THE advertisement asked for a "friendly" person to work in a travel agency in Bolton. But it was seen by Job Centre bosses to discriminate against those who possibly did not have such amiable personalities.

It's political correctness gone mad - and anyway, don't most job adverts discriminate in their own way? Take all the vacancies which ask for "high flyers". That's me and, I imagine, a few million others, well out of the picture.

What exactly is it anyway? A pilot? If I were a freelance journalist, working alone, I could easily claim to be the brightest spark in the company, the one most likely to go places. As it is, I'm probably placed underneath the ash pan, going nowhere but the loo and the coffee machine.

Then there are those employers who want a "people's person". What sort of people? The applicant might be a dangerous psychopath who only mixes with people of a similar disposition, yet is immensely popular within that group.

In my experience at work, its the people who want to be everybody's best friend who tend to be the least popular - 'people people' appear to get on with everyone, yet are the most hated.

In today's job market, if the adverts themselves don't eliminate nine out of ten applicants, then the interview stage will. With ridiculous psychometric tests asking questions like "Would you describe yourself as: 1. Boring 2. Slow 3. Dull 4. Lazy 5. Sluggish?" alongside instructions that you MUST pick one answer, what hope have we got.

I was turned down for a job after one of those. I might as well name the company - it was Railtrack, and look where they've got by not appointing me.

Adverts for "a lively person" have always intrigued me. Do they really want someone who constantly gets up and down and waves their arms about a lot? No doubt once you'd secured an interview you'd be faced with the confusing multiple-choice questions: "Would you say you are: 1. Overbearing 2. Hyper 3. Extrovert 4. Brash etc..."

It's a nightmare. But back to the "friendly" advert. If that rules out some likely candidates, what about the commonly-used situations vacant wording "young, gifted and broke?" That's got to be ageist.

With my level of genius and lack of hard cash I would go for that one like a shot. Only even with several layers of pan stick I don't think I'd pass for under 35.

I think I'll give the Equal Opportunities Commission a buzz.

WITH the papers full of a million and one excuses as to how you can miss work to watch the World Cup - including such desperate measures as fictitious letters summoning you for jury service and a death in the family - it's those with genuine illnesses that I feel sorry for.

Especially those who really are sick AND hate football.

THE Queen was, apparently, back to work with a bump this week and swapped her gold coach for a No 52 bus - part of a visit to a bus depot.

Of course, she didn't have to wait at the bus top in the pouring rain at 7am, then battle to get on a crowded, grubby-windowed vehicle and struggle with her bag to the only vacant seat next to someone who clearly hadn't had a bath for ten years. And face the same experience twice a day, five days a week.

Not quite the back to work we all know, is it?

Updated: 10:44 Monday, June 17, 2002