As it was announced a few days ago that Harvey Nichols has lost one of its newer editions in the form of one Ms Paula Reed, Mr Joseph Wan - the companies CEO - was quoted as saying ‘I am saddened about Paula’s departure and I wish her well in the future.'
The role of Fashion Director was created for Paula, so its imaginable that her departure is quite a sting for the company as they were very proud to add her to their team, however Peta have been very open about the fact they consider it a result of their recent protests about the new HN fur policy.
What is my opinion on fur used in the creation of garments? I loathe it. And its not just the barbaric nature of modern day fur farms (no matter how they try and justify their practices - how do we know whats happening behind closed doors?) but its also the arrogance that betrothes a character wearing a fur garment. We are living in a time when everyone know the consequence of such 'luxuries' and seeing them wear a MontClair with a RRP at over £800 is merely a gesture of self righteousness to me rather than wealth.
So it leads me to wonder wether Peta are correct in their claims? Harvey Nichols fur policy has been in effect since around 2004 and fur has slowly become available since Paula stepped up to the plate.
These musings are purely my own opinions and perhaps Paula is merely a martyr and a face to blame for their change of policy, and if this is the case then I really do hope this doesnt have an effect on her career (and I'm sure it won't). However if she is responsible (and to a degree she must be), hopefully this will give her a new perspective on her responsibilities as a public figure in the british fashion world? It's a cruel world we live in, and people will always try and exert their evoluntionary advances on other species. I do believe Harvey Nichols is still in a position to win over the public, and I hope they take this opportunity to do so.
I'm sure we'll see you again soon Paula, hopefully next time under better circumstances.