Here is a little story.
Readers might know that yours truly has three daughters. Daughter 1 is married and has four children. Daughters 2 and 3 are single. D 3 has her own house only a few hundred yards away. D 2 used to own her own house when she worked near Bristol, but she chucked that job, sold her house, and moved back home. She trained to be a teacher and now works at a reasonably local school. She lives with us. D 1 lives ‘darn sarf’ with her husband and children and horses. D 1 came north with husband and sons 3 and 1. Son 1 (aka our grandson 1) is the grandson who went off to America and married a young American woman whom he met on the internet. Something blew up and he is now back home after some three years. D 1 did not come north to see her old dad particularly but to collect her horse-box, which someone hereabouts had refurbished.
But here they all were, and a very pleasant time was had by all. ‘Treats’ for dad included a bottle of nice red wine, a box of chocs, and a single malt whiskey called ‘Glen Marnoch (Limited Release) Speyside’. I don’t know what LegIron would think of that. We had a nice dinner and, of course, I opened the wine. Within ten seconds it was half-empty. But that is the object of the exercise, is it not?
I wonder what it is like for ‘a father’ to expect some sort of vast reward on fathers day? What could such a person expect? Being dad has no privileges. It has only duties. Some small appreciation of dad’s efforts is all that is required. And so I am perfectly happy with my little ‘treats’. I do not demand them and would not care if Fathers Day did not exist. A simple “Thanks Dad”, if I help, is all that my soul desires.
But that is not the story.
D 1 and husband drove up in separate vehicles. The reason was that, when they brought the horse-box up for refurbishing, they needed another vehicle to get back home. So, at that time they drove up using the horse-box and a car. It is easy to see why they …… Erm, hang on, I’m getting confused.
Whatever, D 1’s husband broke down on the motorway. When she called him on the phone, she asked him if he had called the AA. “No” he replied, “I’ve called my Dad”.
You need to think about it. Here is a forty-something company executive, broken down on a motorway, and he calls his DAD!!! D 1 recalled similar but different types of incident where the automatic reaction to difficulties is to call DAD!!! Daughters 2 and 3 agreed. Not always, of course, but in certain circumstances. Those circumstances can vary enormously, but a selection might be:
1. Sudden financial embarrassment.
2. Blockage of drains.
3. Disappearance of cat or dog.
4. Refusal of car to start.
5. Computer malfunction.
6. Getting lost.
7. Need to crawl under floorboards to investigate TV aerial leads.
8. Alarm malfunctions.
9. Do you know plumber/electrician/roofer/washing machine repair man/etc.
10. “Can you just……”
The list is pretty endless.
How is it that no one thinks that this tendency to “CALL DAD!!!” is not sexist? That’s what I would like to know. When a young, female ‘feminista activist’s’ car develops a fault, does she call her Mum? If she gets mixed up with some recipe, does she call her Dad?
I am all for ‘equality’, provided that individuals want that equality. Thus, if a lady wants to work on a building site, lugging bricks, mortar, tiles, steel beams about, she can do, but she does not have to. And there lies the problem with ‘equality’. Males and females are NOT the same, although they have many common attributes. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that a violinist should be either male or female. There is no reason whatsoever that a female footballer should not play for Manchester United. Erm…… There is no reason whatsoever that the Air Force jets should not be piloted and operated 50/50 male and female. After all, there is little physical work involved. Just because only women have babies, that does not mean that midwives (as sexist term) should not be 50/50 male/female?
We know that Master Propagandists are, and have to be, masters of the creation of doubt and uncertainty. We normally think of propagandists as painting only the glorious pictures of success. But it is also a massively important objective of propaganda to sow doubt and uncertainty. Thus, we have recently seen propagandists attached to the BMA claiming that there are ‘worries’, ‘uncertainties’, ‘doubts’, ‘concerns’, etc about ecigs. These propaganda tricks are bad in the UK, but they are not half as bad as they are in the USA.
The EU TPD (Tobacco Products Directive), as regards ecigs, is a classic production of unaccountable propagandists. Almost all of it is constructed from ‘doubts and uncertainties’, which have justified, or so they say, interferences. And the interferences are draconian. That is a large part of the problem. The interferences are draconian and not ‘light touch’. The draconian laws applied to smokers are now being applied to vapers. Both are based upon propaganda ‘doubts and uncertainties’. We should be in no doubt that the Doll ‘Doctors Study’ was itself a propaganda exercise. It emphasised only the smoking aspect of the lives of the doctors. It did not talk about the effects of not smoking in the sense that lots of doctors died ‘prematurely’ who were not smokers. This graph indicates what I mean:
The line furthest left is heavy smokers, the next one is moderate smokers, the red one is light smokers and the green one is non-smokers. At the age of 60, it appears that about 10% of non-smokers had died, as had 20% of heavy smokers. Doll emphasises the difference. But it is reasonable to ask (and is a question which Doll did not address) as to why did many non-smokers die at the age of 60? Why did 10% of non-smokers die at or about the age of 60? Remember that these were doctors, and were therefore not likely to drop dead from some sort of infection.
The more that I read about the circumstances surrounding the history of Doll (his collusion with German doctors pre-WW2) and his connections with eugenicists, the less I trust his figures in the Doctors Study. Two facts:
a) Doctors were asked to state the extent of their smoking. Many of them, at the time, smoked pipes. Doll used a simple formula to convert pipe smoking to ‘number of cigs smoked’. he had no right to do so since pipe smoking and cig smoking are different.
b) Doctors might write any old shit. They are no different from anyone else.
c) He had an agenda.
Is it not weird that no one can produce the questionnaires that Doll sent out to doctors? No one knows what the questionnaires asked, even though thousands of them were sent out. Why is that?
We Fathers are the only people who will take on the Zealots. The Zealots say that motor cars break down because of tobacco smoke being drawn into the engine. Why not? Is that not the same as Zealots saying that human body engines break down for that reason?
Let’s face it. The Army of anti-tobacco Zealots have spread out with little or no opposition throughout the world. What does that say? It says that smokers were never other than hedonists. That is, that smoking is no more than a pleasure. Had smoking been really, really addictive, there would be thousands and thousands of smokers blowing people up.
No. We smokers are hedonists. We enjoy the taste of tobacco smoke just as beer drinkers enjoy the taste of beer liquid. There is no addiction – there is only enjoyment. Is it not obvious that I would rebel if someone deprived me of my enjoyment?
It is especially the case that ecig users and suppliers MUST rebel. It is incredibly sad that suppliers and users have not united. It is obvious that suppliers have ALWAYS taken their own selfish considerations as paramount, while treating their customers as units. Why otherwise have they not got a huge body (hundreds of thousands) of people demanding freedom?
I’ll tell you why. It is essentially ‘the tyranny of the majority’ – the propagandised majority. The propagandised majority which has killed our local pubs.
I wonder what would happen if a group of people, say, one hundred strong, opened a bar with each of the one hundred taking turns to man the bar. They demand that the Local Authority does not mess them about. They conform to the law and have notices which say that smoking is not permitted.
However, they cover themselves by specifically abiding by the law as it is written. The critical thing is that the invite prosecution.
The scenario that I have painted above is only an idea, but it is REAL.
Somehow, there will come a point where citizens will realise that they DO NOT have to pay Council Tax and that they can, individually, refuse to be treated as cyborgs. Each individual could quite easily demand to negotiate his contribution.
Fathers Day has been fun and hedonistic. I ask only to be left alone to enjoy my twilight years.
Why cannot pensioners be permitted smokes tax free?