I have four birthday cards, which indicate I fulfill four roles. I am a husband, a father, a brother and a son. The cards I received are not flat; flat cards were things that used to be presented to people who were celebrating the anniversary of their birth, but these days, few cards are flat. This ensures that the Royal Mail makes a tidy profit handling cards that exceed the 5 millimetre limit on thickness before a 'large letter' rate applies in place of the 'standard letter' rate. Two were posted and two were presented by hand.
To My Husband
This was (and still is) a lovely card with a nice message and unusual colour scheme. On the front of the card, there are two very small birds singing, and they are slightly raised from the card's surface, by tiny sticky pads that affix the bird-shaped discs of thin plastic to the main surface of the card. The surface area of each is under one square centimetre. The design is attractive, and the card is certainly lovely, as was the message within. The reverse of the card includes the following:
Warning: This card is not a toy and is unsuitable for children under 36 months. Contains small parts.
I must say that I've never considered any card as a toy, so was not particularly in need of being told this useless piece of information. I'd not intended to use it as a toy for myself, nor had I made plans to force it upon the nearest child under 36 months of age. The fact that it contains small parts, then, is pretty irrelevant. This is especially so as it is a birthday card for a 'Husband' and whilst I do know that some cultures in the world accept marriages where one person (usually the female) can be as young as 12, a three-year-old boy is hardly going to receive such a card, or be likely to buy one (let alone take notice of the warning). In summary, therefore, I will say that the warning is yet another example of bollocks that is deemed necessary by twats, scared of a hungry baby eating something it shouldn't eat. To my mind, if an adult leaves out greeting cards in lieu of a Marmite sandwich, then it is the adult's fault anyway.
To My Brother
This card was most certainly not flat. It had a cut-out circle, and through the hole protruded a large disc upon which was printed the head of a monkey, complete with orange hair, using real fluff, and two eyes which were plastic bubbles containing small black discs for the pupils. There was a warning on the reverse of this card also:
Warning! Not suitable for children under 36 months due to small parts. Please retain this information for future reference.
I have no need to repeat all of my previous comments in respect of the first part of this warning. I did wonder whether the 'Warning!' element was printed in bold to signify that there was a greater risk to the <36-month-old readers, what with fluffy simulated hair featuring on the design, The last part of the warning confused me slightly. Obviously I would be retaining this information unless I was going to bin the card within minutes of opening the envelope. Did the makers mean I ought to retain the information in a general physical sense, for ever, which would mean retaining the card itself (upon which the warning was printed)? If so, then this was an ill-conceived directive because I'd then be retaining the very thing that was risking the health of toddlers everywhere! Was the intention to advise me to retain the information 'in my head' for future reference? Surely not, because I would only need to refer to the information if the card was in fact in the vicinity still, and continuing to present a danger to small people. In summary, some do-gooder in either Marketing or Health & Safety was in fact a thick cunt with no real idea on much at all. How many people in this country are tainted and petrified from the ordeal of reading this warning, and to this day tremble with fear on sight of any children under 36 months, who are at risk, permanently, from small parts? If only they did not have to retain this information for future reference, and could be set free of responsibility so fucking grave it causes tremors.
To My Dad
Apparently I am a 'Dad in a Million'. This announcement came via a card with the word "Dad" raised from the otherwise flat card, courtesy of the ubiquitous sticky pads that allow cards these days to become 5.5 millimetres thick (once in the envelope). The "Dad" was not three separate letters, but a single piece of card affixed to the front of the card most securely. Despite this, I was again warned on the reverse side:
Warning: This card is not a toy and is unsuitable for children under 36 months. Contains small parts.
This warning (the same as the one on the 'Husband' card) was simply inappropriate because there were no small parts at all. Basically there is a blanket policy at the manufacturer's printing facility to stamp this sort of message on any card that isn't completely flat, and consisting of a single element. Charmed is the brand name, and charmed I am not. It's simply a lazy approach that annoys the fuck out of me, and 35-month-old children who are aggrieved that they are considered by adults to be stupid and hungry for stationery.
To Our Son
I was pleased to learn that I am "One in a Million" and I then had to try and decide whether this was a compliment or a slight on the part of my parents. In turn, I had a quick review of the 'Dad' card and was pleased to see no ambiguity, what with the "Dad in a Million" line being supported by another saying "You're a Star". I decided that not being the other 999,999 was probably a good thing, and liked the card which showed numerous outlines of little men in black print, and one that was clearly meant to be me in silver, and, as you might have guessed, raised from the surface of the card by a small sticky pad. The man was tiny, and in fact its surface area was similar to that of one of the birds on the 'Husband' card. I therefore fully expected a warning on the reverse of the card. There was no warning !!!
Instead, I was confronted with various information. The paper came from a responsible source. This endorsed the statement in the corner which said: "Protecting the world's forests for the future". There was a "Scan me, Watch me" bar code along with the item barcode, a website address, the logo for Marks & Spencer, along with the HQ address - and confirmation that the card was made in China. The irony was that the card was probably made by a child under 36 months ! Thank heavens he/she was not hungry or stupid.
...
No comments:
Post a Comment