Where there's a will...

Well, my friends, it's certainly been a while since I posted anything on The Universe According to Andy.
Why?
Well, a combination of things really - too much work, a sudden surge in my hillclimbing activities, absence of any writing activity...and, oh, did I mention I had too much work?

Anyway, I've found time and motivation to put fingers to keyboard once again and share with you fabulous people an opinion or two...and, by Jove, there's no shortage of things to have an opinion on, is there.
There's the unbelievable Lord Sewel and his cocaine-snorting-off-a-prostitute's-breasts escapades; then there's Walter Palmer who, for reasons which are utterly unfathomable, thought it would be a good idea to pay $50,000 dollars to go to Zimbabwe so he could shoot a local celebrity lion with a bow-and-arrow; and not forgetting the zillions of migrants trying to make their way into the UK through the Channel Tunnel - clearly, they haven't heard about the current round of austerity cuts introduced by Mr Osbourne.

But I'm going to ignore all that and concentrate instead on this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33684937

Now I don't know about you people out there in the big, bad world, but I think this sets an immensely worrying precedent. I'll be honest - I don't know the exact details of the relationship between Mrs Ilott and her mother, Mrs Jackson, but at the end of the day, the £486,000 estate of Mrs Jackson was hers and hers alone and she should be able to do with it as she damn well pleases.
The question is where will this end.
Is each individual, when deciding upon what they are going to do with their assets once they've pop their clogs, going to have to prepare in advance of their death a detailed dossier, complete with diary, photographs, e-mails and post-it notes, explaining the reasons behind each decision regarding the disposition of their assets? And even when there's a very detailed justification about why Child A got x% and Child B got y%, will Child B still be able to challenge that justification in court, putting forward alternative evidence to justify their claim on a larger proportion of the deceased's estate?
It's a very slippery slope indeed and one which this ruling certainly makes more likely.
As far as I'm concerned, a person's will is exactly that - their will, and however unpalatable an individual's decisions may be about what they want to do with their assets once they die, they should...nay, the MUST be sacrosanct and not subject to the decision of a judge who, however, well intentioned, cannot truly understand the dead individual's motivations.

Forget the niqab. Embrace the F-BOG!

The French have just succeeded in defeating at the European Court an attempt to have their ban on the wearing of a 'full veil' in public overturned.

As some of you may recall, our Gallic cousins had previously banned the wearing of a full veil (that's a Niqab or a Burka, but not a Hijab, an Al-Amira, a Shayla, a Khimar or a Chador), not on religious grounds (though they did also introduce a ban on the wearing of headscarves (now that is an Al-Amira, a Shayla, a Khimar or a Chador) in schools because it conflicted with France's secular values), but because it posed a potential security risk in that it concealed a person's identity.
The court ruled that the ban on the full veil 'was not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face'.

Inevitably, there are those over here in the UK who are now suggesting that if the French can get away with arguing that a Niqab or a Burka should be banned because it is a security risk, then so should we.
I, however, beg to differ.
I'm going to be particularly controversial today and argue that a piece of attire similar to the Niqab/Burka which I am going to call the F-BOG (short for Full Body Over Garment) should actually become an item of everyday clothing for individuals of all denominations…and even , in some cases, made mandatory…okay, okay, let's get the argument for mandatory out of the way first. It's simple. All those really, really ugly people that we have in this country (and there are a disturbing number of them) should be made to wear the F-BOG all the time. It saves us the awkwardness of realising we're staring at them in horrified fascination and then looking away too hurriedly in embarrassment, and it spares them the discomfort of being gawked at whenever they go out - controversial, I admit, but what's life without a bit of controversy; and it is what politicians like to call a 'win-win'.
And now to the bigger concept of the F-BOG as an everyday, secular fashion garment. How will that work, I hear you ask?
Well, first of all, unlike the Burka or Niqab or Yashmak, which seem to follow the Henry Ford (urban myth) approach when it comes to a choice of colour, the F-BOG could be available in wide variety of colours and shades - vivid yellows, subtle lilacs, strong blues, anything in fact that catches the mood of the day. It can also be livened up with stripes, polkadots, swirly patterns or those ever popular pseudo-Japanese symbols that people think look cool on wallpaper but actually translate as 'You're a git!'
Secondly, the F-BOG could come in a variety of materials, from a light cotton version for hot sunny days, all the through to a heavy-duty Goretex version for rainy winter nights.
But thirdly, and perhaps its most useful and appealing feature, an F-BOG worn in the office would afford the wearer the opportunity to mouth the words 'Oh you are such a fucking knob' to their boss without the 'knob' being the least bit aware of it. The F-BOG would also enable the wearer to gesture with their hand that said boss is a wanker, again with the 'wanker' being completely oblivious of the abuse they are receiving. Yes, folks, the F-BOG, soon to be available at a Primark store near you (after being manufactured in a small sweatshop just outside Karachi that has no fire escapes), is the ideal garment for the office environment, encouraging freedom of expression whilst protecting the wearer's right to privacy. It's a sure-fire winner!
Just remember...you heard about it here first.