Wolf Hall gets a mention because I'm a fan of the BBC's proud tradition of costume drama. I'm sure it's hideously expensive to produce, not least because of all those fabulous Tudor costumes, but what a treat Wolf Hall is. With this and a new series of Sprial, plus the flawed but still gripping Silent Witness it looks as though there's some decent telly to watch again.
Now, onto nude tights, a term the fashion industry still insists on using. I'm only about to get on my soapbox about this 'cause I was in BHS today. That's a rarity for me. Their clothes are dreary, and the shop interior's about as exciting as listening to an explanation of the offside rule. But BHS had a sale on, and I was looking for boots which were 20% off.
I didn't find any, but did see something that had me doing a double-take. A pack of 'BHS Essentials Nude Tights'. For 7 to 8 year olds !!! Okay, let's deal with the term 'nude' first. They're only nude if you're pale skinned - or put it another way, if you're White. Isn't it about time the term 'nude' was given the heave-ho? It's as out-dated as Page 3. But just as important, why are 20 denier tights being flogged to little girls? According to the BHS website they're a 'must have for any girl'. No. No, they're not. Little girls shouldn't be worrying about how their legs look in 20 denier tights or if they've got a ladder. Putting girls in woolly tights because it's cold outside is perfectly understandable, but do we really want young girls in what Americans call panty hose? They're kids, not miniature women to be dressed up like dolls. Am I just being over-sensitive here? Or are these 'Essentials' just inappropriate for pre-adolescent girls? Feel free to have your say.