Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

I Wonder When PH England Will Dig Its Own Grave?


PHE has only been in existence for a few years but it is showing clear signs of being very badly managed. The latest wheeze is to attempt to force ready meal providers to limit their offerings to 600 calories at most. VGIF talks about it. Apparently, the ‘rules’ might start as early as March.

Which is very odd.

I have two ready meals in the fridge. They are handy to have available when you have a disabled wife and are never quite sure how much time you have to fiddle about with food. One is a Cottage Pie and the other is a Three Cheese and Tomato Pennette Bake. The reason that the role out in March is very odd is that both those ready meals already comply.

The Penette bake contains 606 kcal per serving and the Cottage Pie contains 482 kcal.

It strikes me that the rules are already in effect and have been for some time. Typical PHE – bragging about something which it says that it is going to do, when Asda, and such companies, have already voluntarily done it.

What is also, and especially, laughable is that it would be absolutely impossible to apply such rules to takeaways and fish and chip shops and such.

We have also some Steak and Kidney Puddings. They come out at 348 kcal per pudding. Add a few chips and gravy, and I suppose that that meal also would approximate to about 600 kcal.

Of course, the calculation always assumes that you do not quaff a pint of beer with the pud and chips, and that you do not then follow up with apple pie and custard.

Or to put it another way, as a commenter said somewhere, supermarkets could always respond with a BOGOF special offer. Nice one!

That is what I mean by ‘badly managed’. The CEO of PHE is being led by the nose and is proud of it. He must just love Prof This and Dr That commenting in newspapers about what PHE is about to do, which has already been done voluntarily. What else can he do but say how wonderful it all is. And I suppose that the Health Sec also has to appear to be wonderfully excited and enthusiastic about the old ‘new’ initiative.

Remember the ‘NHS Pledge’ which I mentioned a couple of posts ago? That too was an old ‘new’ initiative.

I see also that the Tobcom levy has also reappeared. That is just a copy of the USA Master Settlement Agreement. The trouble is that it is hard to see how such a levy could be applied in practice, since it would be a levy on the profits which do not belong to the Tobcoms, but to their shareholders. How would German pension funds respond to their dividends from Tobcoms being levied by the UK Gov? The reality is that such a levy would have to be just an increase in Duty.

Then the Laffer Curve comes into operation. But it would not be a ‘pure’ Laffer Curve application. It would increase the already powerful incentive for heroic villains to import good quality contraband. Why import Tobcom crap when you can import the real thing – proper tobacco?

There is a symbiosis between Gov and Academia. Gov funds Academia, which provides Gov with evidence, which enables Gov to extract more and more taxes to fund its spreading tentacles. All the time, Gov continues to complicate life, bully citizens and criminalise them.

The weird thing is that is that, as Margaret Thatcher showed, Gov could very easily divest itself of immensely costly responsibilities. Transferring Health to Local Authorities and PHE was a terrible error – it increased costs immensely. What it come down to is that you cannot prevent people acquiring ‘diseases’ from which they die.

Nonsense abounds. A person who smokes will necessarily suffer from ‘smoking related diseases’, even if he is still alive. A drinker will suffer from ‘alcohol related diseases’ even if he is still alive. A fatty will suffer from ‘obesity related diseases’ even if he is still alive. An impoverished person will suffer from all three, even if he neither smokes, nor drinks nor eats. In his case, it is Gov ‘austerity’ which is to blame.

And yet Gov does not seem to realise that it is funding the very organisations which are criticising it!

There is a simple answer. Start again. Fund charities at the sharp end – those which actually feed the hungry and provide shelter, no matter how inadequate, for the homeless. That is, people who DO things. A decent Gov would recommend to people that they do NOT leave legacies to CRUK. It is a fraud and should be seriously investigated as such. It spends most of its money on feeding itself.

It seems to be inevitable that organisations like CRUK are wide open to take-over by charlatans. By charlatans, I do not mean necessarily thieves. I mean ‘jobsworths’ – people who spend most of their working time looking for reasons to perpetuate their jobs. ASH is a prime example. It exists only because Gov funds it. It would disappear completely otherwise. So it is not just a question of Gov lobbying Gov. It is more a question of Gov being conned. And who is doing the conning? It is the Medical Profession. That is, all the Professors and Doctors in Unis. It is not even GPs and Surgeons, etc.

But what can you expect when successive Health Secs have been too scared to rock the boat? How they pretend enthusiasm for measures which persecute citizens?

I do not know if I will live long enough to see skinniness as being unhealthy and plumpness (but not obesity) as being healthy; when enjoying wholesome beer fortifies; when enjoying a ‘pipe of peace’ relaxes. Ecigs might just provide the same release, but patches and gums do not. 95% failure rate to provide a substitute satisfaction.

But I must admit that I am getting pissed off. I really, really am. Perhaps younger people than me, say 50 year-olds, are not that bothered. They may be right not to be bothered. Perhaps they should just live their lives, as best they can, until ‘the Califat’ overwhelms them. In that case, women would be put back in their place – shrouded in burkinies and confined to the kitchen and the bedroom.

If politicians had any courage, they would already have sussed that Cameron’s “Big Society” was an invitation for CRUK ET AL to hoover up donations via TV adverts. The “Big Society” was never other than a meaningless slogan.

PHE is no more than a slogan generator. It need not cost £6,000,000,000 to generate slogans.


‘A Smoke-free World’


I had something of an inspiration today. I don’t know why. I have always taken the phrase ‘smoke-free world’ to be a ‘figure of speech’ – a world where no one smokes tobacco anymore. For some reason or other, the idea popped into my mind that the Zealots might actually mean ‘areas of the surface of the Earth where smoking is not permitted’.

Think about it. What actually happened when the smoking ban in ‘public’ places came in. What happened was that areas of the land were declared to be ‘smoke-free’.

Imagine that ASH LONDON had a huge map of England on a wall. When the ban was introduced, they could immediately cover large swathes of the map with black stickers which covered those areas where workplaces were. Vast areas where workplaces were situated could be blanked out. Every enclosed building, other than housing, could be covered up as ‘smokefree areas’. But not everywhere. Some areas were not really enclosed, but pressure could be applied to treat them as such, such as sports stadiums, railway platforms, bus stations and so forth. Easy-peasy – get the local authorities, which had already been infiltrated, to pressure such places into banning smoking in those areas. More black stickers on the map. And that is to say nothing of airports, which occupy large areas. Then move to open air shopping malls. More stickers. Then to hospital grounds – wide open areas. The excuse? ‘Giving a bad example’. Then to beaches. In America, even private home which happen to be blocks of flats and condos have been blanked out on the map of the USA.

It would be interesting to see how much of the surface area of England has already been covered with black stickers. I should imagine that the major conurbations are already 70% covered with black stickers. Of course, mountainous areas, rivers and lakes would be covered with grey stickers since hardly anyone goes there, but even they are not totally immune. Even the skies and seas are not immune. In fact, one of the first ‘surface areas’ to be attacked was the surface area of the inside of aeroplanes. You can see why – a cooped-up area from which no one could escape the toxic fumes. Is the area of the interior of a plane a surface of the Earth? Well, sort of, in the sense that people in a plane are in much the same position as people in cars, trains, buses and boats. So ASH LONDON could stick black stickers all over the Atlantic and other oceans and seas since smoking was prohibited everywhere on seagoing vessels. They could also stick black stickers all over the surface are of railway lines. Oh, and the ban on smoking in cars with kids covers lots of road areas. They tried their best to ban smoking in ALL cars, and almost succeeded, in which case, they could have covered all the roads in black stickers.

Which really leaves only farmland and housing which is not covered with black stickers. Farmland does not matter since it is almost bereft of human beings, just like mountains. It can be covered in grey stickers.

So how much of the area of England is still white (or pink, if you prefer)?

But you can go much, much further, and it is easy. Why not describe Carbon Dioxide as ‘smoke’? In that way, anti-smoking links up with Climate Control. Carbon Dioxide is a gas, and not ‘particulates’. The emissions of ecigs are vapours and not particulates. They do not contain solid objects. Inhaling diesel emissions means inhaling solid objects, no matter how small they may be.

An obvious question to ask the anti-smoke Zealots is: “What about volcanoes?” They would answer that there is nothing that we can do about volcanoes, but we CAN do something about man-made equivalents. Volcanoes only erupt occasionally, but man-made emissions, due to the use of fossil fuels, are happening all the time.

Are the Zealots wrong?

As regards the covering of areas England with black stickers, denoting areas where smoking is banned, there is only one answer. Disobedience.

Disobedience has ALWAYS been the answer to unjust laws. I referred, in my last post, to the truism that laws come from biases and not justice. That is especially true of smoking bans. They were always nasty and cruel impositions and not justice.

What is ‘just’? It is that people can go about their business without force being applied to them. Laws are intended to ensure that people interact without cheating – that is, to protect the vulnerable.

So we smokers must DISOBEY. But we can only do so if we bombard candidates for election to MPs with questions about the persecution of smokers.

I have not done so myself, I must admit. But I would do so as part of an organised campaign.

But there is no organisation which exists to defend smokers. Forest tries, but is too weak to make a difference. Tobcoms had a chance, years ago, to assemble smokers as a force to be reckoned with, but they were too confident of their political clout, so that they ignored their customers. Fatal mistake.

But is is we smokers who have suffered from that mistake.

So let us be disobedient as best we can. Avoid buying taxed tobacco products if you can. Use ecig, snus or HnB, if you must, some of the time. The main idea is to devastate the tobacco excise.

Make non-smokers pay their fair share of NHS costs.

Tobacco Control’s ‘Laffer Curve’


Simon Clark reckons that TobCON is ‘running out of puff’. It has resurrected and old initiative and given it a new name – ‘The NHS Smokefree Pledge’. Simon Reckons that it has received almost no publicity. That does not surprise me. After all, how can a THING make a pledge? The National Health Service is not a person or even a group of people – it is a thing. It might have made more sense had it read ‘NHS Staff Smokefree Pledge’.

The same idea applies to its apparent previous incarnation: ‘The NHS Statement of Support for Tobacco Control’. Again, we ask how a THING can make a statement. No, the NHS cannot make pledges or statements. If you read Simon’s post, you will see that most of the people involved have little or nothing to do with the NHS. They are parasites, living off the body of the NHS – living of illnesses which the NHS treats.

Simon says: “On this evidence, far from advancing, tobacco control appears to be going round and round in ever decreasing circles. They’re so devoid of ideas they’ve resuscitated one that wasn’t very successful the first time”.

‘Going round in ever decreasing circles’ is a nice analogy, but I prefer the Laffer Curve as a suitable analogy. Here is a diagram of the Laffer Curve:

Laffer Curve

Essentially, tax revenue will increase provided that the tax rate is ‘reasonable’, but there will come a point, if the rate becomes too high, where revenues will fall and, ultimately collapse.

Can one apply such a curve to TobCON?

I think that you can, but not quite as directly.

For example, during this month, we are seeing loads of TV adverts for Niquitin. At least those ads are not frightens, as are the TobCON ads featuring some sort of nematodes or the like flooding the bloodstreams of smokers. “If you could see the nematodes, you would quit”. Well, the fact is that the nematodes are so tiny that they barely exist, and are hardly something to be afraid of.

The General Smoking Ban was a big mistake. It pushed the ‘Laffer Curve’ right up to the top. Its consequences are clear to see – smoking bans outdoors in prisons and mental establishments, decimation of pubs, etc. Day after day, such prohibitions antagonise more and more people. Even non-smokers recoil at the viciousness of the persecution of smokers. Judging from the numerous articles in newspapers about the advance of puritanism, even those papers are beginning to relent.

We have recently seen how TobCOM has retreated to the periphery. It has to hit on prisoners of any type – people who are confined. Or bans in places which are empty, like parks and beaches. At this time of year, I doubt that Blackpool beach is full of deckchairs or that there are thousands of people in Stanley Park. But even in mid-summer, the space available is enormous, and is therefore empty for all intents.

So, as far as the Laffer Curve is concerned, every additional ban or tax increase, increases antagonism exponentially.

But what we have been seeing (I think!) is that only the poorest people pay full price for cigs. Maybe that is because the cannot afford the outlay to but stacks of cigs when on holiday. And don’t think that you must buy in EU countries. A friend in the pub often holidays in Teneriffe  and brings back loads of cigs. He has never been stopped. Why not? Because loads more customs officers would be required to search baggage, and no ‘profit’ accrues from such searches. The searches produce only costs. Even the much publicised seizures of millions of cigs produce only costs.

But, even worse, is the criminalisation of tens of thousands of people.

TobCON in the UK has exceeded its ‘use by date’. On the Laffer Curve, its benefits are infinitesimally small, and its costs are infinitesimally huge. I exaggerate, of course, but the general idea is true.

I have not mentioned taxes as such. The effect of the Laffer Curve which I have been expounding was about corruption. It is corrupt for NHS bosses to employ ‘enforcers’ to bully people who want a relaxing smoke in the open air.

But that also applies to people who want to smoke indoors. The smoking ban has always been corrupt. The corruption came from a theoretical expectation of ‘death and disease from SHS’. That was before studies of spouses revealed no such effect. Why should they, since it takes 30 years or so, on average, for the inhalation of huge ‘packets’ of tobacco smoke to ’cause’ mortal damage?

It should not surprise us that TobCON is in retreat. It has always been a bubble.

The amazing thing is that Politicians, and especially Health Ministers, have fallen for the hype.

Perhaps the reason is that easy targets are easy targets.


‘Rule of Law is a Myth’


I have read a very interesting polemic about how the vast majority of The People misinterpret the idea that we all live under a system of ‘common law’ which is objective. Here is the link:

It is quite a long read, being some 45 pages, but it is well worth the effort. It explains how we are duped into accepting that “The Law” is altruistic and objective. But it also suggests that we know that “The Law” is far from ‘altruistic and objective’, but we suffer from ‘cognitive dissonance’ when it comes to either accepting laws and obeying them or rejecting them and disobeying them. In our hearts, we often know that certain laws are unfair and unjust, but we accept them and justify them on the grounds that there would be chaos otherwise. So, we know that they are wrong, but cannot see a better way to preserve order.

Read the whole thing, because the essay suggests that different ‘Societies’ might well NOT comply with ‘received wisdom’ to their benefit.


That idea – different societies might well need different laws – is a crucial component of ‘order’. For example, in The UK, minor thefts are disregarded by the police because they are minor. But in a third world country, such a minor theft might be crucial to the well-being of the victim.

What happens when “The Law” becomes manifestly unfair? When the rich can ‘buy’ their way out of trouble? It happens all the time. But it is also true that “The Law” can unjustly penalise a minority of “The People”.

It is perfectly obvious that the ‘Smoking Ban’ was created by ‘Opinions’ and not by objective science. IE, by Politics. But it is obvious, in retrospect, that the persecution of publicans a restaurateurs was unethical. The persecution was based upon ‘opinions’ and not upon real damage from SHS.

And so we see the distractions causing REAL disaster in the NHS.  It is not about funding in itself. It is about the distortion of reality. Reality is old age and the consequences thereof. It is not about youths experimenting with ecigs, snus or tobacco.

‘Law’ is not objective. It is subjective. Persons who are described as criminals used to be really nasty bastards, but, now, ordinary people who simply want to cut costs by buying whole leaf, and doing the work involved in turning that leaf into usable shreds or flakes, have been criminalised in their tens of thousands.

The way that things are going suggests that the whole population of England will soon be criminals.

So The FCTC Is To Hold Its Next Jamboree in Geneva?


Since the WHO is based in Geneva, I suppose that you could say that the FCTC parasites are holding their event ‘at home’. I wonder if they are cutting costs? It is not like them to miss out on a jolly good holiday in some far away hot spot. Mind you, their last couple of outings have turned out to be disasters, what with Cancun experiencing its worst weather spell for decades and Delhi being shrouded in toxic clouds of polluted air. Were there any disasters in Moscow? Perhaps not, apart from Putin.

Perhaps the WHO is cutting costs. After all, with Trump on the warpath, most of its funding in required for Executive salaries. But who will pay the costs of delegates? Someone has to pay the costs of delegates from Burundi and such places, and the hall needs to be full. Big Pharma? But Business is Business, so Big Pharma will require favours in return – proper legal favours, properly documented, such as ‘trade agreements’ which favour its products.

It is impossible to believe that, over the years, organisations like the WHO, and its derivatives like the FCTC Org, have not become more interested in wealth than health. It seems inevitable that genuine zealots, who care about the health of the poor sods in Africa, will be gradually replaced by profiteers. It has always been so. What makes things worse as regards the WHO, etc, is that there are no controls at all. TobCON in Syria was praised for the crackdown on smoking in the middle of a vicious civil war; Mugabe was was appointed to be an ‘ambassador’.

How many clear and obvious cock-ups have to occur before someone calls a halt? And is that not the problem? There is NO ONE who can call a halt. Who is the UK ‘ambassador’ to the UN? I have no idea. Does he have magnificent office buildings both in the UK and in New York? How many staff does he employ, and what do they do? I have no idea. Does PM May have any idea?

I read somewhere that the reason that the Roman Empire broke up was that its ‘Civil Service’ in Rome became engorged, with much empire building, so much so that it spent little money on it armies. Gradually, as a result, it was driven out of territories here and there, a little at a time. But the Civil Service just kept on growing.

Is that not very reminiscent of the UK today? We have a Civil Service today which is way, way bigger than we had when the British Empire existed.

National Government is essential, of course. But things start to go very wrong when National Government becomes bigger than The People. I am not talking about Big Ideas, such as defence of the realm. I am talking about Simple Ideas, such as the right to assemble. I read somewhere tonight that ‘Anti-social’ regulations have been used by Local Authorities to break up groups of youths in public places and to ban such gatherings. I do not say that such gatherings are ‘a good thing’ – I say that the gatherings should not be banned just because they are gatherings. Indeed, new guidelines have been issued to LAs, telling them that there must be real prospects of actual damage to a community before such orders can be applied.

The EU is a very peculiar Institution. It exists but it does not exist. It is democratic (The EU Parliament) but it is not democratic (Appointed Commissioners). It is authoritarian but it is not communist. There is only one conclusion – it is opportunistic.

The UN, WHO, FCTC, IPCC, etc, are all opportunistic, as is ASH. ASH would not exist if it depended upon individual donations. Thus, its existence is political. It has little to do with health and is almost entirely to do with politics. Has the recent disaster in the NHS (wholesale postponements of surgical treatments) which May apologised for, anything to do with misdirection of resources into promotion of the propaganda of the Chief Medical Officer, Silly, Sally Davis? In any case, since we have Public Health England, why do we need an additional layer in the form of the Dept of the Chief Medical Officer? What is she FOR?

The waste of resources on overlapping Health Depts is a scandal.

But is it not a scandal that it was PM May who apologised for the delays? Why was not the Sec of State for Health not the one to apologise? Or, better still, the Junior Minister who should have been actively involved?

What we have seen recently (I mean over decades) is the elevation of ‘experts’ into dictators. It is beyond doubt. The only reason that Mugabe was elevated was that he dictated, to the liking of TobCON.

Is there any more obvious evidence that TobCOM MUST be defunded?

But that is not enough. Only around 25% of the adult population enjoy smoking these days. It follows that we smokers are A SPECIAL CASE. We should not be persecuted. Thus, if we want to buy tax-free ‘agricultural products’ like dried tobacco plant leaves, then we should be free to do so. Note the difference between Tobcoms and individual actions.

I am an individual, and I can do as I wish. The Law intervenes to punish me if I damage others. That is the way that it should be. Any Islamic warrior who cries ‘Allah Aquabar’  should not be shot down if possible. He should be imprisoned somewhere on an island far north, such as The Outer Hebrides. Any ‘friends or family’ who want to visit must pay their own way.

What I have been trying to describe is the disparity between decent citizens who enjoy tobacco, who have been relegated to scum, and the sanctity of Arnott and her ilk.

Is It Time to Reform Public Health England?


PHE was formed in April 2013 almost five years ago. Lots of similar organisations were formed in the last couple of decades.

What strikes one about those organisations?

To me, it is that they resemble kingdoms, and not democracies. PHE has a King, Duncan Selbie. I have no doubt that he has a ‘council’ to which he has appointed his ‘favourites’, much as King Henry VIII did. Thus, in PHE, we have ‘The King In Council’.

The wonderful thing for ‘The King In Council’ is that he can choose his targets. Thus, he can decide to ‘dissolve the monasteries’ and pinch all the gold and silver therein. I suppose that Hitler did the same with the Jews. We are so appalled by the slaughter in Extermination Camps that we forget that the holocaust also involved the expropriation of property.

Has anything changed? Well, yes, but only in degree and method. Smokers are vile, disgusting, filthy, stinking, and deserve to be ripped off by the King. They don’t have to be exterminated in gas chambers – they simply need to be rendered poorer via tobacco taxes. The same applies to fatties – disgusting, filthy, stinking. Make them pay.

Do you notice, dear reader, how all the initiatives always end up with the imposition of higher costs on the persecuted?

The trouble is that Government Ministers come and go, as we have seen in the so-called ‘Cabinet reshuffle’. The ‘Kings in Council’ of the numerous ‘Agencies’ have power over the Ministers. Why should an ambitious Minister go against the demands of ‘The King in Council’ of some autonomous Agency? Such a course might spell disaster to the Minister’s career prospects.

There seems to be an imbalance. Only the ‘chosen ones’ have access to the ‘King in Council’. Thus, the King receives only one side of the argument. He chose that imbalance. It is to his advantage to choose people who agree with him, and who provide a consensus in favour of his own thinking.

But there is also another side. Perhaps the King does not know who to appoint to his Council. He seeks advice. But who can advise him? He has to go to ‘respected’ organisations like the ‘British Medical Assn’, or ‘the royal college of physicians’.

But suppose that the people at the top of those organisations are nutters? How would anyone, including the King, know? We have all read about Frank Davis’s crazy Dr W.

Is there an answer?

I think so.

You see, positions like Chief Medical Officer are like tenures in Universities. The occupants of such offices cannot be removed. That makes no sense. So the sensible thing to do is time-limit such jobs to, say, five years, after which the occupants MUST step down. The potential for ideological corruption to arise is too great to allow permanent occupancy.

Sooner or later, the shit will hit the fan. Sooner or later, vape shops will start selling snus and IQOS type HnB products. They will do so in defiance of EU directives. Who will prosecute them? And the defiance will spread all over Europe.

You see, such things as bans on snus by the EU depend entirely upon a mirage. The mirage is that anyone, including the UK Gov, give a toss about snus sales. The EU ban was intended to stop Tobcoms diversifying. That is all. Health does not matter. Only the destruction of Tobcoms matters.

The critical thing about PHE is that it should STOP, or rather BE STOPPED from encouraging the persecution of vast numbers of people. Raising taxes on ‘fast food’ or sugar deliberately increase the costs of the poorest people. That is persecution. By all means issue ration books for purchases of sugar and doughnuts, if it is that important.

But, most of all, politicians must realise that they exist to STOP persecution. That applies to ALL levels, including Local Authorities. We have a local election for our ward’s representatives to the Borough. Both herself and I have voted for the UKIP candidate. We cannot vote Tory or Labour. Both parties regard us as disgusting, filthy, stinking smokers. They can both eff off.

So how can PHE be reformed? I have already mentioned time-limited Kings, but that is not enough. It is hard to know what is best. Perhaps ‘PLEASURE’ should be taken into account. After all, a long, long, miserable and painful life can hardly be expected to justify perpetuation of that situation. Ha! That sentence sounds just like TobCON’s justification of perpetual persecution.

In my opinion, it is merely a question of when a Country breaks ranks. Perhaps Greece might be the one, or Spain. It is bound to happen sooner or later. It might be snus or ecigs or HnB, but, sooner or later, TobCON will become expensive and irrelevant.

‘Public Health’ Funding Is Not Ring-fenced As Part Of The NHS: The Cabinet Reshuffle


I found out today that ‘Public Health’ is not part of the NHS. (H/T whoever – I read so much that I cannot remember who) Oh wait – it was Dick P as part of a post called ‘The Power of Ignorance’:

In it, right at the end, he linked to an article in the Guardian (where-else?):

Actually, the Guardian article is just a rant, and quite a comical rant at that. Without reading the article over and over again, it is hard to point to the precise place where the logic breaks down. But how about this gem:

Services to help men, women and children stop smoking and to control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases including Aids are already a mess

Smoking and Aids etc are equated. I find that extremely odd. I find it hard to understand how Local Authorities could do anything about Aids, no matter how much money they had available.

The author was complaining about cuts in funding from Central Government. Why should that be a problem? After all, LAs could always increase Council Taxes to persecute smokers and spread Aids. You see, the phrase ‘control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases including Aids’ could just as easily mean ‘encourage’ the spread, for the word ‘control’ means very little in terms of who is having sex with whom. In fact, the very juxtaposition of the two shows that the author is very confused.

The good news, however, is that the author highlighted the fact that ‘Public Health’ is not part of the NHS. But why should it be? What have sewers, industrial effluents, diesel fumes, etc, got to do with the NHS?

Is there a clue there as to how the NHS could be reformed? Take all the lifestyle bullying out of the NHS and load it all onto ‘Public Health’ – and then defund ‘Public Health’! Does it matter if hospitals are forbidden to sell/use sugary drinks? Our local hospital stopped selling anything but ‘diet’ drinks ages ago. Erm… but they still sold coffee, and provided sugar, and sold sweet deserts. There again we see the split personality; either you make some money from the cafe by selling stuff that people enjoy, or you risk losing money.

Why should shysters and snake oil salesmen be confined to the Wild West? They exist here and now! They exist in the form of ASH ET AL.

The Cabinet Reshuffle is not entirely disconnected from the above. Smoke and mirrors. I see that Jeremy Hunt begged May to let him remain as Health Sec, with enhanced duties – his new title is ‘Sec of State for health and social care’. I don’t think that he needed to beg. There again, the idea that the discredited and silly MP, Milton, could have coped with the intellectual requirements of Sec of State for Health was always jocular.

In general terms, the reshuffle has been a non-event. Why should it have been otherwise? Is it likely that May ever considered changing any of the main players in the Brexit arena? So what has she done? She has replaced a few ministers who were leaving anyway, and added some new jobs, to be filled by a few new people. Perhaps that is the best way to run government. Disgraced ministers are quickly forgotten.

What I vaguely see is National Government hardening its attitude. Terrible errors were made by Cameron and his idea of ‘The Big Society’, which involved the Gov in splurging masses of money on ‘charities’. A friend of my daughter’s is involved with caring for the homeless. She accepts any donations of foodstuffs, provided that they are ‘safe’, clothing, etc. She is ‘on the front line’. And she does so voluntarily. But it is in the nature of government to want to make headlines by highlighting big initiatives.

I think that big charities, like CRUK (cancer research UK) cannot help but become corrupt. Why? Because they can do nothing about the incidence of cancer. It just happens quite rarely. Most old people die before cancer destroys the cells of their bodies. The problem is that many people think that CRUK is not a snake oil salesman. The same goes for all the other ‘charities’ which depend upon ‘death by X’, such as ‘heart disease’ (properly known as ‘heart failure’).

The proper answer from government is to accept the inevitable – people get old and die, for whatever reason. Stop blaming the inevitable upon some specific ‘disease’ – the inevitable will happen anyway.

The Philip Morris Initiative


I don’t think that I have commented upon this subject directly, other than to say that Siegel has claimed that it is all a scam:

He said that he refused to be a consultant, but it is not clear that he was personally invited. Perhaps he was, but it seems that lots of emails were sent out to persons who might be interested in contributing to the initiative, so he could have just ignored it.

Since then, it seems that PM has designed cig packets which tell smokers that they should stop smoking and change over to ‘heat-not-burn’. Canadian cig packets carry such a message, it seems. Dick Puddlecote has covered the story:

I like Dick’s ‘cat among the pigeons’ analogy.

Of course, Siegel might well be right, although ‘scam’ might be too harsh a word. I should imagine that PM is clever enough to to have noticed that their attempts to defend themselves in court have not been very successful. People like Siegel, despite being very clever, cannot see beyond their academic prejudices. Do they really think that executives of a tobacco company can just wreck the company? There are millions of shareholders, including pension funds, to whom the executives are accountable. They are not accountable to Siegel et al.

Is there something wrong with a Tobcom suggesting to its consumers that they might like to try HbN products rather than combustibles?

But there is another idea in my mind. In the US, Tobcoms have been instructed by a court to issue ‘corrective statements’. Here are some of the ‘corrective statements’ which seem to be actually going out on American TV etc:

This Department of Justice site might also be worth reading, if you are interested:

It would not be beyond the pail to suggest that Tobcoms have been trying to figure out how they can take reasonable steps to avoid similar legislation elsewhere in the world, and to protect their businesses (of providing tobacco product to consumers who want them). By admitting that smoking is dangerous, they are, in effect, issuing ‘corrective statements’. The admission that smoking is dangerous overturns all the accusations of misleading the public. It is a very clever way to get TobCON off their backs.

So, in a way, Siegel et al are right, but it is not a ‘scam’.

The reason that it is not a ‘scam’ is that legislatures have recognised that Tobcoms have a right to exist. Some academic nutters have said that Tobcoms should voluntarily stop producing cigs because cigs are so very, very, very dangerous. In other words, that they should voluntarily shut themselves down. The Zealots never say how shareholders could be persuaded to render their holdings worthless.  I doubt that a person with £100,000 or a pension fund with £10,000,000 investing in Tobcom shares would vote to shut the company down. No – only Government prohibition could do that – which has been tried and failed. So, it is reasonable for Tobcoms to come up with a solution to the danger threat.

TobCON has been hoist by its own petard. And, as a result of its own collective rigidity (quit or die), it is hardly possible for it to change directions. People enjoy smoking in itself, and also enjoy the effects of nicotine. The first thing that I do in a morning, after lighting a cig, is to make a mug of tea – nicotine plus caffeine. What is wrong with that?

But, to make things worse for TobCON, the new Director General of the WHO has openly declared that the WHO is at war with Tobcoms:

Can you see how hide-bound that attitude is? It does not allow for any compromise at all. And yet Tobcoms have a right to exist. The WHO’s Director General wants to pursue an illegal war. He wants to destroy an entity which has a right to exist.

It is all very weird.

So what is the missing piece in the jigsaw which might make sense of the situation? It is the voice of consumers.

The absence of that voice is what permits the contradiction.

What do I, as a smoker want? I want to enjoy tobacco as I see fit because I am an adult can make my own decisions about what is best for me. If I am ‘addicted’ to tobacco, it is because I want to be. That is my decision. It follows therefore that I regard tobacco taxes as fraud, and I shall do my best to avoid them.

I see that as a matter of principle, although I would not offer myself up as a sacrifice to political correctness.

But I also see ‘criminal importers’ as heroes, which is a wholly different idea. It is a sad reflection on our system of Government that it can be the equivalent of a pickpocket, nicking the monies of smokers with abandon, whilst pretending that smokers cannot help themselves because they are addicted.

So where are the academics calling into question the activities of the WHO etc? And that is another problem. ASH, a lobby group, is funded by taxpayers to support the theft of smokers’ monies, whereas any organisation which opposes ASH is not so funded.

Can smokers fight back?

It is a pity that Tobcoms failed to understand that millions of consumers were more influential than legal processes. Legal processes produce ‘corrective statements’; consumers sack politicians.

How Easy Could It Have Been For EU Lovers To Have Made Their Case?


I was watching a TV debate a few minutes ago chaired by Blair:

The video has obviously been abridged because only Eliot and Blair said anything. The other three panellists were excluded for the purpose of that video. It was excerpts. That is fine, provided that we are aware of it.

What has struck me again and again during the campaign, was that the Remainers had every opportunity in their campaign to describe how beneficial membership of the EU had been. For example, if a lobby group wanted municipal swimming baths to be closed to save money, the authority would describe the benefits of the swimming baths. They would describe all sorts and various benefits, even if those benefits were not monetary. They would talk about masses of children learning to swim – a totally modern phenomenon; they would talk about exercise; they would talk about healthy competition, and they would talk about ‘the general good’ of having such facilities available.

So why did not the Remain campaign extol the advantages of the EU?

The reason is that there are none.

What the EU is, is an agreement between France and Germany. WW1 and WW2 were, essentially, wars between France and Germany. Britain was dragged in. The EU came about because France and Germany decided to get together. No wonder De Gaulle was forcefully against British membership. He probably regarded Britain, and the British Empire (as it existed at the time), as a nasty bastard. Perhaps he envisaged France and Germany as being an invincible force, if they united.

If so, why did he not call for a New Country called France (which incorporated Germany) or a New Country called Germany (which incorporated France)?

The reason that Brexit won is that Europhiles could not describe what advantages accrued to the people of the UK. They should have been able to do so.

In other words, instead of describing the problems of leaving, they should have described the wonders of remaining.

Why did they not? Because they could not. There were no ‘wonders’. What we have seen, in recent years, in the UK, is confusion. No one has any idea of what is TRUTH.

It seems to me that the duty of Government is to simplify and not to complicate. Simplification means having sensible, factual rules. The game of chess is a very messy  and complex thing, and yet the ‘rules’ are simple and precise.

So why could not EU lovers, like Blair, describe the reasons that ‘Provinces’ like Greece are not wealthy? Perhaps he could have complained that the reason is that Greece has not really persecuted smokers.


Tendonitis (or something)


About two weeks ago, I woke up with a painful left shoulder. The pain eased off somewhat during the course of the day. It only hurt if I made certain specific movements, such as raising the shoulder or reaching for something. Next morning, stiff and sore again.

On top of that, at about the same time, I somehow injured my right wrist. Thankfully, I am left-handed. No idea what I did. That too does not hurt all the time. Raising the thumb more than a little and bending the wrist sideways is pretty painful.

I blame tobacco control.

When I was about 17, I used to go youth hosteling on my bike. North Wales was my favourite destination. On one occasion, I was tempted into a local pub by a couple of girl hostelers. They forced my to have two pints. I became drunk and fell off my top bunk (alone). I broke my collar bone, but it went better after a couple of weeks, such is the power of one’s ‘repair mechanism’ when one is young. I did not find out that I had broken the collar bone until decades later. I went to the doctors because the shoulder was aching, and he asked me when I broke it. It has a knobbly bit.

I still blame tobacco control.

You see, when I am sitting on the couch with my laptop typing these words, I tend to gravitate into the corner of the couch, which sort of forces me to raise that shoulder so that I can position my hands on the keyboard correctly. I have to force myself to move a little further along the couch to free up my left arm. I guess that winter also has a bearing so that my discomfort could be called ‘repetitive strain injury’.

I blame tobacco control for my wrist injury as well. That too is ‘repetitive strain injury’. After all, a lot of the motions, when typing, involve moving your wrists sideways, and extending your thumb when hitting the ‘space’ key. I guess that I am fortunate in that I can touch-type, mostly, but it does necessitate the sort of movement which I have described.

If it were not for the persecution of us smokers, I would not be spending hours with my left shoulder pushed up and my right wrist and thumb making all those unnatural movements.

I also have a chronic itch to my left shoulder blade which sometimes moves into the space between my shoulder blades. Perhaps the problem is a sort of drifting skin cancer. Maybe my shoulder ache and wrist ache are also cancers,  and not ‘repetitive strain injury’.

After all, I smoke. According to the anti-smoker ads on TV at the moment, tobacco smoke gets to every cell in your body and does untold damage. So it obvious that ‘repetitive strain injury’ is caused by tobacco smoke. But wait… My injuries only appeared about two weeks ago. Perhaps it is ‘the delayed effect’.

Surely these injuries could not be because I have so far defied the grim reaper and am therefore suffering from minor ailments brought on by my ageing body?

Oops! There I go drifting into the corner of the couch again.

We invent all sorts of reasons for happenings, do we not? Perhaps that is because we are intelligent enough to wonder. Animals are not interested in reasons. They accept the NOW. We wonder why things happen and what mechanisms cause what happens. Sometimes, the only logical reason is God (or gods). Reasoning about the deity arrived at the idea that multiple gods, residing at top of mountains or wherever, was silly, and yet intelligent people thousands of years ago went along with the idea of multiple gods residing on mountain tops and in the sea and elsewhere.

Is not TobCON much the same as one of the old religions? It demands sacrifices to various gods – the FCTC, EU directives, the NHS, and, most of all, its own high priests – ASH ET AL and Big Pharma. After all, do not ASH preach the word and Big Pharma produces miracle cures?

It is amusing how Big Tobacco is now turning the tables. It too has turned to miracle cures. Except that I personally think that BT has learned from the ‘corrective statements’ which it has been required to make in the USA. BT is now getting ahead – it is issuing ‘corrective statements’ in advance. The statements, in the form of huge adverts in newspapers, take the form of ‘a firm purpose of amendment’. “We shall do our best to persuade our customers to move away from dangerous products to far, far safer products, which we shall provide, but we shall not try to force them”.

TobCON is going into hysterics. It is suddenly suffering from ‘tendonitis’ or something similar. It has been upstaged.

How clever of Tobcoms!

Oops! I have drifted into the corner again.

Tobcoms have given up on legal fights, especially since the ‘corrective statements’ were demanded. They are going all-out for their ‘heat-not-burn’ products. You can see why – those products can be mass-produced.

Would I move from cigs to HNB? Perhaps, but I doubt it unless they were not subjected to sin taxes. And is that not also a death-knell for TobCON? How can they call for sin taxes which automatically deter people from sinful practices?

No wonder that Siegel has gone mute. He cannot cope with the horror that Tobcoms might survive and provide people with cheap, harmless pleasures.

I say ‘harmless’. I do not accept the idea that ecigs have some danger. My reason is concerned with time-scales. This may be boring.

  1. Smoke heavily for a short period of time and the damage will be repaired and no long-term consequences will occur.
  2. Smoke heavily for a long time and catastrophic consequences will occur – maybe.
  3. Smoke lightly for a short period of time, and you will be in the same state as one who smokes heavily for a short period of time.
  4. Do not smoke and you will be in the same state as 1. and 3. above.

Thus, time-scales are very important. Thus, vaping would require a very long time for ill effects to appear – probably hundreds of years.

So maybe Tobcoms, via their new initiative, ‘The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World’, might be able to establish some reasonable estimate of how many hundreds of years a person who uses HNB or Vaping might expect to live before suffering from tendonitis or a state of final illness-free.

These are serious matters which Government sin taxes distort. When alcohol, petrol and tobacco were taxed at a higher level than other goods, there was some sense in describing them as ‘luxuries’. Those days are long gone.

The whole method of taxation needs to be addressed. But it is hard to see who is has the brains to work out a new and fair way. Certainly, there is no evidence that any politician has the foggiest idea.

So why are their not umpteen academics, professors and doctors of this and that, not producing a PLAN? Such a plan will be massively important after Brexit.