“Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free…..”

I caught the last half hour of the ‘Last Night of the Proms” on BBC1 tonight. It is always uplifting. I dare say that many decades ago, when the Empire still existed, phrases like ‘wider still and wider, should thy boundaries be set’, referred to territorial spread, but in recent years, that phrase meant ‘spread of liberty, freedom, equality before the law’ etc.

What went wrong?

What happened to ‘Mother of the free”? Where did the freedom go? In many respects, it is now a criminal offence to be ‘free’.

Think about that. It is now a criminal offence to be free.

We all know that SHS danger was exaggerated beyond measure in order to ban smoking in ‘indoor public places’. The excuse was that ‘there is no safe level’. It still amazes me that anyone with any intelligence, such as the ex-PM, Tony Blair, could equate ‘no safe level’ with ‘always a dangerous level’. The two things are entirely different. The first is theoretical, based upon epidemiological mumbo-jumbo; the second is a matter of fact, which would require actual physical proof. Where is the proof of actual physical harm from SHS? Major studies, such as Enstrom and Kabat and the WHO’s own study, Boffetta, showed that SHS did little or no harm, certainly not enough to require legal interference.

That is the truth. It is as though everyone has been told that 2 + 2 = 4 and a bit. No one defines what the ‘bit’ is, but almost everyone believes it. Further, the ‘bit’ becomes overwhelming important. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that even the most ‘trustworthy’ of studies, such as Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’, emphasise heavy, direct inhaling of tobacco smoke over a long period of time before a few smokers will die from lung cancer when they are old? How is it possible for inhaling tiny bits of SHS to endanger people during a normal lifetime? The unspoken trick is not to say that the human lungs can cope perfectly well with small amount of crap in the atmosphere and absorb those ‘toxins’ and expel them. It must always have been so, otherwise the human race would not have survived.

What chance is there of Brexit reviving ‘the Bulldog Spirit’?

It is not easy to define. The ‘Bulldog Spirit’ is defensive but strong. But the British Bulldog has been weakened by infusions of dope, mostly by politicians. But that is mostly because the politicians themselves have been doped.

How did that happen? I do not understand. You have to wear a seatbelt in a car at all times, but you only have to wear a seatbelt on an aircraft during take off and landing, and I am not sure that there is law which requires the wearing of seatbelts. Is there a law which requires aircrew (not cabin staff) to wear seatbelts at all times?

How do MPs become doped up so that they pass legislation produced by doped up Ministers?

But the doping is far more widespread. The Chief of ‘Public Health England’ has recently said smoking will be eradicated by 2030. Who gave him the authority to make that decision? It must be TobCON.

There have been suggestions that a major political upheaval is likely. I can certainly see a huge change in the nature of the Tory Party, but not in Labour. Labour has already committed itself to hard-left.

But no change in the Tory Party will matter unless it revitalises ‘personal sovereignty’ and maximises it. It isn’t just about de-regulation; it is also about getting rid of laws which make ‘freedom’ a criminal offence.

Advertisements

11 Responses to ““Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free…..””

  1. Rose Says:

    The “no safe level” is a brilliant piece of misdirection, whose sheer audacity I can’t help but admire.

    You just say “there is no safe level” without any further explanation and everyone turns pale with fear incase they have been exposed.

    Let me try it.

    There is NO SAFE LEVEL OF POTATOES!

    And it’s absolutely true, but here is the explanation for my alarming but entirely true statement.

    “The common potato, Solanum tuberosum, contains toxic steroidal glycoalkaloids derived biosynthetically from cholesterol
    (Sharma & Salunkhe, 1989).
    In older literature (before 1954) these have been referred to only as ‘solanine’ or as total glycoalkaloids (TGA). The potato glycoalkaloids have not been evaluated previously by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee.”

    4. EVALUATION
    “The Committee considered that, despite the long history of human consumption of plants containing glycoalkaloids, the available epidemiological and experimental data from human and laboratory animal studies did not permit the determination of a safe level of intake.
    The Committee recognized that the development of empirical data to support such a level would require considerable effort.”
    http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v30je19.htm

    Which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

    • junican Says:

      It would be reasonable if it was understood that “….did not permit the determination of a safe level of intake” is meaningless. It is just the same as saying that there is no known unsafe level of intake. Minus 1 plus 1 equals 0.

  2. smofunking Says:

    Unfortunately, the British Bulldog appears to have been usurped by the Big Girl’s Blouse.

  3. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    The chief of PHE can say what he wants. I shall be taking no notice of this prick !

  4. Rose Says:

    There’s now no safe level of alcohol either.

    No alcohol safe to drink, global study confirms
    24 August 2018

    “A large new global study published in the Lancet has confirmed previous research which has shown that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.”

    “They found that out of 100,000 non-drinkers, 914 would develop an alcohol-related health problem such as cancer or suffer an injury.

    But an extra four people would be affected if they drank one alcoholic drink a day”
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45283401

    Presumably they didn’t expect us to read past the headline.

    • junican Says:

      They don’t expect most readers to read past the headline, or even think “What a load of crap!”

      • Rose Says:

        Apart from which, how can a non-drinker develop an alcohol related problem?
        The term is clearly meaningless as both drinkers and non-drinkers suffer from cancer and injuries and is yet another ploy to demonise a popular substance and artificially inflate the figures.

        As a non-drinker, I can’t believe a word these people say.

      • junican Says:

        The confidence trick is ‘more often than’, without knowing what other factors are involved.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: