And people get paid to write this?

According to Shane Watson in the Sunday Times, by aged 25 I should have achieved the following:


- Achieved party notoriety/a groovy look — like Alice Dellal
- Travelling stripes (outside Europe)
- A tattoo or nonregulation piercing
- Have talked to a genuine celebrity
- Have DJed, gone out with a DJ or sung backing vocals
- Had at least one serious boyfriend
- Worked as a waitress/in a bar
- Proficiency in an instrument or sport
- Discovered your best feature
- Got serious about photography

And want people to say: “You’ve done an incredible amount for your age”

I am 27. I have a hole in my tummy button where I used to wear a bar until it got too annoying banging into my desk which was the same height (how middle aged) and I obviously have had at least one serious boyfriend given that I get married in three months time. I have travelled outside Europe and done well at things but it seems I have failed because I have not dated a DJ, discovered my best feature or talked to a genuine celebrity...

And what do I have to look forward to? Well, by 35 I should have:-

- Been head-hunted for a new job
- Been taken to lunch by your boss
- Been on a business trip abroad
- Lived abroad
- Bought your own flat
- Been bought jewellery by a man
- Socialised outside your age group
- Hatched a plan for your own business
- Successfully negotiated a pay rise
- Discovered your signature style
- Discovered the importance of women
- Established a shoe collection

And want people to say: “You could do anything you set your mind to”

Well, I have managed 3 of them. Looks like I have got a bit of work to do...

Seriously, I can't believe people get paid to write this. And in The Times as well.

How to Feed your friends Supper

I have been reading a lot recently about the return of the dinner party. Perhaps not the dinner parties of the past of which I have never been but heard all too much about but instead simple supper parties amongst friends at the weekend. These articles all seem to express surprise at the 'return' of the meal enjoyed between friends, as if they somehow think that all 20 somethings are out wining and dining every evening.

Today, in the Times there was an article about Joanna Weinberg's latest book How to Feed your Friends With Relish. This is actually a book that I had considered buying (or asking for on my Christmas List) but now I'm not so sure.

Weinberg divides people into the following types of hosts:

Hostess with the mostest

Checklist
You have time to take a bath and do your make-up
You keep a store of scented candles
You make playlists for all occasions
You have an account at the florist's
You label and stack everything neatly in the freezer
You hire extra help for the next day

Chaotic bachelor

Checklist
You always have one chair too few
You overshop for food, not clear what will go with what
You often find yourself eating burnt or cold food
You feel pathetic gratitude for the invention of ready meals
You believe that most things are solved by crisps and ice-cream
You spend three times more on wine than on food

Hassled parent

Checklist
You hide toys in the washing machine in a bid to tidy up
You serve puréed vegetables more often than you mean to
You find that Annabel Carmel's recipes are fine for grown-ups, too
You put candles out of harm's way
You gratefully down three glasses of wine without coming up for air
You wish that you'd had time to wash your hair

Natural host

Checklist
You have an instinctive sense of when pasta is al dente
You know where to find unpasteurised cream
You don't give a fig for matching dinnerware
You remember when the farmer's market is on
You have dimmer switches on all your lights
You serve wine in huge glasses

I know that this is not something to be taken seriously but it did rather irritate me. Who fits into those sort of categories and where are the categories for 'normal' people? Why does everything have to be sanded down to such a level that we fit into boxes even in relation to our supper habits.

We have friends round all the time for supper. We occasionally prepare something in advance and we usually manage the shopping in advance but mostly M or I will cook with friends standing in the kitchen or outside with a cold beer or glass of wine and we will chat until the meal is cooked. The evening is not all about the food nor is the food the least important part. We cook fairly simple but healthy dishes (including portion size) all from scratch and usually sourced from the local shops – butchers, greengrocer, bakers etc- roasts, chilli, pasta and so on and usually followed by some kind of homemade pudding – crumble, pie, rice-pudding, chocolate mousse, profiteroles or cake. We drink lots of wine and sit around the table and chat. Sometimes there are only 4 of us, usually more like 6 or 8 but last weekend there were 14 (well, it was the rugby – and I didn't make any pudding). We always have enough chairs, we have beautiful matching but old turquoise dinnerware which we inherited from M's grandmother, the glass situation is occasionally hit and miss and we always spend far more on wine than food because good wine is expensive. Someone usually produces an i-pod and we have adequate speakers. Last weekend when the rugby was on was the first time that our television has been switched on when friends have been over. People pile in and out of the garden for occasional cigarettes and the gathering usually disperses in the early hours in taxis bound for various parts of London.

I do not consider myself a 'Shef' (Stay at Home and Entertain Friends according to the Times). It is simply what we have always done on the nights when we do not go out. And have done since the very start of university. I also found it irritating that Weinburg implies that being organised is the same thing as competitive or the same thing as striving for domestic perfection. She suggests a little less of this and it will seem more like a real home. She also suggests that few but the very organised have time to bake. That's the biggest load of rubbish I've heard – it hardly takes long to whip up a quick pudding and put it in the oven whilst people are eating the main course.

I think what I find so frustrating about this kind of 'lecturing' is that it is off putting. People don't fall into such obvious categories in reality. And if people are told that only the very organised bake then to someone who has never tried it before will think it is a lot of hard work. Yes, some puddings are time consuming but there are plenty are that are really easy. Scones take less than 30 minutes from start to finish which includes the cooking and the washing up. Perhaps not a traditional pudding but there are others which can be done just as easily.

To tip or not to tip?

Damien Whitworth writes in the Times today about the etiquette of tipping.

My personal view is that I detest the very idea of tipping. Left by myself I will rarely offer a tip. I have been known to occasionally round up the fare in a taxi to the nearest pound and sometimes, if offered exceptional service in a café, will leave 10-15% of the bill if I have some spare change. Usually however, I don’t. If I am out for a meal with several people who do tip then I will do but only so as not to cause a scene or embarrass my friends, although if the service poor I will refuse.

My rationale for my behaviour is thus: why should I have to pay extra for something which should come as standard. And moreover, why should I be made to feel guilty for refusing to tip substandard service.

When one eats in a restaurant one pays for far more than the food. The bill covers the costs of employing the staff including the waitresses whose job is to serve the food. If the job is done adequately then I am satisfied but I am not going to tip someone for simply doing their job. If their performance was exceptional and it was not a restaurant where you would expect that level of service then I might tip, but they are already being paid to do their job. If their boss isn’t paying them enough and is making up the wages with their tips then I feel for them but that is their issue with their boss. I am not going to pay someone’s wages.

Similarly, at the hairdressers I am already paying for the stylist’s skill and expertise. I see no reason why I should have to pay extra. So I don’t. In the loo of a bar or nightclub I rarely leave any money either. I am grateful for them handing me a towel and I always thank them but I am capable of doing this myself and would generally rather do this myself. A night can get very expensive if expected to leave £1 on each visit to the loo. This actually annoys me greatly as a job has been created where there is really no need. And why should I have to pay for it when I have already paid an entrance fee? Should I also be giving a £1 to the bouncer each time he removes someone with a bottle from the dance floor? I am far more grateful to him than the lady manning the towel dispenser in the loo for he is actually helping me to have a safer night.

There is also disparity between who expects a tip and who doesn’t. Waitresses, taxi drivers, delivery boys all seem to expect tips. I don’t get a tip by a client for doing my job. No-one when leaving court when I have spent months working on their case says “thanks Rachel, here, have this £x for helping me win my case” or whatever. It doesn’t happen.

So, it is with some dread that I ponder a trip to Washington DC to visit my little sister. I am against tipping on principle but I am also pro fitting in with local behaviour and customs when in a foreign country and trying to respect their culture. Yet I just do not see how I can bring myself to tip someone who is just doing their job. This is a conundrum which may take some time to work out.

McCann facts?

Penny Wark writes in today’s Times that there is only one fact in Madeleine McCann’s case of disappearance – that she was taken from her bed. The rest, she says, is mere speculation. The article is well written, but I have to disagree. There are three facts of which we are sure: that Madeleine, aged almost 4 and her twin siblings, aged 2, were left on their own in the apartment whilst her parents ate supper, that this was not the first time that week which they had been left alone and that Madeleine disappeared from the apartment at some point between 8.40pm and 10pm.

I have hestitated to write about this fiasco; I would have liked, as I am sure everyone would, not least of all Madeleine and her family, for the situation to have been resolved quickly. But here we are, 124 days later with no more information and the same three facts. I’m not sure that it is worth debating the situation without any more factual information but given the interview that the parents conducted with the Times, despite saying last week that they wished to move away from the media circus, there are a few things which annoy me.

Gerry McCann states this:

“we know what we did and we are very responsible. It’s bad enough for us to have to deal with the fact that someone saw an opportunity – to then have elements sneering at your behaviour and making it look much worse than it was”.

I find it odd that a doctor can stand there and say that leaving three children unaccompanied in a foreign country in a rented apartment falls under the umbrella of responsible.

Kate McCann has been quoted saying that at worse they were naïve. Sadly, I think at best they were naïve.

She has also said:

"If I'd had to think for one second about it, it wouldn't have happened. I never even had to think like that, to make the decision. It felt so safe that I didn't even have to - I mean, I don't think we took a risk."

"If I put the children in the car the chances of having an accident would be greater than somebody coming in, breaking into your apartment and lifting a child out of your bed. But you never think I shouldn't put the children in the car."

Anyone leaving children unaccompanied is taking a risk. I find it odd that she can still be stating that she doesn’t think that she took a risk. I really don’t think that anyone is suggesting that she could or should have foreseen the danger of abduction. What she perhaps should have been thinking about are surely the other risks and dangers to a child, of which as a GP she must have been well aware, from awakening distressed and finding themselves alone to choking on vomit, to trying to get a drink and shutting hands in drawers or doors, or falling off something, or hurting themselves in someway or simply crying for almost half an hour before Mummy or Daddy returns to check.

There has to be more to this story.

UPDATE - I have just re-read Penny Wark's article and I notice that at one point she says this:

"As everyone is acutely aware, the reason we know so little about Madeleine’s disappearance is because she was abducted in Portugal" (my emphasis)

As she says at the start of the article, one of the few facts that we know is that she disappeared. I fail to see therefore how she can state as a fact that Madeleine was abducted and that the reason we know so little about the circumstances was because it happened in Portugal.

UPDATE 2 - The link in the comments box does not appear to work but can be read if you click here.