Was Barnsley Targetted?

The answer must seem obvious – “Yes, of course”. But it is not as simple as that. How did TobCON know that Barnsley was ‘ripe for picking’? How did TobCON know that there would be no problem is getting councillors to vote in favour of their blatantly hairbrained scheme to ban smoking around school gates, even though the council had no authority to do so? Why vote for something that you know is unenforceable? Or could that be THE reason? Did waivers say to themselves, “What does it matter? It is only a signal”.

But I think that there was a lot more to it. TobCON must have known that they had a majority in favour beforehand. Perhaps, when you look at all the local authorities in England, some stand out as good candidates. Perhaps TobCON already knew that there was a strong anti-smoking element on the council which would see nothing wrong with using children as a smokescreen for their devious plans to cause trouble amongst parents waiting for their kids to come out of school. A certain element of willingness to bully people must have been present already.

The problem is: ‘How can the tables be turned?’ How can the bullies be seen off, just like school bullies have to be faced down?

I have just checked the make-up of Barnsley council. There are 62 members. Of those, 4 are Tory, 1 is Libdem and 2 are independent. The other 55 are Labour. It is easy to see how ‘follow my leader’ will prevail, no matter how pathetic the idea is. The reasons for the virtue signalling are of no importance, nor are the stated reasons for the non-ban.

But the beauty of these non-bans and virtue signals is that they alert the people to weakness of their representatives. They are bullies. If they are bullying smokers, who else are they bullying? How much taxpayers’ money are they splurging on the costs of other pointless, worthless, virtue signalling?

I suppose that costs will cause the eventual collapse of TobCON. In Oz, another 12.5% of duty has just been piled upon the price of cigs. Cigs will cost around £20 for 20. Smuggling is an enormous problem. How many border officers have to be paid to intercept those consignments? And to make matters worse, the contraband which is discovered has to be destroyed. Journalists there are fond of stating how much duty would have been lost, had those consignments got through. There is an implication that smokers would be forced to pay official prices because of the interception. Is that likely to be true? I doubt it. Smokers with any sense would stock up for such ’emergencies’. But there is another interesting aspect. Chris Snowdon gives a breakdown of recent custom’s seizures here:

https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2018/09/australias-new-tobacco-industry.html

Quite a lot of the seizures involve ‘loose’ tobacco. Clearly, there is a thriving industry in the making of cigs from ‘loose’ tobacco. ‘Loose’ tobacco is extremely cheap. The vast majority of costs come from making cigs. Think about it. A farmer somewhere in China or Indonesia is growing vast acres of plants and curing them. It takes a few days from harvesting the plants to having the finished product. He sells the produce by the kilo at, say, AU$2 per kilo. A kilo will produce 1000 cigs or more. He sells thousands of kilos and, in Chinese terms, gets rich.

Does it matter to smugglers if a few consignments are intercepted? It does not matter a toss what the calculated loss of revenue to the OZ Gov is. Only the cost of the raw material and transport matters. You can bet a pound to a penny that the people arrested know absolutely nothing about the ‘masterminds’. Further, I suspect that the small fry do not give a toss about suffering some jail-time. Jail-time cost the Oz Gov a massive amount of money, along with the cost of customs officers.

No wonder Oz has banned nicotine ecigs. The Oz Gov desperately wants smokers to pay the full price for cigs. It would be too easy for a smoker, deprived of cigs, to use an ecig for the time being, if he ran out of stock.

I would love to see tobacco revenue in Oz collapse. Smoking bans are irrelevant when it comes down to the nail. If I cannot smoke in a pub, I shall go outside. If I cannot smoke outside the pub, I shall not go to the pub at all. I’ll drink at home. I like my home. And if I find a source of cheap cigs, I’ll take advantage of it. I do not give a shit about political shysters and the like.

In those terms, organisations like the FCTC become irrelevant. They just cease to exist. They have no power over me at all.

I suppose that the supply of ‘illicit’ cigs is a top-down operation. Friends will help friends, who will also help their friends, so that, gradually, a very wide circle of ‘customers’ evolves. But I suppose that the circles are very closed. You would have to find a way to ‘break into’ a circle, which would be far from easy. That does not apply to me because I know no such people and have no wish to do so. But that does not mean that I do not LOVE such rogues. They are far more honest than the deviant globalists who inhabit Westminster.

It has been bandied about that massive realignment of politicians is in the offing. I hope so. Tory and Labour have become essentially the same thing. Both parties have set about persecuting citizens for being smokers, drinkers, fatties, etc. It has gradually got worse and worse as time has passed. It would not surprise me if the main parties break up and that a new party evolves which promotes the freedom of the individual, within the law. A good start would be to repeal the seat belt law, which was the start, in recent times, of coercion by the State with no redress.

Freedom of the individual is crucial and is the foundation of civilisation in post-Christian Europe. I say ‘post-christian’, but the general principle of ‘love thy neighbour’ still applies. Things go massively wrong when ‘love thy neighbour’ translates into ‘force thy neighbour’.

So, going back to Barnsley, we see force being applied, even if it is not legal force. It is still force, even if it is intended to pit one citizen against another. In fact, it is reasonable to say that that form of force is the most cruel of all.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Was Barnsley Targetted?”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Interesting points Junican. I wish i knew someone who smuggled George Karelias in. I’d definitely be a customer
    However i do have very pleasant holidays in Austria and Switzerland where they are widely available and smokers sre made very welcome.
    As an aside have you tried the Swiss Heimat range of cig yet ? All made with Swiss grown tobacco and a very nice smoke indeed. No plain packaging either !

    • junican Says:

      I stick with what I know in manufactured cigs. All my experimentation involves my own stuff and imported leaves.

  2. Smoking Lamp Says:

    Barnsley certainly seems to be a hotbed of antismoking extremism… The local council has been seeking bans on outdoor smoking in public markets, is looking to ban tobacco sales in those same markets, and has been advocating smoking bans near schools (and using children as activists for those bans). I think it is time to fight back and expose the lies used to justify these bans!

    • junican Says:

      It is really up to local people to realise what is going on and for candidates to stand in opposition to the ‘status quo’, just as Trump did.

  3. Some French bloke Says:

    it is reasonable to say that that form of force is the most cruel of all.

    And also cowardly, in equal measure. When real opposition comes to the fore, it’s unlikely even the higher-ups in TobCon will be able to pluck up.the amount of courage it would take to face it.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: