Sunday, December 07, 2008
Pretty faces
It has long been a source of some irritation that people with pretty faces and a pleasing manner get paid large sums for reading the news and such like on television. Reading to the camera is a skill, but is it really such a big skill? The source of the irritation might, of course, be sour grapes. No-one ever thought to offer me anything for reading the news.
That being as it may, I was interested to see that another lady news reader has successfully done her (presumably) former employer for £250,000 because they decided that she was getting a bit long in the tooth to count as a pretty face. One might have thought that, having no doubt earned a large amount of money in her time, she would bow out a bit more gracefully. I think I shall open a book on when the first lap dancer will take her employer to the European Court of Human Justice (or whatever it is called) on similar grounds. Perhaps Mrs Blair, whom I believe to specialise in such stuff, will lead for her.
Another class of people who irritate, the regulators, must be rather disappointed in the Queen's Speech. Only a very modest amount of that so worthy legislation which takes such a lot of space and effort. The thought struck me that we should inaugurate the stone as the official measure of such stuff - stones in weight of a single copy of the relevant documents, printed in 12 point type on 200g paper. With the rather high paper weight being appropriate for such important material. It would amuse me to think that the official measure was the same as that used for wet fish.
I think that some of the worthy legislation was all about making it even easier for ladies who want it both ways - that is to say to bring up a family and to have a full-on career - to claim all kinds of flexibilities from their employers. I suspect that the do gooders who dream all this sort of stuff up have little experience of running a shop - in the wider sense - where everybody can more or less come or go as they please. Absolute pain in my limited experience. Apart from all the bother of having to remember who works when, the thing is a scivers' paradise. "Where were you?" "Didn't I mention that I had to flex off for little Wayne's appointment with his school's flexible media librarian?" Or perhaps: "I should have thought you would of worked out by now that I have to spend the time between 1200 and 1500 on Fridays in Sainsburys. I've got a family to care for, not like some people. And yes I did pop in for a quick half on the way back. What's your problem?" Its all very well saying that managers have to learn how to deal with all this kind of stuff - but if they don't have to, they might have more time to spend on other things.
Another stray thought was that regulators are also known as meddlers. A word which is pleasantly close to medlars, a fruit which is best consumed when slightly rotten.
And while we are in 'disgusted from Epsom' mode, we might as well dilate about ladies whose organisations run into a spot of bother but do not feel it necessary to resign. Now while I am not in much of a position to comment on the case in Harringey, we do seem to have a widespread problem with having lost sight of where the buck stops. So we have the well paid permanent head of a large department of a large local authority. Something frightful happens out on the ground which is within the area of responsibility of the large department. Clearly no good for the head of the department to claim good intentions. That is not even always enough to satisfy the man at the Pearly Gates. And no good to say, well, matey three levels down screwed up. I'll get him dismissed for incompetance. Three levels down not good enough for something frightful. A more impressive scapegoat is needed. OK so that doesn't fly. What about the line that there must have been a process failure for which middle management is responsible for matey to be able to screw up. I'm senior management and I did not appoint that particular bit of middle management. So I'm in the clear. Lay off my pension pit. Hmmm. OK, so let's get nuclear: this is a crummy area with a crummy budget and bad things are going to happen. Us: a bit more sympathy, but should the head be head on that basis? Should one take a job which is impossible? Doesn't that amount to false pretences? Clearly a giant playground for bar-room chatter for the disgusteds of Epsom.
That being as it may, I was interested to see that another lady news reader has successfully done her (presumably) former employer for £250,000 because they decided that she was getting a bit long in the tooth to count as a pretty face. One might have thought that, having no doubt earned a large amount of money in her time, she would bow out a bit more gracefully. I think I shall open a book on when the first lap dancer will take her employer to the European Court of Human Justice (or whatever it is called) on similar grounds. Perhaps Mrs Blair, whom I believe to specialise in such stuff, will lead for her.
Another class of people who irritate, the regulators, must be rather disappointed in the Queen's Speech. Only a very modest amount of that so worthy legislation which takes such a lot of space and effort. The thought struck me that we should inaugurate the stone as the official measure of such stuff - stones in weight of a single copy of the relevant documents, printed in 12 point type on 200g paper. With the rather high paper weight being appropriate for such important material. It would amuse me to think that the official measure was the same as that used for wet fish.
I think that some of the worthy legislation was all about making it even easier for ladies who want it both ways - that is to say to bring up a family and to have a full-on career - to claim all kinds of flexibilities from their employers. I suspect that the do gooders who dream all this sort of stuff up have little experience of running a shop - in the wider sense - where everybody can more or less come or go as they please. Absolute pain in my limited experience. Apart from all the bother of having to remember who works when, the thing is a scivers' paradise. "Where were you?" "Didn't I mention that I had to flex off for little Wayne's appointment with his school's flexible media librarian?" Or perhaps: "I should have thought you would of worked out by now that I have to spend the time between 1200 and 1500 on Fridays in Sainsburys. I've got a family to care for, not like some people. And yes I did pop in for a quick half on the way back. What's your problem?" Its all very well saying that managers have to learn how to deal with all this kind of stuff - but if they don't have to, they might have more time to spend on other things.
Another stray thought was that regulators are also known as meddlers. A word which is pleasantly close to medlars, a fruit which is best consumed when slightly rotten.
And while we are in 'disgusted from Epsom' mode, we might as well dilate about ladies whose organisations run into a spot of bother but do not feel it necessary to resign. Now while I am not in much of a position to comment on the case in Harringey, we do seem to have a widespread problem with having lost sight of where the buck stops. So we have the well paid permanent head of a large department of a large local authority. Something frightful happens out on the ground which is within the area of responsibility of the large department. Clearly no good for the head of the department to claim good intentions. That is not even always enough to satisfy the man at the Pearly Gates. And no good to say, well, matey three levels down screwed up. I'll get him dismissed for incompetance. Three levels down not good enough for something frightful. A more impressive scapegoat is needed. OK so that doesn't fly. What about the line that there must have been a process failure for which middle management is responsible for matey to be able to screw up. I'm senior management and I did not appoint that particular bit of middle management. So I'm in the clear. Lay off my pension pit. Hmmm. OK, so let's get nuclear: this is a crummy area with a crummy budget and bad things are going to happen. Us: a bit more sympathy, but should the head be head on that basis? Should one take a job which is impossible? Doesn't that amount to false pretences? Clearly a giant playground for bar-room chatter for the disgusteds of Epsom.
# posted by Jim @ 4:21 AM 
