Remember “Never Trump”? Odd, is it not, how easily the vested interests of established politicians were cast aside? “Never Trump” has evaporated. He was welcomed with open arms at the Convention. I can’t say that I admire Trump since I know bugger all about him, other that what has been portrayed in the media, which is coloured by the political leanings of the media. Suffice to say that he has cleared the first hurdle – he has pushed aside the resident political elite in the Republican Party. I should imagine that, quietly, there is a purge of “Never Trump” elitists going on at this moment. I don’t mean a purge in the sense of what is happening in Turkey. I mean ‘get behind Trump or else….’. Much humble pie must be eaten. The People Have Spoken.
What else is the resignation of Cameron other than the eating of humble pie? The vote ‘to leave’ humiliated him because he allowed himself to be used. He could easily have declared himself to ‘stand aside’ from the bickering and spelt out why precisely he though that the Treaties were wonderful. He could have done that a couple of years ago, rather than backing ‘Project Fear’.
There is a basic understanding at stake here. It is that if the EU Structure is wonderful, then the treaties which established that structure were wonderful. We have recently seen that the EU Structures are far from wonderful, viz the import of thousands of jihadis pretending to be refugees. We also have noted the fact that Anna Soubry, Health Minister, failed to observe Parliamentary procedures and signed the UK up to commitments re ecigs which she thought were not in the Tobacco Products Directive.
Why do we struggle to accept the idea of ‘Conspiracy’? We all tend to deride ‘conspiracy theory’. Perhaps it is because some of the ‘conspiracy theories’ are so outrageous – such as that the USA Government deliberately demolished the World Trade Centre, killing thousands of its own citizens, to justify blowing up camels. Or, that the moon landings were faked.
Low level conspiracy happens all the time. Groups of people agree to pursue some agreed process to achieve what they want. It happens all the time. All such actions are conspiracies. There is nothing wrong with conspiring to achieve some end.
So we have to accept that Theresa May’s meeting with the Leaders of Scottish and Irish politics about Brexit are justified. It makes sense that the countries comprising the British Isles should not be shouting at each other during the process of Brexit. The ‘freedom of movement’ of citizens of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, around the British Isles needs to be preserved. But, somehow, the South of Ireland must not become another Calais, with thousands of camps along the border between the South and the North.
The reality is that only the Government of Southern Ireland can stop it. The UK cannot.
So I fully endorse May’s meetings with Scottish and Irish leaders prior to negotiations about Brexit. Those meetings make sense. There are important things: for example, the population of Scotland is about 5 million, but that number only barely exceeds the population of Manchester and Birmingham. The population of Northern Ireland is around 1.5 million. England’s population is some 55 million. Suppose that England threw Scotland under a bus and erected border controls and wire fences? Reverse the idea. What would Her Majesty, Nic Sturgeon, have to say?
No. Those meeting will not have been about what section of the UK population voted either which way. The simple fact is that the UK, as a whole, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, voted ‘Leave’. Nothing else matters. Politically, it is simple. Scotland and Northern Ireland will be given some sort of privileges or money to shut the fuck up. Some sort of arrangement will be made with Southern Ireland (population, 5 million) which might exclude them from travelling freely to England. It is up to them to decide if they want to be excluded.
England and Wales have nothing to fear from barbed wire fences between other areas. That is, the fact that more Scots than Brummies voted ‘Remain’ matters not not one tittle. So I see May saying, “It has been decided”, and refusing to accept variations in votes by regions. What is important is how the whole of the UK can profit from Brexit.
It is right that May met with leaders from those regions. I hope that the UK, and Southern Ireland, can work out a way to still allow unrestricted movement between citizens of the British Isles.
It is 2 am, so a quick post is in order.
It is true – my little old body is breaking down. At 77 years, I suppose that it is to be expected.
We are not talking about anything major. In fact, it is very minor.
I have noticed, over the last few years, that when my skin gets injured, say, by a tiny scratch, blood floods the surrounding tissue and creates a patch which goes brown and then gradually disappears over a couple of weeks. Also, actual cuts and pricks which bleed seem to take much, much longer to heal. It is inevitable, when you are busying about in the garden that you will get such scratches and pricks. So, on the back of my right hand, I have a patch of brown-ness about 1″ x 1/2″, and, on my left arm, I have two similar patches about 1/4″ round. Those things are nothing.
But I am seriously worried – I am not the least bit plump. My doctors asked me go for a check-up some months ago. In the process of that check-up, the nurse weighed me. I was only 9 stone (126 pounds for the yanks). But, then, I have also shrunk a bit in height. I used to be 5′ 7″, but I think that I am now 5′ 6″. And I have a dodgy back. It must be 15 years or more since ‘the incident’. I was on my knees doing some weeding, and I twisted to pull out a weed to my right. I felt something ‘go’ in my back which hurt a lot. So I stopped weeding. Over the next few hours, the pain eased and I went off to the pub, as usual, for a beer. Then I went to bed. The next morning, I was in agony – and I mean it. When I moved in bed, even the slightest bit, a massive pain hit my lower back. It really was a ‘crying out in agony’ situation. I suppose that experienced torturers know precisely how to apply such agony. No wonder that people confess to any crimes that their torturers care to throw into the mix. I would.
The doc was called and prescribed strong painkillers. He assured me that the pain would subside, and, indeed, it did. But I discovered something interesting, which was that I could move and create the horrible pain, but, for about 30 seconds immediately thereafter, I could move without additional pain. It was as though an electrical charge had been discharged, and had not recharged yet. But, after about five days, the pains stopped and I was able to get out of bed. That made me dizzy.
But I am really, really worried. Statistics show that plump people survive longer than skinny people. My neighbour is quite plump, and it is horrible to think that the fat bastard will live longer than me. OK, he is about 10 years younger than me, but so what? It is not a matter of age, it is a matter of ‘relative risks’. I’m annoyed that the fat bastard will live longer than me because he is fat. It’s not fair. For decades, I have wasted money on ‘cigareets and whisky and wild, wild women’, but that dissipation seems to count for nothing. It is that I am skinny which is causing the brown patches when I get scratched, and it is they which will kill me. I’ll bet that the fat bastard next door does not get brown patches when he gets scratched.
Strangely enough, I feel fine. I am constantly busy, busy in one way or another physically, but does that matter? Herself, who is 75, and has done no exercise whatsoever for the past 25 years because she suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, is surviving just as well as I am, and just as well as the fat bastard next door.
Is the above just a lot of blather? I think not. I think that, if an effort was made, epidemiology would be put back in its place. When Dr Snow discovered that cases of cholera were congregated around a specific water pump, the PROOF of cause and effect came from stopping the use of that water pump. But that PROOF was only substantiated when ‘germs’ were discovered.
The same applies to tobacco smoke and LC. There is a Dr Snow theory that LC is caused by smoking, just as there was a theory that malaria was caused by ‘bad air’. But the Dr Snow type theory regarding malaria was proven to be wrong when it was shown hat it was not the presence of swamps but the presence, and bites, of mosquitoes which caused malaria.
LC has significantly diminished as the cause of death in men over the last several decades, but it has increased in women. Smoking among men as greatly diminished, but it has also diminished among women. So why has LC as a cause of death increased among women?
Tobacco Control has not been lauding the diminishing of LC as a cause of death. I wonder why? Surely they should be shouting from rooftops (aka, via the MSM) that LC deaths have been much reduced by the reduction of smoking. Why has TC not done so?
Suppose that you combine the effects of industrial pollution of the air and smoking? Smoking, in itself, might be a low contributor, in the sense that we only inhale tobacco smoke from time to time. We inhale polluted air with every breath we take.
I must review the statistics since 1950 again. But it will be impossible to examine every single ’cause of death’ because there are thousands of variables. The best that you can do is pick a few ’causes’ and compare the ages of people who died from those causes. An interesting possibility is that early deaths have been delayed for no apparent reason. That is, that certain causes of death no longer occur as much in the 60 year olds as compared with the 70 year olds.
What a mess!
ASH ET AL swear that swingeing taxation will cut the prevalence of smoking. They are right. There was once upon a time a windows tax. If you had more than a certain number of windows in your home, mansion, castle, fortress, then you had to pay extra taxes. To reduce their taxes, many people bricked up surplus windows. There also lots of people who could not be bothered bricking up surplus windows because they were sufficiently wealthy to pay the tax and were not bothered by that tax. They preferred having the windows.
Swingeing taxation will always work to reduce demand in the short term, but it does nothing to supply. Supply changes in response to demand. If taxation reaches a level where demand moves out of the normal trajectory of supply, then supply will match demand via alternative sources.
The more that taxation is increased, the more viable are alternative sources. The ‘Office of National Statistics’ will always portray a skewed picture. What person, other than the really extremely stupid, would reveal that he has alternative sources?
What seems to happen, in the real world, is that people who smoke only a tiny bit, say five cigs per day, continue to pay the swingeing taxes. The cost of their habit does not bother them. It is those people who enjoy smoking, say, 40 cigs per day who rebel. That rebellion takes a long, long time to work through. But it is an accelerating rebellion, and it is a silent rebellion.
But that rebellion goes far beyond just swingeing taxation of certain products. People are beginning to realise that swingeing taxation is general. People are beginning to realise that the costs of the NHS could easily be covered if not so much money was wasted on the massive bureaucracy of the EU. The EU is like shovelling money into a pit which gets deeper and deeper the more money that is shovelled in.
This is a new idea, even though it is an old idea. The more laws, rules, regulations there are, the more criminals come into being. When I say ‘criminals’, I do not mean thieves and vagabonds – I mean ordinary, law-abiding people who just do not want to be dictated to by ‘experts’.
Politicians exist to defend the People against experts. Saddam Hussein was ‘an expert’; Stalin was ‘an expert’; Pol Pot was ‘an expert’.
When politicians permit swingeing taxation of certain products, they derelict their duty. They permit persecution. That duty applies to ALL politicians. The whole ‘raison d’etre’ of elected representatives is to stop persecution.
THE WHOLE ‘RAISON D’ETRE’ OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IS TO STOP PERSECUTION.
There is a word which we do not use very much these days. That word is ‘Malady’. It has an interesting derivation:
The two latin words which have been shortened to create the word ‘malady’ are ‘male’ (ill) and ‘habitus’ (having). How ‘habitus’ became ‘idy’, I do not know. You could describe the meaning of the word ‘malady’ as ‘having an illness’.
Some time ago, Frank Davis talked about the word ‘disease’. It is easy to see the derivation on a simple level – dis-ease. That is, not-at-ease, or ‘uncomfortable’. If you had flu, you would be aching and sweating. It would be easy to diagnose that you were suffering from some sort of upset in your body. The fact that whatever it was that caused the upset could be spread from one person to another was know thousands of years ago. The fact that the existence of ‘germs’ was not known, does not detract from the idea that something or other spread the ‘dis-ease’. It isn’t that long ago that the cause of malaria was not known – it was thought that the dis-ease, malaria, was caused by ‘bad air’, which is the literal translation of: “mid 18th century: from Italian, from mal’aria, contracted form of mala aria ‘bad air’“.
We have seen some recent very clever manipulations of ideas. One such is Arnott’s statement that the ban on smoking in cars with kids present, was not intended to be enforced by ‘the authorities’. Her description of that law was that it is a ‘social’ law. That is, it was never intended to be enforced by the police. The whole point of criminalising anyone who smoked in a car with his own child present, was to allow censorious people to frown and disapprove, and possibly to note down a car’s number plate and report that car to the police. That was the whole point. It is an extension of publicans being forced to enforce the smoking ban in pubs. I continue to be absolutely amazed that the publicans’ organisations did not fight against the imposition of policing duties on publicans.
And then came the master-stroke. The master-stroke was to split diseases into communicable diseases and non-communicable diseases. At a stroke, every ‘malady’ became a disease. Are you prone to experience migraines? Then you have a ‘non-communicable disease. All health conditions which are less than perfect are caused by diseases. There are no such things as genetic defects – they are diseases. Any human being who is tall and thin is diseased, and anyone who is short and plump is diseased. Obese people are especially diseased, as are smokers and vapers. All addictions, such as becoming thirsty, are caused by disease. That disease is a non-communicable disease.
Is there a solution? Well, not until people like Trump get control. I say ‘people like Trump’, and not Trump himself. I do not know if Trump himself is the ideal person. What I mean is that someone or a group of persons, must recognise that all humans suffer from ‘maladies’ of one sort or another.
Thus one could reasonably say that, in the Doctors Study, smoking tobacco merely hastened the deaths of doctors who were already doomed to die before non-smokers anyway. If they had not smoked, then some other malady would have caused the deaths which occurred before the average.
Before the advent of the enjoyment of tobacco, did everyone die at the same age?
What we have been seeing over the past couple of decades is the appearance of ‘approved’ diseases and ‘disapproved’ diseases, using the new definition of ‘diseases’ as ‘communicable’ or ‘non-communicable’. Thus, AIDS is now an approved disease, because it is communicable. But, like malaria, no one knows quite how AIDS is spread. What is the ‘germ’ which is responsible for the disease? Here is a link:
AIDS is said to be caused by a virus, but, as far as I can see, no one has identified the virus. Is the ‘virus cause’ similar to ‘bad air’? Or has it something to do with anal penetration? We rely upon Professors and Doctors, but they bugger things up again, and again, and again. And they walk away without blame. Politicians always take the blame and resign. Resigning is a good way to walk away from the damage, but we have come to a point where walking away is not acceptable. We need to know what the machinations behind the politicians were.
We need to know who are ‘the powers behind the throne’.
It seems always have been so. ‘Prohibition’ in the USA affected not only liquor but also tobacco. Both were equally seen to be evil. For a while, the wickedness was banned.
Today, we have a similar situation. Alcohol and tobacco are evil and must be banned.
But other evils have been introduced into the mix – salt, sugar, global warming.
I wonder why it is that the obvious agenda of Health and ‘Sustainability’ has not been recognised by High and Mighty Rulers?
It seems to me that there is a missing piece in the UN aim to control ‘Sustainability’. Although it has been mentioned from time to time, no emphasis has been placed upon it. That missing piece is Population.
I don’t think that it is yet even remotely possible to ‘beam’ millions of people to another Earth-like planet, and it might never be possible to do so.
But there is no doubt in my mind that the UN intends to control Population. Nothing much else matters, when you think about it. What that means is that immigration of workers only increases the problem of Population.
What is the answer?
“Necessity is the mother of invention”. No one seems to consider that prime principle. For example, consider a tribe which was growing in numbers, and was finding it difficult to hunt and gather enough food. It must have been a GREAT idea to dig pits so that animals fell into the pits. An amount of effort was required to dig the pits, but that effort was rewarded manifold. Is not battery farming much the same?
All animals which we use to provide eggs, milk, meat, or whatever are ‘farmed’. Those animals have no ability to reason. They have emotions, and nothing else. There are still animals which humans can hunt in the wild, just as lions do, but such activities only benefit the specific hunters and only temporally.
Those ‘drugs’, which humans enjoy, should not be rationed. Big Pharma and Government aim to do just that – ration enjoyment. Wealthy people are not rationed via taxation, but poorer people are.
That situation is scandalous in reality. It is true that the poorest people have always been ‘rationed’ by their circumstances, and generally been rendered powerless by their circumstances. Democratic voting has, to some extent, redressed that imbalance. But the rich will will always be more powerful than the poor. Thus, if ASH ET AL are endowed with riches, they will dominate the poor. And that is what we have seen. ASH ET AL have been using their taxpayer, nay, smoker provided funds, to ‘ration’ tobacco products for the poor.
By the way, when I say ‘the poor’, I mean anyone whose ‘budget’ does not provide sufficient allowance for ‘pleasure’. The fact is, over the last several decades, that successive Governments have persecuted the poor. But I am not saying that Government should persecute the rich. That is a different thing. What is important is that Government must not persecute the poor.
For certain reasons unimportant, I was checking via the net, how long it takes for food and drink to pass through the stomach and into the intestines. It turns out to be between six and eight hours, not that it matters. Of course, there were several ‘conditionals’ expressed which could either speed up the process or slow it down. For example, meat takes longer and fruit takes shorter. That is not surprising. But I must admit to being quite surprised when the site said that ingesting nicotine has an effect. The site did not specify how the nicotine was ingested. Was it via smoking or chewing tobacco?
It is strange, is it not, that even the simple process of digestion of food in the stomach, with all the acids and stuff present there, is singled out for a dig at nicotine. We are talking about the movement of stuff and not danger. What does it matter if nicotine is present either in the bloodstream or in the contents of the stomach? In terms of volume and nature, any nicotine involved must be many orders of magnitude less than the food and drink. Suppose that I have a splendid meal of sirloin etc, and then I have a cig and a glass of whiskey. To what extent will the cig affect the movement of the food and drink through the stomach?
Utter rot of course, but these people cannot help it.
I think that it is a prime example of ‘publication bias’. It is easier to get your article published if you can get nicotine or tobacco mentioned therein, no matter how tenuous the connection. I would go so far as to say that there is no real connection at all, and that the connection is ‘theorised’.
The above is an extreme example of using tobacco/nicotine to score publication points. How much more likely is it that ‘publication bias’ is present in greater proportions when smoking is being studied? If nicotine consumption can creep into the acidic processes in the stomach, where the effects must be minuscule, how much more likely is it that it’s effects will be exaggerated in the context of breathing?
The Powers-That-Be tried every trick in the book to exaggerate the possible bad effects of Brexit, but The People saw through their prophesies of doom and voted for ‘Leave’. No wonder that Cameron resigned and Osborne was sacked. Both those events were bound to happen, since the slate of deception had to be wiped clean. Odd, though, that BoJo got the Foreign Office job. Was he not tainted by deception? Perhaps Theresa May recognised that BoJo did not deceive.
Are things changing in the UK? Dick Puddlecote describes a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine, where the subject matter was ‘the regulation of pleasure’. DP was surprised that the medical types who attended were not happy about the regulation of pleasure.
I know that Public Health tries to weigh up ‘costs and benefits’. For example, some drugs have side-effects in some people, but, on the whole, those side-effects are small and confined to only a few people. Thus, on the whole, there might be great benefits to the vast majority, even though some people are ‘discomforted’. But rarely if ever does ‘pleasure’ figure in the ‘costs and benefits’ ratio. Some more enlightened academics have tried hard to get ‘pleasure’ recognised as a ‘benefit’, but with little effect. That is sad but inevitable.I forget the details, but in the USA, a document was produced which gave weight to pleasure as a benefit. That document was ignored. It is easy to see why. The fact is that ‘pleasure’ cannot be quantified. Do I enjoy smoking? Yes. Erm… How can that pleasure be counted? Did I enjoy sex? Yes. Erm…. How can that physical pleasure be quantified? It cannot, because it is subjective in every case and at every event.
Thus, ideas of pleasure are anathema to everyone in Public Health. The word ‘pleasure’ has been replaced by the word ‘addiction’.
So we get saturation in the media of quantifiable ill-effects, which might not occur for hundreds of years, such as the ill effects of SHS. Sure, someone somewhere will cough and splutter and be found to have lung cancer. It will happen, some time, somewhere to someone. What is sure is that most studies of the effect of SHS have shown neutral results. The ‘harm’ from SHS does not really exist.
Some academics are definitely starting to contradict themselves in a big way, but they will not admit it. They promoted SHS danger for ideological reasons. “Tobacco smoke is dangerous in all circumstances”, but they knew that that was a lie, unless you include very remote possibilities, such as person with severe heart problems who is walking down a street, and simultaneously breaths a smidgen of tobacco smoke at the same time as suffering a heart attack. That is how they get away with the lies. They take an extreme, individual case and draw universal conclusions which are not justified. AND THEY KNOW THAT!
‘Silly Sally’, Chief Medical Officer of the UK, knows very well that we derive much pleasure from alcoholic beverages. A great deal of pleasure. An enormous amount of pleasure both directly and indirectly. But she says that we should worry about slight cancer risks every time that we have a glass of wine.
But it does not matter how stupid the Chief Medical Officer is for us observers. The only thing that matters to these people is that the get quoted in the MSM. They lie and cheat and exaggerate, secure in the knowledge that what they say might just possibly get someone to reduce their alcohol consumption from 10 pints a week to nine pints. Thus, little by little, the alcohol Industry will be destroyed.
It is Prohibition again. Despite the apparent attack on smokers, the reality is that the attack is on Production. It is just the same as Prohibition of alcohol and tobacco in the USA 100 years ago. It is exactly the same thing. The surface measures might seem to be anti-smoking, aka the persecution of smokers, but the real objective is to demolish tobacco companies and the growing of tobacco plants.
Thus, the vilification of ecigs is about ‘tobacco plant control’ on a world-wide basis. Eventually, as seen by TC, only Big Pharma will grow tobacco plants.
The flooding of the media with anti-tobacco sentiments is not accidental. It is deliberate. The anti-ecig hysteria is deliberate. It is designed to remove the growing of tobacco plants from the control of tobacco companies, and to transfer that control to Big Pharma.
The problem is that the anti-smoking Health Zealots will lose their ‘power’ to get MSM coverage. At some point, it will not be worthwhile to continue with the persecution of smokers.
That is the point where smokers can make a difference. That opportunity will appear when the MSM gets fed up with the Health Zealots.
I think that this post might wake Legiron up.
Note the spelling of Whisky. I understand that that spelling is Scottish, and that the spelling ‘whiskey’ is Irish.
The bottle that I have to hand is a bottle of Scotch called Talisker. It is a ten year aged single malt. The daughters bought for me as a Fathers Day presie. The taste is a bit peculiar. It is terribly difficult to describe, as are all tastes. We seem to be unable to describe tastes without reference to some known taste. So how can I describe the taste?
First, there is the bite of 46% alcohol. That is not really a taste – it is a sort of burning sensation. There is some sweetness, but there is another factor. I have heard the word ‘peaty’, but I have no idea what peat tastes like. Let us use our imagination.
Suppose that you were desperately hungry and you found or dug up a potato. You sank your teeth into the potato, chewed the flesh and swallowed it. I can imagine a ‘peaty’ taste being something like the taste of that potato. It would not be sweet and not be bitter, but it would not be unpleasant if you were hungry enough. There is something of that sort of taste to Talisker. Behind the bite of the alcohol and the sweetness, is a ‘raw potato’ taste. The interesting thing is that the combination of tastes is very pleasant.
But what is interesting is my method of indulging. I take a couple of sips from the bottle daily. Is that terribly uncouth? I let the spirit roll around my mouth before swallowing. I let the taste buds absorb all the tastes of the whisky. I find that method perfectly satisfying.
What is of the greatest importance is that one should not dilute single malts IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, other than, possibly, with water. It is a SIN to add, say, coca cola to malt whisky.
There ought be a SIN TAX applied whenever a tourist in Scotland orders a single malt and a coke at the same time. That SIN TAX could be around 900% of the original cost. It would be the cost of stupidity.
Is there some sort of desperation in the call for Minimum Unit Pricing by the SNP? They seem to be going on and on about it. Is it true that the majority of Scots are puritans? Or is it that there are lots of people who are censorious? It is natural to be censorious. All human beings are primed to be censorious. We cannot help it. It is in our nature. It comes from uniting the tribe. A tribe divided cannot defend itself.
There ought not to have been reasons for Brexit. The fact is that there was a headlong rush to ‘Unionisation’ in the EU, not dissimilar to Trade Unionisation. The difference between the two is that there was justification for Trade Unionism, but no justification for European Unionisation. No politician actually read the thousand page treaties.
Who did? They are the people who betrayed the UK. But the situation has been deliberately complicated to such an extent that it is impossible to unravel the mess. The PM, Theresa May, the Foreign Sec, Boris Johnson, and the Brexit Sec, David Davis, must recognise and condemn the Machiavellian methods.
Will they do that? I do not know, nor can I assess what needs to be done. Brexit will only become concrete when we withdraw our MEPs, and withdraw from the Council of Ministers, and withdraw from all the other institutions, and stop the funding. Until then, we are still in the EU.
I am going away for a week in Spain shortly. The cost is twice what it would be in April. In April, Spain is nice and warm, although there might be sudden downpours. Even in those downpour periods, it is warm. I have been there and experienced it. The rain peppers down, pours off the bar canopies and floods the streets. But you can sit under the bar canopies quite warm and comfortable and marvel at the wonder of the downpour – the cleaning nature of it. It washes all the shit and detritus away.
It is not just the cost of the holiday. It has been apparent for decades that exchange rates change to the detriment of British holidaymakers since WW2. I remember very clearly the rate of exchange of pesetas to pounds falling dramatically in summer. It was obviously a scam. For example, if the median was, say, 200 pesetas to the pound in April, the rate rose in winter to, say, 250, and fell in summer to, say, 170. As a Bank Official, I noticed that tendency year after year. There seemed to be no economic reason for the variations in exchange rates. You just got less pesetas for your pound in summer than you did in winter.
A couple of years ago, The UK Gov passed a law which insisted that parents must present their children at school, whether they wanted to or not, on the pain of fines and criminal records. I might have exaggerated about the criminal records, but I have no doubt that their misbehaviour would be noted down somewhere. Parent were not permitted to take their children on holiday to sunny climes during term-time.
The result has been that only the wealthiest parents can afford a holiday in the sun for the children. My week-long trip has cost me £1000. Imagine two parents and two children, and you are talking about £2500 or thereabouts. The same trip for that family would probably cost around £1500, or less, in April.
The excuse for the draconian demands of parents is that children might fall behind, but such children could easily be ill. Children are often ill. They might easily miss school for a few days. It happens all the time. The ‘learning curve’ of primary school children is not linear. The curve varies and jumps about for each individual child. Only AVERAGES vary linearly.
There is no real justification for persecuting parents who take their children on holiday for a week in term-time. The only REAL effect is that attendances are affected a bit.
There is a tendency for Government to punish minorities. That applies to parents who take their children to sunny climes when the costs are reasonable. It also applies to any and every minority. And, when it comes to buying Euros in summer, it applies to the majority.
Is it not weird that our Elected Representatives cannot smell the stink of corruption?
Sometimes I’m a bit slow. I have a friend who lives in Ireland quite close to the Northern Ireland border. She has friends in the North and often crosses over to see them. She also takes advantage of the differences in taxation on some items and shops there sometimes. People have been moving freely between Ireland and the UK for a long, long time.
But, after Brexit, Ireland will still be in the EU and subject to the ‘free movement’ rules. That implies that a person who is not Irish could freely travel to Ireland. If the border between Ireland and the North remains open, what is to stop that person crossing into the North and then into England or Wales?
But wait. Ireland is not in Schenegen, which means that people have to have passports and show them when they enter Ireland, but does that alter my argument? What is to stop a Bulgarian from entering Ireland with his EU passport and then moving on into the UK? But I must admit that I do not know what the rules are for people travelling from Ireland to the UK exactly. Here is something that I have found:
The Common Travel Area means that there are no passport controls in operation for Irish and UK citizens travelling between the 2 countries. You do not need to have a passport in order to enter the other country. However, all air and sea carriers require some form of identification and some regard a passport as the only valid identification. Immigration authorities may also require you to have valid official photo-identification which shows your nationality. As you are being asked to prove that you are an Irish or UK citizen who is entitled to avail of the Common Travel Area arrangements, it is advisable to travel with your passport.
The common travel area was established in 1920, but has changed over the years. I suppose that originally, there was no question of foreign jihadis infiltrating, or economic migrants.
I suspect that we are, again, being misled by the powers-that-be. There has always been a form of ‘free movement’ – holiday makers. People from all over the world come to the UK as tourists. Does anyone want to halt tourism? So it isn’t really about ‘free movement’. It is about being able to support yourself. I go to Spain on holiday quite frequently. In what circumstances might I have to throw myself on the mercies of the Spanish State? I suppose that, if all my possessions were stolen, including my debit/credit cards and passport, and I was penniless in a Spanish hotel, I would have to ask for help from someone or other. Perhaps the hotel would help by allowing me to eat and drink for a few days, and even fund a trip to wherever to see the British Consul. But that is just a simple example. A far more serious situation would arise if you were accused of a criminal offence and arrested. In those circumstances, you would be better off in jail, where you get fed and sheltered, than being released on bail – for the time being, at any rate.
The real problem with free movement is people who move to the UK and then claim benefits. Tales of foreigners scrounging in the streets of London are not that important, provided that they support themselves. Cameron tried to get the EU laws about benefits altered, but he failed. Question: How did those laws get passed in the first place? Who was asleep on the job in the Foreign Office?
You see, all this stuff about the EU should be Foreign Office. Perhaps it is, but there seem to be all sorts of UK ‘officials’ who seem to be disconnected from the Foreign Office. EG, Soubry and the Tobacco Products Directive. Soubry was in Health, and not the Foreign Office. She did not know the terms of the TPD when she signed the UK up for it.
And there has been the rub. For some reason that I do not understand, all things EU have been dispersed, rather than being handled in the same place by the same department. Now, we are in a total mess because of that. No one knows what to do. I hope that Boris Johnson demands control of all things EU and liaises closely with David Davies over Brexit.
So what is the answer to the problem of immigrants? Look at it from a different point of view. Assume that a person enters the UK as a tourist. There are millions of them every year. Some of them are not able to support themselves for more than a few days, and then claim benefits. Erm… No. They will be repatriated and incur a debt – the cost of shelter and transport. But, inevitably, it is hardly likely that that person would pay the debt. But the important thing is that failure to be able to support yourself would result in repatriation. That is the important thing.
There is an implication there there would also need to be some sort of accommodation. I remember going on holiday when I was single and about 19 to Butlins. The chalets were very simple being just bedrooms, essentially. I’m not even sure that they had showers and toilets. But, at the time, that was not important. We were there for fun and, if possible, sex. You dined on the slop which was provided. But the slop was edible if not what you might call cuisine. It would not be difficult to provide such ‘camps’. Would there need to be barbed wire fences to keep the inmates inside? No! Because there would be no point in them leaving. They would still not get any benefits.
But what about political asylum seekers? Erm… What are the practicalities of a person seeking asylum in the UK? Why the UK? How does that person get from his place of residence to the UK? It strikes me that one of the attractions of the UK, in the distant past, was the separation of the UK from the continent by the English Channel. Also, such claimants were likely to be opponents of a regime which our Government abhorred. Thus, those people would be given privileged treatment. They might also be supported financially.
What does that do to the people who are camped out across the channel and who are trying to get into lorries etc? Well, we ask again, what are they doing there in the first place? Why is France not good enough for them? Where was the first place that they landed and how did they get to Calais? Did they land in Greece and walk from Greece to Calais? Do they incur a debt to be transported to Calais which becomes enforceable if they actually get into the UK, and do the financiers have heavy mobs in England to enforce payment of those debts? We do not know and our Government wants it all to be secret.
So we come back to Ireland. I wonder why the hopefuls in Calais have not been transported to Ireland and availed themselves of the lack of border guards and fences between Northern Ireland and Ireland? How would the Irish Government deal with an influx of unidentifiable people from Calais?
As usual, it is a question of ‘follow the money’.
So the answer is to make the UK not such a sucker. Brexit will give our Government, and particularly the Foreign Office, authority to deny any sort of benefits. At best, a smuggled in person can expect simple life support prior to repatriation.
And so the situation resolves itself quite simply. Persons who want to enter the UK have to have credible identification. If they have such identification, then they can enter. But if they are not UK citizens, then the only ‘benefit’ that they can claim is repatriation and temporary shelter while they await repatriation. And they must pay for the repatriation. If they do not, then their country of origin must pay – or else…
Open borders between Ireland and Northern Ireland can be retained, if those communities want them to be retained. Passage to the UK is different. Identification is imperative.
Brexit has buggered up a lot of money-making and semi-criminal activities. I hope that our new Government buggers up all of them, especially the academic control of Government.
We shall have to wait and see what Theresa May accomplishes. But I doubt that she will stop the persecution of smokers. I doubt that she will recognise that there is such persecution.It is a bit like the slave trade – that trade was so profitable that it was very difficult to stop. The persecution of smokers is also very difficult to stop. The persecution of smokers is very profitable.
I’d bet a pound to a penny that she would recognise immediately the persecution of homosexuals.
I feel impelled to say a few words.
I have been reading today some complex legalistic stuff about the Constitutional apparatus about Treaties. Stuff and nonsense I say. All the blather about ‘Crown Prerogative’ is meaningless. Crown Prerogative translates into situations which need immediate response. EG, an invasion fleet arriving on our shores. Also, the need to defend our autonomy. Those things are not subject to Parliament. They are about our Nation and cannot be given away at all. It is all a bit weird. It seems as though, in its essence, Parliament governs internal matters. The Crown governs international matters. That is a simplistic view, but it is not totally inaccurate.
I do not understand the United States. It seems to me that the various ‘states’ were not ‘states’ at all. Better to say that the separate states in the USA were not Nations.
There is a huge difference. In England, there have always been Counties, such as Lancashire, Kent, Shropshire, Cornwall. Each territory had its unique character, depending upon industrialisation. South Lancashire was heavily industrialised because of the coal reserves and the port of Liverpool. Manchester gained a port by virtue of the canal. But there are also differences in the accent with which we speak.
Whatever their accents, and the nature of their territory, THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND have spoken. Perhaps there ought to be a referendum in Scotland for the Scots to throw themselves on the mercy of the Faceless, Un-elected apparatchiks of the EUSSR. It is up to them.
But there is an opportunity to revive the United Kingdom as indeed United. English people do not hate Scottish people. Such antagonisms are ancient and stupid. We all appreciate the same sort of life-styles and amuse ourselves in the same sort of way.
What has been getting in the way of out mutual cooperation has been the likes of ASH Scotland and ASH London (aka ASH England). They ‘divide et impera’. Clearly, any Government which succumbs to such divisive groups, must be weak. Thus, the smoking bans etc resulted from weak Government.
You might judge the value of a Government by its desire to control minutiae. The more that it does so, the weaker it is. And that leads us to the stranglehold that ‘Acedemia’ has on Government. All the shit about Climate has been produced by academics who will not suffer if their outrageous ideas produce economic disaster. None of the ‘climate scientists’ factor in the effects on Africa of a ban on coal, gas, atomic energy. That is, unless they want us all to be reduced to the level of Africa.
Academics have their place, but that place is not authoritarian. They can discuss angels on pinheads and the effects of smoking, but they must never, ever be allowed near law-making.
Well, that’s my opinion.