The New Telephone

It is 2 am – too late to bother with anything serious, so a bit of frivolity is in order.

Daughter 2 was annoyed that our current land-line ‘cordless’ phone, which we have had for some time, was playing up in that the buttons were resisting. Like, press ‘4’ and nothing happens unless you press it again – and again – and then it doubles up. I am sure that readers know what I mean.

I agreed, and so I told her to get a new phone. She came up with a £50 approx double handset arrangement. She has her ‘extension’ upstairs, and we have ours downstairs.


I read the instructions.

Is it me? Am I a dinosaur?

The phone is all singing and dancing, bang up to date ‘apps’; it has recorded messages, missed calls, recorded call, email messaging, etc, etc, etc, etc. It has ‘call blocking’ and ‘protection’, contacts and favourites and ‘speed-dial’.

Absolutely wonderful, do you not think? So, when I tried to copy my contacts from the old phone to the new one, during the period of time that it took me to isolate and identify the name and number that I wanted to transfer, the damned new phone switched itself off. FFS!

I am with talktalk. It has a free app which blocks calls from sources which do not have a call-back facility. so we have not taken up the BT facility. Guess what? The first call that came through to our new all singing and dancing phone, and to answer which I dashed across the house, ….. was from a call centre.

Me: “Hello!”

Phone: silence and then click. “Can I speak to a Mr J W?”

Me: “No. Goodbye”.

The slight time-lapse between silence and ‘click’ gives it away most times. There again, there are the “Hi there!” blatherers.

There was always a problem with phones going back ages. As I recall, there was a time when, if you had a phone, you were not allowed to switch it off. I am going back to an era when you could not ‘own’ a phone – you could only hire it from BT. You could buy a lovely phone set, but only through BT. It was a perfect monopoly. Regardless of the phone itself, you were not permitted to turn it off. I may be completely wrong, of course, but I could see a situation where, once a phone was connected to the network, it had to be ‘live’ all the time to avoid ‘disruptions’ in the signals. Blather, of course, but who knows? Actually, in the beginning, there was no way to turn telephones off. If you had one, it was permanently linked to the system. There was no ‘off’ switch. It took a long time for the ‘number engaged’ signal to be invented.

The importance of this stuff is that we are still in a situation where there is no ‘off’ button. For example, smokers who go to any health place are persecuted with propaganda. I have a dream. It is that a smoker who visits a doctor or whatever can say, “Excuse me, but I wish to switch your blather off. Where is the ‘switch off’ button?” There again, there is a simple answer, which to answer the question, “Do you smoke?” with “No”. The only trouble with that is that the Zealots ‘own’ the stats and will count the numbers and say that smoking has been reduced, by their efforts, by x%.

What really annoys me is that “Government” seems not to have any sort of “Department” which is on the lookout for ‘fake’ evidence. For example, lots of junk science is published and often blasted out over the MSM. That does not matter in the slightest, just as yesterday’s football results do not matter. What matters is the government recognition and elimination of such fraud. Fraud does not have to be financial. It can be idealogical. But it is still fraud.


Perhaps because it is rather late, I have lost the thread somewhat. I had something in mind about Government being objective, and not emotional. I have no doubt that the powerless anti-smoker Zealots have engineered ’emotion’ over ‘thought’ very successfully, but that can only be because more sensible speakers dare not speak. What should happen is that Government should make it plain that anyone can speak without fear.  For example, anyone, or any group, who believe that homosexual sex is anathema can do so, and can condemn it, but what they cannot do is demand some sort of persecution. In a sense, it is like smoking. It is out of order for Government to condemn smoking since that activity has little to do with health as it impinges upon Government.





%d bloggers like this: