wsdante

 
The Benefit Gala

Apparently, the government wants to 'help' people on benefits back into 'gainful employment'. Taken at face value, I would wholeheartedly agree that this is a right and noble ambition.

Unfortunately, knowing politic-speak when I hear it, the interview I heard this morning on Radio 4 had my Sneaky-Political-Maneuver-Detector firing off big-time.

Interesting article at http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/

The abolition/replacement of Incapacity Benefit for 'Employment and Support Allowance' is an interesting twist. I mean, just look at the use of language here.

The heavily spun portrayal of this project would have us believe that disabled people are just pretending to be unable to work so that they can sponge off the rest of society and live the high life on their bountiful, free handouts. They need to be shown the error of their ways and will be so grateful to us in the end for our tough love approach.

Verily, the blind shall see, the deaf will hear, the lame shall walk and the limbless will play volleyball at the next Olympics all because we will make them increasingly more destitute until they do. And, lo, the crippled masses will cry tears of gratitude that we loved them enough to put ourselves out to this extent.

In this way shall we massage the number of benefit claimants and save bags of money while at the same time making it look like we actually give a shit about people in the least fortunate of lifes circumstances.

After all, Nanny Knows What's Best For You. Hmmm?

All this in the face of official figures showing that fraudulent Incapacity Benefit claims comprise less than one half a percent of the total.

Ho Hum...

Cycle Rage

So, as I was saying about cyclists...

By cyclists, I mean the arrogant, lycra-clad, wiggly-arsed, road-hogging poseurs who infest our country lanes like they own them.

When I was a kid, I loved cycling. I still would if I could, I expect. I remember being informed of the rules of cycling in traffic by the cycling proficiency instructor; fit adequate lights, don't weave through traffic, use signals, be aware of other road users, keep as close to the left as you can and never ride on the pavement featured among many others.

I think I'm right in assuming that any maneuver which causes other road users to change speed or direction to accommodate you is still illegal. Now, bicycles aren't, to my knowledge, getting wider – quite the opposite, in fact – yet, it is only since the advent of 'poser' cycling that I have ever been actually stuck behind a cyclist. There they are, not having paid a penny in road tax, disrupting the flow of traffic up and down the country in their mincing little cliques and yet you get the dirtiest looks when they eventually decide to move over to their rightful position on the road.

I guess, having spent the best part of four figures on their 'two-wheeled poser pedallers', the poor li'l diddumses resent having to get their shiny chrome wheels near the gutter.

So, these people decide that cycling is a healthy pastime. Fine by me so far. But, no, just going for an invigorating ride isn't enough. They also need to Look the Part.

So ridiculously unnecessary amounts of money are spent on ridiculous, unnecessarily 'high-tech' and, above all, fashionable, gear. (I say 'ridiculous' because, like the mid-life crisis tosser with the red sports car, ridicule is what they evoke no matter how much they like to think otherwise).

Let's get down to brass tacks here, if exercise were the only aim of these people, they would choose a rugged, heavy, cast iron bike with minimal gears like our parents had when they were kids. Instead, they choose lightweight, streamlined numbers with a cup holder, arm rests and 50-odd labour-saving gears with the emphasis on comfort and minimum wind resistance. Worse still is that they then feel the need to (excuse me while I retch here) buy the skin-tight, contour-hugging, lycra ponce suit.

Let's think about the point of this, shall we?

Motorcyclists, in order to address the fact that they are more vulnerable to physical injury in traffic than car drivers, will effectively wear leather 'armour' and helmets because they have learned that, without protection, coming off a motorcycle - even at 20 miles an hour - will, at the very least, have you picking gravel out of your butt for the best part of a week.

Now, I'm sure the latest 'racing' bicycles can top over 30 mph these days, so why the skin-tight body suit? Is this new, high tech lycra gravel proof? Impact resistant? Joint protecting?

I doubt it.

Nor is it vitally important, nor all that effective, from a physics / streamlining standpoint unless one is involved in an actual Olympic event where every microsecond of advantage might count.

So, here's what I think it comes down to.

 Wearing a thin, skintight bodysuit is as close to getting naked in public as its possible to get without being arrested. Not only that but, with some judicious rearrangements / additions in the trouser department, one can also do wonders for one's 'profile'.

Have you ever wanted to strut around butt naked in public? Ever envied the old rock stars with half the stock of the local greengrocers shop down the front of their trousers? Ever wanted to wave your 'glutes' in strangers' faces? Ever had the urge to do any of the above but fear of arrest gave you pause?

Well, now you can get as close to fulfilling these urges as it's possible to get and get away with it scot free! Not only that, but you can also feel ethically superior to every other road user because you are, (to all intents and purposes), emission free.

This feeling of superiority also gives you the right to go out with your like-minded buddies and disrupt traffic more efficiently than any mere caravan enthusiast by hogging country lanes to yourselves in your very own Wave-Your-Butt-In-The-Drivers'-Faces Travelling Partay!

Lane domination without having to pay road tax! How cool is that?!