When Were Our Elected Representatives Empowered to Condone Government Fraud?

In that title, by ‘Elected Representatives’ I mean MPs and Ministers. By ‘Government’ I mean government departments.

What I am referring to is the fact that the second consultation on plain packaging ends tonight. I sent in my response some time ago.

So lets just check the facts again. A couple of years ago (was it that long ago?), the ‘Government’ asked people what they thought about standardised packaging of tobacco products which meant plastering the packets with obscene pictures, reducing consumer information to zero, giving the Zealots the power to reduce the size of packets (and thereby the contents) at will, and more or less obliterating recognition identification. Almost everyone who responded disliked the idea immensely (I discount the responses from professional healthists, who were encouraged to use multiple aliases and sources).

What was wrong with that consultation which called for a repeat performance?

The Chantler Review was confined only to the health effects of PP. It was a fix from start to finish, glossed by pretend statistics based upon surveys of yoofs about pretty and ugly colours. Real statistics, based upon facts, were not permitted. I was reading some stuff about the contribution of e-cigs to smoking cessation, and Glatnz in the USA opined that testimonials from smokers who had quit using e-cigs were ‘allegorical’, whereas his ‘studies’ were ‘scientific’. But, pray tell me, why should a testimonial from an ex-smoker be ‘allegorical’ whereas a tick in a box from some student who fills in a questionnaire, indicating that he has had a puff on an e-cig at least once in the last month, not be ‘allegorical’?  The fact that a couple of hundred such students ticked boxes on the questionnaire does not make each individual’s tick less ‘allegorical’ than each ex-smoker’s testimonial. What Chantler seems to have been accepting as ‘evidence’ of PP’s effectiveness was surveys of yoofs opinions upon the prettiness of colours. What could be more allegorical and subjective than that? Cute university computer programs based upon such ‘allegories’ are no more that a summation of ‘allegories’.

So the Chantler review concentrated only on the health aspect. Does that mean that the opinions expressed by the police and other interested parties in the original consultation still stand? If not, why not? And why has the new consultation been covering the same ground again?

It can only be that there is fraudulent intent. The DoH is committing fraud in that it intends to deceive parliament (the elected representatives and ministers).

——–

But there is something else. I wonder why this matter is exclusively a health dept matter? People don’t smoke cigarette packets. They do not become ill as a result of ‘consuming’ the packets or from reading the writing on the packets or seeing pretty colours.

So what department of government should PP come under? There doesn’t seem to be one. What dept does ‘health and safety at work’ come under? Does anyone know? If I was one way out, I would suggest that PP comes under whatever dept is involved with advertising regulations. What dept is that? the zealots claim that the cigarette packet is the last means that tobacco companies have to advertise, therefore, the design of the packets comes under ‘advertising’ and not ‘health’. What government dept oversees the ‘advertising standards’ quango? For if the Zealots regard tobacco packets as advertising, then that dept should be dealing with it. It seems to me that the health dept involvement in tobacco matters has long ago evaporated.

——–

Ministers are weak and timid. Their ‘courageous’ pronouncements in parliament are in fact capitulations and gloss – and most of all, just words. The real, hard calculations are about the prospects of re-election. Dick Puddlecote has published UKIP’s response to the consultation (here). It is full of common sense and involves no fake statistics.

It is a curious thing about UKIP – in the sense that the main parties do not know what to do about UKIP. It seems that the three main parties think that all will be affected equally at the polls by a drift to UKIP, so that UKIP might gain quite a lot of votes, but not enough to win any seats in parliament. If the drift is equal among all the parties, then UKIP does not matter. Our stinking non-democratic system of government ensures that the Tories, Labour and Libdems will continue to have the monopoly in parliament. But I suppose that it does not matter since they are just rubber-stamps. What makes it even worse is that they are rubber stamps, not of what the ministers decide, but of what the likes of Andrew Black decide.

Calculations about the voting effect of PP will decide whether or not such a law goes through. There is huge pressure from the Medical Establishment, but that will only work if the politicians see an advantage in it. If the politicians see a disadvantage in it, it will not go through.

It seems always to have been so. Zealots of one sort or another get their way if politicians are fearful of them, especially if it involves children. But, as is always the case, the Zealots go too far, and antagonise the PEOPLE, at which point politicians change their tune.

——-

There is no doubt in my mind that, at some point in the reasonably near future, the  smoking ban will be amended. It may, at first, be permission to have smoking rooms, but will eventually become smoking and non-smoking pubs at the discretion of the owners. Such a process would be expedited by the financial collapse of a pubco.

But it will happen anyway. The PEOPLE will not be eternally cowered and subjugated.

But there is a difference this time round. The internet enables us to keep track of individuals who have persecuted us. We will not forget. We will remember them.

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: