All your pubs belong to Nick Nunn

Here is the latest offering from Nick Nunn at the Lancashire Telegraph. (With running commentary from The Moose)

PUBS have taken a real hammering in the past decade.

No shit. It's down to the smoking ban.

Nicked from Velvet Glove, Iron Fist.

Wouldn't you agree Mr Nunn?

As lives get busier and money gets tighter the number of people popping into their local for a pint or two has dropped drastically.

A few maybe. What about the smoking ban.

The traditional big factory employers have disappeared and with them the corner pubs where workers would pile in for a drink on their way home and compete in works’ darts or dominoes teams.
Even pub quiz leagues are nothing like as popular as they were five or more years ago.

True, pubs change shape over time, but what about the smoking ban?

The increasing price of booze, the social stigma (rightly) now associated with drinking

Rightly? You think it's right that there should be a social stigma attached to drinking alcohol? Getting pissed and having a fight, yes, but going down the local boozer for a pint and a chinwag? Come on.

and the smoking ban have all meant more and more folk drinking at home.

Ah, there it is. I like the way you think people drink at home because there is a social stigma. Do you think they are hiding because they are embarrassed? People drink at home because they can have a fag inside without the ever watchful eye of the state breathing down their neck. The booze is also cheaper which is an added bonus.

The result is that it’s become extremely difficult to make boozers work as a business unless they are transformed into more upmarket gastro pubs where customers are coming for the food rather than company and a chat.

In this fast-moving age of instant electronic communication people need added value if they are going to be tempted to drop into a bar – an extra attraction. The idea of sitting in a virtually empty, and often shabby, public bar is just not an attractive proposition.

You're right, before the ban, pubs were much more pleasant places to visit and socialise. Now they're mostly empty and folk have to go out in the rain for a fag. I wonder what we can do about it?

But Erica Dobie and Adam Whittaker might have the answer to this dilemma. They are running a project called Stars and Stuff which has just been awarded a £24,000 grant by the Adult and Community Practical Learning Fund to deliver practical astronomy education in Darwen to adults and families ‘disengaged from traditional science institutions such as museums and universities.’ The idea is that they will deliver a nine-month course in a place where people feel comfortable and relaxed – like a pub.

That isn't what I had in mind. In fact I'm quite horrified. *Outrage*
Twenty four thousand pounds of taxpayers money to teach astronomy in pubs? Cuts? What cuts?

And please explain to me what 'disengaged' from museums and universities means. Does it just mean they can't afford the entry fee, so the taxpayer has to pick up the tab?

It’s a great idea and one which could easily spread.
Why spend a fortune throwing up expensive new ‘community resource centres’ and the like when we already have a network of pubs just waiting to be used.

We? We have a network of pubs?

Please take a moment to let that one sink in.

we already have a network of pubs just waiting to be used.

The pubs are owned by the landlords and pubcos. They are not state property. They most certainly are not there to be exploited at the will of the 'community'.

They are already being used. They are being used for the purposes intended by the owners. That fact that they may be being underutilised is the fault of the Government and the childish smoking ban which as thrown out the bulk of the customers.

That doesn't mean that the state can walk in and take what's left.

If a landlord wants to join a scheme like this to boost business then fair enough. I would prefer it wasn't paid for by the tax payer though. Besides, I don't imagine a person that can't afford a few quid to go to a museum spending much over the bar, can you.

You could have all sorts of activities from learning foreign languages like Spanish, to flower arranging, English literature and drama taking place in bars – not to mention wine appreciation classes!
Many pubs also have outside space too which could be used for teaching practical skills – and tidying them up too.

No, no, no. Pubs are not schools. They are pubs. They exist for adults to go to have a drink and a smoke and a chinwag with friends.

The fact that the smoking ban has ruined all that does not mean we should make landlords start holding adult education classes in them. Repeal the ban and let's sort the problem out properly.

Yes, getting people to the pub to gaze at the wonders of the universe instead of into a pint glass could be the start of an educational revolution.

It would also be the final nail in what was a traditional place to socialise with friends.

Equality laws. Helping ugly people get jobs since 1862

Here's another case of "It's not my fault, It's everyone else's" spotted during my daily dose of the Underdog.

Didn't get the job? Blame 'lookism', as discrimination against the ugly 'is the new racism'

Some might consider it an ugly truth that attractive people are often more successful than those less blessed with looks.
But now our appearance is emerging in legal disputes as a new kind of discrimination.
‘Lookism’, it is claimed, is the new racism, and should be banished from civilised societies.

It's a never ending quest. The desire to find external reasons why people fail so they they don't have to look into themselves and take responsibility for their own inadequacies.

We've had racism, sexism and ageism. As we create more and more laws, and people continue to fail at their own life expectations, we continue to look for new and imaginative ways to blame others.

Why didn't I get the job? I'm not black, old, female or a lezzer so it must be down to my looks. Nothing to do with being an illiterate moron, educated in a socialist system of illiterate morons.

Economist Daniel Hamermesh argues that ugliness is no different from race or a disability, and suggests unattractive people deserve legal protection.

Of course. Munters with a face like a welders bench deserve equal treatment too. So how would this legal protection happen?

If laws protecting ugly heifers go down the same ridiculous path as all the other, so called, equality laws, I foresee a future where all job interviews need to be held down the pub on a Friday night after a few scoops.

Bosses across the country will be waking up in the morning and finding out that they have employed a fat lass.

Businesses will be dreading the Human Resources office party. There will be another five mingers working in the typing pool the next day.

The Daily Mail story is accompanied by this picture:

With the following tag line:

Successful: Cheryl Cole is both attractive and a high achiever

Here's another high achiever:

Attractive? I think not. Think of Anne Widdicome, Mick Jagger, Douglas Hurd, Sara Jessica-Parker.... Actually, no don't, you'll have nightmares. But the point is, having a face like a dockers boot is no barrier to success.

Sure there are some careers where ugly people will not fit the bill. The obvious is swimsuit model....

...but think about jobs in customer service for example. I've seen a lot of ugly barstaff in my time, but landlords tend to make sure they aren't so repulsive that they turn the beer.

Sales people also seem to have avoided a collision with the ugly tree. If you employ somebody to sell your product face to face, you want to be sure that face is in some way pleasing to the eye.

I hope we don't see a demand for sales staff to be a least fifty percent ugly. Or half of bar birds to be repulsive enough to flatten a pint of best bitter at forty yards.

There's equality and anti-discrimination and there's just plain silliness.

If you're not doing as well as you had hoped, have a look at yourself for the answers. It's not race, colour, sex, age or aesthetics. It's education, literacy, experience, ability, dedication and job suitability.

Let's not have any more equality laws please. They don't do anyone any good.

When real life refuses to conform to your idiot world view.....

....complain to the papers.

Tourist complains about sight of fish in harbour

Yes seriously. This muppet complained to the harbourmaster of a working harbour, about the sight and smell of dead fish on a fishing boat.

[...] when David Copp came across a fishing trawler moored in Ilfracombe Harbour he took great offence and complained about the “disgusting” smell.
The 46-year-old was outraged that his children, aged seven and nine, had been forced to endure the sight of 12 crates of dead fish and crabs, piled up on the quayside.

It's a quayside on a working harbour in a fishing village. Here there be fish!

Even in these days of instant offence seeking, it's still hard to beleive that a grown man of 46 years could be 'outraged' at the sight of some dead fish.

Somebody needs to confiscate his man licence.

He said the ordeal had left them “quite distressed” and demanded to know why the harbourmaster was not more considerate to tourists.

Because being considerate to tourists is probably the last thing on his mind. He's the harbourmaster in a fishing village. His concern lies with the people who are trying to make a living bringing in their catch, not pandering to soft arsed tourists who turn to jelly at the sight of a dead fish.

There are people in such villages who do consider tourists. They're the ones who own tea shops or sell saucy postcards on the front. You are just a hinderance to local people who are trying to make a living in spite of the tourists who keep getting underfoot.

“There were flies flying around and the smell was awful,” he said

Sounds like Bradford.

“The ship was just sat there not doing anything, and there were 12 crates of dead crabs and fish just lying there covered in flies.

Yep. Strangely enough, fish does not come straight out of the sea, cleaned, gutted, vacuum packed and boxed.

“It’s not the sort of thing you want to see on holiday, there was a real stench.

Then may I suggest not holidaying in a fishing village you utter moron. Do you just expect the local trade to stop, just so your delicate, flowery little noses don't have to put up with a bit of a smell?

Mr Copp called Ilfracombe harbourmaster Rob Lawson to complain about the smell that had emanated from The Lady of Lundy trawler before calling the North Devon Journal to air his woes.

He followed the typical offended, entitled, I want compo route. First he complained, then he went to the papers.

There is one reason why the title of this post is not, "This is why we have so many jobsworths - Part 3". That's because his complaints were not indulged and no weasel words were used to try and appease him.

Mr Lawson tried to explain that fishermen depended on the daily catch for their livelihoods and that it was a common site on a working quayside

“I explained the workings of the harbour and that it was a working quay and that while it was not ideal, sometimes this happened.

"I told this chap that you shouldn't take your children to a harbour if that is how they react to dead fish."

Now that's how we should respond to these idiots. Tell them how it is and tell them to do one. The country needs a lot more Mr Lawsons.

Mr Copp is understood to have been on a two-week family holiday in the popular north Devon tourist resort when he lodged his complaint, which attracted disbelief from locals.

One said: “Ridiculous. Does he think all his food comes in packets? What did he expect to see at a working harbour?”

I'm surprised he didn't get lynched.

A big H/T to The Angry Exile who has his own choice words for this prat in, Pish of the Day.

Stats prove Don Shenker talks shite

Off-licence 'link' to underage drink hospital cases

Link eh? Prepare yourself for a load of statistical rubbish that shows no link what so ever, being used to show a link.

The number of off-licence premises in an area is statistically linked to the number of underage drinkers admitted to hospital for alcohol-related problems, a study suggests.

The research for campaign group Alcohol Concern relates to 2006 to 2009 and is for England, excluding London.

On average for every two stores per 100,000 of population selling drink, one under 18-year-old sought treatment.

Wow that's a lot. I wonder if they drove themselves to the hospital.

So am I reading this right? For an area of 100,000 people with 100 off licences, 50 people under 18 sought treatment for alcohol related problems? That's assuming one off licence per 1000 people. Double that and you have 100 admissions.

It's hardly huge is it? These single issue pressure groups take a very minor problem and make it sound like we are all doomed. They get well paid out of our tax money for it though.

So what are we to do about this unbelievably non-interesting bore fest of national emergency?

The report says the government may need to control off-licence numbers.

The government already control off-licence numbers through the licencing laws and strict planning controls. It's also illegal to sell alcohol to under eighteens.

It also argues authorities must be given powers under the Licensing Act to refuse applications on the grounds of local health considerations and calls for improved analysis of alcohol-related hospital admissions.

I would second the motion for improved analysis of alcohol related hospital admissions. At the moment it's utter bunkum to the point of pure fabrication and downright lies.

Somehow I doubt a clear and truthful analysis of hospital admissions will help Don Shenkers case, but somehow I don't think we will get one. I'm sure that what Shenker wants is more lies.

As for refusing applications based on local health considerations, there are no local health considerations. There is my health and there is your health. I'll concern myself with my health and you concern yourself with yours.

When did we start to believe that it was acceptable to curtail the sale of a legal product by a legal business to an adult, just in case that adult goes away and misuses the product.

Underage drinking concerns aside, this is what we are talking about. Refusing off-licence applications because the adults who use the off-licences may harm their own health.

This recommendation is on the back of a report that says 50 underage people may end up in hospital if there are 100 off licences per 100,000 head of population.

Lets' amend those figures. How many people are admitted to hospital with DIY related injuries if there are a couple of B&Q stores per 100,000 people?

Are you willing to bet it's more than 50?

Would you be surprised to learn that more than 200,000 people are admitted to hospital with DIY related injuries each year in the UK alone?

It's costing the NHS money! De-normalise the DIYers!

The report says: "Effective harm prevention therefore not only requires targeting education, information and support at an individual level among young people but control of the concentration of alcohol outlets at a community level."

So why are you not seeking to educate people who put up their own shelves, and why are you not demanding Draconian regulation of Homebase?

Could it be that you wouldn't get any funding for it?

The data, analysed by Dr Nikki Coghill at University of West of England, is based on the 214 out of 293 local authorities that published relevant information. Alcohol Concern said the findings were "sufficiently robust to draw strong conclusions".

We know they are sufficiently bollocks to be laughed at.

The findings suggest that nearly 10% of the 19,367 alcohol-specific hospital admissions for under-18s were directly attributable to the concentration of off-licence premises in a local area.
Alcohol Concern chief executive Don Shenker said: "It is a sobering thought that the numbers of off-licences in any one area has an impact on under-18s drinking and ending up in hospital.
"It is a failing of the current system that so many licences are being granted without due consideration to young people's health."

Young people's health is taken into consideration:

Do you see where I am going with this? Selling alcohol to children is ILLEGAL you muppet. Restricting adult access to it is not going to make a difference to that.

Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance UK, said: "This research further underlines the need for a comprehensive alcohol strategy from the government, which tackles the affordability, promotion and the availability of alcohol."

And you're another muppet. The government needs to butt out and so do you. Stop telling people how to live their lives.

Prohibition doesn't work.

Something must be done about the CARNAGE!

SHOCKING figures have revealed that children as young as 15 have been caught driving on East Lancashire’s roads while over the alcohol limit.

Oh My God. Underage children getting pissed and driving cars. Erm, how many exactly?

Four 15-year-olds are among 1,634 drivers who failed roadside tests for drink-driving in East Lancashire since the start of 2009.

Four? In nearly three years? It's an epidemic!

Dozens of those who failed tests were at least three times over the limit, which is 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

Road safety charities have called for the legal drink-drive limit to be reduced while police say they are continuing to plough resources into tackling the problem.
Ellen Booth, senior campaigns officer at road safety charity Brake, said: “Drink-driving is a serious crime that kills and seriously injures people every day.

Indeed it is serious when people are killed or injured. If however, people are being arrested with three times the legal limit of alcohol in their blood, what is lowering the limit going to do? (Apart from change the story to ".....were four times over the limit")

“While drinking a large amount before getting behind the wheel is clear-ly abhorrent, research shows that even small amounts of alcohol impair safe driving.

Research shows does it? Notice how this so called 'research' is never made available in these articles? I wonder what other things affect driving as much as a small amount of alcohol.

Crappy drive-time radio?
Noisy children?
Bad weather?
Pedestrians with large breasts?

Let's just ban everything that might impair judgement and then we can have roads that are 100% safe. But we will never get there no matter what we ban. The best we can hope for is a response measured to the problem. Kind of like what we have now. Not this:

"That’s why Brake is calling on all drivers not to touch even a drop of alcohol before driving.

Oh do shut up.

“Brake is calling on the Government to lower the limit and to introduce random breath testing, in order to stop the needless carnage on our roads.”

In other words, penalise the many in order to stop the few. Lower limits will nor deter people who are happy to indulge in criminal behaviour, all it will do is place a lot more people into the category of criminal.

Random breath testing is not permitted in England, though you wouldn't know it. The police regularly have anti drink driving campaigns where they randomly test hundreds of thousands of motorists and then bleat about how they have caught a few hundred.

This is just like randomly stopping people in the street and checking them for concealed weapons. The police should need a reasonable suspicion before stopping you.

But if it saves just one life.....

Interestingly enough, I was late for work this morning because of all the carnage. Something needs to be done.

That was easy!

Chris Snowdon has spotted an excellent website that lets you email your MP and ask them to push for a review of the smoking ban.

It's really easy to use. Just enter your postcode and it automatically generates an email to your local MP.

Oh. One more thing. You need to change to subject header and body text. The auto generated text says something about demanding big tobacco is made to reveal how much they spend on advertising their products to children.

Just delete all that bollocks and fill it in with something about reviewing the smoking ban, or whatever you want really, click send and you're done.

Easy.

Pop to Velvet Glove for more details, or visit the site directly here.

Click for bigness

Saturday night redneck music

Appologies to my regular listeners but I had no time to do any Moose music last night. I think I might move it to Saturday, as Friday night is just too goddam busy these days.

Anyway, I've just bought a Mossberg pump action shotgun and I've been downing clays with it all afternoon. It's a sweet weapon. Very accurate and virtually no recoil.

After all that I'm in the mood for a bit of redneck music.

Sing along!


"Let's fight!"
"Dem's fightin' words!"


"Wow an authentic redneck bar with sawdust on the floor"
"Yep. Dat's last nights furniture"

Another day, another study.

Well they were due.

Campaigners warn over salt levels in bread

Campaign for Action on Salt and Health (Cash), which looked at 300 breads, said it was "outrageous" that bread contained even the current level.

(I'm sure they mean consensus action.)
We've had a number of alcohol scares in the press recently. In fact, Alcohol Concern have been quite busy recently, as have the fatty haters.

Funds must be dwindling, and let no one suggest that CASH aren't on top of things too.

A third of breads contain more salt than recommended under guidelines being introduced next year, a survey found.
Most breads were within the current guidelines of 1.1g of salt per 100g - but this is being cut to 1g per 100g.

See that slippery slope in action there? When companies conform to the 'guidlines', change the guidelines.

Salt levels in bread have fallen by about a third over the past decade, with some falling by up to 40%.
But Cash says levels are still too high, and warns there is wide variation in the amount found in loaves.
Most are within half a gram of the current target of 1.1g of salt per 100g of bread - about two thick slices. But Cash found some significantly exceeded it.

These people will never be satisfied. Salt levels continue to fall but it's never enough. Fortunately for them, bread needs salt. Loaves of bread on the shelves will never be completely salt free, so CASH can continue to campaign against 'hidden salt' ad infinitum. Kerchiiing!

Cash chairman Prof Graham MacGregor, of the Wolfson Institute of Preventative Medicine, said: "It is frankly outrageous that bread still contains so much salt.

Frankly outrageous? These people love their hard hitting words that have been twisted to mean new things.

Outrageous.

"going beyond all standards of what is right or decent"

"The Department of Health needs to ensure that all bread is clearly labelled and that all manufacturers reduce the salt of bread to less that the salt target of 1g per 100g.
"It is the very high levels of salt that is hidden in everyday food, such as bread, that puts up both adults' and children's blood pressure."

And once draconian legislation has been enforced and all manufacturers reduce salt levels in bread to 1g, the target will then be reduced to 0.8g just so these leeches can keep seeking rents. By that time our bread will taste like wet paper pulp.

People will be baking their own bread along with their home brew and home grown tobacco. (Eh, Leg Iron?)

But Federation of Bakers director Gordon Polson said: "The majority of wrapped, sliced bread available already meets the 2012 targets and our members are continuing to endeavour to reduce salt by contributing to ongoing research to establish which other means are available to reduce salt in bread.

British Retail Consortium food director Andrew Opie said retailers and manufacturers are to fund independent research to look for ways of meeting the 2012 target - "while still making foods which consumers want to buy".

What all that means is that bread needs salt. If the manufacturers are going to reduce salt any further, they need to find some new technology to acheive that. Otherwise, all bread will taste shit and nobody will buy it. Cue home baking and even higher salt levels.

Why does bread need salt?

Salt is used in most bread recipes to control the rate of fermentation and to give flavour. The presence of salt in a dough inhibits fermentation, which strengthens the developing gluten. This results in a bread with a stable crumb, a long shelf-life and more taste than breads without it.

It is not only because it gives the necessary flavour, or rather corrects insipidity, that salt is so important to bread. It is also in the context of its action on the yeast and the dough during the fermentation or rising period, and for its ultimate effect on the baked loaf, particularly the crust, that salt has to be considered.

Now I'm no baker but that sounds like salt is a particularly important part of bread to me.

Salt is also a very important part of your diet. 90% of the human body is made of water, as we all know. What the cretins at CASH fail to understand is that it isn't pure water, but salt water.

When you sweat, you loose water that needs to be replaced, but you also loose salt. A person who exercises regularly or works in a hot environment needs a higher salt intake in order to replace what they loose.

Government recommendations of 6g per day are just as arbitry as the recomended number of alcohol units or fat intake.

People are different and these one size fits all daily recommendations are useless. If somebody who sweats a great deal were to follow the daily allowance religiously it would do them a lot more harm than good.

Got to keep seeking those rents though.

This is why we have so many jobsworths - Part 2

Thanks again to A.P.I.L.N. for this next dose of won't you please shut the fuck up.

Prepare yourselves for non story of the year:

Out-of-date pasty sold by Folkestone 99p Store fed to two-year-old

Oh.
My.
God!

Anyone with a tiny, tiny modicum of common sense knows that a sell by date is a purely arbitry figure that is for guidance purposes only. I've never figure why some people believe food turns deadly, the very day after it's BBE.

When I worked in the pubs, the brewery I was with undertook a huge re-fit in one of thier venues and turned it into one of thier flagship pubs. For the opening night, they stocked it with a wide range of bottled beers, much more than necessary. They then used the purchasing patterns to decide what lines to keep and which to discontinue.

A couple of years after the opening, a lot of these bottles had never been sold and had gone out of date and been stored in the cellar. They finally decided to sell them off to staff. I remember buying about fifty bottles of Coors and ten or so bottles of Gold Label for 50p each. They were all a year out of date and were all fine to drink.

I know sealed bottles of beer are different to pasties, but even food that does go out of date quickly can still be eaten a few days after its BBE with no problems.

I remember a chap going nuts at a bar girl once, about a pack of out of date crisps he had given to his kid. I was off duty and having a drink at the bar. I remember thinking, "Can't hit him, can't hit him".

Fortunately the girl had enough about her to replace his crisps, appologise and then promptly stop taking any more shit.

Not like this story:

BOSSES at a discount shop in Folkestone town centre have admitted selling an out-of-date pasty, which a young mum claims made her young son ill.

It didn't make her son ill, thats rubbish and here's why,

But as he took his first bite she noticed the sell-by date was August 13 – three days before her visit to the store.

He had only took one bite and the BBE on the pie was two days in the past. No way did it make the kid ill. It was probably down to the diet of general junk that this mother feeds her two year old.

And how did she react when she spotted the sell by date?

Miss Woods, a single mum of two who lives in Holywell Avenue, said: "I was absolutely disgusted.
"I grabbed it out his mouth and threw it on the floor but he'd already swallowed.
"I went in straight away and demanded to see the manager. Eventually some guy came out the back and when I showed him the receipt and the packaging he offered me a £5 gift voucher for the store, which I declined.
"I said I'd phone head office and left but Frankie was ill during the next night.
"He was all right thankfully but I didn't get any sleep for worry.
"I believe it was caused by the bite he had taken."
Miss Woods went back to the store the next day but was again offered a £5 voucher.
She said: "I'll never shop there again.
"It was horrible but I'm just relieved I noticed the sell-by date on the packaging or he might have eaten it all."

Clap......clap.......clap.......clap....... Fucking drama queen.

If I was her I would have gone back and politely asked for a replacement or refund, which I would have received without a problem.

She must be a bit unhinged to go to the papers with that load of claptrap above.

If I was the store owner she would have been offered a replacement or refund.

Mr Lalani (The manager) added: "We are very surprised to hear this.

"We regularly check all our products and have regular visits from Trading Standards and comply with all regulations."

Stop sucking up fellah. Nothing you did could possible have caused any harm. People who react like this need telling to shut up and stop expecting to get fifteen minutes of fame / a compensation pay out because of it.

I may expect that kind of tantrum from the two year old but not from an adult. Tara woods needs to grow up.

Wages - Sex or ability?

According to new research by the Chartered Management Institute, women are still earning less than men in the more senior executive positions, although their pay has overtaken men's in the junior levels.

Female executives are earning as much as their male counterparts at junior executive level, according to research by the Chartered Management Institute (CMI).
Earning an average salary of £21,969, female junior executives in the UK are currently being paid marginally more (£602) than male executives at the same level, whose average salary is £21,367.

However, the 2011 National management salary survey, which polled 34,158 UK executives, also found that equal pay for male and female executives across all seniority levels remains a long way off. Men continue to be paid more on average than women doing the same jobs (£42,441 compared to £31,895), revealing a gender pay gap of £10,546.

We won't talk here about the inequality of women being paid more than men in the junior levels. That hasn't been brought up in any other media anywhere, so why bother here?

This persistent gap means that, despite the fact that salaries for female executives as a whole are currently increasing faster than those of their male counterparts (female salaries increased by 2.4% during the 12 months between February 2010 to February 2011, a 0.3% higher rate of increase than for male salaries), if male and female salaries continue to increase at current rates, it would be 2109 before the average salary for female executives catches up with that of their male peers.

Now I'm no economist and I've never worked in human resources. The best way for me to understand this is to look at my experience and compare this research to examples from the places I have worked.

I'll also mention that it is already illegal to pay men and women differently for doing the same job.

Equal pay does not just mean paying a woman the same wage as a man for doing the same job. Pay is based on ability, qualifications and experience.

Where I work now we have an appraisal every year (I hate them) where we have to sit with our boss and discuss the job we do and how we have progressed in that job over the past year.

The results of that interview, plus the observations of management over the year, determines the pay rise we get.

It stands to reason that a person who has done a good job, had little time off, expanded their role and gained extra experience will find a decent(ish) pay rise at the end of it. Should their counterpart who has had 10 months off on maternity leave, then re-started work on a four day week, receive the same pay rise?

Some women will tell you that they shouldn't be penalised for having children. I would argue that they are not being, their wage hasn't gone down has it, they just haven't been rewarded for not being in work most of the year.

I've seen women disappear on maternity leave for months, then have to be trained on new computer software on their return. Computer technology is constantly updating, but if you use it constantly, it's not a problem.

I've seen female account managers go on maternity leave, hand their accounts over to other staff or temps, then come back to accounts that they no longer have much knowledge of because they've been away so long. The customers aren't particularly fond of that either, they build up a working relationship with their account manager.

Then there's the four day week, the absence due to lack of childcare and the leaving work due to child sickness, all of which the company is expected to tolerate, regardless of the disruption it may cause.

In the new research quoted above, the females at junior level are being paid on a par with the males. That's because they all begin on the same grade and with the same experience working with the company (none).

As they move their way up the ladder, the ones who gain the most new experience and have the least time away from work will receive the bigger pay rises, until the women who have taken two to three years off work to have children have brought the average pay for their sex below the average pay for the men.

There is a lot of moaning in The Guardian about how the pay gap need to be closed as quickly as possible.

The only real way to do this is to pay women more money than they deserve for the jobs that they do.

We would need to give them full pay for maternity leave, no matter how long they were off and we would need to keep this up through childcare / sickness etc. The minute you reduce a woman's pay for not working, that brings down the average pay for all women.

We would also have to give them pay rises based on average cross gender wages rather than performance. That would mean the men have to work hard to achieve a level of pay rise which would then be paid to women also.

Are these solutions the way forward for British businesses? Shut it feminists! I sincerely hope not. Pay is and should be based on merit, not gender.

I have heard some women say that motherhood is the greatest job in the world, but let's face facts, it doesn't put food on the table or buy your clothes now does it?

There is also a case for disputing the figures altogether. I'm sure the Chartered Management Institute is a reputable body, but lets look at these quotes from a previous study of theirs done a year ago:

Women managers in the UK face a wait of 57 years for their salaries to equal their male colleagues, a study says.
Female managers' pay rose by 2.8% in the last 12 months, but on average they earned £10,000 less than male managers.
The Chartered Management Institute (CMI) said that at the current rate, women managers will not be paid the same as men for 57 years.

And the pay gap even existed at junior management level, with men being paid at least £1,000 more than women executives, the survey said.

Compared to these from the latest study:

Female managers are now paid an average £31,895 per year, compared with £42,441 for men doing the same job, according to the Chartered Management Institute.
Despite women's pay rising faster than men's, the CMI said it would take 98 years to gain parity at current rates.

The CMI said that women's salaries had increased by 2.4% this year, compared with 2.1% for their male colleagues.

However, junior female managers earned more than males for the first time.
According to its survey, junior women managers now earn £21,969 on average, £602 more than men at the same level.

Women's pay has risen faster over the past twelve months than men's, but the time it will take for the pay gap to close has risen from 57 years to 98 years?

Just goes to show you need to question what you read in the papers. Those stats are off the BBC website so could be tosh themselves, we all know how good the BBC are at reporting.

Women at junior level have now overtaken men and are earning more. I think business is under pressure to pay higher salaries to women at the beginning of their employment (with no objection from the feminists) but over time, their average pay drops below men's for the reasons stated above.

The one over rinding flaw in all this is that men and women are not equal. People are not equal. Everyone is different and everyone has their own skills and qualities to bring to a working environment.

I once created a program that reduced our departments workload by 35 man hours per week (in 1997), and I was given a £40pa pay rise as a result. Should my female counterpart who does the same job but didn't create the program be given the same pay rise in the interests of equality?
Could she even step outside her job role and come up with the idea if her head is full of booties and bassanets? (One for the chauvanists there)

Any business owner worth their salt would pay people on an individual basis for their merits, not because they are female, black, gay or reptilian.

It's peoples differences that make them human, that help them to grow and better themselves. We can't force them all to be the same.