In the comments to my post about a Prime Minister’s difficulties in being responsible for EVEYTHING, ‘Some French Bloke’ gave me a link about the comparison of cancer deaths between rural dwellers and urban dwellers.
I read the link. The report compared cancer deaths among five different groups of people, depending upon how ‘remote’ their habitats were, ranging from ‘MC’ (Major City) to ‘VR’ (Very remote). Silly Simon Chapman used that report to claim that lung cancer deaths were greater among rural dwellers than city dwellers.
But, right at the beginning of the report there come this statement:
“Similarly the average annual numbers of excess cancer cases by region have been calculated by comparing the actual number with the number expected if each region had the same age-standardised rates for Major City areas.”
Now, the method implied by that statement suggest to me that some fiddling of the figures has taken place. I say that because their are intelligent epidemiologists here and there, and if they see a larger incidence of lung cancer in cities as compared with in the country, then they will have compared deaths in similar age groups and deaths overall as a percentage of the total population, along with deaths as a proportion of all deaths in those geographical areas. It is not the least bit difficult. EG:
Deaths from LC City: 100 per 100,000 population: 100 per 1000 deaths: Ages – 10 deaths between 0 and 50, 30 between 51 and 70, 60 over 70.
Deaths from LC Country: 50 per 100,000 population: 50 per 1000 deaths: Ages – 1 death between 0 and 50, 9 between 51 and 70, 40 over 70.
Those figures are my inventions, but you could clearly say that LC deaths are more frequent in urban situations than country situations. In fact, many studies have show something similar to be correct.
“But wait!”, you will cry, and correctly. “What about the prevalence of smoking?” And that is where the report cited gets weird. It claims that the prevalence of smoking may be greater in remote areas than in urban areas. But I then cry, “But wait! The tables in the report do not reflect ‘deaths per thousand’. They only talk about ‘expected’ numbers”.
Who decides what is ‘the expected’ number? The report does not say how that ‘expectation’ was arrived at. Was air pollution excluded as a factor? How do we know if nothing is said about how ‘the expected occurrence’ of LC was calculated?
Which brings me to my point.
I watched a TV programme tonight about a mistress of King Edward VII before he became King. Edward was a randy sod, and temptation in the salons of Paris abounded. He ‘clicked’ with a pretty, young prostitute for a few years, but only in the nicest possible way – she had a nicely appointed apartment in the best area of Paris, paid for by her many rich clients. Some time after Edward ceased the association, she married a very wealth Egyptian Prince. She fell out with him and shot him dead. She was tried for murder.
A weird legal thing at the time was that, if one side brings up ‘the character’ of of the deceased or that of the accused, then the other side can also do so. BUT the judge can decide TO WHAT EXTENT character assassination can go. In this case, the Judge decided that nothing of the behaviour of before her marriage to the Prince was admissible. Thus, her association with Edward could be hidden.
The evidence in the case was clear – she killed the Prince. But she got off because she claimed that he treated her awfully.
I add, from my own viewpoint, to what extent was the jury ‘got at’ if the Judge could be ‘got at’?
Once it came to light that tobacco smoking could be dangerous, then various attempts were made to limit the danger. I remember very well TV adverts telling us to leave a long tip. That was before filter tips were common. The reasoning, obviously, was that the further that you smoke an untipped cig down, the more that tar accumulates in the unburnt part of the cig. And then filter tips were aggressively marketed, and so we almost all swapped to filter tipped cigs. That was during the 1960s. And here is the interesting thing. The Canadian Government conspired with Tobacco Companies to create a variety of tobacco plant which produced much, much less tar. That was achieved, and tobacco companies called cigs produced from such plants ‘light’.
You cannot but laugh at the utter stupidity of tobacco companies. You can almost see the scene. “What shall we call these safer cigs”. “How about ‘Reduced tar?” “Erm…. if we do that, we open ourselves to accusations of selling ‘high tar'”. “OK. Let’s call then ‘Lights'” “Great idea! Who can complain about the word ‘Lights’?”
And it was precisely that thinking which buggered up TobComs. TobCon accused Tobcoms of misleading the public by calling the reduced tar cigs ‘lights’. There was a court case in Canada where a person said that he was misled by the word ‘lights’, and Tobcoms tried to say that the Canadian Gov was involved in the creation of lower tar plants. But the Court in Canada said that the Gov was protected and could not be brought into the case. Does that not remind you a bit about Edward?
It will be extremely interesting to see what the Supreme Judges of the UK decide regarding Brexit. The thing is that, in the UK, generally speaking, relations with foreign States has always been the prerogative of The Crown. What that means is that the current Government can enter into treaties with other States without Parliament being involved. The reasoning was that Parliament was about the laws of England (Ireland, Scotland and Wales). It were not about the laws of other States. Thus, a treaty could be made with another State which does not involve the laws of England. If the laws of England were affected, then Parliament would be involved, but not otherwise. Thus, as a stupid example, the import of bananas, as far as duty is concerned, could be balanced by the export of cars. In that example, the laws of England are not involved. Only trade is involved.
We are slowly arriving at a crucial point. I don’t think that many people are seeing it yet. The point is whether or not to go along with almost motionless discussions in the EU or break free. It is a simple matter of fact that it is FAR easier to ban something than to free it. Is that not almost always why wars occur?
Free movement among the people of Europe has always been the case. What the EU Zealots have done is make it harder for that free movement to be unrestricted. I know that that idea seems to be counter intuitive, but what it comes down to is the rights of citizens. Thus, if I go to Spain and like life there, and I can afford to rent or buy a property there, then I can live there – provided that I can afford to take care of myself. Or I could take out insurance. But what if I cannot afford to take care of myself?
There is the rub, and it is that which causing the ‘catch 22’. I went cycling around the north of France and into Belgium in 1957 youth hosteling. I had little money, and no insurance. What would have happened if I had come a cropper? I do not know. But what I suspect would have happened is that HUMAN KINDNESS would have come into play. That certainly happened during one stage of my journey to Brussels when I was thoroughly soaked by rain and sitting miserably by the roadside. An American serviceman with a big car stopped and offered help. We put my bike in the boot and he gave me a lift to my next destination. Not only that but his wife had some food and gave me some.
What do you understand from the above?
It is that Tobacco Control is inhuman and always has been. Bans are inhuman. According to the TobCom Zealots, there is no reason that ANY behaviour, such as eating black peas at a fair, should be permitted.
Thus we come to the conclusion that only PERMITTED behaviours are legal.
Is that where we are going? I think so.
The crazy thing is that the Zealots, who demand blanket smoking bans all over Europe, are bringing on the very revolution which they they did not expect!
For some incredible reason, the Check Republic has decided to ban smoking in bars etc. It is beyond my imagining that the Elected Representatives of the People of the Check Republic could have opted for such a regulation. It must therefore have imposed from outside. Thus are Governments of regions dictated to. But why do they not rebel? They DO rebel, but the MSM is not interested.
I went to my local tonight. On Friday nights, there is a keroki evening where people can sing and amuse us all. Over the last several months, or indeed the last couple of years, Friday night in that place has become more and more popular, little be little. Tonight, there was a good crowd in the pub. That is rather unusual these days.
What I have observed over the last several years is that is that the smokers have abandoned the pubs. But it is not so simple. It is the older smokers who have abandoned the pubs. And who can blame them? They can no longer enjoy a fag and a pint.
So the remnants are non-smokers, and if there are enough of them, then the pub will survive.But I noticed tonight that there is a sub-culture of young people who smoke. The old farts in the pub do not smoke. They are nice people and enjoy themselves, but they are not smokers.
It is the younger people who are popping outside for a fag.
And so I propose the idea that it is the younger people who are enjoying tobacco.
That is not a far-fetched idea. Contrary to what TC publicise, the reality is that young people are are replacing old smokers. Differentiate in your mind between the desire of TC to stop young people starting to smoke and what is really happening. The reality is that the idea that young people start smoking in their mid-teens is old hat. That idea comes from ancient history when cigs were very cheap and almost everyone smoked, and young people started to earn at the age of sixteen or so. Any projection based upon such ancient historical facts is no longer applicable.
My anecdotal experience in Mallorca has been that internal activity in the bars and clubs has declined. Almost everything has become externalised. Few people actually spend time inside bars and clubs. This year, on my several holidays in Mallorca, I did something that I would never even of thought of in previous years. When I ‘ventured forth’ to enjoy watching the yoof being silly, I took my electronic chess set with me, and played chess outdoors. I was surprised how often yoofs challenged me to a game. Remember that we are talking about 2 am, or thereabouts.
What my observations show is that, on the one hand, TC claims to have decimated smoking but, on the other hand, claims not to have made much difference so as to continue the gravy train.
The sadness is that Politicians believe the conjuring tricks, and that is the reason for smoking bans. Tobacco Control could be depicted as a magician on a stage. Rather than producing rabbits out of top hats, it produces vile medical porn on cig packets.
But the deception goes deeper. Not only deception and disinformation are involved, but also is DELUSION. That is the ‘magic’ part. It reveals itself especially in forms like the Surgeon General of the USA’s damnation of ecigs. Truth no longer matters; only forms of truth matter.
PM Theresa May and Pres (elect) Donald Trump can only cope with a very, very small number of ‘issues’ at a time. At the moment, May is fully involved with Brexit. Little else can occupy her mind. Trump is totally engrossed in creating his Administration. Both MUST offload other matters to other people.
Isn’t it weird that the US Surgeon General has just emitted a report which categorically states about e-cigs:
“These products [e-cigarettes] are now the most commonly used form of tobacco among youth in the United States, surpassing conventional tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, and hookahs.”
“….form of tobacco….” “….form of….”
It is not difficult to imagine the proceeding in a Congressional Enquiry in the USA. It would take a very clever Congressperson to get to the nitty-gritty. The SG would say that ecigs are ‘a form of tobacco’ because they facilitate the inhalation of nicotine. Are nicotine patches, gums and inhalers also ‘a form of tobacco’? “Yes”, he would say, “but they are medicinal and proven to be ‘safe'”. And so the deception would be buried under an avalanche of tiny variations of the meaning of the word ‘form‘. It would take a clever and brave Congressperson to say, “A form of tobacco means actually tobacco and not an extract of some substance from tobacco. That substance is not ‘a form of’ tobacco unless it is tobacco”.
I have in mind this simple thought experiment. Suppose that you took an orange and extracted the pips, discarding the flesh and skin of the orange. Suppose that you then extracted from the pips some beneficial substance which required lots and lots of pips to produce a decent quantity of that substance. Would you be justified in claiming that the substance that you created is a form of orange? And would that statement still be true if the substance could also be extracted from the pips of other fruits? I would say not, since the pips are NOT ordinarily the parts of oranges that we normally consume.
But the REAL problem is the trickery. It is the use of the phrase ‘form of’. Peashooters are a ‘form of’ ballistic missile, therefore peashooters are very,very dangerous.
For that is the meaning of the SG’s report.
Who will tear it down? Who will investigate the proponents, including Glantz from the USA and Simple Simon from Australia? Those two, among many, are just the ‘the managers’. They are not ‘The Elite’. They are safe and protected, and can say anything that the want.
And is that not the HUGE problem – that they can say anything that they want and get away with it, without the possibility of restitution? Is it not true that the protection is the cause of the junk science?
Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’ is full of holes. It’s equivalent might be ‘all accidents on motorways are caused by speed’. In a sense, that is true since it takes some time to stop a car or lorry which is travelling at a speed of 70 mph. At that speed, you require a ‘safe distance’ between vehicles. But it is inevitable that someone will ‘fill up the space’ which you must leave to have a safe distance. You then have to slow down to create an new safe distance, which creates a new space to be invaded. So the Doctors Study DID NOT enquire as to the reasons that only a FEW smoking doctors actually died from LC. It merely described the difference between non-smoking doctors and smoking doctors, related to the very few doctors who died from LC.
That is, the Doctors Study should have been only a pointer. But, instead, it is The Bible. Many, in fact probably most, YOUNG doctors were involved in WW1 and WW2 around the time of the Doctors Study. How does anyone know what the effect of such experiences might have been? Doll did not allow for such differences (aka, confounders).
At base, despite the numbers involved and the time span, the Doctors Study was not gospel. It was akin to a video and not just a picture.
Is it any wonder that ASH ET AL an the WHO have not pointed out how much lower the incidence of LC is since smoking prevalence started to decline? The fact is that almost as many LC deaths occur as before. It would be reasonable to conclude that male LC deaths have decreased because few males are exposed to carcinogens, and that female deaths have increase because more of them are exposed to carcinogens. Tobacco smoke is just one little fraction of the exposure. After all, a smoker only inhales the smoke, if he inhales at all, a tiny number of times per day. We have to inhale fumes from traffic with every breath that we take, unless there is no traffic where we live and work.
Suppose that it was proven reasonably that smoking is harmless in itself? That a person would have to live for 150 years before harm could be detected? Would that stop the UN from persecuting smokers? It would not, since the UN’s objective is to free up land which is currently used to grow tobacco plants. A former WHO head actually said so – ‘let the tobacco plant farmers grow potatoes’ (not his actual words).
What needs to happen is that the purposes of the UN, WHO, IPCC have to be defined. They have become rogue elephants, blundering about. But Trump and May are just individuals who may or may not understand the malign influences which produced the FCTC.
In my little way, I SEE it. Forget tobacco since it is of no importance. The real issue is Poverty. Forget climate change until everyone has a reasonable standard of living. I watched a video tonight about the slaughter of people involved in drugs in the Philippines:
Tobacco Control applauded the crack down on smoking, as it did with North Korea. There is a serious epidemic in tobacco control. Someone outside of it must expunge the disease.
Anyone who has been watching the ‘goings on’ about alcohol control cannot but be impressed by the sheer effrontery of the the anti-alcohol Zealots. Even the tiniest deviation from ‘perfect heath’ is highlighted as though it was disaster. ‘Studies have shown ….’
It seems to me that all the recent ‘studies’ have only one objective, which is to get ‘unit pricing’ enacted by law. They are not intended to reduce alcohol harm or reduce alcohol consumption, or solve the problems of alcoholics. They have been produced, at short notice and with all sorts of deviations from the truth, with one objective in mind – minimum pricing.For these people, the clear uselessness of minimum pricing is irrelevant- they have decided, en masse, to push up the price of alcohol. Any ‘law’ which increases the price will do.
But it always has to be ‘a law’.
Note how it was not sufficient for Tobacco Control to agitate for tobacco products which contained less tar, and were thus less harmful, or to agitate for the promotion of snus. In fact, we all know that snus banned throughout the EU, apart from Sweden. No – only bans were agitated for. Oh, and higher taxation. In fact, the two were intertwined – bans and higher taxation. How could politicians, who want to do good, refuse to comply? Reduction in disgusting, filthy, stinking smoking plus more tax income. Any politician who objected was a ‘baby killer’.
So we are inundated with ‘studies’ which promote minimum pricing. Needless to say, the minimum price per unit will be low-ish to start with, but will increase.
Undermining the Zealot’s intentions is very difficult. THEY DEMAND MINIMUM PRICING. It is a replay of the demand for no-smoking on short-haul flights.
But what is the consequence? It is that everyone, except alcoholics, will be ripped off. Alcoholics MUST have alcohol. They cannot help themselves. Therefore they will pay the price, no matter how high, or they will steal what they want.
Tobacco Control can only be undermined by refusal to engage on their terms. “Our Children” are not their children. Do you see my point? TC is fond of saying ‘Our children’. The response must be “Our children are not your children”. TC also has a penchant for the word “WE” – “we must do this or that”. It is all totally deliberate, even to the extent of the simple word ‘WE’. Imagine Arnott saying that THEY, the politicians, must enact laws. No, Arnott and co demand that “WE” must enact laws.
As we have said before, again and again, the Zealots must be defunded. All of them. And there is no reason whatsoever that Gov should not do so. Let them survive on voluntary contributions. Why does Parliament make a rod for its own back? It can only be laziness in the sense of ‘easiest way’.
Undermining TC means questioning its basic concepts, and doing so over and over again. It means not being bothered about smoking bans in hospital grounds, etc. They are not worth bothering about. It is the SMOKING BAN which matters and little else.
FOREST is not ‘the voice of smokers’ and never has been. But I do not condemn it. The serious problem with Forest is that complies with the idea of “WE”.
Undermining TC demands that TC cannot claim “We”, and that is of the greatest importance. “We”, The PEOPLE, refuse to accept that ‘they’ are ‘WE’.
All eleven judges (or is that twelve?) are involved – a rare event, which shows the importance of the proceedings. As I understand it, the judges listen to the evidence and then each one of them, separately, gives his opinion and comes down on one side or the other. How much ‘collusion’ occurs is anyone’s guess, although, in principle, there should be no collusion at all.
Perhaps it is important that these constitutional matters should be thrashed out. It would not surprise me if the reference to to the Courts was not always intended, after the Brexit vote. Maybe that is one of the reasons that Cameron got out of the way. He promised to abide by the result. But did he have any right to make that promise? And yet that promise was central to the referendum importance. How many people would have bothered to turn out had Cameron said, “It’s a good idea to have a referendum, but I do not give a toss what the result is. We will stay in the EU”. So he had no option but to get out of the way so that the Elite could do as they wish.
So, to what extent do readers think that the Supreme Court is biased either way?
I think that the judges are honest. I think that they will honestly evaluate ‘The Law’ of the UK. I think that a big stumbling block is that Governments over the past twenty years or so have rode roughshod over our constitution. The Americans did not. They did not ratify the FCTC. Why not? Because, in the USA, the Constitution demands that ONLY the people of the USA can EVEN DISCUSS what laws should be made in the USA. The idea that an organisation such as the UN could discuss and formulate USA laws is outrageous.
Why does the UK Constitution not do likewise? Who gave the UN charlatans power to discuss what laws should hold in Great Britain? That humiliation was borne out adequately when Milton MP said in the HoC that we signed the FCTC treaty and must therefore do what it says. Further, Soubry MP signed the UK up to the latest Tobacco Products Directive without knowing what was in it. I mean, why did those ladies get into their positions of Health Minister and have to be quietly removed after their ignorance was revealed, and why were such ignorant people appointed in the first place?
The same applies NOW!!! There must be hundreds of lawyers who claim to be ‘experts’ on EU law, of which Cherie Blair is one – ‘Uman rites’. Which of them gets to be ‘Supreme Advisor’ to the Health Minister? For it always seems to be one person, backed up by a committee of his choosing, who gets the advisory role. SHS was one such matter, as was smoking in pregnancy.
I do not blame any of the individuals involved – not really. You cannot really blame a committee composed of Eugenicists for promoting eugenics if they believe that race signifies intelligence. That is, that a person with black skin who originated from a part of Africa which was simplistic and tribal, is not likely to have the intellectual capacity to learn atomic physics. I hate that idea, but I understand it. The only justification is that a particular person with black skin might struggle to separate ‘thought’ from ‘action’.
Be that as it may. But there is also the problem of a ‘tribe’, Islamists, who simply cannot see that there is any social structure which can be unfettered. They are blinded by the need to protect their females. Thus, a few of them, lusty young men, can see unprotected females as fair game. We would only know what is going on in the minds of those young men if we asked them.
How many times have we seen this situation before, even in this country? “Why did you rape that girl?” “I did not rape her. She was asking for it” “What do you mean by ‘asking for it?” “She was obviously randy because of her make-up, short skirt, ‘come-and-get-me attitude’, and eye-contact. She obviously wanted to have sex with me. She did not really, really resist”.
Crazy though it might seems, I have some sympathy with that crude statement. My personal knowledge is limited because, in my youth, I was not especially ‘handsome’, and probably not a man that a girl would want to ‘grope’. We forget sometimes that not only men like to ‘grope’, and it is not unlikely that girls would like to ‘grope’ the most handsome men.
What has that got to do with the Supreme Court? It is that what appears on the surface is not always reality, and vice versa. It would be a terrible shame, and extremely damaging if the Supreme Court arrived at the ‘wrong’ decision! Ha! Ha!
Damn it! There is only one single issue: “Did the People vote to ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’?” If they voted to ‘Leave’, then that is the imperative. ‘Advisory’ does not come into it. The People did not vote to ‘advise’ Parliament. They ‘instructed’ Parliament. THERE IS NO DOUBT.
What follows is that any MP who disagrees with the plebiscite must either resign or abstain. May should bring to the HoC a simple vote right away. “Does this House accept the result of the Referendum?” Problem solved.
So why has such a motion not already been brought immediately after the referendum? Why was such a resolution not brought to Parliament within days of the referendum? My view is that not one single politician had thought about the consequences of a ‘Leave’ vote, and so Cameron resigned because of the disintegration of his Cabinet. He actually had no option because he ceased to have authority, despite his promised to implement the decision of The People.
But what I find most distressing is the cowardice. Cameron ran away from his promises. Despite his advocacy of the EU, he should have done what he promised – overseen the break between Great Britain and the EU. Failure cannot be more abject.
What will the Supreme Court decide?
It is fun to speculate. It could decide that there is no ‘legal’ issue; that we are in new territory, and that there is no precedent. It is hard to believe that the Judges could say that The People have NOT voted to exit the EU, or that Parliament could disregard that vote. It cannot be done. It is concrete. What should happen is that all the MPs who were ‘remainers’ in constituencies which voted ‘Leave’ should resign.
But why should we expect MPs to have principles? We should not since they are as ignorant as the rest of us.
But perhaps we can expect judges to interpret our Constitution correctly. Parliament is not Supreme since charlatans could take over Parliament for a little while. The People are SUPREME. Parliament is only supreme if it has the backing of The People. If Parliament ignores the will of The People, then civil war ensues. Such a war need not be armed conflict, but it would be the present MPs against The People.
The People have decided to exit the EU. The decision took effect as soon as the votes were counted. Article 50 is irrelevant other than as a possible process. But Article 50 has no FORCE. In fact, it is irrelevant and meaningless.
I cannot understand why there is a problem. The UK has exited and so our diplomatic endeavour should be with individual nations which comprise the EU. If such a nation rejects our overtures, then “God Bless them”.
The United States of Europe could have happened, and might still happen, but not on the basis of the secret plans of a few dreamers. I am surprised that a few dreamers could have imposed the Euro as though Europe was the same as America 150 years ago. In the USA, the common currency was introduced via civil war.
What we are seeing in the EU at present is the opposite. The Euro has been introduced BEFORE the civil war.
What I find as sad is that the Euro could have been introduced as a ‘common currency’ in the EU with an exchange rate.Thus, any person travelling from, say, France to Germany and then to Roumania, and then to Greece, and so on, could use Euros to purchase stuff at a given local exchange rate. That idea is not rare. There are places in Magalluf, Mallorca, which accept pound notes as much as Euros. Why? Because the ‘medium of exchange’ is insignificant.
Few of us have any idea at all about what money IS. At its basic level, it is ‘tokens’. which move around and pass from one person to another. But what happens when there are not enough tokens, or when one person hoards tokens? Then more tokens have to be created. Obviously, that is a simplification, but it is basically correct.
So the Supreme Court of the UK will decide whether or not the expressed will of the People in the referendum was just a bit of fun.
Good luck with that idea Judge Rinder.
I ask the question because I am intrigued. Since gaining power in Scotland, what have Nicola Sturgeon and her accomplices actually done to improve the lives of the Scottish people? They may have done wonderful things, but I do not remember reading about any such things. What I keep reading is that they have oppressed the people more and more. Thus, for example, they have passed laws which criminalise a person who is perfectly aware and able to drive, merely because he has enjoyed one pint of lager. But it gets worse. The person who drinks one pint of lager cannot know whether he is ‘drunk’ or not. OK… ‘One pint of lager’ might be too low to register. I mean, the tolerances of breathalysers are too uncertain to be sure that a ‘blood/alcohol’ level is over the limit as regards one pint of lager. But the person who is being breathalysed has no way to counter accusations. Blood tests are equally uncertain.
Another ‘law’ has been the ‘named person’ conjecture which designed to ensure that no Scottish child will suffer in any way. How can you have a ‘law’ which is based upon a ‘conjecture’? The ‘conjecture’ is a ‘hope’. We ‘hope’ that named person plan will work. There is not alternative understanding. It is a ‘hope’. Also, of course, smokers have been persecuted further.
But what have Sturgeon and her accomplices done to improve the lives of ALL the Scottish people? It seems to me that what they have done convert the misery which they have heaped upon smokers and drinkers into a benefit for non-smokers and non-drinkers. How does that work?
I just cannot see it.
But what is equally important, if not more so, is that, as far as I can see, the SNP has not enacted anything which improves the lives of the Scottish people. Everything is negative. Ban this, ban that, ban the other. EVERYTHING has been negative.
But I may be totally wrong and am prepared to apologise.The SNP Government in Scotland may have done wonderful things. I do not know. I just see weird and contradictory things. One the one hand, the SNP wants total independence from the UK, but is happy to subject itself to EU regulation. Further, they have representation in the UK Parliament (presumably because they want to influence laws regarding Scotland), but would not abstain as regards the EU since more Scots voted to stay in the EU than did not.
So what is England forced to presume? It is that SOME OF the Scots want their cake and happeny. They want TOTAL INDEPENDENCE, but do not want to pay the price.
So I come back to my former question. What has the SNP Government in Scotland done to improve to lot of Scots?
You might reasonably ask why the SNP wants to leave the UK but become a small ‘object’ in the EU. How can the ‘publicity’ created persona of Sturgeon convert into a force in the EU? It cannot. I guess that there are lots of people who convert faces on the TV into powerful persons.
I suspect that, if Scotland left the UK and nailed its colours to the EU, it would become a backwater of ‘equal impoverishment’.
I hate the whole situation. I hate the ‘Barnett Formula’. Not because it helped the Scots at the expense of the English, but because it produced the sclerotic situation that we have. Catch 22.
But I am not in despair. It can be worked out, but it would require honesty. There is no doubt that England helps out Scotland via the Barnett Formula. But you might reasonably ask why university students in Scotland pay nothing for their tuition while English student have to pay thousands of pounds. In the USA, it is even worse. The costs of being a university student are horrendous. I read somewhere that the costs can be upward of $70,000. Oh, and here is an interesting thing that I read – you cannot declare yourself bankrupt. If you are a university student, and borrow $70,000 dollars to pay for your course, you are forever indebted.
I understand the basic idea – that it would be too easy for a youth to declare himself bankrupt and walk away from his debts. I understand that, and do not pretend to know the answer.
It depends upon the creation of a new class. The new class is ‘clever buggers’. It was ‘clever buggers’ who created the EU. To those ‘clever buggers’, everyone is either a worker bee or a renegade bee.
Is it any wonder that The People of England have rebelled?
PHE (Public Health England) has produced a report which is, apparently, garbage. You can read about the garbage here:
Chris Snowdon picks out only a few of the most obvious faults in the report, such as the cost of insurance to cover for burglary, and security systems, being included in alcohol costs. I find it difficult to see how burglars would wish to be drunk before doing a job’, although I could understand that they might sink a few bevies after a successful ‘heist’.
What really surprises me is the involvement of PHE in this virtual fraud. I have always been suspicious of PHE, but the recent exoneration of ecigs gave me hope that, even if a Dyson vacuum cleaner had not been applied, then perhaps a nit comb had been passed through the hairier parts, and that a few parasitic nits had been squashed. But it appears that not so. Or perhaps a few nits were squashed, but the nest of hornets was overlooked.
What I find really, really difficult to understand is how really, really THICK politicians are. What is the easiest way to make yourself miserable and waste your own time? I suspect that it would be to pay for a ‘personal trainer’. Can you think of anything worse? Some guy (male or female) turns up at your house at a given time every day and FORCES you to do 50 press-ups and run up and down stairs 100 times. The guy also riffles through your drawers and destroys your fags and booze. You then thank him and give him money! Even if it was not your own money, you might baulk at all the press-ups and running up and down stairs. So why do politicians create rods for their own backs?
Erm…. Perhaps I have misjudged the situation. Yes I have, for it isn’t the politicians who run up and down stairs or do the press-ups – it is The People.
I was saying yesterday how non-smokers detest smokers. Smoking Scot rightly pulled me up about it. The vast majority of non-smokers are not the slightest bit bothered. But the point that I was trying to make was that non-smokers and non-drinkers should be very grateful to smokers and drinkers for shoving money into their pockets. That is, why are non-smokers and non-drinkers evading their fair share of the cost of roads, Parliament, fake charities, etc?
I personally feel that I am being ripped off something awful. You see, I have a car and I like my car. I used to have a 2 litre capri, which I had for 20 years. I loved that car, even though it was comparatively juicy. It died. Its heart (the engine) was fine, but its skin (the bodywork) was riddled with cancer. So, being of a thrifty nature, I bought a different car second-hand. I knew the seller personally and his assurances that the car was fine was enough for me. It is a Rover 216. Google it if you wish. But I have hardly used it for months and months. Thinking back, the most use I made of it was going to the golf club. Once I stopped playing, there were few journeys that were needed. But I want to keep it and use it when I wish.
So why am I FORCED to pay an annual fee to the Government? Why am I FORCED to pay an annual fee to the Insurance company? Why cannot I ‘pay as I go’? In this ‘immediate’ age of the internet, I should be able to buy insurance as I go along. And why am I paying ‘road tax’, as though the roads were a golf course, which needs maintaining whether I use it or not, when my road tax is not ‘ring fenced’ for road maintenance?
What is incomprehensible is that The Government is acting in the WORST interests of The People. What it come down to is: “Why is The People’s Parliament not looking after The Interests of The People?” (Sorry for all the capital letters) There is an answer, or possibly several answers. It may well be that Government is a thief. Do not disregard that idea. Government is all powerful, a monopoly. Despite ‘good intentions’, it is de facto corrupt. It cannot be helped. Homosexuals have to be protected, but smokers do not.
It is the same with drinkers. Note the confluence of anti-alcohol and anti-sugary drinks. Is that deliberate? Of course it is!!! It is the reappearance of Eugenics in another form. Anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol and anti-sugar and all the rest, are The New Eugenics. The only difference is that the Old Eugenics was based upon Race and Religion, while the New Eugenics is based upon Health. But it is the same thing.
BUT, and it is a big BUT, one might reasonably ask what Government can do about the proliferation of obese people. Erm…. Just a minute. What does ‘obese’ mean? I once saw, in Mallorca would you believe it, an extremely fat man walking away from the multi-sport complex there. It is reasonable to conclude that he had been to the complex to exercise. But he was not in a wheelchair. He was walking along in a perfectly ordinary way.
Despite what people might think, fat is not heavy. Muscle and bone are heavy. Fat is not heavy. Fat is quite light. So when you see a very fat person walking about perfectly normally, it is because fatty blubber is mostly air. It is not water, it is air.
And so we come to the root of the problem. It is that the Public Health Industry wishes to perpetuate itself, and I include PHE in that.
Is there a solution? I do not see one unless the Government grasps the nettle and drives down the cost of medication. Big Pharma must be taken on and defeated. There is no justification for tablets to cost £100 each, for example. Big Pharma is a ‘partner’ of the WHO. Erm…. No ….. It OWNS the WHO.
The USA is very powerful. If Trump is to ‘drain the swamp’, then he must GO FOR IT! Go for it big time. He must consider making America great again by expelling parasites on the USA ‘wellbeing’. For ‘health’ is only a tiny part of wellbeing. ‘Health’ is only important to the ‘Unhealthy’. The vast majority of people are ‘healthy’ at any given moment, regardless of how plump they are.
But how likely is it that Theresa May will grasp the nettle and declare that smokers, drinkers and fatties can please themselves? That thought is horrific. It should happen, and eventually it WILL happen. But what must first happen is that the SOURCE of Eugenicist movement must be destroyed. ASH is only a symptom of ‘Control’. The Source of the New Eugenicists is University Professors. Not all of them, but those who are ‘fashionable’ at this time.
Theresa May, if she is going to go down in history as a great PM, like Thatcher, must not only support Brexit but also condemn and break the Eugenicists. Race is of no importance, but Islamism is important.
I am stretching myself to two posts tonight.
Is it any wonder that ASH ET AL are quiet?
There is a ‘Consultation’ from the EU about ‘standardising’ tobacco excise taxes.
That does not surprise me in the least, since it has been logically on the cards for years and years.
But why should should ‘excise’ taxes exist in the first place? The reality is that there is no justification at all. But it is possible that such taxes are levied on any goods which are not considered to be essential, such as food, water, shelter, clothing, energy. Everything else could be classed as luxury. And that is what is wrong with our taxation system. Everything has become ephemeral and uncertain. Some goods attract excise duties, such a alcohol, petrol, tobacco, without reasonable justification.
It is the lack of justification which renders ‘Ministers’ to be puppets.
THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR PETROL DUTY TAXES!!!! None whatsoever.
OK, OK, OK.
What is important is for politicians to recognise and accept that such things, even though they might be important in revenue terms, are no longer justifiable or in the interests of the Nation.
And here is the crux – non-smokers, non-drinkers, etc, must pay their fair share of the costs of The Nation. For too long, the least wealthy people, those whose sole pleasures DO NOT include the Opera and the Concert but include a beer and a fag, have paid for the benefits of those who detest them.
Detest them? Well, Yes, non-smokers detest smokers, even though smokers pay exorbitant – really, really exorbitant – taxes.
I’m getting tired. My brain is feeling sad.
So what in the UK do we need? In my opinion, taxes are neutral in the sense that they are not ‘ring-fenced’.
Since the Brexit vote, everything is in a state of flux. ‘Flux’ means ‘flowing’. It is up to May and her cabinet to determine the THE REALITY.
I somehow lost track a little last night. Maybe I was tired and had that one glass too many of the cheap but very pleasant South African Merlot Pinotage red wine. I pilloried Forest rather unfairly. Simon Clarke does a great job in the environment of political blathering, and puts the contrary view. It isn’t Simon’s fault that there is no ‘bite’ in the discussions he has on various radio stations and on TV occasionally. I’ve only once heard a tobacco controller get really, really upset to the extent of becoming hysterical. That was when the controller, in connection with whatever was being discussed said, “OUR children….”, and the guy who was involved in the discussion interjected forcefully, “WHOSE CHILDREN?”, and he kept repeating that question.
The use of the word ‘our’ or ‘we’ is absolutely deliberate beyond doubt. The correct word would be ‘they’, meaning The Government. ‘The Government’ must increase the price of cigs by 25% or whatever. But, inevitably, that is transposed into ‘We’ must increase the price of cigs. It is very easy to be drawn into discussing what ‘WE’ should do. That is a bad error. The first thing which must be decided is, who is ‘WE’?
I read only a few hours ago a comment on some newspaper article where a smoker said, rather jocularly ( hope!), that perhaps tobacco should be banned since he could not see any way that he could stop smoking otherwise. Oddly enough, I understand that sentiment, but only from that individual’s motivation. “I cannot stop smoking, so ban smoking for twenty million people to help me”. What would be that person’s response if you replied in that vein?
My point is that there comes a time when you have to stop being nice. Arnott et al are not at all ‘nice’. They are brutal. “Smokers must be exiled to the outdoors” is not nice – it is brutal, and that is what happened almost ten years ago. It was brutal and not even remotely kind or helpful. It was brutal. And that is why it had to be enforced with such vigour. The huge fines which publicans were threatened with were to force them to police the ban. And yet, at no point in the Act, did it say that publicans must enforce the ban. All the Act said that it was an offence to ‘allow’ smoking. Most people would understand that to mean deliberately flout the law, but that is not how courts (deliberately) interpreted it. It became apparent, after a little while, that ‘allow’ meant ‘not permit’ in the sense of using violence against any transgressor, or, at least, taking their drinks away and banning them. In other words, ‘allow’ seemed to mean actively ignore the law, whereas ‘not permit’ meant actively enforce the law. At a stroke, publicans, and anyone else in the hospitality trade, became Nazi enforcers.
Do I apologise for using the word ‘Nazi’? Absolutely not!! For THE PRINCIPLE is the same. Any citizen can be FORCED to act on behalf of whatever tyrannical group just happens to hold the levers of power.
But then you ask the question: “Are there circumstances where such tyranny is justifiable?”
That is the crux of the matter, and it is central to the whole anti-tobacco hysteria. The Zealots say that tobacco consumption is so harmful that tyrannical measures are justified.
That is why Vapers hold the ‘moral high ground’. Ecigs are so much less ‘dangerous’ than cigs that the need for tyrannical measures has ceased to exist. There is no need for tyranny since people are choosing, of their own accord and at their own expense, to move to ecigs. That is their decision and they have the right to make that decision.
How did the EU get the right to ban snus? That is another example of tyranny being disguised as necessity. So the question arises: “Why do States of the EU take any notice at all whatsoever?” Why do they not encourage snus, regardless of the EU ban, to fulfil the imperative of reducing smoking? Chewing tobacco has no bad statistical history, nor do cigars and pipes.
Is it any wonder that ASH ET AL is in a complete mess? They try to disguise the mess but it is plain to see. COP7 was a disaster in every way possible. It took place in a city shrouded in polluted air; it shrouded itself in secrecy; it was about ecigs which are not tobacco; it failed to condemn ecigs, which was the purpose of the very, very expensive meeting.
But here is the clincher. What did ASH have to say about ‘Heat not Burn’? From:
Today [BBC] went to PMI’s Geneva headquarters to hear about the science behind it and also interviewed ASH’s Deborah Arnott who did her usual moaning about industry but said that if IQOS helps smokers quit that was ‘all well and good’. She made the facile point that if PMI wanted to reduce harm they would stop selling cigarettes.
Arnott’s statement alone betrays confusion; she does not know what to say, and so falls back on tobacco industry evil.
If it is true that smoking tobacco, or any other substance (which the Health Act in the UK also demands to be taxed out of existence) ‘which can be smoked’ is dangerous, then it is bound to be the case that inhaling harmless aerosols will create uncertainty about what is ‘breathable’. ASH ET AL do not want such uncertainty – it does not ‘fit’ into the plan.
But wait! It has nothing to do with ASH. ASH is just a publicity stunt. That is what it is for.
Arnott’s problem is that she has not received her instructions and therefore must waffle. But it is worse. The whole edifice of ‘Tobacco Control’ is top down. The plan to ‘kill’ cigarettes was created decades ago. At that time, (FCTC time) ecigs and HoB did not exist.
Will Arnott receive instructions? It is hard to see who will instruct her.
I shall now move to a new post….
Readers might recall that I have often asked the question ‘what motivates people who want to stop other people from enjoying tobacco’? We see it all the time in comments on newspaper articles. “My Dad died from lung cancer and he was a smoker. Smoking should be banned”, or some variation on that. But we also see it many other situations: “My child died from shock because she was allergic to peanuts. Peanuts should be banned. It would be worthwhile if it saved the life of one child”.
You can understand the pain of the bereathed, but it is often the case that you can recognise the need to transfer feelings of guilt to someone else. If it helps such people to come to terms with their loss, then fine – provided that no one takes any notice. But then you get the collective grief – such as Hillsborough, which has now dragged on for decades. Millions and millions of pounds have been spent which have produced nothing worthwhile. Why? Because the whole thing was AN ACCIDENT. No one could have foreseen that barriers on the terraces would fail, and that there would be a wave of bodies cascading down the terrace. No one could foresee that the opening of the gates to let queuing fans into the ground would precipitate the collapse of the barriers due to the press of bodies. No one could foresee that the avalanche of bodies would cause the failure of barriers further down the terrace as well as the higher ones.
But, as regards smoking, there also seems to be a class of people who have no personal involvement, but who seem to just be…. what’s the word….. puritanical. They live a sort of sheltered life which does not permit the risk of fun. They are scared of fun. Fun is dangerous. I remember a ditty from way, way back: “Life is real and life is earnest, and the grave is not its goal. Dust to dust thou must returneth, was not spoken of the soul”. I doubt that many people people will know that little poem. Does anyone see the internal contradiction? It is so obvious that it ought to jump right off the page.
Why should life be earnest? And what has that got to do with ‘the soul’?
But I digress.
Some years ago, ASH was a power in the land. It could FORCE politicians to pass laws, as especially depicted by the smoking ban. It had the upper hand. It was an Aggressor which could not be denied.
Everything was pre-planned in great detail. Studies were performed and the public was bombarded with propaganda. Smoking was a nasty, disgusting, filthy, stinking habit – regardless of the fact that Churchill (cigars) and Einstein (pipe) smoked. Even PM Harold Wilson appeared on TV around 1970 smoking his pipe. Those facts were ‘airbrushed’ out of history on the grounds that they were ‘aberrations’ which would not have occurred had Churchill, Einstein and Wilson, and millions and millions of other highly placed people known ‘the truth’.
But what is ‘the truth’?
And this is where we reach the crux of the matter. For years and years, ASH ET AL have been disseminating ‘untruth’ shamelessly. The three people that I have mentioned all lived to a good old age.
During the period from about 1990 to 2007, as far as the UK is concerned, ASH ET AL was in the ascendancy. It reached its zenith in 2007 when it ‘forced’ Parliament to enact the smoking ban. Since then, it has been nothing.
There is a reason for that. The fact is that ASH ET AL was never the actual force. It was merely the ‘front’ for either/or/or both the RCP (Royal College of Physicians) or the BMA (British Medical Association). But neither of those groups have any idea what to do about ecigs and Heat not Burn. ASH is merely a Public Relations advertising agency. It might just as well be promoting Corned Beef as a Smoking Cessation Product.
What we are seeing is the terminal decline of ASH ET AL. Why? Because they are way behind the times. The ‘argument’ has moved far, far beyond ASH. ASH cannot cope with ‘harm reduction’. For a start, it does not have in depth knowledge of ecigs, snus, heat not burn. But ASH was never designed to know these things – it was always a ‘publicity stunt’. The same applies to ‘ASH Scotland’.
Things have moved on and ASH has become antediluvian. I do not understand why Simon Clark from Forest engages with them or local radio. All of them are irrelevant. They are just publicity stunts.
REFUSE TO ENGAGE ON THEIR TERMS! There is no ‘discussion’. Prohibition cannot be discussed. There is no conversation about Prohibition. I must emphasise that. There can be no conversation about Prohibition. Prohibition is Death, and you cannot recover from Death. Death by salami slices, or ‘a thousand cuts’ is still death.
So Simon Clark at Forest is doomed to failure and always has been. I would expect that Arnott would laugh at him. But he COULD change things. A lot would depend upon the numbers of smokers who have affiliated themselves to FOREST.My guess is that there are very few.
And yet, before PP, tobacco companies had every opportunity to organise smokers by including an admonition in every pack to support ‘freedom’.
But all that is theoretical and whimsy.
The reality is that ASH has nowhere it go.
Why is that?
I do not know the precise reasons, except that ASH has received no ‘orders’ from its Owners’. Its ‘Owners’ are the RCP (Royal College of Physicians). But the ‘British Medical Assn’ is vaguely opposed. Opposed to what?
The assumptions of ASH ET AL have been that smoking is ‘inelastic’. That is because smokers are disgusting, filthy, stinking addicts.
But it is gradually turning out that smokers are far more ‘elastic’ than the Zealots think.
I do not understand why Forest continues to exist. It has long lost its power.
I am coming gradually round to the idea that smokers should go ‘underground’, and the sooner the better. FOREST should cease to exist since it is useful to the autocrats of Tobacco Control.
It is not the least bit important, since ASH is just a machine which turns the English language into a ‘Publicity Stunt’. What is very, very sad is that MPs do not rip such ‘stunts’ to pieces and humiliate the originators.