Woo, I've written 100 rants about various topics
I could use this as a reflection, but I'd rather ignore this special occasion to point out how arbitrary it all is to mark randomly assigned numbers and dates
So anyway, with all this nonsense over apparent ageism, Sarah Sands has written an excellent piece - pointing out that we all must go at some point and that Baby Boomers are the most evil of generations
It's true, they are the ones with the sense of self-entitlement, we young are a cynical and resentful mobile workforce
So what if Arlene Philips was sacked? Apparently if you sack a 66-year old it's always for the wrong reasons and the equalities minister has to stick her oar in
We are talking about a show already presented by a 103-year old here, but then it's sexism because it's a woman thing - men don't need to be pretty or young
So the logical conclusion is to never sack anyone over the age of 40...and certainly not over the mandatory retirement age - which I might add the employer has the ultimate right to enforce (although not for much longer)
As the Beeb rightfully point out - the remaining judges are 65, 53 (Bruno is 53??) and 44 - if anything that show could do with some equality below the middle-age mark, but equality doesn't work like that does it?