Reminiscing and Peodophelia

A quiet night tonight – nothing much to talk about so one might as well reminisce a bit. Over at here people have been reminiscing, mostly about old films, like Casablanca.

I can remember very little about my childhood (up to, say, 11). Most of the happenings that I remember are not very nice ones. For example, I remember a firework exploding in my trouser pocket. I have no idea how old I was, but it cannot have been much later than when I was about 7, because we moved house when I was about that age, and it happened while we were at the old address. I remember being outside in the evening with my ‘best pal’, Alan Moore. We had built a small tree-house in some bushes (which seemed to us at that age to be huge trees) and we were caught out in a violent thunderstorm. I don’t recall any rain – what I recall is violent thunder and lightening directly overhead. It was wonderful to behold the fizzing slashes of red, white and blue lightening streaks, followed by the crashing thunder, which rolled away into the distance. Perhaps that was the origin of my abiding interest in science. Another incident, for which I received a rollicking from my parents, was rushing into the living room and throwing the door open, thus sending the ‘wireless’ crashing to the floor and completely demolishing it. That was not nice.

But, more than anything, we kids had freedom to roam after school and after tea for an hour or two. No one for a moment considered the possibility of paedophiles hanging around, waiting to capture and kidnap kids, which is not surprising since there were none. Nor, also, was there any hysteria about kids injuring themselves when they were playing out. Perhaps we were all very bendy and elastic in the structure of our bodies because scrapes and scratches were plentiful, but no serious injuries. Moreover, we ventured into the most disgusting of places. Ponds in fields covered with cow dung held masses of frog-spawn in spring. If you tried to grip a lump of frog-spawn, it slipped and slithered in your hand. A couple of weeks later, the frog-spawn turned into tadpoles, and then into tiny frogs. Dragonflies were plentiful, along with any amount of strange insects, beetles and bugs.

The mind shudders at what horrors would be conjured up by Public Health at such horrid ABUSE of children at that time by NEGLIGENT parents. And yet I would bet a pound to a penny that there are more children injured today, for various reasons, than there ever were in my childhood. That is not to say that there were not lots of children who caught diseases. Mumps and measles were common, along with most other child diseases. I’m talking about a period from 1939 to about 1950. The attitude then was, “Get it over-with”.


Today’s platitudes from Public Health would not have been possible then. There was no ‘Public Health Industry’ (with the implication that it exists to grow itself and become more and more profitable to a certain group of people). There is something wrong when an ‘industry’ can exist which can claim to be ‘not for profit’. Do the Public Health Experts ‘give away all they have and follow ‘Saint Sir Richard Doll’? They do not – they take the profits from the industry. The only difference between the Public Health Industry and the Tobacco Industry is that the ‘shareholders’ (aka ‘stakeholders’) in the PHI receive their dividends/profits in the form of salaries and grants.

But it is not possible to tax the PHI as though it was a commercial concern. But is it possible in another way? I think that it is possible.

If a specific group, like ASH, receives public funding (by which I mean, for example, grants from the national lottery, as well as funds directly from the public purse), it must get physical results. In the case of ASH, such results would be in actual diminution of NHS costs from smoking. Has ASH ever proven such a diminution as a result of its efforts? I think not, and therefore the tax needs to be applied. In this case, the tax would be the withdrawal of funding. IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED YEARS AGO!

Think about it. The idea is a sort of reverse of normality. Normally, an industry makes profits and then pays tax on the profits. In the case of ASH, it receives tax in the expectation of profits. In the same way that a company cannot normally reclaim tax that has been paid if it hits a sticky patch, nor can the government reclaim grants which were made in the expectation of profits. All it can do is make ASH go bust by refusing any more grants. However, it could, if it wished to, demand that ASH, if it survives, should repay previous grants from future income which might come from, say, Big Pharma. Why not? After all, Big Pharma can only be giving grants to ASH in the expectation of sales and profits. Before BP can get those profits, it must repay the taxpayer. And what about the National Lottery grants? The same principle applies there. There is an obvious escape – to go bust and rename the organisation and start again. Erm …. NO ….. Not when public funds (and quasi-public funds like the lottery) are involved.

But what about “Tobacco Free Kids” in America? That organisation is entirely funded by Big Pharma. It has spread its tentacles all over the world. What is the answer there? It is pretty clear – the funds granted to ‘tobacco free kids’ are profits of Big Pharma and must be taxed as such because the objects of ‘TFK’ are commercial – the sale of patches and gum.


Rambling again, but I cannot help but feel that the modern hysterias about smoking, drinking, obesity and paedophilia, etc are generated by tiny gangs, similar to the Guy Fawkes group which plotted to blow up parliament.

The Political Government (our elected representatives) have been singularly remiss in not observing and eliminating the rise of these gangs. Perhaps it was the expectation of ‘profits’ which blinded them.


%d bloggers like this: