Author Archive

Lying Low And Biding Your Time


Visiting the hospital today, I noticed that many of the ‘No Smoking’ signs are strategically placed. There is one on the wall directly over a couple of benches, and there is one just outside a side doorway, which might be an ideal spot for a person to step outside of a ward for a cig.

No one enforces those notices.

You might notice that I used the phrase ‘enforces the notices’ rather than using the phrase ‘enforces the ban’. I have said that deliberately, because the notices are just notices. Certain notices were common at one time. EG, “No Trespassers”. I don’t think that I have seen such a notice for decades. Do buses still have notices saying “No Spitting?” Did anyone spit out on the floor of buses before a notice was put up? Did people climb high walls and fences to go ‘trespassing’ before a notice was put up?

I drove past my old golf club today. There was a notice attached to a fence near an entrance. It said “No dogs allowed”. But it is private property. The notice suggests that non-members are ‘allowed’, provided that they do not have a dog. But there are quite a few public footpaths which cross the course. Erm… If you cannot ban people from using the footpaths, how can you can them from having a dog with them? The simple fact is that you cannot. Thus, the NOTICE is intended just to frighten people who do not know their rights.

The trouble is that it is all right for me to waffle about ‘rights’, but would I risk being beaten up for trespassing or taking a dog on the golf course public footpaths? Or, perhaps worse, being terrified of being beaten up.

The exploitation of fear is right out of Soviet Russia around 1917 onwards. ‘Show trials’ were intended to promote fear, and they worked very well, especially when the ‘culprit’ received a bullet in the back of the head.

What did the ordinary Russian people do? They did what serfs and peasants have always done. They kept quiet and mostly survived. They avoided trouble.

We smokers are in much the same position. I think that it is great that the armies of TobCON etc have moved on to ecigs and HNB. I dare say that some American nutters will get smoking banned on sidewalks in some towns (often called ‘cities’ in the USA). Let them deal with it. I DO NOT CARE! If Americans elect such zealots to their ‘city’ councils, that is their problem.

But here is an amusing idea.

Suppose that we invented a ‘Smokers Party’, and all contributed a little money each to pay the deposit of a candidate for election as an MP in some constituency. We KNOW that we would lose our contribution, but is there mileage to be had from presenting a candidate that smokers could vote for? I would certainly make a contribution of at least £50, or more if the idea took off.

How would that idea square with ‘Lying Low And Biding Your Time?’ It would be the facet of ‘action’. The other facet would be ‘inaction’, meaning disobedience.

Disobey in every way possible, such as littering. Make the non-smokers pay just as much as duty-paying smokers pay.

I know that sounds harsh, but we must remember that we are foot soldiers engaged in a mental war. Do not be afraid to lie. Tell your local councillors and MP, anonymously, that you intend to be disobedient and intend to throw litter all over the place, even though you will not do so.

The mental war has to rebound. We want councillors to be looking around for masses of dumped rubbish when they drive to their meetings. Your anonymous letter is just the same as one of those “No smoking” notices. The idea is to create uncertainty.

It really is very odd that there is no ‘Institute’ which represents smokers specifically. Perhaps Forest might have occupied that position a decade ago if it had not spent that decade just going through the motions – cosy chats with Arnott et al. It would have been better if Forest had refused invitations from the BBC et al to engage in blatherings, and concentrated upon ‘the human rights’ of smokers.

If your enemy has a machine gun and you have only a rifle, there is no merit in engaging in a fight. Hide somewhere and bide your time. Wait until he takes his machine gun somewhere else. Then start sniping.

It is a very slow process, but it can be done. After all, the Zealots have been planning and plotting for decades to arrive at their toothless FCTC.

The FCTC is toothless because it does not have an army to enforce it. It could collapse tomorrow.




The Abject Capitulation To Creeds


Simon Cooke has an interesting take on Public Health here:

Now, I must state that I have no objection to ‘faith’, in itself. ‘Faith’ means ‘belief’, and we all exercise ‘belief/ faith’ whether we know it or not. For example, can I prove that anything other my ‘mental blob’ exists? I might be some sort of spirit, imagining all my life experiences. There is a lot to be said for that idea. It avoids the ‘macro’ (infinitely large universe) and the micro (infinitely divisible matter).

But I ‘believe’/’have faith’ in the idea that I really exist as a human being, with a body and a mind, here on Earth at this time, and I really believe that I will die before long because I am 78 years old.

Those ‘really believes’ are ‘faiths’, and they are ‘real and necessary’ faiths.

The problem with ‘Public Health’ as a ‘faith’ is that it falls at the first hurdle. There is no such thing as ‘public’ health, other than the the sum of the the scored criteria of every individual person. That is, if a person has a health check, and no problems are found, then that person is given a score of 100. It does not matter whether that person smokes, drinks or is fat, nor does it matter if he can or cannot run a hundred yards in 10 seconds.

So, if every person in England was given a ‘health score’, it would be possible to pick out those people who need help. But it is important also to remember that they can refuse help and carry on living as the wish to live, and they should not be punished by prohibitions and ‘duty/tax’ theft.

What has gone wrong with England’s Government, and even more so in Scotland and Wales, is that, despite extortionate theft via ‘duties’ on tobacco, alcohol and petrol, the non-smokers, light drinkers and non-drivers do not know that they too are paying extortionate taxes to maintain the political ‘believers’.

Why is climate change plastered all over the News? It is to justify more and more waste and taxes.

I must admit that it is hard to see how a sort of French Revolution could arise and behead all the rent-seekers, like Arnott. Maybe the tumbrils could be replaced by taxis.

Global Warming is a creed – a faith – a belief. It is obviously not scientific since the researchers do not search for refutations. They are not paid to do so, anyway.

What is extremely odd is that politicians have, again and again, capitulated to fads. I do not understand that at all.

Can anyone explain?


A Bit More About Hospital Grounds Smoking Bans


So, as you enter the Hospital Site, there is a huge notice which says, “THIS IS A NO SMOKING SITE”. 

Not having had any need to visit the local hospital for a couple of years, I was a bit wary at first. I walked around as I enjoyed my cig. But I observed. I have been observing now for six days. What have I observed?

It is that not one single member of the hospital staff is the slightest bit interested in the outdoor ban.

Here’s an interesting little fact. It turned out that my nephew’s daughter works in Reception at the hospital. She saw me entering and leaving, but was not sure. She tried to draw my attention, but without calling out. I did not see her waves, or whatever. Of course, I recognised her immediately once I knew who she was, and even though the circumstances were different from our usual meetings (family get-togethers).

What is interesting is that I know for a fact that she, along with most of my sister’s brood, is a smoker. How many other such staffers are smokers?

My point is that we tend to assume that NHS staff are whiter than white.

But there are other observations which come to mind. An awful lot of the hospital staff (especially the females) are not exactly good examples of ‘correct’ body weight. An awful lot of them are rather ’round’. And I don’t mean only the older ones. Very few of them are slim. So how do the academics square the circle of plump NHS employees giving a bad example?

They ignore it. There are no studies of fat NHS employees.

But we can go further. The probability is that the NHS employees do not give a toss if people smoke outdoors. They may even not give a toss if people smoke indoors either. So, the whole ‘No Smoking Site’ nonsense is a confidence trick, pure and simple. And that is why the erection of smoking shelters was shouted down by a couple of local politicians – the shelters would negate the effect of the huge boards saying ‘This is a no smoking site’.

I have now found myself a quiet corner near the main entrance, close to a big bin whereof the lid has been burnt and become corrugated by the number of cigs which have been stubbed out on the lid. There are several such big bins, all of which have stubs on the top, unless they blow off.

What jumps out at me is that hospital staff, at all levels, are going through the motions as regards outdoor bans. They do not give a shit, and nor do the Board. And nor should they. They have FAR more difficult matters to deal with. The ward that my wife is on is full of very old people. But they have a RIGHT TO HEALTH, do they not? There is only a sliver of difference between THE RIGHT TO HEALTH and the right to ETERNAL LIFE.

It strikes me that our politicians have everything the wrong way round. Brexit trade agreements should be easy-peasy – done and dusted by now. What really matters is breaking up the cabal of academics and health zealots.

What was really sad about Cameron et al was that they floated. They gave importance to ‘marriage’ of two men or two women, so much so that they legislated. And all the other MPs succumbed. There ought to have been threats of mass resignations. ‘Marriage’ has cultural overtones far beyond present gender reassignments and such blather.

But we will not see ‘correction’ of the political scenario until the major parties break up. That is the only way that the ‘propagandist hegemony’ about ‘evil industry’ (tobacco, sugar, etc) will be broken.

We need a Trump, or several Trumps. All the people on my wife’s ward NEED the attention that they are getting – unless the are deliberately to be allowed to die. All the money which is being handed out to ‘charities’ which have no purpose other than propaganda, would be better spent looking after those old people on my wife’s ward.

But I do not understand why the Gov is so fearful of academics. If Prof X says this, then you can bet that Prof Y says the opposite. That is why there is such warfare going on in academia in the form of ‘Ad Homs’.

It is very hard to do anything to get politicians to declare that they intend to persecute smokers, fatties, uglies, the unemployed, etc. But that is what needs to be done. They must be forced to declare their intentions.

The ‘Human Right To Health’


It appears that the UN declared some time ago that human beings ‘have a right to health’.

I don’t know by what convoluted process of reasoning such a declaration could be made. The only way that it makes any sense is to interpret the declaration. It must mean, “No State must permit practices which could impinge upon the health of its citizens”. Further rationalisation produces the requirement, “States must prohibit any practices which might cause illhealth amongst its citizens”. I suppose that such practices as refining sugar could be included in banned activities.

But do we see the problem? It is that ONLY an Elite of some sort can define which practices are, here and now, verboten. They can ignore any other harmful practices until it suits them the attack.

Has that not been entirely the situation as regards the enjoyment of tobacco? We have waited with bated breath to see what new disastrous consequence of smoking has been discovered by using epidemiological trickery to elevate a minuscule risk, and one which is hardly likely to affect a person within 200 years of life, to dire proportions. The dangers of SHS is one very obvious example. And yet no journalist has the courage to demand proof that SHS is dangerous within a life time of less than, say, 200 years.

I keep shouting about the risks from SHS in a normal life-span, but it is like bashing your head against a brick wall. It is NOT that SHS might be harmful – it is the time-span required to convert that risk into actual, serious harm. Note the word ‘serious’. A slightly elevated carbon monoxide count is irrelevant, since it disappears within a few minutes, and causes no damage.

What is interesting about the ‘Human Right to Health’ is that there MUST be also be a ‘Human Right to Unhealth’. My spell check does not like the word ‘unhealth’, and is that also not part of the problem? The Zealots keep changing the meaning of words, and we seem to have no ability to resist.

Why did the MSM accept the phrase ‘climate change’ without acknowledging that The Climate is chaotic?

What do we mean by ‘chaotic’? We mean that there are variables which we cannot account for. For example, who knows when a volcanic eruption will occur, especially beneath the sea, and what will such an eruption do to the climate?

Why has this winter been so awful? How do the ‘Experts’ explain the ‘Beast from the East’, and the present ‘Mini-beast from the East’? Has the BBC asked Climatologists to appear on programmes and been put on hold? Why has the Gov ‘Dept for Climate
Change’ not been challenged vigorously?


Smokers have ‘human rights’. They have the right to autonomy. They have the right to decide for themselves what is best for them, including the right to enjoy tobacco, alcohol, sugar, salt, etc. MPs and civil servants have no RIGHT to punish or persecute smokers et al. Thus, massive taxation is clearly unethical.

So my final thought is, “How can we smokers, vapers, drinkers, fatties, cripples, mentally unstable people, demand our HUMAN RIGHTS TO HEALTH? Remember that OUR definition of OUR health is our business and not the UN’s business. It is our personal decision.

I have no doubt that every MP is an intelligent person. But few of them seem to understand that we have a HUMAN RIGHT to be unhealthy, if that is what our activities result in.

Stubborn Resistance


I was reading about how the Russian people resisted Communism in recent decades, and, eventually, caused the collapse of Communism. They had no political power, obviously, so they needed to influence events in tiny ways, a tiny bit at a time. For example, a person might grow vegetables and sell his surplus. His operation was too small for the authorities to be bothered with, and there were too many such small operations, anyway. In any case, the State ’employees’ were themselves buying veg from the myriad of gardeners. And there were probably chickens’ eggs to be had, and a myriad of other products.

So the answer to ‘creeping prohibition’ is ‘creeping stubborn resistance’.

I was at the hospital again today. I am getting a bit more brave about smoking outdoors in the ‘THIS IS A NO SMOKING SITE’ outdoors. I noticed not a few people getting their fags out very close to the Main Entrance. But they were a group of three people, albeit all young women.

I wish that I was a really, really brave young man. I would go to the hospital with a black paint spray can and obliterate the word ‘NO’ from the signs which say, “This is a no smoking site”. I am sure that visitors and staff of all sorts would see the comical nature of the result:


But the resistance could go further. The fact is that all the ‘No smoking’ notices are bluffs. They are like ‘No dumping’ signs. The only people who take note of such signs are people who do not dump.

If an ‘army’ of smokers could indeed be raised, then the first objective ought to be to disrupt, and increase the costs of TC.

Deface their notices. If a ‘No Smoking’ notice is stuck to the outside of a window, then spraying it black will not affect the shop owner, but if the owner has stuck the notice inside his shop window, then he is a lackey of TC, and deserves to have his shop window painted. I am thinking in ‘TC mould’ – anything which furthers the cause is just, even if it is not legal. TobCON reversed that process – ‘legal’ means ‘just’ in their propaganda.

I find it very hard to visualise myself defacing notices by spraying black paint over offending words, such as “NO“. Much as I see the need and the ease with with which it could be done, I cannot see how it can ACTUALLY be done. The problem is not about an ARMY of smokers, it is about only two or three, and lots of ‘two or threes’. The army would be groups of ‘two or threes’.

The reason is that there need to be lookouts. Person A looks that way; Person B looks this way; Person C obliterates the word ‘NO‘.

I really, really wish that I had the courage.

But, as has been said again and again, smokers have no uniting MILITANT organisation.  Direct actions, as displayed by the courageous Audrey Silk, are not recognised as worthy. But only MILITANT actions will produce results, which is what Audrey has tried to do.

I hate to say this:

Much as I love Frank Davis, would he risk himself to obliterate the word “No” from the “No Smoking” notice boards?

The serious problem as regards smokers is exactly the same as the problem of drinkers.

And yet the problem has an easy solution. There is no definition of ‘the problem’, and therefore there is no problem.

The Cruelty of Hospital Smoking Bans


It is some years, but not that many, since my wife had to be taken into hospital. Regular readers will know that she suffers from MS, which renders a person always to be ‘at risk’, try as one might to protect her.

No need to go into detail. Suffice to say that a number of ‘invisible’ ailments, especially a fall in salt levels, together with a chest infection, as well as some vague evidence of a possible stroke maybe, possibly, sometime, conspired to bowl her over. In a nutshell, I tried to wake her up in the morning last Thursday, and she did wake up, but was only semi-conscious. Ambulance, wha-wha, resuscitation dept.

She is improving.

But, as the heading of this post suggests, it is not the treatment of ill people in our hospitals which is the worry. It is the cruelty inflicted upon smokers.

As I said, it is some years since the last incident in the wife’s continuing dicing with death. I have not been to the hospital since. I was interested to see how the smoking ban was working out.

What struck me was the brazen way in which ‘No Smoking’ notices, outdoors, were situated precisely where people were likely to sit down for a few minutes, such as on the wall immediately behind a couple of benches. Those benches were not sheltered – they were just benches. And the notices were big and blatant.

So, when I stepped outside for my first cig after about three hours in ‘resuscitation’, I did not stand directly outside. I took a little walk, observing all the time. I wanted to see if there were ‘enforcers’ hanging about. On the three occasions that I stepped out for a cig, and took a little walk about, I saw no enforcers.

Forgive my cowardliness, but I only then (over a couple of days) ventured more closely to the building. I found as spot which was sheltered from the wind and which had a big bin which was burnt on the lid by the number of cigs which had been extinguished thereon.

And I watched. People came out and lit up, but not many. A few stood under the canopy of the entrance, and one lady was sitting in a wheelchair just under the canopy, but most walked about.

Not an enforcer in sight.


There is an element of ‘Cruelty’ which does not depend upon physical force, and is probably even more cruel than physical force. It is the implantation of guilt in the mind.

I personally felt that guilt as I puffed on my ‘guilty’ cig. But ‘guilt’ of what? It seems to me to be ‘guilt’ at smoking where there are ‘No Smoking’ notices.

The Cruelty is actually extreme. It is vicious. And it is particularly extreme where empathy should be paramount – in and around hospitals.

I wonder what would happen if I took my little portable ashtray into the ward and lit a cig, sitting by B’s bed. How cruelly would I be treated?

If we smokers are to form an army, then we must have an enemy to attack. But I would rather think of our army as a guerrilla army. Hit hard and retreat.

Whatever the way, the cruelty can no longer be countenanced.

I could go back to when the board of the Hospital intended to build smoking shelters and a survey was in favour. ONE specific Councillor buggered it all up by shouting very loudly. HE was responsible for the vicious cruelty inflicted upon hospital patients and visitors. Why did the rest of the Council melt in the heat?

But my simple observations reveal more than that. There is a hopelessness in the NHS. A sadness. The nurses and doctors are lovely, but seem to be vaguely overwhelmed. Some happenings are idiotic. EG, a ‘nurse’ looked at my wife’s feeding chart and asked if I would like some yogurt to feed her with. Was I mean to say that she should be telling me rather than asking me?

As I see it, the NHS has specific duties – to cure ailments. Public Health England, ASH ET AL, CRUK, etc, should have no part whatsoever to play in the NHS. In fact, Politicians should ensure that the NHS is not corrupted. That also means tearing down the ‘No Smoking’ signs outdoors and providing smoking rooms indoors.

It is so easy for ‘Cruelty’ to be not just seen, but encouraged.

“I wish that I could write the truth as I see it”


That is not an actual quote from someone. It is one that I have made up. I was watching a Tommy Robinson interview earlier (H/T Orphans of Liberty):

It is quite long – 42 mins. In it, he describes how he was deliberately targeted, again and again, by the powers-that-be – accusations made and houses searched.

You do not have to believe him.

But I was also reading today about fraudulent claims for losses due to the Grenfell inferno. One in particular seems to have appeared. It seems that some fifteen individuals  from a specific foreign family had claimed to be living in the same flat. They all got a pay off and housing. Only later checks revealed multiple claims.

You do not have to believe it.

But it is getting harder and harder to speak the truth ‘as you see it’. We, as individuals, can do so, but ‘authority’ dare not. It is quite possible that fake claims were indeed fake, and that the culprits might appear in court. They might be sentenced to a term in prison, but suspended. But they would almost certainly continue to receive free board and lodgings. I mean, what else could The State do? There is no alternative. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.

It is the lack of ‘alternative’ which is the severe problem.

And yet there is a simple solution.

The Outer Hebrides.

If smokers can be ‘exiled to the outdoors’, why should not ‘supplicants’ asking for succour from the horrors of Central London not be happy with the peace of the Outer Hebrides?

The problem is that we Brits are kind to each other. Or used to be. Family firms employed family members. Call it ‘nepotism’ if you like, but IT WORKED.

We come up against a basic problem when we contemplate how the Grenfell inferno revealed that we Brits are being taken for a ride, with the wholesale collusion of our cowardly Government. Thousands and thousands of gangs, who have the intention of pillaging, are being housed and fed by us.

But what is the answer? Could it be an offer of a tent in the Outer Hebrides or a ticket back where them came from?

What seems to me to be true is that the Gov of the UK, over the last couple of decades, Blair, Brown, etc, became besotted by ‘cure-alls’. ‘If only there was a European Union, there would be no more wars in Europe’. ‘If only smokers gave up, there would be no LC, Heart problems, etc’.

What strikes me about the situation as regards smoking, and has done or some while, is that the whole situation is childish. Smoking bans are childish, like standing in lines at school. Scary pics on cig packets are childish since no smoker takes any notice.

But, most of all, it is almost impossible to talk about other sources of leaf. Note how I generalise by using the words ‘sources’ and ‘leaf’. The reason is the no one dare talk about ‘it’. That is because you need a ‘permit’, but the trick is that getting a permit is impossible.

Needless to say, the ‘permit’ regulation is a godsend to our heroes, smugglers. Anything which reduces personal action, increases corporate action.

My little intro about ‘leaf’ indicates my reluctance to talk about it.

I honestly believe that anti-smoking gospel denies ‘the truth’.

Local Authority Activism


I know little about how ‘Health’ has been transferred to Local Authorities. I remember a big fuss a few years ago when our Authority was being peppered with anti-smoking reports. God only know how much it was costing. The reports were the usual conglomeration of second hand evidence, charts, guesses and propaganda. Nothing of value in them.

Then they suddenly dried up completely. Perhaps a few councillors asked why ratepayers were paying people to regurgitate the same information over and over again, being that the heaviest smokers tend to be the least well off, and stuff like that.

But the Terrorists are back in a big way in the Mayor’s Office in Manchester, Andrew Burnham. He used to be an MP. Here is a little about him:

He was MP for Leigh. Let’s start with the most obvious one. Andy Burnham was elected to the Labour safe seat of Leigh back in 2001. He is a former Cabinet minister, having served as Health Secretary, Culture Secretary, and Chief Secretary to the Treasury.”

Clearly, he still has the urge to terrorise smokers, which he learnt as Health Sec, since he is misusing his power as Gtr Manchester Mayor to spend loads-a-money on TV adverts calling for ‘The People’ to ‘make smoking history’ in the Manchester area. Clearly, the ads are intended to inflame the passions of the mob. But its the same old, same old, isn’t it? Another regurgitation of yesterday’s news. More and more ‘surveys’ are coming up with the the answer: “For God’s sake! Sod off and leave people alone!”

And it can only get more so. The Terrorists in TobCON can congratulate each other and bask in the admiration of each other at their jamborees, but the wider the Zealots cast their nets, the more people they antagonise, and the less impressive that their statistics become. It seems to me that people are more impressed by statistics the less that the stats apply to them. For example, I read somewhere that a GP would have to be ‘lucky’ to see one case of lung cancer per year. I picked this up via a quick google:

According to the latest available cancer registration statistics, during 2011 there were 43,463 new cases of lung cancer in the UK, an incidence rate of 48.5 per 100,000 persons. This is similar to the rate of new diagnoses estimated from GP statistics for recent years. However, GP statistics may underestimate the true …”


That number accords, roughly, with the number of GPs in the UK, so ‘one per an’ sounds about right (30-odd thousand GPs – let’s not split hairs). So imagine all those patients in the waiting room, coughing and sputtering and claiming to be nearly dead, and singling out the LC case. No wonder the first question they ask is, “Do you smoke?” If the answer is, “No”, then, according to the irresponsible Zealots, the GP can laughingly send the patient on his way with a pricey prescription for a placebo.

But what if the patient smokes? Well, not a lot. The chance of that person suffering from LC is still minute. But by asking the question, the GP covers himself. Just asking the question removes any liability from the GP, should it turn out at a later date, that the patient was indeed suffering from LC. A couple more questions – coughing blood? No, difficulty breathing? No, and a quick chest examination, will almost certainly indicate that the patient just has a cold.

As I understand it, the symptoms of LC are quite dissimilar to having a cold. For lack of a better way to describe it, they are mostly ‘dry’.

Hardly anyone dies from LC, and yet SHS has been elevated to a higher plane of danger than smoking itself. The USA Surgeon General, at one point, claimed that SHS could cause a person to have a heart attack in the street and drop down dead. But, one might assume, smoking would not.

As the contradictions pile up, and the stats are seen to be indicate correlation and not causation, and statisticians dig deeper, and such people cease to need TobCON or the UN/WHO to make a living, the more likely it is that breathing polluted air with every breath that you take is far, far more dangerous than puffs on a cig every few seconds for a few minutes in the hour. If the air is polluted, you inhale the toxins every second of 24 hours per day.

The big problem that Local Authorities have is that they are individual entities. I wonder if Cameron realised how clever he was when he dispersed decisions about ‘Public Health’ throughout the Local Authorities? I doubt it, but it was a wonderful idea.

‘Special interest groups’ change their nature. It is far easier for smokers, drinkers and fatties to become ‘special interest groups’ locally, and replace ‘anti-smoker’ special interest groups, than is the case nationally.

There is only ONE major difficulty, which is ‘getting interested’. That is an ENORMOUS problem. ENORMOUS. If only one in ten smokers in the UK became ‘active’ in defence of their freedom, then some 1,000,000 smokers would be activists.

Being an ‘activist’ would not mean shouting and screaming and banner waving. Those actions are for millennials and snowflakes. They show weakness.

I am not sure how to start to become politically active. I do not wish to be Tory, Labour, UKIP, Lib Dem, etc.

Where to start? How about attending a few public meetings of the Council? It would not be a problem but would be a serious break from my normal routine. I mean a serious break. I think that it is a serious problem that the vast majority of people are working and cannot possibly attend meetings of the Council. The local press is supposed to represent them and report on what happened.

I really, really must try to attend at least ONE such meeting. But I vaguely recall attending a similar meeting decades ago, but I cannot remember what. The whole thing was over in ten minutes or so. Agenda 1, All in favour? 20. All against? 10. Motion passed. Agenda 2…..

Either people give every moment of their time to The Agenda, or they do not know what is going on.

Fifty Shades of Terrorism


Who defined what the word ‘Terrorism’ encompasses?

What we have been led to accept is that the only form of ‘terror’ is unhinged people screaming the equivalent of ‘Auntie Alice is the greatest’ whilst hacking a few unfortunate stranger to death with kitchen knives. Or something similar. The Gov has gone to great pains to try to scotch the plans of such ‘terrorists’ by declaring that anyone who comments that ‘Auntie Alice is NOT the greatest’ is guilty of a hate crime, and must be prosecuted, fined or imprisoned, or otherwise silenced. That is, the Gov actually encourages the belief that ‘Auntie Alice is the greatest’.

Not an awful long time ago, Terrorism was only terrorism if there was a massive attempt to overthrow the current Gov in some place. Terrorism had to be big and organised and had big targets, such as army barracks, Gov property and such.

It is a bit weird that random acts such as the Manchester Arena atrocity can be described as ‘terrorism’. To be so, a very wide understanding of the word ‘terror’ has to be invented. ‘Terror’ does not have to mean ‘frightened to death’, ‘shaking in one’s boots’, ‘shocked and horrified’, ‘quivering and blubbering’. For an act to be described as ‘terrorism’, all that is required is that people should be taken by surprise.

Yes, when I read/heard about the Manchester Arena atrocity I was shocked. I should imagine that everyone was. I was equally shocked, or possibly more so, by the ratatat of the gunfire in the Las Vagas shooting. Ratatat, ratatat, ratatat. A sort of evil music. But I did not regard it as ‘terrorism’, nor did I regard the Mc Arena atrocity as terrorism.

But my recent philosophical thinking has gradually led me in a different direction.

TERRORISM does not have to be knives, guns and bombs. It can be simply the promotion of fear in the mind – in millions of minds. Even though I am 78 and still going strong, I am not immune to suggestions that my infinite life might be curtailed by my smoking. Maybe I should vape or steam (HnB), and thus ensure that my infinite life will be preserved.

The WHOLE philosophy of TobCON is based upon ‘Terror’. TobCON promotes abject fear of devils such as SHS. TobCON is a ‘terrorist’ organisation.

The IPCC is just the same. It also promotes terror.

Is there any answer?

I would like to see Trump defunding the UN. But, what is more important from a UK point of view, is our own Gov defunding the ‘terrorists’ in EVERY ORGANISATION OF ANY SORT, BOTH AT HOME AND ABROAD, which seeks to frighten people. Those ‘terrorists’ are far more damaging than the odd nutter who slashes with a knife shouting ‘Auntie Alice is the greatest’.

Finally, we are gradually coming to a place where are own Gov is the worst ‘terrorist’. Certainly its support of ASH ET AL suggests that it supports the use of terror as a weapon to demoralise 20% of the population. Perhaps 20% or the population are fatties. They too can be terrorised, with Gov approval.

So when will Government approved Terrorism end?


Why Are ‘The Saints’ Unassailable?


Be in no doubt that when a gang of people demand:

We call upon Governments to develop a plan by 2021 for phasing out of tobacco products”

then they are intent upon deliberately provoking warfare. OK, the phrases might not say ‘ban tobacco products by 2021’ – just ‘develop a plan by 2021‘ to take effect at some vague time in the future, such as 2060, 90, or 2110. The demand is too silly to be seriously contemplated.

And yet these people grant themselves the authority to ‘call upon’. I would like to grant myself, along with my internet colleagues, the right to ‘call upon’ Governments to repeal smoking bans with immediate effect.

The thing is that the attendees at the ‘gang bang’ in Cape Town have no more right to ‘call upon Governments’ to do anything at all than each and every one of us, or some group of us.

So if that group demand special privilege to ‘call upon Governments’, then they must prove that they are ‘special’.

How can they prove that they are ‘special’? It can only be that they are particularly saintly. The reason that they must be ‘saintly’ is that THE WHOLE ANTI-SMOKER THING DEPENDS UPON THE SAINTLINESS OF THE PROPONENTS.

Dr Godber, Dr Glantz, Dr Siegel, etc, etc. ‘Doctor/Professor’ equals ‘Saint’. In Public Health, you do not even have to be dead to become a Saint.

But that is where the need for corroboration kicks in. If they are to be ‘Saints’, they must have no feet of clay. No dubious funding. No plagiarising. But above all, no present ‘sinfulness’, such as SHS danger.

Those who seek power have no right to PRIVACY. I know that sounds awful, but I stand by it. I mean ‘no RIGHT’ to privacy.

For example, was Corbin MP, Leader of the Labour Party, at some time in the past, passing secret info to the Soviets? Because of his desire to gain POWER, he has no right to privacy about his dealings with the Soviets in the past. No right whatsoever.

An interesting consequence is that it might well be reasonable for any one of us to demand FULL DISCLOSURE of the costs incurred by any specific attendee in Cape Town, if that person was subsidised, in any way at all, or to any extent, by taxpayers.

I am beginning to come to a firm conclusion that only attacking individual ‘Saints’ will gain traction. The reason that I say that is that it is only because ‘Saints’ said so, that SHS was every believed to be dangerous. Certainly, Doll’s Doctors’ Study suggested that the there was no way at all that SHS inhalation could injure a person within several hundred years.

Who is the most important ‘Saint’ at the moment? Who was the STAR of Cape Town?

Find him/her and tear him to bits. Shred him/her. Dredge every avenue, especially if that person is an academic. In effect, kill them as ‘authorities’.

Arnott is irrelevant. He/she is a token. Ignore EVERYTHING that he/she says. Get behind the propaganda.


You see, PRIVACY ceases to exist once you step outside your home. If you promote yourself as a ‘Saint’, you must expect your evil doings to be exposed.

So why is it that not one single anti-smoker, one who deliberately wishes to blind smokers by inserting hot irons into their eyes, has never been exposed as a mentally ill member of ASH?

Enough for tonight.