Tobacco CONTROL tactics. ( HOW TOBACCO CONTROL DECEIVES. (See sidebar).

“SMOKERS BLACK LUNG” IS A FRAUD. See this post by Frank Davis:




Pueblo: A Class Rolling Tobacco


My friend in Ireland told me about Pueblo. On my last three trips to Spain, I have bought, among other things, 10 pouches x 30 g of Pueblo at a price of about €4.50 each. So I have 900 g of Pueblo. If I hand-rolled my home-made cigs, I suppose that I could get something like 1500 cigs. But I use a tubing machine. My machine can accept Ritzla Concept tubes, but they are a bit tight. It is really designed for American tubes, which have a diameter which is slightly greater than Ritzla. Thus, it turned out that I managed to make 31 cigs out of 30 g of Pueblo, rather than, say, 50. But there is an upside. My tubed cigs last for about twice as long as the L & M cigs which I buy when I go on holiday.

Being a simple minded chap who does not really count the pennies, provided that he has quite sufficient pennies, I did not realise the discrepancy right away. What I noticed was that, when I was walking up to the pub, the L & M cigs died well before I got to the pub, whereas my home-made ones were still going strong when I arrived at the pub. I had to stand outside for a minute to finish the cig, or put it out. So I timed them. On the average, the L & M superkings (100 mm) lasted for 7.5 minutes, whereas my home-made ones lasted about 14 minutes. No doubt commenters will say that TobComs put accelerators in the tobacco, and they may, but my own thinking is that TobCom tobacco is cut into minute particles which are very loosely packed in the cigs. When you handle such a cig, it feels quite firm, but you only need to squeeze a little for the tube to compress easily.

I have been intending to do a little experiment for some time, but have never got round to it. I have done the experiment tonight. I took a pack of 20 cigs, broke them up and took the tobacco out. I weighed the tobacco. The weight was 15 g, which 0.75 g per cig. My homemade ones weigh about 1 g. I have checked.

But there is something else to be noted. When I ripped those cigs apart, the tobacco was soft. That means that the tobacco is a bit damp. I know that from experience of tubing – if the tobacco is dry, it is very difficult to tube cigs. The tobacco needs to be soft enough to compress easily.

The cigs in a packet are protected by silver foil inside the packet, and by the cardboard of the packet and by being sealed inside cellophane. Thus, the dampness (water) in the cigs is preserved.

I don’t know if there is any legal requirement of the weight of a cig, but I understand that the accepted weight is 0.8 g of tobacco. But cigs used to come in all shapes and sizes – slims like ‘More’, which were brown, slim and long, and Passing Cloud, which were fat. No one gave a toss about the weight per cig. But you did not need to. ‘Quality’ was integral to the reputation of brands.

After PP, quality is irrelevant. There are no brands. Cheapest is best. ‘Standardisation’ can only mean lowest quality tobacco, with consequent increased risks. I mean, no checks on radioactive elements in the soil in which the plants are grown. Things like that. Why should anyone check such things when only medical porn on the packets matters? TobComs might check such things as radioactivity, but ‘criminal gangs’ cannot and will not.

What it comes down to is that ‘Political Gangs’ in Parliament did not think about the the long term consequences of The General Smoking Ban. Without any due consideration, they ostracised and criminalised not just smokers, but anyone who ‘permitted’ smoking.

What a terrible thing to do! It is easy to see where such criminalisations lead to.

But there is a difference which few people notice. ‘Positively to do’, such as drive in the UK on the left-hand side, is far, far different from ‘Negatively not to do’. True, we have ‘No Entry’ signs, but such signs are not really as negative as they seem.

I do not know how to phrase my thinking. Let me try.

There are actions which might injure the person who engages in such actions. EG. a golfer being hit by someone else’s ball. Thus, there are physical risks in golfing. That risk is a positive, real risk.

There are risks in walking outside from meteorites falling out of the sky. Those are neutral risks – it is impossible to defend against them.

And there are negative risks, which are small risks of a generalised nature, which only serve to frighten people.

I fear that TC has blundered into the category of Astrology rather than Astronomy: feelings rather than thought.

What is the greatest pity is that Politicians have been infected by the same bug.


About the Manchester Slaughter


I have been reading quite a lot of material about the craziness. I find it very difficult to get my head around it. Watching the TV footage and reading about the information about the bomber which is coming to light, just fills me with sadness. An article in ‘Spiked’ says that we should not be so drippily emotional about those events, in the sense of ‘being together in love’, but, instead, we should be blazing with anger.

I think that we should be neither. We should be coldly determined. ‘Revenge is a dish best served cold’ is a phrase that I remember. But it is not revenge that we seek – it is termination. It is the restoration of our ability to move around our country, even if we do not know precisely what a given neighbourhood is like, without risk of being attacked in any way.

But what could we be determined to do? That is the unspoken question. The generalised phrase, “Stop it!” will not do. To ‘stop it’, measures have to be put in place. Actions must be taken.

I read somewhere that the Israelis had a procedure. If a ‘terrorist’ blew himself up with much death and destruction, they found out who he was, where he lived, and then went with tanks and machines and demolished the house where he lived. Parent, relatives, friends – it did not matter. That place was demolished.

I am not in the least saying that we should do that. The Israelis were in a warlike situation. But the general idea – that there must be serious repercussions – holds good.

Has anyone noticed how the Rotherham prosecutions have proceeded so quietly? There were some brief descriptions of what took place in court and very little else. Why has there not been a great deal of noise about where the culprits have been imprisoned and what deprivations will they will suffer?

I think that we need a couple of new definitions which we, the people of the UK, will make. ‘Muslimism’ defines the religion, in much the same way that ‘Catholicism’ defines the catholic religion. I would define ‘Islamism’ as a conquering, political entity. Thus, a person can be a Muslim but have nothing but horror for Islamism. An Islamist is a soldier,  a warrior, a terrorist.

So what can be done about abominations like Manchester? Should we adopt the Israeli solution? It could be done. For example, police, troops and demolition teams could thoroughly rip through the mosque which he attended, looking for ‘terrorist’ documents and then demolish it. There is a lot to be said for such an action in that the mosque authorities should have known what was going on in their mosque. Would we want that? I am not sure, but such a procedure would certainly put the cat among the pigeons as far as Muslimist tolerance of Islamist terrorism is concerned.

But there is much more that could be done if it were not for the confusion between Muslimism and Islamism. My thinking is that anyone who gets involved with Islamist atrocities is just as guilty as the patsy who kills himself. JB from Ireland recently linked me to a historian who believed that 9/11 was faked by the US Gov. He has strong evidence, but I do not believe it for one second. For a start, too many people would be involved in setting such an attack up, to say nothing of the massive slaughter. But there are some very peculiar things, such as why did the wings of the planes not sheer off when the planes hit those massive, strong buildings? The engines might have penetrate, but not the thin aluminium (or whatever amalgam) of the wings themselves. Thin metal sheets hit solid concrete. Which give way?

But my chief reason for mentioning that historian is his thinking about how such atrocities could actually succeed. First, he said, there needs to be a Patsy – someone to take the blame. In the Kennedy assassination, Oswald was the Patsy. He may or may not have been the actual culprit, but if he was not, then he was set up to take the blame.

There is no need to go further than that idea for our purpose, but the historian said that there must also be ‘moles’ inside the organisation to deflect the truth.

I think that there is only one solution. Planning such a crime is as bad as committing the crime. In the bible, Jesus said that ‘a person who contemplates adultery has already committed adultery’. But we must temper our thinking in the sense that Jesus meant ‘sinfulness’, and not crime.

In the circumstance which we are talking about, planning and assisting is as bad as being the Patsy. Thirty years. No excuse whatsoever. Thirty years. Further, the imprisonment must be as unpleasant as possible without being deliberately cruel. A prison on a Hebridian island would be a good place to put such prisoners. And no imams, no mosques, but visits would be allowed for ten minutes per an at the visitor’s expense.

The principle that I have in mind is that ‘Mass Murder’ is much, much worse than ‘ordinary’ murder. I know that the thought of ‘ordinary murder’ is difficult. If you think of extremes of killing, war is legitimised mass murder. Depending upon the circumstances, such mass killings are perfectly lovely. At the other end of the scale, is mass killing which has no excuse. Subjective excuses, such as bombings by UK, French and USA on Syrian targets, have no legal authority.

So I would envisage anyone who was connected to the Manchester bomber in the sense of helping him to plan, acquire the materials, make the bomb, transport him, and anything else, to be treated with the utmost severity. But I would also like to see any trials to be conducted in a blaze of publicity. No more ‘multiculti’. And when the culprits have been condemned and imprisoned on the Outer Hebrides, I would like to see their families repatriated to where they came from. Every single person. I really mean that. Dump them on the beach. But give them some money so as not to be cruel. Someone would have to work out what the amount of money should be. And perhaps contact their relatives if they want their relatives to be contacted. If they do not, then don’t.

The important thing is that the consequences of blowing yourself up and killing and maiming dozens of people must be dire – not for you because you are a Patsy and are dead. The Patsy is dispensable from everyone’s point of view.

The Patsy was already known to the Security Services. It is not the Patsy who is important. It is the organisation behind him. Our Security Services have to get much, much more serious and the law must enable that. But that does not mean that ordinary citizens must have their emails and personal conversations recorded and inspected, even though they might oppose various laws and regulations, and even defy such laws and regulations. Such spying is just as bad as Islamism.

And so I repeat. We must differentiate between Muslimism and Islamism.


What Should UKIP Do?


It is a matter of fact that, after an objective has been achieved, there is no point in continuing to pursue that objective. When we voted for Brexit, UKIP had no future.

Or what?

It is true that politics in this country has revolved around A or B – Labour or Tory – for a long time. Does it matter which way round I put that? Probably not. But you never know for certain. UKIP appeared on the scene when it began to become obvious that the EU was a political project intended to create a ‘United States of Europe’, similar to the United States of America. But there is no elected president who is accountable. Instead, there is a committee ‘Presidents’ who are unknown. Few people know who these shadows are or anything about them. The system mirrors the politburo of Soviet Russia. An aged spokesperson, a former PM of a tiny country in Europe, takes the flak.

It seems that the WHO has also been directed by the Elite along the same track. The new WHO Chief is “Former Ethiopian health minister Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus”.

‘Tense Vote’? Do me a favour! If there was a ‘free’ vote, I shall vote Labour in the general election. Whoever he is, the probability is that he would NEVER have support for anything that his backers disapprove of, or that the USA disapproves of.

The whole system is corrupt. The UN, FCTC, WHO, IPCC,  and all the rest, are hopelessly corrupt. The corrupt Roman Empire survived for a couple of hundred years, but in those days, events worked themselves out far more slowly. One can expect the UN corruption to work its way out more quickly.

So we wait and see how UKIP develops. I have received an election leaflet from UKIP. It says that, ‘UKIP TELLS IT AS IT IS”.

It is a pity that Nige was pushed out. What is left seems to be the equivalent of a ‘Dianne Abbot’ fan club.

The Persecution of Smokers


Weird, is it not, that even smokers who move over to ecigs are being persecuted?

Persecution does not have to be physical. It can be monetary, as in massive taxes, or it can be mental, as in medical porn on cig packets. Both are persecution. Propaganda which distorts the truth by exaggeration is also persecution.

There is no excuse for such activity since we have seen similar events throughout history. On a ‘civil’ level, the harassment of Galileo is a case in point. His observations of the night sky led him inexorably to the conclusion that the planets orbit the Sun. No doubt whatsoever. It seems that the Pope at the time accepted his observations as true, but his version of reality was not ‘politically (religiously) acceptable’ at the time. So he was subjected to house arrest for the rest of his life. Perhaps that was preferable to being burnt at the stake.

But his house arrest was persecution.

It seems always to have been the case that anyone who disagrees with ‘settled science’ is persecuted in one way or another. For all I know, it may well be that TobComs were sufficiently powerful in the past to squeeze out of Government anyone who dared to raise the possibility that smoking might cause LC. We do not know. It is a possibility. Few of us have any idea how representatives of major industries can overwhelm politicians. We simply do not know. It is easy, in theory, for politicians to be against nuclear power to generate electricity, but it is far more difficult for political decisions to be made to abandon nuclear when the electricity companies say that they could not generate sufficient electricity without nuclear. France is very big on nuclear, whereas Germany has abandoned its nuclear. What does the EU have to say about that? It has nothing to say because it does not want to be involved. Or rather, France and Germany do not want the EU to become involved and forbid it.

I hate the EU and all it stands for. I hate the waste of discussions in Brussels but voting in Strasbourg. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. But that does not mean that I hate cooperation. Not at all. ‘Free trade’ was a great idea and we have all benefited. Sure there were problems like ‘wine lakes’ but those problems were easy to solve – physical supply and demand. But such physical solutions do not apply to the import of vast numbers of ‘strangers’, including some who are fanatical. True refugees should be happy to be accommodated in camps for the time being until they can return home. ‘Home’ is the important word.

There are ‘civilised’ norms. For example, we do not normally walk around town naked, no matter how warm it is. There use to be a time when a person walking around town naked would have been arrested on some vague ‘public decency’ charge. Does such a ‘charge’ continue to exist? Probably, but not applied often.

What TC has been trying to do for decades is change ‘civilised norms’ by force and persecution. And it has succeeded to some extent. Instead of nakedness in public being naughty, it has tried to make smoking in public to be naughty.

But what can we smokers do to fight against that persecution? I think that the mobilisation of smokers would be easy with enough money. Forget TobComs – they have compromised themselves. The mobilisation of smokers would have to be on-line because we are spread out all over the place. That is the beauty of the internet. We do not have to meet each other physically.

So what would smokers vote for? We have already voted for Brexit. It is odd that UKIP seems to be abandoning us in view of the fact that UKIP was the natural home of smokers under Farage. I suspect that UKIP has been hijacked, but I do not know why. The whole point of UKIP was FREEDOM (from the EU), but there is no reason that FREEDOM should not be extended to freedom from persecution.

So I’ll leave it at that for tonight.

I am tired, so excuse typos.


“The Carcinogenic Effect of Tobacco Smoke Mixed With Air is Greater than Whole Tobacco Smoke”


Rose brought my attention to a new study:

I haven’t had time to read it all yet, if I can be bothered at all, but, very briefly, it purports to show that there is a possibility that the air added to tobacco smoke via more porous cigarette paper or holes in the paper of the filter tip, actually increases the possibility of deep lung cancers, known as adenocarcinomas. But we all know how these things work – in a few months time, if it has not already occurred, this possibility will become hard fact.

I suppose that the continuing occurrence of LC, despite the fall in smoking prevalence over the last few decades, needs to be blamed upon smoking somehow. Easy-peasy – say that mixing air with the tobacco smoke causes smokers to inhale more deeply so that the smoke causes lung cells to become cancerous much more deeply in the lung.

Well, maybe that is true, but as the authors say, the introduction of holes in the paper and filter tips occurred decades ago. It seems unlikely that a physical practice introduced decades ago could bring on adverse events here and now in non-smokers and ex-smokers.

But I have not read the study, so I may be premature.

But let us think. I remember when ‘cig stumps’ (no filter tips) were so brown that they were almost black. I remember also when filter tips were very brown. Today, the filter tip is hardly brown at all. But I also know, from the record, that the Canadian Gov cooperated with TobComs to produce a variety of ‘Nicotianna Tobaccum’ which had very little tar. They succeeded. The tobacco that goes into cigs these days contains very little tar.

But there is also, as Rose pointed out, the method of curing the leaves. The science is complicated, so let us just say that the smoke from fires lit inside the barns to dry the leaves created the ‘nitrosamines’ which are notorious. At some point in time, the fires were lit in ovens outside the barns and the heat was passed through the barns by what were, in effect, chimneys. Thus, the smoke from the fires did not affect the leaves. Nitrosamines were vastly reduced if not completely eliminated.

But what does the study actually say about nitrosamines? I do not know yet.

Words like ‘nitrosamines’ are banded about, and yet few people actually know what they are. If you feel intellectually brave, read this:

In my opinion, the holes in the filter tips and papers were always irrelevant. Did TobComs go along with those ideas for an easy life for a couple of years? I think so. Neither the TobCom cigs that I have nor the empty tubes, have holes. Yesterday’s news.TC is investigating old practices which no longer exist and blathering. The weakness is becoming more and more apparent.

All we smokers have to do is apply ‘constant, gentle pressure’. Let TC be hysterical. Let us be constantly factual but also emphasise pleasure.

Above all, we must not credit them with any sainthood. They are bullies and thieves. They kick and batter smokers with their bans and steal their money via taxes. They are utterly satanic.

But why do we let politicians like Osborne, who did as much as any politician to bully smokers, get away with it? I do not know. I do not know where the bullying begins and ends. But we all know what happened in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It seems to me that the Camerons and Osbornes of this world have taken us closer to fascism than ever before in our history.

“But they do not know what they do”, I hear you cry. The answer to that is that they do not care. They do not give a damn.

And yet I simply do not understand their thinking at all. In a vague sort of way, I see Politicians as absolutely NOT passionate ideally. The worst thing that a politician can be is ‘passionate’.

All smoke is mixed with air. A cig is partially tobacco and partially air. Just squeeze a cig and note how easily it is compressed.

You get sick of these so-called ‘studies’ which are rather comical in real life. Where is the physical evidence that tobacco smoke caused any adenocarcinomas?

“Constant, Gentle Pressure”


Until about seven years ago, I used to play lots of golf. I played in the Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday competitions. I was retired and could do so at my will. That was until the wife’s Multiple Sclerosis struck hard. Not that it became really awful – just that there came a point, suddenly, where she could not get out of bed on her own. She simply could not do it. Her legs would not work to support her. But, at the same time, I was getting a bit old, around 70. Not that I could not do 18 holes with ease. I could. It was the motivation which was failing. The crux came in October seven years or so ago. It was October. It was cold and wet, and I had just hit two balls into the rough over a hill on the second hole. To make things worse, I had not noted which was my first ball and which was my second. Thus, even if I found one of the balls, I did not know which it was. And I said to myself, “You are 70 years old. What the fuck are you doing here in the cold and rain? Are you mad?” And so I told the group that I played with that I would take a rest over the winter.

Apart from a couple of traipses around the course the following year, I never went back. Further, I did not give a shit whether I holed a putt or not. For two years thereafter, I continued to pay my subscriptions of around £500 per an, even though I had no intention of using the club or the course.

In a way, it is very sad. Perhaps I should have continued to attend the dinners etc, but there was a disincentive, being the drink-and-drive laws.

It really is weird. For some reason that I cannot recognise, I decided to cut out lots and lots and lots of good friends. Perhaps it was because, the last time that I went to the club, there being only perhaps six people in there, if that, I had forgotten my cig lighter. I asked the barman if he had a lighter, which he had. But he would not allow me to light my cig inside the club and then take it outside to smoke. I had to take the lighter outside, light my cig, put the cig on the ground, go back inside and give him his lighter back, and then go back outside, pick up my cig from the ground and carry on enjoying myself.

It is hard to describe the mental horrors of such a process. It is like having to strip naked when you go into the doctors reception room, awaiting your appointment time. “All patients are required to strip naked in anticipation of their appointments. Clothes can be brought through into the doctor’s room, provided that they are in approved sanitary bags. Do not worry! No one will notice that you are naked. There is nothing to be ashamed of, no matter how fat you are (apart from ‘the obese’) or how small your dick is”. What is horrific is that the bar person did not say, “Of course you can light your cig here. Just go outside to smoke it”.

The question therefore is now we smokers can exert “Constant, gentle pressure” on politicians.

I received a circular from my MP today asking me to re-elect her. Her name is Yasmin Qureshi. She is Labour. My constituency used to be part of Westhoughton constituency until our area was transferred into Farnworth. It is not important to know the geography. Suffice to say that an area which was naturally inclined to be Tory was moved into a Labour stronghold.

Do not misunderstand. I do not regard my vote as ‘wasted’ whichever candidate I choose to vote for. Numbers of votes for each candidate matter, even if the candidate that you vote for does not win.

What I like about Trump is his optimism. “We can make America great again” means optimism about employment and industry. Those are the most important things. Cheap goods from China are fine, but there has to be some ‘quid pro quo’. There have to be benefits for Middle America as well as San Francisco. It seems that Trump has agreed some sort of trade agreement with China that USA cattle will be allowed into China in exchange for something. That is good for the Middle West of the USA – the ‘fly over’ part of the USA. The vast areas of the USA which are ‘cattle country’ – empty and fertile.

The claim that eating red meat cause cancer must be justified because the People of the USA have been eating cattle for hundreds of years. I never cease to be amazed that such claims are not ground down to dust by the obvious fact that Americans generally are not starving and deprived. Yes, some, and maybe plenty of Americans are too fat. But better to be fat than starving.

The really big important thing is that our elected representatives must not be blinded by dogma. If people want to enjoy tobacco, there is no reason that they should not do so. There is no reason to persecute them. Deliberately hiking taxes to force the poorest people to stop smoking is persecution.

It is the persecution of smokers which is most detestable. Even Tory Governments have persecuted smokers. ALL GOVERNMENTS PERSECUTE SMOKERS. And yet smokers are the most affable of people – friendly, relaxed, easy-going, chatty, undemanding.

Everyone who is involved in the defence of smokers, and I include of course FOREST, must understand that smokers have been being persecuted for decades. The massive duty taxes are persecution. That fact is reinforced by ASH’s admission that it has as an objective, to FORCE the poorest people to stop smoking by taxes. They said so in so many words.


Tobacco Control of “Children”


I was vaguely watching a programme on TV tonight called ‘The Street’. The episode was one of several. It was a good story.

The story was that a teacher had been accused of ‘interfering with’ one or more young girls around 12 years old. An ‘official complaint’ had been lodged with the authorities and the teacher was suspended. All sorts of agonies ensued, but the crucial bit was that the teacher had lied in his application for the post. He had not revealed that he had a criminal conviction, or that the criminal conviction was for ‘indecent exposure’. The event had occurred many years ago when he was a student, when he and a couple of friends had ‘mooned’ (dropping trousers and showing arses). They were dragged before magistrates and convicted of ‘indecent exposure’. That event was a joke, a laugh, of no consequence whatsoever.

But the fact that he failed to report the criminal conviction for ‘indecent exposure’ on his application for the post suggested that he was a nasty paedophile. He had lied. Therefore, all his statements in the current case were lies.

The programme was quite harrowing in that it showed how a person’s life can be destroyed by false accusations. His children were wonderfully supportive, but his wife doubted him. He felt that he had to leave home when his wife failed to believe him 100%.

But there was a tiny scene in the taxi when the driver, who knew him personally, said: “Mothers kill to protect their children. If they have to deny their husbands, parents, etc, to protect their children, then they will do so”.

In the end, the story ended reasonably happily when the girl who was supposed to have been ‘interfered with’ said that she supported the teacher’s version of the events! That is, nothing happened.

What I took from that story was: “Mothers kill to protect their children”. That is an interesting idea. I would not take it literally, but the idea of appealing to mothers to protect children is a more than intellectual and more than emotional. It is ANIMAL INSTINCT. It is basic instinct. It overrides all other considerations.

Tobacco Control has deliberately and unashamedly been promoting ‘harm to children’ where no harm exists, and they have massively distorted politics as a result.

What amazes me is that the clever buggers in Tobacco Companies did not see what was happening. I do not mean in a cynical way. I mean investigating the truth. Doll’s ‘Doctors study’ showed that smoking doctors succumbed earlier than non-smoking doctors, but most of the doctors lived to a reasonable age for the time. Why did Tobacco Companies not throw massive funding into finding out THE TRUTH?

THE TRUTH is the most important thing. I despair that THE TRUTH will never never be revealed.


Political Party Manifestos


I haven’t read any of the party manifestos and have no intention of doing so. What is the point? I mean, what happened to the ‘bonfire of the quangos’? It did not happen. How could it? I have no doubt that the Civil Service would decree that every single one was absolutely essential. The Civil Service might be perfectly correct. Parliament passed a law requiring that cigarette packets must be decorated with medical porn. A department has to be set up to ensure that the law is obeyed, and that every cig packet has the required pictures and colours and text, and that no cig packet is other than perfectly conformative in every way. Once that department is set up, it will never be dissolved. It is permanent just in case a manufacturer, based abroad, fails to conform. Just another unproductive arm of Government. Just another waste of taxpayers funds.

I do not blame ordinary MPs, other than that they are not doing their jobs. That is, I do not blame them for their errors when the pass laws. I blame them for not following up what their decisions entail. My blame attribution extends to ALL politicians from the PM downwards.

If there is anything that the saying, “Never apologise; never explain” applies to, it is politics. Make a one-sided case for PP, get the law passed and then do not mention it again, or, if so, claim that it is a great success. “Never apologise; never explain”.

But, in the end, that is why laws fall into disrepute and why revolutions occur. The failure to apologise means that stupid, harmful laws remain on the statute book long after the harm that they have done and are doing has been universally recognised.

Why has Brexit occurred? It is because the British People have realise that the UK has been treated as though it is physically connected to the continent of Europe. It is not so connected. There are 22 miles of sea separating the UK from the continent of Europe. Thus, the EU cannot really control the movement of people within the EU. The ‘free movement of people’ is not a choice – it is a necessity. Further, it has always been so. People have always moved around on the continental landmass. Resistance is useless. It is silly to believe that the border of Poland and Romania has ever been sealed in some way. Because we in the UK have the English Channel to cause problems for would-be ‘invaders’ does not mean that other countries have the same protection. We have a fault in our thinking that other European countries have the same barrier. They do not. It is hard to believe how carelessly Blair et al threw away that protection. It really is.

But there is a problem, which is tourism.

Tourism is ‘the free movement of people’. Vast numbers of people come to the UK each year as visitors, just as vast numbers of UK citizens visit European countries. All are exercising ‘free movement’. They have passports. Once in the UK, they could decide to stay in the UK. Provided that they could support themselves, who could object? Who wants to have a police force chasing after ‘foreigners’ who can pay their way and are in the UK as tourists?

The situation resolves itself when such a tourist demands ‘Social Support’. In such cases, apart from obvious emergencies, the FIRST thing that must be assessed is eligibility. A tourist is not eligible, unless the country from which he came has a reciprocal ‘treaty’.  In other cases, the tourist must accept the costs or agree to be repatriated. He/she must also accept the debt of being repatriated. The probability is that such debts will never be paid, but the important thing is that on-going vastly greater costs are obviated.

I am not speaking in terms of nasty, vicious, hateful persecution, such as Tobacco Control employs. I am talking about realistic ways of permitting ‘free movement’ without costs accumulating on the taxpayer. I have seen suggestions that tourists should not be allowed in unless they have insurance. Erm… Imagine an airport with thousands of people waiting for repatriation because they do not have medical insurance.

Immigration and tourism cannot be separated in practice without decisive rules. The problem of Calais is not really about gangs trying to get into lorries bound for the UK. That is a distraction. The real problem is that these unfortunate souls in the Calais camps imagine that the can get into the UK by being there.

What is wrong with France as a place to settle? It is a civilised country and far away from Syria. In fact, what is wrong with Turkey? And what is wrong with Italy? As I see it, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON in the Calais camps should be allowed into the UK. My reason is that those people have shown themselves to be unutterably stupid, and I cannot believe that unutterably stupid people should be welcomed. I hate to say it, but it is hard not to believe that many of those people are savages.

But what is a ‘savage’?

In former times, a ‘savage’ was a person who had no understanding of Christian morals. He may have morals, but his morals were superficial. Do not bash and steal from your own people, but it is OK to bash and steal from other people. Christian morals taught that it is not OK to bash and steal from anyone. That was the big change in morality.

I hold that Tobacco Control bosses are SAVAGES. They bash and steal at will. They have no morality at all, and are as far away from Christianity as it is possible to be.

The Labour Party, under Blair, probably without knowing what they were doing, unleashed the SAVAGERY. The smoking ban was modern day SAVAGERY. Slash and Burn.

Why did not Blair et al not see what they were doing, and how their actions would extend into every facet of life-styles and cost millions of pounds to sustain the SAVAGERY?

The probability is that the answer lies in “Never apologise; never explain”. Avoid solving problems which your former policies and actions produced. Let someone else do so, and then blame them for the problems.

Politics must change. The Brexit result show it. Apologies are important and explanations are important. EG, an explanation of why harmless ecigs have been victimised is very important. Who decided to demonise harmless ecigs? An enquiry ought to be set up to find out why ecigs were demonised. Ecig manufacturers and distributors from all over the world should be pestering the Gov to set up such an enquiry.

Will it happen? Dream on.

Why is the Dead Tree MSM Dying?


The ‘Main Stream Media’ is dying. That is, fewer and fewer people are buying paper newspapers. We all know that to be true, but no one except us talk about it. It is reasonable that the Paper Newspapers do not want to talk about it, and it is to be expected that ALL such ‘papers’ will avoid such talk. In fact, their ‘on line’ creations will also avoid that subject, even if it is a competitor that is suffering. I find it comical that The Guardian is asking for voluntary subscriptions to keep that that paper alive. Why does not The Guardian ask the political parties which it advocates to fund it?

I buy one newspaper a week – The Sun on Saturday. It has a good TV guide for the following week. I would not buy it if it did not. But it also has an element of sleaze – semi-naked tarts. I use the word ‘tarts’ only in the sense of “willing to to display their bodies in a sexual context aimed at men”.

But one might ask why the paper MSM is gradually disappearing, apart from digital alternatives.

I think that it is because they did not realise that ‘Propaganda’ would not pay in the modern, digitalised world. People who use the internet are, very gradually, becoming more aware. They can see Propaganda more easily. “50% of smokers die before non-smokers”. So what? “100% of murder victims die before non-murder victims”. So what?

“100% of smoker deaths are murders committed by Big Tobacco”. Have we seen such a claim? NO WE HAVE NOT!! Has any tobacco company executive ever been accused thus? NO, NOT ONE!

The ‘Papers’ are dying because they long ago ceased to be interesting. They became megaphones for ‘special interest groups’ who paid the most.

A Black Eye for the Health Dept in New York


I have been aware of the ‘smoke in’ in New York for a couple of days. I thought little of it at the time, but it seems to have become a ’cause celebre’. ‘Selfies’, posted on social media of well-known actors and actresses, smoking in the ladies bog at the Met Gala and clearly enjoying themselves, have gone viral.

Marc Jacobs posted a photo with Courtney Love and her daughter Frances Bean Cobain smoking inside the bathroom at the Met Gala 2017.

Ain’t that brilliant?

The zealots are seething. Think about it. One of their main tactics has been to ‘name and shame’ celebs who are caught smoking. Again and again, we have seen such celebs apologising (apart from Kate Moss, bless her soul). NOT THIS TIME!! In fact, the tables have been turned. It is the Zealots who are facing ridicule. Take this heading from the Daily News, New York:

EXCLUSIVE: Peeved city health boss weighs in on celebrity Met Gala smokers like Dakota Johnson, Bella Hadid with letter to museum”

Note the word ‘Peeved’. Do you not love it?! She was ‘peeved’. Not angry or disappointed, but ‘peeved’. What a giggle! To say that someone was ‘peeved’ is to imply that they are rather ridiculous.

Here is a link to that article:

The ‘peeved’ official is one ‘City Health Commissioner Dr. Mary Bassett’. Here is a pic of her as published:

NYC PAPERS OUT. Social media use restricted to low res file max 184 x 128 pixels and 72 dpi

I have absolutely no doubt that the newspaper was fully aware of the difference between the beautiful renegades and the said Dr Bassett.

To amuse us further, we have her statement, which was, apparently, what she said in a letter to The Met. It really is comical and inept. I loved the bit in the report where the paper said, “Dr. Mary Bassett fired off a peeved letter to big wigs at the Metropolitan Museum of Art….” There’s that word ‘peeved’ again.

There is also no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke,” she wrote. “All visitors to public places deserve protection from secondhand smoke, including people who are visiting places like The Met.”

Damn it! There are all these lovely, beautiful celebs, puffing away in the toilet, and she talks about secondhand smoke! Like as though the smoke was filtering through the bog doors and killing people by the dozen outside. But the real killer was:

“We thus are concerned about how images of these celebrities smoking — which were widely shared around the world via social media — will affect youth smoking rates. When young people see glamorous stars smoking and flouting the law, it undermines the progress that has been made in de-normalizing smoking and increasing awareness of smoking’s health risks,” she wrote.

“De-normalizing smoking”

“Affect youth smoking rates”

These people are the epitome of ‘The Borg’. They have been thoroughly assimilated.

And I suppose that that is the reason that they are appointed to the positions that they hold. They have no feelings, no empathy. It never enters their minds that ‘de-normalize (American spelling) smokING’ can only mean ‘de-normalize smokERS’. SmokING is not A THING, which can be de-normalized. Being Jewish in pre-WW2 Germany was not a THING. It was people, and those people were destroyed systematically as though they were THINGS.

But there is always a comical aspect.

“We were dismayed to read reports that some celebrities chose smoking as their fashion accessory ….” 

I mean, come on!!! A fashion accessory? Handbags are ‘fashion accessories’, not going into the ladies bog for a crafty smoke.

But, in all seriousness, what I thought was important was the implied ridicule of the ‘Authorities’. Once they start to appear to be ridiculous, that appearance snowballs.

The same is happening to TC as regards e-cigs. Reports in newspapers are gradually moving away from ‘the official WHO, ASH line’ and towards the perfectly obvious FACT that ecig vapour contains almost ZERO carcinogens -fractions of a thousandth of one percent. SHS contains only a small fraction of the harmful chemicals of inhaled tobacco smoke.

If full-on smoking takes thirty years to seriously affect smokers, how much longer would SHS take? There are no such statistics because everyone dies before they can be affected by SHS. Well, I suppose that there are some asthmatics and other delicate creatures who might be affected. It is up to them, and their parents if they are children, to avoid the problem since not only tobacco smoke will trigger the problems.

I wonder if Theresa May realises that it is very likely that smokers swung the Brexit vote? The antics of the EU regarding smoking, and the obvious connections with the FCTC charade, certainly affected me. It is the clandestine nature of those connections which force one to decide that the only way to defeat them is by total rejection of the whole apparatus.

I think that the same applies to those people who voted for Brexit because of immigration. The only way to get control of immigration is to leave the EU altogether since the EU has a policy of ‘free movement’. The camp in Calais is an abomination. What is wrong with France as a place to settle? Is it not a modern, civilised country? What is wrong with Italy, Spain, Portugal?

It seems to me that the persecution of citizens of this country, who have inhabited this land for generations, and who enjoy tobacco, and the widespread degeneration of parts of our cities and towns, go together. Resources thrown at smokers deprive other deserving causes of revenue. When a town council has been infiltrated by anti-smoker zealots, they should be confronted and called out. They waste vast amounts of taxpayers’ money.

Defund ASH ET AL. Defund University tobacco control research. Defund TC in the Health Dept. Ignore the EU TPD. Ignore the FCTC, despite being a signatory. Nothing will happen. England will not be invaded.

I remember once watching a film at the cinema. It was about how a person with communist connections, was brought in by a Union to stop a reasonable settlement between the workers and management. His role was to create political dissent. For a while, he succeeded, but failed in the end. He then simply departed – walked away. In other words, his purpose was to cause trouble, and nothing else. Actually, it was a good film, despite the possible political propaganda. It illustrated how well-intentioned people, the workers’ representatives, could be recruited to pursue objectives far beyond their initial intentions. And they did so willingly.

I think that the same sort of principle is being used by TC. It is quite possible that there are lots of people who think that restaurants should be banned. Such people might think that restaurants encourage obesity, and they might be right. There are lots of people who cook at home and abhor restaurants.

When will the meddling end? It will end when Cabinet Ministers decide so. It will happen. When the Health Sec promotes some anti-tobacco plan, he will seem stupid when every other minister says, “Bollocks!” because that is how politics works.

And thus the collapse will occur. Publicans will get back control of what is permitted in their own premises.