JUST days ago her bosses boasted of the "Natasha" effect sparking a 72 per cent rise in ratings for the the revamped Five News format. This would have been motivated in part by the need to justify the £1m-a-year carrot dangled to Natasha Kaplinsky to lure her from the BBC.

Today they must be eating their words.

In public, platitudes are essential, so we've heard gushing congratulatory noises from her paymasters. But in private they, like me, may be wondering why she couldn't have had the good grace to wait a year or two to respond to her ticking biological clock.

Like most women in their early 30s, motherhood was on Natasha's agenda - no surprise there. All very acceptable and entirely natural. It should not have been an obligation on her part to discuss her maternal aspirations at interview - although it is reported she did. But her employers could and should have expected her to wait a while before fulfilling her desires. And now they, like legions of hard-working responsible women who want to be taken seriously, have every right to feel let down by the star presenter.

There's a time and a place for everything and the time to announce your intention to take maternity leave is not six weeks into a new job.

However, these days, there can be no greater infringement of office etiquette than to question a woman's timing, even though an intelligent and savvy go-getter like Natasha would know all about birth control.

And let's not forget in this the modern have-it-all age the desire to have children, like the desire to earn a seven figure salary, is a matter of choice. It is no longer a requirement of women of child-bearing age.

Natasha must know she's dropping her employers right in it but does she care a jot?

It's strange because up to now, she has displayed impeccable timing, both with her news delivery and choice of other TV gigs (the Strictly Come Dancing turn was a masterstroke).

Suddenly timing appears to have deserted her. Yet despite demonstrating an irresponsible attitude, the very hint of a raised eyebrow would be a faux pas of the highest order.

Our rigid employment laws and fear of upsetting the "mummyzilla" brigade demand that those left in the workplace put up and shut up. The burden on them to make provision for a woman's unexpected decision to take maternity leave is irrelevant. And to question her behaviour is to be booed with howls of derision. That is why Five bosses are so outwardly supportive. Behind closed doors, though, there must have been a pregnant pause or, at the very least, a sigh of frustration.

Kaplinsky's champions argue forcefully - and with more than a hint of hysteria - that it is a woman's right to take maternity leave whenever she wants.

They will probably point to the fact that Natasha could lose more than £100,000 because she's a freelancer as opposed to a staffer.

Natasha won't lose much sleep over that one as she's sure to rake in magazine deals, while the rest of us are distracted by the sight of yet another newsreader's growing bump.

I'm just glad it's not my licence fee funding Ms Kaplinsky's maternity leave as sure is eggs is eggs Five will have to dig deep to find a replacement.

To read Karen Connolly's opposing view click on the related article link on the right...