Helen Martin: Attack on wrinkles is beginning to rankle

EVIDENCE of age and sex discrimination is piling up against broadcasters. Claims against the BBC have quadrupled in two years, with allegations that licence revenue has been squandered on golden handshakes to avoid the embarrassment of industrial tribunals.

We may not know the whole story, but we all recognise some of the high-profile names who have fallen victim to the wrinkly syndrome: Moira Stuart, Arlene Phillips, Anna Ford, Selina Scott, Kate Adie et al.

It's perfectly valid to raise arguments of equal opportunity, feminism, employment law and simple fairness – valid but not very powerful, since none of these seem to have much impact on whoever is taking the decision to dispense with mature, talented women.

The media world is, and always has been, something of a jungle. Broadcasting is more competitive than ever, and if it really were the case that pert, pretty, young faces produced healthy ratings and were good for business, who could blame senior executives for bending moral and legal boundaries to keep their channel on air?

But it's worse than that, because there's no justification at all for ousting women in their 40s and 50s. On the contrary, there's a strong case for bringing in more of them, and questioning the competency of the axemen.

Britain's population, and therefore the television viewing population, is ageing. By 2025, more than a third will be over 55. Even now, the over-50s command 80 per cent of the wealth of the country.

That doesn't mean to say we should be subjected to wall-to-wall commercials on stair lifts and incontinence pads, or dreary reminiscence documentaries about the 1960s, but it does suggest most of the audience will not flinch at a crow's foot or a laughter line. They may actually like the idea of presenters who reflect their own demographic.

Instead, as the viewers age, the presenters get younger. It's also highly significant that most of the casualties are women.

One of the most outrageous cases is that of Miriam O'Reilly, a well-preserved, 52-year-old who worked on . . . wait for it . . . Countryfile. With a remit to plod around farmyards in a fleece and wellies, and ponder the diversification of agriculture and rural land use, she probably thought she was relatively safe.

That was until she was told it was "time for the Botox", and a senior director asked her where she thought her career would go when HD came in and "we won't be able to hide your wrinkles" (remember this is Countryfile, not Pop Idol).

Miriam, along with Juliet Morris, Charlotte Smith and Michaela Strachan – all in their 40s and 50s – got the chop, to be replaced by Julia Bradbury (36) and Matt Baker (32). The only survivor was John Craven . . . aged 69. Apparently HD won't pick up his wrinkles at all.

So the question is: who is wielding the axe and why? Is it BBC policy, sanctioned from on high? Is it down to middle-aged male executives who want to surround themselves with totty? Is there some viewers' lobby I don't know about demanding that only women of child-bearing age appear on screen?

Scots of a certain vintage will recall Mary Marquis, the 1960s face of BBC Scotland, who was always secretive about her age. In 1998 she claimed to be "about 60" (although in 2002, she still claimed to be in her "early 60s"), which would have made her "about 50" when she retired from the Beeb in 1988.

Mary was no fool. Her trademark flamboyant neckerchiefs and scarves were decorously arranged to hide the one part of a woman's body that gives the game away, and it worked. But that was before HD.

Sally Magnusson and Jackie Bird are holding up well so far. But look out the jaunty scarves, girls. And let's hope Scottish viewers have the gumption to rise up in anger if the high heid yins at Pacific Quay try the same tactics here.

Keep track of costs

We always knew it would come to this. The cost of the trams has spiralled way out of control. The facts are that we can't actually afford to finish the project, but nor can we afford to throw away tens of millions to scrap it. We are barred from finding out what's really going on behind the scenes on the spurious grounds of commercial sensitivity and ongoing negotiations.

It's fair to say the ba's burst. And yet again we are left wondering why it is that when any project is funded by the public purse, the costings are left open-ended with no limit; yet if we were to adopt the same approach to an extension or a new build, we'd lose everything and deservedly be dismissed as idiots.