Trouble and strife on the jobs front

You can't blame Pauline and Linda. They have to justify the cost of those Equity subs, and anyway if someone chucks money at you it's churlish to refuse it. But why chuck money at them rather than, say, French and Saunders?

If Jobs for the Girls (9.30pm BBC1) is evidence of the BBC's commitment to that part of the public that feels that it is wasting its licence fee, then the market research has been wasted. Birds of a Feather one can understand: you may not crack a smile, but you can see it knows its market. But whom is Jobs for the Girls aimed at? The documentary crowd? Commentary like whooooogh! Ha ha ha ha" will get up their noses. The girls' sitcom following? Naaah, no double entendres. Women? Well the implied ignorance would grate with most of us. Men? No tits.

So who then? God forbid it's an educational programme for jobseekers. Last week Paul and Linda did a story for the Guardian without any mention of editors who are as likely to nick your idea as pay you for it.

This week they learn to fish, which means that kindly men put maggots on hooks for them while they say things like "Dick's not a well boy. You're a bit tom and dick, aren't you Dick?" So what have we learned in the end? The cost of tackle? Whether anybody does it for a living? Nope. That's it's cold and there's no time to pee.