Brand or No-brand

I've heard a number of talks recently from several people who have some justified criticism of modern culture but some not so. I agree with the sentiment that the concept of 'Baby Gap' and the cost of the clothing is obscene given how fast the kids are growing. But I objected to the slating of branded trainers. Whenever somebody wants to criticise 'peer pressure' fashion victimisation and superficiality they use the example of teenagers having to have the 'right' trainers. Now when I was at school, you could get a pair of quality Gola trainers which would do the job but damage your reputation beyond repair. Or you could be with the cool and get a pair of Nike Air Max for £65 which in 1988 was a fair wedge of cash.

In my adulthood, I no longer give a flying f*** what people think of my shoes but the cheaper brands - Gola, Dunlop and Puma have re-ignited their brands as retro-cool anyway.

The only option for a cheap pair of trainers are the really crap ones you get from shoe emporium for a tenner. As well as being bloody ugly these will fall apart and are made of cheap materials which don't allow your feet to breath,so whilst you return from your little jog around the block feeling proud of having defeated the big nasty sports-clothes-giants, your family aren't going to be too impressed by the fact that your feet smell like two ripe Camembert.

I don't brand-worship but neither do I brand-despise...both I think are equally unpleasant. Mr No-Label irritates me just as much as Mr Kappa.

Does anybody share my sentiments? Or am I wrong because I do know that sometimes that can happen!