Your front page headline refers to ‘care of the elderly’; but in the text to people ‘over 65’.
No wonder there is discrimination against ‘over 65s’ if journalists promote those still in
the workforce and fit and well, and across the Atlantic seeking the presidency – as a
homogeneous group, decrepit and in need of care.
Not much help for people in their 60s who wish to work as long as possible, both for its
intrinsic worth and in order to be better off in old age. The term elderly implies a degree
of incapacity due to old age. Over 65 comprises at least two generations, the younger of which may well be regretting that the time has come for a parent to move into a care-home while planning their own next skiing holiday.
The piece on ‘older voters’ again promotes the assumption that 65 is the age of disintegration. You then illustrate the story on safety in the streets with a case-study of a woman of 80, who in addition has problems which are not directly age related.
Apparently 62 per cent of people over 65 are worried about their safety in public spaces: that leaves 38 per cent not unduly concerned, probably those between 65 and say late 70s. Without at least two age cohorts the study is pretty meaningless.
Jacqueline Castles by e mail
