The Dictatorship of ‘Experts’

In 2007, with the introduction of The General Smoking Ban, a new principle was established in English Law. That principle was that individual citizens could be forced to use force on their fellow citizens to stop them from smoking on private property. It could be said that the law did not require publicans etc to use force, but I know for a fact, because I have seen it and been subjected to it, that some publicans, or their ‘bouncers’, have no hesitation in using physical force to eject ‘trouble-makers’. After all, publicans want to protect their licences, and would therefore not wish themselves to be regarded by the police as ‘trouble-makers’ by calling the police out if some one was smoking in their pub. But physical force is not necessarily the only form of force. Threatening to ban a person is also a form of force.

I am not saying that there are not laws which demand that citizens report incidents, or even interfere, when they observe a criminal acts in progress. What I am saying is that the offence of smoking in a ‘public place’ is not a criminal act by Common Law. It is contrived offence. No one would come to any harm if it was repealed tomorrow.

How did this farcical law come about? Was there a public demand? Did people march in the streets to demand protection from second hand smoke? Did people (genuinely) write ‘letters to the editor’ demanding such protection? No, they did not. SHS danger was entirely contrived. And who contrived it? A few ‘Doctors’ and ‘Professors’, that’s who. They were ‘experts’. They both contrived the imaginary dangers and demanded laws and provided the ‘proof’. They said so themselves. Godwin told Zealots that ‘a perception of SHS danger must be inculcated in the public mind’ (or words to that effect).

——

Not very long ago, another principle was established, being the need for ‘evidence based policy making’.

I have no doubt that politicians have always taken advice. For example, I doubt that Thatcher would have set out to free the Falklands by force had she not taken advice from the military that it was feasible. Some sort of assessment of Argentinian military might would have been necessary and compared with our own. Supply chains would have been checked to ensure provision of necessities, and the effect of casualties assessed. I have little doubt that the same was true regarding Trafalgar and Waterloo. “Know your enemy”

But what seems to have happened in recent year is that the origination of actions and laws has not been emanating from pragmatic, knowledgeable, responsible politicians, but from ‘experts’. How otherwise would certain Labour politicians have gotten away with introducing amendment to the Children and Families Bill in the House of Lords? Plain Packaging of Cigarettes and Smoking in Cars with Children Present had almost zero connection with the purposes of the Bill (mostly welfare of children in care).

======

Think about the phrase ‘Evidence Based Policy’. We would normally assume that the thinking would be that a ‘Policy’ would be thought up by ‘The Government’ (politicians) and that they would seek expert opinion upon its feasibility.  But it seems that it is the other way round; The ‘Evidence’ creates the Policy and politicians must base their policies upon the unasked for evidence.   Is that not precisely what has happened regarding PP and smoking in cars? The ‘experts’ have dictated policy to the Government using their ‘evidence’. What makes it even worse is that the government (small ‘g’), being the government departments and civil servant heads thereof, have ‘carte blanche’ to introduce any ‘evidence based’ policies that they like, regardless of Political Party manifestos, and the politicians must comply. Is that not obvious when the Health Minister (junior), Milton MP said that the UK was ‘legally obliged’ to conform to the demands of the FCTC?

——

But one might ask where the ‘expert’ evidence comes from, and it is there where the dictatorship comes from. Not all ‘experts’ are involved in creating political policies; only a small clique is involved. A small, self-selected clique with no democratic mandate, lots of money and access to the best propaganda. Take, for example, ASH (Action on Smoking and Health). It is wholly owned by the Royal College of Physicians, and it is no more that a glorified advertising agency/publicity generator. Not long ago, it received half a million pounds from the Lottery. How on earth could such a grant be authorised? A grant to a RCP lobby group?

Similar considerations apply to global warming. A small clique of academics provided ‘evidence’, and from that ‘evidence’ arose Climate Control policies.

Similar ‘polices’ (evidence based, but not in political party manifestos) regarding alcohol, sugar, salt, etc, are all in the offing.

Question: “Who runs this Country – ‘Experts’ or elected representatives”? It seems to me that politicians have abrogated their duty to make the decisions to ‘experts’. But because these ‘experts’ are self-selected, they represent a dictatorial gang. Any ‘expert’ who disagrees is ostracised and excommunicated, as happened to Michael Seigel and Carl Philips among many others. Any views that they express are simply totally ignored as if they never happened. Evidence which conflicts with that of ‘the experts’ is buried. Lies and bribery are common-place since the ‘expert’ situation is dictatorial. For example, the WHO declared that ecigs are anathema. Well, they would do, wouldn’t they, because they are in danger of losing control of ‘the expertise’ and losing the money which Big Parma provides.

====

Our political system is buggered, and the reason for that is that our MPs are ‘not fit for purpose’. Too many are university graduates who managed to get a position in an MPs office as ‘researchers’ and climbed the ladder to acceptance as potential MPs because of their ‘cleverness’ and ‘loyalty’, with ‘experience’ and ‘judgement’ coming a very distant second place. A perfect example is the Labour Shadow Health Minister, Luciana Berger MP. She has a one track mind and is dangerous. Further, they have handed over control of our country to the EU, where ‘experts’ are in the ascendency.

The EU is a Dictatorship which will, eventually, lead to the ‘Mother of All Civil Wars’. It is obvious. Many people who wish to be ‘law-abiding’ are already being forced to become ‘outlaws’ as witnessed by the popularity of illicit tobacco in Australia. It is not really a matter of lost revenues to the Government apparatus; it is about self-sufficiency. Not all inventive people are geniuses a la Einstein. They don’t have to be. They need only kick the idea of ‘obedience’ into touch. Thus, lying and cheating become endemic.

I am one such. I disregard any and all laws which I do not like. I do not harm other people. I just hate to be dictated to and will not comply until forced to, and then I’ll not comply again.

Because our Democracy has become a Dictatorship of “Experts”.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “The Dictatorship of ‘Experts’”

  1. nisakiman Says:

    “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.”

    Thomas Jefferson

    And like yourself, Junican, I refuse to obey unjust laws. I have my own moral compass which serves me well and has no negative impact on anyone else. Petty rules and regulations dreamed up by some jobsworth bureaucrat pass me by without impinging on my consciousness.

    • junican Says:

      Dictatorial laws in one area (like the smoking ban) encourage people to break laws in other areas – that’s my substantive point.

      • garyk30 Says:

        Basic Physics explains it.

        For every action, there is an equal and opposite re-action.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: