The K-Factor: Organ Auditions

I realise that this news has been public for a few weeks now but I'm only just able to control my feelings enough to write this blog. I got as far typing the title and started to doubt whether I'd be able to finish, it is such an emotive subject for me.

There are some truly special people who seek to donate a kidney to a stranger and there is a system in this country to allow them to do that. It's known as altruistic donation and after seeking medical advice and having the necessary tests a recipient is found by comparing who on the waiting list best matches that organ (there are various markers such as blood type, tissue type etc). The donor has no say in who their kidney goes to. 

MatchingDonors is a website that allows renal patients to advertise their need for a kidney in the hope of finding a donor. They can post whatever they want from a photo, the details of why they need help or a back story of their family life. 

After having my kidney transplant last year and knowing exactly what these patients are going through I felt it was important to go on record as saying that I fully support this website.

I appreciate the concerns that people have. You are basically auditioning to an unknown audience who get to decide whether to save your life or move onto the next page. However, I actually think this is a good thing, at least for the donor. 

Something that comes up when you talk about donation, whether for right or wrong reasons, is the issue of who gets the organs. It could go to somebody you wouldn't approve of. An example that springs to mind is when George Best was given a new liver after destroying his own one through alcoholism. He continued to drink alcohol and ultimately died 3 years later. Whether he should or shouldn't have been given the liver is not for me to comment on but I can't help wondering who else on the waiting list was passed over so he could have another chance. 

The website would remove the uncertainty over who will get the benefit of your gift. Obviously George's donor was dead but would the family of the deceased have been pleased to know their loved ones liver had been wasted? Being a live kidney donor is not something to be taken lightly and the prospect of it going to somebody who won't appreciate it has to be considered. I think it's perfectly acceptable to want to be sure that the recipient will treasure it, look after it and live their life to the full and that is exactly what the website will facilitate. 

Of course not everybody has a tragic tale to tell. If I was uploading an audition I wouldn't be able to compete with the "please help me, I want to see my children grow up" or "I've had to put my doctorate on hold while I have treatment" but for every person that finds a kidney via the website, it's one less person on the waiting list meaning I'd have a better chance, however remote, of getting the call we all dream of from the hospital. Whatever your viewpoint, less people on the waiting list can only ever be a good thing. 

I understand when people say that we don't have a right to play god or that we have no right to judge who is more deserving than others. But, the first British woman to sign up to the website is a mother of 3 young children who is in her situation through no fault of her own. Wouldn't you rather your organ helped her over somebody who destroyed their kidneys through drugs or alcohol? I'm absolutely not saying that people who fall in that category should receive no help, I'm only suggesting that if you got to choose then surely knowing you'd enabled a family to stay together would be your preferred option. 

There is such a shortage of organs not just at home but on a global level and there is a black market for kidneys that will continue to thrive at the detriment of the poverty stricken donors until the amount of organs available drastically increases. There is huge potential for this website to entice people to join the donor list for when they die. If they read the stories behind the patients it might spur them into signing up. Being a living donor isn't something that is going to appeal to everyone and that is fair enough. Why would you put yourself through an unnecessary procedure for no benefit to yourself? But there is NO REASON AT ALL not to donate your organs when you die and if people become aware of how much they could change another persons life and sign up then it is hugely beneficial to everyone.  

With regards to my own health I will need another kidney at some point in the future. The average transplant lasts around 10-15 years although there are cases of them lasting 20, 30 and even 40 years. The next time round I won't be able to get one from my mum and I'm an only child so I don't have any siblings I can guilt trip or bribe into helping me. Having the horrifying promise of more dialysis in my future terrifies me. We are so lucky in the UK because the average waiting time for a donor is only 2 years, in America it's 3-5 years and in South Africa it is 5 years. 

I could write for hours and I'd still never be able to properly explain just how debilitating and terrible dialysis is. It's relentless. If this website allows people to escape this torture whether by finding a donor directly or removing people from the waiting list then it must be celebrated. I will admit that the fact you must pay to advertise your needs does repulse me slightly but after your first dialysis session you soon realise there isn't much you wouldn't do to free yourself from the machine so I'm sure many patients would see the fee as a necessary evil. I would love it if a payment-free version of the system was available though.

For the people who have been quick to slam the idea behind it, try and imagine your life on hold for several years whilst having invasive treatment 3 times a week. If you experienced it for a day you wouldn't be so quick to judge. 

Oreo Truffle Marshmallow Chocolate Brownies

Oreo Truffle Marshmallow Chocolate Brownies

I'm going to a party at the end of the month and I've promised to bring some baked goods. The host isn't keen on buttercream and I needed something that travels well as the event is in London. Brownies are one of the most robust things I could think of and the birthday boy is an Oreo fan and thus these creations were born. The pictures are from a practice run I did yesterday.

You will need the following ingredients (plus some butter that I foolishly forgot to include):

To make the brownies:

100g cocoa

500g caster sugar

100g self-raising flour

250g butter

4 beaten eggs

1 tsp vanilla extract

Preheat your oven to 180 degrees and line a small brownie tin.

Melt the butter in the microwave if you're impatient or in a saucepan.

Off the heat mix in the cocoa and sugar and stir until dissolved.

Add the eggs one at a time and mix until dissolved.

Finally, stir in the flour.

Transfer to your brownie tin and bake for 30 minutes.

After 30 minutes put a piece of greaseproof paper or silver foil and on top of the brownie to stop the edges burning and bake for another 10-15 minutes. 

Test whether it's cooked by inserting a skewer and then leave to cool.

Of course, if you've got a favourite brownie recipe you can use that, anything will do! I took the brownie out of the pan and removed the greaseproof paper and then put the brownie back before doing the next steps.

To make the Oreo truffle:

20 Oreo cookies

1.5 tablespoons chocolate spread

1.5 tablespoons cream cheese

Crush the cookies in a food processor.

Add the chocolate spread and cream cheese and blitz.

The idea is to make a dough-like truffle consistency. If it's too wet you can add some icing sugar to bring it back, if it's too dry just add a little more cream cheese. It should be glossy and spreadable when you're finished. This stuff would be amazing just rolled into balls and coated with popping candy or coconut. I'm thinking of making some cakepops using this mix. If you don't have a food processor you can crush the cookies in a sandwich bag by bashing them with a rolling pin. It'll take longer and won't be as smooth but it'll be just as tasty.

When the brownie is completely cool spread the truffle mix on the top. You'll need to score a few lines on and make some dimples in it because marshmallow Fluff will stick to carpets, skin, dog fur and jeans but it seldom sticks to cake. I speak from painful experience. I once filled a cake with Fluff and when I checked on it a few hours later it had created a hole in the frosting and oozed out down the side. There were tears in the kitchen that day.

Now you need to add the Fluff. Because it is an unruly beast and will try to make an escape, you don't need to pour loads on. I used just under half a jar. I didn't have any problems with it running out after the brownies were cut with this amount. Also, Fluff is really sweet and these brownies don't need much help in the sugar department! If you accidentally mix in a bit of the truffle (like I did as you'll see from the photo below) it doesn't matter so don't worry.

Now you need to get the chocolate topping ready. Either melt it in a bowl over a pan of water or give it short bursts in the microwave. I always use the microwave because it's easier, cleaner and quicker. I would recommend SilverSpoon cake covering for things like this because it melts into a gloriously runny liquid making coverage so easy. Score the surface of the Fluff before you pour to help the chocolate stick to it and hold it in place. The chocolate needs to be room temperature before you start otherwise it'll upset the Fluff. I used half a bar of chocolate for this.

Now, what I should have done is add the crushed Oreos while the milk chocolate was still wet but being a domestic goddess (*cough*) I was making a carbonara at the same time and forgot to do this so I had to improvise. 

I chopped the Oreos into little wedges and crumbs.

I then drizzled melted white chocolate all over the top of the brownies and scattered on the cookie pieces. Then I drizzled loads more white chocolate on top to stick the whole lot together. It worked but it wasn't how I wanted these brownies to look. That'll teach me to pay more attention.

Run a knife round the outside of the pan to release the brownie and then cut into cubes. They are obviously incredibly rich so a little goes a long, long way! 

A close up. Please imagine some raunchy music playing in the background.

I only had a little nibble because although my diabetes is under control and has almost disappeared, I still didn't want to risk it. Rich took the brownies to work with him (my first baked goods contribution to his new job - eek!). They loved them and they've all gone. Somebody said it was the best brownie they've ever had so I can assure you that these are worth making if you need to make an impression. 

You put WHAT on the Internet??

Many years ago I read the following advice and I have to admit, it's stuck with me.

"Never put anything on the internet you wouldn't 

want your mum, boss or partner to see"

If your mum would be dismayed at you posting a picture of your one-night stand with the tag #bedofshame, if your mother-of-3 boss wouldn't see the funny side of your dead baby jokes and if your boyfriend would be unimpressed by you sending other men photos of your boobs then it's best you keep this sort of stuff offline.

There have been several news stories about people being caught out on Facebook; from cheating partners, teachers discussing pupils and folk pulling sickies due to hangovers. What your put on your profile is your business and you should have freedom of speech and expression but it's worth asking yourself whether what you're posting is going to get you in trouble. We've all seen this example:

If you want to call your boss a pervvy wanker, maybe you shouldn't do it on a platform where he's going to see it. Just a thought!

Yesterday I saw these tweets from somebody I follow:

Firstly it goes to show that the men I follow aren't desperate losers (give yourselves a pat on the back, guys) because until she posted those tweets I honestly didn't even know these things were happening. Secondly, she's right. Why should she have to see porno pics on her timeline because a sad-case is hoping he'll get to see a bit of nipple?

I'm not naive, I do know there is porn on Twitter - every other day I'm blocking yet another pornbot and we all had to reach for the eye-bleach after the Richard and Judy fiasco. But I had no idea that people are actually fueling the fire by RT-ing it. I wonder if they realise that the girls in question are probably people having fun at their expense. It's more likely to be someone who's found the photos online and is pretending it is their body. Seriously, there are more naked ladies on the internet than you could ever find the time to look at so why are you sending it onto other peoples news feeds? Obviously one of the wonderful features about Twitter is the fact you can just unfollow people but like the tweets above, it's a shame when you have to block contact with someone you like. I know my male (and some female) friends watch porn, it's not a problem, but they don't show it to me because I'm not interested and that's the way it should be.

Freedom of speech is so important but not everything needs saying. Sending threats of violence isn't exercising your rights, it only highlights the fact you're an idiot. These days anyone can be tracked down easily, either by what you've posted before, by your IP address if the police get involved or even by the online community - my personal favourite is when they found the guy at Burger King who had posted photos of himself standing in the lettuce. My Twitter account is in my name, not a pseudonym. I also have a very unusual name, there aren't likely to be any other Romany Scarlett Meehan's out there. Anything I say can be easily traced back to me and it's for that reason I'll never slag off my boss (although actually she's lovely so I would never need to), I'd keep things like that for when I'm at home.

So, next time you're thinking of posting something controversial ask yourself who might be reading and whether it's really worth it.

The Constant Complainer

If I'm not happy with something, I will let it be known. I'm not prepared to suffer in silence, especially when it comes to customer service, and I'm not going to lower my standards because somebody else refuses to raise theirs. Over the years I have honed my complaining skills into something of an art form. I've received free phones, meals, vouchers, products, upgrades and refunds.

My first job was working in a sandwich shop at the tender age of 15. I was paid £3 an hour and after my shift on a Saturday the £27 I clutched in my coronation chicken stained hands may as well have been a million pounds. The shop in question was, and still is, a popular independent store in the town centre. When I got the job I was told in no uncertain terms that the customers pay my wages and they were to be kept happy. No customers = no business = no job. It's a viewpoint that has stayed with me my entire working life whether in the sandwich shop, in law firms or where I am now. Apart from when I was at the NHS, any role I've had has involved some kind of client liaison either on the phone or in person.

The problem is that very few people seem to care about how customers are treated these days and it feels as though every few weeks I'm complaining about something not being right. From surly staff and poorly cooked food through to faulty goods and incorrect orders - it's all been going wrong.

I'd like to point out that I don't complain at the drop of a hat, there are rules. Making a fuss over something the staff have no control over is ridiculous. I remember a woman going mental in New Look because there weren't any changing rooms available. I'm not sure what she wanted the girl at the door to do, she could hardly kick someone out. Equally it's worth remembering that floor staff have no say over stock or prices. Raging at a 16 year old Saturday girl in a supermarket because they haven't got your favourite cheese just exposes you as being a jerk. Also, everyone is entitled to a bad day. Nobody is perfect and you have to cut people some slack. I make mistakes at work as I'm sure you do too so it's unrealistic to expect someone to be perfect all the time.

To make a good complaint you need to explain how the company has upset you (i.e rude desk staff), why it has upset you (i.e loyal customer) and what you had to do to fix it (i.e go elsewhere). You need to be calm and polite because it's likely that the person you're speaking to or writing to had nothing to do with the incident and you need to stick to the facts. Don't bring up stories you've heard from other people because they have no bearing on your experience that day. It's best to put things in writing because you have a record of what you've said and it's easy for things to get heated on the phone.

I also believe it's important to praise people when they do something right rather than always focusing on the negative aspects. It was a while ago but in December I went to the MAC counter in Beales in Bournemouth with my mum as she was going to kit me out with new make-up for Christmas now that I had a healthy glow again. The man who did my make-up was fantastic. He was friendly, professional and obviously had a vast knowledge of the products he was using and selling. I wrote to MAC and to the store to thank them for the great experience and to let them know they had such a wonderful member of staff. I received two nice letters back and MAC also sent me a free limited edition lipstick, lip pen, lip glass and make up bag just because I'd taken the time to send them some positive feedback.

If you complain to a company and they try to fix it, you should let them know whether it worked. A couple of months ago we tried to visit a chain restaurant for breakfast but they weren't open despite what their website said. I wrote to highlight this and was given a £30 voucher as an apology. We used the money, had a lovely meal and decided that it had obviously been a one-off hiccup and we would be returning. I wrote back to them and explained how nice the waitress had been and that we'd enjoyed our food so we would be repeat customers. You have to give credit where it's due.

I think it boils down to this, you are entitled to expect the service and goods that you are paying for. It's your hard earned money and you shouldn't have to part with it for something you aren't satisfied with. I had a meal at Frankie & Benny's recently and it was awful. I asked for no tomato but they made it without mayo instead and left all the tomatoes in. I told the waitress but also said it was ok as I'd take them out myself but then I found a large piece of fryer detritus on my plate. I informed the manager that it wasn't the standard I expected and I wouldn't be finishing or paying for my food. She agreed and it wasn't a problem.

If you're not happy with something you have to let them know. Without you they wouldn't have a business and it's up to them to fix it. We're told from a young age that we should treat others as we want them to treat us and it's the same for customer service. They should treat us the way they would want to be treated in another store.

People are spending less and less at the moment and I know that I'm not parting with my cash if I'm not 100% happy with what I'm buying. Settling for second rate service and goods should no longer be an option for us consumers.

Or perhaps my expectations are too high. Maybe I'll have to change my name to Romoany in honour of all moaning. What do you think? Are customers being taken for granted or am I just unlucky?

Barren Karen - No kids for me.

I DO NOT WANT CHILDREN

There. I've said it.

This statement is usually met in one of two ways. Either people look at me like I'm some kind of freak with two heads and a tail or they smile knowingly and say that I'm young and will change my mind.

I don't and I won't.

The people who have a problem with this tend to be parents. If you are a parent and you're reading, please know this - your kids are awesome. Even when they're having a tantrum in the supermarket, drawing all over their siblings with permanent marker or shaving the dog. Your decision to procreate has no impact on my life so my decision not to procreate should have no impact on your life. Just as I respect your choice, you should respect mine.

I have two very good reasons for not wanting kids. The first is for medical reasons and the second is that I know I'd be a terrible parent.

My kidney disease is hereditary. Except actually it isn't. Confusing? Yes. I have kidney problems because of a genetic mutation that occurred when I was a teeny tiny foetus. Think X-Men except rather than shooting lasers from my eyes or controlling the weather, my kidneys don't work. But now that I have the rogue gene there is a 50/50 chance of me passing it on to any children I have. The gene can't be dormant, if you carry it then you have symptoms. This is how we know mine is a genetic mutation because there is no history of renal disease in my family so it's not something my mum or dad have passed on to me.

It's at this point that people usually jump in with extremely helpful (*cough*) advice such as "every baby has a chance of something being wrong with it, you won't know until you try". This is very true. Every foetus has the chance of developing some kind of fault whether it's a hole in the heart or a cleft pallet. There is also the chance of disabilities and other diseases. But the odds are usually very long and in your favour. My odds are 50/50. Toss a coin - heads your baby is born with a life threatening illness, tails it isn't. Still fancy those odds?

I've seen my mum go through hell watching me almost die several times and it was her gift of a kidney transplant that saved my life (well, for a while at least). If I have kids it will be entirely my fault that they are ill and I won't be able to do a single thing to help.

I would make a terrible mum. I don't like being outside - beaches and parks are my idea of a living hell. I can't stand noise or mess, I lack even a small amount of patience and I'm neurotic at the best of times. Any child of mine would spend its life indoors watching tv and that is no life to lead.

Then there's the money aspect. Call me a judgmental snob, I really don't care, but if you have kids without the means to support them then you are scum. I don't mean people who fall on hard times, I mean the ones that decide to have kids as a way to get a flat and an income. Once we buy a house next year we will have to be frugal to ensure that we can provide for ourselves, let alone providing for a baby.

I've never been maternal in any way. My friends would always coo over a baby in the street but I wasn't remotely bothered. I've never once said that I wanted children and when I was diagnosed with renal problems at the age of 19 and I found out the odds of passing it on, it validated my decision. Rich has made no secret of his wish to remain childless too. My friends have been having kids for the best part of a decade and whilst I love all of their children, not once have I looked at any them and thought "I wish you were mine".

On medical grounds alone I have good enough reasons for not having children but I'm constantly surprised at how many people disagree. I've spoken to numerous doctors and the renal psychologist and they all wholeheartedly agree with my decision, not just for the health of any potential child but for my own health too. Add to that my hatred of the outdoors and inability to provide support and I find it hard to see how anyone could come to a different conclusion yet they continue to do so.

I'm often asked why we don't consider about adoption if I don't want to pass on an illness to natural children. It goes back to the fundamental basis that we do not actually want any kids.

It's 2012. We as a species can have happy, loving same sex or inter-racial relationships that are only frowned upon by sad, uneducated bigots. So why can't two people decide that they are happy with each other and leave it at that? Why does society gasp in horror and consider a woman to be a failure if she doesn't pop out a few sprogs?

I've been told by earth mother types that it's my responsibility as a woman to produce children. Really? I'd have thought it was more of a responsibility to ensure that any kids are healthy and well looked after but obviously not. I've been accused of being selfish because I'm an only child and am therefore depriving my mum of becoming a grandmother. Yes, because what my mum needs instead of just one loved one slowly dying from an incurable disease is two loved ones dying the same way. My grandfather died from lung cancer when my mum was 14 and my grandmother committed suicide when my mum was 16. She has often expressed how hard it is to grow up without one or both your parents and that's exactly the risk I'd be putting on my kids. And yes, any one of us could get hit by a bus tomorrow but dying in a freak accident is not the same as dying from a life threatening illness that is systematically destroying your body.

So please, society - let me carry on the way I am. What I'm doing isn't hurting you in any way so stop pushing your ridiculous ideals on me.

And as for you, Mr Stork - well you can just shoo and be on your way!

A bitter defeat for a nation but a triumph for Team GB

If you read my recent blog or if you follow me on Twitter you will know that I've been bitten by the Olympics bug. Hard.

At the time of writing Great Britain are third in the medal table with 25 Gold, 15 Silver and 16 Bronze totaling 56 medals. There is every chance that by the time I finish this blog, the haul will have increased.

Over the past two weeks I have cheered for athletes in sports I didn't even know existed. I have screamed "COME ON TEAM GB" so many times I'm convinced my dog now thinks his name is Team GB. I've cried so many times I'm beginning to fear for my tear ducts.

The support for Team GB from the vast majority of the country has been brilliant. Everyone has been blown away by how spectacular our athletes are. Apart from a sour faced few.

I've been so disappointed by some of the spiteful, negative and downright nasty things I have read or heard. At the end of the first couple days Twitter was awash with people asking where all the medals from our supposed "Greatest Ever Team" were. I don't suppose the idea of giving them a chance to get going ever occurred to them. I'm pleased these people have been forced to eat their words after we've held a top three position for so long.

The fact somebody felt the need to spray graffiti on the post box painted gold in honour of Jessica Ennis is pathetic.

Someone I follow on Twitter has been commenting on our lack of runners in the track events asking why we aren't able to provide winners rather than just making up the numbers. I guess a gold medal from Mo Farah and a silver from Christine Ohuruogu aren't good enough. Dai Green and Lawrence Clarke were the only European men to reach the 400m and 110m hurdles finals respectively. They faced off against athletes from USA, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Puerto Rico, South Africa, Barbados and Cuba. Both came 4th in their events which I class as a tremendous achievement.

You don't see Kenya or Jamaica competing in the cycling events. China didn't compete in football, handball or equestrianism. It's important to recognise your strengths and weaknesses. The fact we have athletes who can "make up the numbers" should be celebrated.

We made history yesterday. Nicola Adams became the first female boxer EVER to win a gold medal at the Olympics. Our cyclists broke world records one after another. Our male gymnasts won a team medal for the first time in 100 years, the last time Great Britain won, the rope climb was still an event! Jade Jones is the first woman to win a gold medal for Great Britain in taekwondo. Doesn't that count for anything? Can't we focus on the positives rather than obsessing on the negatives?

We can't win everything nor can we be good at everything.

It's worth noting that the only two nations ahead of us, China and USA, have sports that they falter in. China could only manage 46th and 50th place in the men's and women's Triathlon. Their only Tennis success was the women's doubles reaching the quarter finals. Their men failed to get out of the heats in every single track event apart from the Race Walk. USA couldn't get out of the group stage in Badminton, their Canoeists didn't make a single final and they finished in 11th place for the Synchronised Swimming. Only one male boxer got to the quarter finals, the other 8 competitors were out before then.

Both of those countries have populations and funding budgets that dwarf our own. If they can't deliver in every sport, why should we expect ourselves to? Obviously yes, it would be nice if we could be seen as medal contenders in every sport but it's not going to happen.

I've seen people insult Phillips Idowu for not qualifying for the triple jump final. We all have bad days. Michael Phelps didn't win all the golds he was expected to and Victoria Pendleton was disqualified from a cycling event. It happens. I can't imagine training for FOUR YEARS only to go out without even getting a chance to shine.

I was appalled to hear people I respect actually defend the teenager who sent Tom Daley vile messages on Twitter. "Oh he should have just ignored it" "He didn't have to retweet it" "It's his own fault it escalated" "I can't believe he got arrested, whatever happened to free speech?". Why should he have ignored it? At school we're told to alert parents and teachers to bullies, why should he ignore it because it's online. People defending his right to free speech obviously didn't read the rest of his messages. He used racist language, has threatened to kill several other users including Tom, promised violence to others, pretended his mum was dead and told one girl he hoped she got raped. Yes, free speech is important but anyone with an ounce of sense can see that his messages go beyond that. Cyber bullying is a huge topic at the moment and there are a heartbreaking number of stories about kids committing suicide because of it.

We live in a country where people would rather stand up for an attention seeking teen than one of our athletes and that saddens me. Tom Daley had to drop out of school and find a new one after competing in the Beijing Olympics because of bullies. He should have been able to get on with preparing for his next round of diving, not having to deal with death threats and idle abuse.

I hate sport. I would rather miss the train than even briskly walk let alone run to catch it but I have been enthralled by the wonderful men and women who have competed for us. A bit of constructive criticism is a good thing but slagging off our athletes isn't necessary. We should be behind them, cheering them on - not sat on our computers thinking of all the faults we can point out and dishing out insults.

We got one gold medal in the 1996 Olympics. One. A solitary, lonesome gold. Thanks to an increase in funding look at where we are today. It's still early days though, we're developing training camps, new regimes and ways of identifying potential athletes. Who is to say that in Rio or in 2020 we won't be better than we are today. Even if we don't beat our 2012 total, I know I will still be proud to say that I support Team GB.

**EDIT**

This tweet has pissed me off and it's a good example of the negative attitude some people are tragically bestowed with.

"62 million people in the UK and we have nobody who can throw a javelin over 80 metres! A sad fact actually."

NOT A SAD FACT. There are 1.3 BILLION people in China and they couldn't do it either. They threw almost 2 metres less than we did. This whinging is being done on the night Mo Farah won his second gold medal. I suppose some people are never satisfied.

The Weighting Game

I'm writing about this subject because it's been bothering me for quite some time now. It's not about putting people down or making comments on weight or beauty, it's about how I feel.

Anyone who spends a lot of time on the internet or reading magazines and newspapers will know that at the moment the topic of photoshopping and airbrushing models is a hot one. Teenagers are rebelling against Teen Vogue, H&M has been ridiculed on several occasions and Victoria's Secret seem to be doing their best to make their beautiful models look as alien as possible.

At the grand old age of 27 I've gone past caring what people in magazines look like. I'm not fooled by Kerry Katona posing in a bikini, I know she's popped out a million kids and has a tummy covered in stretch marks. I know full well that the pictures I'm seeing in glossy mags have been airbrushed to the point of fiction. They'd be more believable if they mocked up a CGI version of the celebrity with all their flaws removed and published that instead. Madonna has wrinkles, Britney Spears has cellulite and Katy Perry gets acne. They are all as human as the rest of us. I'm thankful that I am able to differentiate between what is reality and what has been edited, if I were in my teens constantly surrounded by perfection I'd be a nervous wreck and full of self doubt.

What REALLY gets to me is women who lie about their size. I'm sick to death of hearing plump celebrities drone on about how happy they are with their curvy bodies only for them to falsify the tag in their clothing. Nothing says radiating confidence than pretending to be smaller than you are.

All these women claim to be a British size 16.

Admittedly the Boux Avenue underwear model has the benefit of good lighting and airbrushing and the two girls wearing white have been giving the opportunity to pose but as you can see, they're all of very different body shapes. 

Weight doesn't really factor into dress sizes. Obviously if you weigh 30 stone you won't be a size 8 but we all know muscle weighs more than fat and then you have to factor in height, bust size and bone structure. At the time these photos were taken the girl in the middle on the bottom row (Holly from Geordie Shore) weighed 13 stone. The girl wearing white in the photo next to her weighed 17 stone. 

My point is that while we all bang on about how terrible air brushing is, isn't it just as damaging to give a false perception of size? I would bet all the money in my bank account on the woman in the top right photo being a size 20 rather than a 16 especially when you compare her to other people in that size bracket. If she's happy with herself then fine, this isn't an attack on her appearance. However, if a person lacking in confidence or someone full of self loathing who IS a size 16 sees that photo and translates it to her looking the same, isn't that just as bad as airbrushing out some flaws? Despite her tweets confirming that her grey jeans have 16 in the label, I still don't believe Claire from Steps and would put her at a size 18. I also can't help but feel that the underwear model is smaller than advertised. Her hips look wider than the standard cut out model but I'm sure she could fit into a size 12 top and I don't think a 14 dress would be much of a squeeze. Perhaps it's a ruse by the brand to appeal to the often talked about "Real Women With Curves". In my eyes, Holly and the girl and in the white dress give a pretty fair representation about what a size 16 looks like.

Why am I so bothered by this? I am a size 16. I've also never been so insecure. After having my transplant I was put on a hefty dose of a steroid called Prednisolone. It actively encourages weight gain to the face (known as Moon Face) and to the stomach area. I know several recent transplant recipients and without exception they despise Prednisolone because it ruins your body. I put on a whopping 3 stone in 4 months. I was, to put it bluntly, HUGE. I've lost 2 stone but it still hasn't shifted from my middle so I wear a size 16. When I saw the photo of the woman on the top right I was horrified and thought OH MY GOD IS THAT WHAT I LOOK LIKE? I sent it to my friend with strict instructions to brutally tell me how close to her size I am. I have scars on my mid-section from three operations that tot up to a length of 100 centimetres. Yep, a whole metre. Add that to my dress size and it's fair to say that my body issues are excessive. My friend replied by telling me not to be so stupid because I was nowhere near as big as the woman in the photo but I had that period of panic between sending the message and getting a response. 

I've been collating responses to the question "how do you feel about women who lie about their size" from people on Twitter and from my friends and colleagues. Most people felt it insulted their intelligence, others said it was pathetic and tragic. The false perception of size issue was brought up as was the hypocrisy of saying you're happy with yourself in one breath and then lying in the next. One person said it didn't bother her but she also felt that might be because of her age. One lady, who is 57, said "Let them get on with it. If they want to lie to themselves and look like fat idiots then let them". The fact is, aside from one person, dropping a dress size or two when discussing your image bothered everyone. 

Girls, there is nothing wrong with being larger than a size 12. The national average is a size 16. If you're happy and confident with yourself then what's the problem? Anyone overweight thinks that being a size 8 will solve all their problems but it won't. You'll still be skint, your boss will still be a moron and the world will continue turning. I've been rich and poor, fat and thin, healthy and sick and I've learned the only thing that really matters is trying to find a way to be happy in the middle of it all. If you're lying to yourself about being something you're not then you never will be happy. The fact is, saying you're a size 16 when you're really an 18 or a 20 is only going to cause people to laugh, pity or talk about you. Being honest wouldn't get half the reaction that a lie does.