Editor-At-Large: Grow up, boys, and stop bleating about your 'right' not to wear a tie

More evidence of double standards in the world of work. When a woman in the City, the police force or the armed services complains of sexual discrimination, the case is generally settled out of court and includes a gagging clause to stifle further comment. You can rest assured that everything from her sex life to the length of her

skirts has been paraded in court, making it a thoroughly unpleasant experience. The result: few women are willing to take on powerful bosses over their unfair treatment and infringement of rights unless they are very brave.

As Ricky Gervais reminded us, behaviour in the office is weirder than anything documented by David Attenborough. Now a new species has emerged, the male worker so upset and bothered by being asked to wear a uniform or dress smartly, that he bleats to his union claiming "sexual discrimination" and the matter ends up in court. Last week, backed by the Public and Commercial Services Union, it was the turn of Matthew Thompson, aged 32, who works in the postroom at a JobCentre. Depressingly, he won his case. An employment tribunal ruled that Matthew did not have to wear a suit and tie, and will rule on his claim for compensation for injured feelings (he alleged his human rights were breached) next month. "It is discriminating against me as a man to accept a standard not expected of a woman," Thompson crowed after his victory. The union claimed that it had a problem with "the imposition of a draconian dress code" by JobCentre management who fine staff who dress incorrectly. Meanwhile, there are 39 other cases of male sexual discrimination in the pipeline and the Department for Work and Pensions is planning an appeal.

Many women reading this tale of "hurt feelings" will have laughed bitterly at this story of alleged injustice and fragile egos. If only we could claim £5 for every time our feelings had been injured in the office, every time a man held on to an elbow too long or made some revolting sexist joke about a temporary secretary, every time the man at the desk opposite logged on to a particularly repulsive image on the internet or ogled any passing female. Now the fact that women don't generally sport ties and can wear skirts, means (to some men and their unions) that we have some kind of unfair advantage. This advantage doesn't, of course, extend to a proportionate number of seats on boards of directors or positions in management. It doesn't even extend to a decent number of female MPs or judges.

But Matthew Thompson is not alone in feeling that women don't have to play by the rules at work. Another injured male, Mark Caldicott, a 34-year-old prison officer, brought a sexual discrimination case against the prison service because he was made to wear a tie when on duty. The tribunal chairman sensibly threw the case out, ruling that "smart" could mean different things for men and women. Mr Caldicott snivelled that he was "a bit gutted" and was contemplating an appeal.

It's the same story in the police force, where a traffic officer, Andy Holden from Liverpool, backed by the Police Federation, claimed sexual discrimination because female officers could wear jewellery, and he'd been banned from wearing an earring. "It's about being treated fairly at work," he claimed. "It's not as if it's a Lily Savage-style drag queen earring." The case was settled last month, out of court.

As we face the prospect of a war, with the stock market plummeting and job losses being announced daily, is it not astonishing that powerful trade unions and big employers have nothing better to do with their time than contest cases like these? When did ties and earrings start being the benchmarks of human rights? When you take on a job in the public service, be it in a JobCentre or a prison, what's the problem with signing up to wear a uniform? Of course, it may seem unfair if all you do is open letters, but is it really so unreasonable to expect staff to look neat and tidy? Employment tribunals were not set up to deal with such trivial matters. And let's not forget that only the employed have the luxury of fighting these battles in the name of human rights. To the increasing number of unemployed middle-aged men fighting to get back into the labour market, these claims of injured feelings down at the JobCentre must seem like a sick joke. And to do so under the banner of sexual discrimination is political correctness gone mad. And if you are a tie-wearing male, please don't write and tell me that the women you work with can wear rugby shirts, earrings and blouses. Just grow up.

Bring out your dead

In the latest search for ratings, television executives are reaching beyond the grave. The bizarre working environment at the Financial Times was revealed for the benefit of a Channel 4 film crew when one of their journalists, Julia Cuthbertson, held a seance in the newsroom. It seems that the man who answered her call from the "other side" claimed his biggest regret was not sleeping with her. Funny, that. Meanwhile the Living Channel is showing highlights of an American series in which mediums are filmed trying to contact Princess Diana. One claimed that the Princess told her: "I want the world to know what I wanted was to be married to Dodi, and I really wanted a man, like most women want, who loved me and would walk beside me." Another saw the scene of the crash and a figure, possibly Mother Teresa, walking past saying "you'll be all right, child". Ms Cuthbertson has been disciplined for bringing the newspaper into disrepute, but at least her journey into the unknown was harmless. Mediums are a sick bunch of people who take money from the insecure, by coming up with what they want to hear. I'd have been more impressed if Princess Diana had sounded off about something like the 3.30 at Cheltenham. Odd how these spirits are stuck in a time warp.

Sitting next to one of John Prescott's aides last week I asked how the great man plans to inflict 1.24 million new homes on the South-east. By ignoring the rest of the country and not promoting the North-east, isn't this just the kind of policy one would expect from a Conservative government? And the four areas where Mr Prescott plans to concentrate all this building pose all sorts of problems. The Thames Estuary, for example, where there are thousands of acres of unused brownfield sites, needs to have adequate flood defences. And who's going to pay the £4bn it might cost? It seems it will be split between public and private funding. Mr Prescott talks of building higher densities and installing transport systems, hospitals and schools first, but has he spent any time on that cheerless stretch of the Thames between the Dome and Gravesend? It will take a lot more than a health centre and a road to get anyone to name it as a destination of choice. Meanwhile, in North Yorkshire, afford- able housing is at a premium. Surely he could have found more brownfield sites in the North, which are closer to existing services and attractive countryside?