Knightley gives to Beat

The beautiful and elegant Ms Keira Knightley has been under a lot of pressure recently. Speculations about her body image have been used and exploited to further the weight debate, at the peak of the size zero phenomenon.

After recently claiming she is more than willing to quit the business to get her life back, she has announced that she will match the £3,000 in libel damages she was awarded this morning, over a printed article about her weight.

The Daily Mail drew reference to her weight, over the story on the death of 19-year-old Sophie Mazurek who had died of anorexia. Knightley was appalled by the implications and found it offensive that the story suggests that she is responsible.

The story, published in January, headed "If pictures like this one of Keira carried a health warning, my darling daughter might have lived".

I think that Knightley has been a refreshing bud of talent to the film industry, who has kept her word and remained true to herself and grounded. So many pledge this at the beginning of their career and fall short, but she stands tall among the rest for this very reason. It is true that she has such a tiny, fragile frame, but we cannot push the size zero debate onto a naturally slender woman. That is not how the game works. She simply does not qualify, and certainly not to be upset and exploited in this way simply for a newspaper's angle to accompany a 'pap' shot of her on the beach. And it is atrocious that she could be labelled responsible for the mental illness of another being. All the discussions of Knightley being featured and idolised on pro-ana websites is really out of her hands. Yes - she is on them. No - she does not validate this. Her pictures are everywhere on the web, and available for all.

I have known women in a similar situation who are very thin, and people assume this is the best feature for them since the fall of the corset, but the truth is, there are two sides of the coin, and more often than not, these women wish to be slightly bigger, and despite the fact they can and will always eat what they want, they actually struggle to put on and maintain weight. Call it 'fast metabolism' or something. Therefore, the grass is not always greener.

I sympathise with Knightley, although she doesn't need any from me. She's doing fine. I also congratulate her for 'non-hesitantly' donating her damages to Beat, (Beat Eating Disorders) a fantastic organisation that is so supportive, providing advice and information to all. An organisation with fantastic reps that I have had the privilege to converse with.

This is the second cash award they have gratefully received from this type of situation. Last week, Kate Winslet donated an amount from similar libel damages where Grazia, fashion magazine, suggested she had visited a dieting doctor after Winslet had openly criticised the 'zero hero' culture. The magazine apologised and accepted the fact that the visit to the doctor had been to deal with a neck problem.

I think if Knightley does leave this business, which I hope she doesn't, she will look back on her life knowing that she made the big time; had the fame and had the courage to live her life the way she wants to. I can understand that she is exhausted. Exhausted from explaining and apologising over her 'normal' weight, which is beginning to define her. I just hope she doesn't say knightley night to her career just yet.

Size Zero Models

London Fashion Week ignited further controversy last week after refusing to ban 'size zero' models at their shows later this month.

The deaths of models: Uruguayan Luisel Ramos, who died of heart failure after eating nothing for days, and Brazilian Ana Carolina Reston, of anorexia, highlight this issue.

Firstly, the British Fashion Council are weak for not attempting to regulate the size of models employed by designers, claiming that such rules are not enforceable. They are putting too much faith in the designers themselves and their 'apparent' consciences.

London Fashion Week, with sponsors including Topshop, infectiously seeks, and more alarmingly influences, its prey with their dazzling seasonal collections whilst allowing them to cry with inadequacy of 'size zero' models-equal to a UK 4. Are they not shifting the nation so that women, in particular, must tailor their shapes to fit the designs, opposed to the designers catering for (and representing) us?

Such representation needs to extend from the catwalks and into the high-street stores. The average mannequin is a size 10, alarmingly smaller than the UK average woman, size 16. Not only can these inanimate figures project low self esteem onto shoppers but put pressure on customers to fit the ironically 'large' expectations designers have of us to be smaller than we naturally are. More stores, including Asda, are introducing UK size 4 garments, typically having a 22 inch waist measurement, the average size of an eight year old girl.

The designers need to open their eyes and firmly accept a high level of responsibility, if not fault, that their actions can be considered to directly affect young people in Britain and possibly highly contribute to the level of eating disorders in the UK. Their association, perhaps linked with praise, with underweight 'role' models reaching virtually all media outlets including 'pro-anorexia' websites.

Despite eye-opening efforts by Gaultier who strutted a size 20 model, Velvet, down the catwalk last October, (supposedly showing universal beauty, but can be considered to mock the whole debate if no long-term use of 'healthy' models are used) there have been more attacks on the fashion industry and their use of skeletal clothes horses, but the British Fashion Council decided against the adoption of banning models from the catwalk if they possess a BMI (Body Mass Index) of under 18.5, unlike Madrid. However, the use of models under 16 is prohibited.