The Zealots of Puritania

I think that there is a sort of intellectual ‘Country’, probably situated in selected universities all over the World, which we might call ‘PURITAN-IA’. The people who inhabit this country have a vision. They are themselves well fed and watered and have lovely abodes. Every day, in their meetings, they pray, and, every day, on their keyboards, they preach. Their objective is to spread Puritania so that it becomes the only Country in the World. Sure, there will be ‘economic units’, such as Germany, France, China, etc, but there will be only one Puritania. Puritania will be an overarching Country, which invades all territories with the willing accession of the Governments of those territories.

In the world-wide Country of Puritania, the people will live simple lives of study, calorie counts and exercise. They will be joyful as a result, and they will live forever.

===

Am I joking?

You should read this essay:

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/more-evidence-on-alcohol-advertising.html

There is a person named Gerard Hastings.

Here is a quote from Snowden:

For example, Gerard Hastings recently appeared before a House of Lords committee to talk about alcohol regulation. Whilst there, he told this brazen whopper…

“All the evidence is that if marketing is encouraging you to consume a particular brand, it is also going to have an impact on category.”

“All the evidence” does not say that. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of the evidence shows that advertising for any established category, including alcohol, has little or no effect on overall consumption.

Gerard Hastings has ‘previous’ – his contribution in the McTear Case (see sidebar) was rubbished by the Judge. He is an academic, and one of the rulers of Puritania.

Damnation! How does such a dickhead get to address a ‘House of Lords Committee’? Why is he ‘special’?

===

There is a serious question underlying the above, which is: “How can politics be removed from Academia?”

Hastings lied. He lied to a House of Lords Committee. He lied. In a Court, it would be called ‘perjury’. These ‘perjures’ should go to jail. I am serious because the harm that they do is very big. For example, there is a campaign going on against ecigs in the US. Those who promote and organise that campaign should be brought to justice and condemned. Hastings is a neo-communist who blames big industry for the ills of the world. He is a crack-put, but, somehow, he gets to address a ‘House of Lords Committee’.

It can only mean that there is a paucity of crack-pots. It must mean that no other person would subject himself to the experience. Or, the ‘House of Lords’ committee is ‘crook’.

It is not necessarily ‘either/or’. It may well be that it is all organised in advance.

Sad.

 

Advertisements

5 Responses to “The Zealots of Puritania”

  1. Michael J. McFadden Says:

    The point about formally lying before the Committee might be worth investigating. If he’d simply said “The evidence shows…” he could get away with it, but he sayd “ALL the evidence shows…” Now if indeed 80% clearly showed it, he could skim by on the exaggeration; but if only 60% or, as is more likely the case here, only 20 or 10% of “the evidence shows,” then it’s clearly a lie when it is stated by an expert witness in the field.

    Hauling such a person onto the carpet in a formal manner might help make future testimonies before such committees a bit more trustworthy and a bit less political. Here in the States twenty years ago Congress hauled the tobacco company executives into hearings and forced them to swear truth oaths for their testimonies. When the two big health biggies, Surgeon General Koop and FDA Commissioner Kessler were called in they sent a formal note first that they simply wouldn’t accept “being treated akin to tobacco executives” and expected that they could testify WITHOUT being bound to the truth by oath. From “Brains”:

    “We see no reason for the committee to suggest that our testimony about tobacco now requires that we be put under oath or treated akin to tobacco executives” (New York Times. 03/05/98).

    Such an outrageous refusal by two of the nation’s leading Antismokers to be held to even a minimum standard of honesty should have made banner headlines all over the country… but of course it did not.

    The saddest thing is that they got away with it.

    :/
    MJM

    • junican Says:

      “The saddest thing is that they got away with it.”

      That says all that needs to be said. For some reason, they DO get away with it and they do so again and again and again. Why is that? I think that it is because they have academia sewn up. If anyone dared point out the nakedness of the king, dozens of his mates would go crazy, citing dozens of studies (whether relevant or not), and point out the ‘overwhelming evidence of ‘relative risks’, etc.

      Also, the media is in thrall – but then, it has always liked a good scare story.
      The worm will only turn when these academic cause serious financial damage which is clearly attributable to them.

  2. Frank J Says:

    As far as I’m aware, lying to a select committee is a punishable offence. Parliament has the same authority as the Crown’s Courts, e.g. if you are summoned and do not turn up they can order your arrest. If you remember, it was mooted with Rupert Murcoch.

    Goes back to the days of old King Charles. The Earl of Strafford was found not guilty of treason by Justices but Parliament ‘arrested’ and tried him, found him guilty and did him in. Nice, eh? Result of the struggle between Crown and Parliament.

    • junican Says:

      A nice piece of history to illustrate the point!
      Unfortunately, your example shows the opposite! In this case, it is Parliament (The Lords) which is accepting the lies as truth. The real question is why did they not have other ‘experts’ showing them the graphs which illustrate the truth, and why did they not then recall Hastings and quiz him about his lies?

      • Frank J Says:

        That’s up to the committee but if it can be shown that a person wilfully lied (e.g by assembling all the research that Chris mentions) then it’s a punishable offence.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: