On 13 Jul 2009 at 7:12pm Northern Bigot wrote:
Besides the queen of botox Annie Robinson, so many face lifts she will be shaving soon! How many women from Arlene Phillips to Moira Stuart are considered too old in their 50s and 60s by the beeb?. We get all these programmes like News 24, where the male presenter is often 10 or 20 years older than the female. When did the public decide they dont want women of 55 on TV, who look 55? What about Margaret on the Apprentice programme the womens a star !
Compare their treatment with that of the ethnic and disabled. The BBC diversity department has set itself targets and time limits to ensure 12.5% black and ethnic employees, and 5.5% disabled employees by 2011. Investing £3 million to "ring fence" 50% of a "high fliers " mentoring and developing programme for ethnics and disabled, amongst many other initiatives .
On 14 Jul 2009 at 8:28am sashimi wrote:
Why are all premier league football players in their 20s or early 30s? They should be made to pick teams that reflect the age make-up of the population. Grandad may not have the speed of the youngsters but he makes up for it with experience and what ref is going to yellow card a blind pensioner for answering back. Fairness in Football, I say.
On 14 Jul 2009 at 11:27am Hotman wrote:
And on that basis sashimi we need a battalion of 70 year olds fighting in Afghanistan.
On 14 Jul 2009 at 12:52pm sashimi wrote:
Hotman, I hadn't thought of that. But, you've got it in one. 70 year olds being closer to death will fight more fearlessly and are more expendable.
On 14 Jul 2009 at 1:59pm Unknown soldier wrote:
rather tasteless i think in the circumstances
On 14 Jul 2009 at 3:22pm sashimi wrote:
Yes, quite right Unknown soldier. All rather silly hypothetical stuff. If you or anyone else are offended, I apologise.
On 14 Jul 2009 at 5:36pm Hotman wrote:
What's offensive is the fact that our politicians are sending our soldiers to get killed in a pointless occupation of Afghanistan.
On 14 Jul 2009 at 5:48pm Wilhelm wrote:
Hotman, you forget that soldiers have a career choice. If that's what they want to do they shall go for it.
On 14 Jul 2009 at 6:53pm Hotman wrote:
True Wilhelm, but I don't think we can support their lives being thrown away needlessly.
On 14 Jul 2009 at 7:06pm Northern bigot wrote:
Slightly more talent and energy and skill may be required to play professional football than read an autocue! Reading an autocue can be done as well by a 55 year old as a 25 year old. The ability to play top flight football has traditionally had an age limit!
On 14 Jul 2009 at 7:07pm Tank wrote:
Although this post has gone a little of the thread I have to agree with you Hotman, what a waste of all these lives!
On 15 Jul 2009 at 8:13am sashimi wrote:
If little talent is required to read an autocue, shouldn't this be a reserved occupation for brainless blonde bimbos who would otherwise be unemployable? Then the 55 plus brainy females could be recruited for calculating benefits and other complex administrative tasks. The side benefit would be that at least 50% of the population would then watch the otherwise depressing TV news.
On 15 Jul 2009 at 8:18am Hotman wrote:
I think you've solved the problem there sashimi.
On 15 Jul 2009 at 11:15am Career Advisor wrote:
Whilst it can be argued that the Government are sending our soldiers to Afghanistan and needlessly wasting lives, this war has been going on now for longer than WW2, so I guess a good proportion of the soldiers actually signed up (and continue to sign up) whilst it has been going on. Those people did have a choice and were fully aware of the situation that they would put themselves into.
The fact does remain however that we are a small country pretending to be a big country just to curry favour with America. The vast amounts of money spent on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq could have been much better spent on problems nearer to home, especially now the economy is on its knees and we are having to print more money to keep the country solvent !. If the objective of the war is so vital as some might argue, then where are the rest of the world with their armed forces and money to share the burden ? Bring them all home and let someone else have a go.
On 15 Jul 2009 at 12:15pm Hotman wrote:
Career Advsor - Did you see some of those kids on the news last night who are shortly to go to Afghanistan. They admitted they were scared. They would have been about 11 when the war started and clearly have no idea what it's about and why and probably don't even know where the country is. It's a job and one that a lot of them would not choose if manufacturing had not been destroyed in this country by the Tories and Labour together.
On 15 Jul 2009 at 1:26pm Career Advisor wrote:
Yes Hotman, that is exactly the point I am making. The war was going in when they signed up and for a long time before that. I presume when they signed up that they were old enough to have an idea about it, after all it's on the news every day . Where did they, or their families and friends, think the army might send them ???? Of course they are scared, most people in their position would be. I am not belittling them, and I have great respect for what they do, however the simple fact is that we only have an army for one reason, and that should not come as a surprise to anyone in it when they are sent to do their job in a hostile environment. Yes, our manufacturing industry was destroyed, but there is still a choice, and an overwhelming majority made the choice not to join the armed forces. The question should be, as I said before, whether the government were right in sending them, and leaving them for so long in Afghanistan.