HOLEY CONDOM I'VE GOT AIDS

Dear South African Sex Maniacs,

        Our African National Congress (ANC) is clearly your party. Tragically it’s so full of pricks that it can’t even tell the difference between a condom and a sieve. In spite of this it has been running South Africa for the past 18 years.

         And even with the best sexologist advisers in the land it still doesn’t understand what the withdrawal method means. It seems to think that if you withdraw a rubber full of holes you’ll be alright.

         No wonder we have one of the highest incidences of HIV and Aids in the world.

         As part of its R100-million centenary bash the ANC held an orgy in Bloemfontein, which has some historical significance or other for it.

         Its BIG KNOBS felt duty bound to make a show of trying to protect their followers from themselves. So they distributed 1.35-million French letters (sorry they were probably Xhosa or Zulu ones) to hotels, guesthouses, bars and dispensers in the bushes, at the tax-payers expense.

         Talk about over kill. Even their randy supporters wouldn’t have been able to rise to their high expectations. Reports put the number who attended at 100 000. So that makes 135 condoms per man, woman and child for each day of the four day shindig.

        Why they bothered I don’t know as our President Jacob Zuma had already set the country’s sexual standard by becoming notorious for not using a condom.

         Even on this special occasion the ANC failed to heed the unmentionable parts of its history.

         In its wisdom it decided that as the copulating masses were spraying Aids all over the place because they didn’t have the money to take any precautions the Government would hand out free balloons just like at a kid’s party.

         There were 300 - million distributed in 2003. I’m not sure how; they might have been dropped out of planes. But as the colour was not fashionable enough the then Minister of Health Manto Tshabala-Msimang, who made her name by promoting beetroot as a cure for Aids, decided to relaunch the Government’s brand a year later under the catchy name of  Choice.  

         She seemed baffled as to why people thought the Government ones were inferior to the commercial rubbers.

         I agree that’s hard to understand especially after 20-million punctured ones were withdrawn in 2007. The State’s common bugbear fraud had resulted in the Bureau of Standards passing this lot as perfect.

         In any case they didn’t have enough staff at the Bureau to try out that many.

         Unfazed our Manto told a 2008 Condom Week gathering that since the 2007 debacle all condoms had been subjected to rigorous testing.

         But what’s that saying? Employ pricks and you get holes.

         And that’s exactly what the bonkers, some of whom were HIV positive, discovered at the Bloemfontein celebrations.

         As usual the Government came up with its tried and tested answer by withdrawing the lot. But if this claim is true it must have collected used ones as well.

         So, rather than preventing Aids, the ANC’s grand scheme of free condoms for all is actually spreading it.

It seems the Pope was right when he said condoms were not the answer to the Aids epidemic.

But perhaps the ANC Government’s top secret plan is to breed a lot more party faithful, even if they are Aids ravaged, so its leaders can go on screwing the country for years to come.

         Is there any point in having a Bureau of Standards that contains just as many pricks as the Government? Rubber has never been its area of expertise.  Long before the ANC came to power its stamp of approval appeared on faulty retreaded tyres.

        So if you want to endanger the lives of people in a big way get the Bureau to do the recommending.

         The Government says: You have a Choice. But when it comes to your sexual well being, keep well away from any of its holey schemes.

         Yours faithfully,

         Jon, a former Condom factory tester, who was fired for taking quality too seriously.

Condomise, but don't Bank on it.

Dear South African Bank Clients,

          The Government keeps telling us not to have sex without a condom. Protect, protect they’re always saying but it thinks nothing of allowing us to put our hard earned cash for safe keeping in places that give us the minimum protection.

          Banking is Royal game in South Africa. So don't think you can rely on the newly implemented Consumer Protection Act if you have a complaint against these guardians of your money.

          It’s hard to believe that while a host of other industries are having to put up with the onerous provisions of the Act its net has been so poorly made that some of the very big fish like the banks have been allowed to swim away unhindered. They can now go on running their own banking protection society as they have been doing for years.

          The reason why they got this deplorable exemption is that they have their own Ombudsman in the form of Advocate Clive Pillay and what's more he is employed by the banks themselves.

          Not surprisingly the banks that belong to his employer, the Banking Council have compiled a rule book that is extremely bank friendly. It has hogtied him well and truly.

          Banks don’t have to belong to the Council but all the major ones do.

          As I understand it the Ombudsman operates according to the Code of Banking Practice which stipulates how the Banking Council relates to you.  But how confusing is this?

          One minute the Code states that the member banks 'accept 
the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to making binding
determinations which may be made an order of court.'
Elsewhere it says, 'None of the provisions of the Code will be legally binding in any court of law.'

          Then there are these other gems like:
'the Ombudsman doesn't have the authority to deal 
with a matter that would more appropriately be dealt 
with by a court or other dispute resolution process; 
a recommendation is not binding on the bank and
simply indicates how the matter should
be resolved' and so on.

          And the best one of all is if you don't like the Ombudsman's decision and the Panel, whoever they are, decides that your case warrants a review you can't produce new evidence and nor can you appear in person before the Panel.

          What kind of justice is that? Can anybody tell me?

          My complaint to Advocate Pillay didn’t even get off the ground. I asked him to do something about a long standing practice that particularly affects the poor(See Bank sanctioned robbery ) Anybody who has somebody’s bank account number can raise a debit order against it without the bank concerned requiring the client’s permission.

         Brian Joss News Editor of Cape Community Newspapers has also written about this in his consumer column, Off My Trolley and so have many other journalists but the high and mighty banks take absolutely no notice. It only affects their clients so why should they worry.

          All I got back from the Ombudsman’s office was a curt reply from receptionist Cylvia Rapodile. She said that according to the agreement they had with the banks I first had to give the bank the opportunity to resolve
the complaint before raising it with the Ombudsman.

          I protested that as this concerned all banks it would be ridiculous for me to have to contact all of them to which she replied, 'The Ombudsman can't deal with general
queries or offer advice.'

          That’s Great; it’s what you call brush off service with little interest. I was given this answer in spite of the fact that the Code the banks are so proud of says they are there 'to provide reliable banking and payment systems and take care to make these safe and secure.'

          HOW CAN THEY POSSIBLY BE DOING THIS WHEN THEY HAVE A DEBIT ORDER SYSTEM THAT IS SO FAR FROM BEING SAFE AND SECURE?

          How does the rejection of my complaint comply with another section of the Code that says, 'You can submit complaints and suggestions concerning the general operation of the code in writing to the Banking Council.'

       Perhaps it was rejected by the Splitting Hairs Department because the Code doesn’t mention debit orders and I sent my complaint to the Ombudsman and not to the Banking Council.

         
          Disappointedly yours,

          Jon, the Consumer Watchdog for the Voiceless.