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

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




Dare the UK Enact the Tobacco Products Directive As It Now Stands?


Public Health England has endorsed ecigs. The Royal College of Physicians has endorsed ecigs.

But it is true that both of them have avoided criticising Article 20 of the TPD which deals with ecigs. Even so, there are criticisms implied. For example, if ecigs are OK and safe enough, why should advertising be severely restricted? Ought it not to be the other way round? Also, why should the nicotine strength be limited to a low level, and why should e-liquid be sold in such small quantities? Is it not perfectly obvious that Article 20 was cobbled together, behind closed doors, by ‘a committee’ which just wanted to reach some sort of compromise? I remember reading in an EU document, about the maximum strength of nicotine permitted in e-liquid, that the decision was based upon an average, although I’m not sure what it was an average of. How does that average help a person who is used to inhaling quite a lot of nicotine by virtue of smoking a lot? Of what use is an average to such a person? Such a person would require a stronger level than the average to replace his daily, hourly, nicotine intake – at least at first.

So how can the Government even contemplate enacting such ill-considered legislation? Regardless of Treaty Obligations, surely there must be a way to send obviously stupid clauses back to be reconsidered?

There is a weird thing about Treaties and I suspect that many MPs do not know this. The Government of the day makes Treaties, and it does not need the permission of Parliament to do so. Until recently, there was not even an obligation to place those Treaties before Parliament at all. Only a few years ago, was the Government obliged to publish the details and put that publication in the Commons library. Interested parties could contest the Treaty, and force a discussion in Parliament.

What seems to have happened in recent times is that Treaties have been created which permit the creation of other treaties (note the lack of capitalisation) without recognition that the new treaty is a separate treaty. Thus, the TPD is a separate treaty within the general Treaty which permitted such things. Further, Article 20 0f the TPD is itself a separate treaty, within the TPD treaty, within the original Treaty.

Does anyone know what original Treaty created the first Tobacco Products Directive? Everything is shrouded in shadows. Where did the Treaty power to create a Tobacco Directive come from? Does anyone at all know?

These Directives, along with the FCTC treaty, take power out of the hands of UK voters. Our country cannot be different. We must conform. Oh, except that the persecution of smokers (and vapers) is permitted to be greater, but not less. It is called ‘gold plating’. Personally, I would prefer to call it ‘shit plating’.

We are passing through a period in the history of mankind which is a combination of medieval superstition and greed. And yet, at the same time, we are the longest-lived in the history of mankind; we have more knowledge of the universe than ever before; we can create power unimaginable to our forebears; we have put a man on the moon. And yet, our Governments fiddle and faff about with life-style control. What makes things even worse is that they clearly have no idea what they are doing. At a stroke, the politicians killed pubs. Thousands have closed in the last few years, and they started to close shortly after the smoking ban.


But – Sod them. As is ALWAYS the case, picking the low fruit is easy. It has ALWAYS been easy to ban things where it is easy to exert control. It is ten times more difficult to do so when it is almost impossible to exert control. What ALWAYS happens is that ‘regulations’ are complied with until they become obviously stupid, at which point no one takes any notice of them any more. Is there still such a thing as ‘drinking up’ time? It used to be the case that pubs stopped serving at, say, 11 pm and customers had to ‘drink up’ by 11.30 pm. Does that law still exist? I haven’t heard a publican shout, “Drink up” for many years.


So, will Parliament pass the TPD? No, it will not. Why? Because it is not involved. It gave away its ‘power to decide’ long ago.



I doubt that any reader is unaware of EU corruption. The Malta guy (I forget his name) was ousted from his very important and high position because he was corrupt and gained wealth for himself by manipulating EU rules. He was dismissed.

Can anyone doubt that similar corruption is endemic in the EU?

And yet no one talks about it.

Corruption necessarily accompanies unaccountability. It follows as night follows day. And it exists at every level, from stealing pens and pencils to stealing grants of millions. The UN and the WHO are classic cases of corruptibility. They are not in the slightest bit accountable to ‘The People’. Further, anyone who might just be caught out fiddling his expenses, is not punished. He is admonished. The reason is that the organisation is so corrupt that it is hard to prove that any individual has taken advantage of the corruption.

Any organisation which has no ‘commercial imperative’ is almost certain to be corrupt financially. If there is no ‘profit motive’, then no one needs to give a shit about efficiency. That does not mean that every organisation must be motivated by financial profit. The ‘profit’ might be improved services.

The less commercial an organisation is, the more that corruption can creep in.


The Pleasure and The Pain


I got up today, wondered into the kitchen and looked out of the kitchen window. For some reason, I felt a bit sad. Not at all depressed – just a bit sad.

I realised, when I went on my trip to Mallorca a couple of weeks ago, how ‘sadness’ can creep into your soul and debilitate you. As I stood in my room, having left behind the tribulations of looking after an invalid for a week, and looking out at the really pleasant view, I felt a sadness in me. Readers will probably understand that you take your ‘baggage’ away with you, and that it takes time, even if it only a couple of hours, for that ‘baggage’ to dissipate.

I had that feeling of ‘sadness’.

I was glad that I recognised it. I suspect that it has been around in my life for a long time. I pondered, as I stood there, in my room, in silence, looking at the lovely view, and had a think. The thought was almost instantaneous.

At that moment, in my hotel room, I was totally free. I was alone and had no influences pressing upon me. And yet I had this sadness. Because I was in a holiday resort, and there were plenty happy people around me, and because I have plenty ‘friends’ there in the bars, and because the hotel staff recognised me, and shook hands, the sadness quickly dissipated. I had a really good time, wining and dining and hitting the hotspots, in my own way (playing chess on my electronic chess set while sitting outside a night club at 2 am).

This morning, I recognised the sadness again. That sadness is a dangerous thing. It is insidious. It eats into your soul. It is easy to see how people could wish to transfer their sadness to someone else.

As I looked out of the kitchen window this morning, and recognised the sadness in my soul, I had a think, as one does. For a brief couple of seconds, I understood. There was nothing wrong with my life at all. I am an old man, though reasonably fit. I have an invalid wife who needs care, and, in a weird sort of way, I am privileged to be in this position. I have a purpose in my  old age.

But that will not do, since it applies only to me. I wonder how many people have this destructive sadness.

Here is an interesting idea.

There is no philosophical idea which counters the ‘sadness’. The idea that we suffer hardships of one sort or another, in order to make ‘the next generation’ (our children and grandchildren) better off, is faulty. That is because there would come a time where conditions for human health and welfare would become absolute. Everyone would be as healthy as is possible. Thus, no one would be able to do what they think is their primary objective (to make life better for succeeding generations).

So what should we adults have as our objective?

In a religious sense, and therefore a theological sense, a human being can be either content, happy or sad. The wonderful message of Christ was that we must accept that God enabled us to ‘turn the other cheek’ and to thus turn adversity into contentment. God created the Earth and gave us the ability to have a plenitude of enjoyable things, but we must also accept that we will suffer pain.

There is nothing wrong with pleasure, provided that each of us accepts that there will also be pain.

There is nothing wrong with pleasure. That is the important idea that I want to stress. If pleasure for you is cocaine,then you have a perfect right to indulge. You have no need to apologise.

In that sense, philosophy and theology come to the same conclusion. You can enjoy your life, regardless of the pains and difficulties. The pains do not override the joys.

But you have to know that that is so. It is tremendously important.

The likes of ASH ET AL see only one thing. They see only the devil in tobacco. The temperance gang see only the evils in alcohol. Neither of them see the God-given pleasure.

So why do I emphasise God?

It is because ASH ET AL portray themselves as Saints.

But there is a weird thing. I suppose that it comes from the excesses of the aristocrats who pleasured themselves, even it it came to raping their female servants/slaves. The weird thing is that the catholic church condemned sex. Even in marriage, the act was disgusting, filthy, stinking. No Christian should indulge in sexual acts other than in the line of duty to continue the species. Further, persons should not enjoy food. Enjoying food is gluttony.


So, thinking about the ‘sadness’, we can overcome it. We do not have to conform to the ideology of the Health Zealots. There is another ideology, which says, “Be grateful that you have the ability to have pleasure, but accept that you will also have pain, and put up with the pain”.

That is REAL Christianity, and REAL Humanity.



I had a better title for this essay but I have forgotten what it was. But let us run with ‘Over-Population’.

But it isn’t really so much about the total human population of the world. After all, it is still true that, if the whole human population was stood together, side by side, front to back, in a tight formation, the whole population could be accommodated on the Isle of Wight.

So it is not really the numbers. Well, not at the present time. But the numbers will become important eventually, if the human race continues to expand exponentially.

So why are the UN, WHO, EU, World Bank, etc, trying to force the population to live longer? It makes no sense. There is no doubt that the aim of tobacco control is to make people live longer lives. They say so. They say, “Half of smokers will be killed by smoking”. That is what they say, and they say so blatantly. But they never, ever, ever, talk about the other half. What happens to the other half?

Are half of non-smokers killed by not smoking? Statistically, it seems to be so. How can it be otherwise? Half of a population will die before the other half, and half of the population will die after the other half. It cannot be otherwise. That is a mathematical FACT.

What I have just said is a ‘statistical abomination’, of course, but tobacco control uses such ‘statistical abominations’ all the time.

But why does tobacco control want people to live longer when the big problem in the future is going to be the increase in the world human population?


It isn’t that difficult to figure out what is happening.

The human population of the world is, in itself, not the problem – yet. What is important is per capita use of resources and the total availability of those resources. You might ask why it is that Europe seems to have been at war, one State against another, for hundreds of years. Why did Spain launch an armada with the objective of defeating England? It can only be that Spain had no real intention of invading England. It can only be that Spain wanted to control the seas. What happened at Trafalgar, was that England defeated Spain and France and gained control of the seas. No one could trade without England’s permission.


It has been a laudable objective of the EU to stop these European wars. Some commentators have claimed that it has been the EU which has stopped these wars.

That is crap. The reality is that the main countries of Europe – Germany, France, Spain, England, Italy, and others – have stopped trying to divide the world up into possessions. Rather than grabbing resources, European States BUY those resources.

What would happen if all the people of Africa, the middle East, India, Pakistan, China, etc, suddenly demanded their share of the resources of the world? What if they all demanded the same standard of living which pertains in the healthy, wealthy West?

It cannot be done, so the answer is to diminish the healthy, wealthy West. A certain level of poverty must be introduced into the healthy, wealthy West. Western Wealth must be redistributed so as to level the playing field, so that poverty is universal, among the masses, apart from the Elite.

It seems odd, at first sight, that Cameron, the Prime Minister of the UK and England, is agitating for the EU Elite. Perhaps he does not know the history of England. It was England, not Scotland, not Wales, not Ireland, that changed the world.


There is no doubt that UN fanatics are intent upon forcing Agenda 21 upon the world. Agenda 21 would limit the population, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem for Agenda 21 is: “Which population is to be reduced to start with?” It cannot control Africa, but it can influence the healthy, wealthy West.

The best way for the Elite to control is to create mayhem.

Why do so many commenters about smoking display hatred?


I keep drifting away from ‘Over-Population’, but, like Trafalgar produced control of the seas for England, Climate Control is intended to stabilise the whole world under a ‘One World’ Government. And then population control will follow to maintain climate control.

The Different ‘Countries’ of the USA


A short post tonight.

The United States of America comprises some 50 countries, just as Europe is divided into similar different countries. What is odd is that the difference between US countries is rarely revealed. In fact, it would seem that there is no difference at all between US countries. Individual ‘States’/Countries might well as not exist, and those States might as well be ‘regions’ of the USA Empire. In fact, when you think about it, the USA is a far bigger Empire than the Roman Empire ever was. The ‘United States of America’ is an Empire.

What is important about that is that the US Empire will NEVER allow itself to be dictated to by the UN, WHO, World Bank, IMF, or anyone. Rather, it will dictate to those bodies.

That is why Obama has interfered in England’s decision about Brexit. For be in no doubt – the only important thing about Brexit is England. I do not decry the Scots of the Welsh. They decided that they wanted assemblies and parliaments. Thus, they separated themselves from England. That was their decision, and they must accept their decision.

We need to be rid of the likes of Cameron et al. WE ARE ENGLISH and must not forget it for one moment. Our friends and acquaintances from other ‘states’, such as Wales, Ireland and Scotland, have their own ideas. Their decisions are up to them. Their decisions have nothing to do with us ENGLISH.

For decades, the phrase “Made in England” was synonymous with quality. What went wrong? How did cars made by Japanese companies come to be seen as superior to cars made by English companies? I personally was conned in that way. I bought a Datsun car. It was OK, but it rotted something awful. The body steel was thin and there were lots of rain-traps (sealed units which were not impenetrable).

ENGLAND has been derided by Cameron et al. As far as they are concerned, only Wales, Ireland and Scotland are ‘states’. ENGLAND is nothing. It does not exist – well, apart from sport, bread and circuses.

If the ‘State’ of Scotland wants to go its own way, then it is reasonable that the ‘State’ of Wales should go its own way. Those States can do what they wish. They can have border controls and customs, if they wish.

The weird thing is that Cameron et al want to render the UK as ‘regions’ within a USEU – The United States of Europe. That sounds lovely, except that these lovely groups have a habit of explosively disintegrating. It is not beyond imagination that the USA might break up.

We may have a false image of the USA as a unity, when the truth might well be that it is a group of very different ‘States’, which have different priorities, similar to Germany and Italy or Greece.

Smoking cessation might be more important in Germany than in Greece, or not important at all. Only in ENGLAND, the source of ‘magna carta’ and freedom, is superstitious prohibition promoted by politicians. ASH ET AL, are irrelevant. They are not much different from ‘Items for sale’ in local newspapers.

In reality, ASH ET AL ceased to exist as scientific entities after the McTear Case (see sidebar). It is taking a long time for politicians to accept that. The McTear Case blew ASH, Doll and Tobacco Control away into the cosmos. Only the excuse for taxation, imposed upon the unworthy masses, matters.

Smokers must rebel, but it is a matter of fact that most smokers are almost illiterate. That is because they are mostly from ‘the lesser sort’, as King James said. I have no doubt that there are still aristocrats who have influence, and regard the poorer people as ‘the lesser sort’.

But we will win eventually. Eventually, it will become obvious that the cost of anti-smoking far exceeds the real savings in health and social costs.

What is the Simple Solution?


Think about it. All these ‘tobacco directives’ rely upon one thing and only one thing – compliance. The existence of ASH ET AL relies absolutely totally upon compliance. The vast cost of ASH ET AL is consequent upon compliance. The ‘vast cost’ is not just ASH as such, but the knock-on costs, such as Local Government costs. Everyone except ASH ET AL groupies bears the cost. ASH ET AL groupies are happy, even if they are on the minimum wage, or on no wage at all. They ‘GLOW’ with righteousness.

The solution is perfectly obvious, but not clear. That is a contradiction, isn’t it? Either the solution is clear, or it is not clear.

The solution is that Local Authority politicians must reverse the diktats of previous, now ‘ex’, persons who deliberately sought election in order to persecute smokers. In my ward, the person who was most Nazi in his attitude has moved out of our ward and got himself elected elsewhere. And he was a Conservative. But he was cruel and vindictive, since he was instrumental in cruelly denying smokers shelters at Bolton Hospital.

It is the Mengele type people who ruin our English happiness. For the most part, the English people are reasonably content. I suspect that the English people would be quite happy to see Scotland separate. That might also be true of Wales. Go your own way, but do not expect us English to bale you out when you mess up.


So what is the simple solution?

It is not possible to specify. It demands simplicity and clarity. 10,000 page reports and decisions are worse than nothing. The cost of those reports are prohibitive, and yet those costs are seen as ‘normal’ in the EU. That can only be because Cameron et al do not give a shit.

Politicians are the weakness. It is horrific that the people who decide (pass laws), conform. That, in itself, is a contradiction.

The Austrailian Consultation on Ecigs -a Clear Case of Distorted’Who’.


Dick Puddlecote has the detail here:

The trouble is that the ‘consultation’ is nothing of the sort. Well, not as we understand the word ‘consultation’. As we understand that word with reference to Government decision making, we understand it to mean that anyone with an interest, however minute in importance, can state his/her case. Who knows? Perhaps some individual somewhere might produce an argument which is important, and which no one else has thought of. These things happen. But the ‘consultation’ in OZ, about ecigs, is a stitch-up. The people who have been put in charge of ‘consulting’ are out and out anti-ecig zealots.

It is all a bit weird. We are used to consultations being rigged, as was the case with Plain Packaging, where the opinions of ordinary people who were against it, were ignored. But we are seeing a new phenomenon. Rather than a two stage consultation, we are seeing a three stage one. It used to be that Government put out an invitation to comment on various aspects of a proposed policy initiative. That was two staged. Now, in Oz, the Gov has set up an organisation, with money and power, which does the inviting. That organisation can invite who it wants to invite, and can exclude the general population. That organisation is stacked with anti-ecig zealots. Oh …. it will go through the motions, but it will inevitably condemn ecigs. That is, condemn easy availability and hand ecigs over to ‘The Tobacco Control Industry’, to be converted into just another medicinalised (Big Pharma exclusive) ‘nicotine delivery system’.

What is important about this?

It is that politicians, once again, have derelicted their duty. They are doing the precise opposite. They are not able to decide who should be on these committees because they are ignorant, and so they off-load that duty to someone else. Who? It can only be to health department officials, who are biased. For politicians, that is lovely because it relieves them of personal responsibility. It is a blatant abdication of power.

Politicians have brought this upon themselves by permitting micro-management inside Government. Now, they are lost. Tory and Labour are essentially the same. Well, that was the case before the rise of Corbyn. Will he make any difference? Probably not. Why? Because he does not have the imagination. At least, he seems not to have it. Some European countries have a flat level of income tax – say, above a minimum ‘living’ income, 25%. They seem to have done all right, since there is less incentive to avoid the excess tax. And, it reduces the burden on taxpayers of tax collectors. Why could that principle not also apply to ‘purchase tax’, for that, essentially, is what VAT is. It is a ‘purchase tax’. Why should certain ‘luxuries’, such as motor car fuel, be picked out for excessive tax over VAT? What is the rationalisation? There is none. Fuel tax reduces out competitive advantage in the world. It reduces our advantage of compact location of trade and industry. The USA is under-populated in the sense that its population is no where near as ‘compact’ as the UK, for example. The distance between Manchester and Liverpool is some 50 miles, whereas the distance between Washington and New York is some 2000 miles. Words can fly back and forth between those places in an instant, but goods and people cannot. Thus, the UK economy is very different from the USA.

What happened to “Made In England”? That used to be a mark of quality. Now it seems that we need a 10,000 page EU report to decide upon quality.


New Zealand seems to be going the same way. You might like to read this:

It is about the economics of life-style interference. No need to talk about it in detail. Essentially, it says that people decide for themselves what is best for them, and that The State cannot make such decisions for people since the number of decisions and the type of decisions are too varied and too complex. It seems that NZ is determined to have a ‘smoke-free’ NZ by 2025. The definition of ‘smoke-free’ is less that 5% tobacco smokers. And yet the Gov wants to outlaw ecigs. Weird or what? Are they mad? Or have they calculated how tobacco tax income will be re-distributed over non-smokers in the next ten years? How will that re-distribution take place? Will those taxes go to sugar, salt and alcohol? Something like that will have to happen.

But it never works and never will. For example, smokers can be divided into three groups – 1) those who are well-off enough not to be bothered about the cost; 2) those who smoke only a little, so that the cost is trivial, despite taxes; 3) those who can afford to buy their tobacco products elsewhere than the UK. Only 1) and 2) pay the exorbitant taxes. I suspect that 2) is the main contributor over the whole population. Even the poorest of people tend to be able to afford ten cigs per day at a cost of some £3.50 per day. It is those folk who maintain tobacco control. Are they stupid? Perhaps, but they have worked out what is the easiest way for themselves. I have a decent sized garden and can grow plants. I remember watching a video of a guy who grew tobacco plants on the balcony of his flat. Right, except that he could only grow half a dozen plants. The produce from those plants is negligible and hardly worth the effort. I have sixty plantlets ready to go outside in May, but they will still not produce enough, nor will they be of a sufficient quality. I grow the plants as a hobby.


It is going to be difficult to persuade our politicians to that it is more important and more cost effective to vastly simplify tax laws than persecute smokers. Cameron et al do not seem to understand that.

But there is another argument. Tobacco Companies have the financial clout to intervene, and not just by going to court. The FCTC denunciation of tobacco companies is old hat. And it was biased. Tobacco Company research is genuine since it looks for, and seeks to eradicate, toxins from tobacco smoke. Also, it seeks to reduce the pong. Maybe those companies are waiting for their time, which is not yet. But they still fail to protect their customers here and now. In fact, they have never attempted to do so.

We smokers have a perfect right, individually, to enjoy tobacco if we wish to do so. There is no such thing as ‘A State’ right to persecute us. Politicians who take the easy way and promote Academics who wish to persecute smokers, even indirectly, are tyrants. Only politicians can be tyrants.



The ‘WHO’ of Tobacco Control


No one knows. What we can surmise is that there are several hundreds/several thousands/several hundreds of thousands of them, spread out in ‘the institutions’. The clever thing is that these people have arranged that the costs are paid by taxpayers, students and industry. They have got away with it because politicians are unaware of the waste of a few million pounds. For example, a person who earns a million pounds a year would hardly be likely to notice that servant is pinching sugar, tea, etc, from the kitchen.

My point is that it only takes a few millions of pounds per an to create mayhem. Is it not true that every press release by ASH et al, and every TV appearance by Arnott et al, is designed to produce mayhem? When ASH says, “We are worried….”, is it not true that these people are not in the least bit ‘worried’, but that they are just using words to frighten people?

But what is really, really important is not the monetary cost. It is the WASTE. For example, how, in the morass of really important things that Parliament needed to discuss, did plain packaging of cigs become important enough to require parliamentary time? It makes no sense. Not did ‘smoking in cars with kids present’.

WHO provided the parliamentary time for consideration of these pointless projects?

Our political system is sick.

Since both political parties are essentially the same, and cannot be otherwise due to externalities, then we voters must stop voting. That is the only way to worry the Elite in the sense that they have no mandate, even if they have the majority.

Re Tobacco Control,How important is ‘What’as compared with ‘Who’ and ‘Why’? (Part 2)


I got tired last night and went to bed.

‘The what’, ‘the who’ and the ‘why’.

People like Simon Clarke, Chris Snowdon, and others (God bless them!) are very much involved in ‘the what’. Simon has been going on TV and responding to newspaper requests for his views as a representative for smokers, for years. But nothing he has said has made the slightest bit of difference. It is clear therefore that he and the IEA can do nothing about what is happening. There is no real point in talking about the detail of what ASH et al propose.

I’m not quite sure what really IS important, but I am pretty sure, in my own mind, that arguing about whether or not tobacco smoke in cars with children present, harms those children does not matter a toss. Even if you were able to provide evidence that it does not harm them, the ban would still have been proposed and accepted, and passed into law.

I remember, not too long ago, coming home from Manchester airport. I remember sitting in the back of the cab and observing that my good friend and taximan was surreptitiously smoking. You tell me – which is more dangerous? Is it the tobacco smoke or is it his surreptitious smoking? Is it the tobacco smoke, or is it the attempt to hide the smoking? My taximan is a Muslim. He does not drink alcohol, about which we jest sometimes, but he enjoys tobacco. I brought him a couple of sleeves of cigs back.

So I ask again: “WHY?”

Go back to first principles and ask, “Why?” are so many people, like Arnott and Duffy, spending their working lives on forcing people to end a trivial pleasure which might just shorten their lives a tad? Why? I do not understand. Why do they think that it is wonderful that people might live longer in their decrepitude, ‘sans teeth, sans eyes, sans everything’? Why?

In England, ecigs have received a certain amount of approval from the Healthists, but only as a smoking cessation aid. In Scotland and Wales, there is violent revulsion. Why? In the USA, the situation is even worse. There, the Healthists have no compunction whatsoever in lying, again and again, to stop ecigs. Why? The EU TPD aims to cripple ecigs by the equivalent of medicinal regulations. What else can ‘a measured dose’ mean other than much the same thing as a pill?

And yet, that directive will become UK laws in a few days time, and very few UK politicians will object. The directive will be nodded through because the UK is committed to pass whatever laws the EU Parliament does not block.

And that is where we come to ‘the who’. Who are these EU Parliamentary individuals who can block or not block EU directives? Who are they? How do they come to have only negative powers?

I have read tomes about Brexit, and what it will entail. But the reality is emotional. None of us can weigh up the pros and cons with any accuracy. We can only judge using what we can see. What I hate most of all is the absolute inability to reverse any directive. There is no such thing. Weirdly, though, it seems that the EU Elite have decided to ‘suspend’ Shenighan (however it is spelt) so that countries being invaded by arab malcontents and jihadists can block the invasion. Erm… Who gave the EU Elite the power to block Shenighan? How can the Elite do that without amending the treaties?

There’s the rub. And that is tyranny. The laws are absolute – unless the tyrant decides otherwise.

Why is Cameron so insistent that the EU Elite is always right? Why do so many Labour MPs also believe that irreversible laws are wonderful?

Had I been asked, a decade or so ago, if I would like to adopt the Euro, I would have said, “Yes”. But that was when I thought that the Euro was just a common currency. That was when I did not know that the Euro was political in its nature. That was when I did not realise that the Euro was intended to be a weapon. That is when I realised that he World Bank is also a weapon.

It can only be that Cameron and Osborn are either ‘in the know’ or are ignorant. They are either involved in World Government or stupid. I would not mind if they were in favour of world government if they would just come out and say so. There may be solid arguments which support that view.

But the EU project is not the way. The reason is the inability to reverse processes and EU laws. They are set in stone, and only revolution can change them. That is not our way. That is communism. The PEOPLE cannot change the rules, but the ELITE can, and they can do so without notice at any time. That is tyranny.

Cameron, Osborn et al support that tyranny. Why?

I now becomes clear why these people allowed plain packaging of cigs. The decision was taken because, from their point of view, it does not matter at all. It temporarily got the ‘Doctors’ off their backs. What politician wants to be accused of being a baby killer?


Enough for tonight. We have not really looked at ‘the who’ yet.  Who created the FCTC? Enjoying tobacco, which is said to curtail the pains of old age by causing ‘premature’ death,  is such a trivial thing compared with, say, Ebola or AIDS, which decimate young people.

But we should expect nothing else while our PM is in thrall to The Elite. He may not even have realised that he is so in thrall.

I detest them.

But we have not really examined ‘the who’. Perhaps tomorrow.

Re Tobacco Control,How important is ‘What’as compared with ‘Who’ and ‘Why’?


Simon Clarke has highlighted a plan in Scotland to ban smoking and ecig use in or on any council property. See here:

Simon says:

Aberdeenshire Council has drafted a revised smoking policy that aims to ensure non-puffers are prevented from inhaling toxic tobacco fumes [my emphasis] in car parks.

Under the proposed new rules, smoking – including electronic vaporizers or ‘e-cigs’ [my emphasis] – will face a blanket ban on any premises or site owned by the council even if someone lights up in a private vehicle [my emphasis].

Simon points out the nonsense of such an idea.


But I think that we should go much further.

Most bus stations are owned by local authorities. Anyone who has used a bus station knows that buses keep their engines running while they are in position at a bus station. I do not know precisely why that is so, but I can imagine that the bus needs to be kept warm, and that the way to keep the bus warm is to keep the diesel engine running. So, all around the bus station, there are buses with their diesel engines running. So, all around the council property, there are engines pumping out fumes which the WHO has said are carcinogenic. And these fumes are pumped out all day long.

I hope that readers can see the reason for my heading of this post. We have reached a point where the the ‘what’ does not matter. The ‘what’ (banning toxic tobacco smoke in places like bus stations, which are enclosed within a cloud of toxic diesel fumes) is irrelevant.

The REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION is Who and Why? ‘What’ is no longer of any importance. The banning of smoking and ecigs in places like like bus stations, which are full of buses running their diesel engines all the time and flooding the air with masses of toxic fumes, is the ‘what’. Those ideas are too stupid to contemplate, and yet people on the Aberdeenshire Council are determined to remove 0.001% of tobacco ‘fumes’ while leaving 99.999% of diesel fumes in place.

That is the reason that ‘what’ (smoking bans in bus stations and such) is not at all important.

So what actually IS important?

This is where we come down to the nitty-gritty. The important questions are “‘Why’ have these proposals been put the council, and ‘Who’ put proposed them?

What this means is that the ‘What’ is not important. That may be a strange idea when you think about smoking bans in pubs, and yet it is the most important idea of all. The ‘What’ has never been that important. ‘Who’ and ‘Why’ have always been much, much, much more important, but we did not know, and neither did politicians. You would think that politicians would be especially aware of ‘Who’ and ‘Why’ since they swim in that sort of swamp, but it is easier to be concerned with ‘What’, and vote for the easy option. That is how the smoking ban became enacted.

Contrary to what many people think, the smoking ban is very weak. It is founded upon MPs who did not know about the ‘Who’ and the ‘Why’. Sooner or later, it will be overturned on the grounds that citizens are not state zombies and tax fodder. Human Rights have their place, and one ‘human right’ is to survive, whatever it takes. Even if you have to thieve to survive, you can do so, provided that it is the only way. You might be arrested and jailed, but you did what you had to do.

An investigative journalist might seek to know ‘who’ the Aberdeenshire Councillors were who welcomed that idea, and ask ‘why’ they did so.

My serious point is that these Councillors are zombies. They ‘become alert’ when there is something that that they can actually DO. BAN SMOKING – and then they can go home.

But  there is a rebellion in the offing,  regardless of the EU vote. The EU vote does not mean that Cameron et al can say, “Sorry, but the EU directive says that…” Brexit is only the beginning.




Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 134 other followers