In which I agree wholeheartedly with the masked Muslim woman!

The parade of the weird, wild and woolly Gay Pride marchers (Waltham Forest sect.) had slouched, swayed and pouted its way along what passes for a High Street in that particular locale, when: Heavens Forfend: a protester emerged who was vituperative in her condemnation of these individuals who profess Pride in what, in Darwinian terms, is accepted as a perversion.

Many people have expressed their vehement opposition to the now-legal homosexual activities as celebrated by these ‘Pride’ marchers; although I do confess that I don’t find much to be proud about when they flaunt their weirdness. I have always subscribed to the ideals as professed by the late King Edward the 7th, who remarked, “I don’t care what they do in private, as long as they don’t frighten the horses by doing it in public!” But it is believed that this is the first time that a Muslim woman, albeit one who is totally hidden behind the Islamic niqab, (a.k.a. ‘As a letter-box’ (™ attributed to Boris Johnson))  has broken the silence previously afforded towards members of the LBGT ‘community’ in such a vitriolic fashion. Therein lies the strange dichotomy behind the attitudes of the massed SJWs. the ranks of the liberal Left in the vitriolic condemnation of anyone who speaks in the slightest opposition to the march towards the ‘acceptance’ of homosexuality as a normality: but totally ignoring the total opposition to all strands of the homosexual persuasion by all Muslims. 

When the Nation watches and hears the chanting of the (overwhelmingly) Muslim parents outside of that small primary school in Birmingham, British people began to understand the antipathy of the Muslim Community towards any liberal idea, hidden well within a Law which states that all children learn about ‘same-sex marriage’ homosexuality and other ‘liberated’ ideals because they must learn that such ‘Relationships’ are legal: and, following on from the ‘legal’; all such relationships must (Quod erat Demonstrandum), also be acceptable. The Muslim Community, in this area alone, gains my admiration and respect, because they do not quibble, they do not bend, they state outright that homosexuality is against their Religion, and as such, their children will not and must not be, at such an early age, subjected to Western Liberal Propaganda which states, categorically, that their beloved Religion is dead wrong when it comes to matters regarding homosexuality. I unreservedly applaud such attitudes, because they are standing up for something which is one of the bedrock foundations of their lives. 

Consider what would happen if I, as a white man, did shout out such epithets as “Shame on you, horrible people” against a march of homosexuals? I wouldn’t be allowed to feel the ground beneath my feet. I would probably be arrested, bundled into a police van, and charged with a Hate Crime before I took another breath. But that small woman, dressed in her niqab, continually said exactly those words many, many times. And why? Because the actions of those homosexuals, those lesbians, those transgender activists, in parading their divisiveness, offended against her religion; and notwithstanding the fact that she could not possibly be identified because of her garb, she was indeed willing to stand up and be counted.

Just imagine if any Brit stood up and volubly condemned Islam? The black-garbed and bearded battalions would be marching within hours, and we all know that to be true!

The Electronic Spy on your wall.

Copied content….Email to British Gas  09/07/2019

Customer Reference No. ***************

Dear British Gas marketing/accounts team,

I recently received a reminder that my payments had changed, and a further email to advise me that, as my present tariff was ending, you invited me to renew with another tariff. Which change I authorised, placing me on your HomeEnergy Secure Green Oct 2021 energy tariff. 

However, I noticed that I was not able to renew by moving to the cheapest tariff, because that was reserved for users who either already had, or were in the process of, getting their metering changed to one of your fabled Smart Meters.

I would never, ever, authorise the installation of one of these so-called Smart Meters in my home, as I consider them to be a gross intrusion into my privacy, and of being of benefit only to the Supplier, with zero benefit to me, the consumer. 

I believe, as do many others, that the whole idea of so-called Smart Meters is to prepare the whole country for the hidden use of ‘Smart Metering’ which is the ability, of the Supplier, to switch off the supply to any area if there is a surge in use which might affect the generation system. 

I also believe that the use, on the front of every British Gas envelope, of the wording “Upgrade to smart meters for free” is both untrue, wildly inaccurate and open to misinterpretation. The so-called ‘Smart Meter’ is definitely not ‘Free’, as the cost is estimated to be some £11 billions, and that cost is silently added to the basic bills of every consumer, who is supplied by any one of the Suppliers of energy: so it cannot, under any circumstance, be a ‘Free Upgrade’.

As I am not a fan of these meters, am I to be financially penalised because I do not believe in either the claims, the expensive advertising; or the technology. I am considering complaining to OfGem, but am writing to you so that you might reply to my complaints, before I take this further.

Regards

Mike Cunningham

So far: apart from a letter confirming receipt of my emailed complaint, no reply whatsoever. I await, with some interest, British Gas’ considered reply.

 

Yes, Caroline; happily I can state that I can’t afford it!

eyesight

 

Yet another flyer tucked inside the Saturday magazines; but, to my mind, a truly unsavoury message, from yet another bunch of do-gooders who seem to believe that these black kids’ incipient blindness is firstly, our fault, and secondly, we should be shamed into handing out large amounts of cash to soothe our delicate global consciences.

Now, from my own experiences of these calls, from the earliest days I can remember, it has always been “Oh, its a collection box for those starving black babies”, as pushed by the local Catholic church. Or “we must all do our bit for this disease in Black Africa, or that problem, again in Black Africa.” Very few people ask “Why? Why is it always the West, and more importantly Brits, are always targeted by these so-called Charities?” I state so-called because, more and more, they treat themselves as Businesses, with targeted sections of the populace, with plans for gathering large sums of cash not only to do the so-called ‘Good’ they state their aims are, but also enriching themselves at our expense. 

No mention of the fact that we, here in Western Europe, as well as America and many nations in the Far East have developed and maintain medical services for our own citizens, built from decades of taxpayers’ expenditure and experience. No mention of the decades of similar appeals for the blind/undernourished/destitute/poverty-stricken (delete the words inapplicable) from so-called Charities, large and small, who suck from the loose hind teat of British charitable giving.

Take, for example, the organisation which calls itself a Charity and goes by the name and title  of Sightsavers. Now I have always believed in the old adage ‘Charity begins at home’, and this is really true in the case of Caroline Harper, chief executive of this business; and. by the way folks, it really is a business, with an income of £23 millions. Now Caroline has a PhD in ‘Energy Studies’, an Honorary doctorate in Science, a CBE and an OBE. Caroline has been CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of Sightsavers since 2005. Now most Charity CEOs award themselves fairly decent salaries; because, as we all are told many, many times, you have to pay the going rate to attract the best applicants. On the ‘Shaming’ flyer distributed by means of the newspaper, we are told, bluntly, that we should give £5.00 to save this kid’s sight, because we can afford it, and we are a measly bunch of penny-pinching pillocks if we don’t.  So how do you reckon we should view the fact that our Caroline collects the equivalent of 174,500 donations at £5.00 a pop from the suckers who give to this alleged Charity? Thats right, folks; Caroline was handed, in 2017, the slightly amazing sum of £872,519, inclusive of National Insurance and Pension contributions. Now Sightsavers may be doing decent work, maybe it doesn’t, but is it really worth paying Caroline 5.8 times the salary of the British Prime Minister?

So, in ending, I would simply ask Caroline; “Aren’t you ashamed that you were handed this huge sum, which comes directly from those contributions so masterfully squeezed from the pockets of ordinary people, as well as British Taxpayer contributions through the Dept. of International Development?” 

Yes, Caroline, not only can I pass by, not only can I state, categorically, that I can’t afford it; but, with the extra effort and publicity generated by this nasty evil poster, I do hope lots of other people can’t afford it either!

A slightly worrying insight view of technology

I never check my supermarket till receipts. I tend to trust in the fact that every item is scanned as it crosses the laser read-out, with a compliant ‘beep’ as the item is read, recorded, and added to the running total. All done by super-fast computer technology, and backed-up by the in-store systems operated by all major supermarket chains. As every person who goes shopping will perhaps understand, you know approximately how much your shop is going to add up to, and unless there is a large enough discrepancy from that total, held in your mind, is reflected in the printout totals spoken, and then given you by the check-out operator; you just do not react.

 

I normally do much of the weekly shop online, using the built-in spreadsheets offered by my supermarket on their website pages. I then collect it at the appropriate point, then go inside the store and choose the few things which I prefer to pick in real-time, as it were. I choose this method solely because I can do my weekly shopping quickly, and am then able to limit my time away from my wife, now dependent upon me for many years. One of the items I buy in-store is a bottle of wine. I’m not a heavy drinker, one glass per evening suits me, and I buy what I can afford, which usually precludes the higher-priced ranges. But when, as happened last Friday, a substantial reduction is offered, I popped a bottle into the trolley, finishing my picks, and paid for the lot at the check-out.

 

Unloading and storing all the items takes some time, but all was stored away in freezer, fridge and cupboards. Clearing up afterwards, I was just about to bin the receipt for the items bought in-store, but glanced at it, and came to a full stop. There, on the till slip, was itemised two bottles of the upmarket booze chosen by me; but a glance at the wine box showed that which I already knew, a total of one bottle. So I photographed the bottle label,, and went back to the supermarket customer help-desk, and stated, rather hesitantly, I will admit; that I thought the supermarket had double-charged me. I told the extremely nice assistant that she would maybe have to take my word for my problem, and wondered what she was able to do for me.

 

She checked the photo on my phone, disappeared into the store but came swiftly back with a duplicate bottle for, as she stated, the bar-code. Then, the amazing and yet slightly-worrying point of my small story: she went on to the store computer systems, using the till receipt as a guide to both time and checkout number, located the exact time when I was buying all my items on an in-store computer video recording. As the bottle had a safety-tag attached to it, my purchase of one bottle only was instantly shown. The customer services assistant then opened the till, and handed me DOUBLE the amount I had originally paid for the wine. She stated, as I commenced stating the obvious, that I had only bought one bottle; that as it was an in-store error, the policy was to pay out double the mistake. The worrying factor? The time taken, once the bar-code of the wine bottle was established; was a total of thirty-five seconds: inclusive of her logging on to two store computer systems.

 

We are, indeed, in an age of a scrutiny so detailed as to be slightly unnerving. I have been using computers and electronic devices for over forty years, I have kept myself as up-to-date as I felt needed; but: THIRTY-FIVE SECONDS: to prove me right! In just one store in Durham City in North-East England.

 

 

STASI Hindu cop tells Press, “You’re Next!”

Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu. Does that name seem vaguely familiar? Wait a minute, before the latest STASI-follower cop’s ‘Secret Police’-style orders to the Press over the leaked diplomatic cables published in the Daily Mail; where did that name strike a chord? 

Yes, folks, this loose-mouthed clown has form in the area reserved for those who would remove, reduce or drastically limit the British Press’ ability to print, within the guidelines, anything which would embarrass the Government. Note that I specify ‘Embarrass’. I do not include any information which could impact National Security, but do include the diplomatic traffic which carried the Ambassador’s personal opinion of the President of the United States, and his Administration. All that these statements tell us is the truth that this ‘Well-liked’ and ‘Competent Diplomat’ was in fact a signed-up member of the British ‘Deep State Swamp’; well known and well-understood for their deep distrust, dislike and detestation of a man who simply “Wasn’t one of us!”

But returning to this senior cop, tasked as he is with leading the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command. Basu had published what the sympathetic Guardian calls ‘an open letter to the media on how to report terrorism’, which sounds like a top cop issuing orders to newspapers and TV broadcasters on what they can and can’t publish.  Assistant Commissioner Basu blames the mainstream news media for ‘radicalising’ far-right terrorists such as the New Zealand mosque murder suspect. He attacks the tabloid press for publishing clips of the carnage in Christchurch and for making ‘the rambling “manifestoes” of crazed killers available for download’. Anybody might think we lived in a PC police state!

There is but one small item, about which our uniformed would-be bully should be more than worried. Our Cressida Dick hasn’t said a word in ‘support’ of big-mouthed Basu after his tirade against the Daily Mail, along with the rest of the British press. I do wonder why? Will he be sent back to Police College to have a refresher course on the British Constitution? Or will he be relegated to a beat on, say, Canvey Island in the middle of winter?

Buy European——-Buy Rubbish

If the reader takes an in-depth look around the glossy website for the Airbus A400M,he would gather that the A400M combines the capability to carry strategic loads with the ability to deliver even into tactical locations with small and unprepared airstrips and can act as a frontline-tanker. One aircraft that can do the work of three – the A400M. Seemingly so adaptable, the only thing this aircraft cannot do is give birth, and they might be working on that. The A400M was designed to be the European answer to the American Lockheed transporter, and, unfortunately; we now know that the answer turned out to be, as usual with things designed by a Multi-National Committee, a mobile disaster area.

As stated in the Register article, the costs have escalated so far that no-one dared state the true prices, because if they did, the whole project would have been cancelled forthwith. We were told that the planes would cost £2.300,000,000 (£2.3 Billions) for 25 aircraft: or £92 million for each plane. The true cost is now officially secret, but is more than £3.2 Billions ( a rise of forty percent).

Lord Gilbert, a Labour peer, is quoted in Hansard as stating:-

 It will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I regard the decision on the A400M as the most bone-stupid in the 40 years that I have been at one end or other of this building. It is an absolutely idiotic decision. We have a military airlift fleet of C-17s and C-130s. We have total interoperability with the United States, which flies the same combination of airlift planes, apart from a few clapped-out Galaxies.

I can tell your Lordships why we are buying the A400M because I want to pay special tribute this afternoon to the defence Minister of France, who is our new best ally in Europe. The New York Herald Tribune on 6 November states:

“The A400 M is an emblematic program which Europe could not abandon”,

Monsieur Morin said at a news conference on Friday.

“Giving it up would have meant Europe saying it wanted to be dependent on the United States in military transport”.

How pathetic. We are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on a plane just to make sure that nobody thinks we are dependent on the United States for military transport.

We are told that the new arrangement we will have with our friends across the Channel will in no way dilute our relations with our best friends the Americans. Yet the defence Minister involved in our new great alliance with the French has this attitude. Another question is coming to the Minister asking whether Monsieur Morin has many other emblematic symbols in the field of defence procurement that we will have to acquire just to prove that we are not dependent on the United States for transport.

Your Lordships will be familiar with the phrase “barking mad”. A few years ago, some wit invented the phrase “Dagenham mad”. When asked what it meant he said it was three stops beyond Barking. This is not “Barking mad” nor “Dagenham mad”: it is “Upminster mad”. It is at the end of the line. You cannot go any further: it is sheer madness. The Minister responsible is sitting here. He is carefully not identifying himself and I am not going to be so cruel as to identify him either.

 

We have taken delivery of 20 A400M transporters, but only two are flight-worthy at any time. The engines fail, the propellers are crap, the gearboxes fail, and this is what the British taxpayer and the M.O.D. wanted?