Sentimental Slop

Not many people will be aware of the phrase: “Sentimental Slop”. It must be around fifty years ago that I first heard it. I don’t remember the circumstances, but I suspect that they were similar to the sentiments expressed in Parliament concerning ‘smoking in vehicles with youths present’.



My cogitations of yesterday, concerning the possibility that Conservatives deliberately voted ‘for’ the amendments to the Families and Children Bill with the intention of putting the PP legislation and car smoking ban into limbo, can only hold true if these politicians were being rational. It would be ‘nice’ (a sentimental slop word) to think that such a plan would be possible, but I have my doubts, even though such a plan would make rational sense.

Let us, just for a moment, look at reality. A child, in a vehicle on the road, must necessarily breath whatever contaminants exist in the atmosphere. On a motorway, following other traffic with some proximity, it is not unlikely that ‘toxic fumes’ will flow through the cabin in vast quantities. Remember that the airflow through the cabin is forced by the difference in air pressure within the cabin as compared with the pressure outside the cabin. The air pressure inside is much greater than outside as a result of speed of the vehicle through the air. Thus, a rapid change in the internal air-flow is guaranteed.

If a person lights a cigarette and smokes it, then the ‘contamination’ is increased a little during the period of time that the smoke lingers in the cabin. Given a journey of one hour along a motorway, by what degree is the burden of toxins (petrol fumes, diesel fumes, rubber particulates from wearing tyres, metal particulates from wearing engines, oil particulates from engine oils, road tar being rubbed by tyres, dust, spores, etc) increase by tobacco smoke, even if the driver smokes all the time?

To say that tobacco smoke, in the circumstances described, is, somehow, particularly dangerous is superstitious and ‘sentimental slop’. But that is precisely what MPs have accepted (other than those who deliberately voted for the amendments in order to put them into limbo).

What is absolutely obvious is that the whole ‘toxins problem’ could be solves at a stroke – pass a Bill which requires everyone in a vehicle to wear a suitable mask. Surgeons and theatre staff wear masks. Why should not all people who might be exposed to toxins not be forced to wear masks? IT MAKES SENSE!


I see no prospect of ‘Sentimental Slop’ being replaced by reason in Parliament in the near future. But it does not matter very much. Rational citizens will recognise that these opportunists in Parliament do not represent them. It follows therefore that the laws they pass do not apply to them. “Public Morality” has been replaced by “Sentimental Slop”. Smokers especially are not constrained by any laws, other than those which they care to accept. Only FORCE will constrain them.


I do not give a toss about PP or smoking in cars. They are silly because they  rely for their effect upon ephemerals. The only thing that bothers me is supply. “Prohibition” is on the cards. Interruption of supply is prohibition. Special taxes are prohibition. Smoking bans in private places are prohibition.


‘Sentimental Slop’ seems to be a useful means of wasting public resources. Would it not have been great if the moneys expended on Tobacco Control had been expended on coastal defences? That statement is silly, unless you factor in the DISTRACTION of tobacco control – the diversion of ATTENTION from what is important to what is not.

The consequence is that decent citizens no longer see smugglers and such as criminals. They see them as saviours. ‘Morality’, as described by Government, no longer holds good. It is corrupt. It is persecution. It is our duty, as best we can, to avoid feeding this beast.


But not all of science has been corrupted. Only the comparatively modern ‘science’ of epidemiology has been corrupted. It has descended into ‘miasmas’, ‘feelings’ and ‘sentimental slop’.

But who cares? Sod them. Sod them all. We can make our own arrangements.



2 Responses to “Sentimental Slop”

  1. Rose Says:

    On a motorway, following other traffic with some proximity, it is not unlikely that ‘toxic fumes’ will flow through the cabin in vast quantities

    Not just on a motorway, the other day we were driving down the main road in a queue of traffic, windows closed, when through the air vents came the pungent smell of burning oil. Eventually the culprit was revealed, a van 4 vehicles in front, kicking out black smoke.

    I think most people don’t notice traffic fumes, because they can’t see them and they are so normal they just don’t register.

    • junican Says:

      Also, Rose, as I am sure you are aware, your sense of smell is easily sated. You might initially get a whiff, but your nose soon gets used to it so that you soon cease to be aware of the smells.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: