14-year-old girls don’t represent adults:
John Thompson writes: Re. “Richard Farmer’s chunky bits” (Friday, item 12). OK, get upset with Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority for banning the ad campaign for safety reasons, if you will, but get even more upset that they haven’t banned it for using a 14-year-old girl as a representation of womanhood! And they wonder why so many women have body image problems. The ad should be banned for false advertising — unless an adult woman is anorexic, she can’t possibly look like a child — or for breaking child labour laws. When is the fashion industry going to be brought to account for its totally unacceptable practices? Please, give me a woman with meat on her bones, any time!
Scholars deserve scholarships:
Jackie French writes: I love “Tips and rumours” (Friday, item 7), but could the school’s offer to the students possibly be altruistic? Even before NAPLAN many — or most — private schools would help students whose families could no longer afford the fees. Outstanding students were more likely to be offered help. That’s the origin of the word “scholarship”.
A little respect, please:
Niall Clugston writes: Re. “Was Labor’s revenge helped by Abbott’s tactics?” (Friday, item 1). I know it’s only an aside, but Bernard Keane’s comment on the “remarkable resilience” of Mal Colston really sticks in my throat.
Whatever the sins of the senator, the fact that he took seven years (from leaving Labor) to die of cancer isn’t one of them.