Plain Jane 200214 blogSIR Andrew Dillon, the pleasant-sounding head of Nice (the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), is expressing doubts about taking “wider societal benefit” into account, when deciding who can have their drugs paid for.

Sir Andrew said such a Government suggestion made him “uncomfortable”.

He was “really concerned” at the thought that a middle-aged man with a job might be deemed more worthy of expensive treatment than a very old one who was retired.

Come, come, sir, don’t be fainthearted.

It could save us a fortune! Clearly those without work are a drain on society and don’t deserve a thing. What’s that you say about being a wonderful mother and doing voluntary work?

Oh all right then. She can have antibiotics for her throat infection, but I really don’t see how she needs her veins done.

And let’s not stop at the unemployed. There’s the overweight – look at the room they take up – and while we’re at it, what about the intellectually challenged?

It’s not being a bit dense that has wider societal benefit – it’s the chaps that can invent things, build business, boost the old economy. They’re the ones who need their pills stumped up for, sharpish.

You at the back, too. There’s no easy way to say this, but you’re not actually very attractive. And what with us all having to stand so close together – on account of the fatties – it would be of greater societal advantage if you could at least look nice. As for those of you who are thick AND ugly, well!

Would euthanasia be a step too far? Drinkers and smokers and jam-tart eaters, obviously they can be left to rot – what do they expect? All that sugar and nicotine. Children aren’t a lot of use – not now they can’t go up the chimney – and the elderly will clog up the Post Office.

While, frankly, the nuisance-makers – playing their music at top volume, not putting their recycling in the right bin – that’s not cricket where the wider implications are at stake, is it?

Louts on a Saturday night shouting and jostling in the High Street before they toss their kebab wrapper on the pavement? Why should they get their anti-inflammatories?

Inept drivers, holding us all up while they faff about at roundabouts and fail to reverse park – what are they contributing to the greater good, apart from increasing our stress levels? And then THEY want the valium. As for the dog owners – leaving their pooches’ poo all over the pavement for the hapless to step in – why even let them see the GP? Round ’em, up, put ’em against the wall and shoot the lot of ’em.

All seems sensible to me.

Drug bill halved, more room on the bus, cleaner streets. A win for the Government. A win all round.

CONSTERNATION among the feminist groups at the news that the Barbie Doll has turned cover girl for the 50th anniversary of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit, where she’s seen posing in a bikini.

“A line has been crossed,” said an earnest young woman on Radio Four, protesting that the cover shot was entirely inappropriate as the doll was aimed at six-year-old children and the magazine bought by adult men.

Considering Barbie, with her huge chest, miniscule waist and legs up to her armpits is a totally unworkable depiction of the female form – if she were a real woman, she wouldn’t even be able to stand up – this seems to be rather skewing the point.

I’d say the potential damage lies with Barbie being on the toy shop shelves, not on the front of a glossy mag. And that energies would be better spent in distracting the small girls away from the fashion doll, possibly with a box of Lego, a cuddly toy and a skipping rope, rather than concerning oneself over a bunch of blokes ogling a fantasy figure with plastic breasts.

Originally posted at: