Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The UK Taxpayer Investment in EU Property


I dare say that there are all sorts of convoluted legal documents concerning who owns the buildings which the EU uses. Those palaces of elegance and much gold must belong to someone or something. How many billions of pounds have British taxpayers invested in those glorious edifices over the years?

When we Brexit, we want to realise our investment. It is quite simple. We shall determine our share of the value of those properties, and all the artwork and equipment therein, for a reasonable sum of money. Let’s say £500 billion. That seems reasonable to me. After all, the EU has offices and buildings all over the world, all of which have been purchased with our money to a greater or lesser extent.

But then again, all those properties, for all we know, might be owned by private companies, and the EU, legally, simply rents them. But which persons in the world could possible afford the costs of building such magnificent palaces? Perhaps they received grants from the EU to do so in the form of loans at interest. Or perhaps Soros owns them all.

I that is so, or something like it, why do the British People not know who owns the buildings and properties which the EU uses? How do we know who else uses those buildings which we taxpayers have paid for? How do we know whether or not the UN, WHO, FCTC, IPCC, etc, have not been freeloading at the cost of taxpayers in the UK? And to what extent have they been freeloading?

Who owns the UN Building in New York? Who paid for it? Who pays the cost of its maintenance?

The British People have always placed their trust in the Government to do the right thing for them. Sure, that trust might have meant the enrichment of the few, but, by and large, that trust benefited the common herd as well. But we have reached a point, thanks to the internet, that The People can inform themselves. And they can ask questions such as those above.

Who owns the buildings that the EU caused to be built in the EU’s honour? Those buildings are hardly simply utilitarian. They are magnificent edifices. They are akin to the wonderful cathedrals which were built centuries ago. And I have no doubt that they are equipped, in every sense, with the most wonderful kitchens, toilets, rest rooms, conference rooms with mahogany tables and chairs. Only the very best. Fuck the rain forests when the EU demands the very best.

We want the other 27 States to reimburse us for our capital investments over the decades. But if the investments are worthless because they were ‘rent’, then we still have the right to know who ripped us all off. I can say that because we were never asked, in party manifestos, to pay for the rents of the EU. We have A RIGHT to know to whom the rents were paid so that we can get our own back by taxing them 95% for any activity in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Has anyone ever seen anything about who owns the EU buildings?

The importance of ‘OWNERSHIP’ cannot be overemphasised. Do the People of America ‘own’ the Capitol Buildings, or are they owned by some private company are rented? Is the Palace of Westminster a private property, rented out? Who pays the rent and how? It is not so much the cost as the principle. How many private Landlords are ripping off the populace, via taxes, because the Government is paying massive rents in the middle of London when, with the aid of modern communications, those offices could be ‘out-sourced’ to wooden huts in the provinces?

We do not know. I have great respect for the ‘Office of National Statistics’. It has defended itself against political subversion again and again, especially TobcoN. I had occasion to telephone Nat Stats a couple of years ago about interpretation of some stats, and they could not have been more helpful, friendly and kind. It is a pity that I cannot remember what my enquiry was about.

And that is what the modern world needs. There is no reason, with modern communications, for Government to be physically centralised in London. Westminster should become a museum. It will so become eventually.

All these ideas encompass freeing us all from costs which impoverish us all – like the EU, UN, IPCC, FCTC, etc. It is THE COSTS, as measured by accomplishments, which matter.

Back to the beginning. To what extent does the UK have a share in the ownership of EU property?

Why I Voted Brexit


We seem to keep going over the same subjects again and again. In fact, our whole contempt for Tobacco Control is based upon repetition of the basic concept. That concept is ‘freedom’.

It is rare these days to see ‘The Free World’ mentioned in the MSM. That phrase was supposed to differentiate between ‘Un-free’ states which had been conquered by Russia and absorbed into the Soviet Union, and the ‘free’ States which comprised most of Western Europe, along with America.

But what was the main element of the ‘freedom’ of ‘The Free World’? It must be the true ability to throw out the current elite group of individuals who govern and replace them. That ability might be far from perfect, but it exists.

I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent, but I am also an emotional human being. When the Common Market established rules which meant that I did not have to be humiliated by the nasty looks of Customs Officers, and their demands to know if I had bought something or other which comes under the heading of ‘anything to declare’, I thought that it was wonderful.

I remember very clearly the last time that I had to accept the humiliation of Customs. It was when herself and I returned from a cruise in the 1980s. There was a huge hangar with lots of tables. We were forced to process with our baggage past the tables. Customs Officers demanded that you put your suitcase on the table, and they stared at you, and asked if ‘you have anything to declare’. We were not forced to open our suitcase, but a guy next to us was. The Customs Officers found something that he had bought on the ship, not tobacco but a piece of jewellery, as best I can recall. I don’t know what happened after that.

So, these days, if you travel to or from a State in Europe, you can pass from one to the other without hassle. Why? Because you hold a recognised Passport.

The Passport is of ENORMOUS importance. It is what can discriminate between ‘legit’ persons and ‘illegit’ persons. It is crucial because it is the only way to stop ‘illegit’ from gaining entry to this country by pretending to be tourists.

How can you differentiate between ‘tourists’ who will return home, and ‘tourists’ who just camp here?

No one talks about it. The camps in Calais are a distraction – fake news. It is ‘tourists’ who have no intention of going home which are the problem.

You can see perhaps why I personally voted for Brexit. It is because I want the Government that I vote for to have POWER!!!! I do not want my MP to be subservient to EU ‘directives’. Most of all, I want ‘edicts written in stone’, via EU Directives, to become written in chewing gum.

So, my vote was not really about ‘Sovereignty’ as such. It was about ‘CONTROL’.

Permits to Hold Certain Plant ‘Waste’ Come Into Effect on April Fools Day – 1st April 2017


When ‘Liberty’ is overturned by ‘Tyranny’, this is what happens. Ordinary activities, like growing plants in your garden, become ‘controlled activities’. In bygone times, the ‘King’ would just have said, “Hey you! Gimme yer money or else I’ll chop your head off”. Not today. Today, vastly elaborate processes are required just to grow a few plants.

But wait. Erm…. The ‘controlled activity’ is not the growing. It concerns the dead plants at the end of the season. The dead plants are not permitted to be transported from A to B. But nor can they be held in storage. Despite the fact that they are dead, they are alive and well at the same time. They are so dangerous (probably to children mostly), that these dead plants (‘waste’) thousands of policemen and customs officers have been primed to issue permits for such transportation of the dead plants (‘waste’) and storage of the dead plants (‘waste’) at enormous expense.

Some people have applied for such permits (to hold and transport the dead plants (waste).

It appears that there are some problems. The new regulations which require permits, come into effect on April Fools Day – 1st April.

The requirement for permits to DO ‘controlled activities’ …….

That requirement is akin to requiring a ‘Driving Licence’. But the need for such a licence is obvious. Driving without training is obviously dangerous. But the ‘controlled activities’ which now require a ‘permit’ are harmless. They involve the movement or storage of dead plants. How can such movement or storage be harmful?

So we get to the crux. The then Chancellor, Osborne, probably did not even know that TobcoN had slipped a clause into the Finance Act which required that the movement of dead plants (waste) must only occur if it is permitted to occur.

No wonder that the Police and Customs cannot make head nor tail of the regulations. I have it that people who applied for permits are in a no-man’s land – they cannot ‘transport or store’ because they have no permit, but neither than they dispose of dead plants because there is no ‘regulated activity’ legislation which allows them to burn the stuff. Consider Global Warming.

Oh. I forgot to mention that the ‘waste’ in question is dead tobacco plants, even small, decorative ones which you might have in pots in your garden. They are pretty, and you might not even know that they are of the genus ‘Nicotiana’.

April Fools Day is the perfect day for the fools in TobcoN to display, once again, their overwhelming confidence that they can get away with anything.

What we have to remember is that politicians come and go. It is not the politicians who are to blame for the persecution of smokers. We need to find out who the individuals are and attack them verbally.

The ‘April Fools’ law displays the disconnect between what politicians experience in Parliament as compared with the reality of what they experience in their own lives.

They permit actions which they would be appalled about if those actions affected them.

A Bit of Gossip, for a Change


It is sometimes intriguing how views of a blog vary. My little essay about ‘The Australian Law of Growing Tobacco Plants’ has always received some attention ever since I wrote it. Essentially, the OZ law forbids growing and even moving plants or seeds without a permit. But that law was enacted in 1901! One can only assume that weather conditions in Oz are perfect for growing tobacco plants, and the prohibition, in 1901, was to protect commercial growers. I should imagine that there are parts of Oz where the land is rather poor (just right for the cultivation of ‘bright leaf’) and that there are thousands and thousands of square miles of such land, virtually owner-less. In the right conditions (warm with some rainfall), I suppose that you could just scatter seeds on the sandy ground and they would sprout in profusion. But you need the seeds to do so, and so you need the plants to get the seeds.

Anyway, yesterday saw a fivefold increase in the views of that essay. I wonder why? I’m not going to give actually numbers – why should I tell TC how many millions of views that essay gets? Or tens, or hundreds, or whatever. Suffice to say that I wrote the essay in 2014, and it is interesting that it is still useful to Aussies.

The only reason that I wrote it was because of the date of the Act – 1901. What was the population of Oz in 1901? I do not know, but it is true that the mass migrations of Brits to Oz had not yet begun. They only started after WW2. But I suppose that the very convenient penalty for some crimes, in the 1800s, of deportation to Oz swelled the population enormously. Thank heavens for the Aristocrats! What would Oz be without them?

My only personal contact with Aussies was when a Man and Wife, and a friend, took over our local pub. They were a bit weird. Nice enough, but a bit ‘uncouth’, if you know what I mean. Their ‘culture’ seemed to have no nuances. It was black and white. Frankly, for the period of time that they ran the pub, it became less a neighbourhood pub and more a downtown bar. Shortly after Christmas, after about a year, they fled back to Oz, no doubt taking the Christmas takings with them and leaving the debts behind.

I sometimes think that the whole population of Oz is similar. Certainly, their politicians seem to be of that ilk. Even their academics, like Simple Simon Chapman, are rough. How do they cope with the muslim hordes, trying to get in? Oh, wait, they do not let them in. They transport them to an offshore island to be vetted. Maybe there is something to be said for being ‘rough’.

Readers will no bought be aware that this essay is prompted, to a certain extent, by the events in London. It is all terribly sad. But, forgive me if I draw a parallel with the ‘uncouthness’ of the Oz persons who owned my local pub for a while.

It is my belief that we can all rub along PROVIDED THAT The State does not interfere. I am not sure that ‘crime’ is sufficiently well described. The idea that smoking in a park can be a ‘crime’ is nonsense when confronted with what happened in London.

The only way that smoking in a park, in the open air, can become a crime is because the Police Authorities have been neutered. That must be true. The same applies to smoking in cars with kids present. Again, the Police Authorities must have been neutered. HOW COULD THAT HAPPEN? Academics, in their ivory towers, somehow dictate.

I really do not understand how we have come to such a pass.

Brexit is as nothing compared with the surrender of the whole civil service, Parliament, the courts, the police, to the control of the UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK ON TOBACCO CONTROL.

I think that I got the info from Dick P’s site, but I cannot find it now. It was a question from a smoker-friendly MP (Davies?) who asked why we were throwing some £15,000,000 at tobacco control in other countries. The reply was that we contribute to the FRAMEWORK CONVENTION. Could anything be worse? Protestations that the uses of the £15,000,000 are ‘monitored’ are a joke.

What do I personally think that should happen concurrent with Brexit?

First, the Alliance between the USA and Great Britain must be renewed.

Secondly, the purpose of the UN must be redefined so that it becomes a COURT, and not a FORCE.

Thirdly, LIBERTY must be emphasised. The phrase ‘The Free World’ was not an accident when Communist Russia threatened enslavement via its ‘from each according to his means, and to each according to his needs’.

It seems that every law which is passed restricts or diminishes our liberties. Years and years ago, we used to holiday at a caravan site called Lydstep Haven. In the 1960s and 70s, it was wonderful. People vied to get the best spots. One of the best spots overlooked the beach and was the PERFECT place. In front of the caravans, was a sward of grass, but there was a drop of some 5 metres down to the beach.

Was that OK? Oh no. Along came ‘The Local Authority’ which decreed that a fence must be erected to stop people from blundering over the edge, and tumbling down a 5 metre slope.

That fence acted like Plain Packaging. We still enjoyed that site, but the ‘beauty’ was lost. Instead of a perfectly open view of the beach and the sea, we saw a fence.

But what is important is that the ‘Plain Packaging Uglification’ did not deter us from booking year after year. We really enjoyed our hols at Lydstep Haven. What buggered things up eventually was that that the owners stopped us from booking the same caravan for the same time next year.

But that was in the days of innocence before the UN and the WHO decided that Smokers are criminals, murdering their neighbours and children all over the world.

You do not need to have prohibition of tobacco if you can convince people that smokers are murderers.

An Amusing Conspiracy Theory


I started a new email account a few days ago with I had no particular reason for choosing – just another email provider. What was important was the Talktalk Webmail has been horrendous for months and months in that it has been constantly and intermittently  inaccessible, but my email address at Talktalk is my first and original email address, and I am fond of it. Also, Talktalk is my phone and internet provider.

Having set up the new email address, I managed to get into Webmail and arrange for my emails to copied to the address. The whole arrangement is temporary until I decide to sort the whole thing out by moving from Talktalk.

Anyway, when I opened the account, I got a survey from Tiscali, which has something to do with There was no ‘not today’ button so I completed it as rapidly as possible, which means entering ‘don’t know’ most of the time.

As a reward for completing the utterly pointless survey, I was offered a selection of prizes, claimed to be worth £75. The prizes tend to be useless stuff like creams and deodorants, but this one included an ecig starter pack. Oddly enough, I have seen ecig starter packs used as prizes in surveys before on more than one occasion. It sticks in your mind because an ecig starter pack stands out from the collection of creams and deodorants.

Anyway, I decided to amuse myself, and decided to go for the ecig starter pack. It really is jolly amusing. The starter pack is supposed to be worth £75, and it is free. But they demanded a contribution to the postage cost, which they said was about £10, so they demanded that I pay about £5. Giggle, giggle, giggle. OK, I said to myself, let’s amuse ourself. Let’s go with it and see what happens. £5 is no great cost for a bit of fun.

So I rode with it and paid the £5. What would seriously annoy me would be if it turned out that I received a cig-alike ‘puritane’ ecig. I expect a ‘starter pack worth £75’.

Oddly enough, even though it is a couple of years since Dick Puddlecote offered some Puritane ecigs free to firstcommers,  that ecig still works. I suppose that is because it has just say in my jar of ‘useful implements’. Actually, it is not bad at all. It is not quite the tobacco taste, but is a near approximation.

Erm… I vaguely remember first tasting the Puritane and registering that it did NOT taste like tobacco much at all. It was quite pleasant but NOT tobacco tasting.

So here is my amusing conspiracy theory. TobcoMs have been gradually changing the taste of tobacco cigs to become much the same as ecig tastes.

Is that not a delicious theory? Genuine tobacco prohibitionists would be delighted, because, gradually, the populace would forget the real taste of tobacco. They would only know the taste of ecigs.

So, in my deranged conspiracy, TobcoMs secure their basic profit centre of genuine smokers while replacing them with vapers who think that they are acting of their own free will. Meanwhile, TobcoN achieves its targets of, say, a 2% per an reduction in smoking, thus only marginally reducing the vast theft of smokers’ income year on year. Needless to say, politicians have no part in this process. they do as they are told “for the children”, little understanding that their capitulation paves the way for more manipulation.

Revolution is inevitable. It must be so. Regulation has reached such a pitch that no one can avoid doing something illegal. For example, tobacco duty is not just due on tobacco, according to the LAW. ANYTHING that can be smoked is liable for tobacco duty. That is what the LAW says.

What does the phrase ‘can be smoked’ mean? It is nonsense. But MPs did not see the utter stupidity of that phrase and passed it. As a result, we have a law which is nonsense.

The proper way to proceed if to ignore the EU Tobacco Products Directive. That is where TobcoMs went wrong. They should have ignored the OZ Plain Packaging law and let the Oz Authorities ban the import of cigs.

There comes a point where the nettle has to be grasped. TobcoMs failed to grasp the nettle in Oz. Instead, they took the easy option, which was a law case. Once that failed, they could just do what the Oz Gov demanded, to their eventual advantage as regards competition.

There is nothing outlandish about my ‘thought experiment’.

But what is outlandish is that our elected MP, who are specifically elected to STOP the mind-control, are actively engaged in promoting it.


How Medical Porn and Uglification Might Be the Straw Which (Eventually) Breaks the TobcoN Back


My daughter had two visitors tonight. They have been sorting out visas to go on holiday somewhere or other. I vaguely know most of my daughters acquaintances as you would expect since I have known said daughter for quite a long time, but one of her friends was new to me.

Anyway, off they went upstairs to plot and plan. After a while the new lady came downstairs and headed for the front door. “I’m just going out for a cigarette”, she said. “WHAT!”, I cried. “Don’t be silly! We both smoke. Come and sit down”.

So we chatted for a little while.

It appears that the medical porn covered plain packaged cigs are now on the shelves – all a yucky brown colour with medical porn plastered all over them and the name of the cigs in tiny print at the bottom of the packet.

Those of us who blog have known what was going to happen for ages, but I got the impression that this lady had little idea about the history. Perhaps what is more important is that she was utterly appalled.

I think that there are an awful lot of smokers who have been ‘in denial’. I’m talking about the smokers who, say, smoke ten or less cigs per day. In my opinion, it is those smokers who continue to buy full-priced cigs rather than to make an effort to find other sources. They do not find £3.50 per day for their 10 cigs habit particularly onerous. Why should they? It now costs £1 for a meat and potato pie from the supermarket. A ready-meal for two costs around £3. Also, it is more than possible for such people not to go to pubs very often at all, and thus not be much affected by smoking bans. In fact, when they do go to pubs on the odd occasion, they might not even notice the smoking ban. After all, I do not remember anyone smoking in a church or a library. Why should not such people regard pubs as similar to churches and libraries? It is what is in your mind which counts.

But she was appalled by the packets. I wonder how many other ‘occasional smokers’ (which, to me, includes people who smoke only, say, five cigs per day) will wake up when they see the uglified packets covered with medical porn, and start to really, really resent the intrusion into their lives? These packets are not the same as external propaganda. They reach into people’s minds and homes. They are nasty and vicious.

But, to me, they are irrelevant, but that is because I have prior knowledge of it in detail. Most smokers in the UK will know nothing about it, and their first experience of the nastiness will be when they first look at the cig shelves, hidden behind doors, and see medical porn and little else. Only then will they realise that they have been stigmatised; that they are unworthy; that they are the medical porn personified. If that does not provoke rebellion, even in a quiet way, I do not know what will.

Readers of this blog are well aware that there are alternative sources, but most people, like the lady in question, have no idea. I presented her with a couple of my own creations to enjoy at her leisure. Unfortunately, I forgot to tell her not to enjoy them until she was sitting down and relaxing because they last twice as long as cigs made from detritus and cow dung, suitably treated. TobcoMs must be laughing their heads off. They can shovel all sorts of shit into cigs with impunity, and they are fully backed up by laws which forbid that anyone can avoid buying TobcoM shit.

What have TobcoM’s ever done to defend smokers? NOTHING! Their legal actions have been to defend themselves and their owners. I am not going back 50 years to the days when TobcoM’s were laughing at tobacco control because TobcoMs were so powerful, and when TocoMs were acting stupidly with adverts showing doctors, complete with white coats, pens in top pockets, and spectacles, promoting this or that brand as ‘recommended’. I am talking about NOW!

It is clear that TobcoMs have no intention of defending smokers. That is, their ultimate providers of business. So why should smokers defend them? But we have to beware of ‘divide et impera’.

What is lacking is a seriously wealthy person or group of such persons to demand the freedom to ‘mess about’ with different tobaccos and blends. I am doing just that, when I can, and I believe that I have the ‘freedom’ to do so, if I wish to do so, and that Parliament HAS NOT taken that freedom away from me.

The anti-tobacco (anti-smoker) Act announced that duty was due on tobacco products. Among the obvious products were cigs, cigars, pipe tobacco and roll-your-own. But, there was a catch-all paragraph:

“OR ANYTHING THAT CAN BE SMOKED”! Is that not the most extraordinary thing? ‘OR ANYTHING THAT CAN BE SMOKED’. We are talking about ‘tobacco duty’ here, so ‘anything can can be smoked’, like dried grass, kippers, anything cooked which produces smoke, is liable for tobacco duty.

But that is what happens when prohibitionists and lawyers get together. You get nonsensical laws.

The Uglification and Medial Porn LAW is beneath contempt. It really is. It is hard to believe that a ‘joined-up’ government could put such a proposition to Parliament, and it is even more odd that MPs did not give a shit, and passed it.

But that may be a good thing if it wakes smokers (and non-smokers) up to the fact that they are being treated, not only unfairly, but also as ‘beneath contempt’ because they are so stupid that they pay full price. Stupid arseholes! Any sensible person would seek cheaper suppliers. Stupid arseholes! Smokers deserve everything that the get. Idiots!

The Amusement Provided by Tobacco Control


Let’s face it. The fact is that THE WORST thing that TobcoN could do to most smokers was to ban smoking. It does not matter where. All that matters is the ban on smoking. Although tobacco taxes are a pain in the wallet, they do not not constrict us.

Having got their indoor ban, TobcoN have nowhere to go. Outdoor bans are clearly stupid and totally unenforceable. In Russia, the actual government has thrown out most of the ‘tobacco control plan’. See:

I must admit that I do not understand why our Gov in the UK did not kick out TobcoN years ago. TobcoN is a type of religious sect, which bases its beliefs on a distorted understanding that children and youths belong to it. Children and youths do not belong to it in any way shape or form. Nor do they belong to Government.

They belong to their parents. Sure, Gov can insist that the kids be presented at school, but even that demand is full of ambivalence – you can educate your kids as you wish, provided that you are wealthy enough. Those parents who are not wealthy enough have to comply.

Individuals are ‘picked off’ unless they are wealthy. That is not ‘equality before the law’. That is inequality in practice.

But such things are symptoms and not the disease.

Anyway,  as regards my heading, it is comical to see TobcoN vying with Brexit for attention. ASH ET AL have been squealing that the latest version of ‘the plan’ has not yet been legislated. That being the case, Arnott and all the rest of the leaches are being paid for nothing. they are producing nothing at all and being paid not to do so. That is why they are so upset. They cannot justify their costs.

So we presently have a situation where ASH ET AL have nothing to do, but the Gov keeps on giving them money.

I have no idea how Gov keeps track of the efficacy of grants. I would imagine that such ideas would not matter, provided that there was no political ground-swell that demanded explanations. That is, the waste of money does not matter until someone BIG ENOUGH objects.

We see the relevance of BIG ENOUGH in consultations. Tens of thousands of objections are as nothing compared with the opinion of some ‘academic’. For, be in no doubt that the ‘academics’ conspire.

But it is true that nothing is certain. The horror is that people like the Surgeon General and the Chief Medical Officer pretend that there is certainty. What they seem to be relying upon in their statements, that ‘THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT….’. That possibility is certain, but only as a possibility.

OK. I am bogeyed. I must to bed.

Struggling Against the Tobacco Control Dictatorship


It is a common characteristic of a dictatorship that the dictator claims that ‘there is no other way’; that the circumstances at the time are so dangerous, and that there are so many enemies, hiding everywhere, that only complete control brings safety. At first, the ‘complete control’ is pretty innocuous – identity cards, permits for this and permits for that; citizens should report anything unusual. Once such obligations have been established, then comes the rounding up of opponents to the dictator on the grounds that they are ‘enemies of the people’. Gradually, in that way, all opposition is suppressed.

TobcoN has followed that pattern faithfully. First, it quietly went about the business of infiltrating the WHO not long after it was set up when the UN was set up. Easy, peasy. Alcohol and tobacco prohibition in the USA had turned out to be a disaster from the prohibitionist point of view. Why? Because it was all too sudden. To go from a ‘saloon’ culture to a ‘teetotal’ culture in one step was impossible, and that is why prohibition failed.

It ought not to be a surprise that TobcoN took decades to really establish the dictatorship. First, a substantial ‘body of evidence’ of tobacco harm had to be built up; secondly, tobacco companies had to be demonised; thirdly, the ‘verboten’ about talking about ‘The Big C’ had to be reversed; fourthly, new ‘scientific institutions’ had to be founded all over the civilised world; fifthly, some way to fund them was required; sixth, public opinion had to be cultivated in order to put pressure on politicians.

The dictatorship had been thoroughly established by about the year 2000 – the year of the ‘Millennium Goals’.

THERE IS NO WAY TO REMOVE THE DICTATORSHIP AT PRESENT. It is too deeply entrenched. It can only be eroded.

I was standing outside the pub having a fag last night. The publican and another guy came out and lit up. we talked about the dangers of smoking for a few minutes. I told them, very briefly, about the Doctors Study, and how smokers were 15 times more likely to get LC, according to The Doctors Study, but I also pointed out that, in the Doctors Study, only around 7% of the Doctors in the study died from LC – 93% did not. That is, even for smokers of the sort of heavy tar, untipped cigs which were normal in those days, death from LC was a rare event; further, those doctors were not immune from the tribulations of world wars and smogs.

So how can the dictatorship be overcome?

It seems to me that it is pointless trying to argue about, say, the economic effects of smoking bans. TobcoN has all the answers. I remember when ASH said that ‘the hospitality trade’ has not suffered, despite the fact that pubs were closing down in dozens per week. The implication was that cafes were opening up in huge numbers to replace pubs. Maybe that was true, but, before the ban, ASH said that there were millions of people just waiting for a smoking ban to flood pubs with their custom. That did not happen.

ASH ET AL have answers ready for any criticism of smoking bans and PP and anything else that they propose in terms of ‘THINGS AND EVENTS’. What they have no answer to is claims that they are viciously attacking INDIVIDUALS. As with any dictatorship, individuals do not matter one jot – only the system matters.

So it is a mistake to ‘play their game’; to talk in terms of statistical ‘populations’. If you do that, then the persecution of parents who smoke in the presence of their children will inevitably ensue.

What is imperative is to emphasise the harm that TobcoN is doing to INDIVIDUALS: the deliberate describing of non-smokers as victims; the deliberate extortion of taxes on smokers (NB, not on cigs, but on smokers); the deliberate creation of conflicts between non-smokers and smokers; the deliberate criminalisation of publicans and restaurant owners; the deliberate criminalisation of people who want to be self-sufficient by ‘growing their own’.

In general terms, you might say that TobcoN has got away with GENERALISING something which is, in reality, a very personal thing.

To be honest, I do not understand how they have got away with creating the world-wide dictatorship. I really do not know how they have managed it. But I do have a vague understanding.

It is all about the Millennium Goals.

Population Control is essential, although that is not specifically stated. It is perfectly obvious why the ‘World Elite’ think so – and they are correct in the long run. The human population of the World cannot continue to grow exponentially. It cannot! If it does, then only really serious warfare, intended to kill billions of people, will restore a reasonable balance between living people and resources.

So why don’t ‘The Elite’ say so? It is perfectly obvious that the reasonable population of the World is limited.

TobcoN at the highest level of ‘The Elite’, is about freeing up land presently used for tobacco cultivation, for more worthy use – like growing wheat. Millennium Goals.

And yet I would have no objection to those ideas, provided that they were clearly enunciated and promulgated. But they are not. A statement is made, at some convenient time when it will not make the news, and then allowed to lie there for a time until it is forgotten. And then it is gradually put into effect. It is a planned progression. It would not surprise me if Cameron was not one of that Elite.

So who are the the members of ‘The Elite’? We do not know. What we can guess is that they are extremely wealthy. Extremely wealthy. They are so wealthy that they can ‘buy’ Governments.  And the probability is that they ‘own’ the World Bank and the IMF, and the EU Central Bank, and the Bank of England.

Only the likes of Trump can assemble the Might of the USA to combat ‘The Elite’.

Meanwhile, back on the ground, the only thing that we smokers can do is shout about the inequality of tobacco taxation and its effect on poor people compared with wealthy people; the disruption of social intercourse by pub smoking bans;  etc.

I was reading this evening a MSM piece about how ecigs are reducing smoking. Nothing wrong with that. But what really annoyed me was the comments. Time after time, commenters said how wonderful the effect of changing to ecigs was – how wonderful their breathing was after swapping. CRAP!!!! Doll’s Doctors Study showed, beyond ‘scientific’ doubt, that recovery from the effects of smoking is a slow process. After, say, thirty years of smoking,  it might take another ten years for the damage to be repaired – if the INDIVIDUAL survives!

The weakness of ASH ET AL is GENERALISATION. But that principle is very, very hard to combat. It really is. If I smoke in the presence of MY children, will they be damaged? Who knows? The probability is that not, and that probability is almost certainly 99.999% true. But there will always be one child somewhere in England who coughs and splutters.

Essentially, I am saying that ASH ET AL have no right to demand that INDIVIDUALS should be taxed outrageously because they enjoy tobacco. I say ‘have no right to’, and I mean that. Such demands are ‘hate speech’.

The above is a bit disjointed, but it is hard for it not to be. The reason is that no one knows how much the ‘Deep State’ controls Politicians.

There is Always an Excuse


It seems to me that, from top to bottom, tobacco control depends upon a series of excuses.

Let us think about Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’ (see sidebar). He started the study in 1951. Somehow, he got enough money to mail 60,000 doctors in the UK to ask about their smoking habits. For some reason, the body which was the vehicle for that study was ‘Tropical Hygiene’ (I forget the full name). What ‘Tropical Hygiene’ had to do with smoking is not clear. By the way, the word ‘hygiene’ meant ‘health’, and not as has come to be the meaning, ‘cleanliness’. Some 40,000 doctors agreed to take part in the study. Some doctors were already ‘getting on’ and some were quite young. The great majority of them were smokers in one form or another, whether it be pipe, cigar or cigarette. Because a lot of the doctors were already ‘getting on’, Doll was supplied with a steady stream of death certificates. Even after only two or three years, he was able to produce a report which indicated that, proportionately, very few doctors who did not smoke, died from lung cancer, whereas far more doctors who smoked, proportionately, did so. Thus, if, say, 1 in 100 non-smokers died from LC, 15 in 100 smokers died from LC – 15 times greater. But the reality is that very few doctors died from LC – some 7%. 93% died from something else. If I was examining those figures, I would be curious about why so few non-smoking doctors died from LC.

Another factor is the time-scales, which is very important. Smoking for decades had no adverse effect until around the age of 60. When I say ‘smoking’, I mean inhaling clouds of tobacco smoke. Sorry for the use of the word ‘clouds’, but you get the idea.

If actual inhaling ‘clouds’ of tobacco smoke takes decades to have a deleterious effect, why should whiffs of tobacco smoke in the air not take centuries to have an effect?

And therein lies the ‘Excuse’. It is perfectly clear, based upon the ‘Doctors Study’ and all the other similar studies,  that SHS would take centuries to cause LC. If I can see that clear indication, ‘academics’ must surely have known it be so. In fact, in a TV interview, Doll himself said that he would not be worried about being in the same room as a smoker.

So it is clear that the timescale for SHS danger was ignored, and that SHS danger was just an EXCUSE to impose smoking bans. The EXCUSE of SHS danger has continued to be used by TobCoN against all rational thought, and the irrational thought has spread throughout the world. How on Earth could that happen?

I really, really do not understand. Like Frank Smith I was utterly astonished when the ‘Smoking Ban’ was obeyed. I did not believe that it would happen. I really, really believed that it would be ignored. How stupid of me! I should have remembered that the witch hunts of a past era required the participation of ordinary people who reported the imaginary devilry of black-clad widows or spinsters, with their black cats, to provide the EXCUSE to terrify the populace.

For is it not true that terrifying the populace is the objective? How can you gain control over millions of people unless you terrify them?

Perhaps people like Simon Clark from ‘Forest’ should take note that almost all tobacco control involves frightening people.

It seems that Trump, in America, is trying to reverse the terror. Instead of Americans being terrified, he has decided to frighten foreigners. Is that Xenophobia?  Au Contraire! It puts the onus to prove lack of xenophobia onto those who wish to enter the USA. It is the jihadists who are xenophobic.

If we think of ‘Xenophobia’ as excluding ‘undesirables’, it is easy to see how TobCoN is worse than any border control ideas. TobCoN is the essence of inbred brother/sister insemination, and it is deliberately so.

‘Control’, on the level of self determination,  is an excrescence which any sensible politician should abjure, disown and fight against. A person cannot exercise self determination whilst being ‘under control’.

What is weird is that people have to be free to disobey laws to show that they are ‘free’. But the ‘Bully State’ is a monopoly. Is there one MP who has the erudition to show how dangerous and damaging the use of terror tactics are?

Tell me the name of even ONE!

“Smokers Smoke to Get a Nicotine Hit”


Almost every morning, I wake up early needing a pee. I get out of bed and go to the loo. I then get back into bed and go back to sleep. At no point in that process to I feel the need to light a cig. And yet, the first thing that I do, when I decide to get up, is sit on the edge of the bed and light a cig. According to the Fangstrom Test, I am hopelessly addicted.

And yet, when I go on one of my holiday trips, that is not what I do. I set the alarm for, say, 9 am and when the alarm goes off, I get out of bed, throw some clothes on, have a pee if necessary, rinse my face to wake up a little, and head for breakfast. At no point in that procedure do I feel the need to light a cig. I may light a cig when I return to my room, but what I really, really want to do is get back in bed for another couple of hours. For some reason or other, that desire to get back to bed for a couple of hours does not conflict with my enjoyment of breakfast. When I get up to go for breakfast, I become alive and am really, really awake – for an hour or so. But it is wonderful to plop back into bed for a couple of hours after breakfast.

I contest that there is no such thing as a ‘nicotine hit’.

A ‘hit’ implies some sort of sudden change of mood.

I remember once being in a night club standing at the bar. There were not many people in, and so it was easy to observe the behaviour of those people who were in. I noticed these two women, sitting at a table, but they did not seem at all happy. Some bloke walked up to their table and handed them something and walked away. Immediately, the two women went to the loo, and, on their return, they were immensely cheerful. One can only assume that they were miserable until they got their ‘fix’ and then relaxed and cheered up.

That is what I would call ‘a hit’. But it might not be so much the substance itself which creates ‘the hit’ – it might be the anticipation and expectation, along with the substance.

When I light a cig, I do not expect a ‘hit’. I expect a pleasure from the taste of the smoke. But, yes, there is something else.

I think that the ‘something else’ is unknown,  and will probably never be known. But the word ‘addiction’ is totally inappropriate to define the pleasure and usefulness of smoking. Just as bad is the word ‘dependence’. In fact, that word is worse than addiction. I am shortly going to go to Spain and will have to refrain from smoking for around three hours or more during the flight and consequently during off-loading. For that period of time, I am in no way whatsoever ‘dependent’.

The problem that Tobacco Control has is that it cannot realistically point to harm done by tobacco. It cannot produce even one person who is proven to have suffered illness precisely because he smoked. That is the reason that words like ‘dependence’ and ‘addiction’ have been necessary.

Erm… Precisely what is wrong with being ‘addicted to and dependent upon’ water?

There is no ‘hit’ from the nicotine in cigs. The quantity is too small. But that small quantity is enough to create a mild euphoria which might counter worries.

Creating a mild euphoria is not creating ‘a hit’.