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

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







The site administrator (moi) is away for a week or so.

The idea of ‘persecution’ being disguised as ‘help’ continues to intrigue me. It is a fact that the WHO actually advocates massive taxes on tobacco in order to ‘help’ smokers to decide to stop smoking. Note that slight variation on phrases: ” ….to ‘help’ smokers to decide to ….” Not “to help smoker to quit”, but to help smokers “to decide to quit”.

By  using such words and phrases, TC deludes itself into the belief that persecution is OK if it helps people ‘to decide’ and not actually to ‘quit’.

Well, it is not OK. TC is deluding itself. Massive taxes are persecution, pure and simple, and should be recognised as such. Politicians should accept that ‘sin taxes’ of all kinds are persecution, and they ought to justify that persecution, if they can. ‘Cost to the NHS’ would be an answer, but it would have to be recognised as persecution just the same.

But the argument goes further. Is it acceptable that the whole population should pay an additional tax to ‘help’ (persecute) a few members of that population? I hold that such an idea is totalitarian (meaning that ‘everyone suffers’, even if they are not involved in the ‘problem’).

There is so much silliness. Of what use to the plastic bag 5p charge to the cleansing of the oceans? It is a joke. Not one single person, in his right mind, would accept that a 5p charge on a plastic bag, would stop a huge freight ship from disposing of loads of rubbish from the UK destined for China, into the ocean. Easy, innit? Just get into deep water and chuck the stuff overboard.

Think about it. From the UK, or USA, China is halfway round the world. Why bother actually transporting the junk all the way there?

But there is a serious possibility in this idea of transporting stuff half way round the world.

Why not just transport it to the nearest tectonic plate subduction site and dump it there, suitably weighed down, so that the junk fell to the bottom of the ocean and was subducted into the mantle? If the ‘economics’ support transport halfway round the world, then they should support transport to the mid-Atlantic from the UK.

But I suppose that China PAYS to import junk.

“But I suppose that…” is not sufficient, is it? What is the true state of affairs? Does China pay for the import of junk, or does the UK pay China to accept the junk?

Why has PM May not appeared on TV to explain to the citizens of the UK why her Chequers Brexit plan satisfies the referendum result? All the waffling is no substitute for honest explanation.

So I go away for a break. I hope to relax and not have to do anything unless I wish to. I expect to read a lot and play a lot of chess on my electronic chess set and, perhaps, accept a challenge to two around 2am sitting outside a nightclub.

Happy days!

Do Politicians Understand the Consequences of Wielding Power?


Let us be clear. In a democracy, only The People’s Representatives, freely voted into office, wield political power. Since way back when, those representatives have formed groups which we call ‘political parties’. That is fine, and one would expect several parties to have representatives in Parliament. It certainly used to be the case in France, where it was always difficult to form coalitions. And the same applies in many other countries in Europe.

For some reason in the UK, there has existed a duality of political parties which dominate – Tory and Labour. Coalitions are normally few and far between, and yet in the last few years we have had two coalition governments: Cameron’s Tories with Lib Dems and, presently, May’s Tories with the DUP from Norther Ireland.

In very rough terms, Tory represented employers whilst Labour represented employees. That idea is not unrealistic since employers are not necessarily huge enterprises like BT or Big Pharma. There are lots and lots of small employers like pubs and market stalls. Sometimes, Tory had far more seats than Labour plus others, and sometimes vice-versa. It seems to me that big changes only occur when a party has a big majority in parliament, as happened when Thatcher was PM, and when Blair was PM. Perhaps the reason that we are having such trouble getting Brexit right is because of the knife-edge distribution of opinion amongst MPs of all parties. PM May is trying to please everyone, which means that the ‘solution’ is a dog’s breakfast, which pleases no one.

What I find weird is the concentration on trade. When the EU was established, trading terms, such as tariff-free, were already in existence. Why not continue with those terms as regards trade with Europe? Willing seller and willing buyer.

But that is only part of my thinking.

The fact of the matter is that politicians have no real idea what to do. Why did Blair introduce the smoking ban? Did he not realise that some 25% of adults would be forced outdoors in all sorts of weather conditions for no significant reason? Did he not know that ‘SHS danger’ was a confidence trick? Did he not know that Doll’s Doctors Study indicated that full-on, heavy smoking was only dangerous in old age? There was a reason that the retirement age for men was 65 and for women 60. It was that those old people could no longer compete with younger people in their jobs. The old people were inefficient. Let’s not argue about the oddity of the difference between men and women. I do not know the reasoning behind the difference. It was reasonable, many decades ago, to have a retirement age at 65 for men because most of them died not long after reaching that age. Those statistics were used to calculate the cost of the National Pension overall.

Did Blair intend to kill off as many smokers as possible by exposing them to the elements in their old age? Did he intend to close thousands of pubs? It is hard to know because he was a ‘toff’, educated at a private school. I used to quite like Blair until the ban. Only recently has it occurred to me that he might have had delusions of grandeur – ‘world statesman’, and all that. But what good did he do in the Middle East when he was a ‘special envoy’ or whatever he was?

Politicians should never expect to be rulers. That is not their job. Their job is to CURTAIL the excesses of rulers. The sugar tax is a case in point. I noticed a few months back that our local hospital shop stocks ONLY low cal drinks. And yet the cafe has sugar available for tea and coffee drinkers.

I don’t think that politicians are able to properly evaluate the consequences of making laws. The ‘system’ is not set up in such a way as to do so. ‘Experts’ propose the laws and parliamentary committees of politicians, usually biased in favour already, blather about the proposed laws. Then the PM and the cabinet ‘go with the flow’. Later, the damage caused by the enactment of the new law becomes apparent, as with drugs like cannabis. It takes decades for the new law to be repealed. Meanwhile, billions of pounds are wasted in trying to enforce that new law, to no avail.

I suspect that there is a class of person who does not mind being in jail. Think about it. Such a person would live day-to-day on his wits, always in the present, stealing and cheating. How many such persons exist in the UK? Has any university ever produced a ‘model’ predicting how such persons will react to a sugar tax? Of course not! All their models are predicated upon the idea that the population consists of obedient sheep. Their models do not predict the actions of people who do not mind life in jail, or even prefer it. Monasteries are not unlike jails. Monks live very like prisoners – lots of solitary contemplation, a basic diet, work in the precincts of the monastery, a little fun, and lots of sleep. What is there not to like if you are not bothered?

Politicians are elected NOT to rule. They are there to REFUSE TO COMPLY.

The American system does have some advantage over ours, but it is still wide open to corruption. At least Trump has most of The People on his side. I just wish that he would turn his attention to the UN and WHO. Both are utterly corrupt, and have been for a long time. Neither of them act in the interests of America, and yet America provides most of the funding.

The swamp is very deep and very big. As regards TC, it started when Godber and his American equivalent (I forget his name) started to insert tobacco controllers into every dept of the WHO. It was a blatant take-over. If politicians at the time had been awake, they could have seen the dangers of misdirection of funding.

And that is another thing. How is our funding of the UN, WHO, etc, monitored? Who audits the funding and expenditure?

The corruption is blatant, but MPs do not give a shit. What does our Ambassador to the UN actually DO?

I am not sure that Boris Johnson is the right person to replace May, or even if Rees-Mogg is the right person. But it is certain what qualities are required. They are to be brave enough to take a scythe to all things globalist which are unproductive. That does not mean that research should not be undertaken into global warming. It means that funding should be targeted and that any statistics must be audited by un-corrupted professional statisticians. The likes of TobCON are not fit to conduct such investigations. It is blatantly obvious that TobCON, throughout the world, is sucking on the teat of Tobcoms and taxpayers.

The solution?

Let people buy cured leaves and make their own cigs etc duty-free. Exempt individuals from import laws. An offence would be committed if an individual sold his produce. Further, recognise that SHS is NOT dangerous. The timescales show without doubt that SHS is harmless population-wide. The possibility that a few people might cough and sputter is their problem, which is easily solved by them not going into places where they cough and splutter. There are lots of places which were big enough for the tobacco smoke to dissipate widely, such as hotel bars and bingo halls.

The Smoking Ban is the epitome of ‘totalitarianism’. Did Blair realise that? Why have politicians not realised that fact since 2007?



I was reading somewhere today about the Sheffield Uni ‘model’ of the effects of minimum unit pricing of alcohol. The ‘model’ predicted a fall in consumption. It is probably fair to say that some people will cut there consumption if they cannot afford their current level. Thus, minimum pricing will have an effect, according to the ‘model’.

The ‘model’ might well be right, other things being equal.

But ‘other things’ are NOT equal. The ‘model’ does not take into consideration ‘substitution’, for example. The ‘substitution’ for cheap ciders which are strong in alcohol might not be weaker products. It might be for ‘bathtub gin’. Another possibility might be that those people who drink moderately might stop drinking, which would be wonderful from a prohibitionist point of view, but would be bad news when all the best stats say that moderate drinking is beneficial.

The main point is that the ‘model’ does not take into account those probabilities.

It is a case of not accounting for ‘costs’.  It is like having a budget which leaves out the cost of bacon butties because they are carcinogenic, regardless of how many people enjoy bacon butties.

As the article which I read (H/T) said, “A ‘model’ which leaves out significant factors is useless”.

The Civil Service


For some reason, earlier today, my interest turned to the SIZE of Government in terms of how many people it employed. I found a site which was pretty good. It did not include the NHS or similar:

The staff numbers are either directly employed by Gov Depts or by directly controlled agencies. EG, Prison staff are included because they are directly control by the Ministry for Justice.

I found it interesting to note that the number of Civil Servants has fallen quite considerably in the last several years from around 500,000 to 400,000. Those figures are very wide estimates to make things simple. It seems that, when Thatcher became PM, the Civil Service numbered around 700,000, and she reduced that number to around 600,000. Again, very wide numbers to make it easy to compare.

The above figures seem strange to me. The Gov makes more and more work but the number of employees seems to have dropped quite significantly over the years.

But that is not really the point. Variations in the numbers can be accounted for in all sorts of ways, such as devolution of various activities to Local Authorities, and devolution to the EU ‘competences’. What is important is that our Gov employs around 500,000 people purely to administer Central Government.


There is a chart in my link which shows that about 300,000 civil servants work for Works and Pensions, Justice, Revenue, Defence, Home Office. The rest, about 100,000, or possibly less, work for ‘lesser’ depts, such as Brexit.

But, no matter how you look at it numerically, you have to ask what all those employees ARE DOING.

But there is also another angle. What are they NOT doing! EG, how did so many MPs get away with exaggerating their expenses so easily for so long?

We seem to be approaching a ‘melt-down’ in the major political parties, mostly over Brexit. Who do you vote for, assuming that you are a Tory, or Labour or Liberal supporter when the distinctions between parties are ephemeral?

I think that the differences between political parties in the UK are based upon very simple ideas. Labour represents employees and Tory represents employers. Libdems are confused. Greens are ‘single issue’ and UKIP wants to get rid of corruption.

I have been voting UKIP for a few years now. I wish that they would voice their central idea – anti-corruption.

Corruption exists everywhere where jobsworths deny you fairness. Usually, it takes the form of ‘the computer says’, which means that an outcome is preordained and cannot be changed, no matter how simple that change might be.

I have just experienced it. I booked a holiday which departed near midnight and arrived in the early hours of the next day. But the room booking at the hotel included the period when I was in the aircraft flying to the resort and did not have use of the room. The time lapse was not trivial – it was something like 17 hours of lost occupancy and a lost main meal. But the real problem was at the other end of the week – having to check out of the hotel room some 15 hours before the flight home. I admit that I miscalculated, but the holiday provider should also have understood the implications.

Try as I might, I have not been able to have the holiday adjusted so that the first night is not the night which I will spend in the departure airport and the aircraft. I asked to have the first night on the next day, and was quite prepared to hang about for a few hours before my room became available.

But ‘the computer says’ ruled. I got nowhere. The ‘Package’ cannot be overridden.

Politicians are becoming more and more like ‘Artificial Intelligences’. They are gradually losing humanity.


Staying Sane


I must admit that the constant battle against TC is depressing. I do not mean ‘clinical depression’ which is a far more serious thing. ‘Clinical depression’ can make you seriously physically. I have been there. I went through a period many years ago when I could not cope with the wife’s condition and the pressures that it placed upon me emotionally. The symptoms were really weird, such as sudden increases, for no apparent reason, in heartbeat rate and going ‘hot all over’. My doctor said that it was as well that I consulted him because I was on the verge of a mental breakdown. He prescribed a course of beta blockers for a few days and Prosac at the same time. The beta blockers acted immediately, which allowed time for the Prosac to have the appropriate effect.

They worked. My ‘nerves’ calmed down and I survived.

So by ‘depressing’ I mean disheartening. It is very hard to keep on fighting for liberty when there are such enormous forces arraigned on the opposite side.

So, earlier today, I had a think. I decided that the very fact that we have enormous forces working to persecute us smokers means that we must cheer ourselves up somehow.

I decided that I must counter the brainwashing misery in my own way.

My way is to ‘pat myself on the back’ whenever I complete a task properly. It does not matter what the task is. Thus, if you wash the dishes properly, pat yourself of the back and say ‘Well done me’.

You see, we do not congratulate ourselves enough for doing a good job in our day to day endeavours. We take success in those efforts for granted.

We should not. When I have finished this post, I shall say to myself, “Well done!” All day today, I have been conscious of doing really good jobs of this and that routine needs. I have said, again and again, “A WIN!” But I have also, occasionally, had to chalk up a ‘loss’. But the number of ‘wins’ far exceeds the number of ‘losses’.

The fact is that, for the most part, the smoking ban is irrelevant in our lives, unless we allow it to become all-consuming. I was walking along our street yesterday and saw a woman standing outside her house smoking a cig. I reasonably assume that she had banished herself to the outdoors. Perhaps it was because she did not wish to colour her indoor decorated walls with brown tar over several years. Or she could have had children inside. Or any other reason. But did she describe her action of going outdoors for a smoke as A WIN!

Today, I have chalked up dozens of WINS. Merely remembering to lock the front door was a WIN. If I had failed to remember to lock the front door, it would have been a LOSS.

So we must always remember that we must not let TobCON dominate our lives. To do so would be a massive LOSS for us. No. In our daily lives, we must congratulate ourselves minute by minute for achieving WINS. Get used to WINNING, and not just surviving.

It is not that hard. But that should harden our resolve never to give in. TobCON is an evil organisation. Its objective of eradicating tobacco by 2035 or whatever means eradicating smokers. That is no different, in principle, from eradicating Jews. It is the opposite of eradicating ‘diseases’.

So, smokers, do not forget that TobCON is no more than a nest of buzzing wasps. It seems to be taking a long time for the people in ‘pest control’ to turn up and douse the nest in chemicals.



I have placed that word within inverted commas because its meaning is very obscure. The word came from another word – ‘propagation’, meaning ‘spreading’. Thus, the Catholic Church had a dept ‘for the propagation of the faith’. Missionaries were sent all over the world to ‘spread the faith’. But sometimes, that propagation was not only by persuasion – it included force.

I am going away next week. I booked my trip about a month ago. But I have a disabled wife to care for and nothing is ever sure about what tomorrow might bring. Multiple Sclerosis is a bugger. It can have all sorts of indirect unexpected effects. Thus, I am always on tender-hooks in case something happens between booking and actually getting there. The only time that I can really start to relax is when the aircraft is speeding along the runway to take off. Perhaps that is why I enjoy take off!

Just as a matter of interest, I wondered what would be the case if I postponed booking until, say, a week before the dates I wanted to go on holiday. Would places still be available? So I checked out Jet 2 holidays to see what was still available. There were lots of holidays still available. But, specifically regarding the resort I wished to holiday in, my query brought up several possibilities, the first five of which said: “Only one left”.  I thought that perhaps the flight was the reason for ‘only one left’ since I had specified a date, but further investigation revealed that there were lots of hotels which did not have the words ‘only one left’.

It occurred to me that the words ‘only one left’ were a type of propaganda. Jet 2 deliberately used the phrase ‘only one left’ to panic people into booking straight away, there and then. But ‘only one left’ might also mean that Jet 2’s allocation of rooms in those hotels did indeed have ‘only one left’, but that does not mean that the hotel was fully booked.

My point is that such phrases as ‘only one left’ are a form of propaganda. They aim to persuade people to panic. “Oh my god! I’d better book here and now!”

And is that not the purpose of ‘propaganda’? Is it not to persuade people to panic? I have seen the phrase ‘only x (a small number) left’ even when booking a month in advance.

It is clearly deliberate, but anyone trying to complain to Advertising Standards would have a terrible job to prove their assertions. AS as well would find it almost impossible to establish the facts.

It is almost always impossible to pin down TV adverts in the UK and even more difficult to question any adverts on the internet.

Is there an answer? There is! It is ‘caveat emptor’ – ‘buyer beware’. That translates into ‘be careful and check things out and, above all, do not allow yourself to panic’. Thus, propaganda such as ‘only one left’ will not work. What is the point of ‘only one left’ other than to panic people into acting here and now? Why actually say ‘only one left’? What difference does it make? A person trying to book would get the message ‘full up, sorry – try x”.

Uglification of cig packets is an obvious case of ‘propaganda’. But what the likes of Arnott et al do not realise is that they too can be uglified. A bit of ‘photo-shopping’ can easily turn a pleasantly smiling face into a gargoyle. And, as far as I know, there is no law to stop you. Also, as far as I know, there is no law to stop you making claims that smoking prevents or cures the common cold. You can invent some sort of obscure Japanese study by a couple of Japanese names to ‘prove’ it.

Anti-smoking propaganda becomes more and more silly by the day. Epidemiological ‘standards’ (such as at least twice as prevalent) become watered down so much that stat a 10% variation becomes important when the fact is that 10% is equivalent to zero or even ‘protective’.

What is important but rarely discussed in epidemiological circles is that a ‘null’ result is far more important than a plus or minus result. The Enstrom and Kabat huge study of spouses of smokers and non-smokers produced a null result – no significant difference between the health consequences in all sort of way of a spouse living with a smoker or non-smoker.  E and K were persecuted, but at least one of them, I forget which, got financial recompense for his loss of tenure, but only after a costly legal battle.

What is obvious to me, and ought to be obvious to politicians, is that any epidemiological study must take ALL confounders into consideration before such studies can be taken seriously. A meta analysis of several faulty studies will produce a faulty result. They do not ‘even out’.

I would wish that, post Brexit, our politicians would examine ALL the research grants and retain only those which benefit the people positively and not negatively by bans and regulations. EG, it would be great is a ‘study’ was undertaken to ascertain if our reservoirs could withstand ‘Global Warming’.

The Wholesale Proliferation of Propaganda


Sadly, I suffer from prostatism. It is a benign enlargement of the prostate gland over time, which squeezes the uthera (the tube which passes from the bladder to outdoors) and makes it more difficult to pee. There are pills which cause the prostate gland to relax and alleviate the condition. I have been having some difficulties this last few weeks, but not serious problems – the heat could be a contributing factor – so I was casually looking for information on the net.

Among the info was a list of ‘suggestions’. Needless to say, stop smoking was one. But the interesting bit was the words that were used: “Smoking CAUSES bladder cancer”. No ifs buts or maybes. “Smoking CAUSES bladder cancer”.

I remember several years ago, when health messages first appeared on cig packet, statements like ‘MAY be a cause of …. ‘. They have morphed into ‘DOES cause…..’. I fact, all message on cig packets are now certain. “Smoking rots teeth”, “Smoking causes ‘droop'”, etc. No ifs or buts. And yet, in the McTear Case (see sidebar), the Judge unequivocally stated that epidemiological estimates of ‘risk’ were not ‘evidence’. It was as simple as that.

It is as strange thing that ‘possible’ became ‘probable’ became ‘definite’, and it is happening all the time. What has been amusing me recently has been furore about moderate alcohol drinking reducing the likelihood of dementia. What are the statistical risks? Are teetotaller 20% more likely to suffer dementia, or 200%, or 2000%?

I don’t know, but what I have seen again and again statements like: “Consumption of X makes you 20% more likely to suffer from Y”. 20%!!! In epidemiology, the difference has to be, at the absolute minimum, 200%.

One of the things which Doll’s Doctors Study relied upon was that the incidence of LC in heavy smoking doctors was 1500% greater than in non-smokers, or thereabouts. Wow! Enormous! So why did Fisher, the renowned statistician, object?  I have his objections in a file on my computer, but it would take a while to find it, and it is getting late. I think that his objections were about lack of consideration of other factors, such as genetics. Thus, from Fisher’s point of view, even ’15 times more likely’ is meaningless unless you exclude other factors, which might be more important.

And yet MSM headlines stating ‘25% more likely….’ are accepted as positive proof of causation.

But we all know that the MSM survives on sensationalism. There must be a large class of people who believe what the MSM says.

But that mass of people is diminishing all the time, apart from showing the bodies of starlets in bikinis. I don’t mind such revelations personally. They are better than statistical misdemeanour. The mass of people who believe the shit emerging from the rectums of the MSM is diminishing day by day. And I mean that as regards ‘left’ and ‘right’.

Would it be reasonable to say that ‘true’ democracy has never been tried? I don’t think so, since, as Churchill said: “Our democracy might have its faults, but it is the best that we can do”.

What I do not understand about the Brexit negotiations is that May has not appeared on TV to explain how her ‘Chequers Plan’ means ‘Brexit is Brexit’. Not one Government spokesperson has appeared to let The People know what is going on. Everything is speculation or misdirection.

There is an element of cruelty involved, just as there was in the Smoking Ban. The decimation of our fishing fleet was such an act.

I do not know what the answer is when devious politicians discuss things with other devious politicians and come up with a ‘solution’, such as Chamberlain’s peace pact with Hitler. I cannot help but feel that May’s ‘Chequers Plan’ is much the same. It is appeasement. We know the results of appeasement.

What has happened, very quickly in my opinion, is that the EU has tried to FORCE the establishment of a ‘United States of Europe’, just like the USA. There may have been an ‘elite’ behind it, and Heath may have been one of the ‘elite’. But I do not think so. The ‘Elite’ which is pushing the ‘US of EU’ is allied to the elite of the UN.

I am a bit surprised that Trump has not yet got around to de-funding the UN and kicking that corrupt organisation out of his beloved America. “Ultimatum: relocate your headquarters to Somalia or we will defund you”.

Perhaps it is propaganda which causes the POTUS to hesitate. Sadly, it seems to be the propaganda which causes our PM to make rash promises of gold in abundance in exchange for vague promises.

NO! Let us calculate the rents owed to us from our part ownership of EU buildings. Let us demand a system which rewards us for our contribution to those buildings. Let us refuse to pay for ongoing costs of those buildings.

Brexit means Brexit.

Losing Control


This isn’t about Brexit as such, although it includes it.

Imagine that you have various appliances in your home which help to make your life more comfortable. I am talking about central heating, fridges, electric lights, etc. You may not be an ‘expert’ but you have a good idea how they work. You do not have to call out an engineer to change a light bulb is an obvious example. If your central heating system is not computer controlled, then problems are physical. It is possible that you can isolate the problem, which might be as simple as a radiator needing bleeding. You know enough to experiment without creating danger because you know what is and is not dangerous.

But you come into some money and something goes wrong and you say, ‘I’ve had enough of this shit. I’ll get the whole mess sorted once and for all’. So you invite a bunch of ‘experts’ into your home. They ripe out your old-fashioned CH system and replace it with a modern ‘energy efficient’ system, which will save you money. They rip out your electric wiring and replace it with a ‘modern’ system, complete with ‘smart meters’, which will save you money.

And they replace all your windows with ‘energy efficient’ triple glazing’ which will save you money.

It all cost a fortune, but you have been assured that the energy savings will cover the costs of a mere 20 years or so.

But, a couple of years later, the CH goes haywire – it is off when it should be on, and on when it should be off, and your hot water is cold when it should be hot and hot when it should be cold. There is nothing at all that you can do because you are even afraid of switching the systems off because you do not know how to do so.

So you call in the ‘experts’ at enormous cost. They tell you that the system which was installed was crap and you need an even more expensive and wonderful system.

Etc, etc.

The point is that you lost control COMPLETELY!

It strikes me that that is what has happened in government and politics these days. So much so that it does not matter which party one votes for. All of them are lost in the complexity which they permitted to be created. And the complexity creates more and more complexity.

For example, ‘experts’ used to say on TV, ‘leave a longer tip’ on your cig. I suppose that the reason was that tars collect in the part of the cig nearest your mouth, so discard the tip sooner so as to reduce the inhalation of tars. But then Tobcoms, in collusion with Govs, produce varieties of plants which produced less tar. The Canadian Gov in particular was complicit in creating varieties which produced less tar. But when the shit hit the fan about ‘no safe level’, the Canadian Gov refused to accept any responsibility.

Over the years, the careless handing over of ‘competences’ to the EU has created massive tomes (of regulations) which no one can understand or control. Such transfers of sovereignty should have been subject to referendums right from the start. ‘THE PEOPLE’ decide upon sovereignty and not 600 Witch Hunters.

So we can look back at the 2007 Smoking Ban and reasonably say that Blair et al had decided to act as Sovereigns, agreeing to persecute smokers in the UK to gain kudos in the UN, WHO, World Bank, EU, etc, without a referendum. Blair did not state in his manifesto at that time that he would capitulate to the ‘experts’.

But you might say that Parliament voted for it. I will not say that turkeys will vote for Christmas if they think that they will be better off, but it is something like that – why rock the boat?

Brexit has shown us just how much control of our country’s destiny, and the prosperity of our people, was handed over to a corrupt oligarchy over the years. But one could go much, much further.

Was the General Smoking Ban, introduced by Blair et al, a deliberate totalitarian event? Did Blair have delusions of grandeur? Did he somehow see himself as KING OF THE WORLD?

The Strange Process of the Brexit Negotiations


I must admit that I do not understand. Perhaps I am not clever enough or confused.

What was the question that we were asked? It was ‘do you wish the UK to leave the EU or remain a member?’, or words to that effect.

Despite the fact that I can import as many cigs as I wish for my own use, I voted to leave, even though the Witch Hunters will almost certainly agitate for a ban similar to OZ – only 200 permitted (if that). My thinking was that being able to make or repeal our own laws, without the corrupt EU’s back-room bargaining and bribery interfering, was worth any personal disappointments. Also, at the back of my mind, was that it would not be long before the Witch Hunters got at the EU and changed the rules about tobacco imports. Also, at the back of my mind, was the idea that if the worst came to the worst, I could always go to ecig, or more probably these days, to Juul. It might be fun to smuggle in 10,000 ‘heets’ disguised as underpants.

The serious bit about that last sentence is that modern day travel has revolutionised Customs. It hard to envisage the situation as it existed in 1957 returning. I remember well disembarking from the channel ferry in 1957, after a week or so cycling in France and Belgium, and having to wheel my bike to a line of tables where a hardfaced Customs Officer asked me if I had anything to declare. I had two panniers on my bike and a saddle bag. It is hard to envisage me being able to carry anything substantial in those bags. Nobody was interested in drugs in those days. Nevertheless, there were several customs offices, on good pay I should imagine, interfering with luggage. Suitcases were opened and the contents rummaged through. It was appalling, when you think about it. The rummaging was in plain sight of everyone.

Would it be possible to return to that situation? I doubt it. There would be an outcry. But, to make matters worse, I should imagine that there would have to be thousands of Customs Officers.

The curious thing is that there would be no need at all. The simple answer would be no restrictions. Let’s put it this way. A person travelling from France to Germany can do so by train or whatever without interference at borders. My, on can even get a train from Malaga, Spain, to Germany and pass through the intervening countries without interference. The reason is efficiency and cost savings. There is no reason to suppose that the UK will suffer an increase in smuggling after Brexit.

There is only one problem – troublemakers like ASH ET AL Witch Hunters.

I was reading something yesterday which said that a certain local authority was going to have to cut back on essential services because of lack of cash. But would they have to do so if the cut out all the costs, no matter how small relatively speaking, which are not essential? Like ‘stop smoking services’. How many other ‘services’ are not essential?

There is a mismatch between ‘services’ off-loaded by central Gov to local authorities and the cost of those ‘services’. It amuses me to think about how many non-smoking tax and rate payers do not realise that they have to pay more because of persecution of minorities by Witch Hunters.

And I am not just referring to smokers. All these anti-obesity, anti-alcohol etc programmes cost a fortune, and moderate people have to pay through the nose to sustain them.

Politicians really do have to ‘pull their socks up’ and get their ‘principles’ in order. ‘Saving NHS costs’ in NOT a principle – it is economics at best. ‘Saving lives’ is a principle, but ‘postponing deaths’ is not. Many years ago, the Catholic Church faced a quandary. Killing deliberately is a sin, but what about pain relief? The church’s solution was to say that if the primary purpose was to relieve intolerable pain, using large doses of morphine, for example, then the hastening of death was tolerable. It was a bit of a ‘smudge’ because of the word ‘hastening’, which suggests that death is inevitable. But death IS inevitable!

Politicians must be held responsible in just the same way that people like Cliff Richard are. If they are believed to have failed in their duty to protect our freedoms, then they should be pilloried, even thirty years later, and even if they are dead.

Rose drew my attention to an EU proposition from 1989, which recommended smoking bans in public places, but even that suggested that smokers should be accommodated because of their ‘addiction’. IE, smoking areas/rooms should be provided. The link is:

Somehow, Blair et al forgot about the ‘addiction’ and decided to persecute smokers by ‘exiling them to the outdoors’. How weak! How cheap! How miserable! And why? Almost certainly because a blanket ban was easier to impose.

And does that not reveal the problem with politicians? They find an excuse to persecute minorities rather than accommodate them sufficiently. I must admit that Manchester airport has tried. It has smoking areas which are in cages but 50% exposed to the elements, except that they have roofs. I suspect that they only did so because they were fed up with finding cig ends in their plant pots and wherever in quieter corners of the airport. Some smokers might have been sufficiently annoyed to stub their illicit cigs out on the upholstery, and who can blame them? They are persecuted and demonised; who can blame them for fighting back? I would not do that, but I could understand why some smokers might do it. Hit me, and I will hit back, and I don’t care how. Palma airport has no provision for smokers, even though it has a perfectly possible place, which is a balcony some thirty feet above ground level. I shall be going there shortly, and I shall check to see if that balcony is still accessible. It may not be ‘for security reasons’. The bar adjacent to it has not been open for a couple of years. I expect that the doors to the balcony will be locked. A few years ago, Palma had an enclosed indoor ‘room’ where you could smoke, but it disappeared a couple of years ago. The Witch Hunters got at the airport authorities.

It is very weird how these Witch Hunters can exercise such power. Where do they get that power from? I have no doubt that the incantation ‘for the children’ is aimed at ‘baby kissing’. How many votes does a politician secure by being filmed kissing a baby? Or several babies? How many votes could a politician lose as a result of being accused of harming children? It’s a no-brainer.

To what extent are the Brexit negotiations ‘child-like’? To what extent are they similar to wiping babies bottoms?

The messing about must stop. Firms which rely upon EU favouritism must accept that the favouritism is about to disappear and that they must ‘pull their socks up’ and compete. But, most of all, they must accept that the UK is sovereign. If countries like Greece prefer to be subject to the decisions of France and Germany, because of handouts, that is up to them.

What a mess! It would have been better if the UK had ignored Article 50 since The People had voted NOT TO BE BOUND BY IT. Who said that Article 50 applies when The People do not agree with it?

Tommy Robinson was released because The People recognised the injustice and shouted out loud. Rather than being an ‘example’, he became a ‘martyr’.  It would be a shame if his courage was not recognised. It is not sufficient that he has been released. The judge who imprisoned him must be pilloried and his motives examined and he should be subjected to a Public Enquiry, and then accused of and tried for deliberately imprisoning an innocent person. Perhaps he should serve 13 months in a Muslim controlled prison. Perhaps the Muslim controllers would fete him with chocolates passed through the bars on his window.

The sad thing is that Muslims that I know just want to get on with their lives, as far as I know. And that ‘as far as I know’ is very important. I may be wrong. They may be putting up a front when the reality is that they want control. That is the problem – distrust. No amount of blathering will stop the distrust.

The Brexit negotiations are about the wrong things. Trade and travel are not a problem. Multi-culti IS a problem, and we will not accept it.

We must not pay a penny to the EU until ‘the rent’ for our part of the ownership of EU buildings etc is decided. We paid partially for the EU headquarters and other places. We are entitled to rent.

So our negotiators should have been concentrating upon how much rent the EU must pay us for use of those buildings.

That argument extends much, much further if one wishes to pursue it.


Witch Hunters


Most of us will be aware that a few centuries ago it was not uncommon for little old women dressed in black and owning one or more black cats to be accused of witchcraft and burnt at the stake. Their ‘sins’? Causing failure of crops or whatever.

At a local, superstitious level, one could possibly understand the fear of starvation when the weather destroyed crops upon which local populations depended. Someone must have cast a spell, so it must be that hook-nosed harridan. Who else?

What is alarming is that England at the time of Cromwell was Christian, as was the US at the time of the Salem business.

Why did the Christian churches not scream that there cannot be such a thing as a witch? Perhaps it was because they believed that there could be witches who deserved to be burnt at the stake. And it could be quite amusing to have a witch-burning with a band in attendance.

I have come to the conclusion that there are two completely separate ideologies at play, although they are intertwined. There is the ‘killer instinct’ – witch-hunting, smoking bans, intolerable taxes, etc. And there is the ‘confess alleviation’ – “I used to smoke 20 cigs a day, but since I discovered my ecig, I can run ten miles in ten minutes easily. Also,  I have become a millionaire”.

There is only one solution. It is to call all the professors, doctors, academics, etc, who do epidemiological studies, financed by the State, ‘Witch Hunters’.

In future, I shall not refer to the likes of Arnott as a ‘Zealot’. She is nothing of the kind.  That word conveys some sort of commitment ‘unto death’. She is a ‘Witch Hunter’. And so are all the EU, WHO, etc, apparatchiks.

So, from now on, I shall refer to TobCON as a witch-hunt and its employees as witch-hunters.