It has been reported that the tobacco control industry, England division, want tobacco taxes increased by at least 5%. That is what the ‘Unofficial Parliamentary Group of Anti-smoker Witch Hunters’ want, and these individuals have collectively screamed.
It is beyond comprehension that these ‘Witch Hunters’ want to punish the bewitched. For, is it not true, that ‘nicotine addiction’ is the equivalent of being bewitched? The last people to be punished are those who have been bewitched. Therefore, increasing taxes is the worst possible thing since it it punishes the wrong people.
We all know that to be true. But I propose a different slant. I propose that non-smokers, non-drinkers, and non-car users should pay ONLY their fair share of taxes. For too long, those who enjoy life have subsidised those who do not. It is time that the ‘miserables’ paid their fair share. For too long, these ‘miserables’ have wasted the time of doctors. “I have had a headache, doctor, for a whole day, therefore I must have brain cancer, doctor. PLEASE assure me that I do not have brain cancer and send me for tests, and give me some pills for the headaches”.
The ‘cognitive dissonance’ is manifest. Tobacco Control has lost the plot. It wishes to punish the poorest people and leave the wealthiest alone. But who are the wealthiest? Cognitive dissonance rears it’s head again. The wealthiest are those who want to punish the poorest.
Those people are a group. They cannot abide the idea that some people might chose to take up ecigs as a way to enjoy inhaling pleasant substances. They are a powerful group, but they have no power. There again rises ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ – they seem to be powerful, but have no power to make laws.
In the UK, there is a simple answer to the unfairness of smokers subsidising non-smokers. What I propose is not a diminution of tobacco taxes, although that would be the most sensible thing. What I propose is a ‘health tax’.
Since tobacco enjoyment has been much reduced, and since hardly anyone goes to pubs any more, then it is obvious that those who do not indulge in such pursuits have to pay more. I REALLY LIKE THAT!!! Non-smokers and non-drinkers pay more
We smokers can giggle. We are immune. We KNOW that that the FCTC only applies to non-smokers.
You need to think about that.
“Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad’. Anonymous ancient proverb, wrongly attributed to Euripides. The version here is quoted as a “heathen proverb” in Daniel, a Model for Young Men (1854) by William Anderson Scott.”
There is something uniquely odd about tobacco control. Dick Puddlecote drew attention to a ‘consultation’ by Brighton local authority about the banning on smoking in certain outdoor place. Those who have been following the ‘craziness’ of Brighton will know that it fell under the control of ‘The Greens’ some time ago. I believe that the greens have now lost control, but I’m not sure. It was during that time that Brighton banned smoking in one of its squares. I forget the details. Of course, it was not strictly a ban since the council has no such authority, but it has been put about as though it was a legal ban and citizens are encouraged to shout and scream at smokers who light up in that place. Brighton is now conducting a survey to ban smoking on beaches and other places. I completed the consultation form. It is the usual thing, including your age, gender-you-claim-to-be, ethnicity, and other related matters which have nothing to do with the matter in hand. One should have no qualms whatsoever about lying. For example, the form asked for one’s status as a respondent. None of the categories applied to me so I ticked ‘visitor to the city’. It’s sort of true since I did go to Brighton once about 65 years ago. It seemed a nice touch to imply that, as a visitor, one is absolutely against their plans.
Another similar survey/consultation has appeared, this time from Swansea. It is very similar. I completed that one also.
But I am becoming very cynical. I find it desperately bothering that these manifestly dishonest surveys and consultations are thought to have any value. For example, it is obvious that non-smokers have no incentive to check the truth of the so-called ‘science’ behind these bans. If it is true that 80% of the adult population are now non-smokers, it is obvious that they will have no idea that the danger from SHS is non-existent unless you are exposed for hundreds of years; that smoking a cig, which only lasts for about seven minutes, in a car when your child is present, will not have the slightest affect on him/her. The claims are so massively exaggerated as to be outright lies.
So we have Cameron saying that he is going to have EU treaties changed so that Britain can regain the powers which were given away, and yet he gives approval to pathetic, useless, dangerous, divisive prohibitions which ARE NOT dictated by the EU.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, lies the ‘cognitive dissonance’ – madness.
I came across something else today which is interesting. It was a little parable.
A professor in a mental health lesson (something like that) holds up a glass which is half full of water. Students expect him to ask them whether the glass is half full or half empty, but he asks them, “How heavy is this glass of water?” The question is so obviously stupid that no one answers for a little while until someone says, “Erm…. Obviously, we cannot say unless we get some scales and weigh it”. “True”, says the professor, “But I feel a weight, and, at the moment, it doesn’t feel heavy, but if I held it like this for an hour, my arm might start to ache. If I held it for a day, the glass would feel very heavy indeed and my arm would ache like mad. Worry is like this glass of water. Worry for a minute and there is no problem. Worry for an hour, and the worry starts to get ‘heavy’. After a full day, that worry becomes really painful. After a week, it can drive you mad.”
‘Cognitive Dissonance’ is like worry. It involves a person accepting two (or more) contradictory beliefs as both true, or something similar which is not so clear-cut. For example, a parent might believe that his son/daughter is a normal, good person. He is bothered a bit when said son/daughter keeps going out at night dressed all in black, and a brand new laptops and such expensive stuff appears in his/her room the next day. He knows that son/daughter is a good person, but is bothered by what is happening. He puts it out of his mind. When the police arrest said son/daughter, accusing him/her of theft and burglary, parent expresses intense surprise and shock. “He/She is a good person and would never do anything like that”, says parent to the local rag. There lies the CD – the parent tries to separate what he knows via observation from what he believes to be true.
You could say that a belief in global warming is much the same. I was watching a video of a US government committee hearing earlier today. Unfortunately, I can’t find it now. It does not appear in my history. It would be very hard to find it by looking through the sites I have visited today.
PS. Found the video. It was on ‘Grandad’s’ site:
The gist was that a VIP rep of some organisation in the USA had claimed that the world was definitely heating up and that ‘the science was settled’. There was no doubt. The Chairman of the committee asked him to explain why then there had been no satellite data which corroborated that statement for the past 18 years and that such data, in fact, indicated no warming. The VIP would not answer the question. The chairman tried a different approach. He asked the VIP if he had heard of ‘THE PAUSE’. The VIP simply would not respond. Again and again, the chairman asked him, without response. The VIP kept asking for advice from has assistants before answering, and all he said was: “The consensus among 97% of scientists is that global warming is a fact”. He repeated that mantra again and again and again. In the end, the chairman gave up and ended the meeting.
There is no doubt in my mind that CD is common in tobacco control. I remember, when I was about ten, an auntie saying to my mother, “It must be true because it was in the newspaper”. Even as a child of such tender years, I was sufficiently sensible to wonder, in my mind, why it should be true because it was in the newspaper. I suppose, at that age, I was reading a lot of comics, such as the Beano. I was sensible enough to know that the stories that I read in the Beano were not real. Desperate Dan did not eat enormous ‘cow pies’. (Or was that the Dandy?); Jimmy did not have a magic patch on the seat of his trousers which enabled him to fly. Why should ‘what the newspapers say’ be any more true than Desperate Dan or Jimmy And His Magic Patch?
We must understand that the VIP mentioned above was not suffering from CD. He was just a charlatan taking advantage of the current CD in the general population. Why is there CD in the population? Because almost everyone over 50 who is reasonable fit must have been around smokers all his life without problems. Only the propaganda from TC can have put into his mind that smoke is really, really dangerous. Therefore, he has conflicting evidence and MUST believe two conflicting things at the same time:
- He is healthy and fit.
- He has been damaged by tobacco smoke.
That dissonance lead such people into vehement comments on newspaper articles. It is the only way that they can cope with ‘the madness’ created by CD.
There are other weird things. Some 70% of the population would like to see capital punishment brought back, but politicians will not countenance it. And yet, those same politicians will send bombers to kill a couple of persons who ‘pose a terrorist threat’ to an unknown target in the UK, even though those persons are in Syria. Further, in that action, there was no guarantee that other people would not be killed or maimed, even it the right target was hit.
Is it any wonder that Ministers serve for a time in some capacity and then move on? Rarely do they stay in the same position for long, apart from ministries like the treasury. In those ministries, there is not much room for CD. Figures are figures.
So who are “The Crazies”? They are the people who have succumbed to ‘the madness’. Note that ‘the madness’ describes a mental state. “The Crazies” are those people who have succumbed.
I try to imagine a council meeting in somewhere like Brighton of Swansea. There is one member of that council who is a “crazy”. He/she suffers terribly from CD. He/she knows very well that there is no possible harm from SHS in the open air, but nevertheless want smoking banned in various places in the open air. He goes ‘crazy’ and invokes any and all possible fears which might be possible. For some reason or other, which we cannot presently mentally define, other members of the council are mesmerised. Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that most ‘un-crazy’ members contract the disease of CD from listening to the rhetoric of the ‘crazed’: children, harm, danger, glue ear, asthma, heart failure, brain death, etc, etc. Those members dare not, and physically cannot, stand up and shout, “CRAP, CRAP, CRAP”. Why? Because they are reasonable and sensible human beings and find it enormously difficult to tell another member of the council that he/she is mentally ill.
But that is what should happen. THE PEOPLE should not be dictate to by clever dunces who are mentally ill as a result of ‘Cognitive Dissonance’.
The condition of CD is not dissimilar to the conditions ‘sociopath’ or ‘psychopath’. The only way that a person suffering from the disease of ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ can cure himself is be getting other people to do it for him. Thus, a person who knows full well that a bit of tobacco smoke in a car from time to time cannot possibly harm a child in that car for the foreseeable future, but also knows that ‘there is no safe level of tobacco smoke’, will demand that the paradox be solved. For him, any policy which fits the bill (eliminates the paradox or eliminates the CD) is OK regardless of the severity, just as long as it eliminates his worry.
How many times have we seen statements like, “Smokers should be shot on sight”. But are we not equally in error when we demand that people like Arnott should be shot on sight?
People like Arnott are not ill as a result of CD. She is merely a charlatan, profiting from the activities of “The Crazies”. What has happened in Parliament (including the Lords) about smoking over the last several years has been a witch hunt type hysteria, led by “The Crazies”, whose ultimate goal, without a doubt, is a total ban on smoking. It must be so, since the ‘horns of the dilemma’ can only be avoided by denying the truth of the horns. That is, if there is a dilemma, then the sources which caused the dilemma must be untrue. For example, in a silly way, suppose that someone said that 2 + 2 = 3, and another person said that 2 + 2 = 5, then the resolution of the dilemma would be that both of those statements were false.
What is extremely weird is that “The Crazies” seem to carry the day in every respect. It has been going on since the Common Market was established. Why is the EU only now beginning to fall apart? Why was it not stopped long before it cost a fortune and why did our UK leaders not stop the drain on the UK People’s resources ten or more years ago? That is, what is the value that the UK gets from the billions of pounds transferred from UK citizens to apparatchiks?
The truth probably is that the savings of UK citizens are being deflated in value to pay for all the extravagance. Does our government know about and encourage that transfer of value? Is it surprising that our government squanders our wealth?
There are three classes. There are wealth creators; there are wealth users; there are wealth thieves.
“The Crazies” assist the ‘Wealth Thieves’.
This is not a subject with which I usually engage although I am interested. For the most part, I see the word ‘abuse’ as being a political invention which means very little. For example, suppose that Savile groped some young wench’s bum. Is that ‘abuse’? Is it SEXUAL abuse? If I take a girl’s hand and kiss it, is that sexual abuse? I remember, eons ago, coming face to face with a pretty young girl in a nightclub when making my way from A to B in a crowded bar. It seemed natural, whilst shepherding her around me to just casually stroke her bum. There was no ill-intent. It was nice. And she went, “Ooh!”, and smiled a luscious smile. Was my action ‘sexual abuse’? Was it even ‘inappropriate touching’? What few commenters seem to appreciate that ‘appropriate’ depends entirely upon the circumstances at the time. There is no absolute definition of ‘appropriate’, nor is there a definition of the circumstances. In my youth, it was common for young men and women to indulge in the most blatant sexual activity on the dance floor by virtue of clinging to each other bodily and kissing and blatantly groping each other. It is hardly likely that those groping did not lead to shagging some time later.
The ‘Judiciary’ seem to have some sort of Victorian idea that girls do not enjoy shagging. They do it only if they are married or if they are seduced. No ‘normal’ girl would assent to pre-marital sex unless she was seduced. Therefore, any girl who might indulge for pleasure is, by definition, a harlot. Girls are harlots or have been seduced. There are no prostitutes. Harlots exist. They are those females who enjoy sex but do not have a husband, unless, of course, they have been seduced – or groped, or ‘touched inappropriately’.
The idea of ‘an elite paedophile ring’ is massively appealing to the vicarious masses who read Sunday newspapers. It is not that the masses believe it, on the whole, it is more that it is amusing. Of what interest is it for most of us to find out that the FIFA president has been taking massive bribes (if he has). What do most of us care? We are more interested in smoking bans.
For a change, the BBC has produced a balanced report on the matter of ‘Paedophile Rings’. I got the info from:
That is worth reading in itself.
The actual BBC report is here:
We cannot trust the BBC one inch, so watch that report with the idea in mind that the BBC is not unbiased. It is crudely ‘leftist’ and ‘politically correct’ at the same time. For example, BBC news had a pointless report of some vague ‘global warming’ affect, along with a repeat of video pics of the poor child which was drowned as a result of the father’s idiotic decision to try to cross a sea in a rubber holdall. The hidden agenda is that all these things are YOUR FAULT. That idea hangs in the air. All of us in the Healthy, Wealthy West are being accused of causing the failings of the rest of the world.
Was there an elite paedophile ring? Did that ring prey upon unfortunate boys in care? Did that ring include the highest and mightiest people in the land?
But while all that blather is occurring, almost no newspaper pundits are talking about the 5p charge for plastic bags. Not that it matters in itself. As far as I am concerned, more plastic bags will go into my rubbish than before. That is because Asda will not collect plastic bags any more. Why should they? Therefore all plastic bags which come my way will go into ‘rubbish’. I can no longer expect Asda to collect such bags. Indeed, why should Asda even contemplate collecting bags which they no longer give away free?
What we are seeing is the demise of sensible democratic government. There are no principles involved. There are only propaganda intuitions.
If there are such things, Paedophile rings are weird and rare. They would require the active cooperation of lots and lots of people.
Watch the video and think.
Excuse typos – I must to bed.
Yesterday, I mentioned that I had experienced my first 5p bag charge. Today, our groceries were delivered by Asda. Asda said that it would give people an option whether to be ‘bag-free’ or not when ordering. There was no such option when I ordered, and I was interested to see what would happen.
The groceries were received loose in Asda containers and the goods had to be unloaded by hand individually, one item at a time. On this occasion, our order was very small and it was no great problem, but it will be when we get a full order – and if it is raining cats and dogs.
So I have in mind to get some big plastic boxes with holes cut in the side which you can grip to carry the boxes. Standing in my porch, I can hand the boxes to the delivery man and tell him to transfer the goods from the Asda containers into my containers. The Asda letter said that he would ‘help’. Plastic shopping bags can be useful, so, occasionally, I’ll have the stuff delivered in bags.
Asda used to collect used bags. They seem not now to be doing so. I used to put all sorts of plastic bags into the Asda bag collection. Now, those bags will go into the bin. What else can I do with them? If the powers-that-be think that I am going to search for a ‘plastic bag bin’ at a collection centre, then it must think again. Unintended consequences
The continuing rise in ‘unintended consequences’ resulting from legislation which has been bludgeoned through on the advice of ‘experts’ leads me to think that we no longer have a ‘Government’. What we have is a ‘government’. This new ‘government’ has replaced ‘Government’ and is in command. But it is not really government because it has not been elected.
So we have elected people who pretend to be ‘Government’, but there is no reality to that ‘Government’. These elected people know full well that only the unelected ‘government’ have power. They can do nothing about it because they made it so. They made it so when they allowed their decision-making processes to become so complex that only ‘experts’ (the ‘government’) could find ways through the maze which the experts had constructed.
It is because of this deference to experts that we have gradually seen the collapse of Democracy as we know it. I’m not saying that Cameron, Farron or even Corbyn are not clever, intelligent, honest men. What I am saying is that they are out of their depth due to complexity. They do not know what is true and what is not. They are just as subject to propaganda is are the people.
Thus, despite the invasion of Europe by young, muslim men, and despite the death toll in Syria and elsewhere, they have no option but to allow some environmentalist loons to create mayhem in shops and supermarkets. And it has all been done in virtual secrecy. Where have we seen studies and statements from quack doctors and professors stating how many whales’ lives will be saved? We have seen none.
But the regulation only applies to plastic bags. So why have the supermarkets not geared up to supply paper bags? You know the sort – they are quite common – they have slightly reinforced handles so that they don’t rip. Such bags could go into the paper recycling bin.
The serious unintended consequences of this ‘expert government diktat’ are uncountable, just as the ‘smoking in cars with kids’ ‘expert government diktat’ are unknown. How many crashes will occur on motorways because Dad is having a crafty fag while the kids are asleep in the back?
Some may say that this measure is much the same as the seat belt law – that people will just ‘clunk and click’ every time. But it is not the same at all. When you get into the car, you fasten the seat belt or you do not; when you get where you are going, you unfasten it. The seat belt law has no affect on the actual intervening time between setting off and arriving.
Having a fag is a different thing altogether. The Zealots say that ‘tobacco is more addictive than heroin’. If that is true, then how can they expect an addict to go for hours without a fag while driving 200 miles down a motorway? Said addict cannot even pull off the motorway and sit in his seat with the doors wide open. He must stand outside in the rain, and get back into the car wet, thus clouding all the windows.
We need a new political party. Even the Tories have been toying with changing their name. Some have even suggested that they might opt for “The People’s Party”. Ha, ha. I wonder if UKIP could change its name? I don’t know…. Perhaps it could be “UK Empowerment Party” – UKEP. Sure, it would retain its Brexit policy and its immigration policy, but it could also include a real determination to ‘rationalise’ university research, among other things, so that only one university received grants to study a specific subject. Thus, ‘further research is required’ would necessitate the description of precisely what further research is required, what it would cost and who would do it. The mere statement ‘further research is required’ is an admission of complete failure. I use that as only one example of duplication and failure. The critical thing would be that UKEP puts the elector back into prime position.
One of the interesting things about such thinking is that it would put the EU Commission back where it belongs. It would have no power to create ‘directives’. It’s duty would be to suggest ‘best practices’. The elector would be in ultimate, but direct, control. But somehow, the complexities created by the ‘expert government’ must be eliminated.
I have one suggestion which I think is massively important. Stop trying to keep people who are dying from doing so. I don’t mean that in a cruel sense. I mean, if there is nothing that can be done, then perhaps the dying person could allow his body to be experimented upon. But the philosophic shit hits the fan when the question is asked, “What do you mean when you say ‘nothing can be done’?”
Experts cannot decide in those circumstances. Only politicians can, since the decision are not physical (keeping alive at all costs, despite the rot) but are moral and philosophical.
But, as we have seen, ‘public health’ is amoral. It consists of amoral businessmen working mostly for Big Pharma. BP hold the purse-strings. Few of the charlatans who work in tobacco control have any interest in the morality of their ‘expert government’. They do not care. Only the successful creation of legislation matters.
Enough for tonight. But it is worth thinking about the reversal of legislation. Such reversal need not mean repeal. It might just as well be that everyone ignores the silly law, and it just dies. That process particularly applies to Treaties. There are masses of treaties seemingly still in force, but which died because they were no longer relevant. They ceased to exist via uselessness.
So we have no “Government”. Cameron et al are puppets, as were Clegg and Miliband. Is it just remotely possible that Corbyn might produce a ‘Government’? I doubt it because, clever though he might be, he is constricted by blatherers who claim ‘expertise’.
We have no Government. Seriously important legislation, in a philosophical sense, is nodded through. The Prime Minister, and other Ministers, just hide.
I was thinking about the 5p charge for a plastic bag. Today, I experienced my first such charge. I bought a loaf and a bottle of red wine. The total cost was about £6. I was asked if I wanted a bag, and told that it would cost me 5p if I did. Since I had no means of carrying those purchases without a bag, because I had other packages in my hands, I said yes. The shop assistant was at pains to tell me that all the 5ps would be added up and contributed to charity. I asked which charity. He did not know.
There is no point in pushing such things with the staff. They do not know. They obey orders. I wonder what he would have done, when he asked me if I wanted a bag, if I had just said, “No” and waited. I suppose that he would have put the loaf and the bottle on the counter. I could reasonably have looked at him and said, “So?” And when he looked blank, I could have said, “Are you not going to wrap them? Do you expect me to put them in my pockets? Have you no paper bags?”
Which brings us to the main question:
“Do these staff members have no union to protect them?” Why should they be on the front line, demanding 5p per bag and taking the brickbats? That also happened with the smoking ban. Publicans were caught be surprise because of late amendments to the Bill, but they still had months to object. They did nothing. They allowed themselves to become unpaid policemen. Supermarkets have done the same thing again. They have allowed themselves to become unpaid enforcers.
Today, I ordered our groceries from ASDA. I received a communication from Asda a few days ago which said that they would be charging for plastic bags from 1st October. They said that they would charge 40p for bags used in deliveries regardless of the number of bags. They said that they would provide an option in the on-line ordering process as to whether one wanted one’s order to be bagged in plastic bags. If not, then the delivery man would help with unloading the stuff from the containers in which they are delivered. No such option appeared when I ordered today. Will the groceries be delivered loose or in plastic bags tomorrow?
The question that arises is, “What is to be done about the HOLE?” If I buy a pair of shoes on-line, should I expect the shoes to be delivered without wrapping of any kind? Should I open the door to the postman and expect him to hand me a pair of shoes? Erm… What protection has my new pair of shoes had during transit? Are they not already soiled?
Which brings me the title of this post.
It is clear from the foregoing that Parliament has not thought the idea of the 5p charge through at all. Why has it not?
It is fairly obvious that the whole idea of the charge is merely intended to be ‘a deterrent’. It is not really serious. It is a bit of a joke. The 5p charge is intended to deter shoppers from expecting plastic bags to be freely available. There is no need for extensive accounting for bags, which the law requires. That accounting is way, way over the top.
But what is most important is the intention. The deterrent. By permitting this regulation, the Government has, in effect, confiscated children’s catapults. In fact, it has done worse, since it is possible for children’s catapults to do actual harm. It has moved legislation into a state of ‘teeth brushing is mandatory’. How could that be enforced? It cannot, and so it would be assumed that anyone with bad teeth has not brushed. Such people are disgusting, filthy, stinking non-brushers with bad teeth. They do not deserve treatment from dentists. Only persons with perfect teeth deserve dentists.
Are we not coming to that? Is it not true that the only people deserving of treatment under the NHS are healthy people? If you considered to be healthy, and you break your leg, then you can be treated. But if you are considered to be unhealthy, then you will have to rot and die.
The deterrent worked perfectly well with the atom bomb. It was not the creation of the EU which kept the peace in Europe since WW2, it was the the atom bomb. That was the really, really effective ‘deterrent’.
Can we protest about the silliness? Well, yes, but it is too silly to be bothered. That was the point of my last post – accept the silliness and MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION. For example, had Asda asked me whether or not I wanted to pay 40p for the plastic bags, I would have said “Yes”, because, on an order of £100 or thereabouts, 40p is nothing. Had the order been £0.50, then 5p would be 10%. THAT IS HUGE! Isn’t it? Or is it? Even at an order level of 50p, 5p is nothing.
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that we, in the UK, have no Government at all. We have ‘Experts’ who control ‘government departments’, but those departments are not really ‘government’ – they are conspirators with agendas. They have no interest in the well-being of Britons.
When you think about it, most of tobacco control relies upon deterrence rather than clear force. Thus, tax on cigs deters people from buying them rather than forcing them not to. But it is the same thing in the end – Deterrence is Prohibition. Prohibition is Deterrence.
Our Elected Representatives do not give a shit about about The People. Has any MP voiced the obvious objections to the 5p contribution to charity? WHO DECIDES WHAT CHARITY MY PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION VIA MY 5p BENEFITS? Further, since I have now paid 5p for the plastic bag, what am I supposed to do with it? Can I sell it? If I accumulate 1000 such bags, what will be the sale value of them? Or would it behove me to chuck them into the sea to get rid of them?
No. It is absolutely obvious that Cameron et al are just figureheads. MPs are just figureheads. They are lost in the melting pot of ignorance. They are frightened to death of saying the wrong words, but they will bomb and kill without any qualm.
‘Deterrence’ is the wrong way round at this time. We need to have General Elections every year. That would certainly deter ‘The Elite’ from taking the proletariat for granted.
Regular readers will be aware of my take on the ban on smoking in airports. That ban is particularly onerous since one has to hang around for a long time before one’s flight departs. Further, one cannot smoke on the aircraft, or in the airport of arrival. Regular readers will know that I have a strategy for dealing with that problem.
As it happens, Manchester airport has smoking areas. Terminal 1 has an area which is on the ground floor. You have to go down stairs or use a lift to get there. In effect, you leave the building and enter a metal cage. Inside the cage, there is a minimal attempt at providing a sort of seating. In Terminal 2, you have to go upstairs into a similar cage. That also is furnished absolutely minimally.
Needless to say, those arrangements are an insult to our worth as paying passengers, but we have no alternative. Better that than nothing. We must accept that airports are so big and so isolated that they are a virtual monopoly in any given area. Why else would so many businesses want to pay a fortune to rent space in them? And why else would your ‘road’ to the departure lounge pass snakelike through the shopping mall? It always amazes me, when passing, snakelike, through the shopping mall, how many people loiter there. Why do they do so? It makes no sense. Are they so ill-prepared that they have not put a swimming costume into their luggage? Or do they not possess a pair of sandals before going on holiday? I can understand people passing the time by looking, but I cannot understand anyone buying. Or is it more a question of big retailers having a presence, and thus projecting a superior image? If so, then it totally fails to impress me.
I have a very good inkling that Manchester Airport only produced smoking areas because of delays in flights. I remember once when we boarded our aircraft and a trolley-dolly made a mistake. She was supposed to ‘cross-check’ that the doors were locked. She made a simple error without thinking. She opened the door! Shit hit fan. The chute deployed. We could all have slid down the chute into the sea, had the aircraft been on the surface of the sea. But we were on the tarmac of the airport. We had a five hour delay while a replacement ‘unit’ was flown up to Manchester from Luton. Needless to say, smokers like me drifted to various empty part of the airport and lit up. I did that more than once. I was prepared for the eventuality of being approached by an apparatchik – “What the fuck do you expect me to do when you have imprisoned me in this God-forsaken emporium? Who the fuck do you think you are? Where are you’re gun toting ‘security officers’?”
But, if matters proceed as normal and as expected, I have full control of my ‘addiction to tobacco’. That is a contradiction. You cannot ‘control’ addiction. The definition of ‘addiction’ requires that the behaviour is uncontrollable. What I mean is that I have become accustomed to not smoking in aircraft, just as I have become accustomed to not smoking when I go to bed, and not waking up every hour, desperate for a smoke. I have control of myself and my desires.
There is a point to the above diatribe.
Last night, we had a family gathering. The occasion was the post-wedding reception of our nephew’s daughter’s wedding. It was jolly good fun. Remembering that the area in which we live is deepest Lancashire, people should not be surprised to learn that the ‘refreshments’ consisted of either Lancashire hot pot or curry. And jolly tasty they were! But my essential point is that I determined not to allow myself to be bothered about the indoor smoking ban. The result was that I quite happily sat with the relatives and drank, laughed and jollied with much fun without the slightest interference from the smoking ban. Why no interference? Because it just did not matter.
Some time ago, I recounted the tale of the 50th wedding anniversary of herself and I. The family arranged a posh meal at a local ‘haute cuisine’ restaurant. I determined beforehand that I would not bother AT ALL about smoking. Not once, during the four hours or so, did I bother to go outside for a smoke. I was disciplined and it did not bother me at all. Last night was similar – I was disciplined in my mind. I sat and drank and ate and laughed and, from time to time, popped outside for a fag, along with others.
In both cases, I made up my mind, just as I made up my mind about smoking in airports and on aircraft. Smoking Bans do not apply to me because I have made up my mind. MADE UP MY MIND.
Which leads me to the title of this post.
The ‘walk of shame’ is when one takes out a fag and walks to the door to go outside. That is ‘the walk of shame’, and we pub-going smokers resent that ‘walk of shame’.
What I am proposing is that we treat that ‘walk of shame’ in the same way that we treat the walk to the toilets when we want a pee. There is a difference since we are forced to undergo the ‘walk of shame’ to go outside for a fag, but we are not forced to go to the bog. But is that true? It is not true. We could pee where we stand if we wish to. Only convention directs us to take the ‘walk of shame’ to the bog.
So what can we change within our own minds?
I went to my local pub tonight. It is Sunday, and, for years, there has been a keriokie night on Sunday. It used to be popular, but has died in the recent past. Even so, there were a dozen or so regulars, and it was always amusing.
The pub bosses decided to terminate the keriokie last weekend. Thus, tonight, the number of people in the pub consisted of 2 couples, a guy called Eddie and me. After a while, one couple left, leaving 1 couple, Eddie and me. A few minutes later, I left.
So what can we change within our own minds?
It is very simple and it is this. All the stuff about the health of bar staff is junk. We can be pro-active in our thinking within the law. We smokers can decide to go outside to have a fag because our tobacco smoke smells and upsets non-smokers. Thus, when I went outside for a fag with so many people inside, the two couples and Eddie, I did so because of the horrible, life-threatening smell that those people might have to suffer. I am a considerate person. If my tobacco smoke upsets others, then I’ll not smoke in their presence. Thus, even if there was only Eddie alone in that huge pub, I would consider his feelings. Even though I am standing 10 metres away from him, and even though he might not give a toss about me smoking, or the smell, I will not smoke in that place.
I DECIDE where I will not smoke. I DECIDE. I DECIDED last night not to let the idea of a smoke into my mind when I was enjoying the pleasure of being intimate with my relatives. By that, I mean briefly talking about my deceased sister and her deceased husband, the parents of the parents of the couple who got married. We had a wonderful time.
So the new idea is a sort of Gandhi revelation. We passively resist. Let the quack academics produce their fraudulent surveys, studies and research. Who cares? We shall carry on smoking because we wish to do so. AND WE SHALL DECIDE TO DO SO FOR OURSELVES. We shall also decide not to do so for ourselves, taking into consideration the nasty punishments which would ensue if we did not conform. But at all times, WE shall decide. We shall decide whether or not to comply. We may or may not. If we decide ‘not’, then we shall accept the need to be Gandhi-like. We shall accept that Public Health controls Cameron and not vice-versa. We shall accept it, but we shall decide for ourselves what is legal and what is not. WE shall decide what the law is, and we shall do so by passive disobedience.
Enough for tonight, but there is much more to be seen. For example, who decided that the vast majority of the people, those with the least ‘assets’, should pay taxes to protect the wealth of the elite?
That ban has just taken affect on 1st October 2015 in England and Wales. It has not yet happened in Scotland. I don’t know about Northern Ireland.
The mere fact that the ‘UNITED’ kingdom cannot get its act together speaks volumes. It says, with absolute clarity, that the ban is just a trick. It is not intended that it should be enforced. Such enforcement would be a waste of police time. A fine of £50, if it could be proved that a person was smoking in a car with kids present, in a vehicle moving at 70 miles per hour down a motorway, would in no way cover the costs of enforcement. The ban is not intended to be enforced. If you want to smoke in your car when going on a trip or taking them to school, do so. No one will give a toss and the police will not pull you up.
It is a confidence trick, pure and simple. Again, ‘fear’ is being used to persecute smokers, just as ‘fear’ was the weapon used in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia. ‘Fear’ is the weapon of choice for all autocrats. It has been going on for centuries.
Somehow, the autocratic tendencies of MPs must be drawn to the attention of the public. Thus, for example, Jane Ellison, Health Minister, is just as autocratic as were her predecessors, Subry and Milton. MPs who voted for the smoking ban in 2007 were exercising autocratic power. The power that they exercised was not dissimilar to the power of a parent to smack his child.
All the anti-smokING legislation, which becomes anti-smokER persecution, displays a trend of autocratic fascism. By that I mean that different political parties have the same aim regarding the specific target of smokers. Smokers must be persecuted.
The end of the persecution of smokers will only come when the terrible waste of resources in universities etc comes to light. Will that revelation show that student fees have been paying for the persecution of smokers?
I’ll leave it for tonight. Busy day tomorrow. Must to bed.
We all know the meaning of the word ‘extinct’. The word ‘extant’ is somewhat more unusual. Roughly, it means ‘existing now’.
Amazon have this system called ‘Prime’. If you pay £79 per an, you get certain benefits. One of them is loads of free films and videos. But you can have a month’s free trial. I thought that I would give it a go. NB, if you do not cancel, you will automatically be debited with £79. I have cancelled, but I still get the free trial.
I could not find the film that I wanted to watch, but there was a film called “EXTANT” which looked interesting. Anything with Halle Berry starring is good enough for me. Actually, it isn’t a film but is a US TV Series consisting of 13 episodes of about 45 min each.
The plot, very, very briefly, is that Halle B is an astronaut who goes on a mission and becomes pregnant by some sort of ‘alien lifeform’ which is roaming about in space. No details of the nature of that ‘lifeform’ or how she was inseminated are given. But she already has a ‘son’. This ‘son’ is not a produce of her womb, it is an invention of her husband. It is a ‘humanic’. That is, a robot, but one which is, externally, a human boy for all intents. She loves her son.
Her new child, a son, is born and turns out to be very powerful and dangerous. After all, he is half alien. Watch out when his pupils gets yellow rings around them! He can make a person who is holding a gun shoot themselves rather than him. Somehow, these part aliens get to spread all over the planet – how that happened is not explained, since the only one to start with was ‘the son’. Anyway, they get to be called ‘hybrids’.
It is all jolly good fun but, as is usual with US productions, is full of clichés. But what seriously interested me was that there was a hidden entity controlling everything. That entity turned out to be a super computer, built with the best of intentions decades before. It took advantage of the presence of ‘hybrids’ to build up an army of ‘humanics’ with which it intended to take control of the world once the ‘hybrids’ had been disposed of.
Naturally, Halle B finished the super computer off, the hybrids became humanised and everyone lived happily ever after – apart from all those who had been assassinated, killed and disappeared along the way.
Oddly, that series not not dissimilar to the Brit TV Series which I mentioned a couple of days ago – the one starring Edward Woodward from 1977. It was called ‘1990’ and showed a Britain in the throws of a sort of ‘lockdown’. The economy was in such a state that ‘special measures’ were enacted, but these measures were given a sheen of legitimacy by propaganda. The State had control of almost all newspapers and TV, via its control over their income and the supply of paper. To get paper for newspapers, you had to have a licence! Any newspaper which stepped out of line could have its licence revoked and would not be able to publish.
Do we not exist in such a society NOW? Is it not true that there are ‘humanics’ (shades of real human beings) manning Tobacco Control and every local authority, health dept, the catholic church, the Royal Society, the Royal College of Physicians, etc, etc? Those people are not the ‘super computer’. They are the ‘humanics’ who are programmed. The super computer is hidden from view.
To find the super computer, you would have to look behind the UN, EU, USA, CHINA, etc. It is there somewhere. Who appointed the current UN Secretary General? Who decided? Who decided that Juncker should be EU President? Who decided that Putin should be the Russian President? Who decided that Chan should be WHO President, or whatever her title is. Who decided that it was OK to spend billions of pounds of creating headquarters for these organisations and all their off-shoots? Where did the money come from? Who set them up and arranged the financing? It is odd how hard it is for ordinary people to get financing for their meagre needs, but multinational organisations seem to get millions of pounds from nowhere.
When I say “From Nowhere”, I mean it. But by the word ‘nowhere’ I mean ‘magic money’ – money created from nothing. For example, in a simple form, if the World Bank grants a loan of X millions of pounds to some desperate Country, that loan is ‘guaranteed’ by States like the USA, the UK. Germany, France, etc. But the USA do not actually pay anything. The money has been ‘created’. The World Bank creates a ‘debit’ for the Country which borrows, and creates a ‘credit’ in its ‘Guaranteed’ account.
What is the affect?
It is that those of us who have monetary saving are suckered. Our savings lose value. Money’s deposited in savings accounts in Banks lose value because interest rates do not keep up with inflation.
But perhaps it is true that such savings should lose value. After all, we get old. Why should your savings not also get old? Perhaps the answer is that you have to do work to stop your savings from getting old. That might involve investing your money in risks, such as company shares via the Stock Exchange. But there are risks. I have shares in Lloyds Bank. Some years ago, had I sold them, I could have got £10 per share. Now, you could only get about £1 per share. Thus, my £10,000 (if that were my holding) would only produce £1000 were I to sell the stock. But it may be that my original £10,000 was massively overvalued. Ha! Ha! That is how some people get rich on the Stock Exchange – some bet on the rise in values, and some bet on the fall in values. If they bet right, they get rich. You would think that the corollary would also be true – that those who bet wrong would become impoverished. That was true decades ago when the USA stock exchange collapsed. Quite a number of people committed suicide when they became ‘less than worthless’ in a monetary sense. IDIOTS! But that is what happens when people become engrossed.
What is ‘extinct’ at this time is ‘common sense’. ‘Common Sense’ has been replaced by Surveys, which are ‘extant’.
It isn’t about when THE PEOPLE will learn. It is about when POLITICIANS will learn. The ‘smoking ban in cars with kids present’ is a perfect example. That ban is unenforcible, as even the police have acknowledged.
Is it any wonder that THE PEOPLE have no faith in what politicians do? Why should they care? Why should they not go underground and just enjoy their lives? Why should they not enjoy cannabis, heroin, cocaine, etc?
WHO CARES WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES OR SAYS?
Government is a stranger.
It is absolutely obvious, isn’t it, that, over the last several decades, Democracy has been being taken over by Bureaucracy. How many new laws have been created over the last forty years? Does anyone know? Remember that every new regulation which is the result of an Act of Parliament is, itself, a new law. Thus, if the ecig regulations in section 20 of the new EU Tobacco Directive is enacted, each requirement of that section is a separate new law. “Not more than 10 cl per cartridge” is a new law; not more than 2% nicotine is a new law. Every demand is a new law. Further, when an Act enables the Sec of State to produce regulations, not specified in the Act, each and every regulation is a new law.
We are being buried under six feet of new laws.
The consequence is that no one, other than bureaucrats and lawyers, know what ‘the law’ is. Politicians are way, way, way out of their depth. They themselves do not know, at any given time, whether they are breaking a law or not! Was not the ‘expenses scandal’ just such a thing? Some MPs really believed that they could claim the cost of cleaning moats on their MP’s expenses; some of them claimed the costs of holidays, pretending that they were doing ‘research’. They thought that, provided that they did not breech the limit, that anything could be claimed, like new TVs, burglar alarms, etc. Buy a property in London (on an ‘interest only’ mortgage), rent it out and live with relatives or friends or commute. ENTITLEMENT, you see. We see FRAUD.
I personally believe that the reason that laws like the smoking in cars ban, PP and the 5p per bag law get through is that politicians are, a) swamped, and, b) ignorant, and, c) fearful. For example, I see no reason to expect that Parliament will not pass laws which enact the requirements of the Tobacco Control Directive, even though it has already passed laws which exceed the requirements of that Directive.
Why are these things happening in our formerly ‘free’ country? Why are being swamped by more and more new ‘laws’, day after day? Why has the medical profession become the new church of God? “Everlasting life, here and now!”
The above is because I have been watching an ancient BBC video called ‘1990’. It was produced in 1977. It purports to imagine a situation in 1990 where, as a result of a collapse in the economy, totalitarian measures were required to ‘save the nation’. Thus, laws were enacted to stop ‘people employed in essential jobs’ from emigrating. That included doctors.
But the important thing about the story is really about how Ministers were useless. In this story, there is a Sec of State for security who is just a loud-mouthed, vulgar authoritarian. He shouts and blusters a lot. He does nothing. Everything is done by the bureaucrats. He is the ‘public face’ of the bureaucracy, who actually believes that he is in control, where the fact is that he is a servant of the bureaucracy.
It is a good story and stars a young Edward Woodward. It was drawn to my attention by:
via someone else (plaudits to whoever).
Here is the URL which takes you to the serial. There were several episodes:
I’ve watched two episodes so far and intend to watch at least one more tonight.
In this story, the disastrous economic situation has resulted in rationing of food etc, wage freezes, quotas – aka a socialist paradise. But not everyone complies, and so ‘programs of correction’ are required and heavy mobs are needed to enforce regulations.
I am about to watch Episode 3. It is all a bit dated, but the principles involved are just as applicable today. Politicians are ineffective. They are clowns in a virtual circus. They soften the affect of the lions and tigers which prowl about, feeding on the body politic.
Around 2007, I did ALL my alcoholic drinking in the pub. I rarely drank at home. I kept no beer at home and a bottle of whiskey might sit in its appropriate place all year until Christmas.
Now, I buy red wine in 3 litre boxes and rarely go to the pub. I drink my vino and blather on the internet.
I wonder what lonely individuals do? I speak of those people who have lost their wives/husbands and whose children are long gone, or who have no offspring. How do they keep their spirits up? In fact, one might ask if their ‘spirits’ survive.
That idea is far too messy at this time of night.
I am, I suspect, a bit pissed tonight. If I am, it is the fault of tobacco control. It was tobacco control which changed pubs from friendly, welcoming places to forbidding places.
Heath is not everything. What would be the point of being perfectly healthy but miserable? That is a state of existence which animals might have to accept. Human beings do not have to accept that, as the mass migration of individuals from the Middle East to Europe has shown. Those immigrants are not the slightest bit interested in their ‘health’. What they want is ‘wealth’ and not ‘health’.
I am pissed on red wine. It is not my fault. It is because tobacco control drove me out of my local pub which used to be good fun but is now deathly. Further, the acquiescence of pubcos drove down the natural resistance of individuals. Pubcos accepted a duty to become policemen, which they should have fought against tooth and nail. The duty which they accepted was fascist and totalitarian, and they should have fought against it with all their might.
But they chickened out.
The immigrants have not ‘chickening out’. They are fighting.
What is obvious is that the EU is unreal and has always been so. There is no real EU. There is only a bureaucracy which has no purpose other than to survive.
There is only one answer, which is to quit. What that actually means is to stop giving our money to the bureaucrats. It is really easy. These people demanded over a billion pounds. Cameron said that we would not pay. But, recently, we have paid.
I firmly believe that our politicians are simply too young and too inexperienced. Also, the world is too complex for them to get to grips with. Therefore, it would make sense for them to simplify everything as best they can. For example, a ‘tobacco product’ should only be something produced by the tobacco industry, and should not apply to efforts of private individuals for their own consumption. The idea is simple; you can create your own wine; you can create your own vodka; you can create your own tobacco; if you so wish. You have A HUMAN RIGHT to do so. Your HUMAN RIGHT does not depend upon a law which forbids discrimination. Your HUMAN RIGHT is entirely positive. It does not require double negatives, such as, “You cannot say ‘no’ to a person whom you do not like”
I must to bed. But this subject is very, very important. TC has buggered up our happiness and welfare, and not one jot of value has resulted. TC is a leach feeding upon the body politic. It should be sprayed with insecticide.