Pssst…wanta buy a credit card?

The government has bizarrely decided (a lot of my thoughts begin this way) that it is a good idea to allow children under the age of eighteen to have credit cards. In their infinite wisdom they have degreed that although children are not sufficiently mature to have a beer down the local pub, they are capable of joining the army, getting shot or blown up and happily running themselves into a life of debt.

Am I alone in thinking that this is in the best interests of the credit card companies, rather than the kids themselves? The whole idea of this is just stupid, crazy, mad, exploitive, commercial and unethical.

At least that is what I thought BP (before pregnancy)

Now I find myself faced with the very real possibility that my wife is about to introduce three additional people into our lives (all in one go), I find that I have changed my mind about the government’s decision and instead applaud them for the brave stance they have taken on this controversial issue.

I intend to hover over my wife’s belly as she gives birth, a wad of credit card applications clutched in my sweaty hands. The moment those kids come out I’m signing them up to as many companies as I can get (I assume a handprint and a dollop of afterbirth will pass as a signature). As soon as the forms are approved I plan to put all child-rearing expenses onto their individual accounts. On their 18th birthdays I will proudly present them with their bills and sod off to live on a tropical island with the money I’ve saved.

God bless you Mr. Blair.

At last, some good news.

Great news for those dissatisfied with the litigious society in which we live.

A man is suing iPod because his hearing might be damaged by listening to the music machine. Note – his hearing might be damaged. He has, in fact, not suffered any hearing loss. This technicality has not prevented him from bringing a law suit covering the possibility of him doing so in the future.

Now I’ve been thinking about this and it seems to me that here is an ideal opportunity for all of us. If this man’s case can proceed based on nothing but possible future harm because he’s not bright enough to find the volume button, then the next logical step must be to sue for the possibility of hearing damage without actually owning an iPod.

This idea must work as both cases are dealing with a theoretical situation.

As it stands the bloke’s case appears to be – My iPod has a high volume setting, therefore I might listen to my iPod too loud, therefore I might damage my hearing, therefore I am going to sue.

All I’m suggesting is saving a few quid by removing a step in the process - I might buy an iPod, therefore it will have a high volume, therefore I might listen to it too loud etc etc.

Given that we’re on to a winner here, let’s leave Apple alone for a minute and open this up a bit. Based on this case I reckon that I could mount an effective suit against a major cigarette company based on the fact that I might contract lung cancer – even though I don’t smoke. Hell, I’m even prepared to buy some fags and leave them unsmoked in a drawer at home to show I’m serious about this.

Alternatively I could sue a car manufacturer because I was going to buy their make of car and therefore I might have suffered an injury if I perhaps had an accident.

If everyone gets behind this idea we can all sue each other for the most convoluted combinations of possibilities that we can imagine. Sure this will cause a few legal headaches but screw it; if we lose we can always sue the lawyer because he didn’t represent us properly in another case we might have brought instead.

As far as I can see this is a win-win situation and an ideal way to ensure the World’s wealth remains in good, and rapid, circulation.

See you in court.