Liz Earle Cleanse and Polish Hot Cloth Cleanser

Skin is left feeling soft, clean but never dry. The plastic pump bottle is great for travel

Price: £12.25 for the 100ml starter kit with two cloths; 100ml on its own, £10.75, travel size, 30ml: £4.50

Muslin cloths also sold separately, £3 for a pack of two, £7.50 for a pack of six.

Stockists: www.lizearle.com Customer centre - 01983 813 913

Launched: 8th March 1996

Tested: 2004 and January 2008

One of the best cleansers there is. I love it. You use it in three stages: massage it all over face, even your eyes. It cleanses your face of dirt and make up. Massage is very good for the skin and it’s almost impossible to overdo if you just use your own fingers (i.e. no brushes or other scrubby devices). Then you rinse out the linen face cloth that comes with the cleanser in hand hot water and use it to remove the product – that’s your exfoliation done. Then you splash with cool water. This last bit is the only bit I disagree with in that I wouldn’t, personally, change the temperature of the water because I think it can lead to broken veins if you’re a bit sensitive. But it’s up to you. The cool water feels nice. Skin is left feeling soft, clean but never dry. The plastic pump bottle is great for travel.

Ingredients:

Aqua
Caprylic / capric triglyceride
Theobroma cacao (cocoa) seed butter
Cetearyl alcohol
Cettyl esters
Sorbitan stearate
Polysorbate 60
Glycerine
Cera alba (beeswax)
Propylene glycol
Humulus lupulus(hops) extract
Panthenol
Rosmarinus officinalis (rosemary) extract
Anthemis nobilis (chamomile) extract
Prunus amygdalus dulcis (sweet almond) extract
Eucalyptus globules (eucalyptus) oil
Limonene
Citric acid
Sodium hydroxide
Phenoxyethanol
Benzoic acid
Ethylhexylglycerin
Dehydroacetic acid
Polyaminopropyl biguanide

Annalisa Barbieri was in fashion PR for five years before going to the Observer to be fashion assistant. She has worked for the Evening Standard and the Times and was one of the fashion editors on the Independent on Sunday for five years, where she wrote the Dear Annie column. She was fishing correspondent of the Independent from 1997-2004.
Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump's dangerous nation

From North Korea to Virginia, the US increasingly resembles a rogue state.

When Donald Trump was elected as US president, some optimistically suggested that the White House would have a civilising effect on the erratic tycoon. Under the influence of his more experienced colleagues, they argued, he would gradually absorb the norms of international diplomacy.

After seven months, these hopes have been exposed as delusional. On 8 August, he responded to North Korea’s increasing nuclear capabilities by threatening “fire and fury like the world has never seen”. Three days later, he casually floated possible military action against Venezuela. Finally, on 12 August, he responded to a white supremacist rally in Virginia by condemning violence on “many sides” (only criticising the far right specifically after two days of outrage).

Even by Mr Trump’s low standards, it was an embarrassing week. Rather than normalising the president, elected office has merely inflated his self-regard. The consequences for the US and the world could be momentous.

North Korea’s reported acquisition of a nuclear warhead small enough to fit on an intercontinental missile (and potentially reach the US) demanded a serious response. Mr Trump’s apocalyptic rhetoric was not it. His off-the-cuff remarks implied that the US could launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korea, leading various officials to “clarify” the US position. Kim Jong-un’s regime is rational enough to avoid a pre-emptive strike that would invite a devastating retaliation. However, there remains a risk that it misreads Mr Trump’s intentions and rushes to action.

Although the US should uphold the principle of nuclear deterrence, it must also, in good faith, pursue a diplomatic solution. The week before Mr Trump’s remarks, the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, rightly ruled out “regime change” and held out the possibility of “a dialogue”.

The North Korean regime is typically depicted as crazed, but its pursuit of nuclear weapons rests on rational foundations. The project is designed to guarantee its survival and to strengthen its bargaining hand. As such, it must be given incentives to pursue a different path.

Mr Trump’s bellicose language overshadowed the successful agreement of new UN sanctions against North Korea (targeting a third of its $3bn exports). Should these prove insufficient, the US should resume the six-party talks of the mid-2000s and even consider direct negotiations.

A failure of diplomacy could be fatal. In his recent book Destined for War, the Harvard historian Graham Allison warns that the US and China could fall prey to “Thucydides’s trap”. According to this rule, dating from the clash between Athens and Sparta, war typically results when a dominant power is challenged by an ascendent rival. North Korea, Mr Bew writes, could provide the spark for a new “great power conflict” between the US and China.

Nuclear standoffs require immense patience, resourcefulness and tact – all qualities in which Mr Trump is lacking. Though the thought likely never passed his mind, his threats to North Korea and Venezuela provide those countries with a new justification for internal repression.

Under Mr Trump’s leadership, the US is becoming an ever more fraught, polarised nation. It was no accident that the violent events in Charlottesville, Virginia, culminating in the death of the 32-year-old Heather Heyer, took place under his presidency. Mr Trump’s victory empowered every racist, misogynist and bigot in the land. It was doubtless this intimate connection that prevented him from immediately condemning the white supremacists. To denounce them is, in effect, to denounce himself.

The US hardly has an unblemished history. It has been guilty of reckless, immoral interventions in Vietnam, Latin America and Iraq. But never has it been led by a man so heedless of international and domestic norms. Those Republicans who enabled Mr Trump’s rise and preserve him in office must do so no longer. There is a heightened responsibility, too, on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, the president. The Brexiteers have allowed dreams of a future US-UK trade deal to impair their morality.

Under Mr Trump, the US increasingly resembles a breed it once denounced: a rogue state. His former rival Hillary Clinton’s past warning that “a man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons” now appears alarmingly prescient.

This article first appeared in the 17 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump goes nuclear