Why does the UK government employ lollipop ladies to stand at pedestrian crossings outside schools? Are the kids not smart enough to press the button for themselves? Or is it that they’re not tall enough? What makes a coffin-dodger in a day-glo jacket more qualified to carry out this complex task? Surely the purpose of employing lollipop ladies is to ensure the safety of the kids, not to humour the few pole-holding patriarchs who have refused to die. Can’t the government phase these people out, now that their role has clearly become obsolete? Perhaps it is hoped that if they continue to press lollipop ladies into service, sooner or later they will make a mistake and step out in front of an 18-wheeler. At least that’ll save having to pay the old fossils’ pension for the 20 odd years that they would have invariably clung on for. Now don’t get me wrong, I approve of using lollipersons (to give them their politically correct title) on busy roads to help school kids cross safely. But not at pedestrian crossings - that’s the safest place there is. You’re more likely to get shot to death in your classroom than you are to die on a pedestrian crossing. Wasting money on manning an automated device is overkill. It’s like a man with a vasectomy double-bagging a girl who’s on the pill. There’s safety and then there’s safety³ . If it was up to me, I’d get my lollipop ladies to work for their lolly. If these spinsters want some extra cash to fund their 20-a-day pandrop habit, they’re gonna have to earn it. I don’t want them doddering about at zebra crossings like a spare stripe. I want my lollipop ladies where they’re needed most - stationed on the wrong side of a hairpin bend in a hurricane on a dark nite.
It has been argued that lollipop ladies do more harm than good, as their over-emphasis on safety encourages kids to dawdle across roads and increases congestion. I tend to agree. To me, a lollipop lady is like a red rag to a bull - when I see one, I speed up. They’re an accident waiting to happen, and it is high time the government phased out these prehistoric safety officers. At the very least, they should rebrand them and give them a modern job title. When I think of a lollipop man, I envisage a dirty old paedo hanging outside a school playground handing out Chupa Chups in exchange for hand jobs. And while there’s nothing wrong with conjuring up such an image, it’s got nothing to do with road safety. Perhaps it would be more effective if the roles of lollipop men and paedophiles were reversed. The former can ensnare the school kids with the promise of pandrops and then bore them to death with war stories. And as for the latter, well I’m sure they will do an excellent job of escorting children across the road. Why? Because it’s in their interests to do so. What hope does a paedophile have of luring a child into his home if he can’t even get him across the road in one piece? The ambulance isn’t supposed to show up until the next morning. It is time to call for an amnesty on all the ageing lollipersons who are still serving. Surrender one to your nearest government office and in return you will receive a young, able-bodied paedophile who will guarantee the safety of your child from the school gates, all the way across a six-lane highway and up the path to his front door. As far as I'm concerned, lollipop ladies can suck it.