Kelly Osbourne is on the Sun's payroll, acting as some sort of agony aunt ("I've got a problem, Kelly" "Get your dad's butler to sort it"). So perhaps that's why Gordon Smart treats her ambassadorship of World Contraception Day with a straight face. Kelly, it seems, knows a thing or two about contraception because, erm, she had a pregnancy scare. Sort-of:
“There are so many rumours and also so much wrong information being passed around, so it is a really important message the World Contraception Day is trying to give out.”
Surely the solution to Kelly's problem had less to do with contraception than poor sex ed?
Kelly insists that she's not the sort of person to go talking about her sex life, before talking about her sex life in too much detail:
"I go three, maybe four times a year to get tested for sexually transmitted infections and most of the time I don’t even need to. I just go for peace of mind.”
"Most of the time I don't even need to" is a phrase which will bang around the inside of my head for a while yet.
Is it really a good idea for a contraception campaign to be headed by someone who suggests that "talking about contraception" is divorced from "talking about your sex life" rather than being central to it?
Something neither Kelly nor Gordon find room for is a mention that, far from being a health initiative, World Contraception Day is actually a marketing stunt for the oral contraceptive company Bayer. However important the contraceptive message is, should it be being delivered by a company who have a vested interest in increasing the take-up of one type of system over others? Is it right for an advertising campaign to be disguised as a health message? And shouldn't Kelly be acknowledging who's underwriting her campaign?