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

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





The Rule of Conquest


I should imagine that everyone is aware of Caesar’s famous statement, “Veni, vidi, vici” – “I came, I saw, I conquered”. Clearly, in the days of the Roman Empire, either conquering or being conquered was a normal state of affairs. I vaguely suspect that the situation has always been so. Certainly, it seems that the extension of the British Empire world-wide was not in the least seen as anything but glorious. I also suspect that conquering did not always involve massive bloodshed. Imagine that you are head of some tribe and you have, say, 100 ‘warriors’ and a column of Roman soldiers numbering 1000 came marching over the hill, would you not say to your warriors, “Erm, hang on chaps. Let’s see what they want”. They may steal your food and cattle, but that is better than being massacred.

These days, we are seeing a different form of conquest, but it is no less conquest. I have, both in my own mind and in these pages, mulled over what I consider to an incomprehensible situation. Why are politicians so easily persuaded? The answer has only today popped into my mind. They have been conquered. Think about PM May. A brief summary of her career in Parliament from her own site:

Theresa has served as Member of Parliament for Maidenhead since 1997. She has held several positions within Parliament since 1997. She was a member of the Shadow Cabinet from 1999 to 2010, and from 2002 to 2003 was the first female Chairman of the Conservative Party. In 2010, she was appointed Home Secretary, a position which she held for 6 years before becoming Prime Minister in July 2016.”

During the course of 20 years, she has gone from an ordinary MP to PM. But notice the third sentence. Even though she was only elected in 1997, she became a member of the Shadow Cabinet in 1999. Only two years after first being elected! My! She must have some rare talent to be promoted from the junior ranks to cabinet level in just two years. It is a bit like an ordinary soldier being promoted to Major after a couple of years in the army.

Cameron’s career followed much the same path – a researcher for a few years, then elected MP, then a minister, then PM – just like that!

I cannot help but feel that such people do indeed have a special talent. I don’t know if any readers watch ‘Eggheads’ on BBC2. I marvel at the extent of the general knowledge that the panellists have packed into their brains. There seems to be no subject with which they are not familiar. Is it that they have ‘photographic memories’? That they can read a book once and remember most of the detail? If so, why are they not all billionaires? With such phenomenal memories, they should be able to ‘read’ every movement of the stock market and buy and sell shares at a profit every time.

I think that politicians have similar talents. They can remember the detail of their speeches. I remember Cameron walking about on the stage as he spoke at the Tory conference at which he was selected as leader. Maybe he just memorised his speech, but it is not as simple as that. It requires the confidence that you will not forget your lines. You must KNOW that you will not forget your lines.

Perhaps even becoming an MP requires that talent to some extent. Perhaps everyone who ‘gets to the top’ has that talent – an excellent memory. Perhaps it is possible to teach your memory. I read somewhere that the more that you think about some subject, the more of your brain comes into action. Most of us use only a tiny percentage of our brain ‘power’. I remember at college a lad in our class. He was no good at sports at all, and could not conduct a conversation. But he came top of the class in everything with 95% results. I don’t know what happened to him because he left our college after a couple of years – just disappeared.

The problem with such people is that they seem to have no feelings. They can make speeches, sobbing about the Grenfell disaster, but there are never any real tears. I sometimes think that politicians are just actors. Or rather, that those who get to the top are the best actors.

If that is even reasonably true, then it is easy to see how they can adamantly  defend an indefensible position. The attitude of the Oz health minister to ecigs is a case in point. Everyone in the world with an ounce of sense knows that ecig vapour contains nothing but minute traces of a few chemicals present in tobacco smoke. It is wrong to say that ecigs are only 95% safer, if the toxic chemical compounds are the test. They are 99% safer, or even more, tending towards 100% safe in a normal human lifetime.

There has recently been a case of a child which suffers from epilepsy. His mother had to go abroad to buy cannabis oil, which was the only substance which stabilised his condition. Customs confiscated her supply. The shit hit the fan, and the Home Office Minister rapidly ordered that she should have the supply restored.

He broke the law as it presently stands. No doubt he succumbed to the ‘think about the children’ meme, but did he have a right to break the law? It is no excuse to talk about changing the law ‘for medicinal purposes’. That should have been done years ago.

But there is a wider consideration. If cannabis can be legalised ‘for medicinal purposes’, why should it be considered dangerous for recreational purposes? Presumably, the child will ALWAYS need cannabis oil, so why are not arguments not being trotted out that cannabis will damage his childish brain? I any case, what have childish brains got to do with adults?

And yet, the very same politicians will defend the general prohibition of cannabis to their dying political death. If the health minister in Oz were to accept for one moment that ecigs are OK, then he would sign his own political death warrant.

But why is that so? It is because he was foolish enough to allow himself to be conquered by The Medical Establishment. He has to toe the line.

Is there an answer? Yes there is, but it would require a very strong political resolve. It would require that drug control, tobacco control, alcohol control NGO funding be removed. It is very odd that Oz defunded ASH. I suspect that only so much money was available, and Uni professors, like Chapman, captured the money. Note the word ‘captured’.

Are Uni professors the best people to decide the Nation’s future?

Absolutely not! Why? Because, no matter how expert they might be, they cannot predict the choices of million or billions of people. No one can. It is impossible.

It is hard to establish when the academic ‘veni, vidi, vici’ occurred, but it is undoubtedly real. Why else would the Oz minister of health claim that there is overwhelming evidence that ecigs lead to smoking?

It follows also that the WHO needs to be defunded, or at least disciplined in what it can spend UK contributions on. It would be even better if the USA did the same thing. The FCTC must be dissolved  and the IPCC reduced to factual analysis of climate. It is not for those bodies to make recommendations. That ability provides them with power.

The provision of power equals ‘Rule of Conquest’, thus we see smoking bans all over the world. When Blair and the Cabinet of the time, permitted the smoking ban, they capitulated to the invading force.

The utterly crazy thing was that the ‘invading force’ had no army at all.

Moving The Goalposts


The etymology of the word ‘conspire’ is from the Latin words ‘Con’ (with) and ‘spirare’ (to breath). In this case, ‘spirare’ has changed a bit to mean ‘to whisper’. Conspirators ‘whisper together’. It is not a great leap for conspire to mean ‘in secret’.

We are seeing so many ‘conspiracies’ these days that the word should no longer have a derogatory meaning. It is a simple fact of life that conspiracies take place. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that Silly Sally Davies was just a mouthpiece when she announced a change in the ‘safe drinking’ guidelines, which lowered the ‘safe limit’ to 14 units (about 5 pints of 5% lager were week) and equalised the level for both men and women. Of course, the new limits were vaguely justified, see this:

‘The latest evidence’ was the excuse. But what was the actual result? It moved a million or more drinkers from ”within safe limits’ to ‘problem drinkers’. At a stroke, a new ‘epidemic’ was created.

That is what ‘moving the goalposts’ means. But it may be better if it were called ‘expanding the size of the goalmouth’. Perhaps that is what is intended by the phrase ‘moving the goalposts’. Of course, at the same time, the conspirators can ‘move the goalposts’ by narrowing the goalmouth.

In the same way, conspirators in Public Health England can mess about with sugar consumption. The goalmouth can be widened or narrowed at will, by moving the goalposts. Again, at a stroke, a ‘healthy breakfast’, being, say, a bowl of cereals, can be turned into a deadly poison merely because it contains a certain percentage of sugar. Witness the phrase ‘contains no added sugar’ which we see regularly in adverts. Is it possible to find lemonade which contains no added sugar, unless it is sweetened by saccharine or some such? What about grapefruit juice? Must that also be sweetened only by saccharine? And what epidemiological investigations have taken place into the carcinogenic nature of saccharine over several decades of consumption? Does anyone know that saccharine is definitely safe in the long term?

Moving the goalposts has been a feature of the persecution of smokers since around 1970. The big win for TobCON, around that time, was the banning of TV ads for cigs. That win was enormous. It opened up the whole concept that ‘tobacco is different from any other product on Earth’. It picked out tobacco as ‘special’. From then on, the conspirators could plan in the knowledge that all that was needed was to ‘move the goalposts’ – to make SHS as dangerous as smoking itself. There did not even have to be any substantial evidence. The proposition was simple: “Inhaling tobacco smoke causes lung cancer, therefore it does not matter whether you actually smoke or not. Merely inhaling the smoke MUST cause LC, whatever the source or intensity”.

And yet Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’ CLEARLY indicated that the amount of inhaling (cigs smoked) and the period of inhaling were very important. Thus, the quantity of smoke inhaled and the period of years were massively important in chances of ill health following. By comparison, SHS danger was negligible.

Is it possible that PM Blair did not know that when he and his cabinet legislated the Smoking Ban? I suppose that it all depends upon whether they wanted to know.

You see, there is another possible conspiracy. Perhaps Blair and other PMs in the EU were worried about the power of global industries. That might be a genuine thing to worry about, especially if, say, TobCOMS laugh in your face when you try to talk to them about LC. It is easy to see how Blair et al could bridle about their powerlessness.

Did Blair et al weigh up the nasty effects of the Smoking Ban on individuals, and decide that getting on top of global industries was more important? Is the whole UN, WHO, IPCC attack on global industries merely a way to get control of those industries via international treaties?

No wonder that, despite insisting that the Gov would implement the decision of the people as regards Brexit, Cameron quit as PM when the decision went the wrong way. By doing so, he ‘moved the goalposts’. In fact, you could reasonably say that he did away with goalposts altogether. He disappeared the Gov which promised to implement the Brexit decision. It no longer existed. The goalposts had disappeared.

I dare say that moving the goalposts has always been around. Perhaps the difference these day is the rapidity of moving the goalposts. What that means is that legislation piles up to become a bigger and bigger mountain of restrictions and persecutions. It becomes so big that no one knows what it means or contains. But what it also means is bigger and more Gov departments, all costing a fortune and out of control. Another word for that is ‘corruption’. But who can control those departments? Clearly, politicians cannot – they are here today and gone tomorrow.

A few years ago, the then Gov gave ‘Lord’ Sugar the job of trying to sort those problems out. He failed. I don’t know if he just gave up trying or was sacked. You can imagine the problems of trying to find bits of a swamp which can be removed. It cannot be done. The whole swamp must be drained.

At least Trump said, “I am going to drain the swamp”. I have yet to hear PM May say the same thing.

As I see it, for decades, our Gov has been losing control of our Nation’s destiny. There is no reason that, by now, some 70 years after the end of WW2, despite other wars in various parts of the former empire, our country should not be UNITED! By now, fear of destitution should have been removed. I mean fear of destitution. It is a question of ‘what is the worst that can happen’. If the ‘worst that can happen’ is that you and your family lose your own house but move into ‘social housing’, that is not too painful.

I think that we should stop bothering our heads about ‘lazy bastards who live off benefits’. We all live off benefits to a greater or lesser extent. It all depends upon how your define ‘benefits’. ‘The rule of law’ is a massive benefit, as compared with ‘the rule of conquest’.

How Expensive Is The Persecution of Minorities, Such As Smokers?


Mark Wadsworth has told us:

NHS England is to get an extra £20bn a year by 2023 as a 70th “birthday present”, Theresa May says. 

The five-year funding settlement covers just front-line budgets overseen by NHS England. About a 10th of the overall health budget is held by other bodies for things such as training and healthy lifestyle programmes, including stop smoking services and obesity prevention programmes. The BBC understands these will be protected, but beyond that it is unclear what will happen to them.

10% of £20 billion is £2 billion. NB, that is an EXTRA £2 billion. An extra £2 billion!!! So how much of the money siphoned out of the NHS budget is already being splurged on transfers of taxpayers’ monies into the pockets of academics et al?  For there is a massive difference between actually providing medicines etc and talking. I do not count nicotine patches and such as ‘medicines’ because of their failure rate. If 95% of hospital admissions resulted in death, there would be hell to pay. I am not joking. My wife had to be rushed into hospital earlier this year. She suffers from Multiple Sclerosis. She very nearly died, and I am very grateful to the NHS for saving her life. I am talking literally, and not ASH statistical mumbo-jumbo.

The reality is that the NHS actually saves lives, but it cannot stop people who on their last legs from dying. No amount of nicotine patches will do so.

So one might reasonably ask how much of that extra £2 billion will be a straightforward transfer of taxpayers’ money into the bank accounts of talkers, such as academics, TV adverts (which are also ‘talk’), etc?

Perhaps a lot of commenters on newspaper articles about smoking, who say stuff like, “Stay away from me, you disgusting, filthy, stinking degenerate” would think twice if they realised IT IS NOT tobacco taxes which pay for the persecution of smokers and fatties – it is their taxes which contribute just as much, if not more.

It is about time that political parties came to an agreement, acceptable to the people. It might involve a plebiscite. After all, at the time, the Magna Carta was a type of plebiscite in its time, even though it only involved the high and mighty. Perhaps politicians could agree that those nasty comments are ‘hate speech’.

There is no doubt that a new political party is required. No doubt at all. Both Labour and Tory were instrumental in setting up the EUSSR. Labour, despite its name, is no longer the voice of the workers, and Tory is no longer the voice of anyone.

Both are riddled with corruption.


The Massive Victory of That Pseudo-Science Called Epidemiology


According to the Cambridge dictionary:

Science: (knowledge from) the careful study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring, and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities.

I think that there was a time, not long ago, when we all defined ‘science’ as per the above – the explanation of physical things and happenings in the physical world. Things such as the flow of electricity along a copper wire, and what was actually happening to the atoms of copper in the wire. At the time, no one would have described, for example, psychology as ‘science’. However, if psychology actually ventured into what precisely was happening to molecules in the brain, then that part of it would be ‘science’.

Mere ‘knowledge about’ (..ology) is not science. Theology, for example, is about religious beliefs. There is no way that such beliefs can be measured. They can only be described. Thus, ‘knowledge about religious beliefs’ cannot be ‘science’, no matter how detailed those descriptions might be. It does not matter how many people are Muslims, Christians or whatever, or how those people are distributed around the world. That is just ‘number crunching’. That counting might have some relevance, but it is not science.

When Dr Snow discovered that it was probable that a specific outbreak of cholera, in London, due to contamination of the water being emitted from a particular water pump, his discovery was very, very useful. But it was not ‘science’. It was mathematics. It was counting the number of cases and the distribution of those cases. But Dr Snow must already have had his suspicions about the water supply, otherwise he could just have easily blamed a particular tavern or some such. The ‘science’ came much later when the particular ‘bug’ which caused cholera became known.

Much the same applies to smoking, except that it is even more ephemeral. Smoking has been blamed for lung cancer, but no ‘science’ has described how that happens. Attempts have been made, but not scientifically conclusive.

So, at this time, we have a group of people, not very large, but large enough, who coldly  demand the persecution of smokers, and we also have a group of furious people who are terrified of a whiff of tobacco smoke. I was reading a post about the changing attitude of the ‘authorities’ in the US to vaping, as described here:

There were commenters who DEMANDED that any place that they might just enter must be ‘free from’ the smell of vapour. Thus, those people wish to control every place in the world, just in case they might might enter into that place.

And is that not what the General Smoking Ban was expected to achieve? It was not about the health of smokers or bar staff. It was about prettiness. For is it not true that ‘fragrances’ are about prettiness? But who defines what is ‘pretty’?

The HORROR is that the UN does. The WHO no longer tries to prevent epidemics in Africa. That is because it cannot be done. Instead, it justifies itself by creating artificial ‘epidemics’ such as smoking in the healthy, wealthy West.

But those are the sort of things which we, the people, cannot influence by our political choices when we vote in a General Election. It is impossible to pick out such things as massively important, even though they might be.

I was reading about the Bilderburg Group meeting. It is all very secretive, and, for some reason, deserves massive police and military presence. It is all a bit weird. It is so secret that no attendee has ever spilt the beans of what is discussed. Our own people who attended were former Home Secretary Amber Rudd, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney and former Chancellor George Osborne.

What were they doing there, and what were their intentions?

But, worst of all, none of them will reveal what was discussed and what conclusions were drawn. For some reason or other, which I cannot understand, none of the above, Rudd etc, will reveal what happened.

It is not acceptable! Secrecy in politics is NOT ACCEPTABLE!

But it is hard for an ordinary person, with no wish to hurt his fellows, to query the honesty and integrity of potential MPs. For example, how do we know that Osborne was not entirely concerned with his own advancement during the time that he was Chancellor? How do we know that Cameron was not similarly concerned? How do we know that Theresa May is not similarly concerned?

We do not know. Nor can we know. Is there any possible answer?

Perhaps a group could be formed on the net which blasts MPs with demands to know how on Earth they voted to persecute smokers with more bans and taxes. Why do they continue to knock smokers around, but do not actually kill them?

This post is fractured, I must admit. But the central idea is sound.

How can smokers be both persecuted and tolerated at the same time?

Knowing The Deep State


Perhaps there is no such thing as ‘The Deep State’. Perhaps there is no such thing as ‘The Swamp’. How would we know if they exist? We can only calculate that there are such things. We have to deduce that such things must exist, but only because of their excreta. Little or nothing is public. How could it be known if it is ‘deep’ or ‘swamp’? But we have a right to deduce that there are such things.

What form do such ‘beasts’ take? How can they dominate? They hide in covens and take as long as necessary to infiltrate institutions like the UN, World Bank, Bank of International Settlements, and such.

The biggest problem is that our ‘elected representatives’ collude with the ‘deep state’ and ‘the swamp’. They defer to ‘experts’. The ‘experts’ are placemen with an agenda.

I took a day off jobs today. Instead, I watched videos about the inability of the EU to stop the invasion from foreign places, disguised a ‘good thing’. The invasion is described as ‘a good thing’ because it provides worker ants to supply German Industries. A large majority of ‘asylum seekers’ want to go to Germany.

Be that as it may. But most of us are concerned that our ‘cultural heritage’, despite lots and lots of local wars over the centuries, is being eroded by pliant politicians. And they are ‘pliant’ because the have been seduced by the siren calls of ‘One World Government’.

One World Government can only mean despotism and totalitarianism.

It is a recipe for disaster.

Is There Anyone in this World Who Sees the Whole Picture?


I would say that not. In fact, I would say that it is impossible for any individual to know the whole picture. You could go further and say that even a committee of the most clever people in the world could not possibly see the whole picture.

The reason is that the human population consists of some six billion individuals, all of whom have their own agendas. Their needs and wants are continuously changing as time passes.

Economic theory was always based upon the idea that markets decide what is popular at any given time, depending upon demand. If demand goes up, so do prices. Higher prices encourage greater supply, until a balance is reached. But there are lag times, especially in the supply of housing and such. In such industries, Government should do all it can to reduce the lag time, not make things worse by requiring planning permissions which take years to work out and cost a fortune, which increases the price of houses.

Does Gov see this problem? Perhaps some individuals do, but the State is a lumbering giant. It is a lumbering giant because it grew itself so. I think that Trump is using his business acumen to cut through a morass of ignorance. By ignorance, I mean the inability to know the full picture.

I think that he sees the difference between building and running an hotel profitably and making money from being a talker. All administrators and university professors are talkers. They actually do NOTHING! Because they actually do NOTHING, they should be at the lower end of pay scales. It does not matter how clever they are.

I wonder how the technological revolution will eventually impact upon Universities? Perhaps the likes of Oxford Uni buildings could be turned into ‘affordable’ flats for asylum seekers. Perhaps Oxford Uni buildings could be clad with inflammable cladding to save the planet from Global Warming, just like the Grenfell Tower. Perhaps the cladding could be sprayed on to fill all the nooks and crannies.

The internet has done away with ‘places’. If you want to play good golf, you need to actually practice hitting golf balls. But if you want to talk the talk in academia, you do not need to be actually present in some place. Thus, one ‘professor’ could teach thousands of students via the net. ‘But what about the submission of ‘papers’?’, you might ask. No problem – you do away with ‘papers’. You construct a questionnaire which asks questions on the subject which become more and more detailed. A computer can then decide who passes and who doesn’t.

Am I dreaming? Perhaps, but in 1960, when I was called up, I had to undergo such an intelligence test. I failed it, but they let me into the air force because of my academic record (my six good Oxford Uni GCE results). Why did I fail the intelligence test? Perhaps my mind did not see ‘black and white’ – perhaps I saw lots of ‘grey’. There again, it might have been that there were only X amount of places in the RAF, and the recruits who did best were the ones who were selected, or the ones who were prepared to ‘sign on’ for twelve years or more.

Who knows?

And it is the question of ‘Who Knows’ which besets us all.

The reason that I personally voted for Brexit was to bring responsibility back home. The case is clearly described by the EU plan to distribute the influx of migrants around the States. Erm… No. If Germany wants more workers, Germany must absorb ALL the influx.  If Italy and Spain do not need more workers, which the don’t, because they have high levels of unemployment, especially among their teenagers, then they must reject ideas of spreading young immigrants to all States.

It amazes me that States like Italy have not taken serious steps to stop the flow of migrants. It would not be difficult. Return the people to where they embarked and sink the boats which were carrying them. The Mediterranean sea is deep enough, in places, to do so.

It is WAR!! But of a different kind.

It is bad enough to be unable to see the big picture. It is even worse to assume that unknown people in organisations such as the UN IPCC (Global Warming)  can see the big picture.

When the ideologist and globalist, PM Blair, approved the smoking ban, did he realise that he was ushering in an era of blame? “It is all your fault!”

Millions and Millions of Pages


Since its inception, The Commission of the EU has done nothing except issue millions and millions of pages of ‘directions’. It has not contributed one penny-worth of ‘growth’ which benefits individual citizens.

What is most interesting about the EU is that it has sort of ‘short-circuited’ the decline of the Roman Empire. Instead of centuries of decline, the EU is in the process of accelerating decline in Europe.

But I am not saying that the original concept was wrong. That European States should cooperate and solve problems peacefully was obviously the right thing to do. One can only wonder why such obvious solutions to antagonisms were not the rule rather than the exception in the past.

I have often said that the reason for WW1 was that the Royal Families of Europe fell out with each other. Perhaps they were playing poker and someone cheated. It is as good a reason as any.

What tends to cause decline is over-emphasis of minutiae, and a consequent expenditure of effort, at great cost, on those minutiae. For example, the ‘premature’ deaths of very old people, as a result of smoking, is seen as bad news. From a point of view, those ‘premature’ deaths should be seen as beneficial in that the sooner pensioners die, the less expenditure on pensions. In fact, one could argue that it would be a good thing, from the general cost of servicing pensioners, if all pensioners were smokers, who died 10 years prematurely.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that smoker ailments cost a lot of taxpayers’ money without also accepting that their premature deaths save the taxpayer lots of money.

I have not been paid a penny for my ‘research’.

How many ‘researchers’ in the EU are leaching off the rest of us?

What has happened, over several decades, is a very few people have conspired to take over Government of the World. I include in that number people like Blair. Such people have a sense of ‘destiny’.

But it has never worked out. People can only be pushed and shoved (nudged?) to a certain extent before they rebel.

The Brexit rebellion is imminent.

Break free or else…..

“Peaceful Coexistence”


Older people will remember that the ‘cold war’, the antagonism between Communist East and Democratic West, was alleviated by the idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’. The general idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’ was ‘whatever system of government you have is your business, and we will not interfere, provided that you do not interfere with ours’.

The EU has claimed, again and again, that it has averted wars and maintained the peace in Europe. That must be nonsense because, until recently, there was no EU – there was only a trading block, with added co-operations, such as Interpol.

No – what has maintained peace in Europe has been ‘peaceful coexistence’.

Until recently. The breakdown of the Soviet Union occurred because The West was experiencing run-away economic betterment for ALL the people via free markets, whereas the Soviet Union was stuck in a quagmire of top down planning.

I sometimes think that there is a problem with our political thinking in the UK. Once upon a time, the ‘Leader’ of the Tory Party ’emerged’. What that actually meant was that ‘shadowy people ‘the Elite’, decided,  and their candidate ’emerged’ and was anointed. But has that changed? One might follow the career of Cameron. Wealthy, university, an MP’s researcher, an MP, a quiet Minister, Prime Minister. Nothing in his past qualified him to be PM. The really interesting idea is that ‘the PM elect’ should be subjected to a plebiscite.

The reason for that idea is that the PM is extremely powerful. In days gone by, it has been known for a PM to sack Cabinet Ministers and replace them with cronies. Only a vote of ‘no confidence’ in the Party can dislodge the PM.

Thus, the PM is a form of Emperor. It is not satisfactory for a person to have such power without being subject to popular approval. It is because we have this curious system of Emperors ’emerging’ that the Country is in turmoil.

Back to ‘peaceful coexistence’. It was Emperor Blair who gave approval for the country-wide Smoking Ban. He overrode the individual rights of publicans, restaurateurs, owners of workplaces, to allow their people to smoke if they wished to. That is not ‘peaceful coexistence’. It is WAR. The Smoking Ban was WAR. There is not a lot of difference, theoretically, between bombing Iraq and killing loads of people, and introducing a Smoking Ban. I say THEORETICALLY. The effects are vastly different, but, at the same time, much the same. Both cause great harm.

‘Peaceful coexistence’ between smokers and non-smokers existed prior to the Smoking Ban. And that included bar staff. Very few of such staff were non-smokers, and that is still true today.

One of the tricks of those who are against ‘Peaceful Coexistence’ is to claim that WAR is necessary. That might be OK, if were not for the fact that the originators of that WAR were protected from suffering that the caused.

We have only to look at the Grenfell Tower disaster. We in the UK have a Government Dept called, ‘Minister of State for Climate Change and Industry’. I have little doubt that that Dept was responsible for cladding Local Authority buildings with badly tested materials.

And yet nobody complains about the real culprits – Climate Warming Zealots.

Blair was a nice man, but he did a couple of horrible things. He really ought do the honourable thing – commit suicide, or at least wear sack cloth ad ashes for ten years.

Peaceful coexistence has meant, for centuries in the UK, that our laws have been generic. There have obviously been bad laws, such as laws forbidding homosexuality. The fact that those laws existed should inform today’s legislators that Smoking Bans are illiberal, in the sense of militating against ‘freedom’.

‘Peaceful coexistence’ is essential in the world today, and in every sphere of society.

The Attitude of Politicians


I still do not understand. Public Health England stated that ecigs are at least 95% less dangerous than inhaling the fumes of burnt tobacco. Others, notably Carl Philips, have said that the danger is more like 99% less, or even more.

What is the basis for those statements? It is the toxicology reports – the chemical constituents of the vapour from ecigs. Think about the scent of a rose. What you are smelling are certain chemical compounds, consisting of various combinations of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. See this site:

It consists of a diagram of a rose flower with the chemical formulae of the scent compounds. For some reason, when those compounds hit the sensors in our conks, they give us pleasure sensations.

Much the same applies to ecig vapour. Breathing in that vapour is exactly the same as sniffing a rose. Both inhaling by mouth and by nose draw compounds into our lungs. The only significant difference is that ecig vapours have a taste as well as a smell. The big difference between ecig vapour and cig smoke is the lack of particulates – solid material. Vapers inhale gasses and not solids. In so far as ecig vapour contains water vapour, our lungs are perfectly capable of dealing with water vapour. Indeed, without water vapour in the air, our lungs would cease to function.

But we also inhale vast amounts of ‘particulates’ every day – pollen, dust, traffic fumes. Our lungs cope – until they become old enough not to function correctly.

So how do we explain why “Health Minister Greg Hunt [Australia] remains vehemently opposed [to ecigs containing nicotine]”?

“The overwhelming medical advice and evidence is that it’s likely to lead to the uptake of smoking and we cannot support that,” his spokesperson says.”


Let’s think about ‘overwhelming’. What could it possibly mean?

It could mean that ‘the people whom we consulted said so’. Or it could mean ‘many of the ‘experts’ whom we consulted could produce evidence of the gateway effect. Those who disagreed could not produce evidence that ecig use did not not cause a gateway effect’.

Let’s think about that for a moment.

Suppose that some ‘expert’ checked bus services for delays. He finds that buses often arrive at their final destinations late. He finds that very, very few buses arrive there early. He therefore concludes that bus services are crap. What he has failed to take into account is that most people deliberately time their arrival at a bus stop a few minutes before the bus is due – say, five minutes. There is nothing more annoying than seeing your bus sail past your stop before the appointed time. What happens if a bus is running ahead of schedule is that the driver waits at a stop for a couple of minutes before proceeding. I have seen it and experienced it many times.

The impossibility of proving that there is no gateway effect is somewhat similar. The reason is that there is only one way that a non-smoking youth can go – either not smoking or vaping, or vaping but not smoking, or vaping then smoking, .

1, Neither vaping nor smoking: zero gateway.

2, Vaping but not smoking: zero gateway.

3, Vaping then smoking: Gateway.

In that argument, going from smoking to vaping does not exist. It does not matter. Vaping then stopping vaping does not matter. Those possibilities are like buses arriving early. Only those people who WANT to start smoking will go from vaping to smoking. The vaping does not cause the movement. It is the desire which does.

For some reason that I cannot understand, politicians like Health Minister Greg Hunt become ‘vehemently opposed’. Why ‘vehemently opposed’? Why not ‘not sure’?

I think that I know what the problem is. It is that politics does not recognise uncertainty.

That is why we have the smoking ban.

Did Blair know for sure that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons? Of course, not! But it was possible, and was sufficient justification for killing thousands of Iraqis, whether they were soldiers or not.

But my purpose is not to deny the need to depose Hussein. That is irrelevant. It is THE EXCUSE that I deride.

The smoking ban was based upon AN EXCUSE – second hand smoke danger. I remember reading some sort of report that SHS might have caused the deaths of some fifty persons in the UK. 50!!!! I don’t know if that report still exists on the net – probably not. But I remember it well. Had I realised its importance, I would have saved it.

So why do politicians feel desperate to claim appalling consequences? I do not know. Perhaps it is because propaganda works.

But it seems to me that propaganda is becoming more and more useless. Certainly, ‘Health Minister Greg Hunt’ has shown himself to be not fit for the office. His mind is closed, or he is opportunistic or he is stupid.

The facts are simple. Many people, throughout the world, have substituted ecigs, including HnB, for inhaling tobacco smoke.

But how will  ‘Health Minister Greg Hunt’ be punished for his stupidity? He will probably become Prime Minister. For that is what happened in the UK. The useless Home Sec, Theresa May, became PM.

There must be something that I am missing. Perhaps it is the notion of ‘a safe pair of hands’. But in whose view? I cannot help but think that ‘academics’ have been in control for centuries. Isaac Newton was not only a famous physicist. He was also controller of the Bank of England. He had some counterfeiters of ‘The King’s Coinage’ executed. He was also an academic.

Has anything changed? Who controls the ‘deep state’? Was it not ‘academics’ who created Soviet Russia? Was it the peasant origin of Stalin that drove him to kill or gulag those ‘academics’ because he knew that they would never be satisfied?

For academics are never, ever satisfied. It is in their nature. Perhaps politicians are the same – they are never satisfied.

Trump has turned it on its head. He demands satisfaction, not dissatisfaction.

Would that our Brexit negotiators demanded the same ‘satisfaction’!! We can negotiate trade deals with each individual country without the interference of the EU apparatus.

What is obvious is that the EU apparatus is becoming obviously irrelevant. Medium term planning should embrace the use of EU buildings after the dissolution.

A new cooperative vision for Europe needs to be devised. And it must not be secret. No more Masstrick Treaties, which the vast majority of The People knew nothing about. Or any other such treaties. Such treaties must be approved by plebiscite.  The reason is that they affect our Sovereignty.

But it is hard for ordinary people to weigh arguments for or against. Perhaps it was ‘a gut feeling’ which persuaded people to vote for Brexit.

I voted for Brexit because I believe that the EU is hand in glove with the WHO, IPCC, UN and all the UN’s dreams, such as Tobacco Control. TC wastes enormous amounts of money and time. The real challenges are the wealth of African Nations.  Asia is doing quite well. Misery and poverty in Africa is the really, really important thing.

It is crazy that the UN concerns itself with longevity in the Healthy Wealthy West when most of Africa is desolate.

The UN needs desperately to be demolished and rebuild. In the first place, its headquarters needs to be moved from New York to Somalia or some such deprived place. And the WHO from Geneva to Algeria. The ‘wealth’ and ‘indulgence’ is sickening.

So where are the politicians demanding these ‘improvements’?

The fact is that they are too ‘small’ to envisage anything outside their bubble. They have to be led by the nose by their betters – academics.

Scraping The Barrel Of Justification


Simon Clark today highlights the pointlessness of the ban on smoking in cars with kids present:

Only one person in the whole of Yorkshire and the Humber was fined in the first two years after it became illegal to smoke in cars carrying a child, a new analysis has found.

I am surprised that there was even one. Perhaps someone smoking in a car with kids present stepped outside his car and called a policeman over and said, “Look. I’m smoking with my son in the car. He’s only ten, so I demand that you persecute/prosecute me”. “Erm, let’s not be so quick. I suspect a trap. I suspect that you are trying to make a fool of me. What’s this law thing again? I’ll have to radio in”. Perhaps even the culprit was an ASH stooge who deliberately lit up right beside a cop and called him over. After all, if ASH is paying the fine and there are no penalty points associated, why not?

But what amused me most was ASH’s justification. Arnott:

Compliance with the legislation on smoking in cars with children is dependent on the level of public support not enforcement action. And people are complying with this popular law which protects children from the harm caused by secondhand smoke.”

That statement is laughable. Some sort of vague, generic ‘public support’ has nothing to do with compliance with laws. Compliance with laws is a consequence of fear – fear of ‘being caught’ and punished. Further, “this popular law”? It is ‘popular’ only because non-smokers had a vote in one or more ‘surveys’. I am not interested in football, and I believe that far too much TV time is granted to football. Football should be banished from TV. Yes or No? YES!!!!! Of course, I exaggerate. I quite like football sometimes. I shall almost certainly watch the England matches, and perhaps ever the British matches, including Ireland (if any of them qualified, which I do not know).

And, if people are complying out of some sort of conscience about SHS harming kids, then there was no need for the law at all. It would have been simple to have ads on TV, repeated over and over again, shouting, “YOUR SECOND HAND SMOKE IS KILLING YOUR KIDS!!!” Oh, wait. The same could be applied to homes, and ASH ET AL do not want to go there yet.

But Arnott’s statement also reinforces the fact that all the anti-smoking rhetoric is a confidence trick, and always has been. Smoking in pubs never did anyone any significant harm. The concentration of smoke in the air is nothing even remotely similar to taking a puff and inhaling it.

The problem is that our noses are very sensitive. Our sense of smell is very acute. We can detect very small amounts of molecules in the air. “…..and we are able to detect odours even in infinitesimal quantities.” is one authoritative statement. So the fear of SHS is similar to the fear that animals have when the detect smoke in the air. Animals run away as fast as possible. Smokerphobes also run away as fast as possible.

This evening, I detected the smell of gas in the kitchen. I did not run away, which is what an animal would have done. I investigated and found that a gas tap on the cooker had been accidentally turned on. I am not sure, but I suspect that the cooker had already closed the tap because the smell was not that strong. My nose was able to detect the remnants of the gas which had been emitted, before the cooker automatically closed the tap. Modern technology is a wonderful thing.

Modern technology is a wonderful thing. It would have been quite easy for Blair and the rest of the corrupt politicians to have demanded that smoking should only be allowed in pubs if the technology of air cleaning was good enough. Pubs would have had a choice. But I suspect that Blair et al knew full well that SHS was not dangerous.

The simple fact is that none of the MPs who voted for the smoking ban have ever justified their vote.

I do not have the clout to ask them, but you would think that an investigative journalist might just possibly contact all the MPs, present and past, who voted for the ban and ask them why they thought SHS was dangerous.

‘Risk’ is not an adequate word. Walking along a pavement is risky. The real measurement is ‘danger’. How dangerous is walking along a pavement? You might invent the phrase, “The risk of danger”. I do not know if that idea makes sense.

Our problem as smokers is that we are not political. We are not Social Justice Warriors. It is a wonder, in retrospect, that the happening at Stony Stratford had the effect of demolishing the proposed smoking ban in streets by a nutter who described himself as a ‘public health professional’ when he was in fact an ambulance driver. Further, he later lost his seat.

Would it not be lovely is anti-smoker MPs were driven out of office because of their vicious persecution of smokers? Bans, taxes, sainthoods, etc. The fact is, as illustrated above, is that anti-smoker zealots are confidence tricksters and snake-oil salesmen.

And they are crude. They employ apparently sophisticated statistical analysis, but their solutions to the problems revealed are crude. “Quit or Die!”

The situation is horrific, and I do not see why politicians are not aware of it. When politicians start to persecute their own people, even if the persecuted are a minority, that persecution will rebound sooner or later.

The reputations of Blair, Brown, Cameron must be ground to dust, simply because they persecuted their own people.