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

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





“I wish that I could write the truth as I see it”


That is not an actual quote from someone. It is one that I have made up. I was watching a Tommy Robinson interview earlier (H/T Orphans of Liberty):

It is quite long – 42 mins. In it, he describes how he was deliberately targeted, again and again, by the powers-that-be – accusations made and houses searched.

You do not have to believe him.

But I was also reading today about fraudulent claims for losses due to the Grenfell inferno. One in particular seems to have appeared. It seems that some fifteen individuals  from a specific foreign family had claimed to be living in the same flat. They all got a pay off and housing. Only later checks revealed multiple claims.

You do not have to believe it.

But it is getting harder and harder to speak the truth ‘as you see it’. We, as individuals, can do so, but ‘authority’ dare not. It is quite possible that fake claims were indeed fake, and that the culprits might appear in court. They might be sentenced to a term in prison, but suspended. But they would almost certainly continue to receive free board and lodgings. I mean, what else could The State do? There is no alternative. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.

It is the lack of ‘alternative’ which is the severe problem.

And yet there is a simple solution.

The Outer Hebrides.

If smokers can be ‘exiled to the outdoors’, why should not ‘supplicants’ asking for succour from the horrors of Central London not be happy with the peace of the Outer Hebrides?

The problem is that we Brits are kind to each other. Or used to be. Family firms employed family members. Call it ‘nepotism’ if you like, but IT WORKED.

We come up against a basic problem when we contemplate how the Grenfell inferno revealed that we Brits are being taken for a ride, with the wholesale collusion of our cowardly Government. Thousands and thousands of gangs, who have the intention of pillaging, are being housed and fed by us.

But what is the answer? Could it be an offer of a tent in the Outer Hebrides or a ticket back where them came from?

What seems to me to be true is that the Gov of the UK, over the last couple of decades, Blair, Brown, etc, became besotted by ‘cure-alls’. ‘If only there was a European Union, there would be no more wars in Europe’. ‘If only smokers gave up, there would be no LC, Heart problems, etc’.

What strikes me about the situation as regards smoking, and has done or some while, is that the whole situation is childish. Smoking bans are childish, like standing in lines at school. Scary pics on cig packets are childish since no smoker takes any notice.

But, most of all, it is almost impossible to talk about other sources of leaf. Note how I generalise by using the words ‘sources’ and ‘leaf’. The reason is the no one dare talk about ‘it’. That is because you need a ‘permit’, but the trick is that getting a permit is impossible.

Needless to say, the ‘permit’ regulation is a godsend to our heroes, smugglers. Anything which reduces personal action, increases corporate action.

My little intro about ‘leaf’ indicates my reluctance to talk about it.

I honestly believe that anti-smoking gospel denies ‘the truth’.

Local Authority Activism


I know little about how ‘Health’ has been transferred to Local Authorities. I remember a big fuss a few years ago when our Authority was being peppered with anti-smoking reports. God only know how much it was costing. The reports were the usual conglomeration of second hand evidence, charts, guesses and propaganda. Nothing of value in them.

Then they suddenly dried up completely. Perhaps a few councillors asked why ratepayers were paying people to regurgitate the same information over and over again, being that the heaviest smokers tend to be the least well off, and stuff like that.

But the Terrorists are back in a big way in the Mayor’s Office in Manchester, Andrew Burnham. He used to be an MP. Here is a little about him:

He was MP for Leigh. Let’s start with the most obvious one. Andy Burnham was elected to the Labour safe seat of Leigh back in 2001. He is a former Cabinet minister, having served as Health Secretary, Culture Secretary, and Chief Secretary to the Treasury.”

Clearly, he still has the urge to terrorise smokers, which he learnt as Health Sec, since he is misusing his power as Gtr Manchester Mayor to spend loads-a-money on TV adverts calling for ‘The People’ to ‘make smoking history’ in the Manchester area. Clearly, the ads are intended to inflame the passions of the mob. But its the same old, same old, isn’t it? Another regurgitation of yesterday’s news. More and more ‘surveys’ are coming up with the the answer: “For God’s sake! Sod off and leave people alone!”

And it can only get more so. The Terrorists in TobCON can congratulate each other and bask in the admiration of each other at their jamborees, but the wider the Zealots cast their nets, the more people they antagonise, and the less impressive that their statistics become. It seems to me that people are more impressed by statistics the less that the stats apply to them. For example, I read somewhere that a GP would have to be ‘lucky’ to see one case of lung cancer per year. I picked this up via a quick google:

According to the latest available cancer registration statistics, during 2011 there were 43,463 new cases of lung cancer in the UK, an incidence rate of 48.5 per 100,000 persons. This is similar to the rate of new diagnoses estimated from GP statistics for recent years. However, GP statistics may underestimate the true …”


That number accords, roughly, with the number of GPs in the UK, so ‘one per an’ sounds about right (30-odd thousand GPs – let’s not split hairs). So imagine all those patients in the waiting room, coughing and sputtering and claiming to be nearly dead, and singling out the LC case. No wonder the first question they ask is, “Do you smoke?” If the answer is, “No”, then, according to the irresponsible Zealots, the GP can laughingly send the patient on his way with a pricey prescription for a placebo.

But what if the patient smokes? Well, not a lot. The chance of that person suffering from LC is still minute. But by asking the question, the GP covers himself. Just asking the question removes any liability from the GP, should it turn out at a later date, that the patient was indeed suffering from LC. A couple more questions – coughing blood? No, difficulty breathing? No, and a quick chest examination, will almost certainly indicate that the patient just has a cold.

As I understand it, the symptoms of LC are quite dissimilar to having a cold. For lack of a better way to describe it, they are mostly ‘dry’.

Hardly anyone dies from LC, and yet SHS has been elevated to a higher plane of danger than smoking itself. The USA Surgeon General, at one point, claimed that SHS could cause a person to have a heart attack in the street and drop down dead. But, one might assume, smoking would not.

As the contradictions pile up, and the stats are seen to be indicate correlation and not causation, and statisticians dig deeper, and such people cease to need TobCON or the UN/WHO to make a living, the more likely it is that breathing polluted air with every breath that you take is far, far more dangerous than puffs on a cig every few seconds for a few minutes in the hour. If the air is polluted, you inhale the toxins every second of 24 hours per day.

The big problem that Local Authorities have is that they are individual entities. I wonder if Cameron realised how clever he was when he dispersed decisions about ‘Public Health’ throughout the Local Authorities? I doubt it, but it was a wonderful idea.

‘Special interest groups’ change their nature. It is far easier for smokers, drinkers and fatties to become ‘special interest groups’ locally, and replace ‘anti-smoker’ special interest groups, than is the case nationally.

There is only ONE major difficulty, which is ‘getting interested’. That is an ENORMOUS problem. ENORMOUS. If only one in ten smokers in the UK became ‘active’ in defence of their freedom, then some 1,000,000 smokers would be activists.

Being an ‘activist’ would not mean shouting and screaming and banner waving. Those actions are for millennials and snowflakes. They show weakness.

I am not sure how to start to become politically active. I do not wish to be Tory, Labour, UKIP, Lib Dem, etc.

Where to start? How about attending a few public meetings of the Council? It would not be a problem but would be a serious break from my normal routine. I mean a serious break. I think that it is a serious problem that the vast majority of people are working and cannot possibly attend meetings of the Council. The local press is supposed to represent them and report on what happened.

I really, really must try to attend at least ONE such meeting. But I vaguely recall attending a similar meeting decades ago, but I cannot remember what. The whole thing was over in ten minutes or so. Agenda 1, All in favour? 20. All against? 10. Motion passed. Agenda 2…..

Either people give every moment of their time to The Agenda, or they do not know what is going on.

Fifty Shades of Terrorism


Who defined what the word ‘Terrorism’ encompasses?

What we have been led to accept is that the only form of ‘terror’ is unhinged people screaming the equivalent of ‘Auntie Alice is the greatest’ whilst hacking a few unfortunate stranger to death with kitchen knives. Or something similar. The Gov has gone to great pains to try to scotch the plans of such ‘terrorists’ by declaring that anyone who comments that ‘Auntie Alice is NOT the greatest’ is guilty of a hate crime, and must be prosecuted, fined or imprisoned, or otherwise silenced. That is, the Gov actually encourages the belief that ‘Auntie Alice is the greatest’.

Not an awful long time ago, Terrorism was only terrorism if there was a massive attempt to overthrow the current Gov in some place. Terrorism had to be big and organised and had big targets, such as army barracks, Gov property and such.

It is a bit weird that random acts such as the Manchester Arena atrocity can be described as ‘terrorism’. To be so, a very wide understanding of the word ‘terror’ has to be invented. ‘Terror’ does not have to mean ‘frightened to death’, ‘shaking in one’s boots’, ‘shocked and horrified’, ‘quivering and blubbering’. For an act to be described as ‘terrorism’, all that is required is that people should be taken by surprise.

Yes, when I read/heard about the Manchester Arena atrocity I was shocked. I should imagine that everyone was. I was equally shocked, or possibly more so, by the ratatat of the gunfire in the Las Vagas shooting. Ratatat, ratatat, ratatat. A sort of evil music. But I did not regard it as ‘terrorism’, nor did I regard the Mc Arena atrocity as terrorism.

But my recent philosophical thinking has gradually led me in a different direction.

TERRORISM does not have to be knives, guns and bombs. It can be simply the promotion of fear in the mind – in millions of minds. Even though I am 78 and still going strong, I am not immune to suggestions that my infinite life might be curtailed by my smoking. Maybe I should vape or steam (HnB), and thus ensure that my infinite life will be preserved.

The WHOLE philosophy of TobCON is based upon ‘Terror’. TobCON promotes abject fear of devils such as SHS. TobCON is a ‘terrorist’ organisation.

The IPCC is just the same. It also promotes terror.

Is there any answer?

I would like to see Trump defunding the UN. But, what is more important from a UK point of view, is our own Gov defunding the ‘terrorists’ in EVERY ORGANISATION OF ANY SORT, BOTH AT HOME AND ABROAD, which seeks to frighten people. Those ‘terrorists’ are far more damaging than the odd nutter who slashes with a knife shouting ‘Auntie Alice is the greatest’.

Finally, we are gradually coming to a place where are own Gov is the worst ‘terrorist’. Certainly its support of ASH ET AL suggests that it supports the use of terror as a weapon to demoralise 20% of the population. Perhaps 20% or the population are fatties. They too can be terrorised, with Gov approval.

So when will Government approved Terrorism end?


Why Are ‘The Saints’ Unassailable?


Be in no doubt that when a gang of people demand:

We call upon Governments to develop a plan by 2021 for phasing out of tobacco products”

then they are intent upon deliberately provoking warfare. OK, the phrases might not say ‘ban tobacco products by 2021’ – just ‘develop a plan by 2021‘ to take effect at some vague time in the future, such as 2060, 90, or 2110. The demand is too silly to be seriously contemplated.

And yet these people grant themselves the authority to ‘call upon’. I would like to grant myself, along with my internet colleagues, the right to ‘call upon’ Governments to repeal smoking bans with immediate effect.

The thing is that the attendees at the ‘gang bang’ in Cape Town have no more right to ‘call upon Governments’ to do anything at all than each and every one of us, or some group of us.

So if that group demand special privilege to ‘call upon Governments’, then they must prove that they are ‘special’.

How can they prove that they are ‘special’? It can only be that they are particularly saintly. The reason that they must be ‘saintly’ is that THE WHOLE ANTI-SMOKER THING DEPENDS UPON THE SAINTLINESS OF THE PROPONENTS.

Dr Godber, Dr Glantz, Dr Siegel, etc, etc. ‘Doctor/Professor’ equals ‘Saint’. In Public Health, you do not even have to be dead to become a Saint.

But that is where the need for corroboration kicks in. If they are to be ‘Saints’, they must have no feet of clay. No dubious funding. No plagiarising. But above all, no present ‘sinfulness’, such as SHS danger.

Those who seek power have no right to PRIVACY. I know that sounds awful, but I stand by it. I mean ‘no RIGHT’ to privacy.

For example, was Corbin MP, Leader of the Labour Party, at some time in the past, passing secret info to the Soviets? Because of his desire to gain POWER, he has no right to privacy about his dealings with the Soviets in the past. No right whatsoever.

An interesting consequence is that it might well be reasonable for any one of us to demand FULL DISCLOSURE of the costs incurred by any specific attendee in Cape Town, if that person was subsidised, in any way at all, or to any extent, by taxpayers.

I am beginning to come to a firm conclusion that only attacking individual ‘Saints’ will gain traction. The reason that I say that is that it is only because ‘Saints’ said so, that SHS was every believed to be dangerous. Certainly, Doll’s Doctors’ Study suggested that the there was no way at all that SHS inhalation could injure a person within several hundred years.

Who is the most important ‘Saint’ at the moment? Who was the STAR of Cape Town?

Find him/her and tear him to bits. Shred him/her. Dredge every avenue, especially if that person is an academic. In effect, kill them as ‘authorities’.

Arnott is irrelevant. He/she is a token. Ignore EVERYTHING that he/she says. Get behind the propaganda.


You see, PRIVACY ceases to exist once you step outside your home. If you promote yourself as a ‘Saint’, you must expect your evil doings to be exposed.

So why is it that not one single anti-smoker, one who deliberately wishes to blind smokers by inserting hot irons into their eyes, has never been exposed as a mentally ill member of ASH?

Enough for tonight.

The End of the TobCON Jolly in Cape Town


When TobCON puts out a press release, it is quite possible that the text has been mulled over and discussed by dozens of highly paid Uni Profs and Docs, publicists and propagandists and legal eagles. The text would have been passed backwards and forwards using private email addresses until it was judged to be perfect.

So I reproduce, with his tacit consent I hope, the last part of Chris Snowdon’s post:

That brings us to smoking, which is supposed to be reason for the conference’s existence. After years of denial, the prohibitionists are finally owning up to being prohibitionists. There was even an official declaration.


You might think that the experience of alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs would make ‘experts’ wary of endorsing a ban on a product consumed by a billion people. But according to Tobacco Control‘s news editor, there is nothing to worry about:

If smokers had any doubts about what these people have in store for them, an official declaration at the world’s foremost tobacco control conference to ban the sale of cigarettes should put an end to them.

Let’s not mince words any more. These people are not the tobacco control lobby and they are certainly not public health professionals. They are prohibitionists and should only be described as such. 

So take that statement:

We call upon Governments to develop a plan by 2021 for phasing out the sale of tobacco products” My bold)

But note the follow up tweet: “Concerns about outlawing combustible tobacco sales being comparable to 1920s alcohol prohibition are absurd“.

The two demands are not the same. The official demand is the sale of tobacco products. 

But you have to giggle when you see in print, words to the effect, “It is absurd to compare the prohibition of the sale of disgusting, filthy, stinking product X with the prohibition of disgusting, filthy, stinking product Y a hundred years ago”.

Or, to put it in a positive way, “It is absurd to expect the WHO to spend time and money on eradicating malaria, ebola and zika, etc, etc, when there is much more fun and profit to be had from persecuting smokers, vapers and steamers”.

What seems perfectly obvious to me is that the event was nothing more than a publicity stunt. It is very little different from Lady Godiva riding naked on a horse through the streets of Coventry. If Deborah Arnott did the same thing, I might even applaud her courage. I suppose that it would absurd to think that the horse might hit a slippery slope and dear Debs might be thrown into the air, legs akimbo, to land with a dull thud.

Ideas come into my mind.

We readers all deplore ‘ad hom’ attacks. If the science is good, what does it matter who funded it?

But I am coming round to the idea that we have it all the wrong way round. WE should be producing the ‘ad hom’ attacks.

Bear in mind that Arnott et al do not give a shit about how much pain they inflict upon smokers. In effect, they are quite happy to stub out burning cigs in our eyes, having previously exiled us, defenceless, to unlit back alleys.

Is that not an interesting idea? There would be no need for a ‘smoker army’. Maybe only a dozen or so people would be required to find the dirty on a specific individual ‘Expert Professor’. But it might also be interesting to find the dirt on newspaper reporters and columnists.

EG, who are the ‘top people’ in PHE? Who are they? Where have they come from? What did they do before? To what extent are they compromised by previous biased appointments?

Stanton Glantz is a case in point. Why have all the accusations suddenly disappeared, so such much so that he can add his name, and be thought worthy, to another plethora of junk ‘hearsay evidence’?

I need to write a post about the nature of epidemiology. In my opinion, it is like ‘hearsay evidence’ in a trial. In fact, in the McTear Case, the Judge, Nimmo, almost described it as such. He said that epidem evidence did not apply to individuals.

It seems that TobCON wishes to prosecute Tobcoms for genocide. Perhaps the links between TobCON and repressive dictators worldwide need to be explored.

It has always been true that an army with superior weapons can defeat a much larger army with inferior weapons. Only when the balance of weapons is similar, does war of attrition ensue. That was largely the case in WW1.

Perhaps one of us should explore Arnott’s history, and perhaps another might explore Glantz’s history, or several of us cooperating. Think about Yach being declared to be a pariah as regards the jolly.

What I would like to see is the myriad of retired or semi-retired or nearing retirement profs and docs getting together and condemning, in no uncertain terms, the cruelty of TobCON.

So which specific TobCON sinner could the hundreds of my readers investigate, and how to go about it? An amusing thought might be to get at X. I cannot remember her name. She was ‘racontaire’ (or whatever) in the ecig debacle in the EU Parli. Where is she now? What immensely remunerative job has she, and who does she work for?

The people who instigate the persecution escape, again and again, and they should not be allowed to do so. I do not mean that they should be hung, drawn and quartered. I mean that they should apologise and make restitution. Perhaps restitution could take the form of 365 days of unpaid work amongst alcoholics living on the streets.

Who is going to be our first target?



MSM Complicity In Its Own Demise


The whole idea of ‘Freedom of the Press’, the ‘third estate’, has always been that it was supposed to scrutinise Government and draw attention to corruption. By ‘corruption’, in this case, I mean ‘cross-party agreements’ that cause failure in our system of Gov, which says that ‘the duty of the opposition is to oppose’.

So, a newspaper might be a Tory rag, or a Labour rag, or whatever, but, whatever their political slant, they did not like the idea of ‘the opposition’ in Parliament, agreeing with the Gov.

It is a very weird truth that the smoking ban in the UK in 2007 was hardly opposed at all, either before or after. There was a dreadful silence. But who caused the dreadful silence?

I contend that it was the MSM which caused the dreadful silence. The papers and TV were ‘organised’ to do precisely the opposite of what their status as ‘the third’ estate dictated that they should do – expose ‘conspiracy’ (cross party ‘corruption’). Instead, they entered into the conspiracy.

Was the collusion of the MSM integral to the violence with which the ban was enforced? I am talking about the training of bar staff to physically attack anyone who lit a cig. I remember very, very clearly the first night after the ban. It was surreal. No one knew who was friend or foe. It took quite a long time for me to realise that everyone was foe, unless they were my family.

I have been reluctant for years now to form new, friendly relationships. No one can be trusted one inch. Light a cig in their presence, in the pub, and they will all leap on you and try to devour you.

I have been wondering what the Manager of my local would say in reply to the question, “Jack, if I lit a cig indoors, what would you do?”

You see, we cannot forever keep avoiding ‘OWNERSHIP’. When you think back, it is amazing that Pubcos did not go to court to defend their OWNERSHIP of pubs. The idea of ‘public place’ ought to have been a non-starter. NO building is a ‘public place’ and never has been. It might surprise readers to know that cathedrals in Southern Spain, a couple of hundred years ago, were also fortresses. They were PRIVATE places which protected the faithful against the Muslim hoards.

NO building is a ‘public place’. ‘Public Place’ is an artificial construct. Whoever owns the building, owns the place.

I think that when The Press, collectively, permitted itself to be silent about the perfectly obvious destruction of property rights and the coercion of betrayal, it signed its own death warrant.

Could the ‘dead tree’ press recover? Probably not, but it could try, if it could drag itself from under the weight of ‘conspiracy’.


Will The MSM EVER Cotton On?


Somehow, I found myself reading Janet Street-Porter’s article in the Mail Online. She wants to bring back rationing.

It says much about the UK today that I can write that without cracking up with laughter.

Yes, she wants to bring back rationing. She wants a ration book to be sent to every individual (including, and perhaps, especially, children?) monthly. If you want, say, a bar of chocolate, you would have to produce your ration book, which would need to be checked to your passport ID, or some other ID, and, having handed over the stamp from the ration book, and paid the exorbitant ‘duty’ plus other minor costs, you would be allowed to take away your bar of chocolate.

But what I find annoying rather than amusing is the usual massive distortion of statistics. It is hard to find the offending lines, but here are a couple:

“And yet, if we can bear to face the horrible reality – a third of us are just plain FAT.”


As the problem has grown into an epidemic affecting one in three children, so has our reluctance to confront it. We can’t see our knees, or even our genitalia, and we refuse to face up to reality as well.”

There’s that “Royal ‘We'” which TobCON loves to employ as ‘authority’. The ‘Royal ‘We’. They have been at it for decades. ‘Our’ children, cannot see ‘our’ genitalia.

Curious, is it not, that a third of all the population are fatties, whether adults or children. The reality is that those stats are complete lies. They rely upon an archaic formula. EG, what should a 22 year old man of 5′ 10″ in height, weigh? You need only look at the composition of a rugby team to see that men of about that age and height have different positions on the team. The bulkier ones tend to be forwards, and the slimmer ones tend to be backs.

But taking a rugby team as ‘normal’ would be ridiculous. From a general population point of view, they are extremely abnormal.

Read this from Snowdon:

I must admit that the stats quoted by Chris leave me cold. I simply cannot comprehend them. To quote:

“To recap, the normal body mass index (BMI) cut-off of 30+ does not work for children so we have to improvise. The current British system defines children as obese if they have a BMI that would have put them in the heaviest five per cent of their age group in 1990.”

Now, I vaguely understand that a BMI of 30+ means ‘obese’. But I am for from sure. I found a BMI calculator and entered a few figures.

I am about 5′ 6″ and 9 st = BMI 20.3. Jolly good!, said the site.

I tried various weights with the same height (6′). ‘Not advisable’ was the response until I hit 15 st at 6′ (BMI 28). The site was still unhappy – possible problems. But, magically, when I hit 13 st at 6′ (BMI 24.7) the result was ‘fantastic!’.

You can play with these calculators. Here is the one that I was using:

Children cannot be measured in the same way, so a different method was devised. As best I can understand it, if 100 children were weighed and their heights calculated, and a BMI for each child was calculated, then the ‘heaviest’ 5% would be called ‘obese’. I do not know the reasoning behind choosing the top 5%.

Now, I am not at all sure if I am going in the right direction hereafter.

In 1990, a certain portion of school children were in that ‘heaviest 5%’ (BMI-wise). Therefore, in 1990, x% of schoolkids were obese – by definition. It was an arbitrary, but low figure. Since then, minor variations in in the general health of schoolchildren, better food etc, has pushed up the BMIs, as compared with 1990. Thus, as compared with 1990, vastly more children appear to be overweight.

Put simply, 1990 calculations were already arbitrary. EG, given a school-full of skinny kids, the least skinny 5% would be called ‘obese’. It is easy to see how more and more children can move from the the most skinny group to the least skinny group over time.

What those calculating systems do, over time, is reduce the level at which a person is calculated to be obese.

What amazes me is that it would be perfectly simple to check a few schools, here and there, and identify the obese children. OH NO! IMPOSSIBLE!

The reality is that 20% obese schoolchildren is propaganda.

The crazy thing is that The MSM, had it the will, could prove that the 20% obesity figure is nonsense. It could get permission to film kids leaving school at the end of the school day. In fact, they would not even need permission. Just park a van near the gate and film kids emerging. Individuals would have pixilated faces, but their bodies would be seen. Maybe one child would be obese out of one hundred, and maybe five would be plump. It is up to the Zealots to prove otherwise.

And is that not the problem? The Zealots have never been put on the back foot.

Perhaps that is the value of Phillip Morris’s initiative to fund its ‘harm reduction’ initiative. It is a long time since TobCON has been put on the back foot.

The only thing that bothers me is the appointment of a former persecutor of smokers, Dereck Yact (or whatever) to head it up. Suppose that he walks away, just at a convenient moment, and spills his guts to the MSM? I wonder if PMI approached Debs Arnott or Glantz?

Frankly, I see these ‘alarms’ in the same light as Shakespeare’s  ‘Alarms off stage’ – noises of warfare, from which a defeated or victorious character emerges.

The same applies to the goings on in Cape Town. They are all ‘distractions’ and ‘alarms off stage’.

The fact is the the FCTC is buggered. It has nowhere to go. No one gives a shit about it. It is only a hairs breath away from dissolution. It is a dead parrot.

Enough. I must to bed.


“The United Kingdom Independence Party”


It is late and I just want to muse before bed.

What is the important word? It can only be ‘Independence’.

So we look at the names of the other parties, and ask what the names mean:


Erm, nothing springs to mind. What are such people (members of the Conservative Party) intending to ‘conserve’?

Labour (New).

The original ‘Labour’ Party was created by the Trade Unions, to advance the welfare of workers. Blair et al were probably right to move the Party away from the Unions and more into ‘Middle England’. But we still have no idea what Blair et al stood for. They never really said.


The fact that anyone votes for such tree-huggers is a serious indictment of our political system.

Scot Nats.

Short of EU massive support, the total demise of the Scot Nats is imminent. Surely, Scots can see that, if England stopped its support, and the EU was rendered irrelevant, the population of Scotland would starve. They do not ‘own’ the fish around their coasts. ETc.

I am beginning to bore myself.

INDEPENDENCE is the most important word of all. It means FREEDOM. Those words are fundamental, especially for individuals.

The smoking ban was a direct attack on INDEPENDENCE and FREEDOM. It was, in effect, just another manifestation of TOTALITARIANISM.

The fledgling world-wide ‘smokers and vapers cooperative’ will succeed.

The Solution To ‘The Obesity Problem’: Make The Whole Population Thinner


It makes sense, don’t you think? I mean, it is an ideal solution. So long as ‘being thinner’ is not seen as a threat to health, then there is no end to the skinniness that you can promote.

There is this condition known as anorexia, which does not, in itself, mean thinness. It is a psychological problem – a mental health problem. I don’t know if there is any extreme of thinness which is considered dangerous. We do have words to describe extreme thinness, such as ‘skeletal’, but, somehow, they do not seem to convey the same moral turpitude as the word ‘obese’.

So we can see Public Health England drifting off into a mind-set which is similar to anti-smoking. Only complete cessation will do. In the case of obesity, only complete thinness will do. Everybody must be at least thin, and the thinner the better.

It is hard to interpret the actions of PHE any differently.

Chris Snowdon gives PHE’s plans a good battering here:

What the PHE’s plans amount to is that food will increase in price. We must remember that everything that we can eat is ‘food’. There is no difference between a bar of chocolate and a cabbage, in that respect. Food will increase in price because of taxes, such as the sugar tax, shrinkflation, and bullying. There is a particular problem with shrinkflation. It is a plain and obvious fact that, if people are hungry, they will eat MORE than the shrunken product which they normally find sufficient.

But what is most important is that PHE has given itself the authority to recommend whatever ‘solution’ to the ‘problem of the day’ that it wishes to, without any come-back should it turn out to be wrong. And, to make it worse, it can demand more taxes, more shrinkflation, more bullying ad inf. There is no limit.

Who invented this equivalent of tractor production in the USSR? For that, in a negative sense, is what it is. It is the antithesis of individual freedom.

But you might say, “Surely the Government has a right, if not a duty, to intervene and ‘do something’ about obesity?” Well, I suppose that it could. For example, it could tell obese people that they could not claim benefits unless the lose weight. “Stand on that scale please. Oh dear! Our computer says that you are obese. We will pay your rent, but nothing else. It is for your own good”

But it is also very important the note that PHE suffers ABSOLUTELY NO CONSEQUENCES resulting from the absurdity of their demands. None whatsoever.

Has that not also been true for the persecution of smokers since at least 2007? It was the politician, Blair, who permitted that invasion of our property and lives. But let us not forget that his cabinet were equally guilty. And so where all the ‘experts’ of the time. Those people are mostly long gone into retirement, but their moral turpitude lives on.

It isn’t easy to see how that ‘moral turpitude’ can be reversed. For TobCON continues to exist only because of the filthy, disgusting, stinking, picture of smokers. The Nazis portrayed Jews in exactly the same way.

But it worked perfectly, in Nazi Germany, did it not?

And the same pattern continues, except that ‘Obeseblobs’ are the new disgusting, filthy, stinking.

But why inflict persecution on the skinny people, and the skeletal people, by forcing the price of food up?

There is actually a very simple solution. PUT A STOP TO WHOLE POPULATION trickery. It is the ‘whole population approach’ which has been causing the trouble and waste for decades.

The same could be said of ‘Global Warming’. Even it it were true, where are the studies which show the benefits of GW? It cannot be wholly negative. Only because the the IPCC was a UN offshoot could it get away with portraying NO BENEFITS AT ALL from GW.

What is becoming more and more obvious is that such unaccountable orgs as PHE must be wound up. Who on earth created it? Oh, it was Cameron.

PHE, an easy way to remove responsibility. And the removal of responsibility from Cameron et al cost billions of pounds.

I don’t know if any political party, including UKIP, has ever realised in the last few years, that it is not just a matter of ‘independence’ and ‘self-government’. It is just as much about ‘freedom’, especially freedom from ‘one-size-fits-all experts’.

I started this post with a reasonably clear idea of what I wanted to say, but I have myself become more and more confused.

When we say that something stinks in politics today, we are right. What really, really stinks is that our MPs cannot be bothered to try to understand the facts. Political opinions are far more important.




Marking Your Own Homework


Perhaps that is the wrong statement, although it does bring the imagination a picture of a student gleefully ticking all his answers and giving himself 100% and ‘V Good’ comment. Perhaps the statement would be better put if one branch of a company built a house and a different branch of the same company approved everything.

The crazy part of the situation is that hardly anyone seems to notice or care. Those who do care, are crying into the wind. Their manifestly true objections fly away, even they are publicised. No one ‘in authority’ wants to know. They want everything sewn up nice an neatly.

It is a well known fact that PP in OZ has had no effect on anything, other than, possibly, the improvement in conditions for the black market. EVERYBODY KNOWS. But it is the ‘experts’ who promoted PP who judge the success.

That is crazy.

The reason that it is crazy is not necessarily because anyone is dishonest (!). It is because ‘TobCON experts’ are not necessarily statistical geniuses (witness Glantz). They are sort of OK, but not sufficiently versed in statistics not to make serious errors.

So when the OZ Gov instituted an enquiry into the effects of PP, it should have engaged statisticians with no bias. But who in the OZ Gov knows where to find such people? They have to ask the people that they know, such as Chapman. How can they do otherwise, when they do not know who to ask? The situation gets even worse when the individual ministers in the Gov are themselves biased.

I think that OZ must have some really, really, really serious problems. If Global Warming is true, then it is quite possible that OZ will become uninhabitable in a few decades time. So if you accept SHS danger, you must be terrified of Global Warming. Just a whiff of GW will devastate your nation’s crops and kill all your sheep, just as a whiff of SHS will cause people with heart problems to collapse all over the streets of New York.

And we have Silly Sally declaring that THE MAXIMUM that a grown man, regardless of his build, can drink is no more that SEVEN PINTS of beer per week without the danger of dropping dead.

Jesus Christ! How do these people retain their very remunerative jobs? After all, Silly Sally just has a ‘job’. Being ‘chief medical officer’ is just a job, much like a janitor (ask Legiron). The CMO’s job is to clean up the shit left lying around by the medical profession.

If smokers are to get together, they must have an alternative reality which better than TobCON’s. Much as we might hate the idea, it might be necessary to have ‘licensed’ smoking bars.

We smokers as individuals cannot do that, but it seems that Austrian Bars have been successful – so far.

And is that not what was wrong with the Smoking Ban from the beginning? Do not tell me that the exemption of ‘wet led’ pubs was ever intended to survive. It was a trick to put such pubs down.

So the only real possibility is that bars and pubs regain their ‘proprietorial’ authority. That would mean that the idea of ‘public places’ would have to be reversed.

For example, why should not a person go into the town hall, ‘a public place’, and set up a little tent to rest in. Why should ‘Bouncers’ be able to evict him?

In fact, why are there so many homeless people sleeping in shop doorways when they could sleep in all sorts of ‘public places’?
Who has the right to stop a person sleeping in the ‘public place’ called the library?

The odd thing is that it seems to take years and years to expose the obvious fallacies, and even decades to reverse the damage.