The Gulag Archipelago in Scotland

08/11/2017

I exaggerate, of course, but Scotland is getting there.

I started reading ‘The Gulag Archipelago” some months ago. I had to interrupt my reading due to time constraints, but I should be able to pick it up again during the winter when I am not weeding and digging. It is a very long book which goes into great detail about communist Russia.

One of the things that have been covered so far is the collectivisation of agriculture. The ‘Kulaks’ were driven out. ‘Kulaks’ were peasant farmers who had gained enough wealth to own farms in their own right and hired labourers. After the collectivisation, farmers were told by the ‘Minister of Agriculture’, or whatever the department was called, how to operate the farms in great detail. They were told exactly when to sow their seeds, regardless of the consequences. Thus, many farmers were sowing their seeds on frozen ground. Needless to say, the seeds did not germinate and rotted, which caused famine in many part of Russia. Also needless to say, the ‘Central Committee’ somehow found words and phrases which blamed the farmers. The ‘Central Committee’ was itself blameless. Hundreds of thousands of people starved to death because the produce that they managed to produce was taken from them to feed the important people in ‘the centre’. Stalin et al did not give a shit.

Something similar has been going on in Scotland. An MSP Minister, a ‘high flyer’, has resigned. His name is Mark McDonald. He seems to have never done a real day’s work in his life. He went from University straight into politics as a research assistant, and then on to better things. No one is sure why he resigned, but it may be something sexy.

But that is not my point. He was the Minister in charge of the ‘Named Person’ initiative which was intended to have a ‘named person’ who was allocated a number of Scottish children to ‘look after’. I have no doubt that the originators of that scheme had the best of intentions, but we all know what happens when politicians and ‘experts’ get hold of it. It becomes tyrannical.

And so it became. It mutated into the ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ in schools. The Scot Nat Party decided what children in schools in Scotland should be taught, and how they should be taught. Does that not sound very much like The Gulag Archipelago? Of course, if anything went wrong, it would be the schools and teachers who failed.

Scottish schools used to be top world standard, but they are not now. Immature politicians and ‘experts’ have f*cked up grandly.

But that is what comes when young graduates move from uni to Ministers in the course of a few years. They think in grandiose, vague, ‘expert’ ways. And, of course, it is never their fault. Teachers failed.

The Scot Nat Gov is falling apart, just as the EU is. Both are Communistic in their nature. Thankfully, they have not had time to really bugger things up.

But it is up to the Scottish people to kick the ideologists into touch.

There are lessons to be learned. Ideologists tend to tyranny.

Anti-smokers are now tyrants. There is no doubt. By their own estimates (guesses?) of numbers of people killed by TobComs, they should be encouraging any and every means to reduce harm. Weird things happen. As I recall, the Canadian Gov cooperated with TobComs to produce a tobacco plant whose leaves had very little tar when burnt. I think that those plants are the ones which are grown everywhere these days. Certainly, a filter tip is nowhere near as brown as it used to be. But in true Marxist, Soviet fashion, the Canadian Gov managed to extract itself from blame. Only TobComs were to blame for calling weak tar cigs ‘lights’, and they were accused of deliberately misinforming the public. Gulag Archipelago.

The dishonesty is everywhere these days. Lies upon lies abound. Who cares if MP X groped researcher Y thirty years ago? Who cares? You have to be seriously unhinged to care. No, it was not a ‘sexual predation’, it was an invitation. To my shame, I did it myself many, many years ago. No need to go into detail. I fancied sexually a staff member. I ‘tried it on’ but was rebuffed. Nothing happened.

It is the phrase ‘nothing happened’ which is important. It is NATURAL for red-blooded males to ‘try it on’, but we recoil when rebuffed. There is nothing unusual about that. Pushing the situation to rape is simply not done for the VAST majority. Only a tiny minority would insist.

Our society goes further and further into the Gulag mentality. Tobacco Control is a prime example. TC is never, ever in the wrong. It never ever makes a mistake.

We smokers can only impinge upon the TC monster indirectly, but we must. There are all sorts of ways. To rid ourselves of the Monster, we must agree with everything that it says – for the time being. Render it useless.

It is not easy, but it is necessary. Only in that way will it be starved by de-funding. You cannot fight a powerful blob.

 

Advertisements

Who Controls The Controllers?

07/11/2017

I haven’t decided upon a title for this essay yet. Let’s see how it goes.

Queen Elizabeth 2 has been on the throne for 65 years. She the titular representative of The People of the UK. She represents all of us. She attends ceremonies all over the word, representing The People of the UK. All The People. In a way, she IS all of us as a group.

The PM has an audience with the Queen every week. I don’t know what they talk about. The conversation might be about Government or race horses for all I know. But let us imagine a scene.

The PM tells Her Majesty that the Gov intends to raise tobacco taxes. The Queen says, “Erm. Do you not think that my long-suffering subjects who are smokers and who are rather poorer than you and I have been hammered enough? They are, after all, adults and can decide for themselves whether to enjoy tobacco or not?”

“Well, Mam”, says the PM, “It is to all your subjects’ advantage that smokers should be helped to give up that disgusting, filthy, stinking habit. Taxes send a message”.

“But it not to the financial advantage of the poorest of my subjects is it?”, say Her Maj.

“But we signed up to the FCTC Treaty, Mam, which means that……”

“DON’T GIVE ME ALL THAT SHIT!”, replies Her Maj. “What is important is that the poorest of my subjects are being persecuted and treated like lepers! I represent ALL of them. You only represent those of your constituents who voted for you. Now, just f*cking stop it!”

“Erm…”, goes the PM, “‘Experts have told us…..”

“Sod the experts!”, exclaims Her Maj, “They know bugger all about how my poorer subjects live. My poorer subjects are entitled to a little solace in their lives. They are perfectly entitled to a couple of cans of lager and a few cigs of an evening. Don’t give me shit from academics. They know bugger all.”

I’ll see what I can do, Mam”, says the PM on his way out.

Some weeks later, the PM introduces legislation to declare the UK to be a Republic.

=====

That scene is not as far-fetched as one might imagine. The only missing piece in the jigsaw is the fact that Her Maj dare not do it. Do any of us smokers ever consider the idea of writing to the Queen? I must admit that I have never, until this moment, thought of it. But why not? She has no power, but she has the authority of continuity. MPs and PMs come and go in an irregular but numerous procession. Only a few last longer than a few years. All of them are charlatans in one way or another.

The idea of using taxation as a deterrent should have been nipped in the bud decades ago. The purpose of taxation is to pay for the services of the State, and that is all. That includes the police and armed forces, and the NHS, etc. Taxation is not a morality.

The lack of principles goes back a long way, and this lack is what the MSM should concentrate upon. Who SAYS that it is just to punish the poorest people for disobeying experts and academics?

The fact is that our MPs do.

So we lack any sort of counter to extremism. Massive taxes on stuff that ordinary people, and especially the poorest, enjoy are clearly undemocratic. The essence of democracy is tolerance. It is hard not to emphasis that idea enough. But few MPs et al do. It is right that The Majority Vote rules, but that does not mean that The Minority are to be persecuted.

Tobacco Control has inverted that idea. It is clear beyond doubt that ASH exists only because it is supported by taxes. Without taxes, it would disappear without trace. It follows that no ordinary person would contribute to ASH voluntarily.

So politicians could remove that thorn in their side AT A STROKE! Stop feeding the monster.

The economics are spelt out here:

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/self-serving-sockpuppets.html

It has nothing to do with children. It is all about adults choosing. Given a source of illicit tobacco, I would jump at the chance. The reason is that I KNOW that I am being robbed by the State. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

One might even spread the idea of ‘a fool’ to anyone who accepts the Zealots’ claim that SHS is dangerous. Blair, and all the MPs who voted for the Smoking Ban, were fools. They really were. Had they really studied Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’, they would have seen without doubt that ONLY full smoking is dangerous, to some extent, during the life-time of human beings. Our lungs have evolved to tolerate smoke to some extent. It does not matter what sort of smoke. The idea that tobacco smoke is especially dangerous is nonsense.

I am beginning to detest politicians. They are supposed to be philosophers. They do not need to be ‘experts’ in this or that economic strategy. All they need is a good knowledge of what The People want. And what The People want is fairness. That is all. ‘Fairness’ is critical. So how is it that smokers are being persecuted and robbed?

I do not know. All I can say is that I would grab with both hands an opportunity to buy cheap cigs. If I was so minded, I would even seek out such suppliers. In other words, such suppliers ARE JUSTIFIED by public acclaim. Criminal law is not involved.

Idiot MPs have voted to criminalise gardeners who grow tobacco plants. Such growing is labour-intensive and produces little. It is a hobby, pure and simple, because it needs lots of attention. The tentacles of TC reach far and wide.

It would behove the UK Gov, and Trump’s USA, to defund most of the UN. It is quite simple. Just stop the money.

There is a long way to go. Even the USA could not eviscerate the UN quickly. But it must and can be done. And the first things that should be done is replace Tobacco Control with Poverty Control; replace Climate Control with Energy Control.

 

 

What is the United Nations Organisation FOR?

05/11/2017

I read today somewhere that the UN has produced a new document describing the urgent need for action on Climate Control. I have found the link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/un-climate-change-global-warming-paris-agreement-warning-heat-rising-melting-a8028961.html

It is the Independent newspaper which has shouted about it.

I think that the UN report is directly aimed at President Trump and anti-Trump conspirators. It intends to exploit the bitterness of the defeated Democrats. Anything which is anti-Trump can be exploited.

But what is obvious is that the UN is acting entirely politically. It is entirely a political organisation. The WHO and IPCC organisations are entirely political. Any semblance of ‘science’ is not especially significant. It is POLITICS which is important.

So what of the ‘science’?

It is time that the word ‘science’ was given a precise meaning. Epidemiology is not ‘science’. The discovery of penicillin, as an antidote to bacteria, was a great breakthrough. That was science. Counting the number of cases of pneumonia in different places was not ‘science’. I am not saying that Epidemiology was not useful; I am saying that it was not science. Observation of naturally occurring events is just that – observation. The observation of the movements of the planets around the sun led to the science of astronomy.

There is no obvious reason for the UN to continue to exist in its present form. It no longer makes sense. It is an ‘out of control’ vehicle for tyrants of one sort or another to propagate dissatisfaction throughout the world.

It cannot be reformed since there is no superior governor to force reform. The only possibility is dissolution. Trump is courageous, but I doubt that he has the courage to defund, and thereby destroy, the UN. But he should have the courage. As I have said before, move the headquarters of the UN to Somalia or Afghanistan or Mongolia or Greenland as see how may ‘experts’ are prepared to live and work in such places. No, the UN exists in the nicest of cities with all the pleasures of such places. ASH Australia collapsed instantly when its State funding was withdrawn.

We would see the same thing in the UK is ASH State funding was terminated. It would immediately cease to exist. So much for enthusiastic support.

There are serious problems with our democracy, not only in the UK.

I think that it comes down to HUMILITY. The higher the status that a person attains, the more humble that he should become. Humility is the only antidote to power.

The lack of humility in organisations such as the UN, WHO, IPCC, etc is directly responsible for the exaggerations of Climate Control, Tobacco Control and Fat Control.

What is the chance of Theresa May defunding the UN? Lower than negligible, I suspect. The same might not be true of Trump.

I tried to establish a ‘Constituency Group’. I got about 120 aspirants. I still think that the idea has legs. The idea was to have at least one person from every constituency in the UK, or at least in England. The idea would be that each person would bombard their MP with letters or emails saying much the same thing, such as that PP would be lies unless the pictures were proven cases of tobacco harm.

The problem was that I would be placing myself as the arbiter of what was good and what was bad. I do not have the stomach to be the arbiter. And yet that is the only way. We do not need a miracle. We need a voice.

 

The Arrogance of The Zealots

04/11/2017

I have been reading a transcript of discussions in a Standing Committee of the Australian Gov this evening about ecigs. Readers will already know that Oz has already virtually banned ecigs due to fear. It is hard to know what that fear is. It vaguely seems to be a fear that a devil will tempt vapers to move to smoking tobacco cigs. The personification of that devil would be Big Tobacco, of course.

It is worth reading the transcript, which is here:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commrep/81a244ef-e46c-46bd-8ad6-ee3054352dc5/toc_pdf/Standing%20Committee%20on%20Health,%20Aged%20Care%20and%20Sport_2017_10_18_5636.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commrep/81a244ef-e46c-46bd-8ad6-ee3054352dc5/0001%22

I would recommend that readers have a go at not being bored to death by reading the link.

Members of the committee asked questions of the witnesses which seemed to suggest that the members of the committee had no idea whatsoever of the workings of ecigs. But I do not believe that to be true. It is very easy to pretend to be ignorant. But there was one thing especially that struck me. It was that the committee seemed to be hung up about possible future harm in the long run resulting from vaping. It is a reasonable question, but, if vaping was all but forbidden, how would any ‘long run’ evidence be acquired? It is a really nasty idea that Oz would deprive smokers of the opportunity to try ecigs just because the Oz Gov wants to let other nations carry the can.

But that is precisely what TC has been doing. It has been experimenting. It has been playing with Govs like a fish on a fishing line.

I am not entirely sure that the committee members were as ignorant as they appeared to be. There are scientific truths, one of which is ‘the dose makes the poison’. A tiny, tiny bit of arsenic will not kill you. It would be interesting to know why not, but nobody goes there. In the case of ecigs, ‘genuine’ (as far as I know) toxicology experiments have shown that ecig vapour is harmless. So why should there be any fears about them?

What is important, and seems to be brushed aside, is the toxicology. If there are no ‘poisons’ in ecig vapour, why should there be a long-term problem?

I have not yet finished reading the transcript. I shall do so tomorrow. But what alarmed me is the implication throughout the discussion that smokers are THINGS.

I am really serious about that. Smokers are THINGS. There was a brief query from the ignorant committee members about excise duty on ecig liquids and machines in the UK. They had to be told that ecigs are normal VAT rated in the UK. No one who was really, really interested in persuading smokers to give up would want to tax excessively the means to do so.

Their is a craziness which is a disease in TC. I suppose that you could call it a virus. It may even be a physical virus. It might be one which has not yet been identified. It might particularly target professors and doctors. That may be the reason that they regard smokers as THINGS.

What reading that transcript suggested to me is that the politicians had no idea what to do. Is it any wonder that politicians take the easy way and enact laws dictated by medics? How will medics stop ISIS? How will they stop terrorist atrocities? If the medics are in control, then they must accept their duties to protect the people from ALL the threats.

That is what I mean by ‘The Arrogance of The Zealots’. They have so captivated Gov that they are a major distraction from what is really important.

It is important that Gov exterminates those groups, and it is very easy. They would not survive for a moment without Gov funding.

I do not understand why Gov did not kick the snakes into the ‘hard places’ years ago. Let them survive on voluntary contributions if the can.

A House of Commons Debate About Ecigs

03/11/2017

H/T Dick Puddlecote for the link to the debate:

I managed to watch the first 20 minutes or so whilst Gareth Johnson MP was describing how useless the TPD was in connection with ecigs, which should never have been in the TPD at all since they do not contain tobacco. There is a simple phrase to describe the actions of the EU – ‘abuse of power’.

What really annoys me about these debates and speeches is that the MPs seem like children reciting their times tables: “2 x 2 = 4, 3 x 2 = 6, etc”. They recite ‘facts’ as though there is no doubt about their veracity. “50% of smokers are killed by smoking”, “tens of thousands of live could be saved each year by ecigs”. Why is it that absolutely no one ever questions the recital? For example, should not ‘save the lives of…’ be correctly stated as ‘postpone the deaths of…’? It would not sound as good as a soundbite, but it would be more accurate. Doll’s deaths graph, which I published in my last post, shows clearly that there must be many, many factors involved in deaths, of which smoking might be one. Without any evidence whatsoever, it might be reasonable to say that smokers’ deaths ALWAYS have a factor of causation due to smoking – 100%. The possible negative affects of smoking are something that smokers accept. There is no need for such people to be persecuted and demonised. The UK ought not to be Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

The smoking ban was the result of politicians being seduced by ‘the times table effect’. Conjectures recited often enough become certain facts. “2 x 2 = 5, 3 x 2 = 7, etc”. It is not the slightest bit impossible for such recitals to take place. All that would need to happen is that the word ‘five’ starts to mean ‘four’. ‘One, two, three, five, four, six,…..’.

A specific point as stated by Gareth Johnson was that ecigs are not entirely safe. That is another recital. What does he mean by ‘entirely safe’? Does he mean that, occasionally, someone uses the wrong charger and explodes a battery? If that is the case, will someone tell me what is ENTIRELY safe? Why are paracetamol tablets sold over the counter? What evidence is there that ecigs are not ‘entirely safe’ in the sense of ‘used as directed’?

I switched the video off shortly after Johnson stopped speaking. That was because some arsehole started talking about children and youths and the vicious addictiveness of nicotine.  That also is a recital. It is not at all difficult not to smoke, depending upon the circumstances. Who would light a cig in a church? It is simply not done, any more than chomping on a beef burger is done in a church. It is not a matter of ‘permission’ – that simply does not arise. It is about custom.

There are all sorts of consequences which come from ‘recitals’, such as the prisons and mental institution bans. The word ‘captives’ comes to mind. the ‘recital’ enables such bans on captives.

The biggest recital of all is, of course, SHS danger. It is the biggest lie of all. “2 x 2 = 101”. 101 is a prime number. It is not divisible by anything except 1 and itself. Any prime number would do to illustrate the nonsense of the equation. Studies of SHS danger have conclusively shown that inhaling SHS poses no more danger than inhaling dust in the air.

Another recital is the idea of ‘pure air’. There is no such thing, especially at the surface of the Earth. Maybe at the top of Mount Everest, the air is ‘pure’, but there is not much of it there. It is only because we humans are such tiny creatures that that we envisage the atmosphere as HUGE AND DEEP. It is not. It is a very thin veil. And because it is so thin, it is filthy. Human lungs have evolved to cope with that filth.

Strange, is it not, that there are few studies about the filth in the air? Well, not that I know of. But it would be easy to compare the filth in the air in central London with the air at the top of Mount Snowdon. Has such a study been done? What were the results? The nearest thing has been comparisons of the effects of smoking in the countryside as compared with the city. Not nearly as many ill-effects were registered in those people who lived in the countryside. Oddly enough, the same difference was observed between people who live on the lower stories of a high-rise building and those who live on a high story. That suggests that dirty air near the ground is dangerous.

I doubt that even 1% of vapers read comments such as this. If they do not, then they miss the important thing. The important thing is that TC want to OWN ecigs. That is what all the disputes are about. TC has manufactured dangers which do not exist within the life-time of human beings.

The fact is that the whole thing about ecigs is silly. A mountain from a molehill. But that can be explained by the desire of TC to ‘own’ ecigs. That is the important battle. Let everyone else take the commercial risks, and then take control via laws and regulations.

I have often said to myself, and it has been true over the last several decades, that you can only reduce your costs, and save money, by examining the multitude of little things which you spend money on. Reducing your central heating stat by 1C is useless unless you also close your windows.

What is obvious, as regards ecigs and smoking, is that MPs are in the thrall of TC. They cannot seem to think outside the box. “2 x 2 = 5”. They are arguing about irrelevancies, such as children, as regards the take-up of ecigs.

What is the meaning of the word ‘scandal’? We all know what that word means vaguely:

(an action or event that causes) a public feeling of shock and strong moral disapproval”

a more accurate definition.

The ‘Public’ ought to feel a shock of ‘moral disapproval’ of the persecution and demonisation of smokers. The treatment of smokers is ‘scandalous’.

The same applies to the treatment of vapers.

There is only one way out of the impasse. It is to defund the gravy-train Zealots.  The sides must be turned. Fat MPs must be thrown out of Parliament in disgrace, especially Diane Abbot. She is very fat. There are lots and lots and lots of fatties in Parliament. They must all be shamed just like smokers. What Johnson MP FAILED to do was emphasise the duty of MPs to oppose persecution NOW! The EU TPD was persecution of vapers. It should never have happened.

The more that Gov and MPs persecute and demonise smokers and vapers, the more that laws will be seen as stupid.

They already are.

The Problem With ‘Averages’

01/11/2017

At home, we buy semi-skimmed milk and no other. But on my recent trip, I made a point of having ‘whole’ milk on my breakfast cereals and in my breakfast coffee. Recently, I have been going away three times a year totalling 21 days. So, during 21 days per an, I imbibe a small amount of ‘full-fat’ milk.

Imagine what would happen if full-fat milk was banned because the ‘obesity epidemic’. It could easily be banned because there must be a link between full-fat milk and fatness. The only way, ultimately, unless fat people are sent to ‘correction facilities’, to put an end to the obesity epidemic is to ban everything which could possibly contribute to the epidemic. Surely an epidemic needs drastic action.

So what would happen if full-fat milk was banned? In my case, bugger all. But I would still be part of ‘the average’. If there were millions like me – people who only indulge in full-fat milk in small quantities for particular reasons such as breakfast cereals – we would form the bulk of ‘the average’. The bulk of ‘the average’ come to no harm.

But it is easy to see how ‘the sins of a minority’ can be heaped upon ‘the average’. There could be a minority, which, for whatever reason, pile on the pounds whilst enjoying full-fat milk all the time. That minority is ‘above average’, and it is that minority which is controlling Gov policy.

The problem with averages is that they create ‘fake news’.  A prime example is ‘body mass index’. Has anyone noticed that the only factor in BMI is height? The whole calculation of BMI depends only upon height and nothing else. True, there is a range of ‘acceptable’ values, but that range does not alter the fact that only height is THE factor. If you know your height but do not know your weight, then you cannot know your BMI.

In the same way, it is possible to falsify Doll’s Doctors Study. Here is the graph again:

Ignore the baccy plants – I do not know how they appeared. Only the graph matters. Heavy smokers are the line on the left; non-smokers are the line on the right.

Note how there is no point anywhere where the lines cross each other. Every non-smoker survives longer than any smoker. Every light smoker survives longer than moderate smokers, and heavy smokers ALL die before anyone else. Our life experiences tell us that that is not true. Lots of smokers live long lives and lots of non-smokers die rather young. That graph IS the doctors study. Nothing else matters.

What should be happening in that graph is that the lines should criss-cross each other. All the lines should be blurred. The graph shows only average points. It does not show reality.

It is because of such faulty graphs that smokers and fatties are being persecuted. Duties on tobacco and alcohol started as economic warfare – tobacco being the target during the war with the American colonies, and alcohol being the target in a dispute with Portugal. Weird, is it not, that even a couple of hundred years ago, the products were heavily taxed rather than being banned. It is easy to see why. Put simply, the aristocrats could afford to pay for their pleasures but the vast majority of the population could not. The Elite were thereby protected. Now, those duties, originally intended to harm the enemy, have morphed into ‘sin taxes’.

But ‘cui bono’?

  1. The Chancellor of the Exchequer milks the uncomprehending herd.
  2.  TC hits its target, being the poorest people whose only pleasures are smoking and drinking beer.

And all the justification for this evil is ‘averages’.

Ecigs have thrown a massive, massive spanner into the TC machine and the Gov machine. If ecigs really, really caught on, then Gov could say goodbye to its tobacco duty tax income and TC would disappear.

TC has said that reducing smoking to 5% of the population is its aim, at which point it would regard smoking as defunct. But ‘5% of the population’ is ‘an average’. There will always be pockets of resistance.

One of the problems with our political system is that there is no incentive for Gov to cut its costs. I don’t mean the armed forces or the police. I mean the MASSIVE costs of innumerable civil servants who produce nothing of value at all.

‘Averages’ are the bane of Western civilisation. Only when every individual demands personal autonomy will averages retreat into scientific folklore.

‘Statistical Proof’

31/10/2017

These are musings – I have not yet fully recovered from the excesses of my holiday.

Chris Snowdon has drawn attention to how the statistics were fiddled to justify the new recommended alcohol limits. He shows how it was done in The Spectator here:

https://health.spectator.co.uk/the-new-drinking-guidelines-are-based-on-massaged-evidence/

Very briefly, the ‘statistical model’, which Sheffield Uni had invented, showed that a male person, on average, could drink about 21 units of alcohol per week perfectly safely. The equivalent for a female person was 14 units. But there was more to it than ‘perfectly safely’. Such quantities could actually be beneficial for the functioning of the heart especially. But even if you disregard the beneficial effects, at least you can say that such quantities are harmless. Thus, the ‘Sheffield Model’ started to rate harmfulness at more than 21 units for men and more than 14 units for women. Those numbers were ‘the base’ – equivalent to zero on a graph. Thus, any harm from alcohol only started to accumulate ABOVE those base figures. Thus, roughly, 21 units is zero harm; 22 units produces a tiny bit of potential harm, which we can call ‘1 unit’ of harm.

Public Health England told Sheffield to get rid of the ‘harmless base’ from their model. Obviously, that demand was made in a roundabout sort of way. Sort of: “Do us a favour and amend your model, on your computer, to see what happens if the harmless base allowances of 21 units for men and 14 units for women were reduced to zero”. Under great pressure from their financial benefactor, Public Health England, and with great misgivings, they did as they were told. For some reason, the ‘adjustments’ to the model did not make much difference to the fate of women, but brought down the values for ‘safe’ limits for men.

But what matters is the that the ‘science’ was compromised, at the behest of PHE. Unrealistic parameters were introduced so that the ‘beneficial/safe’ level of drinking was removed from the calculations.

Sheffield Uni was compromised. Why did it comply? 1) There was money involved – several thousand pounds; 2) It needed not to be ‘struck off’.

Thus, it provided the ‘evidence’, very unwillingly, for Silly Sally to declare that a 7 stone woman can drink as much alcohol as a 15 stone man without danger.

If Silly Sally was asked to produce proof, she would cite Sheffield’s results.

We might reasonably ask how many other ‘statistical proofs’ have been engineered in much the same way? To what extent did DOLL ET AL fiddle the stats in the Doctors Study?

You see, the fiddling with the Sheffield model probably only involved a few hundred real people out of thousands.

I really must go through Doll’s Doctors Study again. My reason is to find out how many subdivisions of smokers there were and what were the actual number of doctors involved in the subdivisions. By subdivision, 30,000 can rapidly become 3000, and can then rapidly become 300. It is when a very large number, which is statistically representative, is divided into smaller groups that confounders become very important.

But the opposite is also true. Untested results, based upon fiddled stats as illustrated above as regards ‘base/safe’ starting points for alcohol danger, can envelope the whole world.

What can be done? None of the academics have committed a crime. All that they have done is told lies. It is not a criminal offence to tell a lie.

But such people have a problem – their lies can be countered by the lies of others. There is no truth.

The sadness of the fiddling of statistics as regards recommended drinking limits is that the new limits can be used to justify things like minimum pricing. It would be easy to show that people are ignoring the limits, which might be used to justify the persecution of the poorer segment of the people.

Somehow or other, our politicians must be made aware that smokers are not as pathetically subservient as they think.

But perhaps they are? Disregarding the Smoking Ban, how many smokers talk about the cost of cigs? Taxes on cigs should be more important than bans since those taxes are clearly, and without doubt, discriminatory.

Governments are lazy. Politicians are lazy. The Civil Service is lazy. Parliament is lazy. They need to be woken up.

 

 

 

Back to Business After My Trip

30/10/2017

When I said that I would take a week off ‘caring’, I also meant that I would take a week off ‘caring’. That is, my daughters would look after herself for me, and I would not give a shit about tobacco control. That is what happened – Sod them and all their works.

The weather turned out to be lovely, apart from slight chill at night. A jersey sufficed to counter the chill. The hotel turned out to be much busier than this time last year. There were a lot of sunbathers on the beach and lots of people in the sea. But the night-life was a bit sad. Being school hols, there were lots of families with children – thankfully, not a lot at my hotel. But I did notice quite a few grandparents with their grandchildren. I have done that myself. I took (and paid for) both my grandsons on holiday a few years ago, but they were at least 17 at the time. Had herself been fit enough, I suppose that we might easily have taken the grandchildren away with us when they were younger. There were not many carefree yoofs hanging around late at night, which was a pity. I only got one serious chess match challenge, which game could have gone either way. I had intended to get back to hotel reasonably early (say, 3 am), but the game became one of attrition. The guy said that he wanted a quick game, but it lasted for an hour. That is the weird thing about chess – it is very hard to tear yourself away from an intriguing game. I managed to scrape a win, but only through luck.

I had a week’s reading to catch up with this evening. I did not get far, but I managed to read a few sites fully, apart from the comments. ‘A few’ are the operative word. Forest, Frank Davis, Legiron and VGIF were the extent of it.

Taking a week off the nitty-gritty does enable you to see things ‘in the round’ a bit more clearly. For example, at Manchester airport this afternoon, there was not a customs officer to be seen. What there were were several airport staff trying to get passengers through passport control as quickly as possible. People with digital passports were directed into one queue and others into another queue. I have a digital passport and so all I had to do was place a certain page on the surface of a reader and a gate automatically opened, and I was out. My luggage appeared on a carousel. There was not a single customs officer to be seen.

How could such a system, devised to clear thousands of British passengers each day through ‘passport control’, revert to a system where each person was individually checked personally and his baggage ripped apart to see if he was importing a couple of kilos of tobacco products? It would require thousands of customs officers, masses of space and huge buildings. The world has moved on from such fripperies if only because of the enormous change in holiday making. All those grandparents taking their grandchildren away for  a few days.

Frank Davis is a philosopher, whether he knows it or not. Reading his last week’s posts as a group, it is impossible not to see the underlying trend. It is one of ‘dissonance’. Nothing around us makes sense – starting with the smoking ban – even though the ‘dissonance’ may go back much further.

Why the smoking ban?

I can say it. On 30th June 2007, my local publican was a friend. On 1st July 2007, he became a tyrant. Willingly or unwillingly, he became an instrument of CONTROL. Even worse, the young staff of the pubco across the way actually revelled in their new-found power to boss their elders and betters about, and, even worse, the bosses of those pubcos actively encouraged their young staff to boss their best customers about. Is it any wonder that those customers drifted away?

Even smokers have a problem discussing the smoking ban.

“Can you see that black white puppy cat?”

“Eh?”

“That black white puppy cat. Can you see it?”

“Where?”

“Over there. Can you see it?”

“No”

What is wrong with that conversation? It is that there is no such thing as a ‘black white puppy cat’. The respondent was drawn into a ‘fake news’ situation without realising it. He was coned into looking for something which cannot possibly exist.

Much the same applies to SHS danger. SHS danger is a ‘black white puppy cat’.

What is really weird is that the ‘black white puppy cat’ is implicit in Doll’s Doctors Study. There was nothing in that study which might even remotely point to danger from tobacco smoke in the air as compared with inhaling a packet of smoke, any smoke, directly.

It really is frightening that the House of Commons fell for the ‘black white puppy cat’ confidence trick in the 2006 Health Act.

What other confidence tricks have they fallen for?

 

 

A Little Break

22/10/2017

The ‘blog administrator’ will be away for a few days of ‘rest and recuperation’.

I usually take two or three books with me, but daughter 2 has lent me her Kindle. She already has a lot of books downloaded. I don’t know why I haven’t bought myself a Kindle before now. Am I old-fashioned? Perhaps I am.

I have a mobile. In fact, I now have two since my last birthday when my daughters updated me with new Vodafone machine, but I still have about £16 credit on my old phone. It will take me ages to use up that credit because I rarely have any need to communicate with anyone, which cannot be done on the landline. On arrival at my resort, I shall text daughter 2 and tell her that all is well. Once back home in the airport, I shall call my taxi firm to have them collect me. I have been using my new mobile to take photos because the quality is better.

I am perfectly happy to accept that the new machine is wonderful, but the ‘wonder’ seems to be about tricks. There are masses and masses of clever things that you can do, but they are almost all trivial – like adding different hues to pics that you might have taken. If I wanted to take a selfie on the old phone, I had to point the back of the phone at myself and hope for the best. With the new, one I can adjust the camera so that I can see my ‘selfie’ before taking the pic. The trouble is that I have no compulsion to take selfies. And what do I do if I want to take a selfie of my back?

But the worst thing was that I was conned. I put £20 credit on the phone so that I could test it. A couple of weeks later, I found that my credit had disappeared. It was only by a diligent search that I found that I had been automatically signed up to ‘mobile data’, which incurred a charge of £2 per day. I contacted Vodafone and they reimbursed me. Further, I found out from a friend in the pub that, if you do not use the phone for three months, you account is cancelled and you lose any credit that still exists. I could not believe it until I found reference to it in ‘the small print’.

You see, that is what happens when you have mega-bureaucracies creating mountains of regulations. Ordinary people have no idea what the regulations say, but the mega-corporations know every line and how to get around the regs. Thus, barefaced robbery is enabled by the very regs themselves, until the lumbering giant catches up, some five years later.

Before the recent invasion of ‘refugees’ from the Middle East and Africa, welcomed by Merkel in Germany, how did Italy, Greece, Spain, etc, deal with such immigrants? Does anyone know?

Anyway, I must to bed. See you all next week.

 

Easy Pickings

21/10/2017

Only the inelasticity of demand for tobacco products enables politicians to persecute financially the poorest people.

I suggest that we smokers have a ‘StopJanuary’ during which month none of us buy cigs etc. You can stock up in advance, but necessarily, you must find ways to stock up from sources outside the UK. But the important thing is not to buy a single cig or cigar during January. Let duty taxes fall to zero. Better still, stock up sufficiently to last through several months.

The important thing would be to realise the objective of ASH ET AL in advance – complete cessation. 

Organisations such as ASH depend upon ‘inelasticity’ for their survival. The same applies to sugar and alcohol. They would have nothing to protest about after a few months if demand for such products was not inelastic.

Politicians should recognise that fact before they side with witches and wizards.

I like that idea that ‘tobacco science’ has become the produce of ‘witches and wizards’. It is easy to see how spells can be cast over politicians because they are particularly susceptible. What is odd is that nearly ALL of then are susceptible. There there was no need for an earnest discussion of ecigs. The scientific FACTS speak for themselves. There are virtually NO toxins in in ecig vapour. And, most of all, such toxins are too weak to harm a person during a normal lifetime.

Is that not the main problem – the avoidance of the effects over a normal human life-time? If ecigs are only 5% as dangerous as cigs, then a person would have to vape for three hundred years, or more, to suffer the consequences, as compared with smoking.

How have those simple calculations been overlooked? They are simple calculations. No one will die before they are 500 years old because of vaping.

But the same argument applies to SHS, and people such as Godber knew. No one dies as a result of SHS. There is a paucity of SHS studies, although there are some which suggest that children exposed to SHS are less likely to suffer from asthma. No SHS study has shown significant adverse effects.

But, for ‘Government Income Generators’ (GIGs for short), smokers are a godsend. They are the ultimate ‘godsend’.

Is the unwillingness to fight back, by not buying taxed stuff, simply stupidity? It may well be so.

I have no connections with illicit suppliers, but I wish that I had. If I had, I would have no compunction about using their services.

There comes a point where citizens rebel. There ought not to be a need for such a point. Such situations arise because of ‘consensus’, such as smoking bans. There was ever any ‘need’ for such a ban. It is and always has been, a ‘consensus’ arrived at by amoral people.

‘Amoral’ is the word. Bash the poorest people. They have no voice or power. Bash them and bash them. It has always been so.