Popular Posts

Wednesday, 22 April 2015

JOHN KEY IS A CRIMINAL

What John Key did to that waitress is a crime. It is common assault under both the Summary Offences Act 1981 and the Crimes Act 1961. So lying prat's true nature has been revealed. By him. He is a thug: a thug against the truth, a thug against what Churchill called 'the folk who toil and moil', a thug against anything and anyone that does not fit his tiny mind or his love of money or his mates who have the same characteristics.

This is yet another in the avalanche of reports and videos (this one showing him doing it in a street) in the saga of 'pin the ponytail on the JohnKey', while the PM--aka Ponytail Manipulator or Puller Man--makes an ass of himself by laughing off his assaults as just a bit of fun, despite New Zealand law classifying them all as common assault. What pulling power will he have at the polls now? And why does he always pick on females?

Thursday, 9 October 2014

CORRUPT COPS NO SURPRISE

So some cops have been caught lying in court to get a conviction. The surprise is that so few are ever put under investigation. But the focus in the cop shops is always on getting the result they want, and 'evidence' is whatever you make it to get that result. In this case they were caught  with their panties on the floor by the camera in their taser, and therefore there could be no continuation of their perjury. Usually they can carry on colluding in their lies to hammer any protest into oblivion. Even worse, in this case, the Assistant Police Commissioner says the reasons why they might have done that are 'endless.' That shows how corrupt his thinking is. There is no reason for lying in court.

Get honest police officers, not lying cops.

Thursday, 4 September 2014

LYING JOURNALISTS

I am sick to the core of screaming headlines not connected with the stories below them, screaming stories not connected with reality, screaming words not connected with the dictionary, divorced from their true meanings. I am sick to the core of a plethora of dishonest journalists screaming for attention rather than focusing intently on conveying the truth to the public without colouring, without activist bias, without deviation and dictatorial perversion.

Bluntly, they are liars.

They are small-minded prats who are nothing but legends in their own lynchtimes.

They are liars who live in yesterday, because they are overlooking the fact that thanks to the Internet we can easily discover what knaves they are.


Friday, 15 August 2014

TRUTH WILL OUT

'Truth will out' is an old saying and a true one. NewZealand has just seen more proof of it. A door set high and proud, a door with magnificent promise, a door with a polished, well-crafted veneer was hacked through--to reveal a great pile of rotten wood artfully stacked on muck. When the rotten heap was kicked into the open a big fat slater, notable for being a legend in its own lynchtime, reared up on its cloven hooves, hissed at the world and scuttled for invented cover; then a crushing heel kicked back hard, but only exposed yet more warts; then the key to the promissory door fell into the muck, and we saw that its bright shiny chrome was nothing but dripping slime and deep rust. It was no key, it was no radar, it was no compass; it could never open a worthy door or find its way to one.

An honest Prime Minister confronted with the allegations made in Dirty Politics would instantly have said, 'I will order a thorough investigation, and if what my staff and ministers are accused of is shown to be true they will be sacked.' But he did not do that. Instead he attacked the messenger over and over and over again, at the same time as admitting that he had not read the message, but still asserting that it was nothing but smear. And when a journalist asked him why emails sent to newspapers were discoverable under the Official Information Act but not ones sent to bloggers, instead of replying, 'We want to be open, we want to show you that we have nothing untoward to hide, and therefore we will release to you whatever you ask for,' he shut the questioner down by saying repeatedly, 'We observe the law'--meaning that the Act does not cover bloggers so there's nothing in law that makes openness obligatory (from 02:15 on this video). His guilty guns are smoking like overwrought volcanoes and his counterattack guns are spiked. He has a lot to answer for but is answering none of it.

As the Southland Times remarked, 'If those persistently high polls have been giving the impression that John Key can walk on water, the first post-Hager poll will show whether he can walk on sewage.'

Key's strident ploy on the 18th of August defied the smallest semblance of credibility was to say that Hager's claims are dissolving before his eyes. That was the same day that the original emails were being released, and which proved the claims were rock-solid. The Prime Minister obviously does not know the difference between solidity and dissolution.

Then his arrogantly asserted 'solidity' began to dissolve.

Sunday, 18 May 2014

Sunday, 30 March 2014

BUREAUCRATS AND PUBLIC SERVANTS

Bureaucrats are self-serving, they do not care about people, they use dubious process to beat them. Public servants serve their community faithfully and well, they care about people, they use due process to help them.

Politicians are bureaucrats who make speeches. Statesmen are public servants who make speeches.

Tuesday, 21 January 2014

SHELL-SHOCK KILLS

Oh, goody, goody, goody! Shell has announced that it will be spending $200 million drilling a test-well to look for natural gas in the Great South Basin--thus prolonging our murderous addiction to messing up the planet by burning folly fuels (read 'the only planet we can live on in the entire universe').

It would be far better and infinitely wiser to spend that amount on switching the country to sustainable fuels, such as solar power and fuel-cells (batteries that run on hydrogen, made by splitting water with sunlight). We could build thousands of fuel-cell cars, switch tens of thousands of homes to solar power, and be changing the world for the better...

But why let sense get in the way of blind addiction? Why let reality get in the way of anachronistic corporate greed? Why let wisdom get in the way of infernal stupidity? So why not let the grubbymint of Enzed carry on selling drilling licences to shell-shocked madmen?

After all, the consequence will only be a few million deaths caused by climate-change and pollution. Or, if they are really lucky, a few billion. What a bite-'em line that will be!

Wednesday, 18 December 2013

UNFORTUNATE RHYMES AND BREEDING

Len Brown
Pants Down
Tup Town

It sounds like horse-breeding: TupTown out of SuperCity by PantsDown.

Thursday, 5 December 2013

LANGWEDGE

There is language and langwedge. Language is talking to people or with them. Talking to them is good; talking with them is best. Making wedges between them is bad. Driving foul wedges into them is worst.

Talking with people not only strives to communicate--to be heard and listened to and understood--it also strives to please. It strives to use language in a way that gives pleasure, and therefore uses it with care, and
thus shows that the speaker cares about the listener.

That is the heights. The worst depths are what Tolkien called Black Speech. English is the greatest language that has ever existed on Earth. It has hundreds of thousands of good words. Filling one's mouth and other people's ears with constant repetitions of a few foul ones says to the hearers, 'I care nothing for you, you are only a toilet, I want to fill you with verbal sewage. You are only worth being psychologically abused, I am the one to do it, and I shall do it. For I am superior to you, I am worth more than you, I have the right to make a toilet of you, I have the right to violate you with my excrement, and you have no right to deny me.'

It is regrettable that although using such language in or within hearing of a public place has long been illegal in New Zealand, it is a law hardly ever invoked, and that the abuse remains rampant. Most of it is psychological sexual abuse, because the words are black words for the parts of our bodies that make us male and female and and mark us such. Denigrating them in the most vile way is the same under the heading of gender as calling an African a nigger under the heading of race. 'Nigger' is psychological racial abuse; four-letter words are psychological sexual abuse.

Unfortunately most of that abuse is hurled at men. Even the word that on the surface applies only to women is usually used of men by men; for it is the ultimate abuse: it says that a man does not have the mark of manhood. When used of a woman it says that that is all she is, that it is has only the value of abuse, and that she should be treated accordingly.

'Those to whom evil is done do evil in return.' Small wonder that there is so much retaliatory abuse in visual and physical forms.

Wednesday, 13 November 2013

ROAST-BUSTERS NEW ZEALAND

Although, rightly, there has been an outcry against the wicked, sexually-abusive boys who call themselves Roast-Busters, their existence should surprise no one, because sexual abuse is deeply entrenched in New Zealand. Many, perhaps most, of those who are condemning them are guilty of it every day and all day.

For a start, sexually-abusive language is part of their speech. They might be able to see that calling a black man a nigger is racial abuse, but they cannot see that using the so-called four-letter words is sexual abuse. For them that vile form of speech is so normal that they have rendered themselves incapable of hearing what it really is. The Roast-Busters are only expressing physically what most people are constantly expressing verbally.

Even when their language is not drenched in four-letter words they speak and act in ways that manifest an abusive attitude to the human body, in particular to the parts that are the emblems and the very essence of manhood and boyhood, girlhood and womanhood. They mock them, they belittle them, they denigrate them, they regard them as a filthy joke, they think of them as filthy and treat them as filthy, they use the vile words that mean them to hurl abuse at anything they loathe. Then they wonder why people treat men and women badly. They do it in speech all the time, so they should not be surprised when so many do it in practice, and that a few openly boast about it on Facebook. That same boasting is part of their speech and their thinking.

Worse, many, perhaps most nowadays, are not bothered by, indeed practise as a 'normal' part of their daily lives casual sex, flitting from bed to bed, temporary sexual liasons, practices that dishonour their bodies, or to use precise English: fornication, adultery, sodomy, etc. In daily practice they are reducing what should only be one of the finest aspects of humanity--the expression of true love--to careless gratification, to superficial entertainment, to abuse of others, to abuse of self.

'Abuse' is bad usage. Sexual abuse is bad usage--physical bad usage and verbal bad usage--of the parts of the body that make us and mark us as male and female. Everyone who manifests any form of abuse toward them is part of Roast-Busters Incorporated. In short, part of everyday New Zealand.

Monday, 21 October 2013

TUNNEL VISION

What would Sigmund Freud have to say about Len Brown's obsession with underground tunnels?

Wednesday, 25 September 2013

THIEVES OF LIFE

There is no replay button in life. We live each second, each minute, each hour, each day, each week, each month, each year only once. Once. Therefore the people who 'design' systems that waste people's time are stealing part of their lives. I am weary of systems designed by bureaucratic prats who cannot design their way out a wet paper bag, even with the help of nuclear weapons, and a squadron of bulldozers. Their bad systems waste time. They are thieves of life.

It is the corruption of incompetence, the corruption carelessness, the corruption of overweening vanity and the inability to admit shortcomings, it is the corruption of stupidity, it is the corruption of appointing second- and third-rate people to jobs that need first-rate performance.

Tuesday, 13 August 2013

BOTULISM IN THE PIPE

Fonterra's discovery and admission that tonnes of its products were contaminated by the bacteria that causes botulism, due to a dirty pipe in one of its factories, is a perfect metaphor for the undeniable fact that the '100% pure' and 'one of the least corrupt countries in the world' labels are lies. The truth is that there are dirty pipes oozing the botulism of corruption all over the place in New Zealand.

Even though the bacterium turned out to be another, similar one, because the testing had not differentiated them as it should have, the point, like the dirty pipe, remains. Indeed it is underlined by the fact that the initial tests did not know the difference between great harm and harmless, that the lab that did them did not have the necessary accreditation, and that the Hautapu factory had to closed down and cleansed before normal production could resume.

The New Zealand system is riddled with multiple watchdogs who have the same incompetence. For example, we have a plethora of incompetent judges (and cops), but the judicial watchdog, the Judicial Conduct Commission, is incompetent and grossly biased in favour of those he is meant to be exposing. Incompetence set to watch for incompetence is a species of corruption.

There are two kinds of corruption. Deliberate and accidental. But at base it is all the same. It is vanity. It can be the love of titles, seats of honour, official baubles--the corruption of greedy pomposity. It can be a taste for personal power--the corruption of overweening self-importance. It can be acting for a friend or someone with a title instead of democratic law--the corruption of influence. It can be making a decision for bureaucratic convenience, not true public service--the corruption of process over humanity. It can be not bothering to do your job properly--the corruption of irresponsible carelessness. It can be not bothering to do the job at all--the corruption of laziness and pretence. It can be not being up to the job--the corruption of incompetence. It can be the corruption of appointing people to positions for the wrong reasons, positions for which they do not have the ability or are disqualified by psychological shortcomings or psychopathic tendencies--the corruption of positions. It can be not bothering with the law or researching the facts--the corruption of wilful lawlessness and ignorance. It can refusing to admit a mistake in the face of the facts and the law--the corruption of wilful blindness. It can be not understanding simple words--the corruption of ignorant stupidity. It can be forcing people to comply with your dictates to satisfy pride, bureaucratic arrogance, or sloth--the corruption of petty oppression. It can be refusing to give a straight answer to a valid question--the corruption of the silent lie. It can be presenting false or misleading information and pretending it is true, or falsifying the law and the meaning of words--the corruption of outright lies, of deliberate evil. It can be offering a position for a vote or a wad of money˜the corruption of bribery. It can be acting out of hatred, malice or the desire for revenge--the corruption of wanting to do harm. It can be acting on shonky official advice--the corruption of careless and uninformed decisions. It can be political interference in due process, such as misusing a statutory authority--the corruption of abusing political position. It can be conducting a hearing with a closed mind, with the verdict politically dictated in advance--the corruption of prejudice. It can be unfairness--the corruption of denying natural justice, which we all have the right to under the Bill of Rights Act.

Sunday, 28 July 2013

HYPOCRISY, EVIL AND PUNISHMENT

This hypocritical, godless nation, sings 'God defend New Zealand', then does not believe that God exists, thumbs its nose at him, mocks him and rejects him. This hypocritical, godless nation is presided over by the most corrupt Parliament in its history. This hyprocritical, godless nation, has rejected God and his love, and therefore has chosen his wrath.

New Zealand should therefore not be surprised that a city called Christchurch, a city named after the Son of God and his church, was firstly shaken hard. But it ignored the warning, it even held a 'religious service' to which every godless, idolatrous, false, Satanic 'religion' was invited. It failed to worship God alone, it failed to give him alone the glory, it failed to slough off its foul idolatry and hypocrisy. Even weak and foolish churches joined in that godless 'service', although they know that lukewarmness and hyprocrisy are loathed by God and condemned by him and will bring punishment.

Therefore the hard warning shake in which no one died was followed by a much harder one that flattened the city, killed people, and reduced its godless cathedral to ruin. Its pride was in the building, not in the reason for it. Its pride was reduced to rubble.

But, heedless of those warnings, this foolish, godless nation then began to pass a law that would call homosexuality equal to marriage. The dictionary cannot stomach that, thousands of years of history cannot stomach that, logic cannot stomach that, mathematics cannot stomach that. Marriage is the physical, sexual, mental, emotional and spiritual joining of a man and a woman, ordained by God, and it cannot be anything else, no matter what hordes of godless fools might say in defiance. Even kindergarten mathematics says that an apple and an orange is not equal to two apples or two oranges, yet this godless, illogical nation said it could define a word as anything it pleased.

It cannot. God will not accept that evil. So he delivered a severe warning against that by visiting upon this nation the worst drought we have had for seventy years. But he was mocked, in Parliament, by a foolish godless man who does not know what a rainbow is and what it means, or care, and thus he mocked God Almighty.

So then Wellington was given a warning, on a Sunday, on the Lord's Day. A hard, sharp warning. And the building called Public Trust was badly damaged, as were the upper floors of the Bank of New Zealand building. Two idols were singled out: trusting in public opinion and trusting in the worship of money.

Yet still this godless, hypocritical nation ignores God, ignores his love, ignores the truth, worships gods of its own imaginings. It ignores the fact that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for the evils that it now calls good, in law.

The Bible says God is not mocked (Galatians 6:7), and that we reap what we sow, and it warns again and again that when a nation turns against him it will be punished. God will punish it. He will turn nature against it till it repents of its evil and turns back to him.

God loves us and wants the best for us. Satan hates us and wants the worst. When we reject the love of God we choose the hatred of Satan, and by aligning ourselves with Satan we make ourselves enemies of God. When we reject God's love we have chosen his wrath, and we must accept the consequences.

Thursday, 11 July 2013

NZ MORE CORRUPT GLOBAL SURVEY FINDS

'Corruption and bribery are perceived to be getting worse in many countries, and trust in governments is falling worldwide, according to a survey by the group Transparency International.'

''The Global Corruption Barometer 2013 paints a bleak picture. One in every four people paid a bribe in the last 12 months when accessing public institutions and services, according to Transparency International's report.'

New Zealand, along with most other countries, is perceived by the majority of its citizens as being more corrupt than it was.

Shall we act surprised? We have the most corrupt Parliament in New Zealand's history, we have officials being prosecuted for criminal and losing standards-accreditation, we have a steady stream of 'businessmen' (read crooks) being found guilty of fraud and stealing millions, we have cheats and liars, rogues and knaves, thieves, abusers and murderers and  oozing out of the rotten woodwork everywhere we look.

Thursday, 30 May 2013

HYPER-CORRUPTION ON STEROIDS

This careless arrogant corruption, riding roughshod over any semblance of the rule of law and human rights, deserves to be condemned before the whole world. The Supreme Court made a judgement in accordance with law and human rights, the government didn't like it, so it rammed 'legislation' through to trash it, and trashed the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act along with it. More corruption from the most corrupt Parliament in New Zealand's history--a most unrepresentative House of Representatives.

Thursday, 16 May 2013

SUPER PAYDAYS ARE UNFAIR NOT SUPER


Many superannuitants are living payday to payday, and finding it difficult to manage. But if they were paid weekly instead of fortnightly they would find it much easier. And they would be getting paid more for nine months of the year.

Household bills arrive monthly and must be paid by certain dates, especially when there are discount-dates, and supermarket specials are issued weekly. But because New Zealand Superannuation is paid fortnightly there is a constant mismatch between income and expenditure.

If superannuitants work out what your monthly average is by dividing your annual total by twelve, you find that with fortnightly payments you are being paid below that monthly average for nine months of the year, and above it for only three--and those three good months are always a long way apart. This year, for example, the above-average months, the good months, are January, July and December. So there's five-month stretch to endure where you are below your monthly average. That situation is unfair and unjust because it makes it more difficult to manage--all because because the government and its bureaucracy cannot be bothered taking real human-beings and real life into account.

If superannuitants were paid weekly instead of fortnightly they would have a better, more even income, and there would be twice as many months in which their income was higher than their monthly average. For example, someone being paid $700 a fortnight would be getting a monthly average of $1517, if you divide the total for the year by twelve, but the actual monthly payments are $1400 for nine months of the year and $2100 for three of them. In 2013 those high months are only January, July and December. Therefore in
February, March, April, May, June, August, September, October and November the payments are $117 below the average, so there are long below-average stretches. But if that same person was paid weekly, the monthly income for January, April, July, October and December would be $1750, and the other months would be $1400, so there would be more above-average months and they would be closer together.

It would be much easier for elderly people to manage. But the Minister for Old Guys, Ancient Monuments, Greyheads and Other Advanced Specimens of Humanity (Hon. Jo Goodhew) and the CEO for the Ministry of Social Development claim that it would cost a fortune to change from paying superannuation fortnightly to weekly. But a brain-damaged earthworm with flat batteries and a spade through its gizzard could work out that it wouldn't cost anything to tell the super computer program to run twice as often. It runs weekly for the dole, so there's no reason it cannot do it for super. Or are unemployed bods worthy of the best treatment but wrinkly bods aren't?

If you agree, and want to put pressure on the government to do the right thing by superannuitants, please sign the petition

( http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/new-zealand-government-pay-superannuitants
-weekly-not-fortnightly-to-make-budgeting-easier ... is the address to cut and paste if the link doesn't work for some reason)

Wednesday, 24 April 2013

MAD DOGS


This truly is a man of quality, of wisdom, of probity, of profound morality, of superlative powers of reason--a great and true statesman!!! How admirable he is!!! After millions of years of evolution, after ten thousand years of civilisation, after at least ten years in the Kiwi education system, we have produced... this godless fool.

When the New Zealand Parliament began to consider whether it would change the law to redefine homosexuality as equal to marriage, Maurice Williamson, an MP for the National Party, said he would vote for it, because he is a libertarian and doesn't care what people do. 'If people want to marry their dog, they can do that, as long as the dog stays off my lawn,' he said ( link to news report ).

ANZAC SACRIFICE IS RUBBISH

So much for our forebears who sacrificed to make New Zealand what it is! What they did was obviously rubbish, so it has been well and truly rubbished. Piece by piece, item by item, it's all gone. About the only thing left to rubbish was Anzac Day. Now that too has gone the way of corrupt thinking--trashed by superficial fools in the most corrupt Parliament in our history. Not even Australians could bowl underarm at that one...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/what-does-anzac-day-mean-to-you/8590816/Anzac-not-just-a-day-off-work

Sunday, 10 March 2013

DROUGHT AND WICKEDNESS


God makes it very plain in many passages of Scripture that when a nation turns to wickedness it will get drought. Leviticus 26:18-20, Deuteronomy 11:16-17, I Kings 8:35, II Chronicles 6:26 and 7:13-14, Jeremiah 3:2-3 and 14:4-7 are just some.

New Zealand is turning blatantly to wickedness, wickedness that God specifically forbids, as it prepares to equate sodomy and lesbianism with marriage in its laws. Therefore severe drought is upon us, with some parts experiencing the driest January-February since records began.

We had the earthquakes in Christchurch. In the first, no one was killed and the cathedral was left standing. But the warning was not heeded, even to the extent that in the aftermath the bishop presided over a 'service' that included worship of a multitude of false gods. So the next earthquake shattered the cathedral. The city and its cathedral were of Christ only in name, but they had turned their backs on him and God.

New Zealand failed to take any notice, so now we are in drought. The Bible says in Galatians 6:7, 'Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap.' No one, no community, no nation can turn away from God to gods of their own making and not suffer the consequences. God loves us and wants the best for us. When we reject him his love seeks to drive us back.

When some rain fell on Auckland on Sunday the 17th of March, albeit not enough to break the drought, that city was given further warnings in the form of two earthquakes in quick succession. Earthquakes too are shown in the Bible to be one of the ways that God shows his power, his will, and gives warnings to the wicked (including as Isaiah 2:19 & 21, Isaiah13:13, Isaiah 24:18, Joel 4:16, Haggai 2:6 & 21, Haggai12:26, Matthew 24:7, Matthew 27:54, Matthew 28:2, Mark 13:8, Luke 21:11, Acts 126:26, Revelation 6:12, 8:5, 11:13, 11:19).   

Sunday, 10 February 2013

SODOM AND GOMORRAH


Now that once-great Britain has chosen in law to falsify and corrupt the word 'marriage'--to legalise Sodom and Gomorrah--New Zealand will surely do the same. Official US figures show that even in that population only 1.7% is homosexual, so the normal lives of 98.3% or more of the population and the truth enshrined in English are to be turned on their heads to pander to a tiny minority. For no good reason at all. The abnormal lust to make a normal word abnormal so that they can call themselves normal, but they are wilfully blind to the fact that that it will not change their abnormality in the slightest.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their godless iniquity. New Zealand had a divine warning sternly laid upon it in Christchurch. The first warning was ignored, so the second was far more damaging. It too was ignored.

Singing 'God Defend New Zealand' then disobeying him will not come to good. When a nation turns to iniquity good is never the result. 'All who hate wisdom are in love with death,' God says Proverbs 8:6, and death--spiritual and literal--is what we will get. II Peter 2:6 lays it out plainly: 'God reduced the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes, condemning them to total ruin as an object-lesson for the ungodly in future days.'

God loves us and wants us to love him back, because he wants the best for us, and that is found only in him, in his love, in faith in his Son Jesus Christ. But when we return him hate for his love he will seek to bring us back to that love, for in that alone is life and life truly abundant. The nation that ceases to trust in God, that turns its back on God and instead turns to wickedness, and even writes it into its laws, will be punished--to turn it back to love. We ignore him at our peril.

Wednesday, 5 December 2012

ROYAL MARRIAGE AND BABY


As the most corrupt parliament in the history of New Zealand goes through the motions of public submissions while it prepares to do great evil to marriage, it is a most refreshing contrast to see at the other end of the world a royal marriage rejoicing at the blessing of conception and pregnancy and looking forward to giving birth.

Down under, abnormality, vile corruption and anti-social wickedness. At the top of the world, normality, pure joy and the great common good in which society is founded and made secure.

Thursday, 15 November 2012

CORRUPTED EQUALITY


Calling equal what is not equal and never can be is not equality. It is corruption. Corruption of language, corruption of truth, corruption of reality.

The literal joining of a man and a woman in marriage--the sexual, physical, mental, emotional, spiritual and legal union of a man and a woman--is unique. It is not equal to anything else, it cannot be equal to anything else. To pretend that a partnership of two men or two women is equal to it and to pretend that it is inequality if we do not call it equal defy logic, language, truth and reality.

In marriage 1+1=1. In all other forms of partnership, whatever their basis might be, 1+1=2.

1 is not equal to 2 and never can be. Saying that if we do not pretend that 1=2 is discrimination is stupid, and degrades fundamental values. Whenever we do that, whenever we disregard reality, we pay a price. Corrupting the word marriage for the sake of vociferous minority who can never in truth be married will further corrupt marriage. The more marriage is corrupted the more society is corrupted, and social problems will multiply.

There is no doubt that the corrupters will have their way, because they have played the long game and have stacked the Parliamentary deck. But ''If you sow the wind you reap the whirlwind.' They have the puffery so they will sow the wind. But they will have to answer for the whirlwind that New Zealand will reap.

Wednesday, 31 October 2012

CORRUPTED TELECOMS AND CORRUPT CHORUS


Corruption is not just being on the take. It includes corrupted thinking. In an entity that is meant to be providing a service fundamental to the functioning of society, namely communications, corruption is not caring about human-beings, not being interested in their interaction, not being interested in their well-being, not being interested in providing the fundamental service that is its fundamental duty.

The sprawling mess that is now New Zealand's telecommunication sector--which includes the ludicrous shemozzle of having <i>sixty</i> ISPs in this city-sized country--has handed Chorus a stranglehold. And it is answerable to no one--certainly not to people, or to Parliament, or to any MP. It arrogantly thumbs its uppity nose at customers, at Telecom NZ, at MPs, at everyone.

When pressure was put on Chorus to provide broadband to eight waiting customers in my small area, and my street has fibre running under one edge--a request that could easily be fulfilled by putting another 8-port block in the nearest street-cabinet--it thumbed its nose at everyone and rudely handed out a written form-letter response that would have made Goebbels proud. 2016, perhaps, is the unofficial prediction from Telecom, made more in optimism than reality, but Chorus says there are 'no plans' to upgrade that cabinet.

To rub a bag of salt in the wound the secretary of the MP (Nikki Kaye) who made the request lives in an area where there are a hundred households waiting for broadband. But even from her position nothing can be done to get Chorus halfway honest.

There is only one way to get telecommunications right in this country, but it is so politically incorrect amongst those of the blue- and red-flag 1% that they would never do it. Re-nationalise the whole shebang. Give the sixty a year to wind down and take their last profits, then make the whole industry an SOE, answerable to Parliament, with someone of the calibre of Peter Troughton running it (when he ran Telecom NZ as an SOE he made it sing).

Only then would it be what it should be: a public entity, providing a vital public service, answerable to the people through Parliament and their MPs.

And the foul corruption now oozing from the Choruses of this world would be cleaned out forever. We would no longer have to listen to the vile, anti-human, antisocial noise that Chorus thinks is sweet telecoms music.

Tuesday, 16 October 2012

VOTING AFTER THE MONEY

The Auckland Energy Consumer Trust, which owns 75.4% of the energy-and-infrastructure company Vector, and therefore gets a large chunk of the dividend that Vector pays every year, which it pays out to consumers. Good.

The AECT Board is a democratically elected body, elected every three years. Good.

But one has to wonder greatly at the timing of the dividend payment this year, election year. It was given out only a couple of weeks before the voting papers. We must assume that the money will make us feel so warm and fuzzy towards the present incumbents that we will vote them back in, for fear of not getting so much lovely money every year. That is bribing us with our own money.

There should be a very large separation between the two events so that there can be no accusation of using our money to influence voting.

Monday, 27 August 2012

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MARRIAGE


Those who want to interfere with the definition of marriage say they are being falsely and unfairly discriminated against by normal people.

That is not true. What normal people are doing is upholding and defending the truth of what marriage is, and refusing to have it discriminated against with falsehoods.

The real discrimination is being perpetrated the other way, for in denying the truth of what all married people are, the others are fiercely discriminating against them.

False discrimination is discrimination founded on a lies. Those who are denying the truth of what marriage is are pushing a lie.

I someone said, 'I want to be a lawyer; everyone has the right to be a lawyer; everyone should have that right equally; and by having a narrow definition of "lawyer" society is discriminating against me--so change the definition, Parliament', that would actually be discrimination against real lawyers, because it would destroy their profession, it would remove their unique situation and status. It would therefore be discrimination against them, it would be discrimination against what they are, using a lie.

Trumpeting 'lawyer equality' would just be putting the lie in fancy dress--making it appear valid with claptrap, with a meaningless slogan. It never can be valid, it never can have a true meaning, because lawyer is lawyer is lawyer is lawyer is lawyer. Changing the meaning of the word to mean anyone who is in a range of unlawerly situations only destroys a word; it achieves nothing in the real world except confusion.

Only those who qualify to be called lawyers may be called lawyers, and only those who have qualified have the right to a licence to practise as lawyers. To insist on that is not discrimination against non-lawyers. It is reality.

It is not a 'right' to be defined as something you are not and never can be. It is not a 'right' to have a legal licence to call yourself something you are not and never can be.

Friday, 24 August 2012

EUTHENASIA IS CORRUPTION OF LIFE


Regardless of how much pain or distress there may be, life must always be valued more. Otherwise pain and distress will be valued more than life. Life must always have by far the highest value.

Monday, 13 August 2012

GOLD AND PINK

Most people are gold. A small minority are pink, but they want to be called gold, so they are screaming for 'gold equality', which is impossible, because pink is not gold and never can be, but they intend 'getting' it by changing the legal definition of pink to gold. But they will still be pink, no matter what they are called.

But, sadly, all the gold people will then have nothing to call themselves because 'gold' will have been destroyed and made meaningless. And their unique equality will have been destroyed with it.

Saturday, 11 August 2012

DEMOCRACY AND TYRANNY


When laws are changed for a manipulative minority rather than for the true good and desire of the majority, that is tyranny not democracy.

Everything enshrined in law should benefit society. There is no benefit to New Zealand society if to satisfy its lust for money a small minority owns even a part of the means of supplying electrical energy to the rest. And there is no benefit to society if to satisfy abnormal lusts a tiny minority changes in law the meaning of marriage so that they can pretend to be what is sexually, spiritually and logically impossible.

On the contrary. In both cases New Zealand society will be harmed.

DEJA VU, THEY DID YOU TOO


In the nineteenth century in the United States the government confiscated and sold off large chunks of the assets of the native Americans against their will--to satisfy greed. Now, in the 21st century, the New Zealand government is about to confiscate and sell off large chunks of the assets of native New Zealanders, Pakeha and Maori, against the will of the majority--to satisfy greed.

Progress!

EQUAL IS NOT UNEQUAL


Those who want to change the definition of 'marriage' by dictate of statute say they want 'marriage equality'--they want to have what truly married people have. But forcibly changing the meaning of the word will not give them that; it will only give them 'equality' with something different, something that is no longer truly marriage. They will have 'equality' with nothing, they will have won nothing. They will have destroyed marriage in order to claim it. They will have only its ashes.

As Shakespeare said: 'Tis won as towns with fire: so won, so lost.'

It will also have been destroyed for everyone else.

It is not 'marriage equality' if the State forces upon all married couples a fundamentally different definition of their state of being (particularly when that is done at the behest of an unrepresentative minority). For the State to say to married couples, 'Your situation is no longer unique to you and all the couples like you, it is no longer what all of you committed to for life, it is now just one of many situations, including many that are fundamentally unlike yours', that is forcing inequality upon them. At present all married people are equal, all over the world. If they are made equal to something else their equality will have been destroyed, and because to achieve that the definition of marriage will have been destroyed it will not have created equality for anyone.

CORRUPTING COMMUNICATION


When the meaning of a word is wilfully changed to mean something it does not mean, cannot mean and has never meant, when its meaning is corrupted, communication with it is also corrupted. Language exists for communication, it exist to enable communication: efficient, direct, simple, straightforward communication. When a word is corrupted it can longer be used to represent the idea or state that it once represented, so communication with it becomes so corrupted that it becomes impossible.

At the moment if a man says, 'I am married' we know instantly without any explanation that he is talking about a state in which he is the husband and a woman is his wife. If a woman says, 'I am married', we know instantly without any explanation that she is talking about a state in which she is the wife and a man is her husband. And if we read the same phrases in a book written hundreds of years ago or thousands, or hear it in old film, we have the same instant knowledge. All the explanation needed is in the meaning of the word. Communication is direct, efficient, instant, simple.

But if the corrupters of marriage, both the state and the word, have their way, it will no longer be possible to communicate about marriage directly and efficiently. And communication with the past will be lost. For then when people say 'I am married' it will be necessary to go into a long-winded explanation, because they may mean what marriage has always meant and truly means, or they mean that they using it to describe the so-called 'sexual' cohabitation of two men, or two women, or five men and three women, or sixteen women and two men, or one man and five women, etc., etc. Communication with the word will be so corrupted that it will be impossible. The word will no longer have a useful meaning, it will be useless. It will have to be replaced by sentences and paragraphs.

There is some irony in that. People who want to be able to call themselves married--to be 'equal' with truly married people--can do so only by changing the word for the state. If they succeed they will only be applying a changed word to themselves, they will not be applying the reality of what it once meant. The reality cannot change, regardless of what they do to the word. Homosexuals cannot have sexual union; therefore they cannot be married. If they call something else marriage they will still not have the sexual-physical-mental-emotional-and-spiritual union that is what marriage is, they will have only the word for it, but it will be a word stripped of meaning, a useless collection of letters.

Yes, words change over time, and may acquire new meanings. Take 'mouse'. It no longer means only a small rodent, or someone who is as timid as one. It also means a device for controlling a computer. That is fine. But the new meaning has not replaced and destroyed the original meanings. So we can still communicate efficiently, using a single word, about rodents and timid people. We can communicate with people in the present day, and with all the people in the past who have used that word in books, other writings and other media. But if the new computer meaning was suddenly written into the law as the only meaning, then communicating about rodents and timid people would no longer be possible with a single word. There would always have to be an explanation to avoid confusion. Simple, direct, efficient communication about rodents and mouse-like timidity would be lost for ever.

'Mouse' is not one of the most important words in the dictionary or in society, but even so its destruction would not be insignificant because it is a word in common use and there is no other word that means the same thing.

And take this sentence: 'He bought a rose for his beloved.' The creates a mental image of man buying a rose, probably red, to give the woman he loves. But if the meaning of 'rose' was changed to mean any plant, to mean whatever you wanted it to mean, to mean something different to everyone, that poetic sentence would become a meaningless, grey, dead thing. And if the sentence was 'He bought a rose to give his beloved on the day they were married', and 'rose', 'beloved' and 'married' have been deprived of their meanings, that
sentence would no longer mean anything.

The Prime Minister has said that if the law is changed it will not affect his marriage. He is wrong. For when the word 'marriage' is corrupted in law, by having its meaning forcibly changed in statute, every true marriage will be corrupted, because in law it will no longer be what it really is--the only true possibility meant by that word. It will be made just one of countless possibilities, and therefore its true state will be made meaningless. No longer will it be a rose, unique and special; it will have been turned into just another weed amongst countless weeds. Including his marriage.

When 'marriage' no longer has a specific meaning that is universally understood, when it is by force of law given a meaning that is different for everyone, it can no longer be used to transmit thoughts from one mind to another. It is socially useless. Language is vital in society; without it there is no society. When we corrupt it we corrupt society. Humpty Dumpty said, 'Words mean whatever I say they mean.' That was in a story, where it was amusing although it was also obvious that it was very stupid--and we all know what happened
to Humpty Dumpty. He fell off the wall and was smashed beyond repair. But if his foolish notion is taken out of the story world into the real world, and is set in the concrete of the law, communication will be corrupted. And when the word legislated into oblivion is one at the very heart of the social fabric and the long history of the world its loss will not be just the corruption of language it will also be the corruption of society. And it will
lead to even worse corruption. The 'What does it matter?', 'Anything goes', 'Why make a fuss?', 'Who cares?' attitude, and the nonsensical notion that such questions are a valid argument, will continue their corrupting, cancerous spread into countless aspects of social functioning. As Shakespeare said, 'It is not and it cannot come to good.'

AN OLD WICKED TRICK AND SALAMI



Now the self-styled 'Queer Avengers' have said that changing the definition of marriage in human law so that they can call two men or two women married is not all they want. They also want polygamy and polyandry and any mixture of them, what they like to call polyamorous'--they want groups of people of any number and any mixture of genders to be able to call themselves married, and to have the same legal rights as those who are married in the true sense of the word.

That is an old, very corrupt trick. You know there will be objections to what you really want (at least what you want now), which is to change the meaning of the word marriage to include pairs of homosexuals, so you put forward a proposal far beyond that, a proposal outrageously wicked. Then people say, 'I wouldn't go that far' but they accept what you really want at this moment because it does not seem nearly as bad in comparison. So you win.

Whether that acceptance is grudging or not does not matter. You win. Your tactics are specious, evil, devoid of truth and reason, but you win by a trick. You get the 'democratic' numbers by trickery. And you get more numbers than you might otherwise have done, because Muslims and extreme Mormons will join you. All you need is the numbers in Parliament. It does not matter how you get them. Numbers are numbers.

If you wanted $10 from someone you pretend you have the right to it and you demand $1000. Your opponent does not have the stomach for a fight and thinks, 'I don't owe that person $10, but handing over $10 is not nearly as bad as fighting about $1000, so I'll give in.' So you get the $10. Then you come back another day and demand $10,000, and you get $100. Then later you demand a million, and you get the $1000 you demanded at the start.

There is also the old salami game. Slice by slice you get more and more of what you want, till there is nothing left but the rind, so you get that too. Homosexuals began with that to establish their position,and now they have moved on to the old wicked trick. In New Zealand they began in 1989 by saying (and they lied) that <i>all</i> they wanted was for homosexual acts to be decriminalised. Their lie fooled just enough people and they got that. But that was the thin end of the long wedge they planned to drive into society. Their next step was to have themselves written into section 21 of New Zealand's Human Rights Act so that no one could then refuse them any employment position on the grounds of 'sexual orientation'. That meant they could then with impunity get themselves into position of power and influence--positions in which they could shape and dictate public opinion, and policy, and law.

Now they are going for what they always wanted: being able to call themselves 'married' by changing the meaning of the word. They can never have what marriage really is in truth, because it is logically impossible, a gross contradiction in terms. They can only have a corrupted and meaningless version of the word, not its true reality, but they cannot see that. They are like big kids who are not allowed into a small tent, because it does not belong to them and they cannot fit into it, so they pull it down and sit on it and kid themselves that they are now in it. But a shapeless mass of canvas lying in the dirt is not a tent and never will be, no matter how many times your queer and vengeful soul insists that it is one, and that it belongs to you, and that you are now the equal of those who own it and fitted it.

Friday, 27 July 2012

CORRUPTION OF LANGUAGE AND LAW


'When men cannot change things they change words.' Roman proverb.

'Righteousness raises a people to honour;
to do wrong is a disgrace to any nation.' -- King Solomon (Proverbs 14:34).

What a hypocritical nation New Zealand is! Its national anthem is a great and fervent prayer to Almighty God titled 'God defend New Zealand', and that phrase is repeated all through its five verses. Over and over and over again, countless times over the years, New Zealanders have proudly raised their voices in 'God defend New Zealand' and have sung out their plea to God to 'make our country good and great', to 'make its praises heard afar',  to 'bless this place', to 'guard our country's spotless name', to 'let our cause be good and right'. The last verse of the anthem ends with a great cry to God:

'Make us faithful unto thee,
God defend our free land.
Guide her in the nations‘ van,
Preaching love and truth to man,
Working out thy glorious plan,
God defend New Zealand.'

And the New Zealand Parliament begins each sitting day with this prayer:

'Almighty God, humbly acknowledging our need for Thy guidance in all things, and laying aside all private and personal interests, we beseech Thee to grant that we may conduct the affairs of this House and of our country to the glory of Thy holy name, the maintenance of true religion and justice, the honour of the Queen, and the public welfare, peace, and tranquillity of New Zealand, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.'

But now the New Zealand Parliament and if the opinion-polls are right the majority of New Zealanders are about to treat God, the truth, Jesus Christ, and God's glorious plan with obscene contempt. They are about to change the country's laws on marriage so that they will no longer be true, they will no longer adhere to God's glorious plan, they will no longer have anything to do with the facts of life and the real world.

Marriage rightly is and always has been the union, the literal joining, of a man and a woman. They are joined sexually, physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually, and therefore legally. The legality is the seal on the actual union. The man and the woman truly become one flesh, first and foremost sexually: they are literally joined at the hip. And from that union children will normally come. Marriage is the union by which society extends itself through time and space. That is only possibly when a male and a female sexual organ are mutually engaged--an erect penis and a vagina. A rectum, a finger, a fist, etc., are not sexual organs; they cannot make sexual union.

Marriage is not, as the common New Zealand myth has it, 'only a piece of paper.' It is the actual union of a man and a woman, sealed by law. It cannot be anything else. To change the meaning of the word is to change it from the truth to an obscene and socially-destructive lie.

But now with lying slogans like 'marriage equality' a tiny but very vociferous minority is pretending that it is being discriminated against, that it is being denied marriage. For although marriage is only sexually, logically and linguistically possible between a man and a woman, they want to turn language, truth, reality, and right and wrong upside down and inside out so that they can call two men or two women 'married.' But interfering with the word does not change the fact that two of the same sex cannot be sexually joined. That is possible only with two mutually admissible sex-organs; it is possible only with a penis and a vagina; it is possible only with the union that will in normal circumstances bring children into the world.

No one is being discriminated against. If you are of age and there is no incest or other valid impediment you are free to marry. If you are a man you a free to find an agreeable woman; if you are a woman you are free to find an agreeable man; when a man and a woman agree to marry they are free to marry. There is no discrimination.

The 'discrimination' claimed by homosexuals does not exist. It is not discrimination to define the word marriage as the union of a man and a woman and exclude all other meanings any more than it is discrimination to define blue as only the colour of the sky and exclude the colour of blood, grass, buttercups, etc. To use any word truly and correctly is not discrimination. The attempt to change the meaning of marriage is a blatant lie that will degrade the institution and meaning of marriage and flies in the face of Almighty God who ordained it.

God loves homosexuals with divine love, and everyone must love them with neighbourly and brotherly love, but no one should love unrighteous acts or attempts to justify them with lying slogans and the alteration of human laws. God's laws do not change, because they rest on eternal truth. No matter how much 'democracy' may be manipulated with vociferous propaganda it cannot change eternity.

The great words of the Marriage Service speak eternal, immutable truths: 'DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this company, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church: which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence and first miracle that he wrought in Cana of Galilee, and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God. Into this holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. If any man can show just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.'

When a nation rebels against God it must expect punishment. It can sing 'God defend New Zealand' all it pleases, but he will not defend those who defy him. He will punish the nation that does, he will in love punish it to bring it back to him; so if New Zealand goes ahead with this obscenity it will bring that consequence upon itself. What we sow we reap. 

If we sow the wind we will reap the whirlwind.

Friday, 13 July 2012

NZ DOES NOT HAVE FREE AND FAIR LOCAL-BODY ELECTIONS


New Zealanders quite rightly look down on countries where repressive or manipulative regimes prevent elections from being free and fair, from being truly democratic--i.e., elections in which anyone can stand and anyone can vote and there is no interference with the ballot-paper before the election or during it.

But under the heading of elections for local government, New Zealand's elections have not been free and fair since at least 2002, because a corrupt trio of key officials have been interfering behind the scenes with the ballot-papers by severely restricting who can be on them.

Democracy is representative government. If it is prevented from being representative it is not democracy. That corrupt trio of officials, by their wilful failure to comply with excellent statute, have ensured that New Zealand's local-government elections cannot possibly be representative.

If people are to do a full-time job they must be alive, they must be housed and clothed and have enough money to be able to transport themselves about. Those elected to local government in New Zealand are elected to a full-time job for three years. But if the remuneration set for them is not enough, even for those basic requirements, then the only people who free to do stand for election are ones who have independent means.

But because the corrupt trio called the Remuneration Authority has wilfully ignored statute, because it has wilfully ignored the clear, simple mandatory criteria for setting remuneration that Parliament has laid down in Clause 7 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA2002), there are many local-government elected positions that are paid so little that only those of independent means can stand. That means the ballot-paper is being restricted to a tiny, unrepresentative sample of people. It is not available to all. That is not democracy. Therefore local-government elections in New Zealand are not free and fair.

It is instructive that the Remuneration Authority never cites Clause 7 of Schedule 7 when issuing its determinations. It cannot, because it does not adhere to it. Instead it adheres to what has become known as the Pool Formula, a weird, complicated formula invented by a former chair of the Authority, a formula that would make Einstein's head spin, and has nothing to do with sense, or the real world, or democracy, or the rule of good law.

And Clause 7 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 is very good law:

7 Mandatory criteria for Remuneration Authority
(1) In determining remuneration under clause 6, the Remuneration Authority must have regard to the need to—
(a) minimise the potential for certain types of remuneration to distort the behaviour of the persons listed in clause 6(1) in relation to their positions as listed in clause 6(1); and
(b) achieve and maintain fair relativity with the levels of remuneration received elsewhere; and
(c) be fair both—
(i) to the persons whose remuneration is being determined; and
(ii) o ratepayers; and
(d) ttract and retain competent persons.
(2) The criteria in subclause (1) do not prevent the Remuneration Authority from determining allowances additional to salary for attending meetings.

But because of the infamous Pool Formula and the corruption of the Remuneration Authority in the setting of local-government remuneration many people elected to local government are paid less than $10,000--even as little as $206 a year. That is glaringly in breach of Clause 7. Councillors on the old Auckland Regional Council were the lowest-paid regional councillors in the country, paid only $22,000 for a seniour management position--about half what their counterparts in Wellington were on.

Section 238 of the LGA2002 says explicitly that failure to comply with the Act is an offence, and directs us to section 242 under which offenders are to be haled into the District Court and fined up to $5000. But when that was attempted against the Remuneration Authority the judge who was on duty that week in a backroom of the Auckland District Court blocked the case from coming to court. How? By lying. She ruled that failure to comply with the mandatory criteria in Clause 7 of Schedule 7 of the LGA2002 'is not an offence known to law.' Section 238 clearly says it is. How did she get away with that? The first level of her lie was to pretend that a case in an English court in Battersea in the 1940s gave her the authority, which was of course nonsense because it was the wrong jurisdiction, the wrong country and the wrong century, so it had no bearing on New Zealand now. But her lie was a double lie, because the English case did not say what she quoted it as saying. She made it up.

The corruption got worse, because when the documentary evidence of her arrant lies was put before the Judicial Conduct Commission he found in her favour!!!

New Zealand's unfair, unfree local-body elections continue...

Thursday, 28 June 2012

TELECOM'S DISGUSTING DIALUP

Long ago I was with Telecom New Zealand, which was so bad that I called Telecom Rex, or T. Rex for short. But recently because I was getting far worse service from another provider I decided to change back to TelstraClear, but between the two of them they so messed up my voice and Internet lines that they managed to cut them off, and said I could not get them back for 30 days. In trying to get all that sorted out, I happened to called Telecom, and to my astonishment got superb service and was up and running again in a tad over nothing flat.

But there was a horrid fly in that lovely jar of ointment, because in this neck of the woods, thanks to governments that took a while to realise that we really are in the twenty-first century, I cannot get broadband till 2015, so I have to use dialup.

Telecom told me that its dialup service was $9.99 a month for <i>unlimited access.</i> It lied. Because my Internet line kept cutting me off. The physical line was checked by Chorus and found to be excellent. But then I realised, because I happened to be staring at the screen precisely twenty-four hours after I had connected, that it was cutting me off at that mark. A bit more testing confirmed it beyond all doubt.

Telecom's dialup system has a programmed timeout. It will not run for anyone for more than twenty-four hours. Then it disconnects you and you have to dial back, which means you will probably lose the download you were running and have to start it all over again, and if it is one that will take longer than twenty-four hours it is impossible.

At first Telecom denied that it has a timeout programmed in to its dialup service. Then it checked with Alcatel, its supplier, and found that there was.

But it refused, point-blank, to take it out. All it has to do is remove a line or two of program. But it refuses. It wants to be offering us an 'unlimited' dialup 'service' that is limited to twenty-four-hour chunks. It wants to cut you off. It obviously likes being the marketing department for its competitors. That is, in effect, its policy.

When it told me that, I called the Commerce Commission. Now, I hope, Telecom will discover, once again, that there are laws in New Zealand. A service must be of merchantible quality, and you are not allowed to lie to customers, to mislead them with 'unlimited' when they will get only twenty-four-hour chunks.

Then I looked up the Yellow Pages, and saw a company that has no idea of how to create an attractive name, and calls itself NooZoo (0800 151 111), but offers a seven-day free trial of its dialup service. After having been badly bitten by Telecom that was a very attractive offer, so I signed up and changed my ISP ASAP.

NooZoo said it does not have a timeout (Telecom, according to someone who knows the industry, is the only dialup provider that does), and its service runs at a very good speed, and it costs only $9.95 a month. I shall drive it mercilessly for a week, and if it keeps doing what it is doing now, NooZoo will have my dialup account.

I do have to pay for at least three months after that, but that is fair, given that the free trial enables me to know exactly what I shall be getting.


The only drawback is that NooZoo has no mail-servers, so Outlook cannot be used on it, but I have an account with a very good mailserver provider elsewhere (DigiWeb), so $5 a month solves that problem.

Telecom has yet to get it into its entire head that if you treat customers badly you make them customers of someone else. If the dialup part of its empire was as good as the people handling the other services that I have with it, it would be brilliant. But its dialup is disgusting. Steer clear of it. Unless you like being deliberately cut off.

(Footnote: Noo Zoo's dialup did run and run and run and run and run, at a very impressive throughput, so the sparrow easily defeated T. Rex. I signed up, and dumped TR.)