Bill Carmichael: Reliably stupid bureaucracy

Nicole Mamo, who runs a recruitment agency, also wanted to specify that applicants had to be "hard working", but this was turned down, too – presumably on the grounds that it was offensive to the bone idle.

She was allowed to specify that candidates must be fluent in English only after she pointed out that the hospital cleaners she was recruiting would be required to handle hazardous chemicals and would need to read the instructions on the label.

This was a shrewd move on her part – in the risk-averse world of the state bureaucrat, an appeal to "health and safety" trumps all other considerations.

I wonder that had Mrs Mamo demanded that all applicants must have the ability to breathe in and out, her advert would have been rejected on the grounds that it is discriminatory against dead people?

It is hard not to laugh at such craziness, but there is a serious point to be made.

Modern Britain is chock full of people who are apparently so hypersensitive that they will take offence at virtually anything – usually on behalf of someone else.

Discrimination has become a dirty word – but it is just another term for choice, and we discriminate all the time, in our choice of partner, the clothes we wear and what we eat and drink.

Much of this falls under the category of personal preferences, and no amount of Government interference will alter that.

In the world of work you have to be more careful. What is clearly wrong is unfair discrimination on the grounds of race, gender or religion. This is not only against the law, but bad for business, too.

Mrs Mamo was well aware of that. She runs her own business, and the difference between success and failure is largely down to the calibre of staff she recruits.

She is perfectly entitled to discriminate in favour of candidates she feels can do the job required, and against those who can't. That's not unfairness, but simply common sense.

If Britain is ever to recover from its current economic mess, it will be thanks to job creators like Mrs Mamo. Staff at job centres should be helping her fill the vacancies, not putting obstacles in her way.

I do hope someone has a quiet word with the Thetford branch to tell them not to be so daft.

Veils face-off

A French parliamentary report has recommended that Muslim women should be banned from wearing face veils, such as the niqab and burka, in hospitals, schools, public transport and government offices.

Should the UK follow suit?

Jack Straw made a powerful point in 2006 when he described such outfits as a "visible statement of separation and of difference", and added that they make community relations harder.

How is a woman to engage in the society of which she is supposed to be part if she won't show her face?

Facial expressions are an important part of communication. Anyone employed in face-to-face contact with the public – teaching, the health service, the civil service and retail industries – should be required to remove the veil.

And there are occasions – at passport control, for example – when showing your face is important for security reasons.

But beyond these examples, I am profoundly uneasy about a ban. I find the burka impossible to understand, and deeply damaging to community harmony, but is that a good enough reason to ban it?

It comes down to a matter of individual liberty, and I believe that the state has no right to tell a woman what to wear.

Then again, I don't think her husband, father and brothers have that right either.