs lost in the first three quarters of 2009 alone. I can't imagine someone with manual skills wanting to sit at a desk in a suit all day attempting to sell somebody life insurance.

It strikes me that this think tank were under pressure at 4.30pm on a Friday to come up with some sort of suggestion to ease unemployment in the UK. They came up with a few half baked suggestions, fell upon this gem and exclaimed "yeah, that'll do," before sodding off to the latest trendy wine bar and complaining that their jobs make them too tired.

Ban on Valentine's Day Cards in School Killjoy or Forward Thinking?

A rather topical piece caught my eye on the BBC news website today on Valentine's cards being banned at a primary school in Weston-Super-Mare.

Pupils at the Ashcombe Primary School have been prevented from exchanging cards in time for the big day on Sunday for fear that some puils who not receive any are " not emotionally mature enough to cope" - the headteacher's words, not mine.

The Head, Peter Turner, went on to say: "Children should wait until they are mature enough emotionally and socially to understand the commitment of having a boyfriend or girlfriend."

This, of course, nearly made me spit out my Lemsip on to the computer. Children are not nearly emotionally and socially mature to face up to most things throughout their lives, they have to learn to accept their actions and feelings that they experience as they grow up. It was like the conker being banned from the playground, shrouded in the health & safety tag. Most schools banned it because pupils didn't like losing. Even at school sports day the competitive element has been taken away so that children will not feel like they have failed at something.

For children to experience the feeling of rejection just because another 7 year old does not like them back is healthy. The sooner they experience the feeling and move on, they are better equiped at dealing with the situation should it happen again. I believe not getting a card on the day is - as my dad would say - character building. After all, it is a bit of card forced upon us by companies trying to make money out of people showing their true love on February 14th every year. Surely we should tell kids that if someone really means so much to them, they should just let them know?

Let's face it, no one is really all that emotionally and socially mature when it comes to feeling left out on Valentine's Day as they are made to feel inadequate by the advertising on the TV. I would rather not get a card than being faced with the anonymous one sent to me one year when I was at university. I was freaked out as firstly, how did they know my address including postcode? Secondly, why go through the effort of purchasing a stamp and posting it? Thirdly, if you wished to stay anonymous why delete me from Facebook and start a rumour about me just because I didn't realise you 'like me'?

Personally I think the Valentine's cards sent at school signify what the day is about, and the children will be more able to handle the day without a card or with rejection than the psycho of Kingston was. I sometimes believe that the adults in authority underestimate children in this country.