The Government is right to be setting the pace in the drive to end jobs discrimination against older people.

Whether its forthcoming Code of Good Practice will do any good remains to be seen. But it's a strong signal that Ministers aren't prepared to accept that people should be put out to grass prematurely while they still have plenty of good working years in them.

Quite why they've suddenly become so keen on this is a matter of speculation. In the wake of doubts sown by a Greengates reader the other week, I've become a bit sceptical about it being purely for our good.

Could it be that the Government has become rather worried about the cost to the State of thousands upon thousands of people excluded from the workforce in their middle years, before they've managed to build up their savings and their pension entitlement, and costing a fortune in welfare benefits as they grow older? Far cheaper, obviously, to keep us at it until we drop in harness.

But casting such cynicism aside, it is good to have it officially acknowledged that a vast wealth of knowledge and experience is currently being wasted by companies which refuse to see the merits of older employees.

Older people are generally agreed, by enlightened companies like B&Q, to be reliable, efficient and courteous to the public. Their main drawback, I suppose, is that they are less easy to intimidate than younger workers, having seen rather more of the world and become wise to its ways

But on balance, older workers give good value for money and can offer a package of qualities to make them at least the equals of workers in younger age groups.

It's nice to have a Code of Conduct that backs that point of view. Perhaps the Government could now sell the idea to the EU which, so keen on human rights in so many other areas, shamefully has an upper age limit for recruitment of 45 for its various institutions.

More good news, on the face of it, for older people is the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act to protect the savings of those who have to go into care homes.

Now councils will start paying some of the cost of care when savings drop below £16,000, and start to pay it all when only £10,000 is left.

At least, that's the theory. In reality, it's likely that some hard-up councils with more demand on their budget than they have cash in the kitty will try to bend the rules and hope to get away with it.

The Government will claim that authorities must do better with the money at their disposal, and councils will claim (sometimes with justification) that they aren't being allowed enough funding to start to underwrite the care costs of everyone with less than £16,000 savings.

Until the two branches of government - local and national - get together properly and agree to boost the resources for care of the elderly, any good intentions are likely to be seriously undermined by bickering.

I Don't Believe It!

There's a queue forming for a turn on the Moan Throne. First to sound off this week is Maurice Chalcraft of Lidget Green, whose complaint is the cost of a haircut.

"When I was a lad I used to be able to get it cut for threepence," he recalls. "Now it costs £2.40 at one local hairdressers, and at another one it costs £3.60. It seems that the less you have, the more it costs you. If they charged by the time they took, it wouldn't be so bad."

Don't I know it, Maurice! Some of us have hardly any hair at all and only seem to be in the chair for a couple of minute, yet we're charged just the same as those with a massive mane who take half an hour. It's tough enough being bald without being expected to subsidise those who aren't.

Maurice also regrets the decline of what he calls the old-fashioned proper barber, who is steadily being replaced by places where men have their hair done alongside women.

Last week's criticism of a certain weather forecaster prompted a stormy blast from reader S M Turnbull ("alias Moaning Minnie"), from Parkside Road, who lists several examples of abuse of the English language by TV people:

"The weather presenter on the BBC who refers to drips and drops of rain as 'bits and bats' - Ugh!!

"The use of the word 'unique' with a qualifying word preceding it, eg 'quite unique', 'nearly unique' - Ugh!

"The TV interview with the niece of the person involved spelled in the caption as 'NEICE' - Arrgh! Instead of paying exorbitant salaries, why do they not send them back to school?"

And lastly, a caller who declined to give a name other than "Albert" left a message for me saying he was sick of all the cars which are parked around Bradford, on grass verges and roadsides, with hand-written FOR SALE signs and prices on them.

"It makes everywhere look so untidy," he said. And I quite agree. They should advertise them in the T&A instead, shouldn't they?

If you have a gripe about anything, drop a line to me, Hector Mildew, c/o Newsroom, T&A, Hall Ings, Bradford BD1 1JR, or leave any messages for me with Mike Priestley on 01274 729511. If you've already sent in a grumble and it hasn't appeared yet, don't worry - it will do.

Yours Expectantly,

Hector Mildew

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.