Ring Ring

The house phone rang this afternoon. On my picking it up I found that it was from my phone and internet service provider. After the usual preliminaries “ We are recording for Blah,blah, etc”, the caller got down to business.

1. Have you any problems with our service?

My reply: Broadband is slow, and often disconnects.

Her reply: Errm, here’s the number of our service department.

2. Are you satisfied with your phone charges?

My reply: I rarely use the home phone as I have more free minutes on my mobile than I will ever use.

Her reply: Errrm….

3. Have you got Freeview or Sky?

My reply: Both

Her reply: We can let you have a digibox that will allow you to record and rewind, download films and fly you to the moon. (Alright, I made the last one up).

My reply: My system already does that.

Her reply: Errrrm.

Now comes the crunch that she was really leading up to.

4. Would you like to sign up for another year’s contract?

My reply: Why would I want to do that? Your terms and conditions state that once I signed up with you, after one year, It would be a rolling contract able to be cancelled at any time.

My service provider frequently gets bad press. It seems that they are making a concerted effort to tie their customer base in for the short term and maybe use this in advertising their service. “X thousands of customers have renewed their contact with us”.

Hint: My provider is what women do x two.

IN GOD WE TRUST

A Blond in Church

An Alabama pastor said to his congregation, "Someone in this congregation has spread a rumour that I belong to the Ku Klux Klan. This is a horrible lie and one which a Christian community cannot tolerate. I am embarrassed and do not intend to accept this. Now, I want the party who said this to stand and ask forgiveness from God and this Christian family."

No one moved.

The preacher continued, "Do you have the nerve to face me and admit this is a falsehood? Remember, you will be forgiven and in your heart you will feel glory. Now stand and confess your transgression."

Again, all was quiet.

Then, slowly, a drop-dead gorgeous blonde with a body that would stop a runaway train rose from the third pew. Her head was bowed and her voice quivered as she spoke, "Reverend there has been a terrible misunderstanding. I never said you were a member of the Ku Klux Klan. I simply told a couple of my friends
that you were a wizard under the sheets."

The preacher fell to his knees, his wife fainted, and the congregation roared.

BBC television news……

Don’t tell the whole story. Instead they cherry picked part of the story to suit their green agenda.

A BBC Radio 5 live survey has suggested that people in the UK support clean energy and think that the government is not green enough. But in times of economic difficulty, people say cheap energy is more important than reducing emissions. Do we have to choose between the two?

The survey, carried out by ComRes, showed broad support for clean, "green" energy sources.

Unfortunately too many taking the poll, seem unaware of the true cost and lack of constant and significant generation by renewables.

Just take todays breakdown of electricity generation by type.

At the most it is 2.1%, at the least it is just a pitiful 1.4%.

And from the Royal Academy of Engineering comes this cost analysis.

k.

If only the sheeple would look outside the BBC generated green bubble and see that cheap energy can be had. Shale gas for one.

But then again it’s like educating pork.

Ban them. Ban them.

Chicken McNuggets that is. If the vid below is anything to go by.

Quadrillion

Mitigate the effects of Climate change or bankrupt the world defending against it? The vid below gives the case for mitigation. If at all it’s needed?

What do you think?

Women

UK attacks sovereign territory.

Maybe I’m stupid. Surely, if we bomb the government of Syria we are unilaterally declaring war against said government.

Is that not the same as the Japanese when they bombed Pearl harbour in the second world war?

If the world considered it wrong then, why is it right now?

Should we bomb Government assets in Syria?
	Yes. It's the right thing to do.
	No. It's wrong to attack a sovereign state without due lawfull process
	Yes. I'm the Prime Minister and I need to be remembered for something before the next Election,
	No. Our armed forces are stretched as it is.
	Phone a Friend (Hint: USA)
	Other
pollcode.com free polls

Freedom of speech. Hah.

Are you certain?

The MSM are salivating over pronouncements that the PM and his lapdog of a foreign secretary are considering taking action against the president of Syria and his armed forces. I keep reading sound bites such as “The Syrian government forces are most likely to have used chemical weapons against the rebel forces”.

Two questions I’d like to ask:

Q1. What would the government gain?

Q2. What would the rebels gain?

A1. Nothing. They were sweeping back the rebels. Why would they need to resort to chemical weapons and invite the Ire of the civilised world?

A2. Everything. The Free Syrian Army is not as we are led to believe, a single entity fighting for freedom from the tyranny of he Assad regime. Instead they are a disparate group of factions that include jihadists that are fanatical Al Quaeda followers, that have no compunction in sacrificing civilians, in their cause to spread Islam across the globe.

Just remember 9/11.

Even in the MSM, it has been stated that Government bases have been overrun at times. Could nerve gas weapons have been “liberated” by the rebels?

My take is that, the fanatical Jihadist, would have no compunction on using chemical weapons on an innocent population in order to further the cause of a world wide caliphate.

I would suggest that that the government should stand back, await for positive proof before committing any of our armed forces personnel.

But I’m not expecting that to happen. Over the last two decades all I see is idiots in Government, using war to enhance their status as defenders of the free world.

Tossers the lot of them.

British service personnel may die, and we will stoke up the fires of Jihadism.

I maybe wrong. You tell me.

And I thought that........

Private dentistry was expensive. They're just amateurs.

Vets beat them hands down.

A friend of mine yesterday contacted her vet, on advice from me, as her old cat was showing extreme distress. The poor animal was just lying on it's side in the front doorstep in the pouring rain. This was the same symptoms as an old cat of mine had suffered two years ago so I know what she should expect. The poor creature was dying.

Now my dentist charges me £50 for a half hour session, the Butcher of Belsen Hygienist charges £45, you would think that those altruistic vets who have dedicated themselves to saving fluffy bunnies and the like would charge less.

You would be utterly wrong in that assumption.

My friend was quoted £300 quid!

As mentioned above I've been through this and know that from the time you arrive at the vet, till the time you leaving tearfully carrying the body of a trusting, small, lifeless animal, is only at the most, fifteen minutes.

The cost my friend was quoted was £230 for an examination and £70 for the lethal injection.

FFS. That means that the vet is charging £230 x 4 = £920 per sodding hour.

How on earth can anyone possibly justify these sort of charges?

I now consider vets as in the same league as payday loan companies.