Fathers Day

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?




12 Responses to “Fathers Day”

  1. raven921 Says:

    Happy Father’s Day.

    For some reason your comment on taxation reminds me of this and I’ve no idea why.
    I included the link because you have to read it to believe the unreal corruption in places we never used to hear about it.
    Some day people will have had it up to the ears with this nonsense,because now it’s not just the minority of smokers.
    Governments turning on their own people and robbing them doesn’t end well for governments and somehow they never seem to remember the lessons history has taught.

    • junican Says:

      An interesting read, raven.
      So police in Spain are waving cars down and demanding ‘on the spot’ fines if anyone in the car looks tiddly?
      My comments about Council Tax were, of course, very tongue in cheek.
      I agree that more and more people are being victimised and persecuted. It may be that all these people do not have to form one single group. It is noticeable how many commenters on newspaper articles are seeing the parallels between how other groups are being treated like smokers have been treated.

  2. Some French bloke Says:

    I think your insistence on picking apart Doll’s dubious “scientific” legacy is totally justified.
    Should not there be a way to re-analyse the London Hospitals Study (incorporating the detailed inhaling data) to show that embarking upon an endeavour such as the Doctors Study should simply have been seen as futile and even ludicrous?
    In other words, didn’t the original study, precisely through its unwarranted focus on the smoking statuses of Cases and Controls, inadvertently prove that cigarette smoking was really an independent variable with regard to lung cancer?

    As for Doll, he should be posthumously stripped of all his titles and rewards, except for the 1979 General Motors Cancer Research Award (Mott Prize), of course!

  3. Some French bloke Says:

    Corrigendum: “postumously”. Read: “posthumously”.

    • junican Says:

      If memory serves me right, the Hospital Study had nothing like the same definiteness of the Doctors Study regarding the extent of correlation between smoking and LC, especially the apparent protection afforded by inhaling (in the Hospital Study), which Fisher pointed out and which was (I think) statistically significant.
      There are holes, and plenty of them.

    • Rose Says:

      Should not there be a way to re-analyse the London Hospitals Study

      If you want a contemporary account of respiratory diseases in London to compare with Doll’s, this detailed paper from 1956 is essential reading I feel.

      Mortality in the London Boroughs, 1950—52, with Special Reference to Respiratory Disease

      It is important to note that after the Great Smog of London of 1952 for some reason, patients taken from London were attributed to the area of the hospitals outside the boundary to which they were taken.

      Now why was that do you think?

      Mortality in the London Boroughs, 1950—52, with Special Reference to Respiratory Disease

      “Thirdly, and much more important for local mortality studies, a change was made in 1953 in the official definition of the “usual residence” of deceased persons.

      As a result all deaths in hospitals for the chronic sick and in mental and mental deficiency hospitals have been assigned, from 1953 onwards, to the area of the hospital, whether or not the patient had originally been admitted from that area.

      This change has had a serious effect on the statistics for London, most of which is served by chronic and mental hospitals outside the county boundary.
      Important features of local mortality have been obliterated by the change and new anomalies have appeared.

      Unless there is a reversion to the practice which made British mortality statistics for many decades an example to the world, general studies of local mortality must come to an end with 1952.”

      The London Hospitals Study was published in 1950 so the author is more or less talking about Doll’s own patients.

      • Some French bloke Says:

        Thanks for your feedback and useful references, Rose.
        What I had in mind is simply that the “cigarette hypothesis” could have been put to rest right then and there, using nothing but the study data, without trying to establish an alternative explanation. After all, finding the real culprit is not an absolute requisite in order to clear the name of a suspect; as Junican suggested recently “an alibi can prove a negative”, and alibis by themselves don’t point to the real culprit. Subsequent research would have explored and identified the confounding factors, whatever they may be. Instead they have practically been suppressed ever since.

    • Rose Says:

      What I had in mind is simply that the “cigarette hypothesis” could have been put to rest right then and there, using nothing but the study data, without trying to establish an alternative explanation

      You’re thinking of proper science.

      Secret plot to play down risks of air pollution

      “Harold Macmillan’s government put pressure on scientists to play down the dangers of air pollution.

      Official documents unearthed by a scientific historian reveal that the Medical Research Council (MRC), which had just begun to establish the link between lung cancer and smoking, was asked to modify public statements about air pollution after intervention from the Government.”

      That’s why we got a series of very necessary Clean Air Acts at the same time as the anti-tobacco campaign.

      • junican Says:

        A very convenient smog has been created about political happenings around that time. Clean Air Acts 1964? Conveniently delayed until after the Hospital Study was completed and after the Doctors Study was started (along with similar studies in the USA and elsewhere). That is, the smog problems were conveniently removed before the anti-smoking eugenicists got seriously underway.
        I need to get some time to revisit the Hospital Study and have another think.

      • Rose Says:

        I don’t think you can really get to understand Doll’s study without putting it in the context of the time, Smog and the London Hospital Study are inseparable in my view.

        The Great London Smog of 1952 wasn’t the first and it certainly wasn’t the last.

        Clean Air Act 1956

        Dark Smoke
        1 Prohibition of dark smoke from chimneys

        (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, dark smoke shall not be emitted from a chimney of any building, and if, on any day, dark smoke is so emitted, the occupier of the building shall be guilty of an offence.”

        Medicine: Death in the Smoke
        Monday, May 11, 1959

        “”It does not take “a London particular” to send cough-racked Britons to their beds —or their graves. The tight little island’s air is tightly packed with pollutant particles, boosting the bronchitis and chest-disease rate to the world’s highest. Last week Dr. Horace Joules (rhymes with rules), of London’s Central Middlesex Hospital, painted a Dickensian picture of what a medical nightmare the past winter had been in the city which some Englishmen still call “the Smoke.”

        “We are a great community hospital of 800 beds,” said Dr. Joules, “but during February and March we ceased to be a general hospital. We had to suspend all admissions except emergency cases of chest and heart disease.* In those two months we admitted 616 such cases, and 196 died. The hospital really was an annex of the mortuary. If there had been a few days of smog, there would have been a holocaust in London.”

        Echoed Edgware General Hospital’s Dr. Hugh J. Trenchard: “It is time to panic.”

        *The two are closely related because failing hearts may be fatally threatened by breathing difficulties.”
        http: //content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,865848,00.html

        Oddly enough, Horace Joules was one of the foremost anti-smokers of the time.

        Just out of interest.

        Toxicologic and epidemiologic clues from the characterization of the 1952 London smog fine particulate matter in archival autopsy lung tissues.

        “Besides releases from the combustion of coal, oil, and coke, plus products from various industrial activities, the London atmosphere was also burdened with unprecedented levels of diesel emissions.
        This was a consequence of the introduction of thousands of diesel-powered buses as replacements for electric trams phased out in London by July 1952”

        The perfect storm.

      • Some French bloke Says:

        @ Rose.
        The “perfect storm” situation was not particular to Britain, considering that Doll & Hill were drawing heavily from the US “research” by Wynder & Graham, using the same “logic” to reach similar conclusions. From the first page of the Hospitals Study:
        Wynder and Graham found that of 605 men with
        epidermoid, undifferentiated, or histologically unclassified
        types of bronchial carcinoma only 1.3% were “nonsmokers”-
        that is, had averaged less than one cigarette
        a day for the last 20 years-whereas 51.2% of them
        had smoked more than 20 cigarettes a day over the same period. In contrast, they estimated from the experience
        of 882 other male patients that 14.6% of general hospital
        patients of the same age composition as the bronchial carcinoma cases are “non-smokers” and only 19.1 % smoke
        more than 20 cigarettes a day.

        By contrast, in the same years as Britain, Austria was also afflicted with one of the largest increases in lung cancer incidence, yet had VERY low smoking rates. Could this have been a factor in their keeping anti-smoking largely at bay for many decades, only succumbing to it fairly recently?

      • Rose Says:

        The “perfect storm” situation was not particular to Britain

        No it wasn’t, but I think that ours was by far the worst around that time, the Great Smog was caused by a temperature inversion that clamped a lid on London.

        Boston December 30th 1959

        Lung Cancer Cause

        “A man who has devoted his scientific career to a study of the causes of cancer warns that air pollution is a more important factor than cigarette smoking in the increase of lung cancer.

        He is Dr, Wilhelm C Hueper, chief of the environmental section of the National Cancer Institute at Bethesda, and he makes the significant observation that the upsurge in lung cancer first was noted between 1900 and 1920, several years before the practice of cigarette smoking was widespread.

        Boston, having one of the most serious air pollution in the entire United States, cannot fail to be impressed – and disturbed – by Dr Hueper’s findings.

        We have always suspected that there was a connection between our contaminated air and the fact that tuberculosis is more prevalent in Boston than in any comparable city, and Bethesda studies support that suspicion.

        The next session of the Legislature would do well to pass laws against the needless poisoning of the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks.

        Other places, notably Pittsburgh, have proved the wisdom of screening out the fumes and ashes which currently rain down upon Boston and other cities, damaging human respiratory systems and undoubtedly shortening thousands of lives.
        Enlightened Massachussetts ought to be able to accomplish at least as much in the public interest”

        – – –

        I don’t have anything on Austria, but if they’ve signed up to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control they don’t have much of a choice.

        WHO Europe evidence based recommendations on the treatment of tobacco dependence

        “This was a three year project, funded largely by three pharmaceutical companies that manufacture treatment products for tobacco dependence, but managed by WHO Europe and a steering group which included government representatives and many public sector organisations.”

        “They were commissioned by the World Health Organization and have drawn on the experience of a number of European countries, including the four original target countries of the partnership project: France, Germany, Poland, and the UK.”


        “The strength of the Partnership Project lies in the fact that it has brought together three major pharmaceutical companies, Glaxo Wellcome, Novartis Consumer Health and Pharmacia & Upjohn, all manufacturers of treatment products for tobacco dependence, to support a common goal that will have a significant impact on public health.”
        http: //web.archive.org/web/20130530064615/http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/en/pr99-04.html

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: