The End of the TobCON Jolly in Cape Town


When TobCON puts out a press release, it is quite possible that the text has been mulled over and discussed by dozens of highly paid Uni Profs and Docs, publicists and propagandists and legal eagles. The text would have been passed backwards and forwards using private email addresses until it was judged to be perfect.

So I reproduce, with his tacit consent I hope, the last part of Chris Snowdon’s post:

That brings us to smoking, which is supposed to be reason for the conference’s existence. After years of denial, the prohibitionists are finally owning up to being prohibitionists. There was even an official declaration.


You might think that the experience of alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs would make ‘experts’ wary of endorsing a ban on a product consumed by a billion people. But according to Tobacco Control‘s news editor, there is nothing to worry about:

If smokers had any doubts about what these people have in store for them, an official declaration at the world’s foremost tobacco control conference to ban the sale of cigarettes should put an end to them.

Let’s not mince words any more. These people are not the tobacco control lobby and they are certainly not public health professionals. They are prohibitionists and should only be described as such. 

So take that statement:

We call upon Governments to develop a plan by 2021 for phasing out the sale of tobacco products” My bold)

But note the follow up tweet: “Concerns about outlawing combustible tobacco sales being comparable to 1920s alcohol prohibition are absurd“.

The two demands are not the same. The official demand is the sale of tobacco products. 

But you have to giggle when you see in print, words to the effect, “It is absurd to compare the prohibition of the sale of disgusting, filthy, stinking product X with the prohibition of disgusting, filthy, stinking product Y a hundred years ago”.

Or, to put it in a positive way, “It is absurd to expect the WHO to spend time and money on eradicating malaria, ebola and zika, etc, etc, when there is much more fun and profit to be had from persecuting smokers, vapers and steamers”.

What seems perfectly obvious to me is that the event was nothing more than a publicity stunt. It is very little different from Lady Godiva riding naked on a horse through the streets of Coventry. If Deborah Arnott did the same thing, I might even applaud her courage. I suppose that it would absurd to think that the horse might hit a slippery slope and dear Debs might be thrown into the air, legs akimbo, to land with a dull thud.

Ideas come into my mind.

We readers all deplore ‘ad hom’ attacks. If the science is good, what does it matter who funded it?

But I am coming round to the idea that we have it all the wrong way round. WE should be producing the ‘ad hom’ attacks.

Bear in mind that Arnott et al do not give a shit about how much pain they inflict upon smokers. In effect, they are quite happy to stub out burning cigs in our eyes, having previously exiled us, defenceless, to unlit back alleys.

Is that not an interesting idea? There would be no need for a ‘smoker army’. Maybe only a dozen or so people would be required to find the dirty on a specific individual ‘Expert Professor’. But it might also be interesting to find the dirt on newspaper reporters and columnists.

EG, who are the ‘top people’ in PHE? Who are they? Where have they come from? What did they do before? To what extent are they compromised by previous biased appointments?

Stanton Glantz is a case in point. Why have all the accusations suddenly disappeared, so such much so that he can add his name, and be thought worthy, to another plethora of junk ‘hearsay evidence’?

I need to write a post about the nature of epidemiology. In my opinion, it is like ‘hearsay evidence’ in a trial. In fact, in the McTear Case, the Judge, Nimmo, almost described it as such. He said that epidem evidence did not apply to individuals.

It seems that TobCON wishes to prosecute Tobcoms for genocide. Perhaps the links between TobCON and repressive dictators worldwide need to be explored.

It has always been true that an army with superior weapons can defeat a much larger army with inferior weapons. Only when the balance of weapons is similar, does war of attrition ensue. That was largely the case in WW1.

Perhaps one of us should explore Arnott’s history, and perhaps another might explore Glantz’s history, or several of us cooperating. Think about Yach being declared to be a pariah as regards the jolly.

What I would like to see is the myriad of retired or semi-retired or nearing retirement profs and docs getting together and condemning, in no uncertain terms, the cruelty of TobCON.

So which specific TobCON sinner could the hundreds of my readers investigate, and how to go about it? An amusing thought might be to get at X. I cannot remember her name. She was ‘racontaire’ (or whatever) in the ecig debacle in the EU Parli. Where is she now? What immensely remunerative job has she, and who does she work for?

The people who instigate the persecution escape, again and again, and they should not be allowed to do so. I do not mean that they should be hung, drawn and quartered. I mean that they should apologise and make restitution. Perhaps restitution could take the form of 365 days of unpaid work amongst alcoholics living on the streets.

Who is going to be our first target?




MSM Complicity In Its Own Demise


The whole idea of ‘Freedom of the Press’, the ‘third estate’, has always been that it was supposed to scrutinise Government and draw attention to corruption. By ‘corruption’, in this case, I mean ‘cross-party agreements’ that cause failure in our system of Gov, which says that ‘the duty of the opposition is to oppose’.

So, a newspaper might be a Tory rag, or a Labour rag, or whatever, but, whatever their political slant, they did not like the idea of ‘the opposition’ in Parliament, agreeing with the Gov.

It is a very weird truth that the smoking ban in the UK in 2007 was hardly opposed at all, either before or after. There was a dreadful silence. But who caused the dreadful silence?

I contend that it was the MSM which caused the dreadful silence. The papers and TV were ‘organised’ to do precisely the opposite of what their status as ‘the third’ estate dictated that they should do – expose ‘conspiracy’ (cross party ‘corruption’). Instead, they entered into the conspiracy.

Was the collusion of the MSM integral to the violence with which the ban was enforced? I am talking about the training of bar staff to physically attack anyone who lit a cig. I remember very, very clearly the first night after the ban. It was surreal. No one knew who was friend or foe. It took quite a long time for me to realise that everyone was foe, unless they were my family.

I have been reluctant for years now to form new, friendly relationships. No one can be trusted one inch. Light a cig in their presence, in the pub, and they will all leap on you and try to devour you.

I have been wondering what the Manager of my local would say in reply to the question, “Jack, if I lit a cig indoors, what would you do?”

You see, we cannot forever keep avoiding ‘OWNERSHIP’. When you think back, it is amazing that Pubcos did not go to court to defend their OWNERSHIP of pubs. The idea of ‘public place’ ought to have been a non-starter. NO building is a ‘public place’ and never has been. It might surprise readers to know that cathedrals in Southern Spain, a couple of hundred years ago, were also fortresses. They were PRIVATE places which protected the faithful against the Muslim hoards.

NO building is a ‘public place’. ‘Public Place’ is an artificial construct. Whoever owns the building, owns the place.

I think that when The Press, collectively, permitted itself to be silent about the perfectly obvious destruction of property rights and the coercion of betrayal, it signed its own death warrant.

Could the ‘dead tree’ press recover? Probably not, but it could try, if it could drag itself from under the weight of ‘conspiracy’.


Will The MSM EVER Cotton On?


Somehow, I found myself reading Janet Street-Porter’s article in the Mail Online. She wants to bring back rationing.

It says much about the UK today that I can write that without cracking up with laughter.

Yes, she wants to bring back rationing. She wants a ration book to be sent to every individual (including, and perhaps, especially, children?) monthly. If you want, say, a bar of chocolate, you would have to produce your ration book, which would need to be checked to your passport ID, or some other ID, and, having handed over the stamp from the ration book, and paid the exorbitant ‘duty’ plus other minor costs, you would be allowed to take away your bar of chocolate.

But what I find annoying rather than amusing is the usual massive distortion of statistics. It is hard to find the offending lines, but here are a couple:

“And yet, if we can bear to face the horrible reality – a third of us are just plain FAT.”


As the problem has grown into an epidemic affecting one in three children, so has our reluctance to confront it. We can’t see our knees, or even our genitalia, and we refuse to face up to reality as well.”

There’s that “Royal ‘We'” which TobCON loves to employ as ‘authority’. The ‘Royal ‘We’. They have been at it for decades. ‘Our’ children, cannot see ‘our’ genitalia.

Curious, is it not, that a third of all the population are fatties, whether adults or children. The reality is that those stats are complete lies. They rely upon an archaic formula. EG, what should a 22 year old man of 5′ 10″ in height, weigh? You need only look at the composition of a rugby team to see that men of about that age and height have different positions on the team. The bulkier ones tend to be forwards, and the slimmer ones tend to be backs.

But taking a rugby team as ‘normal’ would be ridiculous. From a general population point of view, they are extremely abnormal.

Read this from Snowdon:

I must admit that the stats quoted by Chris leave me cold. I simply cannot comprehend them. To quote:

“To recap, the normal body mass index (BMI) cut-off of 30+ does not work for children so we have to improvise. The current British system defines children as obese if they have a BMI that would have put them in the heaviest five per cent of their age group in 1990.”

Now, I vaguely understand that a BMI of 30+ means ‘obese’. But I am for from sure. I found a BMI calculator and entered a few figures.

I am about 5′ 6″ and 9 st = BMI 20.3. Jolly good!, said the site.

I tried various weights with the same height (6′). ‘Not advisable’ was the response until I hit 15 st at 6′ (BMI 28). The site was still unhappy – possible problems. But, magically, when I hit 13 st at 6′ (BMI 24.7) the result was ‘fantastic!’.

You can play with these calculators. Here is the one that I was using:

Children cannot be measured in the same way, so a different method was devised. As best I can understand it, if 100 children were weighed and their heights calculated, and a BMI for each child was calculated, then the ‘heaviest’ 5% would be called ‘obese’. I do not know the reasoning behind choosing the top 5%.

Now, I am not at all sure if I am going in the right direction hereafter.

In 1990, a certain portion of school children were in that ‘heaviest 5%’ (BMI-wise). Therefore, in 1990, x% of schoolkids were obese – by definition. It was an arbitrary, but low figure. Since then, minor variations in in the general health of schoolchildren, better food etc, has pushed up the BMIs, as compared with 1990. Thus, as compared with 1990, vastly more children appear to be overweight.

Put simply, 1990 calculations were already arbitrary. EG, given a school-full of skinny kids, the least skinny 5% would be called ‘obese’. It is easy to see how more and more children can move from the the most skinny group to the least skinny group over time.

What those calculating systems do, over time, is reduce the level at which a person is calculated to be obese.

What amazes me is that it would be perfectly simple to check a few schools, here and there, and identify the obese children. OH NO! IMPOSSIBLE!

The reality is that 20% obese schoolchildren is propaganda.

The crazy thing is that The MSM, had it the will, could prove that the 20% obesity figure is nonsense. It could get permission to film kids leaving school at the end of the school day. In fact, they would not even need permission. Just park a van near the gate and film kids emerging. Individuals would have pixilated faces, but their bodies would be seen. Maybe one child would be obese out of one hundred, and maybe five would be plump. It is up to the Zealots to prove otherwise.

And is that not the problem? The Zealots have never been put on the back foot.

Perhaps that is the value of Phillip Morris’s initiative to fund its ‘harm reduction’ initiative. It is a long time since TobCON has been put on the back foot.

The only thing that bothers me is the appointment of a former persecutor of smokers, Dereck Yact (or whatever) to head it up. Suppose that he walks away, just at a convenient moment, and spills his guts to the MSM? I wonder if PMI approached Debs Arnott or Glantz?

Frankly, I see these ‘alarms’ in the same light as Shakespeare’s  ‘Alarms off stage’ – noises of warfare, from which a defeated or victorious character emerges.

The same applies to the goings on in Cape Town. They are all ‘distractions’ and ‘alarms off stage’.

The fact is the the FCTC is buggered. It has nowhere to go. No one gives a shit about it. It is only a hairs breath away from dissolution. It is a dead parrot.

Enough. I must to bed.


“The United Kingdom Independence Party”


It is late and I just want to muse before bed.

What is the important word? It can only be ‘Independence’.

So we look at the names of the other parties, and ask what the names mean:


Erm, nothing springs to mind. What are such people (members of the Conservative Party) intending to ‘conserve’?

Labour (New).

The original ‘Labour’ Party was created by the Trade Unions, to advance the welfare of workers. Blair et al were probably right to move the Party away from the Unions and more into ‘Middle England’. But we still have no idea what Blair et al stood for. They never really said.


The fact that anyone votes for such tree-huggers is a serious indictment of our political system.

Scot Nats.

Short of EU massive support, the total demise of the Scot Nats is imminent. Surely, Scots can see that, if England stopped its support, and the EU was rendered irrelevant, the population of Scotland would starve. They do not ‘own’ the fish around their coasts. ETc.

I am beginning to bore myself.

INDEPENDENCE is the most important word of all. It means FREEDOM. Those words are fundamental, especially for individuals.

The smoking ban was a direct attack on INDEPENDENCE and FREEDOM. It was, in effect, just another manifestation of TOTALITARIANISM.

The fledgling world-wide ‘smokers and vapers cooperative’ will succeed.

The Solution To ‘The Obesity Problem’: Make The Whole Population Thinner


It makes sense, don’t you think? I mean, it is an ideal solution. So long as ‘being thinner’ is not seen as a threat to health, then there is no end to the skinniness that you can promote.

There is this condition known as anorexia, which does not, in itself, mean thinness. It is a psychological problem – a mental health problem. I don’t know if there is any extreme of thinness which is considered dangerous. We do have words to describe extreme thinness, such as ‘skeletal’, but, somehow, they do not seem to convey the same moral turpitude as the word ‘obese’.

So we can see Public Health England drifting off into a mind-set which is similar to anti-smoking. Only complete cessation will do. In the case of obesity, only complete thinness will do. Everybody must be at least thin, and the thinner the better.

It is hard to interpret the actions of PHE any differently.

Chris Snowdon gives PHE’s plans a good battering here:

What the PHE’s plans amount to is that food will increase in price. We must remember that everything that we can eat is ‘food’. There is no difference between a bar of chocolate and a cabbage, in that respect. Food will increase in price because of taxes, such as the sugar tax, shrinkflation, and bullying. There is a particular problem with shrinkflation. It is a plain and obvious fact that, if people are hungry, they will eat MORE than the shrunken product which they normally find sufficient.

But what is most important is that PHE has given itself the authority to recommend whatever ‘solution’ to the ‘problem of the day’ that it wishes to, without any come-back should it turn out to be wrong. And, to make it worse, it can demand more taxes, more shrinkflation, more bullying ad inf. There is no limit.

Who invented this equivalent of tractor production in the USSR? For that, in a negative sense, is what it is. It is the antithesis of individual freedom.

But you might say, “Surely the Government has a right, if not a duty, to intervene and ‘do something’ about obesity?” Well, I suppose that it could. For example, it could tell obese people that they could not claim benefits unless the lose weight. “Stand on that scale please. Oh dear! Our computer says that you are obese. We will pay your rent, but nothing else. It is for your own good”

But it is also very important the note that PHE suffers ABSOLUTELY NO CONSEQUENCES resulting from the absurdity of their demands. None whatsoever.

Has that not also been true for the persecution of smokers since at least 2007? It was the politician, Blair, who permitted that invasion of our property and lives. But let us not forget that his cabinet were equally guilty. And so where all the ‘experts’ of the time. Those people are mostly long gone into retirement, but their moral turpitude lives on.

It isn’t easy to see how that ‘moral turpitude’ can be reversed. For TobCON continues to exist only because of the filthy, disgusting, stinking, picture of smokers. The Nazis portrayed Jews in exactly the same way.

But it worked perfectly, in Nazi Germany, did it not?

And the same pattern continues, except that ‘Obeseblobs’ are the new disgusting, filthy, stinking.

But why inflict persecution on the skinny people, and the skeletal people, by forcing the price of food up?

There is actually a very simple solution. PUT A STOP TO WHOLE POPULATION trickery. It is the ‘whole population approach’ which has been causing the trouble and waste for decades.

The same could be said of ‘Global Warming’. Even it it were true, where are the studies which show the benefits of GW? It cannot be wholly negative. Only because the the IPCC was a UN offshoot could it get away with portraying NO BENEFITS AT ALL from GW.

What is becoming more and more obvious is that such unaccountable orgs as PHE must be wound up. Who on earth created it? Oh, it was Cameron.

PHE, an easy way to remove responsibility. And the removal of responsibility from Cameron et al cost billions of pounds.

I don’t know if any political party, including UKIP, has ever realised in the last few years, that it is not just a matter of ‘independence’ and ‘self-government’. It is just as much about ‘freedom’, especially freedom from ‘one-size-fits-all experts’.

I started this post with a reasonably clear idea of what I wanted to say, but I have myself become more and more confused.

When we say that something stinks in politics today, we are right. What really, really stinks is that our MPs cannot be bothered to try to understand the facts. Political opinions are far more important.




Marking Your Own Homework


Perhaps that is the wrong statement, although it does bring the imagination a picture of a student gleefully ticking all his answers and giving himself 100% and ‘V Good’ comment. Perhaps the statement would be better put if one branch of a company built a house and a different branch of the same company approved everything.

The crazy part of the situation is that hardly anyone seems to notice or care. Those who do care, are crying into the wind. Their manifestly true objections fly away, even they are publicised. No one ‘in authority’ wants to know. They want everything sewn up nice an neatly.

It is a well known fact that PP in OZ has had no effect on anything, other than, possibly, the improvement in conditions for the black market. EVERYBODY KNOWS. But it is the ‘experts’ who promoted PP who judge the success.

That is crazy.

The reason that it is crazy is not necessarily because anyone is dishonest (!). It is because ‘TobCON experts’ are not necessarily statistical geniuses (witness Glantz). They are sort of OK, but not sufficiently versed in statistics not to make serious errors.

So when the OZ Gov instituted an enquiry into the effects of PP, it should have engaged statisticians with no bias. But who in the OZ Gov knows where to find such people? They have to ask the people that they know, such as Chapman. How can they do otherwise, when they do not know who to ask? The situation gets even worse when the individual ministers in the Gov are themselves biased.

I think that OZ must have some really, really, really serious problems. If Global Warming is true, then it is quite possible that OZ will become uninhabitable in a few decades time. So if you accept SHS danger, you must be terrified of Global Warming. Just a whiff of GW will devastate your nation’s crops and kill all your sheep, just as a whiff of SHS will cause people with heart problems to collapse all over the streets of New York.

And we have Silly Sally declaring that THE MAXIMUM that a grown man, regardless of his build, can drink is no more that SEVEN PINTS of beer per week without the danger of dropping dead.

Jesus Christ! How do these people retain their very remunerative jobs? After all, Silly Sally just has a ‘job’. Being ‘chief medical officer’ is just a job, much like a janitor (ask Legiron). The CMO’s job is to clean up the shit left lying around by the medical profession.

If smokers are to get together, they must have an alternative reality which better than TobCON’s. Much as we might hate the idea, it might be necessary to have ‘licensed’ smoking bars.

We smokers as individuals cannot do that, but it seems that Austrian Bars have been successful – so far.

And is that not what was wrong with the Smoking Ban from the beginning? Do not tell me that the exemption of ‘wet led’ pubs was ever intended to survive. It was a trick to put such pubs down.

So the only real possibility is that bars and pubs regain their ‘proprietorial’ authority. That would mean that the idea of ‘public places’ would have to be reversed.

For example, why should not a person go into the town hall, ‘a public place’, and set up a little tent to rest in. Why should ‘Bouncers’ be able to evict him?

In fact, why are there so many homeless people sleeping in shop doorways when they could sleep in all sorts of ‘public places’?
Who has the right to stop a person sleeping in the ‘public place’ called the library?

The odd thing is that it seems to take years and years to expose the obvious fallacies, and even decades to reverse the damage.

Nationalisation By Stealth And Regulation


Corbin et al have been trying to gain traction for their resurrection of Nationalised Industries. I don’t understand why they are bothering. ‘Nationalisation by Stealth’ is already well underway.

Take tobacco and alcohol. Duty taxes have already escalated so that around 70% of the cost is tax. So take a packet of 20 cigs costing, say, £10. The Gov does no work to take £7 of that £10. All the work involved in production, distribution and consumption comes from the remaining £3,  and the rewards/profits all along the chain come from that £3.

You might reasonably conclude that tobacco product production has already, in effect, been nationalised. But that would not be quite true. It is the EXISTENCE of tobacco products which has been nationalised. Regulations can can be varied, depending upon the circumstances, so as to produce the best tax revenue without the State doing a thing.

It is important to realise that it is THE EXISTENCE which is the important thing, and which has been nationalised. Why bother actually taking over the enterprises when you can USE them?

I have been aware of this situation for some time, as I assume that most readers are.

Which brings us to the attempts of the Zealots to ‘Nationalise’ vape products and HnB products. What is amazing is that PHE England somehow escaped. Perhaps the WHO Mandarins were asleep at the time.

But ‘TC Experts’, such as Glantz and Chapman, must have blown a few fuses. They are on opposite sides of the world, but seem to be communicating and poisoning each others’ minds.

But let us think a bit wider. Why does the FDA demand and then reject masses and masses of evidence, which it does not pay for? Is that not the epitome of ‘Nationalisation’? ‘National rejection of evidence on the most slim of grounds, in order to control the product, its cost and its availability.

Modern Nationalisation abounds everywhere, and it is a consequence of regulation. Regulation confers ownership. Imagine if Climate Change resulted in a law, throughout the EU, etc, that no one was allowed to drive a car with only themselves present. It is perfectly possible that Climate Change Zealots could force such a law.

My thinking is undisciplined. I am sure that the WHO ‘Experts’ are far more disciplined. But they also have POWER!!

It is that ‘POWER’ which has caused the Nationalisation.

It is beyond my ability to think to comprehend that Americans have embraced ‘Nationalisation’. The FDA especially is a perfect example of Nationalisation.

The UK’s post Brexit thinking must be less subservient to the EU, and EU ‘Nationalisation’.

So what do we mean by ‘Nationalisation’? We mean ‘ONE SIZE FITS ALL’!

But is there is one ‘Nationalised’ Utility which I would defend ‘to the death’ – it is the NHS. My reasoning is simple. Not to have to worry about the cost of treatment opposes regulation, and thus denies ‘Nationalisation’.

Further to yesterday’s post, I discovered today that the wind had ripped off the covering roof felt of my garden shed. I just happened to have a very big piece of plastic covering which, I think, came from a new mattress.

Daughter N and I managed to cover the shed well enough.


We should all be wary of the transfer of power.

The DEVASTATING Effect of Freezing, Strong Winds


Yes, devastating. The gate at the side of my house, which blocks access the the back of the house, was destroyed by the hurricane-force, freezing winds, caused by the ‘polar vortex’. A ‘polar vortex’ which just happened to hit northern Europe and miss out North America. In 2014, it hit North America, but did not hit the other side of the pole – Siberia. The explanation of the 2014 vortex, according the the straight-faced, daper ‘Expert’, was that the polar region was warm(er). I did not see how that fact, if it was a fact, could cause bitter cold winds and snow over ‘moderate climes’ in North America.

But I have not been devastated by being stuck in a car or a truck for hours and hours. The destruction of my side gate was far worse. The absence of the gate has meant that we have been unable to let Bella the dog to pop out into the garden for a wee or a poo, without being with her so that she cannot do a runner through the gate-less opening. I mean, she is not our dog. She is daughter A’s dog. Daughter A is spending three weeks in Goa, sunning herself.

What happened was that the gate blew inside-out. It is a big gate – 6 feet high and 1 metre wide. A strange shape? Yes, but it originated from a fence panel. The six feet is the distance between the fence posts, and the one metre is the modern standard for the height of the panel.

It was only when I did the measuring that I realised how I had built the fencing and gate – many years ago. The size and shape of the panels dictated the size and shape of the structure which supported them. So there are thick wooden posts fixed to the house and a fence post, with a thick wooden crossbar across the top. There is a thick wooden post one metre from the house post, nailed to the crossbar at the top and concreted into the paving at the bottom. That structure houses the gate. The rest is filled with parts of other, rescued panels.

BUT, I am amazed that the gate has survived as long as it has. The fact is that the panel which became the gate, was far flimsier than I thought when I made it. The hinges were attached to what was originally the bottom edge of the panel, which had hardly any structural strength – short bits of wood just to fill in. How it has lasted so long is amazing.

The upshot is that my original idea of scrapping the whole thing and getting a new, professionally built structure, is now out of the window. That gate has become a challenge. It has become a challenge to my manhood (ability of the male to sort out physical problems), my intellect and my determination. I WILL fix that gate, even if I subsequently replace the whole thing.

In the meantime, I have filled most of the space with netting from the golf net which I took down. I cut out and nailed in place a section of netting so that there is a decent barrier between dog and the wild beyond.

Right, so after all the bragging, are there lessons to be learnt? I think so. The lesson is about ingenuity – and stubbornness.

There is nothing at all that we smokers can do about internal smoking bans in the UK, Ireland, Australia, etc. Well, not until political parties such as those in Austria arise, or the existing parties change their attitudes. I just wonder how rapidly enjoying a cig and a pint would become normal in clubs and pubs again. What grates with me, thinking back, is how readily 17 year-old, part-time bar staff gleefully accepted their unpaid roles of enforcers.

The pubcos were already ‘trained’ to motivate their child staffers (17 being an age of childhood) to obey the absolute letter of the law, and to attack in any way required, their best and most loyal customers.

I was astonished to see how easily an employee could be converted into a thug. I have no recollection of any employee rebelling, and refusing to attack those who disobeyed.

Nor have I any recollection of any publican defending a bar person for not forcing people not to smoke. The few publicans who stuck their heads above the parapet had them unceremoniously chopped off, but that was for permitting smoking. ‘Permitting’ smoking included having a notice, in big capital letters which said, “Smoking in the pub is prohibited. You smoke at your own risk”. The second sentence ‘permits’ smoking.

I think that that example is typical of the chaos of LAW. Thus, if a sign in a Zoo says: “The zebras in this compound can be dangerous. Do not climb in”, the implication is that it is possible ‘to climb in’, which renders the Zoo responsible if anyone ‘climbs in’.

There is a CHAOS in The Law.

Why is it that a little old chap like me can see it, but the vast resources of the MSM cannot? There is a simple example. You own a bar, you and your family are the staff. You all smoke. You permit your clients to smoke or not. You provide simple dishes should anyone require a snack. Everyone is happy.

So there is a case for EVERY PUB AND BAR OWNER to found a NEW ‘Institution’/’Association’. Their objective would be to regain ‘ownership’ of their businesses, and to refuse to accept ‘policeman status’. Why they ever accepted it ten years ago beats me.

We must be patient, but we also have a duty to contest CHAOTIC LAW.

I do not know how it can be done, but it ought to be simple to expose how ‘sugar taxes’ are chaotic. Plastic bag laws are chaotic. The sugar contents of bacon butties are chaotic.

So we have laws which promote chaos.

Is that not the epitome of the EU?


The Unfolding Comedy of Errors


I guess that it always happens, sooner or later.

Only a couple of months ago, we heard the unedifying news that Glantz had been ‘pestering’, in one way or another, young women that he was tutoring, but, even worse, plagiarising their work.

A couple of days ago, former PM John Major, gave a speech to some sort of Industry Assn calling for a second referendum on the terms of Brexit. Perhaps he forgot that, in 2016, he said: “the people have decided. There will be no second referendum”.

But what has amused me most is the presence on the Board of Max Mosley’s personal creation, ‘Impress’ – a press ‘regulator’, of Debs Arnott. Impress said:

Impress, the Press regulator backed to the tune of £3.8million by Max Mosley, insisted yesterday it is ‘entirely independent’ of him but failed to condemn his racist past.

The State-sponsored watchdog relies on the disgraced tycoon for the vast majority of its funding, which he funnels to it via two charities.

But the regulator’s chief executive Jonathan Heawood claimed Mr Mosley has no sway at the organisation.

‘Impress is entirely independent of the publishers we regulate and the donors who support our work,’ he said in a statement. ‘Our code holds our publishers to high standards.’

I suppose that you might say that The Chief Medical Officer is entirely independent of the Sec of State for Health, and that they never even meet or talk.

But how did Arnott wangle her way onto Mosley’s personal press regulator? Bejasus, she is CEO of ASH- LONDON, which employs about a dozen staff. Her job is to create scary press releases, which are full of misleading statistical crap and misery, together with exhortations that ‘WE’ must protect ‘OUR’ children. She is the epitome of a ‘journalist’ who needs to be regulated.

In a general sense, this ‘conflict of interests’ seems to be appearing more and more. I am not talking about the sort of ‘conflict of interests’ which might arise because some scientist did work for a tobacco company decades ago. I’m talking about ‘conflict of interests’ in the sense of bias, here and now. Arnott is severely biased. It cannot be otherwise. Since she specialises in dis-information and fake news, she surely must applaud such practices. Or is it that, as a member of the Board, she has the authority to decide which newspaper articles are fake news,etc, and which are not. Any crap which hurts smokers is genuine, the rest does not matter much.

I have been wondering to what extent genuine cynicism is specifically widespread among the people. I am not talking about a vociferous few. I mean widespread. The Brexit vote certainly shocked The Elite. How could the masses be sufficiently aware as to be cynical?

To become cynical requires some reasonable lapse of time. Forgetting for a moment the ‘misconceived’ suggestion that snow might never appear again in the UK (probably put about by Big Oil), the global warming gang set about propagandising their expectations, even if the evidence had to be invented.

And I suppose that most of us took note, and vaguely accepted it. After all, the UN IPCC said that the glaciers were melting and that the polar caps were melting, so they must be right.

Time passes, and torrential rains appear here and there. The conspirators say that the torrential rains are caused by Global Warming. But some bright spark says: “Erm… if the rains and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cause deserts to bloom, is that not a good thing?”


There was a huge scare decades ago. Dogs’ innards contain all sorts of nasty bugs. It was all over the newspapers. DO NOT LET YOUR DOG LICK YOUR FACE! The bugs could infect you and kill you.

Always, the goalposts are moved.

But the goalposts could not be moved about Brexit, try as the Elite might. The parading of has-beens like Blair, Major, and all the rest, only exacerbate the cynicism, which amuses us all greatly. But we should be aware that the contributions of Blair, Major, etc, are not aimed at us voters. They are aimed at May and our negotiators. I’m a bit surprised that someone like Boris Johnson has not told Blair et al to butt out. Their views are no more valid than my cynical views.

I agree that there are massive entanglements. How can there not be after 40 years? What is the answer? Well, you cannot disentangle them all in one swoop, so why not leave, but retain agreements pro temp?

But here is the critical thing. The UK must tell the EU what it will accept or reject. It does not work the other way round.

It is false to think that the EU has any power. It has no power to enforce its directives. None at all. Well, not in the sense of direct enforcement. It would have to use the Central Bank, or World Bank, or IMF to blackmail Nations. Perhaps that is what it intends to do with the UK.

What has become more and more obvious to me is that the EU is an extension of the UN. But I do not know how our elected PMs are enticed to join the group of Elite world governors.

I wonder if all new MPs go through a training programme? It might be disguised as ‘an introduction to how Parliament works’. Conducted by Common Purpose.

But everyone who voted Brexit has their own cynical view. ‘Multiculti’? Sod off! ‘Directives’? Sod off! Straight bananas? Sod off!

But many of us have seen these ‘directives’ before. They existed in Soviet Russia and produced devastation.



So Where Are The Global Warmists?


The BBC weather forecasters are all excited by the ‘beast from the East’ – tales of misery abound. It is the same every year, but in some years it is floods and other catastrophes. But where are the Met Office ‘Experts’ to explain how ‘the polar vortex’, which appears to be a spinning wheel, centred somewhere around the North Pole and is circulating very cold air anti-clock-wise, or is it clock-wise’?, around the top part of Northern hemisphere. And, according to this video, about the extremely awful weather in North USA, in 2014, the ‘vortex’ is caused by Global Warming. If you watch it, you might note that the speaker  bears all the characteristic visual traits of a snake-oil salesman of the 1800s – suave, well-dressed, sincere. But ‘the science’ does not exist. He makes a series of assertions, such as that heat from tropics ‘forces’ the cold of the arctic to be concentrated. Well, that would be fine if the cold was concentrated over Iceland and Greenland and Northern Canada and Russia. But, in the present ‘global warming freeze’, even territories far South of the North Pole have been affected. The Northern hemisphere is freezing cold, everywhere.

So what I complain about is the SILENCE. It is the SILENCE which convinces me more and more that ‘academia’ has almost totally ceased to be objective.

As a matter of principle, it seems to me that all of education should be objective. If education is not objective, then it is not education – it is propaganda.

So I ask again, where are the Met Office ‘experts’ explaining the freezing conditions which we are suffering, when, according to them, ‘our children will not know what snow is’.

It is rather late, and I am cold enough to want to go to my warm bed, so I shall cut this post a bit short.

Why are our political leaders, of all parties, not incensed by the way in which they have been duped by academics, extolling Global Warming? Further, why have they not backtracked to check the duplicity of Anti-smoker Zealots?

There is only one explanation. It is that politicians actually do not give a shit.