So the CEO of Public Health England Writes to All Hospitals Demanding that They Ban Smoking in Hospital Grounds28/02/2017
The demand from the CEO of PHE smacks of the same desperation as the that from Silly Sally, when she said that she thinks of breast cancer whenever she has a glass of wine. Of course, these people are just lying. They are trying to inject ideas into millions of minds. And, it works. They would not do it if it were not for the fact that it works. Not on everyone, of course, but on large groups of individuals who are insecure. Getting quoted widely in the MSM is a bonus, no matter how silly the idea might be. The message is spread widely – think about breast cancer every time you enjoy a glass of wine.
And that is the objective of the CEO of PHE, Duncan Selbie, when he called for hospitals to ban smoking in their grounds. It is about creating a ‘miasma’ of ill-feeling. It is the reverse of the discovery that malaria is caused by mosquito bites rather than ‘bad air’. Selbie is preaching that ‘bad air’ is especially dangerous near hospitals, but he neglects to mention hospital incinerators:
What is absolutely amazing is that, like Silly Sally, he hits on an absolutely harmless activity, like smoking in the open air outside a hospital, and raises it into a serious problem. THERE IS NO PROBLEM!
But, most of all, what really, really annoys me is that Selbie is TRANSFERRING THE WORK THAT HIS PROPOSAL GENERATES TO SOMEONE ELSE. It was much the same as the smoking ban. ASH et al persuaded the likes of Blair PM to ban smoking everywhere indoors apart from home. None of those creatures suffered from the consequences. Millions of people suffered both economically and socially, but ASH et al and Blair prospered.
So Selbie makes a statement, repeated over and over by the MSM, but who will do the work? Not Selbie or TC. Who will bear the cost? Not Selbie or TC.
It isn’t even that just smokers will bear the costs. Taxpayers in general will bear the costs. Thus, Selbie (and TC) transfer ALL THE COSTS of their useless activities to taxpayers in general. Will a smoking ban in hospital grounds improve NHS efficiency? Perhaps NHS efficiency is not within the scope of Selbie’s department. Perhaps he does not give a shit.
The Donald, in the USA, has promised to ‘drain the swamp’. It is not certain what he means, but the gist of it, I think, is that he is going to take control out of the hands of the ‘deep state’. I hope that he realises that ‘the deep state’ includes all those academics, like Siegel and Glantz, who pretend to be antagonistic to each other, but who secretly conspire. Well, perhaps they do not, but it is odd that Siegel has not admitted that SHS is harmless in normal circumstances. That, I do not understand, because it is so obvious and scientifically backed-up.
Will our own Government in the UK ‘drain the swamp’? We do not have a President, but we do have a Cabinet. In some ways, our Cabinet is more powerful than the President.
Blair said that he thought long and hard about The Smoking Ban and decided to go ahead ‘because the people said that he could’. But the people also DEMANDED the return of capital punishment (hanging), but he refused the wishes of the people. The word is ‘two-faced’.
There is something weird about Blair which I do not understand. Is he going a bit prematurely senile? Perhaps he is just defending himself. After all, it was he who agreed to relinquish UK control of its laws when he acquiesced to the control of the UK by majority voting in the EU Parliament. How could he do such a thing? It can only be that he was and is a GLOBALIST.
There is nothing wrong with globalism in itself, provided that that means the improvement of the welfare of impoverished societies. But the actual meaning of ‘globalism’, at this time, is commercial mayhem and prohibition. Both of those conditions were created by the EU, World Bank, IMF, etc.
‘Draining the swamp’ requires a simple decision. Stop feeding them with money. Just stop. Just stop. No negotiation – just stop. Let the fraud and corruption collapse – and then start again with better ideas and control.
What Selbie said, “We are not trying to force smokers to quit, but ‘helping’ them” is a blatant lie. If the police patrol hospital grounds, arresting people and fining them for smoking in the open air, then Selbie is a complete shit, and a deliberate liar.
I do not understand how these ‘population control’ people can live with themselves. They constantly move the onus onto someone else, and create antagonism between ordinary people.
That is the swamp. The swamp is in academia, Gov departments, Local Authorities, hospitals, etc. It is been being built up for thirty years or so. But as I said, and as have loads of other people said, the whole thing could be demolished in a moment.
Stop the gravy train.
I think that I am becoming a ‘chocoholic’.
Some months ago, my wife, who suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, had problems with eating. Not physical problems, but loss of appetite. Daughter 2 suggested buying some chocolate. Eating chocolate in any serious quantities is normally confined to the Christmas era. In fact, we rarely consumed chocolate outside that era.
I have always been something of a ‘chocoholic’ in the sense of being unable to resist. Give me a box of chocolates, and I am likely to eat the whole contents until there is nothing left. It requires a real act of will to stop eating them. I cannot help it. The taste and sweetness overwhelms my self-control. I guess that the same applies to sex, but let us not go into that area.
The problem is not that ‘I have been given’ a box of chocolates (which I can blame on the giver), but that I have been buying the chocolate myself.
Daughter 2 was, no doubt, thinking about ‘Energy’. That is, if herself was not eating due to temporary loss of appetite, then the ‘energy’ in the chocolate would compensate. The trouble is that she long ago reacquired her appetite. But both of us DEMAND the chocolate in our weekly grocery delivery.
We are, undoubtedly, addicted.
Even worse is that, if I wake up in the early hours, I am quite likely to savour the idea of a ‘strip’ of chocolate squares. I have, believe it or not, crept into the kitchen and raided the fridge, and tottered back to bed with a ‘strip’ of chocolate in my hand. What could possibly be more indicative of addiction than that?
But I decided to ‘get a grip’ when I woke up a couple of days ago with chocolate smeared around my mouth and melted chocolate stuck to my fingers and my watch. I had dozed off with a piece of chocolate in my hand. The first that I knew about it was when daughter 3’s dog was licking madly at my mouth and hand, and refused to be deterred. Only then did I observe the sticky mess around my ring finger and my watch. Somehow, I had squashed a melted ‘square’ of chocolate and spread it around. Further, I have found smears of chocolate on my bed sheets.
I recognise that my addiction is out of control. It is disgusting, filthy, stinking. It is worse than heroin or cocaine. The awfulness of the addiction cannot be measured because the goalposts for a definition of ‘addiction’ have been moved so often that no one knows where the goalposts are.
But there is good news. By my own confession, I have been able to reduce the addiction of herself. If I am addicted, so must she be addicted. I have limited her to one ‘strip’ per day.
Am I not wise and good?
As for myself, am I not wise and good? Surely I am, since I am King. ‘Do as I say, and not as I do’ is virtuous. I am King, so I make the rules, but those rules do not apply to me. I can change them from moment to moment, if I wish to.
But have I not the right to be a chocoholic if I wish to be so? Who says that I cannot?
And is it not true that I can be a ‘tobacco addict’, in the same sense as a ‘chocoholic’ if I wish to be so? Who says that I cannot?
Our MPs have lost all sense of direction. They do not understand their purpose. Their purpose is to DEFEND the people against tyranny. Enormous tobacco taxes (and, yes they are ENORMOUS – duty in Belarus is 0.65$ per pack) are persecution and always have been. Non-smokers are not paying their fair share.
You see, THE VAST MAJORITY OF SOCIAL COSTS, including the NHS, are immutable. the cost of Old Age Pensions cannot be changed. It is what it is. It is a mistake to think that tobacco taxes pay for tobacco harm. There is no connection. The fact is that the massive tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, petrol taxes, sugar taxes, etc, are opportunistic taxes. ‘Health’ is an excuse and ‘The Environment’ is an excuse.
If I decide to become a chocoholic, that is my decision. That ‘addiction’ does not, in itself, harm the ‘body politic’. But if chocolate was taxed as tobacco is, because it is addictive (new definition), then only the better off would be able to afford it. Thus, the better off would be able to strut their plumpness as proof of their superiority.
I have been through this before. I tried to establish a ‘Constituency Group’ with at least one person per constituency was in the group. The idea was to demand that our constituency MP stops the persecution of smokers. I think that I got about 100 constituencies. What amazes me is that, surely FOREST has enough members to get at least one person per constituency. One person is enough, if that person demands from his MP protection from tyranny. For example, I like to buy different varieties of tobacco and blend them to see what they taste like. Some are lovely (the Variety ‘Costello’, for example). Others are nondescript. I need my MP to defend my freedom to experiment and amuse myself.
But there is no doubt that we are moving into a Tyranny. It is a tyranny of standardisation. Cucumbers must be straight and thoughts must be straight.
I voted for Brexit in order to leave THE POLITICAL UNION. The European Union. The Political Union is the death of democracy.
And yet I find it terribly sad that the basic idea of cooperation in the sharing of resources via the market, rather than conquest and theft, turned into tyranny.
The tyranny comes from the UN, WHO, World Bank, IMF, and multiple other ‘actors’. The fact is that those organisations should be SLAVES and not BOSSES. And that is where things have gone terribly wrong.
Which Nation will ‘pull the plug’ on the utterly corrupt UN and all its works? Certainly the beneficiaries of Western taxpayers’ taxes will not complain about the corruption. Nor will the contributors of our tax monies, since it is not there own money which is being expended.
Many bloggers have said that ‘we are living in interesting times’. That is very true. Vast amounts of money are being thrown at medical research, and yet not one single product seems to be any good. Even worse is the stranglehold that TC has on Ministers.
It is hard to see any way that the pleasure and putative harm from the enjoyment of tobacco can be reconciled. There is pleasure and there is putative harm.
Which would you prefer:
A) Chocolate is banned.
B) Chocolate is regulated and very expensive.
C) The Health Zealots bugger off.
I hope that Trump defunds the UN and kicks the UN out of its Kingdom. It can reestablish its Kingdom in Alaska, Nigeria, the Gulag Archipelago. It will not happen. But if the dispersion of ‘HEALTH’ does not happen, and almost all of the costs relate to the headquarters in Switzerland, then it becomes obvious that corruption is common.
Will May demand an end to corruption as a prerequisite in negotiations?
But, as far as I am concerned, I want out of standardisation and uniformity.
Post Brexit, I want our Government to STOP persecuting smokers. If it does not happen, and it will not, then we must continue to disobey.
I have often wondered what CRUK (Cancer Research UK) is for. I understand that CRUK and similar organisations get loads-a-money from wills, which I suspect are the major source of their funding. But what do they do with the money? I should imagine that they used to a fund actual physical research, and I suppose that they still do, but time and again we see their major efforts going into behavioural control. Is that because they have been unable to find out the true causes of cancer? Without looking anything up at this time of night, I can tell the reader that,say, lung cancer, causes the deaths of very young people – infants and children. Very rare, but it happens nevertheless.
My point is that we have been inundated with claims that smoking causes LC to such an extent that smoking is the ONLY cause of LC. So the question is: “What causes of LC has CRUK discovered via its researches?” It seems to have discovered no causes other than smoking.
I was reading a link (forget where) which said that the Japanese Finance Minister has cast doubt on the meme that smoking causes LC. He said [words to the effect] that there are now more LCs than ever. I assume that he was talking about ‘per capita’ and that smoking in Japan has fallen over the years.
There are so many mini scandals appearing one after the other. The Chief Medical Officer of England, silly Sally, arbitrarily reduced the ‘safe level’ of alcohol consumption for men to the same level as women. The ‘safe level’ for men was reduced from 21 units per week to 14 – the same as women. Her silliness is compounded by her statement that she thinks about breast cancer whenever she has a glass of wine. The SS has nothing on SS. (Nice one, doncha think?)
‘Vaping is ‘a one way bridge’ to smoking’, said a recent ‘study’. That claim was based upon the fact that 4 ‘kids’ out of several hundred tried an ecig and went on to smoke two cigs in a year.
The latest mini scandal is that the MSM reported that only half a pint of beer per week could cause hardening of the arteries because half a pint per week was ‘heavy drinking’. The MSM reporters apparently drastically failed the ‘common sense’ test. It seems not to have occurred to them that ‘half a pint of beer per week’ is a minuscule amount. It seems not to have occurred to them to check the facts.
It turns out that the ‘half a pint per week’ is just a typo. Here is what Chris Snowdon has to say:
‘Consistent long-term, heavy drinking was defined in this UK study as more than 112 grams (3.9 ounces) of ethanol per week (roughly equivalent to one serving of alcoholic spirit, half a pint of beer, or half a glass of wine); consistent moderate drinking was 1-112 grams of ethanol per week.’
That quote appears to have come from the press release, but I am not sure. What is odd about it is the middle bit:
‘…more than 112 grams (3.9 ounces) of ethanol per week (roughly equivalent to one serving of alcoholic spirit, half a pint of beer, or half a glass of wine)…’
The problem is that we (including journalists) have problems when it comes to differentiating between weights and volumes. I have just done a little experiment. I took a wine glass and weighed it: 200 grams. I then half-filled it with water: 294 grams. So the weight of the water was 94 grams. So, if the water was wine, it would have to be pure ethanol, or even super-strength ethanol, for the above statement to be correct.
Snowdon suspects that a couple of words were omitted from the above. The statement would have been correct had it said:
‘…more than 112 grams (3.9 ounces) of ethanol per week (eight grams of ethanol is roughly equivalent to one serving of alcoholic spirit, half a pint of beer, or half a glass of wine)….’
But none of the journalists checked. Instead, they defied common sense and chose to create headlines such as:
Just half a pint of beer a week increases risk of heart disease – new study. (Telegraph)
The only other explanation is that they saw the nonsense but chose to cynically exploit the typo.
And, of course, there is the Tobacco Control Journal demanding that THE FAITHFUL ignore criticism of its junk science and HAVE FAITH in the HONESTY AND INTEGRITY of the propaganda put out by that ‘fan mag’. For what is the difference between the TC Journal and Fulham Football Club’s matchday programme which: “….provides 84 pages of up-to-the-minute news, views and interviews, covering everything from the Club’s colourful …”.
I think that I would place more trust in the Fulham ‘fan mag’ that TC’s journal.
One cannot prove it, of course, but I think that the semi-religious demagogy could be traced back to the founding of the League of Nations after WW1. As far as I understand, its objective was to provide a structure which could help nations to discuss their disagreements and solve those problems without war. It failed to stop WW2.
Immediately after WW2, the United Nations was set up. Don’t tell me that the decision to set up the UN was an after-thought. It was deliberate and had already been well thought-out during the war years. But this time, it was different. This time, the UN had teeth. Those teeth were provided by the USA. But the teeth were not just military. They also included economic sanctions.
Over a period of time, reasonably powerful Special Interest Groups got a toe-hold in the UN, and, since the UN is a monopoly, there was not opposition. I mean, how could any State not agree to control tobacco since studies had shown that, for all intents, only smoking cause lung cancer? We refer to Doll’s Doctors Study and find that LC hardly caused any deaths at all among non-smokers, and that heavy smokers were about 25 times more likely to die from LC. It did not matter that prevalence of deaths from LC were only about 7% of doctors’ deaths. Only the difference mattered.
Tobacco Control started long, long before the FCTC. It was the product of puritanical ‘prohibition’ in the USA.
Speeding up to the present day, as far as the UN is concerned, it no longer has a function to stop world wars. The potential for atomic devastation is just to great for anyone to contemplate. And it has been so since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The atomic bomb, together with NATO, put an end to wars in Europe. It had nothing to do with the UN per se, or the EU. In fact, there was no serious ‘trouble’ in Western Europe until the EU appeared.
One may applaud the idea of a ‘United States of Europe’, and there is no reason that eventually it might be so. The important word is eventually.
When I voted to exit the EU, I meant ‘EXIT THE POLITICAL UNION’. Free trade and a common passport is fine by me. I could see the Euro as a common currency, provided that it was a ‘reserve’ or ‘bank’ currency. Thus, tourists could spend Euros in shops etc in the UK. In Magalluf, there are plenty shops which accept pound notes, and use an exchange mechanism to convert pounds into euros. No one thinks that it is odd. I assume that the banks in Magalluf accept pound notes at a given rate of exchange.
It seems silly to me for the UK and Europe to disengage in matters of trade. What needs to be done is to sideline the likes of Junker et al. They have become Emperors and it will not do.
But who are the Emperors in the UN, FCTC, WHO, IPCC? We do not know. We only know a little about the ‘spokespersons’, like Chan. We know nothing about how she became boss of the WHO. We know even less about the person who was appointed by whoever to be Secretary General of the UN.
Who decided whom the ‘appropriate’ nominee would be? In fact, as I have said before, who decided to let Cameron be a candidate for the Tory leadership? Who decided that he was a ‘fit and proper’ person?
Those are the secret cabals.
We know that Trump is aware of these secret cabals, and he is not happy. But he might not be bothered about those cabals provided that they do not hurt the USA. I could see him de-funding the IPCC, in which case it would almost certainly disappear. The trouble is that I cannot see him de-funding TC. But the USA has not funded TC, as far as I know. It may have surreptitiously.
In my mind, THERE IS NO DOUBT that prosperity equals using the resources available to us in the Earth. Those resources might become more and more difficult to access if you need to go deeper and deeper. It ought be that safe ways to exploit the vast ‘energy’ from the Sun and from the atoms and molecules of ordinary matter, can be exploited.
It is important to understand (and this idea is just an imagination) that the Earth is an isolated ‘being’, and that all energy is preserved. We convert Mass to Energy, but that Energy, eventually, reverts to Mass. The system self-balances.
So problems due to scarcity of petrol will only surface when oil becomes scarce. Maybe then some sort of anti-gravity power, other than rockets, will be discovered. But don’t count on it in the next decade, millennium or epoch. But you never know.
An interesting thing is that it was not the Newtons and Einsteins who changed the world. It was the quite scientists, like Michael Faraday, who worked out how to create electrical force.
Charities like CRUK are turning into monsters – the opposite of their ‘charitable’ origins. They have turned away from finding cures to illnesses and, instead, spend vast sums, not their own, on lobbying Government using fake studies and fake truth and propaganda.
What is even more worrying is that Government is engaged in exactly the same thing.
That is what I like about Trump. As far as I can see, he is not the slightest bit interested in propaganda. He may be wrong, but he says it as he sees it.
I headed this post with the question: “Are Charities Like CRUK Fit For Purpose?”. I would say that they have NO legitimate purpose. They are Ponzi schemes.
Others have commented extensively, eg Dick Puddlecote . For those not familiar, the TC magazine has been crying about bloggers criticising their propaganda studies in blog posts and on Twitter and such without permission. They claim that the ‘proper’ place to publish such criticism is in their own magazine using their ‘Rapid Response’ system.
I was not going to bother commenting on this matter because the article has been thoroughly ripped apart by everyone else, but I decided to put in my two pen’orth just for fun.
Ask yourself:”Whom is the TC magazine for?” I should imagine that it is a freebie, circulated around ‘stop smoking service’ centres. I cannot see anyone actually paying for it. In other words, something else that smokers and taxpayers pay for.
So the target audience is THE FAITHFUL. So the editors of the magazine are telling THE FAITHFUL not to pay any attention to the infidels who pull TC’s fake studies apart, but to stay faithful and believe. And so you get statements like this:
Recent comments posted on some personal blogs impugn the objectivity of Tobacco Control and its reviewers, questioning our motives and the veracity of peer review.
In other words, “Do not believe those infidels. We are honest and true, even though we might make the occasional mistake”
But read that sentence again. Note the juxtaposing of ‘motives’ and ‘veracity of peer review’. ‘Public Health’ is very fond, very fond indeed of juxtaposing different things as though they were the same thing. EG, “overweight or obese”. ‘Motives’ and ‘veracity of peer reviews’ are totally different things.
There was a critique which I read (I wish I could remember where, but it appeared as a link, and I cannot remember) which hit the nail. It queried a study which said that experiments had shown that flavours in ecigs, and not the PG or VG, produced massive quantities of aldehydes. The researchers deduced that because ‘plain’ liquid did not produce such quantities, it was the flavourings which did. Farsellinos and Hayek (forgive misspellings – it is late) asked for details of the liquids used so that they could attempt to reproduce the results, but the researchers either could not or would not tell them. Now, even the most scientifically innocent amongst us would tend to realise instinctively that not all flavours are the same; that some flavours might produce weird results, and that it is important to know which flavours were the ones which produced the massive quantities of aldehydes. And, of course, the identity of the liquid would be massively important. But no. In their responses to requests for the information, the researchers suggested that they did not know precisely what liquids they used! Perhaps they were afraid of being sued by the producers of the liquid, especially if the producers had already done copious experiments which showed that nothing of the sort could happen – in normal circumstances.
But horrible tastes could happen in abnormal circumstances, such as what is called ‘dry puff’. I assume that means when an ecig heater is activated when little or no liquid is present. That is quite possible and not at all unlikely to happen from time to time. But the result would be a really nasty taste, so no one, unless he was incredibly stupid, would continue puffing. But that raises another point. Precisely how dangerous to health are those massive quantities of aldehydes? Which brings us to another TC trick – exaggeration of effects.
What really, really amazes me is that politicians, who are, by definition, the best people in the land to govern, are so gullible. One would have to be very cynical to say that they just do not care.
But perhaps the worm is turning.
Who voted for Brexit? Who voted for Trump? It was not the arseholes in tobacco control for sure. It was ‘the lower classes’ – the smokers and drinkers.
I thought it was comical when tobacco control was shrieking a few days ago that the Government had not published the new ‘tobacco control strategy’. Could it be possible that, unlike Chan from the WHO, our Government has more important things to deal with?
And there is the solution to TC’s exaggeration of its own importance – the NHS is in crisis, the UK’s relationship with the USA is mega-important, Brexit really, really matters. How important is the risk of an individual dying before another individual? In fact, it would be wonderful for the NHS if millions of old-age pensioners popped their clogs tomorrow -smokers or not. In fact, according to TC, most of those aged OAPs would have been non-smokers since most smokers would already have died.
What is clear to me is that TC is in retreat. Maybe its magazine is being binned unread and no one is interested in anything it says. After all, who could be permanently interested in propaganda?
I remember some years ago taking part in a little competition organised by TC. I forget the detail, but, essentially, it asked for useful slogans. I offered (words to the effect): “Tobacco profits leave the country, but the harm remains”. It was better phrased, but that was the essential. I WON!
Needless to say, I just had to tell them that my proposition was ‘fake news’. I wrote and said that my ‘proposition’ was crap; that the ‘profits’ from commercial and industrial activity were distributed world-wide depending upon who owned the shares in tobacco companies. Whereupon I received an ‘ad hom’ nasty response to the effect that I was a sort of ‘plant’, to which I replied that, unlike you Ms Whoever, I do not get paid for my endeavours.
Tobacco Control is a joke. It can only be that it has emanated from some aboriginal worship (and I do not mean Australian Abos). I mean some sort of belief that tobacco has metaphysical properties. One of those properties might be the wish to just carry on.
In our lives, when we are young, we wish to be active and demanding. When we get old, we relax and take things as they are. “What is, is”. But even old farts can rebel. For example, there are benefits which I can claim because of my wife’s illness (MS). There are some which I do not need, but I claim them. Why? Because both of us smoke, and so we contribute MORE THAN non-smokers. We smokers subsidise non-smokers.
Tobacco duties, alcohol duties, petrol duties and all the rest are VICIOUS, REGRESSIVE TAXES WHICH HIT THE POOREST PEOPLE HARDEST.
The Tory Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Party have been persecuting me, a smoker, for decades and decades. In the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s, tobacco duties did not matter because they were only a small part of the price. Now they are 75% or more of the price.
What I like is that more and more people are recognising that ‘Duties’ are terribly unfair to those who pay the duty, and that those who do not buy the stuff which attracts Duty are being subsidised by those who do. There is no moral reason that smokers should be tormented by duties.
DUTIES ARE FRAUD!
I personally believe that, towards the end of WW2, there was no doubt that Germany would be defeated. It is hard to know when that realisation occurred. It might have been at the moment when the USA joined in. But the USA, at that time, was not nearly as powerful as it subsequently became. We have to go back to WW1 to understand. The USA came into WW1 in 1917 and changed the balance, which defeated Germany. Suppose that Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour? Would the USA have joined in WW2?
We do not know. But we tend to think that the USA had an all-powerful navy and an all-powerful army, and an all-powerful air-force. It did not. Those imaginings are the product of films and similar propaganda. Japan was strong and the USA was weak – organisationally. But it was still incredibly stupid for Japan to attack the USA. The attack on Pearl Harbour provoked the USA to assemble its wealth of natural resources. Japan was a bit like the UK – a comparatively small area with limited resources. Once the USA organised, there was no doubt who would win. It was about space and resources. The only way that Japan could win was by a continuous war on the USA, and an eventual invasion.
Films about USA heroics have obscured reality. Does any reader remember going to the flicks and watching the heroic American cavalry decimating heroic Red Indians?
What is horrible is the idea that people actually believed the propaganda that Red Indians were evil. Films showed good Americans in their forts, fearing the onslaught of Red Indians. The onslaught happened, but, ALLELUIA!, The Cavalry appeared over the horizon and slaughtered the Red Indians.
My point is that IT IS NOT VERY LONG AGO that such blatant propaganda was accepted as truth.
In the same way, the EU has been promoted as THE TRUTH. It is collapsing and is therefore not THE TRUTH.
But the question of who engaged in the trickery, and why, has not been investigated.
Who will fund a Study into the workings of the EU? Who will investigate the corruption?
There are consequences to the UK escape. It might be that the corruption will be revealed. But I doubt it because we have not elected a Trump.
So the EU will continue, in it morass of corruption, until the UK, France, Spain, etc defund it. The EU apparatus can only continue as long as it has money.
But why has it taken so long discover the mess? Why have the EU bosses been allowed to build magnificent buildings? Who paid for those buildings and to whom do they belong?
It really is incredible that people like PM Blair tossed away Great Britain’s independence with such secrecy and corruption.
It really is incomprehensible.
It is not an awful long time ago that MPs in Parliament were not paid. They received generous expenses, but no actual salary. They were expected to be either earning a living or have independent means. Parliament as such met fairly irregularly and in the evenings. A person standing for election as an MP was expected to accept that he was doing a ‘public service’, and that the reward was the satisfaction of ‘doing good’.
The point is that MPs were not expected to actually ‘GOVERN’. They existed to subject ‘Government’ to scrutiny.
So who actually Governed?
There is a morass of uncertainty. As we have seen in the USA, some judge in a lower court has said that President Trump’s block on travellers from seven countries to the USA is illegal. Here in the UK, a judge has said that the current Government cannot abrogate a Treaty without Parliamentary approval, even though the current Government can make Treaties without Parliamentary approval. Gordon Brown did exactly that when he signed the UK up to the Lisbon Treaty, and the Foreign Office did the same thing when it signed the UK up to the FCTC. Soubry MP signed the UK up to the EU tobacco product directive without even knowing what was in it.
It is easy to talk about ‘powers behind the throne’, but in the present situation, there is no throne.
There is chaos.
When there was a King, there was permanence, and the fact that he ‘arose’ by birth rather than election, despite the system’s failings, meant that there was only one source of authority, and that it was permanent. Well, it was permanent until the King was beheaded or overthrown or the Kingdom was invaded.
Not for a minute am I saying that we need to revert to a King. I am saying that the existence of the ‘Deep State’ must be acknowledged. In theory, the key ruling body in the UK is The Cabinet, and not the Prime Minister alone. But there is a problem – the Cabinet is a group of individuals who are not especially competent. They may be clever and intelligent, and even wise, but they are generally ignorant about what they have to decide upon.
So they have to take advice. And that is where the ‘Deep State’ comes in. Who recommends what ‘experts’ should be consulted? The ‘Deep State’ comprises of the those who recommend ‘the experts’, and not ‘the experts’ themselves.
And that is how we came to have the general smoking ban, and the swingeing penalties on any publican who dared NOT TO physically attack a person who lit up in his pub. I experienced it myself. When the ‘Sisters’ (?) gave up the pub, on their last night, I lit up. I was assailed by them physically to snatch the cig from my mouth. But I only lit up because I was about to leave anyway. Another incident occurred when an Australian took over the pub. We all got along very well, except that there was an underlying current of bossiness. One night, I lit a cig and they physically threw me out of the pub and banned me. A couple of months later, immediately after New Year, they shot off back to Australia leaving all the debts behind them. Which ‘offence’ was worse?
It is no use going on and on and on, decade after decade, with the ‘Deep State’ in control. What we should notice is that the ‘Deep State’ is unaccountable. It can bugger things up with impunity. It can persecute smokers with impunity. It can persecute drinkers with impunity, and fatties. And it can destroy our fishing fleet and our coal industry.
What is the answer? The answer is that the ‘Deep State’ must be exposed to the light of day. The Heads of Departments in the Civil Service must be named and made accountable. It is no longer acceptable that those ‘powers behind the throne’ should be anonymous.
In the not too distant future, there will be no activity which is not criminal unless THE LAW says that it is not. Hate speech is a case in point. A person who feels that some action or word is threatening, is right until proven otherwise. So a person who fells insulted could report that event to the police and the police would be obliged to investigate. Think of the police time and effort, and the cost, of all those investigations. More and more ordinary activities are being criminalised. Assembling in a group can be a crime if a policeperson says that it is. What is the phrase? “Civil nuisance” or something?
Just recently, the powers-that- be rushed a new law/regulation through Parliament, hidden in a Finance Act, that importing tobacco leaf, a substance freely traded as an agricultural product throughout Europe, is a crime if you do not have a permit. The excuse was that such imports were a ‘controlled activity’. But how can such imports be ‘controlled activities’ and yet still be freely traded? It is impossible since needing a permit automatically stops freedom to trade. You can tell that it was rushed through because it is so full of holes. For example, suppose that someone sent me some leaf as a present or a free sample? Who then would be doing the importing? The exporter would also have to be the importer, unless the aircraft or ship which carried the ‘goods’ was the importer. Last year, I found some decorative nicotiana plants in my local garden centre and bought a few. They looked very pretty in my outdoor plant pots on the drive. Very pretty. When they died, I chucked them in the green bin. It is illegal, so they say, to transport such waste, so will the local authority be charged with a crime if they are found out carrying such waste to the recycling tip? Why not, if they do not have a permit?
But the real nonsense is in the reason given for the law/regulation, which is that there is a risk that a person might be avoiding duty. Obviously, just an excuse concocted by TobCon , which now seems to have control over the Border Force, as well as the Health Dept, Local Authorities, hospitals, and so to be, the streets. When will Government, at all levels, realise that it is being used by anti-British elements of the UN and the WHO? At least Trump seems to have realised that fact as regards anti-American activities. Note, anti-American and not un-American.
I have been reading quite a lot about economics recently. Economists say that free trade, in the sense that goods produced more cheaply elsewhere, for whatever reason, and imported, make us all better off. I thoroughly understand that. For example, our climate in Britain is not good for the growing of oranges, although it can be done. Better, therefore, to import oranges from those countries where they grow very well. Better to import oranges which can be sold to be public for £1 per kilo than protect home-grown oranges which sell at a price of £5 per kilo. But that is only part of the story. If people are earning good wages, they might not be bothered about paying £5 per kilo for oranges, but if the have no earnings, how could they afford the £1 per kilo?
In other words, there always has to be a balance. I was watching a documentary about the EU earlier on. In the South of Italy, there used to be a Fiat factory. Fiat (surely synonymous with Italy?) moved the factory to Eastern Europe. Thousands lost their jobs and the factory stands empty and derelict. Could anything be worse? Well, yes, it could. It could be made worse if the EU banned the South of Italy from making cars by introducing a law/regulation which criminalised such activity.Oh, they would not be so obvious, as the ‘controlled activity’ description of free trade in leaf has shown. Some other form of words would be used.
In the Trump press conference, he insisted that a new pipeline must be built with American steel. Purists would say that he should insist that the steel used should be the cheapest available (provided that the quality was right), but I have my doubts. If the American steel industry was fully occupied, then out-sourcing would make sense. And what about the use of semi-slave labour in the countries producing cheap steel? The EU Elite have grandiose idea about ‘equality’ which is fine in theory, but, in practice, produces 50% unemployment among youths in Spain and Greece.
What seems to me to be the case, if I may say so in my ignorance, is that money is not everything. Living in a pleasantly warm country, where you do not need central heating, and hardly ever need to wear an overcoat, has massive benefits. It would be even more wonderful if there were not Tyrants forbidding you from growing your own tobacco plants to make cigs and growing your own grapevines to make your own wine. Even better, would be a situation where some people grew lots of tobacco plants and lots of vines, and made products even better than you could yourself. Would that not be nice? Well, it would be, provided that Government left you alone.
People make noises about ‘small’ government, but no one actually does anything. What happened to Cameron’s ‘bonfire of the quangos?’ I suppose that some anonymous Civil Servant, in true “Yes, Minister” style, said, “Well, certainly, Prime Minister, but the chaos could seriously affect your electability. After all, 70% of the people agree with tobacco control”. Oh, wait a minute. There is no ‘tobacco control’ quango. That, in itself, should have raised suspicions. There is a Framework Convention but no quango in the UK.
It cannot go on. It must stop and be reversed. Is Nigel Farage the Leader that this country needs? It is a pity that we have this antiquated system in which the Leader ’emerges’. I still cannot get an answer, in my mind, to the question of ‘where did Cameron come from?’ He seemed to have ’emerged’. Where did he come from? He emerged from Eton, had a job somewhere for a while, became a Tory researcher, got elected as an MP, and then, suddenly became PM. The fact is that he was manufactured. What did he ever do as PM? Bugger all. Oh, he allowed plain packaging and various other persecutions like hate crime and the virtual exhumation of celebs to vilify them, and the prosecution of old soldiers for putative ‘crimes’ when they did their duty, oh and the general furthering of the persecution of smokers – and any other target which his ‘Elite Masters’ told him to.
I don’t think that Industry is as selfish as is made out. Yes, the objective of industry is to make profits. How could it be otherwise? For some reason, which might be justified, we in the UK exempt Health from that equation. As a result, Health costs are constantly under attack.
Is there any way that Health could be made profitable to the Nation? A very interesting question. I’m not sure if it ever actually happened, but I remember reading about a proposal that anyone booking an appointment with a doctor in OZ would be required to pay a small fee. I suppose that children could be exempted, but the requirement would be general otherwise. The fee might be £5. I honestly do not see a problem with that, especially if the prescription fee was dropped. That is, if a person was prepared to pay the fee of £5 to see the doctor, then the consequent costs, if any, would be zero. You would think that a person worried enough to want to visit his doctor would be very relieved to know that there was nothing wrong with him, and that he did not need medicine. I certainly would.
Ah, you might say, but the poorest people would defer visiting the doctor until it was too late. Maybe, but, again, you would exempt people who were on benefits.
The Criminalisation of Society goes hand in hand with ANY increase in the size of the State. The EU itself causes masses of criminalisation. Moving leaves around? Criminal. Allowing terrorists in? Virtuous.
I have been wondering what the UK could do with its fair share of EU buildings. The UK is not committed to ongoing projects since its withdrawal automatically terminates those projects, unless ‘the settlement’ agrees otherwise. Get the idea? Article 50 is irrelevant. We have decided to leave the EU, period. Any negotiations are NOT about ‘the terms’ of leaving. There are no such ‘terms’. They negotiations are about ‘settlements’. What ought to play a huge part is the protection afforded to the EU over the decades by our armed forces. Remember that, immediately after WW2, France, Germany, Italy had almost no armed forces. Despite the sabre rattling, nor did the Soviet Union. All those countries, including Great Britain, were exhausted. Apart from the USA, which profited magnificently from that conflict.
So the EU is crippled. It does not matter what Juncker and co say. A worthy dream of gradual cultural and economic integration has been ruined by the greediness of The Elite.
So what must be done? It is obvious. That Elite must be banished and prosecuted where possible. There must be no Elite.
I think that our UK democracy has to change also. I base that thought upon the idea that around 100 MPs of the major party become Ministers of one sort or another. We have seen how some of these people are totally unequipped either with experience or intellect to deal with their briefs. For example, Milton MP believed that the UK had to obey the FCTC bosses, and Soubry MP thought that ecigs had been removed from the EU TPD. But the real horror of those situations was that IT DID NOT MATTER WHAT THEY THOUGHT. They were powerless.
So when the UK has agreed with other countries in the EU (not the likes of Juncker) what the settlement of assets etc might be, there might possibly be a totally new agreement between those countries and the UK.
It is a total mess, but only because successive UK governments have been careless. Extremely careless. It comes down to this. You cannot allow junior ministers, who know bugger all, to commit the UK.
Nor can you allow Special Interest Groups, like ASH, to dictate to the Border Force what is important. ‘Fanatical Islamist Suicide Bombers’ are important, and not importers of dried leaves.
If there is to be truly international ‘free trade’, despite what I said earlier about ‘protection’, then there should be no such thing as ‘Duties’. The whole concept of ‘duties’ is unutterably silly. If a State wants to decrease the competitiveness of its industries in the world, the easiest way is to increase those industry’s costs. It is totally INCOMPREHENSIBLE that we still have petrol duties. It really is incomprehensible.
What activities can really be described as criminal? There are lots and lots, from murder to theft to cruelty. Lots and lots. But we could do without artificial criminalities, like ‘controlled activities’.
Disobedience is the only way. But the problem with disobedience is that it acknowledges that there is something to to be disobedient to. Perhaps there is another way. For example, import a package of leaf of only 500 grams. Who cares? And if and when Border Force intercept such an import, ask why the allowed all the previous similar imports through? It is only questions like that which bring the stupidity of ‘permits’ to the fore.
I cannot understand why Government does not hate special interest groups. Surely, those groups must make Government harder. They demand that special attention should be given to their project.
The ‘Hospitality Trade’ needs a lift, including pubs, clubs and restaurants. What could be better than a softening of the smoking ban? What is important is that such places should have ‘smoking areas’ and not ‘non-smoking areas’. The probability is that the ‘smoking areas’ would be more popular than the non-smoking areas. The challenge for pubs would be to re-arrange their bars so that employees were ‘protected’ from SHS.
Erm. Such SHS danger does not exist. The ban is not based upon science, but only upon force of law.
We must understand that ONLY law/regulation matters. Opinions and Studies are irrelevant. But such laws/regulations are corrupt and always have been. Why? Because they SINGLE OUT a law-abiding group and criminalise them.
It is beyond my comprehension how this can have happened, even though it has been ‘salami’ sliced.
If you think of smokers, it can only be that politicians, especially those involved with the UN and the FCTC, have decided that such smokers are vermin. That is the only way to understand it. There is no better understanding than that smokers must be ‘exiled to the outdoors’.
Just suppose, for a second, that the Black Death, the Bubonic Plague, which swept through Europe in the 1600s, could have been curtailed if not stopped completely. Suppose that a simple, widely available substance, which could be drunk, stopped the infection or cured it. You would think that ‘the authorities’ would have spread the word as rapidly as humanly possible at the time. We know that, despite the lack of telephones etc, word could be spread very rapidly via town criers and pulpits. The country was alerted to the Spanish invasion by bonfires.
The word can be spread these days in seconds.
The Australian Government decided that it was going to be the leader in the league table of reducing tobacco smoking prevalence. Or rather, the TC Tyrants decided so. The Oz Government played no real part in the decisions. TC Tyrant ‘academics’ were in control and Oz politicians fell dutifully behind them.
Just recently, Oz has twisted itself into knots. It really is incomprehensible.
UNSAFE, dangerous, carcinogenic, killers of bystanders, aka cigarettes, are applauded by ‘luxury’ taxation. SAFE, harmless, detoxified ecigs containing minute quantities of nicotine are vilified and banned. Substitution is discouraged.
If such ineptitude among politicians in OZ is NORMAL, how can those people be considered to be fit to rule? It makes no sense. But is it not becoming clearer and clearer that the PEOPLE are learning? Frankly, I think that it has taken far longer for the PEOPLE to learn than it should have. I think that is because the PEOPLE trusted the people that they elected as their representatives. How would they know that a person standing as Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, or whatever, was in fact a ‘tobacco control fanatic’?
So I can point readers to this critique of the Tyrant’s preliminary decision to continue the ban on nicotine containing ecig liquids:
It is all very comical, but it indicates a very important point, which is political ineptitude. Rather than listen to its own People, Oz is listening to International Tyrants in the WHO.
For how long can the Tyrants hold sway? I do not know, but I DO know that only our elected representatives can stop it.
I do not know how ecig machines became known as ‘pens’. I can only guess that they look a little like fountain pens of old. But those examples are rather antiquated, aren’t they? Many serious vapers use machines which do not resemble ‘pens’ at all.
It is a matter of visualisation. The word ‘stick’ would have the same visualisation in the sense that a ‘stick’ is a narrow, circular length of a branch of a tree or shrub. A ‘pen’ has the same visualisation.
It surprises me that vapers have not found new words to describe their equipment. (Note straight away that the word ‘vaper’ is a new word, as is ‘vaping’) How can they invent the words ‘vaper, vaping’ but fail to give the machine a sensible name? I think that almost everyone would concede that the phrase ‘electronic cigarette’ was a terrible, terrible error.
TobCon changes the meaning of words over and over again, and it succeeds in doing so by constant repetition. So why do not vapers arrive at their own word for the ‘machine’? It is critically important extract the machine from regulation other than normal requirements for safety of electrical apparatus. It is no big deal. Essentially, ‘vape pens’ are not much different from flash-lights. A battery heats a filament.
But note that I had no alternative but to use the phase ‘vape pen’. What a vacuous word – ‘pen’!
But we do have a simple word, which is ‘heater’. The phrase ‘vape heater’ makes sense, and divorces vaping from smoking. ‘Heating’ is absolutely not the same as ‘burning’. So a vaping device is a ‘heater’.
But my essential point is that the Tyrants are not bothered about the toxins in vape liquid, although they pretend to be so. It is THE MACHINES that they want to ban. They want to ban the ‘heater machines’.
It really is a horrible mess, because no one knows how to define ‘ecigs’ (if we accept that the term means a heating machine).
But this lack of definition horrifies TobCon. It suggests that ‘things are out of THEIR control’. And so they adopt their own definition, which is ‘a gateway’. Damn it! the ecig is a machine!
I was amused to see tonight a video about vaping green tea:
The machine was used to vape tea.
The ‘Masters of Europe’ have decided to poke a snoozing beast. The only thing that matters is how the Masters escape from justice. They WILL escape.
It is so sad that the EU could have been wonderful. But it allowed itself to be hijacked. Nay, the EU is a thing. It was the Politicians who allowed it to be hijacked. If taken slowly, slowly, the EU could have balanced out aggressions and plunder, but it became an instrument of plunder in itself.
Ignore everything that comes from the EU. It is corrupt. Ignore everything which comes from Tobacco Control. It is corrupt. Carry on. Bugger the bastards.
You can get a nice flavour by vaping green tea. Can you get a nice flavour from smoking green tea?
No wonder that the Tobcom elite is hysterical. Smokers have suffered from ‘a thousand cuts’, but TobCon is now on the receiving end of the same ‘thousand cuts’. It may be that ‘stop smoking services’ have traction, but massively paid executives have not.
Tobacco Control is the epitome of Tyranny. ‘Banishment’ has been a tool of tyranny since time immemorial. It saves the tyrant from the possible ignomy of executing ‘deplorables’. Galileo was subjected to ‘house arrest’ for the rest of his life, which is much the same as exile. Exile was common in the Roman Empire and has been so ever since. What else was the transportation of criminals to Australia by English courts in the 19th century, but exile? What else was the exile of political opponents in Soviet Russia to the Gulag?
Smokers in England were ‘exiled’ to the outdoors in 2007. Sure, they were not sent to the penal colony of Australia, but the were still ‘excluded’. ‘Exile’ is ‘exclusion’. Thus, Galileo’s house arrest was just as much ‘exile’ as had he been sent to Outer Mongolia. It meant that he was unable to communicate with the wider world. But the Pope at the time was not antipathetic to Galileo’s knowledge of the solar system. In effect, Galileo said that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but it is still the ‘centre of the universe’ as far as God is concerned. Guys like Galileo were not stupid. They could argue that our vision of everything revolving around the Earth was true – in a sense – and that it did not matter if the physical detail was incorrect.
It has become more and more obvious that the ‘exclusion’ of smokers had nothing to do with the health of workers. Further, it is becoming more and more obvious that the ‘evidence’ (the ‘science’) was a morass of lies. Deliberate exaggerations are LIES. For example, if a child nicks a sweet from an open display of sweets in a shop, it is a LIE to say that he was stealing sweets from the shop, without saying how many sweets he stole. One sweet is not sweetS, and a handful is not a bucketful.
TobCon has fooled millions of people into believing that SHS is equivalent to the Sun going around the Earth and to a child pinching a sweet rather than a lorry load.
The Doll Doctors Study showed, without doubt (provided that it was not ‘fixed’, which is far from certain), that SHS is far too weak to cause trouble. Even Doll said so. He admitted that being in a room with a smoker would not trouble him.
There are all sorts of errors. For example, a person who deeply inhales does not retain the smoke. He blows almost all of it back out. Smoke rings? So, since a smoker blows all the smoke back out, does that mean that people who do not inhale much have the same risk? Well, no. According to the Doctors Study, heavy use of cigs ( 25 or more per day) caused death more often and earlier than moderate use (15 – 24), etc, and the mere use of X number of cigs, on average, causes horrible, torturous, exiled, persecuted deaths.
Tobacco Control has been in existence now for some decades. By its nature (free from legal control), it must be corrupt. It is like Lysenko science in Soviet Russia. Put a corrupt person in charge, and you get corruption in every aspect. By ‘corruption’ I do not necessarily mean financial corruption. I mean ‘torturing’ individuals by taxes and bans.
Sure, my use of the word ‘torture’ does not precisely equate to electrodes on genitals and water boarding, but the drip, drip of theft by taxation and bans of all sorts mounts up. It does not take many of such increments to arrive at gas chambers.
Our ‘elected representatives’ are supposed to be vigilant on our behalf, smokers and non-smokers. They are supposed to watch out for tyranny and block it. That is what they are for, and little else. They do not exist to pit smokers against non-smokers.
But there seems to be no way whatsoever to bring ‘experts’ to justice. They can say what they like and claim ‘authority’. Fine. Even the most cowardly Governing Party could ‘exile’ those ‘experts’.
The USA is going through a thrombosis in Higher Education. Its universities seem to have abandoned factual knowledge, and decided that emotional opinions will advance the human condition. Well, good luck with that.
I don’t know if President Trump or Prime Minister May really know that their DUTY is to reverse persecution. The UN must be massively reformed. The IPCC must be decimated to exclude authority. The FCTC must be demolished to do away with waste.
All these things are OBVIOUS! Only corruption keeps them going.