THE CLUB’S AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

06/09/2011

THE CLUB IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO DETEST THE SMOKING BAN. WE DO NOT AGREE THAT SECOND HAND TOBACCO SMOKE IS DANGEROUS.

WE WANT THE LAW TO BE AMENDED SO THAT PUBLICANS AND OTHERS CAN PROVIDE FACILITIES FOR THEIR SMOKING CUSTOMERS. WE WANT AN END TO THE PERSECUTION OF PEOPLE WHO ENJOY TOBACCO.

WHY NOT GROW YOUR OWN CIGARETTE TOBACCO? IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL. SEE SIDEBAR FOR EASY-TO-FOLLOW GUIDE! OR GO DIRECTLY TO THE SITE:

https://growingandcuringtobacco.wordpress.com/

TOBACCO GROWING DIARY 2012 (SEE SIDEBAR).

TOBACCO GROWING DIARY 2013 (SEE SIDEBAR).

THE McTEAR v IMPERIAL TOBACCO (2005) CASE – SEE SIDEBAR.

DOLL AND HILL ‘HOSPITAL STUDY’ (SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER) (1950) – SEE SIDEBAR.

DOLL AND HILL ‘DOCTORS STUDY’ (1951 – 2001) – SEE SIDEBAR.

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

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

http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/the-black-lung-lie/

NB. BECAUSE OF SPAM, COMMENT ON POSTS WILL CLOSE AFTER SEVEN DAYS. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON OLDER POSTS ON MY LATEST POST (simply reference to the title and date of the older post).

 

 

The Price of Bravery

23/04/2017

Shortly after the Smoking Ban in 2007, a couple of brave publicans stood up and refused to comply. One was Nick Hogan in Bolton and the other was X in Blackpool. I suppose that there were others who never made the headlines. Certainly, several publicans were fined, although not to the full extent, for permitting smoking after time when the pub doors had been locked – what is known as a ‘lock in’. In theory, the idea was that anyone staying behind after the end of legal serving time was a ‘personal guest’ of the publican. I vaguely remember a publican asking me, sort of secretly, if I would like to stay behind as one of his ‘personal guests’. I said, ‘thanks but no thanks’ – I did not want to get pissed, tempting though the offer was. Such ‘lock-ins’ were targeted by the Zealots and raids were made my Local Authority Enforcers supported by the police. Headlines in local newspapers. No one ever pleaded ‘Not Guilty’ of the crime of ‘permitting smoking in substantially enclosed, public premises’. I suppose that their lawyers told them that they had no chance of succeeding. They may have been well aware that the Smoking Ban was much the same as a declaration or war. It had been a long time in the preparation, and all angles had been covered. The Big Battalions of The Law were primed and ready for the war.

But Nick and X stood out because they did not just permit ‘after time’ smoking. They made a terrible error. They said, “Smoke at your own risk”. Erm, no. They did not understand that it was THEY who were at risk. It was THEY who were targeted by the legislation. THEY became serious criminals (in the sense of being fined very large sums) for not enforcing the wishes of the Zealots. AND IT IS SHAMEFUL BEYOND IMAGINING THAT THE LAWMAKERS AT THE TIME PERMITTED IT. For example, suppose that road designers made a mistake which resulted in fatal crashes occasionally. The mistake might only been seen in retrospect. It might not of been visible at the time. That reminds me of The Comet aircraft. It was a beautiful jet aircraft, but no one knew that the welding of the structure could not stand the forces imposed upon it.

The same applied to Concord and Concorde (the Russian version). I think (ignore my ignorance) that those aircraft were subject to forces, at supersonic levels, which were unknown. Whatever, super-sonic aircraft no longer exist.

Is it not odd that airlines using Concord or Concorde did not collapse into bankruptcy.?How did they stand the cost of obsolescence? Who paid to scrap the aircraft?

We ‘crowd funded’ the collection of £10,000 to free Nick Clegg. He was grateful. I am sure that he has done his best to repay that trust. Perhaps we should expect nothing more that gratefulness. But we funded him to make a point, which was that we would not be cowed. It did not matter what he did thereafter.

Did Nick Hogan and X do well for themselves after the ignominy? I do not know. If they did, then that is great news. It is important to accept that when we crowd-fund something that we do not expect a reward for doing so.

Readers will know that I have been reading ‘The Gulag Archipelago’. I still have not finished it. Millions of Russians paid the ultimate price for their bravery in opposing the more outlandish demands of The Soviet. Failure to achieve a target was YOUR fault, and not that the target was unachievable.

We are seeing the same impossibilities today with Tobacco Control. The Zealots are becoming more and more hysterical. As they see it, and what they are paid to see, is that elected Governments are not getting into line, which is what they expect to happen with the latest ‘Tobacco Control Plan’. Until that Plan is executed, they have nothing to do. Their survival depends upon new initiatives and plans.

For years and years, Health Ministers, right to the top, have tortured, persecuted and robbed smokers, and Chancellors of the Exchequer continue that vile trade. Smokers are the equivalent of negro slaves. They are subhuman and fit for nothing except exploitation.

OK. I am one of those subhumans, even though I am not black.

So ‘the price of bravery’, in terms of being soldiers, is clear. Death and danger are inherent in that concept.

But discussions of ‘climate change’, ‘smoking’, ‘ecigs’, etc, should not have antagonisms as exposed by ‘Climategate’.

WHAT ARE THE FACTS?

The whole deposition of Tobacco Control is based upon non-facts. ‘Smoking causes lung cancer’. Erm, no. Very few smokers succumb to LC.

But we must be brave. And being brave is not difficult. In simple terms, it means displaying your cig as you make your way to the pub door. Do not be ashamed.

Being Brave, in modern times, need not be physical. Perhaps it is more important to be brave in your mind.

Toughing Things Out

22/04/2017

I suppose that readers will understand what I mean. I mean “accepting the slings and arrows and, by opposing……”. It is not possible to add the words “…end them” at this time. The main thing is “opposing”; that means ‘toughing things out’. Hoping that Tessie May, or Corbin, whoever becomes the next PM, will reverse the persecution and torture of smokers is rather silly; it will not happen.

But tiny cracks are appearing, and that is the best that we can expect. The recent outburst from a Minister, saying that Haringey’s plan to ban smoking in beer gardens is an example of Labour’s ‘spoilsport’ attitude. But note that he did not actually condemn such a ban. Had the Council justified the ban politically, then the Minister would have welcomed the ban, and claimed that he intended to spread it world-wide, and claimed ownership of such bans.

That is how politics works, and that is how ASH ET AL have claimed ownership of ecigs.

I see ASH ET AL as a front group which hides what is really happening. It continuously produces headlines about surveys and 70% of smokers want higher tobacco taxes and such shit. It seems that Public Health England has produced an update to their claim that ecigs are 95% safer than smoking.

Gosh, I’ve lost track.

As regards ecigs, the situation is perfectly simple. Toxicologists have found only minuscule quantities of harmful stuff in the vapour. End of story. No epidemiological studies can, at the moment, refute that fact. The minuscule amounts of harmful stuff are too small to have any effect during the lifetime of humans, even if they lived to be 500 years old.

I find it astonishing that so-called ‘scientists’ pretend that time-scales do not matter. Doll’s Doctors Study DEFINITELY stated, without any doubt whatsoever, that TIMESCALES matter.

What that amounts to is that there is no reason that a non-smoker who lives a sparse  life, not drinking alcohol and exercises, and all that, should not survive for hundreds of years.

So those of us who enjoy tobacco must realise that we have been particularly  targeted as the easiest group to demonise in the New World Order.

But we smokers can ‘tough it out’. It was impossible to defy the smoking ban in pubs etc since publicans rolled over and failed to fight against the demand that they should be enforcers.

So what is the best way to ‘tough it out’?

Just over a year ago, because herself, who suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, succumbed to pneumonia and was hospitalised. I had to cancel a trip to Spain to have a break from ‘caring’ and to stock up with cheap-ish cigs. Shit happens. Because my stocks were low, I had to buy cigs from Asda. The circumstances dictated what I had to do.

But had that not happened, there is NO WAY that I would have contributed a penny to the UK ‘Tobacco Control’ organisation if I could help it.

It strikes me that there are two groups who need not and do not think about how they are being ripped off. They are those poor-ish people who buy one packet of cigs at a time without calculating how much tax they are paying, and those who are wealthy enough not to care.

It is incomprehensible to me that smokers who go to Spain do not ‘factor in’ the purchase of, say, 10 x 200 fags, at least. The interest on Credit Card debt does not obviate the savings on costs.

But it is just as easy to drive to Hull and take the ferry to Ostend or wherever, and buy stuff at half price. The overnight trip is very enjoyable with entertainment on board, and it is not expensive.

What is the overriding idea in the above? It is that people have to take control of their own lives. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES will such people allow the likes of ASH ET AL dictate to them.

‘Toughing things out’ does not mean acceptance of the pain. It means seeking alternatives to the massively taxed products. There are many ways to do so.

What we ‘toughers of things out’ have to accept, for the time being at least, is that NOT ONE SINGLE POLITICIAN supports us. They are all terrified.

What else are they terrified about? I mean that. What terrors make them shiver? War with Russia? War with the EU?

All politicians seem to be terrified. Well, that is what the BBC news tells us.

Changing the Name of this Blog

21/04/2017

I have in mind to change the name of this blog, but I do not really want to lose the connections which have built up. Loads and loads of Australians look up my article about the law on growing plants in OZ. They never comment, but they read the article. Essentially, the article says that transporting of tobacco plant seeds and seedling was banned in 1911. One can only guess why that was over 100 years ago. I guess that the Aristocrats who ruled OZ at the time had very lucrative tobacco plantations, so it was in their interests to limit the potential opposition. Oz has perfect weather conditions for growing tobacco plants and the right sort of ground in many places, especially for growing Virginia varieties. Between 1911 and now, the Tobacco Industry has abandoned OZ, therefore there is no longer any need to ban the growing of the plants as a protective measure for the industry.

So why does that Act still exist? I have read about people in Oz trying to get permission to grow the plants, but hitting a stone wall. They cannot get permits.

It seems that the same is true regarding the import of tobacco into the UK. We must remember that ‘tobacco’ is the cured leaf. It is not ‘tobacco products’. The EU regs say that tobacco can be freely traded, but the Zealots have somehow managed to stop that free trade by demanding that people who want to trade in tobacco must get a permit. But the powers that be will not issue permits! It is just the same as OZ.

In fact, there is no doubt in my mind that the requirement for permits was ALWAYS INTENDED to be a catch 22 situation. There is free trade in tobacco, but you need a permit to freely trade, which permits are not forthcoming, which means that there is no free trade.

Those sort of tricks are becoming more and more prevalent.

I have gone off the name ‘Bolton Smokers Club’. It is too localised. It was OK at the time. In fact, I sort of rushed to get that name because I thought that others would beat me to it. I really thought, at the time, that ‘Smokers Clubs’ would spring up all over the place. In some ways, that was true. Many ‘Smoky-Drinky’ places came into existence. I do not know if they are still going.

But it has become clear that smokers are fragmented. It is hard to blame them. How can you defend the idea that beating your wife is your right? For defending smoking is similar at this time. The idea that tobacco companies are murderers has been inculcated into the psyche of the population.

When I first set up the blog, I had in mind to go around town and hand out cards to smokers standing outside pubs. I was rather missionary in my thinking. Perhaps I should have, but events kept piling up and changing the scenario, so that nothing was the same from week to week. Magistrates were sending people to prison for failing to pay massive fines for daring NOT TO force smokers out of their pubs. It was an organised, massive assault upon publicans. It was organised. It had been thought through. No aberration was to be permitted. And magistrates were fully instructed in what they should decide. It was a blitzkrieg.

And that is what Tony Blair authorised, even if he did not know what he did. He authorised the blitzkrieg on smokers, including all the hatred, fear-mongering, taxation, bans, scientific fraud, etc. Had he OKed smoking bans in public buildings like libraries, no one would have bothered. I mean, smoking in libraries is like smoking in church. There is hush which does not lend itself to partying.

So I want to change the name of this blog. Other similar blogs have done so and retained the archive.

What do readers think? I think that, in the blogosphere, specific localities are deleterious to the message.

So I have in mind something along the lines of:

“Tobacco Benefits are REAL!”

What is comical about that phrase is that it includes the support of taxation of non-smokers. Non-smokers pay less tax than smokers.

So where do we go?

“Non-Smokers are not paying their fair share”. One could enlarge that by saying that non-drinkers and non-drivers are not paying their fair share.

There are economist blogs – loads of them. But I have yet to see one which emphasises the unfairness of the lack of taxes on non-driving teetotal non-smokers. Those people should pay their fair share.

The only answer is income tax and simple VAT. Duties are unfair and discriminatory.

What do people think?

The Organising of Smokers as a Political Entity

20/04/2017

How is it that anti-smokers can form a political entity when smokers cannot? At the lowest level, ASH ET AL receive massive funding from the Government. I am not just talking about direct grants to Ash – I am talking about the salaries of university professors, health department apparatchiks, FCTC officials, and all the rest. ASH get somewhere in the region of £500,000 per an. In Government finance terms, that is a drop in the ocean – not worth bothering with. It would not matter if ASH was defunded. ASH is just a loudspeaker. Other loudspeakers can replace ASH, as we have seen in Australia. ASH is redundant. It has served its purpose and now has nothing to offer. Its purpose was to elevate smoking to a serious disease, and it has succeeded in doing so. There is no further need for ASH.

So ASH has been complaining that the ‘next logical step’ in the torture, persecution and humiliation of smokers, has not yet been put into effect. It is clear that the Government had much more important things to calculate. I would expect that the idea of a General Election has been on the cards ever since June 1916, after the Brexit vote. How could it be otherwise?

Sometimes, in World Affairs, there is a huge time gap between events and actions consequent upon those events. We ordinary citizens an voters have no concept of what is going on, and it is immensely difficult to find out. But that is what we elect our political representatives to do – to find out what shenanigans are going on and to stop the corruption. That is what MPs are for.

Why does no one talk about the goings-on in the UN? Or the World Bank? Or the The Bank of International Settlements? Or the International Monetary Fund? How is it that those organisations are sacrosanct and can do no wrong?

It really is absolutely amazing that the UN is NEVER EVER DISCUSSED. Nor, until recently, has the EU been discussed. It is as though an enormous castle, citadel, cathedral has been constructed in full view which no one noticed. Think of the Palace of Westminster being demolished and replaced with a shiny modern construction without anyone seeing what was happening.

But The Elite DID know what was happening. Our problem is identifying The Elite. I do not say that The Elite were wrong. I say that they, and their actions, should not be secret.

It is hard to see how the newly elected Government, after the GE, can open everything up, but that is precisely what it should do. We are sick to death about platitudes. The HARD FACTS are that the World Bank has been co-opted, via corrupt manipulations, to support the ‘torture, persecution and humiliation’ of smokers.

The UN is nothing but a POLITICAL organisation. It is weird that such a POLITICAL organisation has no political accountability.

What is clear is that Smokers are not permitted to form a group. They cannot do so because they are weak and easily disrupted. Ideally, Smokers would get together, but they are weak and not intellectually strong. That is a fact.

But Smokers do not have to be a political party. The interesting thing is how Smokers can can undermine the received wisdom. It is possible to do so.

General Election June 2017

19/04/2017

I cannot resist. A few years ago, before the Parliament Act (?), which enacted the fixed five year Parliament, was passed, the PM would almost certainly have called a General Election in the present circumstances in order to ‘certify’ his/her authority. I thought that the two thirds majority would have deterred May from calling for such an election. I vaguely wonder if PM May phoned Corbin and had a chat with him.

“Hi there, Jeremy! How you doin’?)

“OK, Tess. What can I do for you?”

“Like, I have in mind to call a GE. I reckon that it would be in both our interests to settle matters. You are a bit more Brexit than I am (giggles on both sides), but we both need to get a mandate from the electorate. It’s a sort of shit or bust, doncha think?”

“Right, Tess. I get ya. Yeah, I agree. The Brexit thing is getting in the way. Shit or bust, it needs to be put to bed. And Scotland is a pain in the butt. You wouldn’t believe that agro I have been getting from the Scot Nats. Yeah, let’s have a bust up. Should be fun”

“Cheers, Jeremy. We need a two thirds majority to exempt this GE from the Parliament Act. Can you deliver?”

“Sure. No probs. Let’s have some fun”

It is doubtful that PM May would have made the announcement that she did, had she been unsure of the outcome. Jeremy welcomed the GE.

Nicola Sturgeon, Boss of the Scot Nats was upset. The GE will chuck a huge spanner into the workings of Scottish politics. I cannot help but feel that the huge swing to Scot Nats in the last GE was due to the failure of Scot Labour to do anything for Scotland. If Scot Labour get their act together, the situation is so volatile that they may well reverse all the Scot Nat MPs in Westminster. And so it should be. Imagine that you have an army, devoted to defending the Realm, but a significant proportion of that army only wants to defend their own bit of the Realm. That is the position of the Scot Nats. I suspect that the Scottish People will see that the Scot Nats are fakes. I expect that Scot Labour will take back many of the seats which they lost. No wonder Sturgeon is upset. Her applecart has been overturned. I suppose that, as far as the Scot Nats are concerned, it all depends upon ‘the swing’. They were elected via ‘a swing’ of voters to them. Such ‘swings’ are notoriously volatile. I expect Scot Labour, Scot Tory and Scot Libdem not to be complacent this time round. I expect them to fight like hell.

But I must admit that I faced a quandary personally. If the vote was a referendum, who should I vote for? Such a referendum is like the US Presidential Election. It is a referendum.

My constituency is a Labour. It used to be Conservative until boundary changes took our area out of the conservative (small c) suburban sprawl and put it into the the labour (small l) compaction. So the fact is that, whatever I vote, the Labour candidate will be elected.

In a way, that makes things simple for me. I can vote UKIP just to make a point. But what would I do if I lived in a marginal constituency?

Perhaps it is a terrible thing to say, but I cannot help but think that the way our Democracy works encourages polarisation; left or right, pro or con, East or West, and so on.

But only now is Trump taking on the unspoken conflicts of Global Warming. If anti-coal and anti-gas have their way, then there will be no reliable electricity in Africa.

I see Africa as a global test. Africa is globally ‘ill’. It is the dark continent. My tiny site gets a few hits from all over the world – except the whole continent of Africa. The word ‘dark’, in respect of Africa is right. The ‘powers that be’ pretend otherwise, but the truth is that Africa is just as medieval as is the Middle East.

But who is right? Is it possible that a simple lifestyle is more satisfying than a complex one? How do we know that Theresa May is happier than a Chinese farmer? We do not know and cannot know.

I ponder that the Smoking Ban was a philosophical error. Do not laugh. The ban on smoking in enclosed public premises was predicated upon the idea that there were prisoners who worked in those places. Bar staff is a perfect example. I do not recall my local pub being staffed by prisoners. In fact, the truth is that there was a massive turnover of such bar staff.

The Philosophical Error revolves around the idea that ASH ET AL exist. They should not exist. They are the equivalent of Caesar’s assassins. The important idea is that they have no responsibility. They can say whatever they like and no one will pull them up.

It gets very messy, but that is what we have to pursue.

It is all about freedom and has nothing to do with government.

The Dangers of Bureaucracy

18/04/2017

It has been said that the Roman Empire declined and broke up because its bureaucracy grew and grew until it became unsupportable. I would like to put it another way. The bureaucracy replaced the army. When the Goths invaded Italy and sacked Rome, and were only persuaded to go back home by a massive bribe in gold and other precious metals (and, presumably, the fact that, once Rome had been sacked, there was nothing to keep the Goths there), it is reasonable to assume that Rome had no army to speak of, or that it was an ill-disciplined rabble.

The Brexit UK must change. The EU has created undisciplined rabbles. It is not just hordes of immigrants from a different culture which regards mini-skirted girls as prostitutes and ‘fair game’ for gang-bangs. It is also rabbles of bureaucrats.

It may be that the WHO FCTC rabble, and the EU FCTC rabble, and the UK FCTC rabble should not be the first casualty in the Brexit UK fitness programme. It may also be that the an early casualty should be ‘renewables’ as regards Energy.

I sometimes wonder if Politicians are frightened of their power. I really do. They have been ELECTED. They can do whatever they wish. But they are afraid. They want someone, an Academic or a committee of Academics, to relieve them of responsibility.

But what responsibility do these Academics have? What happens is they are wrong? A classic example is the Poll Tax. Do not tell me that Thatcher personally introduced the poll tax into England without advise. The poll tax had been trialled in Scotland without problems. She must have been advised that the same would happen in England. As we know, the poll tax in England was a complete political disaster. Note the word ‘political’. Little old ladies marched against it. What could be worse?

The ‘Danger of Bureaucracy ‘ is that it is self-serving. Thus we become aware of the ‘Deep State’.

The Americans in Iraq made a terrible mistake. They equated the Bathist party with the Nazi party. They insisted that anyone who was a member of the Bathist party should be sacked and replaced. Very stupid, since being a member of the Bathist party was a pre-requisite to get a job in the State apparatus. That is not the same as being a member of the Nazi Party. A very large group of disaffected workers was thus created. The Yanks misunderstood the nature of a Dictator.

It seems to me that the Smoking Ban is sustained by bureaucracy. No one, except people who never go to pubs, wants pubs to be completely ‘smoke free’. A genuine democracy would repeal the smoking ban as a clear infringement of rights conferred by ‘freedom’.

I really, really do not understand why the Labour Government in 2007, led by by Blair, decided to persecute its base supporters. To help the poorest, tobacco taxes should have been reduced to VAT only.

So, the conclusion is that Government loves to persecute the poorest people, just to slap them hard, again and again.

Is there any Political Party in the UK which is grounded in defending our Nation, spreading the notion of  cooperation, excising parasites like the FCTC TC, and all the other grandiose schemes of World Domination?

EU Domination was always doomed. How on earth did it ever get to such a pass?

What is the Chief Medical Officer for? (2)

17/04/2017

Continuing from last night.

Bloggers complain about the cost of ASH ET AL to the taxpayer, and rightly so. But those costs are chicken feed as a proportion of Government expenditure. Oh, and according to ASH ET AL, in due course, that expenditure will be rewarded with ten times or one hundred times the cost in savings as a result of almost everyone stopping smoking. All those lung cancers and heart diseases will not happen. Everyone will be ‘healthy’ until, one day, they will drop dead whilst visiting the morgue. It will not be necessary to ascertain the cause of death since there would be no point. Bung their bodies in the incinerator and be done with it.

I want to talk about the hidden cost of tobacco control, a bit like ‘hidden sugar’.

How many anti-tobacco zealots are hidden in the Health Dept, masquerading as genuine health ‘experts’, but whose loyalties are to the WHO? How much are they being paid? All those costs are costs of tobacco control, even though those costs appear in the books as salaries of the Health Dept employees. There must be loads and loads of such costs which never get attributed to TC as such. Think of all the TC operatives in local government.

But one might reasonably ask who these employees are working for? It strikes me that they are working for the WHO Tobacco Control Dept.

So the pattern is that there are a few organisations which are the visible face of TC and which are financially accounted for, such as ASH. But the real, and massive, cost is hidden. IT MUST BE SO. The USA contributes nothing, on the face of it, to the WHO FCTC wage bill, so those costs must be borne by everyone else. the UK contributes a lot, as does Japan, and many rich EU countries. But there are also many countries which ratified the FCTC which fail to make their financial contributions. Maybe those countries expected to receive financial support as a result of ratifying. Who knows what promises were made?

Who proposed Silly Sally for the job of Chief Medical Officer? I guess that a committee did so, and that that committee was packed with anti-tobacco zealots. In fact, I suspect that every dept of Government is packed with anti-tobacco zealots. After all, the Zealots have been working towards the elimination of tobacco companies for fifty years or more.

Why is there the attack on the innocuous ecig; that little device which enables a person to inhale pleasant tasting vapours laced with a tiny bit of nicotine, if desired? It is obvious to anyone who is not blind. It is that the zealots fear that tobacco companies will eventually acquire control of the ecig market.

What the ‘Experts’ want is Big Pharma to get ownership of the ecig market.

It is hard to see at what point our Government in the UK will see how enormous the cost of TC is, and how much taxpayers are supporting charlatans all over the world whose objectives have nothing to do with health. Their objectives are aligned with The Millennium Goals, which MUST BE population control. All the rest of the blather, like Global Warming, are as nothing compared with population.

I don’t blame them, but it would be better if they were honest about the problem. I agree that exponential population expansion cannot continue for much longer. It is not that the world’s resources are limited, but that space is limited. There is only so much habitable space.

Somehow or other, the advice that Ministers get must be checked for errors of all kinds, including statistical manipulation, pseudo-science, potential tyranny (like the smoking ban), and many other factors.

And yet we all got along perfectly well in the 1960s WITHOUT all the hysteria. I regard the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, as the optimum period of freedom. Since then, everything in terms of freedom, despite the general improvement in living standards, has been  downhill.

If you wanted to buy a warm pair of trousers, you searched the shops and found a pair composed of thick material. It would probably cost you more, but that is what you were looking for. Now, you cannot rely upon descriptions of trousers on the net. The word ‘warm’ is meaningless.

I illustrate the fact that words have lost their reasonable meaning, and the worst exponents of redefinition of words is the medical profession.

Essentially, it is up to the actual doctors and nurses to drive out the charlatans in their profession. It will happen eventually I’m sure.

 

 

 

What is ‘The Chief Medical Officer’ for?

16/04/2017

I was thinking back about the 2007 Smoking Ban, and wondering why on earth Blair permitted it. I was also thinking about the massive rises in tobacco taxes at much the same time, and why Blair permitted them. He must have been aware that the people most affected by such things were basic Labour supporters who had vote Labour, on principle, all their lives. And yet he decided to persecute them. Why?

It is also a bit odd that the smoking ban was not preceded by a massive TV campaign as the seat belt law was. Parliament voted in favour of the Health Act, of which the smoking ban was a small part, and then all went quiet until 1st July 2007, at which point a massive crack-down was instigated. Fear of massive fines stalked licensed premises and bar staff became little dictators, enjoying power which they had never imagined that they could wield. The effect was immediate – smokers went outside and sat outside on the warm evenings which just happened to coincide with the ban in July. And there was, I must admit, much fun. But Autumn crept in and that amusing scenario evaporated, just as the SHS did.  It evaporated permanently and never recovered. But that was because smokers no longer found their local pubs to be welcoming places – they became hostile places. The publican appeared to be a nice pleasant chap – unless you dared to light a cig, in which case he turned into a raving demon. So we smokers started to avoid those unwelcoming places most of the time. Frank Davis has recounted much the same experience as mine, though in a slightly different way. He has started to visit his local only in the afternoons and only when the weather is suitable, and he sits outside having a fag and a pint and avoiding human contact most of the time. I do the same. I now only frequent my local three evenings a week, and I avoid human contact. I do not mean that I am unsociable. I’ll chat with anyone who wants to chat, and I know almost all the regulars, who are now few in numbers. The Manager and staff are lovely, but I KNOW that if I dared to light a cig they would become raving lunatics. And yet they are almost all smokers themselves.

Raving lunatics.

It is because of the ‘raving lunatic’ aspect that I am so pleased that the Political Government has rounded upon Haringey Council with such vehemence.

From Frank’s site:

Marcus Jones, a minister for local government, said: “We already knew that Labour councils charge higher council taxes and levy more red tape.

“Now Labour’s municipal killjoys have been caught with a smoking gun, trying to ban adults enjoying their local pub garden. If implemented, these ill-founded proposals would lead to massive pub closures.”

“Conservatives in Government will be vetoing these Labour Party plans. Ahead of May’s local elections, local voters have a right to know the bad and mad ideas that are being peddled by Labour councillors.”

What I find curious is that the same could be said, in its entirety, about the indoor smoking ban.

We could also ask similar questions about Cameron permitting ‘plain packaging’. Why did he do it? Did he KNOW that the UK’s smokers were being subjected to experimentation?

And so I cast about in my mind for some reasonable explanation for these Political vicissitudes. PP had been introduced in Australia, but only recently. There was no evidence that PP had any effect on anything. So why did not Cameron not wait for evidence of some sort of effect? Why did he permit PP to be rushed through? And why have successive Governments persecuted smokers with excessive taxes? And why did Blair permit the persecution of smokers via the smoking ban?

The actions of Blair and Cameron make no sense. And I have been pondering how such nonsense could become reality.

The idea occurred to me that we in the UK have our own ‘deep government’. Unlike the USA, positions such as ‘Chief Medical Officer’ seem to be ‘tenures’. That is, once a person is appointed Chief Medical Officer, the Political Government has a devil of a job to replace that person, no matter how incompetent that person might be. But what do we mean by ‘incompetent’? To decide whether or not a person is incompetent, one would have to know what that person’s job was and have some measure of results.

Does anyone at all, including the PM and the Health Sec, have any idea of what the Chief Medical Officer’s job is? Silly Sally has pronounced on drinking alcohol by saying that whenever she has a glass of wine, she thinks about breast cancer. She was also a proponent of the idea that a sixteen stone prop forward cannot take the effects of alcohol any differently from a seven stone girl.

Do you see the problem?

The problem lies in the fact that the CMO has tenure and is very hard to get rid of, no matter how useless that person might be at the job – if anyone knows what the job is.

Our whole system of Government in the UK is stricken with ‘tenures’. That is not the case in the USA. In the USA, the President’s incoming Administration can remove any political appointee. I dare say that ‘compensation’ is due, but that does not stop the process. People as sacked and the appropriate severance payments made.

When Ms May became PM, I expected wholesale redistribution of Ministerial posts, which duly occurred. And yet, for some strange reason, the post of Health Sec remained in the hands of Jeremy Hunt. That is really weird. You would think that Jeremy-darling would have wanted to escape from that trap. But perhaps his tenure is a good example of ‘say a little as possible’ is the best policy. Jeremy passes the problems to his juniors.

But who controls Jeremy? Since Jeremy cannot control or sack the Chief Medical Officer, he is in the position of having to accept her advice. But it is good to see the Political Government bashing Zealots.

I have a vague feeling that PM May and her Ministers know full well that smokers and vapers swung the Brexit vote. They know that the smoker vote is important. The hardcore of smokers is not stupid, illiterate peasants. It is the realisation that the smoker votes decided the Brexit decision which has energised the ANTI-outdoor-ban enthusiasm.

The worm is turning. There is appearing a realisation that the UN, WHO, IPCC are essentially Communist. One World Government equals conformity and regulations, and not ‘common law’.

Only in the last few years have I become aware of the importance of ‘Common Law’. The whole idea of Common Law was not that the law was perfect, but that erudite judges had decided what was fair and equitable. Statute law is anything but ‘fair and equitable’. It is ‘one size fits all’. The smoking ban is a perfect example.

PM May must sack Silly Sally whatever the cost. There is no need for such a position (Chief Medical Officer) anyway. The CEO of Public Health England is far more important. But even he has no real job. What does he do? What is he for?

It is heartening that, at last, a government minister has derided the propaganda. We hope for more.

Outdoor Smoking Bans Banned

15/04/2017

I’m not going to quote chapter and verse. Suffice to say that the Conservative Government, the Political Government, of the UK, has decisively kicked the Labour Government of London in the balls. The Conservative National Political Government has actually dared to call the Labour Government of London ‘Nannies’. That is because the Labour Government of London proposed that smoking bans should be extended outdoors to patios and dining areas.

I personally believe that it is all ‘fake news’ intended to distract our minds. It is easy, easy to propose smoking bans. Such bans could be enacted to cover the whole of the Antarctic. The WHO FCTC Org would be delighted. But what is the point? The idea that SHS is dangerous has long ceased to be the justification for smoking bans. SHS danger evaporates outdoors.

But we must always be aware that SHS danger, during the lifetime of humans, is denied by the very studies which are the bible of Tobacco Control. Doll’s Doctors Study proved beyond doubt that heavy smoking took decades to cause lung cancer and other problems in old age. It follows that it must take centuries for SHS to have a similar effect because of the dilute nature of SHS.

And yet, despite the ‘scientific’ evidence that heavy smoking took decades to cause death, and that moderate smoking caused even less problems, and light smoking appeared to cause no problems at all, non-smoking in the form of SHS was said to be very dangerous to workers in bars and restaurants. Would that danger take effect when those workers were 1000 years old? That idea seems to be true, according to Doll’s Doctors Study.

The Zealots have got away with murder, just as the Prohibitionist of early 1900 did. They have equated smoking with Sin. Smokers are wicked because they just might ‘infect’ someone and cause them to die when they are 1000 years old.

Again and again, I have tried to draw attention to time-scales, but no one seems to be interested.

I shall go to bed.

How the Internet Has Changed Our View of What is Happening in the World

14/04/2017

Via a post from Frank Davis here, I heard, for the first time, about a guy named Tommy Robinson. Tommy comes from Luton, a town which is part of the sprawling metropolis of London, but still recognised as a distinct town by its inhabitants. He was an ordinary working class lad without much education, although he was bright enough to get 11 GCSEs. Over his lifetime, he became appalled at what was happening in his town of Luton. More and more and more Muslim immigrants were piling into Luton, so much so that Muslims gradually came to outnumber all other inhabitants of Luton. In the 1980s, there was one mosque – now there are thirty.

T is an intelligent guy. He taught himself and enquired and found that there were several Muslim ‘sects’, most of which were peaceful groups. But there was a Salafist presence, supported financially by Saudi Arabia.

It all becomes extremely complicated, but it is clear that there was an an extreme group of ‘Islamists’, centred in Luton, which was out to cause trouble. It seems that these people were intent upon rendering Luton a Muslim ghetto.

Tommy founded the English Defence League (EDL). He saw his town of Luton gradually ceasing to be an English town and becoming a Muslim caliphate. He cites, as an example, schools having separate play-grounds – a play-ground for Muslim children and one for non-Muslim children. It was against this ‘ghettoisation’ that his EDL was intended to fight. It was not against Muslims as such, but against those factions which which were intent upon destroying the ‘Englishness’ of Luton.

But the press just loves to ‘ghettoise’ groups, so the EDL was characterised as ‘far right’, in the same category as the British National Party (BNP). At the time, the BNP was almost certainly racist with a small ‘r’. The EDL was not. Black, brown, white was not important. What was important was that ‘political correctness’ was blinding the authorities to clear abuses, such as the Rotherham scandal, which involved young girls being groomed and subject to sexual activity by certain Muslim men. What was happening in Rotherham was known to the police and the Local Authority, but nothing was done due to ‘political correctness’.

And so on, and so on.

But what is important is that the National Press just does not want to know. Politicians do not want to know. They do not want to talk about it at all. The point that TR makes is that sweeping these matters under the carpet just makes things worse, and that is what the EDL was created to oppose – the sweeping under the carpet. Not anti-Muslim but anti secrecy.

If readers want to know more, then they can do worse that watch TR addressing the Oxford Union:

 

There are quite a lot of TR videos, many of which have over 300,000 views. And that is my point. The MSM is gradually being replaced by the internet.

But which can be trusted?

While I was on holiday, being on my own, I vaguely watched TV in my room whilst I was reading. But TV in Mallorca no longer supports BBC1 as it used to do. The TV channels are many and various, but few are ‘English’ (I don’t mean just in the English language). My best option was ‘BBC World News’. I thought that it was rather comical that BBC World News was still pushing the virtues of the EU. But that is another matter.

But I saw, vaguely, a lot of stuff about the Syrian ‘chemical weapons’ thing. I waited and waited for some sort of proof that such an attack had actually occurred. I waited in vain. Some pictures appeared of children being rushed to hospital and lying in hospital bed breathing through oxygen masks or whatever, but there was no evidence that the pics were actually of damage from a chemical weapons attack.

And then Trump fired of 59 cruise missiles costing $1 million each, if not more, at an empty airfield. The pics that I saw of the damage did not include a single destroyed aircraft, nor were the concrete ‘hangers’ destroyed. There was one pic of a hole in a runway.

Where did the 59 missiles land? Might not most of those missiles have hit houses and camels? Who knows?

We smokers have seen how tiny risks (like SHS) can be blown out of all proportion and be used to persecute us. But we have the means to fight back – for the time being. No doubt the Zealots will want the internet to be sanitised. But they have a problem. To shut down one specific topic, they have to shut down the whole apparatus. It cannot be done.

There is only one solution in due course. Politicians must realise that they can no longer get away with kissing babies to secure their tenure. They are awash in the tide of ‘political correctness’ which they themselves created.

I think that the consequences of Brexit have not yet been fully realised. If the EU had been such a wonderful thing, then the vote would have been 75% in favour of ‘remain’. What is not often pointed out is that a marginal vote for ‘remain’ would have been a catastrophe for the EU, even though it would have ensured that we ‘remain’ in the EU. I vaguely feel that Cameron et al expected a marginal victory for ‘remain’ and intended to use the marginality  to put pressure on Germany and France. Cameron et al were shocked by the failure of their plan and had no answer. That is why he walked away.  He did not know what to do.

There is only one answer, and it is not ‘evidence based policy’. It is ‘logical policy’. As we have seen again and again, ‘evidence’ can be and is corrupted. The imposition of PP is illogical because it implies that EVERY POSSIBLE HARMFUL SUBSTANCE OR THING must be treated in the same way. Thus, potentially harmful cars must be yucky brown in colour and 60% covered with medical porn, and they must all be the same size and shape.

It is only via the internet that we can discuss these things and all the ramifications. We cannot do so via the MSM.

What is the future for the MSM? I do not know.