Age: A lady never tells. Particularly if she’s negotiating a roundabout.

Appearance: Many and varied but generally within the speed limit and the recommended safe distance from the vehicle in front.

This is the Guardian, yes? Yes.

So I’d better eschew all the obvious jokes? Yes. And the non-obvious ones while you’re at it, to be on the safe side.

Very well. Why are female drivers, to which term we attach no humorous or opprobrious associations, in the news? Because their car insurance premiums are set to go through the roof.

Why? Has the female population finally synched up, so they all get their periods at the same hormone-addled time and crash into each other? Ahahahahahahaha. No.

What then? The European Court of Justice has decided to ban insurers from applying different premiums according to customers’ gender.

Which means? That women’s premiums will go up by an estimated 10-15% and men’s will come down by about 13% despite the latter’s tendency to have more accidents remaining unchanged.

So women were getting cheaper deals than men were? How sexist! Or entirely in keeping with the actuarial basis of insurance.

Blatant misandry, I call it. I suppose women are complaining? They’re not terribly happy, no.

Well, they never are, are they? Really? We’re going there now?

Wait ’til you hear what I’ve got to say about the ECJ! Bloody Eurocrats, coming over here, overcharging our women! Make up your mind. A minute ago you were saying cheaper premiums for women, even though they have fewer accidents, was wrong.

Have a heart – I’m going for the anti-Guardianista trifecta here; racism, sexism and I’m hoping I can put the boot into vegetarians if I hang about long enough. And we’re out of here.

Do say: “This maybe within the letter but is entirely without the spirit of EU anti-discrimination legislation.”

Don’t say: “But this is equality! I thought this is what you feminists fought for?”