Simple enough story in the papers today. It's quite obviously the case that workers can't be forced to retire after 65.
NOW THE RIGHT TO WORK PAST 65. Simple, really.
WORKERS CAN BE FORCED OUT AT 65. Nyurgh-nyurgh-nyer-nyer-nyurgh.
Oh, who knows which one is right? Who even cares? For once, I suppose, at least it's somehow comforting to know they can't both be wrong. Or maybe they can. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. Maybe they don't give a shit. Maybe they both looked at the same piece of information and though: well, let's tell it like this. Maybe the Mail found out something the Express didn't. Maybe the Express found out what the Mail was doing, and decided to stick two fingers up to it. Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe no-one cares at all. Maybe if you're 65 and approaching enforced retirement / a happy career of not being forced to quit, you've got more on your mind than spending nearly a quid of your hard-earned money getting two pretty much contradictory views of exactly the same thing.
Still, at least it's not about immigration. Unless they've managed to weave that in there somewhere. HARD-WORKING PENSIONERS NOT ALLOWED TO CARRY ON WORKING TILL THEY'RE DEAD / FORCED TO KEEP ON WORKING JUST TO KEEP THE BOILER RUNNING, AND IT'S ALL BECAUSE WE'RE GIVING HANDOUTS TO SPONGEING SWARTHY TYPES, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M ON ABOUT, AND THEY GET FREE HOUSES AND EVERYTHING, SOMEONE TOLD ME. Or something like that.
I don't know if these contradictory front pages - with a bonus Cheryl Cole and intrusion into family death for a bit of fun - make them look good, or bad. I don't really mind - so long as it's bad. I'm guessing it is bad, because it usually is.
No related posts.