How high your heels are, how often you change your hair style and how much your designer handbag cost are not the type of observations you expect to read about in a serious article about a chief executive of one of the biggest local authorities . Then again this article was only masquerading as serious journalism when in fact it was a general criticism of the pay of chief executives by way of a personal attack on one of the few women in the top jobs. I am not surprised that a paper like the Daily Express should argue that before local authorities cut services they should cut the pay of their chief executives as if somehow that would save a single library or day centre from closing after all they are not on bankers bonuses! Nor I am surprised that such ill informed journalism should continue to trot out the line that no local authority manager should be paid more than the Prime Minister. Presumably the logic is that this is a more important job. So does that mean that the PM should be the highest paid person in the country? No none of this nonsense surprised me what did surprise me was that they should target a successful career woman and do so by criticising the height of her heals and her hair style. Of course I know this rage has no sympathy for immigrants who are swamping the country and taking our jobs and houses and is leading the fight against the work shy scroungers who cheat the over generous benefit system but I thought the paper had a high female readership. May be they only buy it for the crossword.
Contrast this with an article the following day in the Guardian about the increasing number of women becoming Top Guns in the RAF. The article stated Women have been flying fast jets in the RAF since 1994 it did however make no comment about the impact of wearing a flying helmet on pilots’ hair styles. Presumably it’s leaving that in-depth examination to the daily express.